ML22172A092
| ML22172A092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/2022 |
| From: | Derek Widmayer Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Widmayer, D, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-1961 | |
| Download: ML22172A092 (346) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Rulemaking, Policies and Practices:
Part 53 Subcommittee Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-1961 Pages 1-273 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 RULEMAKING, POLICIES AND PRACTICES: PART 8 53 SUBCOMMITTEE 9 + + + + +
10 THURSDAY 11 MAY 19, 2022 12 + + + + +
13 The Subcommittee met via Video 14 Teleconference, at 8:30 a.m. EDT, David Petti, 15 Chairman, presiding.
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
17 DAVID PETTI, Chairman 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 VICKI M. BIER, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR. Member 21 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 23 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, 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 DEREK WIDMAYER 6
7 ALSO PRESENT:
8 CYRIL DRAFFIN, USNIC 9 PAUL HARRIS, NSIR 10 JORDAN HOELLMAN, NRR 11 WILLIAM JESSUP, NRR 12 STEVE LYNCH, NRR 13 WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 14 JOHN SEGALA, NRR 15 EDWARD STUTZCAGE, NRR 16 MARTIN STUTZKE, RES 17 NANETTE VALLIERE, NRR 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 Agenda Item Page 3 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Staff Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 10 CFR Part 53 -- Framework A Subparts . . . . . 16 6 Introduction to Framework A 7 A - General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8 B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements . . 33 9 C - Design and Analysis Requirements . . . . . . 63 10 D - Siting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 11 E - Construction and Manufacturing Requirements 151 12 G - Decommissioning Requirements . . . . . . . 169 13 H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals . . 172 14 I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis 15 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 16 J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements 191 17 K - Quality Assurance Criteria . . . . . . . . 199 18 Subcommittee Discussion 19 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 8:30 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Good morning everyone, 4 the meeting will now come to order. This is a meeting 5 of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and 6 Radiological Rulemaking, Policies and Procedures, 53 7 Subcommittee.
8 I'm Dave Petti, chairman of the 9 subcommittee. ACRS members in attendance Ron 10 Ballinger, Joy Rempe, Charlie Brown, Greg Halnon, Matt 11 Sunseri, and myself in the room, and I see Vesna is 12 online. Vicki, are you online?
13 MEMBER BIER: Yes, I just joined a couple 14 minutes ago.
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. Jose is not here, 16 so. Dennis, are you online?
17 DR. BLEY: I am.
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. And our 19 consultant, Dennis Bley, is also. Derek Widmayer of 20 the ACRS staff is the designated federal official for 21 the meeting.
22 The purpose of this subcommittee meeting 23 is once again to hear from the staff concerning 24 preliminary rule language for 10 CFR Part 53, license 25 and regulation, of advanced nuclear 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
5 1 The agenda for today includes discussions 2 on the second iteration of all subparts of the Part 53 3 rulemaking language, with one exception. Staff will 4 not be presenting any revised language in Subpart F 5 requirement for operations. We anticipate that will 6 be in June.
7 The subcommittee will gather information 8 and --
9 DR. BLEY: Dave, I lost you. Are you 10 still there?
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I lost him too.
12 Dave?
13 MEMBER BIER: Yeah, the problem is on 14 their side. I --
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay.
16 MEMBER BIER: I hear -- oh, I guess --
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Oh, I'm back.
18 MEMBER BIER: Great.
19 MEMBER REMPE: The problem was on our side 20 but somebody muted our thing, and so please quit doing 21 that. Okay? Whoever's muting our room. Which is 22 Thomas's name. Okay.
23 MEMBER REMPE: Okay?
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. The subcommittee 25 will gather information, analyze relevant issues 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
6 1 facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions as 2 appropriate.
3 This meeting is running a series of 4 subcommittee meetings to be held to discuss Part 53.
5 The ACRS was established by statute and is governed by 6 the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
7 The NRC implements FACA in accordance with 8 its regulations found in Title 10 of the Code of 9 Federal Regulations, Part 7.
10 The committee can only speak through its 11 published letter reports. We hold meetings to gather 12 information, perform preparatory work that will 13 support our deliberations at a full committee meeting.
14 The rules for participation in all ACRS 15 meetings, including today's, were announced on the 16 Federal Register on June 13, 2019.
17 The ACRS Section of the U.S. NRC public 18 website provides our charter bylaws, agendas, letter 19 reports, and full transcripts of all full and 20 subcommittee meetings, including slides presented at 21 the meetings. The meeting notice and agenda for this 22 meeting were posted there.
23 As stated in the Federal Register notice 24 and in the public meeting notice posted to the 25 website, members of the public who desire to provide NEAL 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 written or oral input to the subcommittee may do so, 2 and should contact the designated federal official 3 five days prior to the meeting, as practicable.
4 Today's meeting is open to public 5 attendance, and we have received one request from 6 USNIC to make an oral statement at the meeting.
7 Time is provided in the agenda after the 8 presentations are completed for this statement and for 9 spontaneous comments from members of the public 10 attending or listening to our meetings.
11 Today's meeting is being held over 12 Microsoft Teams, which includes a telephone bridgeline 13 allowing participation of the public over their 14 computer using Teams by phone.
15 A transcript of today's meeting is being 16 kept, therefore we request that meeting participants 17 on Teams and the bridgeline identify themselves when 18 they speak and to speak with sufficient clarity and 19 volume so that they can be readily heard.
20 Likewise, we request that meeting 21 participants keep their computer and their telephone 22 lines on mute when not speaking to minimize 23 disruption. At this time, I ask that team members 24 make sure that they're muted so we can commence the 25 meeting, and with that we will now proceed.
NEAL 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 And I call on Steve Lynch, acting branch 2 chief of the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch in the 3 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, for any opening 4 remarks.
5 MR. LYNCH: Good morning, this is Steve 6 Lynch. I want to thank the members for taking the 7 time to meet with us again on Part 53.
8 The dialogue that we have with the members 9 is valuable to the NRC staff as we continue to strive 10 to develop technology inclusive framework for advanced 11 reactors that is responsive to the needs of 12 stakeholders and appropriately considers meeting the 13 needs of the public health and safety.
14 This will be our twelfth subcommittee on 15 Part 53 since we began interactions with the ACRS in 16 mid-2020. We have also had three full committee 17 meetings since that time.
18 Since our last meeting with the ACRS in 19 December of 2021, the NRC staff has restructured Part 20 53 to include Framework A, which is a PRA-centered 21 option, and includes the subparts that the committee 22 has previously been introduced to in our previous 23 meetings.
24 The NRC staff is also now in the process 25 of developing a second framework known as Framework B, NEAL 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 which follows a more traditional approach to licensing 2 for advanced reactors consistent with using PRA in a 3 supporting role or using a bounding event analysis.
4 While the NRC staff will provide a brief 5 overview of the structure of Frameworks A and B, we 6 will only be discussing in technical detail the PRA 7 centered option, or Framework A at this meeting.
8 And we will focus on the changes that have 9 been made to Framework A and its associated subparts 10 since we last met with the subcommittee in December 11 2021.
12 The changes that have been made to 13 Framework A since we last met with the members have 14 been in response to external stakeholder feedback and 15 ongoing internal reviews.
16 As previously mentioned, we will be 17 covering all subparts associated with Framework A with 18 the exception of Subpart F, related to operations, 19 which the NRC staff will again engage with the ACRS 20 members on in our scheduled June subcommittee meeting.
21 At the June subcommittee meeting, this is 22 where NRC staff will also go into technical detail on 23 the contents of Framework B. Our next subcommittee 24 meeting on Framework A will be in the fall when we 25 bring the complete proposed rulemaking package 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
10 1 subcommittee. That will also include Framework B.
2 So again, I want to thank the members for 3 their time this morning and this afternoon, and at 4 this point I will turn over the presentation to our 5 technical staff, senior project manager Bill Reckley, 6 senior project manager Nan Valliere, and project 7 manager Jordan Hoellman.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But before we do 9 this -- this is Vesna, I'm sorry I have a very bad 10 sound connection -- can you again define for me what's 11 the difference between Framework A and B?
12 MR. LYNCH: Sure, I'll answer this quickly 13 and I will let the staff -- I know we have some slides 14 too that will cover this too in some detail.
15 But Framework A is the framework that we 16 have been discussing with the members for the last two 17 years, and this is the PRA-centered option and 18 includes all of the subparts that have been previously 19 presented by the ACRS.
20 In response to stakeholder feedback, the 21 NRC staff has also developed a secondary framework 22 with alternative analysis methodologies that a 23 developer may choose to use instead.
24 And this includes using a more traditional 25 or deterministic approach or developing your NEAL 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 application, and this would be most similarly to the 2 licensing processes currently followed under Parts 50 3 and 52. Or as a subalternative, if certain entry 4 criteria are met, then in lieu of a PRA, the NRC staff 5 may consider a bounding event analysis acceptable.
6 But I'll let our staff go into more detail 7 on these, but that is the high level description of 8 the differences between the two frameworks.
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Is it mostly the 10 same subparts? I mean, it's not just difference like 11 in licensing subparts, the Frame A and Frame B all 12 have the A through K subparts?
13 MR. LYNCH: So, and again I think this 14 will be best answered when the staff put up some 15 slides with some factorial representations, but we 16 have -- to the extent practical, not all subparts in 17 Framework A rely on the use of PRA, so to the extent 18 there are certain subparts that do not need a certain 19 analysis methodology.
20 In Framework B we rely on those same 21 subparts that have been developed in Framework A. So 22 to the extent that we could point to previously 23 developed subparts, we are taking full advantage of 24 that. So not everything that we are starting from 25 scratch for Framework B.
NEAL 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 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right, thanks.
2 I will be paying attention to this, then, this 3 framework. Okay, thanks.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Hey, so this is Charlie 5 Brown. I wanted to springboard from Vesna's, just to 6 confirm. My memory is we have not seen anything on 7 Framework B yet. Is that correct?
8 MR. LYNCH: That is correct. So I'll --
9 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, that's what I 10 thought. I just wanted to know where we were.
11 MR. LYNCH: Yep. We've got a two day 12 subcommittee meeting scheduled on June 23 and 24 where 13 we will be covering Framework B.
14 MEMBER BROWN: But to springboard a little 15 bit more off of Vesna's question, the part A through 16 K, you commented that some will be similar, Framework 17 A is not all PRA. There are some subparts that will 18 reflect the Framework B fundamentally. Is that what 19 you said initially also?
20 MR. LYNCH: Yes, that is correct.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, but the structure 22 will be the same. It wouldn't be like the old 23 structure, even though it's -- the fundamentals will 24 be relative to the old structures?
25 MR. LYNCH: Correct, correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: All right. Steve, just 3 a question, and you may want to pass it to the staff.
4 Maybe it's a legal approach. So, what you really have 5 are two racing stripes, if you will, right? Framework 6 A and Framework B.
7 Whereas I guess in my mind initially I 8 thought you'd have one racing stripe and then it would 9 split, but just the parts that are different, and then 10 come back together for other subparts where it's the 11 same, so you end up duplicating a lot of the same 12 words.
13 Why is it done that way? Is there some 14 legal reason that you want it all to stand alone or 15 something? You know, each option?
16 MR. LYNCH: Well, it is closer to the 17 second way that you described it, that yes, there are 18 different frameworks, there are different entry 19 criteria that may be applicable, especially if a 20 developer chooses to use a bounding event analysis, 21 but I think you used a really good analogy, that for 22 some subparts they will be the same for Framework A 23 and Framework B.
24 We are not trying to recreate, you know, 25 subparts where we don't need to, but we are following NEAL 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 the general idea of going methodically through each 2 subpart in Framework A, deciding can we leverage this 3 language?
4 Sometimes in full in Framework B.
5 Sometimes there might need to be slight changes made.
6 Sometimes it doesn't suit the needs of what we're 7 doing and something new needs to be developed.
8 So it is a combination, but everyone will 9 enter Part 53, make a decision on how the analysis 10 methodology they are choosing to use, and based on 11 that will follow certain pathways that, in some cases 12 will be the same subparts regardless of the licensing 13 pathway chosen.
14 And in other cases there will be some 15 unique considerations for each framework.
16 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown, can 17 I ask one more -- Dave, you're finished?
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yeah.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. On the PRA side, 20 we've made -- well at least I have, and I think at 21 least one other member have noted the absence of 22 something -- I forget what appendix it is -- a general 23 criteria appendix. Is that Appendix K? A. I'm 24 sorry, Appendix A.
25 And that now, or at least I've made the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 observations, right or wrong, that in this version 2 that we're doing right now that it seems like general 3 design criteria, there is no Appendix A, it's just 4 kind of scattered throughout, and a couple others 5 noted that that seemed to be counterproductive in our 6 own minds, but is Framework B going to mirror a little 7 bit of the initial where what we have in Appendix A 8 with the general design criteria, so it's more 9 oriented towards that general structure for a 10 licensing approach?
11 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, you know, we're 12 getting into details on B, which they haven't talked 13 to us yet --
14 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I guess so.
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So I don't want us to get 16 the cart before the horse.
17 MEMBER BROWN: All right, I'm sorry.
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, I know, we're all 19 really interested in B because it's new. I have all 20 these questions too, but I'm holding back from asking 21 --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MEMBER BROWN: All right, I'll reign 24 myself in. They'll just take that in the thought 25 process since we've talked about it before, so.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Let's get into the 2 slides, whoever is leading us, yeah.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, good morning. You 4 know, this is Bill Reckley, so I'll start and go 5 through some of the slides, and we'll touch on some of 6 the questions that have come up already. Billy, if we 7 can go to Slide 2?
8 So, our plan today is to provide some 9 discussion of the overall Part 53 structures, some of 10 which we've already talked about, the two frameworks.
11 Our focus will be on Framework A.
12 As has already been said, we plan to 13 return in June to talk about Framework B, and then as 14 you'll note on this slide, and Dave mentioned, Subpart 15 F, and in particular the content related to operator 16 licensing and staffing, those things that were 17 discussed in the February full committee meeting.
18 We're still working on those, finalizing 19 some thoughts, and we'll come back in June to pick up 20 Subpart F within Framework A.
21 MEMBER HALNON: So hey, Bill, real quick, 22 this is Greg. So the language that we get given to us 23 for this meeting has Subpart F in it.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, yeah. That --
25 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL 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 MEMBER HALNON: You should ignore that?
2 Is that what you're saying?
3 MR. RECKLEY: The language in the second 4 iteration that was released just a couple weeks ago 5 has the same language that we released in February, 6 and so it is what you guys saw and commented on in the 7 December meeting, of the subcommittee meeting, and in 8 the February full committee meeting, but that's 9 currently being revised.
10 And so when we have the second iteration 11 of that text, we'll release it to support the June 12 meeting. So I guess the short answer, Greg, is yes, 13 please ignore the Subpart F that's in this second 14 iteration.
15 MEMBER HALNON: Got it, thank you.
16 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, since I interrupted 17 you --
18 MR. RECKLEY: I will say at least the 19 middle part of Subpart F -- if you remember, Subpart 20 F is broken into what I call the plant, the people and 21 the programs.
22 And the plant part, the first sections of 23 Subpart F really are not undergoing major changes.
24 Neither are the last set on the programs, 25 but the one that's really getting looked at and will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 have revisions from what was released will be the 2 middle part related to staffing and operator licensing 3 and engineering expertise on shift, and those things 4 that you really had a large interest in in your 5 letter.
6 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, since we've 7 interrupted you, I have a curiosity question. I 8 looked at the stakeholder slides for March before we 9 were sent our slides, and it constantly refers to the 10 statement of considerations.
11 It seems like with Part 50, 52 we learned 12 that that's becoming the preamble. Are you guys going 13 to do a preamble or a statement of considerations?
14 MR. RECKLEY: I think the official name 15 will be preamble.
16 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, just curious.
17 Thanks.
18 MR. RECKLEY: All dogs. Most of us still 19 refer to it as the statement of considerations but the 20 official name might be a preamble.
21 Our original plan when we set up this 22 meeting was to have the Framework F material included 23 -- Subpart F. With that being removed, I'm not sure 24 how long this meeting will take. I'm pretty certain 25 it won't take the whole day. We're going to summarize NEAL 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 the various sections in the slides.
2 We have readily available the actual rule 3 text, the PDF file that we provided, and so we can go 4 down into the specifics as much as a member might 5 want, or if we think pulling up the rule text would 6 help answer a question. But otherwise we're going to 7 be going through as this agenda says.
8 Basically the Framework A subparts in 9 order and highlight what we think are the major things 10 that have developed maybe since we talked to the ACRS 11 Subcommittee about those elements.
12 And as Steve and Dave both said, you know, 13 we've talked to the ACRS Subcommittee about Framework 14 A all during 2021, and so in addition to some changes, 15 we recognize that you guys look at a lot of materials.
16 It's just one of the things on your plate.
17 And while we're working on this every day, 18 you're not, we know, and so if we just need to refresh 19 your memories on some elements of Framework A, we're 20 certainly wanting to use this opportunity to do that.
21 And then once we get through all of the 22 subparts, we have a few slides to talk about guidance.
23 That's been brought up numerous times, both in our 24 discussions with the ACRS and others. We recognize 25 the importance of the guidance documents and we'll NEAL 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 talk about that once we get through the subparts.
2 So Billy, if you can go -- the next slide 3 I think was just the welcome slide, so we can, yeah, 4 go past that one. And talk about the schedule a 5 little bit.
6 And this goes to what Steve was saying.
7 You know, for us the next major milestone is the 8 February 2023 date in which we are to provide the 9 draft proposed rule to the commission.
10 And so, in support of that we have already 11 scheduled today's meeting of course, and then the June 12 meeting on Framework B and the staffing sections of 13 Framework A.
14 Then the staff's thinking is, after those 15 meetings in June, we'll have a discussion with 16 Chairman Petti and others as to what the needs of the 17 subcommitee are, but really we need to write the rest 18 of the package, the statement of considerations or 19 preamble, the regulatory analysis, the actual SECY 20 paper.
21 And our plan is to have all of that ready 22 in the September timeframe so that we have the whole 23 package, Framework A, Framework B, and all the 24 supporting documents that go in a rulemaking package, 25 ready to support an interaction with the ACRS 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
21 1 October and November.
2 So our working plan, and of course this is 3 -- we have to talk to you and it's largely up to you, 4 but we would suggest an October subcommittee meeting 5 and a November full committee meeting to basically 6 finalize our interaction on the proposed rulemaking 7 package, which then would have to go through the last 8 stages of internal review, the legal review, 9 management review in order to get it to the commission 10 in February.
11 So, that's the challenge. To some degree, 12 we can take some comfort in that this is a draft 13 proposed rule package.
14 You can see the rest of the figure or 15 whatever you want to call it, the serpentine belt that 16 we have represented there, that.
17 Following giving that package to the 18 commission we will await the commission's decision and 19 then have to address public comments, and start 20 interactions with the ACRS on the draft final rule to 21 the commission, which is scheduled to be provided by 22 December of 2024. So.
23 MEMBER HALNON: Hey Bill, this is Greg.
24 The only thing I see on this that gives me pause is 25 the 60 day public comment period for the proposed 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
22 1 and draft items that -- much smaller rules have come 2 back several times for extensions on that, so you 3 might have a contingency there as you go through the 4 summer.
5 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and we have 6 identified the same issue when the commission direct 7 -- when the SRM came back on the rulemaking package, 8 and we settled on a December 2024 date as opposed to 9 the original rulemaking plan that just reflected the 10 NEIMA requirements that took us out to 2027.
11 It's a tight schedule, and so we basically 12 had to take -- in terms of internal concurrences and 13 interactions, as well as what you just mentioned, the 14 stakeholder comment period, down to the minimums and 15 we identified that to the commission as a challenge.
16 And we know that there is a possibly we would get 17 requests for extensions.
18 One of the rationales for having a short 19 comment period is, for good or bad, what we've lived 20 through for the past year and a half where we've 21 basically developed this rule in plain view. So 22 we'll see if that pays any dividends when we get to 23 the comment period for the proposed rule.
24 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, you've got a lot of 25 guidance if I look at the slides near the end 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
23 1 presentation that you're developing to support this 2 package, and when will be the first time that ACRS 3 would see any of this guidance?
4 Because are you planning -- it just seems 5 like it's going to be an important aspect of this rule 6 and for us to fully understand the language and the 7 rules. Sometimes it helps to see that guidance.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
9 MEMBER REMPE: And they may have some 10 significant comments. So when will we see the 11 guidance?
12 MR. RECKLEY: And the interesting part is 13 some of the guidance you have already seen or in the 14 process of looking at. I'll give you an example that 15 just happens to be timely. You're going to talk 16 tomorrow about the reliability integrity management 17 component of the ASME code. That could be useful 18 guidance for Part 53.
19 You've already interacted with the PRA 20 standard, non-light water reactor PRA standard, so a 21 fair amount of the material you're already engaged, 22 the ACRS is already engaged.
23 Other elements we'll just have to 24 negotiate with you on what you look at and when you 25 look at 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
24 1 I would say when we get to those slides at 2 the end, however, the majority of those guidance 3 documents are already on the radar of the ACRS and 4 interactions are ongoing or planned already. But --
5 MEMBER REMPE: Well, what about 6 manufacturing facility guidance? And some of the --
7 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, that's -- well --
8 MEMBER REMPE: And some of the things like 9 that I think might be interesting to review so we 10 fully understand what's in the language.
11 MR. RECKLEY: They may, and that 12 particular one, as soon as we start working on it 13 we'll start interactions with you and schedule the 14 interactions.
15 So, some of them we haven't really even 16 started yet on, and when you look at the one in the 17 column for future activities -- so.
18 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah. It might be good for 19 you, Dave, to think about the various types of 20 guidance and when would be a good time for us to 21 really see it and understand it?
22 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yeah. So, my concern is 23 the near-term schedule and just as you described it --
24 at least the lines in my mind -- you know, say up to 25 when you have to have the draft moved close 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
25 1 commission, so I think that's good.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, that's our immediate 3 focus. And some of the guidance documents will be 4 ready by then and we can point to them either having 5 been issued, for example, the Non-Light Water Reactor 6 PRA Standard, or they are being released more or less 7 at the same time as this proposed rule, and that would 8 be the expectation.
9 I know we're talking about the staffing 10 stuff in a month or so but some of the staffing 11 related guidance might fall into that camp, so, 12 anyway, we'll get to that when we get to the guidance 13 slides.
14 So, anyway, this is a challenge, of 15 course, we understand it's a challenge for you and I 16 think you understand it's a challenge for us, but 17 that's where we are so we'll start working with Derek 18 and Chairman Petti to work out the details of the 19 interactions. In the later part of the year, again, 20 our working thought was October, November, and then 21 also between our meetings today and in June on 22 Framework B, what, if any, other interactions might be 23 held during the summer.
24 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger, 25 In looking through all this stuff, will you 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
26 1 produce what amounts to a roadmap through this system 2 when all is said and done? In other words, the 3 guidance consists of all kinds of documents and, you 4 know, you mentioned 1.246 which nobody would know, so 5 will there be a, what amounts to a roadmap through 6 each one of these, through A and B?
7 MR. RECKLEY: I think that the preamble 8 will do some of that and we have in some respects the 9 parallel activity, kind of the umbrella guidance, the 10 Advanced Reactor Content of Application, or ARCAP, 11 that, in the one you just mentioned, that activity has 12 produced some tables where available guidance for 13 various sections of the application are identified.
14 So it comes -- I don't think it'll be as clear as what 15 you suggest but it's a move in that direction to 16 provide a, as you would call it, a roadmap of what 17 available guidance is available in which technical 18 areas.
19 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, forgive me if I'm 20 not quite satisfied. When this all said and done, 21 when you have two complete and approved paths, my 22 guess is it would be a nightmare to go through this if 23 an applicant didn't have a clear roadmap of where the 24 guidance is. Because if they have to go out and start 25 reading different reports and looking at the guidance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 that's in the appendix and the data report, and the 2 like, it just seems like that's just going to be 3 almost impenetrable. I mean, I'm -- correct me if I'm 4 wrong here.
5 MR. RECKLEY: No, I understand what you're 6 saying, and that will be -- again, we'll document, and 7 have documented, what we can in this time frame, the 8 pre-application interactions that we'll have with any 9 particular applicant can also help in that regard.
10 You know, our experience, and I don't want 11 to necessarily overstate it, but the reactor 12 developers are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as 13 we are. That's the hope, and it better be pretty 14 close to the reality. And so, if they're looking at 15 something, like, what guidance is available within the 16 ASME code, they better have staff who are pretty 17 familiar with that already, and they do.
18 And so, I understand what you're saying 19 but our experience is also that the designers are 20 sophisticated and they know this stuff, and they know 21 where to look and where to find it. So I understand 22 what you're saying and I agree with you, but at the 23 same time, our need to give them a roadmap, I don't 24 put the emphasis on it because they better already 25 know what they're doing and where they're headed NEAL 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 without us, on the technical side, having to give a 2 lot of guidance.
3 Where we really think we need to explain 4 stuff is on the regulatory and licensing side, and 5 what they need to give to us to support an 6 application. And again, we'll try to do that within 7 the rule-making package in places like the statement 8 of considerations.
9 But I'm not trying to argue with you, Dr.
10 Ballinger, I agree with you and it would be nice to 11 have all of those things, I'm just, I'm not sure in 12 the time frame what we'll have available. But we can 13 point to things that are similar or that somewhat 14 support the discussion, like, what all the work we've 15 done in ARCAP.
16 And that was a fair amount of work, and it 17 did a lot of what you suggest in terms of saying, 18 here's the content to application and here's available 19 guidance. In that lane, some of that might have been 20 aimed at Light Water Reactors but it was either, 21 generally applicable or it's Light Water Reactor 22 specific and somebody has to develop the equivalent 23 for another technology.
24 So at least you can point and say, here 25 are the issues that will need to be addressed, but 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
29 1 would be up to either, the developer or a group of 2 developers to do it for a particular technology.
3 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Bill, just before you go, 4 I wanted the Court Reporter to know that Member 5 Kirchner is now online. He had some computer issues.
6 Thank you. Go ahead, Bill.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So that's the 8 schedule related, the challenge related to the 9 schedule. Billy, if we could go to the next slide.
10 This goes into what's already been 11 discussed in the introduction remarks, the way we have 12 laid out Part 53 in terms of two frameworks, Framework 13 A, which we'll talk about today and we talked about 14 throughout 2021, and Framework B, which, as Steve 15 mentioned, is the more traditional approach.
16 So I have this and the next slide, I'll 17 try to give, again, just a high level discussion.
18 Some of this you've heard a little bit about in terms 19 of, for example, the presentation that Marty Stutzke 20 gave to the subcommittee in December, but you'll see 21 the actual material in support of the June meeting in 22 regards to Framework B.
23 So we do think there'll be a set of common 24 requirements, and this is the general provisions that 25 are in subpart A, things like, where you mail an NEAL 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 application. On the administrative side, the fact 2 that you have to be honest in your applications, the 3 equivalent of 50.9, all the general provisions that 4 are basically generic to any regulatory activity we'll 5 try to address within subpart A, because there's no 6 reason to have a distinction. But then --
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 8 Kirchner. I apologize for joining late, I did hear 9 Chairman Petti's question to you early on. And when 10 I look at what you're showing us right now, does this 11 make for potential a lot of extra work for you in the 12 standpoint -- just looking, starting with construction 13 through quality assurance on both sides of the ledger.
14 Other than the licensing process with the 15 alternate evaluation of risk insights, what would be 16 materially different between Framework A and B when 17 one got to construction, operations, maintaining the 18 license, QA, etcetera? Does this create some of the 19 problems that you've had with reconciling 50 and 52?
20 Would they deviate substantially? It 21 would seem to me that branch point that the alternate 22 evaluation for risk insights would be right up there 23 in front of Framework A, and then would march through, 24 one would march through all the rest of the subparts.
25 MR. RECKLEY: Right. And what you'll see NEAL 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 is that -- and take the last one on the list, quality 2 assurance -- if you hold up Appendix B to Part 50, 3 Subpart K and Subpart U, you'll see very little 4 difference. And actually, in the technical area our 5 goal was that you would see no difference.
6 But because of things like internal 7 references it is actually easier, at least our 8 preliminary assessment is, it's easier to repeat it 9 and put in the appropriate internal references than it 10 is to refer back to what would might be called a 11 common subpart, and include within the common subpart 12 the internal references to either framework.
13 So technically they are the same but, from 14 a tracking standpoint and a ease of use standpoint, 15 our thinking is, it's better to repeat them than to 16 refer to them. Now, that may, as you say, in the 17 future if there's an issue and something needs to be 18 changed, we'd have to change it in three places 19 perhaps, or if it's just Part 53 we might have to 20 change it in two places, that's true, but we, again, 21 in our assessment think that it's actually easier to 22 repeat it and then have -- again, in the areas where 23 you'll see that they're basically repeated, a big 24 reason for that is just because of the internal 25 references back and forth between sections.
NEAL 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 And I think, for ease of use, it was 2 better because once an applicant has chosen to go 3 Framework A or Framework B that is, from our point of 4 view, two distinct approaches, and they're not able to 5 kind of go back and forth and say, well we're going to 6 take licensing basis events out of Framework A but 7 we're going to do safety classification in accordance 8 with Framework B.
9 The things are intertwined so that once 10 you pick a framework then all of the subparts and all 11 of the material is intertwined within Framework A and 12 the same is true within Framework B, so --
13 DR. BLEY: Hey, Bill?
14 MR. RECKLEY: Mm-hmm?
15 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley, go back to 16 Dave's racing stripe thing, a single racing stripe up 17 there for Subpart A. It looks like, in that single 18 area, Subparts B, C, and D ought to be there. You got 19 to do those in Framework B, don't you? Or are they 20 somehow built into that Subpart N you've got over 21 there?
22 MR. RECKLEY: They're largely -- again, 23 and I know we're jumping ahead, and this is okay --
24 PARTICIPANT: You knew it would happen.
25 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL 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 DR. BLEY: Just want to understand how 2 it'll work.
3 MR. RECKLEY: No, I did and then I'm also 4 going to ask somebody from Framework B to definitely 5 jump in if I misstate something, because we have two 6 teams working on this, so, Bill Jessup or Candace, if 7 you're on and you hear me misspeak, please correct me, 8 don't let the misstatement stand.
9 Much of that would be in Subpart R 10 actually, and that reflects -- again, this is a 11 traditional approach, so where were we drawing a lot 12 of that material? Definitely, where possible, it was 13 drawn from Framework A, but the technical requirements 14 and the design rules, or the design approach, and 15 things like that where we address them in Framework A, 16 under Subparts C and D, if you look at Part 50 a lot 17 of that is in places like 50.34, Content of 18 Applications.
19 There are some specific technical 20 requirements, like the ECCS rule, 50.46, but a lot of 21 the material is within Content of Applications. And 22 so, for that reason, instead of trying to condense all 23 of that into the equivalent of Subpart B, it kept 24 Framework B organized as it (telephonic interference) 25 more along the lines of the traditional approach, NEAL 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 which is, again, a lot of that's going to be found in 2 50 or 52.
3 DR. BLEY: Okay. Just a heads up for your 4 Framework B folks, those three issues that are in 5 Subparts B, C, and D for Framework A, you're going to 6 get a lot of questions about that, under Subpart R, I 7 guess, when you come in. So we'll have to wait and 8 see what that looks like. Thank you.
9 MR. RECKLEY: And I -- in public meetings, 10 and I believe ACRS -- this is my memory failing me --
11 some of those technical requirements you saw in a 12 quick summary of what was at the time called 5X, and 13 I think we gave a quick summary of that late in the 14 year to the ACRS, but --
15 DR. BLEY: You did. My memory doesn't, 16 isn't specific enough to recall that that stuff was 17 embedded in 5X, but we saw that. So that's --
18 MR. RECKLEY: Some of those concepts will 19 show up in Framework B.
20 DR. BLEY: Okay.
21 MR. RECKLEY: So -- but anyway --
22 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yeah, actually that .X is 23 in the package you guys sent to us, so, but it's 24 actually a part of Framework B is what you're saying?
25 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. That's now been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 incorporated into Framework B. And modified, I mean, 2 that was an early draft.
3 So that is the structure, the frameworks, 4 as Steve mentioned, Framework B, we are working and 5 this is, again, Marty Stutzke gave a presentation in 6 December on a possible approach where you use a 7 bounding event and that might justify not having a 8 full-blown probabilistic risk assessment performed, 9 that's called the Alternate Evaluation of Risk 10 Insights, or AERI, and it's shown on the Framework B 11 slide as a possible approach that would be built into 12 the subparts, primarily Subpart R, in terms of 13 Framework B. That'll be discussed, again, more in 14 June.
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: You know, this is 16 Vesna, you have answered most of the questions so far 17 but you really never specifically told us, why did you 18 do this? So just to introduce these alternate 19 evaluation, you have actually duplicated everything 20 into two frameworks.
21 And also you said something, which may be 22 explanation to that, that you want to keep these two 23 application totally separated but I don't see reason 24 for that because sometimes the combination, as you 25 also said, that you do things very smart you can find NEAL 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 novelty to the approaches which may be applicable. So 2 can you tell us specifically why did you decide to 3 totally separate those two frameworks?
4 MR. RECKLEY: Sure. And, Billy, the next 5 slide will help, I hope, but what we received as part 6 of the feedback is that some developers were 7 interested in using a traditional framework. One 8 significant reason that they would want to do that is 9 because the international marketplace will often rely 10 on something like the International Atomic Energy 11 Agency standards and guidance. And that international 12 guidance reflects a traditional approach, it has, as 13 part of its foundation, the NRC's Part 50, Part 52 14 kind of approach.
15 And another set of developers had planned, 16 and were interested in using an approach like the 17 licensing modernization project that we -- again, we 18 talked to the ACRS in previous years as we developed 19 Reg Guide 1.233 which endorsed NEI 18-04, which was 20 the licensing modernization project, a process that 21 had been developed over decades, largely from the 22 community of gas reactors, but also expanded over the 23 years to include other technologies.
24 Now that methodology differs from the IAEA 25 standards, it differs somewhat from our existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 1 structure, as we talked about with the committee as we 2 went through that licensing modernization activity.
3 It ends up, we think and we've said many times, to 4 give you equivalent safety and very often it gives you 5 the same result in terms of a design feature and a 6 requirement that would be put upon a particular piece 7 of equipment, for example.
8 But it approaches it slightly different, 9 and different enough that you have to kind of think 10 about it as a different framework. So this slide is 11 trying to lay out at a high level the two frameworks, 12 and under Framework B on this slide you can see we 13 actually used, for ease of use, the IAEA graphic that 14 shows how you address concerns under that traditional 15 approach.
16 And you have the traditional Anticipated 17 Operational Occurrences, Design Basis Accidents, the 18 associated need to address those accidents with safety 19 related equipment, the need to include as a design 20 criteria things like the Single Failure Criteria, a 21 whole set of rules -- and going to Charlie's comment 22 earlier -- a whole set of rules that have been laid 23 out in large part in Appendix A, the General Design 24 Criteria for Light Water Reactors, and then in 25 specific rules within Part 50 or Part 52.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 And then over the years added onto that 2 original structure of AAO, Anticipated Operational 3 Occurrences, and Design Basis Accidents, were added 4 additional considerations for things like station 5 blackout and anticipated transients without scram.
6 The NRC has traditionally called those beyond design 7 basis events, the IAEA graphic here calls them design 8 extension conditions.
9 But basically it is a set of events that 10 says, hey, based on experience maybe we need to assume 11 another set of events where the actual safety related 12 equipment fails, the diesels fail. You know, the DBA 13 assumes that the safety related equipment works, it 14 provides protections and things like the Single 15 Failure Criteria to address some of that concern, but 16 maybe not the whole concern, and so additional 17 requirements were added, for example on station 18 blackout, in case the diesel generators fail.
19 And then in the last column an additional 20 layer was added to the requirements to address severe 21 accidents, these are ones where, in the hierarchy of 22 events, not only did the diesels fail but whatever I 23 put in place to address station blackout also didn't 24 work and I ultimately melted the core, should I not 25 have one additional level of protection. So the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 did that through the severe accident policy statement, 2 the IAEA has an additional layer to address design 3 extension conditions with core damage --
4 DR. BLEY: Hey, Bill?
5 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, Dennis?
6 DR. BLEY: I don't want to really get 7 ahead on this but I want to at least set up a flag for 8 the people who will bring us Framework B, the last 9 iteration of the standard for non-LWR PRA did a nice 10 job, or the nicest job they've done so far, in 11 providing some supplementary guidance into how to be 12 more complete in searching for accidents and 13 initiating events.
14 The design extension conditions over here 15 all fell out of peculiar issues with LWRs, with new 16 designs Framework B's got to give some kind of 17 guidance on how to be more complete in finding all of 18 the accident sets, and we'll be looking for that. So 19 don't need a comment back on that, I just wanted to 20 raise that for those folks who I think are with you 21 today.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Okay --
23 MEMBER REMPE: So, if I could also add to 24 that, like yesterday we heard a discussion from the 25 staff and an applicant about if, even though they went NEAL 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 with a maximum hypothetical accident, if they hadn't 2 done the analysis of all the other types of events as 3 they searched for initiating events staff wouldn't 4 have had confidence that the MHA was indeed a bounding 5 event. And guides ought to have something along those 6 lines too, in my opinion.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And I don't think 8 either one of those are surprising to the guys that'll 9 be presenting in June on Framework B, so -- in terms 10 of both, guidance that's being considered and worked 11 on, as well as what the content of Framework B will 12 address.
13 So that methodology, the traditional 14 methodology, and again it's what we use in Parts 50 15 and 52, so it's a, we're not trying to, in the 16 development of Framework B -- I mean, A, I'm sorry --
17 the development of Framework A, we're not trying to 18 say there's fundamental problems with that.
19 That is an approach, as Dennis and Joy, 20 you mentioned, in doing searches for these events and 21 determining whether they fall in a category of 22 Anticipated Operational Occurrences or Design Basis 23 Accidents, or into the design extension category, 24 probabilistic risk assessment or another methodology 25 like process hazard analysis, failure modes 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
41 1 effects, the traditional ones that have been used will 2 also come into play to look at and identify the events 3 that are used to test a particular design.
4 So that's Framework B and, again, the 5 reason that we did it was because there were 6 applicants who thought that they preferred to use that 7 traditional approach, and the outcome of that, as it 8 says on the slide, is there's a focus under that 9 traditional approach of showing that you meet design 10 criteria, and those design criteria as they're defined 11 in Appendix A, the General Design Criteria, are 12 already there.
13 And they're already there because people 14 in the past did those exercises, they did failure 15 modes and effects, they did PHAs, they did PRAs, and 16 developed that framework, and so --
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 DR. BLEY: And they had accidents.
19 MR. RECKLEY: And they had operating 20 experience.
21 DR. BLEY: Which won't be true for the new 22 ones. At a very high level, can you give us just a 23 little hint, before we get to Framework B, about 24 what'll be different between Framework B and Parts 50, 25 52? What are we adding?
NEAL 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 MR. RECKLEY: To me --- and again, Candace 2 or Bill, or Boyce, whoever might be on -- to me the 3 primary difference is it's technology inclusive, okay?
4 The 50 and 52 construct is largely adopted within 5 Framework B. However a lot of the work is to take 6 what is in 50 and 52, which is very often Light Water 7 Reactor specific, and to turn the requirement into a 8 technology inclusive approach.
9 And this has been, you know, and you can 10 go back to our previous reviews of PRISM, MHTGR, other 11 Non-Light Water Reactors, and you can see the 12 equivalent of this exercise being done for something 13 like Design Basis Accidents, right? You have to make 14 it technology inclusive, whereas you might have a 15 rupture of a primary coolant pipe as being a similar 16 event, you're not going to use peak clad temperature 17 for a sodium reactor or a gas reactor.
18 You have to come up with different events 19 in many cases and you have to come up with what are 20 the acceptance criteria for those events, and so to me 21 that's the major activity. And it's not a minor 22 undertaking to take the framework that's in 50 and 52 23 and try to make it more technology inclusive.
24 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, this is Charlie Brown.
25 Why do you say part or Framework B, or NEAL 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 Part 50 and 52 aren't technology inclusive? I don't 2 understand that.
3 We've evolved numbers of systems that have 4 moved all the way from vacuum tubes and mag amps, all 5 the way up to microprocessors in the electronics 6 control systems, regulators, governors, and everything 7 else.
8 And, the only thing that's the same is a 9 motor is a motor, and a pump is a pump, and a valve is 10 a valve, and a pipe is a pipe.
11 You know --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MR. RECKLEY: I, no, yes --
14 MEMBER BROWN: -- to say it's not 15 technology inclusive, and the only way you get that is 16 by going to Framework A with PRAs and all the rest of 17 the risk metrics, doesn't, that doesn't sit.
18 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, no, again --
19 (Simultaneous speaking.)
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Charlie, Charlie, hold on.
21 We've argued this point. Our official letter is our 22 official letter.
23 But let me just argue the point that the 24 core is completely different. Bill's point --
25 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL 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 MEMBER BROWN: I don't understand that.
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: That's what's not 3 technology inclusive. Yes, there may be some parts 4 that are, but when the reactor core itself is not, 5 which is what we care most about --
6 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that.
7 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
8 MEMBER BROWN: I totally understand your 9 point.
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay.
11 MEMBER BROWN: And, I don't even disagree 12 with it, okay?
13 My point is, you know, I walk through all 14 whatever, 50 or whatever the number of general design 15 criteria are.
16 And, a good percentage of them, a large 17 percentage of them, are going to apply to any type of 18 advance reactor we would produce.
19 A lot of them won't, okay, but you just, 20 it's when you're using a process, or an approach, like 21 Part B, excuse me, like 52 or 50, that doesn't 22 preclude, that doesn't mean you have to use every one.
23 You can make a decision not to use those.
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes, but then you have to 25 file an exemption. And, the ground rules for 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
45 1 was to minimize exemptions.
2 MEMBER BROWN: But you're never going to 3 predict all the exemptions you may need for these 4 advance reactors, when you don't know all the nuances 5 of what you're going to have to deal with.
6 CHAIRMAN PETTI: And, I just have to say 7 that there are, there are advance reactor design 8 criteria, that were accepted by NRC --
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 MEMBER BROWN: I know but --
11 CHAIRMAN PETTI: -- and those were all the 12 Reg Guides, right.
13 And, in fact, they are being used. I mean 14 I have seen many of these advance reactor designs, and 15 they're all gravitating to those advance reactor 16 design criteria.
17 So, I think it was a worthwhile investment 18 to do that.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and I think, thanks 20 Dave.
21 And, I think that probably proves both 22 points, that when we went through the exercise and 23 developed Reg Guide 1232, the advance reactor design 24 criteria, to Charlie's point, many of them were 25 equally applicable.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 Required only no change, or minor change, 2 and some of them were adapted to a particular 3 technology.
4 And, then I always like to emphasize there 5 was also a need to add additional criteria, for some 6 designs, right.
7 Because you have an event, or an 8 interaction when you're dealing with sodium, for 9 example, that you need to add criteria for that.
10 And, that was agree, that was a great 11 exercise to develop Reg Guide 1232.
12 So, I think that again, reflects kind of 13 both points. Yes, it can be adapted. The over, and 14 that's the point to some degree, Charlie, that the 15 overall framework is, can be applied.
16 What again, and this is what Dave was 17 emphasizing, there are, however, a number of things 18 that are light water reactor specific, and that's what 19 Framework B will be revising, in order to make it more 20 technology inclusive.
21 So, that's Framework B, and why we're --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, I had one other 24 question --
25 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
NEAL 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 MEMBER BROWN: -- I lost it momentarily.
2 In the beginning of your comments, and as 3 you talked about the loss of power. First you lose 4 offsite power, then you lose, the diesels don't start.
5 And, then right now we've faced that 6 before, you still got all your battery backups that 7 operate for some period of time.
8 But then there's been also the mechanism 9 for bringing in external sources of power to hooking 10 them up in the plants, to address the issue of how do 11 you get power to the plants within two or three days.
12 I've forgotten what the name of that 13 program is.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Depending on who you talk to.
15 So, that FLEX or --
16 (Simultaneous speaking.)
17 MEMBER BROWN: FLEX, thank you very much, 18 yes, FLEX program where now you tote in, you know, 19 these additional generators and fire them up and just, 20 and you already have the connections available.
21 So, we have a, the weaknesses of loss of 22 power have been addressed based on past quote poor, 23 poor circumstances, that we just have not seen.
24 But I'm just saying, it's, the system has 25 been very responsive to addressing things, and coming NEAL 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 back and making things so that you don't have a big 2 problem in the future.
3 But I'm not, I'm always a little bit, I'm 4 always a little leery of walking into a new, new world 5 where we have no experience with it. That's the only, 6 you just need to be careful, that's all.
7 MR. RECKLEY: I understand, and of course, 8 and this goes to Dennis' point. You know, some of 9 those changes were made after operating experience.
10 And, some of it not very good operating experience.
11 Like our development of FLEX.
12 So, so anyway, that, that is, that is 13 Framework B, and the structure within Framework B will 14 mirror that traditional approach.
15 And, again, the only reason I used the 16 IAEA presentation is I thought it was better than the 17 ones that we have, that tries to explain how Parts 50 18 and 52 work.
19 So, that is contrasted if you will, by 20 Framework A, and we're going to talk about Framework 21 A for the rest of the day.
22 But it has as its underpinning, that you 23 set out in a kind of a performance based approach, 24 the, the risk metrics that are in Subpart B, and 25 again, we'll go into each Subpart and address NEAL 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 questions, and explain what changed since last we 2 talked.
3 But it sets out the risk metrics in 4 Subpart B, and then lays out the design and analysis 5 approaches in Subpart C, based on those, those risk 6 metrics.
7 And, has less reliance on pre-established 8 design criteria. Because in order to meet the risk 9 metrics, each developer would need to say what safety 10 functions do I need?
11 And, from that then, what design features 12 do I need to accomplish those functions, and what 13 requirements or functional design criteria, need to be 14 defined for each design feature, in order to make sure 15 it is reliable, and capable of performing its 16 function.
17 So, it's a slightly different approach in 18 that it sets out acceptance criteria, and then 19 requires the developer to go through the exercise.
20 That is the same exercise that you go 21 through in order to come up with the design criteria.
22 It's just in Framework B, or under our current 50 and 23 52.
24 It's largely that that work is, is kind of 25 behind the curtain, if you will, in what people 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
50 1 considered when they did the development of the GDC, 2 or any particular additional requirement like, like 3 station blackout rule, or the Atlas rule.
4 So, you often end up in the same place.
5 And, this is, you know, this has historically been to 6 me anyway, one of the hardest things to explain is 7 there are, there's differences between the Frameworks, 8 but there's also similarities. And you will, you 9 often end up in the same place.
10 So, but we're going to talk about 11 Framework A for the rest of the day. But that, that's 12 primarily the difference of the fact that you start 13 within Framework A, on the risk metrics, and within 14 Framework B, you, you start with design criteria.
15 And, then you have to do a whole, in both 16 cases, you have to do a whole lot of back and forth 17 between considering whether you've caught everything.
18 And, I think the ACRS has been great at 19 emphasizing that that's in the end, what you need to, 20 to have confidence in, is that not only have you come 21 up with a design, but you've, and the analytical space 22 and then the testing space, you've challenged that 23 design with a wide range of challenging events such 24 that you have confidence that, that it will operate 25 and respond to an accident in an appropriate 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
51 1 So, within that, one difference, and this 2 is often the way it's explained, is in the role of 3 probabilistic risk assessment.
4 And, Framework B, because it has the 5 design criteria as somewhat the starting point, uses 6 PRA for insight.
7 It uses PRA to do the conformations. In 8 some areas it might use the PRA to do things like 9 identify appropriate design features, to address 10 severe accidents.
11 But the basic structure is that the PRA is 12 a supporting tool. Because Framework A is based on 13 risk metrics, that assume that a PRA is a central part 14 of the process, the role of the PRA is elevated.
15 So, that's another distinction, and that's 16 the way some people tend to characterize it. I tend 17 to think of the PRA as the tool, but it ends up being 18 in many cases, how people distinguish between the two 19 is in regards to the role of the PRA.
20 Dennis, I see your hand is up?
21 DR. BLEY: Yes, can you back up one slide, 22 Bill? I think it's one. Sorry, yes, that one.
23 I haven't seen anything yet. Do you, 24 right now, do you envision having to revise Subpart A 25 to be general and apply to both of them, or is it 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
52 1 as is?
2 MR. RECKLEY: The majority of it is okay as 3 is because again, they are general provisions that --
4 (Simultaneous speaking.)
5 DR. BLEY: That's okay.
6 MR. RECKLEY: -- to be quite honest.
7 But most of them we cut and paste out of 8 the 50 or 52, because, because they were applicable.
9 The biggest challenge within Subpart A 10 will be the definitions. And, there will be some 11 definitions that are the same, and there will be some 12 definitions that may not be applicable to one 13 Framework or the other.
14 And, we're trying to get --
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 DR. BLEY: That kind of gets to what I was 17 going to ask you. Framework B begins with a purpose 18 definitions Subpart. It seems like Framework A needs 19 the same thing, for the very reason you're just 20 talking about.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, we, when we put them 22 together, I imagine that we're going to have a lot of 23 insights like that one where, that we'll have to make 24 some changes to Framework A to make them fit, and make 25 them a consistent format in any, in any case.
NEAL 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 DR. BLEY: And, then I think I promise this 2 is the last thing I'll ask you about Framework B. If 3 the revision to Parts 50 to reconcile it with Part 52 4 goes through as of the last time we saw it, both 50 5 and 52 will require a PRA, although it's not the basis 6 for the approval.
7 And, it looks like Framework B will not do 8 that because it will have these things that were in 9 the old .X section, or something like that.
10 Am I right in guessing that way?
11 MR. RECKLEY: Framework B, and again, you 12 can go back to, to the presentation Marty gave in 13 December and please --
14 (Simultaneous speaking.)
15 DR. BLEY: Yes.
16 MR. RECKLEY: -- again, Bill or Candice, 17 jump in.
18 But basically, the way Framework B is set 19 out, is that you have an option as to how to prevent, 20 how to present your risk evaluation.
21 And, it can be done through APRA, which 22 would be the common practice of what currently exists 23 in 52, what's going to exist in 50, and most 24 definitely what's in Framework A.
25 So, you could do a PRA. That would be 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
54 1 most common approach. Or the approach that is common 2 among all of the reactor related requirements, at that 3 point.
4 But what's, what is new in Framework B, is 5 this proposal to add an alternative evaluation 6 mechanism through this, through the use of a bounding, 7 bounding event.
8 DR. BLEY: Okay. Thanks.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
10 DR. BLEY: Go ahead back where you were.
11 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
12 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Hey Bill, as you're 13 moving, I just wanted to reinforce this concept where 14 you think you'll end up in the same place.
15 I have been involved in a few of these 16 advance reactor designs, and people using different 17 options, and they do get to the same place.
18 I mean in practice, in the advance reactor 19 world, I think that's true. You know, as people are 20 digging in and really developing their designs.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Thank you, Dave.
22 And again, I've looked at a number of 23 these over the years, and the reason you end up is 24 because in most cases, you're trying to solve the same 25 problem, right, like heat removal. And, so you'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
55 1 going to end up needing a heat removal mechanism.
2 Now they may differ in how they work based 3 on the technology, but the, the underlying requirement 4 to, you know, this goes to what we've talked about.
5 Actually, it's in Subpart B, the need to 6 control power, the need to control reactivity, is part 7 of that. The need to control heat removal. And, 8 ultimately, the need to have a system to contain the 9 radioactive materials.
10 You know, those things, they're so well 11 established that, you know, control, cool, contain, 12 right?
13 I mean they're just kind of underpinnings, 14 and they will be to, to both Frameworks.
15 So, thank you and again, I think that's 16 why you usually, you can come up with different 17 mechanisms, but basically you are trying to control 18 the same physical phenomena, and so you come up with 19 similar answers.
20 So, Billy, if we can I'll just say any, 21 any additional questions on this slide I will --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, this is Walt.
24 I had the same comment that Dennis had on 25 the purpose definitions. It would seem to me that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 would want to do that above.
2 And, I'm trying to think of which 3 definitions would be conflicting from, going from 4 Framework A to Framework B.
5 MR. RECKLEY: I'll give you one, Walt.
6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Safety related or?
7 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, that's actually one.
8 The event categories. They could be, they could be 9 the same.
10 But in Framework A for example, we 11 abandoned the use of design basis event, which is an 12 NEI 1804, the licensing modernization.
13 But we abandoned that because it's used in 14 Part 50. And, we call it unlikely event sequences.
15 Since the traditional Framework in, in 16 Framework B, and I don't know this so I might have 17 picked a bad example, but they could use the same 18 definition as design basis event from Part 50.
19 We avoid using it in Framework A to avoid 20 that. Safety related might have even a different 21 definition because under Framework A, we, it's very 22 similar but it's different enough that we might have 23 a different definition.
24 Within Framework A, we've come up with the 25 terminology of, of function design feature, 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
57 1 functional design criteria.
2 And, we try to use that consistently and 3 by doing that, we've avoided using the word design 4 basis.
5 And, the reason for that again is, that's 6 a well established term in Part 50. And again, 7 because Framework B is using a traditional approach, 8 they may choose to use the term design basis, and have 9 it be very similar to the way it's used in Part 50.
10 So, that's why there may be, we're 11 certainly hoping to minimize the number of cases where 12 the same term has a different definition in Framework 13 A, and Framework B.
14 But what you might see is us going to a 15 lot of trouble to avoid using a word that is defined 16 in one of the other Frameworks, and might have a, 17 might be misleading if we tried to use it within one 18 Framework or the other.
19 So, Bill, I think you wanted to weigh in 20 --
21 (Simultaneous speaking.)
22 MR. JESSUP: Yes.
23 MR. RECKLEY: -- Bill Jessup.
24 MR. JESSUP: Thanks, Bill, this is Bill 25 Jessup. I'm working on the Framework Bravo side.
NEAL 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 Bill, I appreciate that you covered pretty 2 much everything that we're doing, very well. I just 3 wanted to add on to the definitions that the 4 definitions that are specific to Framework Bravo as 5 currently drafted, is a very small subset.
6 And, they're driven largely by the key 7 differences between the Frameworks. Things like how 8 licensing basis events are classified, and NSSCs are 9 classified.
10 So, things like anticipated operational 11 occurrence and safety related, those are just two of 12 probably of three or four definitions, that we are 13 currently proposing in Subpart N.
14 So, I just wanted to add on to that, Bill.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well, what I was thinking 16 as safety related, is well defined in the 50/52 17 vernacular.
18 I was wondering whether you were looking 19 at trying to rephrase that in a more generic way, so 20 it does what Bill was, Reckley that is, was saying is 21 the functionality of the definition that's used in 10 22 CFR 50 is specific to LWRs.
23 But one could foresee or could see how you 24 could rewrite that definition to be of more generic 25 applicability, to other advance reactor designs 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
59 1 might want to come on under Framework B.
2 MR. JESSUP: That's correct. That's been 3 our general approach is to start with what are, what 4 are the provisions in 50 and 52, and where necessary, 5 adopt some technology inclusive version of that 6 requirement. Or in this case, a definition.
7 So, you're correct.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, so Billy, if we can go.
10 I'll just, I think this is important so, you know, 11 we're willing again without going down into the, to 12 the details, which you'll hear in June.
13 Any additional questions on the, the 14 general structure of 53 in our use of Framework A, and 15 Framework B?
16 Seeing no hands, of course we can come 17 back if you think of a question.
18 So, Billy, if we can go, we'll start 19 getting into Framework A specifically now.
20 So, what makes this a little complicated 21 for us, of course, is we've been living this for the 22 last 18 months, or so.
23 And, we forget who we, well, I'll just use 24 first person. I forget who we talk to when, about 25 things.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
60 1 And, so we did put out a consolidated 2 Framework A. All the Subparts A through K in 3 February. And, that was to support a March meeting, 4 as well as just as an intermediate step for us.
5 We continued the internal reviews, and we 6 put out a second iteration of that consolidated 7 Framework A, just a couple weeks ago.
8 So, what we'll talk to today with the 9 subcommittee, includes all the changes we've made up 10 to that version.
11 And, as we've mentioned several times as 12 a caution, Subpart F within the second iteration, is 13 the same as the first iteration, and it's currently 14 the subject of a lot of internal discussions.
15 And, as we resolve that, our plan is to 16 address it in a future meeting, hopefully the meeting 17 already scheduled for, for June.
18 So, with that Billy, if we can go to --
19 (Simultaneous speaking.)
20 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, this is Joy.
21 I had some questions about the definitions 22 that are in what we were given the last week, the 23 version.
24 But I think when I look at my questions, 25 they relate to the changes that I guess, are still NEAL 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 coming from part, Subpart F.
2 For example, there's some definitions that 3 discuss load following, and then I'm just curious how 4 that's going to work with a certified reactor 5 operator.
6 So, perhaps I can wait, but will there be 7 a time to discuss the definitions? And, if we have 8 questions later on, and that's the best place to wait 9 until this next meeting?
10 MR. RECKLEY: If it's a general definition, 11 I would say let's do it today if you have a specific 12 question.
13 If it's something within Subpart F, which 14 load following was one of those terms, then I would 15 say the next meeting on Subpart F again, tentatively 16 the June meeting, would be the best place.
17 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, okay, so that's what 18 I'm thinking too, but I may as I go through more 19 carefully in these definitions, have other ones that 20 will draw back on Framework A.
21 But I think it's better just to wait and 22 discuss the definitions then.
23 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And, ultimately, you 24 know, our work over the summer, and then when we bring 25 the package in that October timeframe, is where 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
62 1 will have had the chance to look at Framework A, 2 Framework B, and throughout all of the material.
3 And, include a good, consistent section on 4 definitions, so.
5 But we'll talk, actually we'll talk about 6 a couple of the definitions today even, just the ones 7 I thought we might highlight.
8 So, so you'll see again, this slide is 9 basically what we're going to go through today. We've 10 already talked about this a number of times, Subparts 11 A through K.
12 Now actually, Subpart K is what we added 13 in the consolidated version that we released in 14 February, so it was something that we had I think 15 talked to the ACRS about, but you may not have seen.
16 Throughout 2021, the thought was that we 17 would take the individual criteria from Appendix B, of 18 Part 50.
19 Again, our intent was not to have any 20 significant changes to those QA requirements, but we 21 were distributing them as part of the life cycle.
22 So you saw the QA requirement for design 23 show up in, in Subpart C. The QA requirements that 24 would be applicable for construction, to show up in 25 Subpart E.
NEAL 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 And, an observation from stakeholders was 2 that the existing Framework in, in Appendix B to Part 3 50 works. And, there's a lot of the infrastructure 4 that's built around that. So, it would be better just 5 to, to keep that structure.
6 So, what we did, and if you were to do a 7 redline and strikeout from some of the material for 8 example on Subpart E, that we presented to the ACRS, 9 you would just, you would see a lot of strikeout 10 because all of the QA requirements that we had 11 included back then in Subpart E, were just moved to 12 Subpart K.
13 And, by and large, then each Subpart now 14 just says, and you'll meet the QA requirements in 15 Subpart K.
16 So, when we get to Subpart K, we can talk 17 about the specifics of it, but largely from our 18 viewpoint, this is a, it's a significant change but 19 it's also largely a formatting change.
20 Because we, at least from what we 21 intended. We didn't intend to change the QA 22 requirements. We, again, the early thought was just 23 that we would inject them into the appropriate life 24 cycle stage.
25 Again, in response to stakeholder NEAL 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 feedback, we added Subpart K. So, we'll get to that 2 as we go through the, the changes to the Subparts.
3 So, Billy, if you want to go to the, go to 4 the next slide.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Do you want to take any 6 comments, Bill, as we go?
7 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, sure.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I, for one, think this is 9 a significant improvement. And, you know, we saw and 10 were aware of the stakeholder input that you are 11 receiving, on the topic of quality assurance.
12 But I think by doing this, the reason I 13 think it's a significant improvement isn't just that 14 it's consolidated in one place. You clearly make a 15 stand here as to what your expectations are.
16 Such that if some other applicant comes in 17 and wants to propose using another QA program, ISO or 18 whatever, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that 19 their QA program, meets your requirements as now 20 spelled out in that last appendix.
21 So, for one member's opinion, I find this 22 a significant improvement in the document, and in the 23 regulatory approach.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thank you.
25 And, when I say stakeholder, the ACRS from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 1 our standpoint, is, is in that group, right? Some of 2 the changes we made were in direct response to ACRS 3 comments, even if we didn't receive them from, from 4 others.
5 And, we'll get into some examples as we, 6 as we go through the, through the Subparts.
7 But yes, this was, this was fairly, this 8 was a wide ranging observation from stakeholders, 9 including ACRS, that, that it would be better to do 10 this.
11 So, we'll acknowledge that and reflect it 12 in this, in this change.
13 So, okay, on this slide is just some of 14 the changes that we made. Again, some of these date 15 back changes we made from the first iteration of 16 Subpart B, which would have been over a year ago.
17 But it, you know, it still comes up in 18 conversation. And, when we look through comments that 19 we received over the period of time, we're looking at 20 them that go all the way back that far, 18 months ago.
21 So, the first one there is the one we just 22 talked about, that we consolidated the QA into one 23 Subpart, Subpart K in Framework A.
24 There were some other comments about the 25 program section in Subpart F. And, that some of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 1 requirements were perhaps duplicative, or could be 2 combined to be more efficient.
3 And, so although we didn't make many 4 changes to the programs, we do acknowledge in Subpart 5 F, that if anyone wants to combine programs, they're, 6 you know, they can do that as they present them.
7 And, I'm not an expert at this, but when 8 you talk tomorrow, or when the subcommittee talks 9 tomorrow about the reliability, and integrity 10 management proposals from ASME, you might see some of 11 this as an opportunity.
12 For example, one of the comments from 13 stakeholders is we have, we have in Subpart F, and 14 also in the design area, a need to look for 15 degradation mechanisms.
16 And, some said well, that could be get 17 picked up in normal other design activities, as well 18 as in-service inspection programs, when it comes to 19 the monitoring.
20 And, I'm not, again, I'm not very much an 21 expert having done little more than leaf through it, 22 but I think the REM program can move in that direction 23 in terms of looking at both degradation mechanisms, 24 and in-service inspection, and how one might combine 25 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
67 1 We did also in the area of the 2 manufacturing license, with the increased interest in 3 activities at DOE, as well as other federal agencies 4 of doing complete reactors, transportable reactor or 5 micro reactor.
6 We expanded the manufacturing license 7 provisions to support the loading of fuel at the 8 factory.
9 That's something different than you would 10 find in Part 52, and maybe something different than in 11 our first iterations of the manufacturing license 12 provisions in Framework A.
13 We haven't had it for a while, but there 14 was a general dislike of tier 1 and tier 2 safety 15 criteria. So, that was removed relatively early in 16 2021, actually.
17 But again, as we go through comments, 18 there were a lot of comments on that, albeit they were 19 from more than a year ago.
20 Codes and standards. We've tried to 21 include flexibility, one of which might be what Walt 22 mentioned, the use of ISO standards as an alternative 23 to NQA-1.
24 We don't call out specific standards.
25 There's, that's an area that we would foresee getting NEAL 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 picked up in key guidance documents.
2 The ASME section on high temperature 3 materials would be, be an example where we don't call 4 that out as a need to use ASME pressure code within 5 the regulations as it's currently done in 50 and 52.
6 But we do call out that it, they should 7 where possible, use consensus codes and standards 8 approved by the NRC.
9 So, that's how in Part 53, we will pick up 10 consensus codes and standards. And, we'll talk about 11 that in a little bit, when we talk about the design 12 material in Subpart C.
13 Again, it's been a while, but early on we 14 had back actually when we still had tier 1 and tier 2 15 within the proposal, also mixed normal operations with 16 unplanned, or licensing basis event requirements based 17 on stakeholder feedback.
18 We split those apart so that its more 19 clear, we hope, it was our intent, much more clear as 20 to what the requirements were related to normal 21 operations.
22 Things like effluents, normal effluents.
23 And, those things that were put in place for licensing 24 basis events.
25 Another change, it's been a while and 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
69 1 still are kind of toying with various proposals on how 2 to characterize this, but for the last couple 3 releases, have been consistent in, we hope, of 4 referring to the applicable reactors in Part 53, as 5 commercial nuclear plants, or commercial nuclear 6 reactors.
7 There were some proposals to extend it to 8 include research and test reactors. To date, we're 9 not proposing to do that.
10 And, the other change from early on, is 11 commercial nuclear plant replaced the, the use of the 12 term advanced nuclear plant.
13 And, we just found the use of the word 14 advance nuclear to be problematic. The definition in 15 the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, 16 is quite broad and includes both technology, as well 17 as policy, and economic criteria.
18 And, so we thought the easiest thing was 19 to, to just stop using the term.
20 So, Nan, did you have anything you wanted 21 to, to add in on this slide?
22 MS. VALLIERE: Well, just maybe just to 23 give a little context to the subcommittee, that we've 24 received over 1,500 individual public comments on the 25 Part 53 preliminary proposed rule language to date.
NEAL 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 We have sorted those comments by topic 2 areas, and the staff has been going through all the 3 comments, and considering this feedback as we are 4 refining the rule language and drafting the statements 5 of consideration, to help us gauge some areas where 6 some more discussion might be worthy to address 7 stakeholder feedback, in the statements of 8 consideration.
9 I apologize, I'm an old dog like Bill, 10 too, so I haven't quite transferred over to the 11 preamble term yet.
12 And, I think as you're aware, the staff 13 did hold a public meeting on March 29 to discuss some 14 key areas of stakeholder feedback, like those that are 15 shown here.
16 So, just providing a little context for 17 the subcommittee.
18 DR. BLEY: And, Nan, since you brought up 19 the statements of consideration and the new name, 20 somebody at a recent meeting told us they were coming 21 along pretty well, and we would see a draft soon.
22 Any idea when we'll see that?
23 MS. VALLIERE: You will see it when we 24 provide you with the material for the full rulemaking 25 package, before the fall subcommittee meeting.
NEAL 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 DR. BLEY: Okay, not until then. Okay.
2 MS. VALLIERE: Right. Yes, it is coming 3 along, but it is still very much a work in progress.
4 MR. RECKLEY: The only thing I would add to 5 that, Dennis, is if you look at the discussion tables 6 that we prepared as we released text throughout 2021, 7 and some of the other material that, that we've 8 prepared, I mean we're using that as the starting 9 point for the statement of considerations for 10 preamble.
11 And, so a lot of that material does exist.
12 We just have to incorporate it and reflect the 13 evolution, and changes we might have made since then, 14 and put it together into a coherent explanation of the 15 whole Framework.
16 But yes, as Nan said, it will, that's our 17 major activity for this summer.
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, just a point of 19 clarification for members. My personal approach is 20 that we get through Framework A and Framework B this 21 summer, with our letters.
22 And, then really, the preamble/statements 23 of consideration will be focus in the fall. And all 24 the other stuff sort of around those Frameworks.
25 Otherwise, we're just never going to get NEAL 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 through it. That's how I see it going forward.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, so Billy, we can start 3 to dive into the, the individual Subparts.
4 MR. WIDMAYER: Excuse me, it's Derek. You 5 guys want to take a break?
6 DDD: Absolutely.
7 MALE SPEAKER: Yes, please.
8 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay, okay. I was going 9 to wait till the top of the hour. That's fine.
10 Let's break then until the top of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />. We'll do -- oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. I misread 12 my watch.
13 Yes, let's say 10:35 on break. Thanks.
14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 15 off the record at 10:21 a.m. and resumed at 10:35 16 a.m.)
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay, folks, break is 18 done. Bill, keep on going.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thanks, Dave.
20 And, you know, from this point forward, I 21 think we're just going to highlight some things within 22 each Subpart.
23 So, if there are specific questions or 24 whatever, please chime in. Otherwise, I think maybe 25 that the next slides will start to pick up the pace 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
73 1 little bit.
2 So, within Subpart --
3 (Simultaneous speaking.)
4 MEMBER REMPE: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, 5 finish the slide, Bill. Sorry, I had a question about 6 the slide.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
8 So the first one is general provisions.
9 We've talked about that some. The most sections 10 within Subpart A, or the generic material.
11 An important focus is the definitions. I 12 picked just a few that I wanted to highlight, just 13 because they are either new, or slightly different.
14 So, the first is commercial nuclear plant.
15 We use that in many times throughout Framework A.
16 And, the reason we use that is a change 17 under Framework A, from the traditional approach, is 18 that the analyses supporting the licensing, is done on 19 a plant basis. Multi-unit, multi-source.
20 This has been the practice within the 21 methodology under the licensing modernization project, 22 and the ones that pre-date that.
23 We brought that into Part 53. So, that's 24 a difference.
25 In Part 50 and 52, most of the analysis NEAL 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 that's done is on a unit basis. We do distinguish the 2 commercial nuclear plant, which is multi-unit, multi-3 source, against the commercial nuclear reactor.
4 There still will be things that are 5 defined on a reactor basis, and so we needed to find 6 that, that term.
7 So, commercial nuclear reactor is just a 8 single unit that's addressed within Part 53, Framework 9 A. But again, the analysis is done considering multi-10 unit, multi-source.
11 The other definition that comes into play, 12 is because of our changes, or additional flexibility 13 in the area of manufacturing license.
14 We had to try to come up with terminology.
15 This is the current working model. If somebody has 16 better terms, we're open.
17 But in the case of manufacturing licenses, 18 the distinction is, where does the reactor meet 19 special nuclear material.
20 And so a manufactured reactor as we are 21 using it in Framework A, is a reactor or major 22 portions of the reactor, that might be made elsewhere 23 and brought to a site.
24 And, the special nuclear material, the 25 fuel, is loaded at the site.
NEAL 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, the reactor is made using a standard 2 design, using standard manufacturing processes that 3 are addressed in the manufacturing license. But the 4 fuel is inserted at the deployment site, at the site 5 of the commercial operation.
6 To address the concept of loading fuel 7 into a manufactured reactor at the factory, and 8 needing to make a distinction, we introduced the term 9 manufactured reactor module.
10 And, so again, all we mean by that is that 11 it's a manufactured reactor, but it's loaded with fuel 12 at the factory and transported fueled.
13 There are some other definitions that 14 we'll get into in some of the other Subparts. The 15 event categories, definition of defense in depth, 16 which we didn't change from previous.
17 But, so that's really all I wanted to 18 touch on, just because there's a few places where the 19 definitions reflect other changes to other areas 20 within Framework A.
21 So, Joy, did you have a?
22 MEMBER REMPE: Sure. When I was looking 23 through the text that we were given about a fueled 24 module, I was, you were clear to say you can't operate 25 it until you get to the site where it's deployed.
NEAL 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 But I'm thinking about how do you make 2 sure the thing will go critical? And, let's think 3 back to the EBR-1 where they made all the fuel, 4 shipped it out from Chicago to Idaho, loaded it in the 5 reactor, and it wouldn't go critical.
6 And, then for some reason then they had to 7 ship it back, and then make some additional fuel and 8 ship it back to Idaho, and that took a while.
9 And, so the question is, is, you know, how 10 do you know for sure the thing will work when you get 11 it deployed?
12 And, then sometimes things happen during 13 shipping and if it doesn't go critical, what will 14 happen? Because they can't open it up at the site, I 15 guess, because I would bet their license won't allow 16 that.
17 And, they'll have to ship it back to 18 wherever it's made and all of that. And, I'm just 19 wondering where those kind of situations will be 20 addressed.
21 And, of course people say oh no, we know 22 what we're doing. But things happen, and we have 23 history where things have happened in the past.
24 Even one of the design developers in the 25 last 10 years was designing a reactor that I believe, NEAL 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 that some colleagues at MIT pointed out wouldn't go 2 critical.
3 So, I mean it's not an unreasonable 4 question, and is the answer going to be clearly 5 resolved in the guidance, or I'm just, you understand 6 where my question is coming from, Bill, and or did I 7 give enough of a clue?
8 MR. RECKLEY: Well, I'll take a shot.
9 And, the idea of doing physics testing in 10 the factory, is something we're exploring. There, 11 because we knew in the beginning that there would be 12 licensing complications for trying to do that, we 13 didn't include it within our initial plans.
14 But we have talked to stakeholders and 15 micro reactor developers, and understand and for some 16 of the reasons you just mentioned, that doing physics 17 testing in the factory might, might not only be 18 helpful to them, it might be a good idea from an 19 overall safety perspective to do it in the factory, 20 under controlled conditions versus shipping it to a 21 site and then finding out at the site, that 22 something's wrong, which would then mean you have to 23 ship it back, and so forth.
24 So, we're exploring that. Whether we're 25 going to be able to do that this round is, is one 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
78 1 the things we're discussing.
2 We're, so it's not that we're specifically 3 precluding that by this rulemaking, but we may not be 4 supporting it in this rulemaking.
5 It all depends on whether we can kind of 6 come to a consensus, as to how that might work within 7 a licensing Framework.
8 So, no promise --
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 MEMBER REMPE: That helps me that you're 11 thinking about physics testing at the factory. That's 12 a better way of putting what I was trying to get to.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
14 MEMBER REMPE: The other question I've been 15 thinking about is, additional margin during shipping 16 might be a good idea.
17 Because again, I keep thinking about 18 things happen during shipping that I buy and all, so 19 I, that's another question I'm wondering if you're 20 exploring.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well, this is, Joy, this 22 is already done. When you have a spent fuel cask, you 23 have to ensure the sub-criticality of it. And, an 24 additional poisons are part of the design of the, of 25 the shipping cask.
NEAL 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 The analogy here is for if it's a fresh 2 reactor, by the way, you're going to have to have a 3 startup source, and loaded.
4 So, you are going to do physics.
5 MEMBER REMPE: But --
6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: By key people --
7 MEMBER REMPE: -- but Walt, I mean that's 8 --
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- and second design, 10 you design a positive with sufficient shutdown margin, 11 and it's positively physically locked in place if it's 12 a control rod.
13 I can't imagine doing it with a liquid 14 fuel reactor, but this has been done before, and you 15 demonstrate that you have sufficient margin.
16 If the thing gets dropped in the drink and 17 floods for a light water reactor, you demonstrate that 18 you are sub-critical in that configuration, and et 19 cetera.
20 So, there's precedent for doing this.
21 This is, and as Bill --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MEMBER REMPE: There may be precedent --
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- said earlier, people 25 who know what they're doing, will actually design for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
80 1 this.
2 MEMBER REMPE: But there's precedent, Walt.
3 But is there guidance for a, a fueled reactor for 4 shipping?
5 That's where I'm going, okay? There's 6 precedence, but do they have a clear path, okay?
7 MR. RECKLEY: And, part of this, I mean and 8 we are working and talking to stakeholders in this 9 particular area.
10 And, I'm not personally involved, but we 11 also have NMSS working with developers in the 12 Department of Defense, on the Pele Project, in regards 13 to what would be the requirements in terms of the 14 reactor, and additional packaging requirements for a 15 reactor.
16 So, yes, there's a lot of activities 17 underway here. We believe that we can go at least in 18 this round, as far as loading the fresh fuel. We have 19 talked to the Part 71, the transport people, as Walt 20 mentioned.
21 It will be a little different than 22 traditional shipping of fresh fuel. Stringent 23 requirements will be in place, would have to be in 24 place, to make sure that the control rods, or whatever 25 other mechanisms are being used, are secure 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
81 1 wouldn't be affected by crashes, and other potential 2 transportation accidents.
3 So, anyway, there are a lot, there are a 4 number of activities ongoing, and in some cases like 5 Project Pele, some actual demonstrations and designs, 6 that will help us develop not only potential changes 7 to the requirements, but changes to guidance 8 documents.
9 MEMBER REMPE: So, that's where I was 10 coming at the very beginning, my question about when 11 will we get the guidance.
12 And, some of the guidance I think is very 13 much necessary to understand the text, and the rule.
14 And, I did cite the example about manufacturing.
15 So, again, I believe that let us have a 16 ample time to understand the guidance, as we try and 17 interpret the rule.
18 MR. RECKLEY: Right. As much as we can, 19 just the, and in some cases, and this isn't 20 surprising, and this is what happened on light water 21 reactors as well.
22 You know, some of the guidance will be 23 developed as we work with individual developers, and 24 work through not, not established per se, as a pilot 25 or a test, but just out of the reality that they're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
82 1 developing it at the same time that it's being 2 introduced to us as a regulator.
3 And, so the mutual experience between the 4 developer and the regulator, produces guidance that 5 might help other developers.
6 So.
7 MEMBER REMPE: I agree.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
9 So that's really all I wanted to go over 10 again. There will be more definitions and things, as 11 we talk about other Subparts.
12 So, Billy, if we can go to Subpart B.
13 You know, this Subpart is the one that, 14 that we've probably talked most both in public 15 meetings, and also with the subcommittee.
16 There hasn't been fundamental changes to 17 Subpart B since the last time we, we spoke about this 18 to the subcommittee.
19 It's still laid out relatively short and 20 simple section, to say what are the highest level 21 objectives; what are the criteria for design basis 22 accidents; what are the criteria for licensing basis 23 events, other than design basis accidents.
24 The need to identify safety functions and 25 to meet those criteria; the need to identify licensing NEAL 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 basis events; the need to provide defense in-depth; 2 and then requirements in place for normal operations; 3 normal operation related effluents, for example.
4 And, the Part 20 type requirements. And, 5 then similar provisions for the protection of plant 6 workers.
7 So, Billy, if you go to the next slide, 8 I'll lay out, and this is, this is a slide that when 9 we first used with the subcommittee maybe a year or 10 more ago, that kind of adjusted to find how Part 53 11 Framework A sees this top down approach, which is what 12 I just went through.
13 Within Subpart B, we define certain safety 14 criteria, and require the developer then to identify 15 what safety functions are needed to meet those 16 criteria.
17 And, then largely in the next Subpart on 18 design and analysis, the requirements come into play 19 for defining what design features and are needed to 20 provide those functions.
21 And, what functional design criteria are 22 needed for each design feature, in order to actually 23 show that it has the capability and the reliability, 24 and is otherwise qualified to, to support the 25 assumptions in the safety analysis.
NEAL 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 The performance requirements to show that 2 you're meeting all of the above requirements, in 3 regards to the criteria and the safety functions.
4 So, and again, you can go into what 5 Charlie was saying. By the time you get all the way 6 down to the bottom, if it's a relatively typical 7 component that's used within the design, be it an 8 electrical or a valve, or whatever, you might end up 9 in the same place.
10 And, it very likely you would end up in 11 the same place as the existing structures. It's just 12 more of a top down approach to get there.
13 So, I see, did somebody?
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, Vesna. I just 15 -- and you start answering to this. So does this 16 subpart, the same Subpart B would be applicable for 17 Framework B?
18 MR. RECKLEY: No.
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So would the 20 Framework B have Subpart B?
21 MR. RECKLEY: No. And again, we'll cover 22 the details in June, but the traditional approach --
23 I don't want to oversimplify because -- but the 24 traditional approach basically has the safety 25 functions and even to some degree designed features NEAL 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 built into the design criteria that are defined either 2 in the general design criteria for light water 3 reactors or the advanced reactor design criteria in 4 Reg Guide 1.233 -- 232. Sorry. And so there would 5 not be really the need to have Subpart B within 6 Framework B. So I'll leave it there. Bill Jessup or 7 anybody can chime in.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So safety 9 requirement either?
10 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the safety requirements 11 are there. You would just need, as they are in Part 12 50, to construct what are the criteria for any 13 particular requirement that's being imposed. And so 14 --
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, you said that 16 we were discussing PRA role between Framework A and B 17 use. And the PRA has a confirmatory role in the 18 Framework B, right? And you would assume that that 19 confirmatory role would be to confirm the safety 20 requirements are met.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the PRA in Framework 22 B would not in my mind confirm the actual meeting of 23 regulatory requirements or criteria established for a 24 particular requirement. It does confirm the overall 25 risk profile. It does confirm the event selections 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
86 1 see if maybe another sequence should be addressed 2 somewhere in the licensing of a plant.
3 So if I can give an example in light water 4 reactor space, the PRA is not used to confirm that you 5 meet 2,200 degree peak clad temperature required by 6 50.46. That's a specific requirement. And you would 7 have something that looks like that for a design-basis 8 accident for another technology. It's not going to be 9 2,200-degree peak clad temperature, but there has to 10 be some design-basis accident and there needs to be 11 some criteria that's defined in a deterministic-type 12 approach for that design-basis accident.
13 But the PRA can look and say given I have 14 an ECCS, given I have all of -- given I've met all of 15 these other design requirements that are in the GDC or 16 ARDC, is the risk to the public what I thought? And 17 in a confirmatory role; again, we'll get to this in a 18 second, does it meet the qualitative health 19 objectives, although that's -- in traditional space 20 that's kind of a confirmatory check.
21 So Framework B that's the way it would be.
22 In Framework A the safety criteria defined 23 in Subpart B are a risk-oriented set of criteria. So 24 the qualitative health objectives; again, we'll talk 25 about in a second, are to some degree elevated from 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
87 1 -- confirming that the deterministic approach actually 2 has resulted in a risk profile that we thought it did 3 to bringing that thought into the actual criteria and 4 saying the risk profile of the plant is -- that's what 5 we're governing by the regulations in Framework A.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well --
7 MR. RECKLEY: I might have confused --
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, yes. Yes.
9 Yes.
10 MR. RECKLEY: That might have been more 11 confusing than helpful.
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right. Yes, but I'm 13 confused on much higher level. I mean it is really 14 confusing. And the question -- when things become so 15 confusing, then the question is is the solution good, 16 you know? But let's see. Let's follow it then. All 17 right. Thanks.
18 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So again --
19 (Simultaneous speaking.)
20 MR. RECKLEY: Go ahead.
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So again, and we've 23 addressed -- just using this slide to reinforce what 24 was on the previous slide in terms of content, we have 25 criteria for the design-basis accident and 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
88 1 licensing-basis events other than the design-basis 2 accident. Then it goes down and says you have to 3 identify the safety functions necessary to respond to 4 the licensing-basis events. And then on top of that 5 you need to provide and ensure that you have defense-6 in-depth.
7 And within all of this we've tried to take 8 an integrated approach and say when we're doing this 9 assessment what's the role of the structure systems 10 and components, the equipment, what's the role of 11 personnel, and what's the role of programs in tying 12 things together. And so that's something we can talk 13 about as we go through each subpart. But we've tried 14 to do that in a slightly more integrated fashion than 15 was the current framework.
16 So, Billy, if we can go to the next one?
17 One of the things the Subcommittee was interested in 18 is some of the areas that have been discussed in 19 public meetings and stakeholders, some with this 20 Subcommittee. Two of the largest ones are the use of 21 the qualitative -- quantitative, sorry -- quantitative 22 health objectives, QHOs, and the role of as low as 23 reasonable achievable, largely at the design phase of 24 the life cycle. So the next couple slides go through 25 what we've done in those areas.
NEAL 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 Billy, if you go to the next one? So in 2 the area of the use of the quantitative health 3 objectives, the QHOs, that's been maintained up 4 through the most recent release and iteration. The 5 changes we've made to hopefully clarify is that we've 6 tried to reinforce that this is a measurable parameter 7 meeting the QHOs. And so including in the requirement 8 -- the earlier drafts just said meet the QHOs more or 9 less. I'll not recite the numbers for prompt and 10 latent effects, but we basically said the design needs 11 to meet the QHOs.
12 And some of the observations were that 13 there's a lot of uncertainties associated with health 14 physics. There's uncertainties obviously in the PRA, 15 not only in the consequence assessment, but the 16 frequency assessments, and that that had the potential 17 to open up everything in how this might be met in 18 terms of public interactions and so forth.
19 So in order to try to address that, what 20 we've done is change it to say you meet the QHOs as 21 they are analyzed in accordance with the Subpart C 22 analysis. And that would then bring in the NRC review 23 and approval of whatever models are going to be used.
24 Some of this could end up getting addressed in 25 consensus codes and standards. You would use dose NEAL 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 factors as they're issued by the Environmental 2 Protection Agency, so forth.
3 So yes, there's uncertainties associated 4 with that, but the requirement and the measure is to 5 how it's calculated. And so that was what we changed.
6 Again, no underlying or fundamental shift in how we 7 thought you would meet this, just clarifying that this 8 metric would be assessed using the same methods that 9 we do to address every other analysis require.
10 I mean, there's -- since the 1970s peak 11 clad temperature has been a fundamental requirement 12 and tenet and basis for regulating light water 13 reactors. Well, there's uncertainties associated with 14 those calculations, but we've basically said here's 15 how you calculate. Here's the requirements on the 16 evaluation model. And if you do that and it shows 17 less than 2,200 degrees, then it's okay.
18 So we're trying to parallel that kind of 19 thinking here. I understand it's perhaps more 20 complicated, but there will be a model to evaluate 21 within the consequences coming out of the PRA. We 22 think we can narrow it down to say it's done this way 23 and you're going to use these standards and that's how 24 you meet this requirement, albeit there are 25 uncertainties.
NEAL 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 Then the other change we made is we had 2 previously talked about it in terms of health effects 3 and then even went through one iteration where we said 4 life-threatening health effects, and the feedback from 5 stakeholders was it's better just to stick to the 6 terminology in the Reactor Safety Goal Policy 7 Statement. And so this last iteration just mirrors 8 the policy statement and uses the term prompt 9 fatalities and cancer fatalities.
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Bill?
11 MR. RECKLEY: Yes?
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Hi, this is Vesna.
13 Well, I mean it's not how I feel about that, so I 14 would like to engage in a short discussion with you on 15 this. I don't really -- I mean, I definitely have a 16 strong feeling that we're quantitative goals. I think 17 that qualitative goals which are expressed in the 18 Commission's Safety Goal Statements are perfectly 19 good, and I think we should stay on that level. This 20 is I want to engage in the discussion just to show you 21 it's not just uncertainty and how this relates.
22 But let's say -- so we are talking about 23 prompt fatalities and prompt -- early fatalities and 24 cancer fatalities as quantitative health objectives.
25 And currently in industry that the substitute measures NEAL 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 for those are core damage frequency and large early 2 release or large release. Is that true statement? I 3 mean, I assume it is. Everybody knows it's a true 4 statement.
5 So let me just ask you this: So the core 6 damage frequency is based on cancer -- that QHO, 7 right? Cancer fatalities QHO. Right?
8 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. So cancer 10 fatality. That QHO is basically the 2e minus 6 per 11 year, right?
12 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Less than 2e minus 14 6. But what is core damage frequency? I mean, you've 15 been talking about temperature and things like that.
16 I know definition of core damage frequency. But core 17 damage frequency is risk measure. Is damage of the 18 core with what is status of containment? Containment 19 is either intact or it has a small leak, right?
20 That's the definition of core damage frequency.
21 Because if you have a release, large release, that's 22 measured by large release frequency, right?
23 So when we measure core damage frequency, 24 that implies in most of cases that containment is 25 either intact or has a small release. Is that a true NEAL 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 statement?
2 MR. RECKLEY: I'll call on --
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: My question is --
4 yes, okay. If you want to object to some of my 5 statements, object to --
6 (Simultaneous speaking.)
7 MR. RECKLEY: No. No, I'm only going to 8 ask Marty Stutzke or somebody smarter than me to 9 object if --
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right.
11 MR. RECKLEY: -- or if they want to. But 12 I --
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. We had 14 accidents in history. I mean, we had the Three Mile 15 Island which didn't have a large release, right? And 16 we have a Chernobyl which had the large release, 17 things like that.
18 So let's say -- let me ask you this: How 19 can we relate core damage frequency with containment 20 intact to cancer fatalities? What factors relates 21 that? Does that make sense?
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. And again, I'll ask 23 Marty to weigh in. The measures you talk about from 24 -- for light water reactor: the core damage and large 25 release or large early release, a lot of that work was NEAL 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 being done in parallel with the development of the 2 Safety Goal Policy Statement. And I know in NUREG-3 1860 there was an example of how they are generally 4 consistent. I won't go as far as to say the CDF and 5 LERF frequencies were actually derived from the Safety 6 Goal Policy Statement, but they were all being 7 developed in similar time frames. And Dennis --
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But that's history.
9 That's history.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Right, that -- well -- but 11 it --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- based on -- is it 14 based on reproductable fact? Does it make sense?
15 MR. RECKLEY: And -- yes --
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Because what does 17 this prevent us -- if we just look like -- let me just 18 finish -- let's say that qualitative goals make 19 perfect sense. Individual member of the public should 20 be provided the level protection from the consequences 21 of nuclear power plant operation such the individual 22 bear no significant additional risk to life and 23 health. And suddenly we are talking cancer and we are 24 talking prompt fatalities. Why do we want to talk 25 that? We don't really know those connections to 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
95 1 And I am strongly against that. So I hope I will be 2 able --
3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
4 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- to convince 5 Committee on that. You know how it is translate which 6 I always some magical mathematical thing changes that?
7 Condition of probability of the -- or let's say 8 cancer. So condition of probability of cancer given 9 the CDF is 40 minus 3. So 40,000 individual given the 10 core damage frequency with containment intact will get 11 the cancer. This number totally doesn't make sense.
12 So we historically introduce this to 13 somehow connect the dose goals, but let's not do it 14 again. Let's just talk on qualitative goal, not the 15 -- don't introduce big additional risk to the public 16 and then let the industry translate that to whatever 17 they want that, in the rems, in the amount and 18 whatever. Why do we have to talk about this, you 19 know, pretending that we actually know what radiation 20 causes prompt fatalities and how the core damage 21 frequency relates to cancer? That doesn't make any 22 sense. It's not really -- just not smart.
23 So the thing is, which I wanted to say, 24 make it to the higher goal and let industry talk about 25 what presents the risk to 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
96 1 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And that --
2 (Simultaneous speaking.)
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- well-established 4 in next slide. That's not true. It's just mention in 5 both Reg Guide 1.2. Have it in Reg Guide 1.247. I 6 can read to you. Just gives you definition of 7 qualitative goals, but there is nothing well-8 established there. Those guides about CDF and LERF.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. I understand. And 10 moving the numericals to guidance is one of the things 11 that has been proposed. Again, this is outside my 12 area, so I ask an expect to weigh in if they want to, 13 but these qualitative -- these specific qualitative 14 measures have been around since the roll-out of the 15 Safety Goal Policy Statement.
16 (Simultaneous speaking.)
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- but you're 18 talking quantitative measures. Those are not --
19 MR. RECKLEY: No, the quantitative 20 measures that we're citing here have been around since 21 the roll-out of the Safety Goal Statement.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes. Bill?
23 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, but that 24 measure has a CDF and LERF. A CDF and a LERF.
25 MR. RECKLEY: For light --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
97 1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Those are surrogates 2 though, Vesna. This is Walt.
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But all the measures 4 which are use are dose. And that is -- these are 5 connected. So this talks about this, but nobody is 6 actually quantifying that QHOs.
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Vesna, this is Walt. I 8 would -- in general I agree with you. I think it 9 would be better to use the qualitative goals. I'll 10 give you an example: If we look at prompt fatalities, 11 I mean the way I would go about doing that 12 mechanistically is do a mechanistic source term, do a 13 release, and then look at the exposure based on the 14 population zone where the reactor is sited, and then 15 use LD50 as my definition for whether or not you have 16 a prompt fatality.
17 That one might be a little more 18 straightforward. The second part is really, really 19 uncertain what -- how much exposure would cause a 20 cancer fatality because it could be -- it could take 21 20 years for the cancer to develop and then have the 22 fatality.
23 So when you get into that part, when you 24 don't have an acute dose and you're looking at latent-25 kind of effects of exposure, it's very problematical.
NEAL 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 I mean the critics who say this opens the door to 2 potential contesting of the licensing basis I do 3 believe have a point. So agreeing with you, Vesna, if 4 these were the qualitative goals, then it leaves it --
5 just like the reasonable assurance determination it 6 leaves it to the staff to convince the Commission that 7 this particular reactor, this applicant, this design 8 does provide that reasonable assurance and it does 9 meet the qualitative goals.
10 But these specific goals highlighted in 11 green can -- could lead to a contentious process if 12 that's an absolute measure for making a determination 13 of reasonable assurance.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right. Yes. So the 15 point that you make, Walt, is very valid. I was 16 concentrating the point on the the core damage 17 frequency is -- when we calculate the core damage 18 frequency is released, that's applies the containment 19 is intact. Before containment fail there is 20 additional probability which results in release, large 21 release. So core damage frequency measures just core 22 damage, not release. So saying that core damage 23 within the vessel causes a cancer doesn't make any 24 sense. Could cause a cancer 10 miles from the plant.
25 So there is both this cancer controversy on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
99 1 exposure and also how do we distinguish between core 2 damage frequency and large release frequency?
3 So I would just say even -- the current 4 qualitative goals have some element on quantitative, 5 say you should present point 1 of that current risk 6 from all other sources or other industries. So I 7 think that that's where it makes much more sense to 8 stay on that level.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Marty, I see you have 10 your hand up.
11 MR. STUTZKE: Yes, this is Marty Stutzke 12 with the staff. I would offer two points here: One 13 is the non-LWR PRA standard does not use the risk 14 surrogate metrics of core damage frequency or large 15 early release frequency. Those are specific to light 16 water reactors.
17 The second thing I would make to Dr.
18 Kirchner's (audio interference) is several years ago 19 the staff received several petitions to eliminate use 20 of the linear no-threshold model and the Commission 21 rejected those petitions I believe in 2019. So in 22 fact we do know how to compute these numbers with 23 acceptable methods.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Oh, I don't doubt that.
25 I wasn't contesting whether or not you can calculate NEAL 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 them according to the formula that you specify. So 2 Bill's highlighted thing in accordance with 53.450e 3 certainly makes sense, but Vesna raises a more 4 fundamental question about -- if these are -- well, 5 I'll just stop there. Yes, I know one could go about 6 calculating -- although the second half of the 7 calculation could be very contentious based on cancer 8 statistics.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, but I mean 11 1.247, it doesn't have a risk measures, but 1.200 Reg 12 Guide is based on the -- so I'm -- and, you know, in 13 all Regulatory Guides, 1.174, everything is based on 14 LERF and CDF.
15 MR. RECKLEY: Dennis?
16 DR. BLEY: Yes, thanks, Bill. To help the 17 Committee, I hope Vesna will write out here 18 objections.
19 I know you did it once before, Vesna, but 20 this is a new time.
21 In our letter from a year ago we pointed 22 out that it might be worth taking a look at the 23 alternative integral risk criteria that was laid out 24 in the technology-neutral framework as an alternative 25 to the quantitative health objective approach.
NEAL 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 Thinking way back to that time most of the effort had 2 been on the integral risk criteria, but then in the 3 final report it got kind of flipped and the QHO got 4 the front line. And that got relegated to an 5 appendix, which is still pretty clear.
6 We'd recommended that you at least 7 consider that. Can you tell us if you did and why you 8 decided to stay with the QHOs?
9 MR. RECKLEY: I'm trying to recall the 10 letter from last May. We did consider and have a lot 11 of the same discussions that we're having here. And 12 one of the reasons; and I hear the arguments maybe 13 saying it's not as clear as we wanted, was that the 14 QHOs have been used -- and even for the existing 15 designs: the most recent AP-1000, NuScale, the QHOs 16 are addressed in Chapter 19, the safety goals.
17 One of the elements that we were trying to 18 do within Part 53, or one of the tenets was that we 19 weren't going to create new technical requirements.
20 And so for the DBA we continued to use the 25 rem at 21 the exclusionary boundary. For the overall risk 22 profile we thought the QHOs, since they have been used 23 and in our view kind of established is why we wanted 24 to use them.
25 I get in the next slide -- actually, NEAL 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 Billy, if you want to go to the next slide?
2 We could probably go through this 3 relatively quickly, Dennis, and then get back to your 4 specific question.
5 Or, Marty, do you have a recollection? I 6 might just have to say, Dennis, we'll get back to you 7 because I'm failing open on --
8 DR. BLEY: Okay. That's fine with me.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So let's go through 10 these bullets. Again, we've already talked about most 11 of these, so I'll go quickly through them.
12 The basis for the QHOs, since it's been 13 one of the more controversial elements of Framework A, 14 is if you're going to have a performance-based 15 approach, you need some metrics that are either 16 measurable or calculable. We think a risk-informed 17 approach benefits from having a cumulative risk 18 measure. One of the things -- again, this is done as 19 an overall check under the existing framework, but we 20 in Framework A are bringing it forward as an actual 21 requirement to include a cumulative risk measure.
22 I've heard the arguments otherwise, but 23 the QHOs we think have been used in regulatory 24 decisions. Yes, for light water reactors the analyses 25 are such that CDF is usually used as the primary NEAL 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 metric, but there have been decisions related to even 2 light water reactors where we needed to or elected to 3 go beyond CDF and use the QHOs.
4 Since my earlier job at one point was the 5 follow up to the Fukushima accident, we used the QHOs 6 in the decision making for both the expedited transfer 7 of fuel from the spent fuel pools -- because the spent 8 fuel pools were not going to be amenable to a core-9 damage-frequency-kind of assessment. So what is left 10 is actually using the QHOs. And we likewise used it 11 for the BWR engineered filtered vent decisions, 12 analyses done by both industry and the staff, where 13 the ultimate decision was supported by QHO-related 14 decisions, not simply CDF and large-early-release-type 15 frequencies. So --
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, Bill, if I can 17 just understand you, do you consider when they use 18 release, this to be QHO? Because I'm sure they did 19 not talk about early fatalities.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Well, early fatalities in 21 both cases were assessed. The more usual parameter 22 that comes into play is latent cancer versus prompt 23 fatality, but both were assessed when we looked at 24 those decisions that needed to be made.
25 Somewhat to the point of Vesna and Walt 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
104 1 the notion that actually including the QHOs in the 2 rule ends up being more predictable and stable than if 3 we, for example, put in the quantitative and then 4 required the applicant to define the qualitative. I 5 understand the people who --
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: You mean backwards?
7 You put qualitative --
8 (Simultaneous speaking.)
9 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I'm sorry.
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- and require 11 applicant.
12 MR. RECKLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, 13 if we put the qualitative in the rule and required the 14 applicant to define quantitative, it would just open 15 up -- it moves the argument one down the road to the 16 application. And then you would have potentially 17 different applicants proposing different numerical 18 measures. If you're going to include even the 19 qualitative, the need to address it within the 20 analytical space is still going to be present.
21 It might make it more general, but the 22 arguments -- and from a licensing engineer point of 23 view the possibility of those items coming into 24 contention is basically the same. So we thought and 25 continue to think that having the actual quantitative NEAL 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 numbers in the rule provide a stability that is better 2 than having just the qualitative requirements.
3 So if we go to the next, it just continues 4 another set of bullets. We again can point to some --
5 I know again that they've traditionally been used not 6 as a front-line methodology, more as a supporting --
7 or even in the case I cited from the Fukushima, as 8 supporting for a regulatory decision, but that the 9 methodologies are there. The computer codes, the dose 10 conversion factors, the other things are out there and 11 can be built into a methodology that the staff could 12 find acceptable under Subpart C.
13 And then that would basically then provide 14 the vehicle to show that you're doing those 15 calculations in an acceptable way. And we've given an 16 example that although the standard doesn't 17 specifically include things like the dose conversion 18 factors, the non-light water reactor PRA standard does 19 call out to develop the mechanistic source term and do 20 the calculations of consequence and then as the 21 acceptance criteria in the form of dose consequences 22 such as meeting the Safety Goal Policy Statement.
23 In terms of surrogate measures we have 24 said and we'll say straight out in the Statement of 25 Considerations that to the degree that a designer or NEAL 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 a technology wants to define surrogate measures, we'd 2 be amenable to that. As has been said here many times 3 now, the CDF and LERF-type parameters are used 4 throughout the light water reactor PRAs, the 5 surrogates for the QHOs. That's kind of well-6 established.
7 But those same surrogates wouldn't apply 8 to other technologies and so you'd have to come up 9 with some other surrogate for even gas-cooled 10 reactors, or molten salt reactors, or liquid metal 11 sodium-cooled fast reactors, for examples.
12 We'd need different surrogates than has been 13 developed for light water reactor.
14 And then I mentioned last couple bullets 15 here of we did change it to calculated risk to 16 hopefully narrow it down and tie it to the analytical 17 methodologies and use fatalities to align with the 18 Safety Goal Policy Statement. And given the interest 19 in the topic we'll have quite a bit of discussion on 20 the use of the QHOs for the licensing-basis events 21 other than the design-basis accident as one of the 22 criteria.
23 So I see a hand raised.
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I don't think so, Bill.
25 I don't see 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
107 1 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, okay. All right. So 2 that's really the discussion of QHOs.
3 The other topic that, in engaging with 4 public stakeholders, there's been a lot of discussion 5 about is the ALARA and in -- so, Billy, I'm sorry, if 6 you'd go to the next slide -- the as low as reasonably 7 achievable provision that we include in Subpart B for 8 normal operations. And very similar language for 9 occupational exposure. So basically paragraph A cites 10 the Part 20 requirements. These are the numbers like 11 100 millirem in a year.
12 And then paragraph B is a broad statement.
13 It's generally applicable throughout Framework A. For 14 anybody -- and across the life cycle. So it brings in 15 the designers, for example, if you were going to apply 16 for a design certification. And that's where a lot of 17 the contention has come in. But basically as a 18 general requirement Framework A says the combination 19 of the design features and programmatic controls must 20 be established to keep the effluent releases to the 21 public. And again, in a similar statement under 22 Section 270 it says for occupational exposures that 23 combination needs to keep the dose to workers as low 24 as is reasonably achievable.
25 And the definition for as low as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
108 1 reasonably achievable would be from Part 20, and that 2 basically says take into account the state of the 3 technology, the economics of possible changes. For 4 example in Subpart I, which is very old -- Subpart I 5 to Part 50, that was $1,000 per person rem. More 6 recent calculations, and what's in at least a draft of 7 NUREG BR-58 on doing regulatory analysis, that number 8 is up around 5 or $6,000 per person rem.
9 But anyway, those are kind of the calculations 10 that you would do to see whether something was 11 reasonably achievable.
12 So, Billy, if you go to the next slide, 13 we'll just kind of go through some of the discussion 14 and the basis that we've provided.
15 The primary argument is that we are 16 carrying this requirement forward as its currently 17 included in 50.34a, which says that an applicant for 18 a design approval, design certification, or 19 manufacturing license has to meet the requirements 20 that were set out for a construction permit. And the 21 construction permit requirements are listed at the 22 bottom of that box, which says provide a preliminary 23 design of the equipment to be installed to keep the 24 effluents and the public dose as low as reasonably 25 achievable. And that really follows 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
109 1 evolution of the requirements in Parts 50 and 52.
2 If you think about a construction permit, 3 which is supported by the original set of regulations, 4 the design would have been included in the 5 construction permit and subsequent movement to the 6 operating license. The design was part of the 7 application along with the programmatic controls. And 8 so the rules were written that way that tell us what 9 design is going to contribute to ALARA, tell us the 10 programs under Part 20 would also be applicable to a 11 licensee.
12 Enter Part 52 and you now have a 13 regulatory decision based on the design, be it in a 14 design approval, a design certification, or a 15 manufacturing license. And so you've separated the 16 ultimate licensee -- in regulatory space you've 17 separated the licensee who is subject to Part 20 from 18 the designer who is submitting something for us to 19 certify and give finality to. And so that break in 20 how things fit together was fixed by 50.34a that said 21 if you're applying for a design cert, you need to give 22 us a description of how your design contributes to 23 ALARA.
24 So that's the history at least from my 25 vantage point. That's all we were trying to in place NEAL 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 in Part 53. And so we included in Subpart B that a 2 combination of the design and the programmatic 3 requirements needed to keep doses to the public and 4 doses to workers as low as reasonably achievable.
5 MEMBER HALNON: Bill, this is Greg. In 6 260 if you -- if that combination, design features and 7 programmatic controls, applies with the Part 20 8 suggested in A of that section, is that acceptable or 9 is there room for going lower and lower than what A 10 requires?
11 MR. RECKLEY: Well, A is the 100 millirem.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Right.
13 MR. RECKLEY: And so traditionally -- and 14 we're looking at language to put in to --
15 MEMBER HALNON: Well, yes --
16 MR. RECKLEY: -- provide --
17 MEMBER HALNON: -- looking at it from a 18 designer's perspective --
19 MR. RECKLEY: The performance goals -- if 20 you look at Appendix I to Part 50; and by the way, if 21 you look at the EPA regulations, the performance goals 22 are going to be less than 100. They're numbers more 23 like -- and I can't remember of the top of my head 24 what the numbers are in Subpart I, but they're single-25 digit, maybe 10 millirem performance goals. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
111 1 they're less than 100 by quite a bit.
2 MEMBER HALNON: But you see from a 3 designer's perspective they're trying to design their 4 plant and they can meet A with their design and 5 programmatic controls. After you meet requirements of 6 A and going into the requirements of B do they have to 7 make their design even more -- I don't have the right 8 word -- more effective I guess from a dose reduction 9 perspective? And then what target are they going for?
10 MR. RECKLEY: Well again, you're going to 11 the performance goals for a light water reactor that 12 are in Appendix I. That's likely to get revised 13 because that rule hasn't been updated for a long time.
14 Or you can look over at the EPA regulations which set 15 it at -- God, again at numbers like 10 or 15 millirem.
16 MEMBER HALNON: Then why have A in there 17 at all?
18 MR. RECKLEY: Well, A is applicable to 19 licensees and it's looking and saying between your 20 programmatic controls and your engineered features the 21 dose has to be less than 100. And if it ever exceeds 22 that, there are things that fall into play, reporting 23 requirements. That's a big deal. We've never had a 24 plant do that. So that's somewhat of a maximum 25 requirement that you would not expect to happen.
NEAL 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 The ALARA goes -- it's kind of what the 2 term phrase, is you're trying to keep the dose as low 3 as possible, as low as practical. I'm sorry, not 4 possible. And that's where again Appendix I -- and 5 how we would envision it would be done under Part 53.
6 You do a cost assessment of how much effluent am I 7 going to put out? And using a number like 5 or $6,000 8 per person rem is it practical, reasonably achievable 9 for me to get the effluent lower?
10 Now again, the performance goals in 11 Appendix I are in the single-digit rem -- millirem 12 numbers. So at some point once you get it down to a 13 certain point you would argue I've got it as low as 14 reasonable achievable because it's already some low 15 number.
16 MEMBER HALNON: I guess the subjectivity 17 of that's the hard part to design to because right now 18 ALARA really aims towards the practices of the REM 19 Program and how you design your work packages and 20 those types of things, because you're already given 21 the design. The equipment's there. You can't change 22 it.
23 MR. RECKLEY: Well, once you get into the 24 -- once you -- once you're in operations, once you're 25 the licensee of operating the plant, there are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
113 1 practical limitations on what you can do to change the 2 design, although 20.1101 might still have you look as 3 to whether a change to the design is reasonable for 4 either effluent release, which is uncommon, or worker 5 dose, which might be more common.
6 But that is kind of exactly the point. If 7 the designer gives no thought to ALARA and you are a 8 licensee that then has to adopt a program to keep the 9 dose as low as reasonably achievable, and there was no 10 onus put on the designer to take that into play, what 11 then would an operator be able to do? And given I've 12 given finality to the design as part of the design 13 certification, I've given up the most effective way to 14 limit the dose to workers and to the public, which is 15 to incorporate it into the design. So this --
16 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, and I want -- there 17 can't be argument with like what you just said. I 18 think it's the implementation of the subjectivity 19 and --
20 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
21 MEMBER HALNON: -- at what point do you 22 stop? And that's --
23 MR. RECKLEY: No, and --
24 MEMBER HALNON: -- part of the problem.
25 MR. RECKLEY: Well, and it 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
114 1 MEMBER HALNON: So you're --
2 MR. RECKLEY: It has been historically.
3 MEMBER HALNON: And your guidance will be 4 very important, so I guess --
5 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and --
6 MEMBER HALNON: -- the guidance that you 7 get to on this, a designer is going to have to put pen 8 to paper and figure out what's going to be acceptable 9 to staff. And that's where --
10 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Exactly.
11 MEMBER HALNON: Where do you stop it? I 12 mean, you can make it zero.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, no, this -- exactly.
14 And that is the underlying assumption, or underlying 15 issue with a lot of risk-informed approaches, right, 16 of when is enough enough? And so yes, the guidance --
17 and the next slide talks about that we have worked on 18 guidance as part of the advanced reactor content to 19 application process and try to allow a more integrated 20 approach where at -- even at the design stage the 21 designer would be able to tie it in with what 22 ultimately will be the programmatic controls in order 23 to support the application and limit the amount of 24 analysis that the staff does independently. All of 25 that is included in the ARCAP guidance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
115 1 So, Billy, if you can go to the next one?
2 And again, some of these points have already been 3 made. Again, we are -- think we're being consistent 4 with the regulation as they're currently laid out.
5 We'll acknowledge that this has been an issue in the 6 past, an area of contention between designers and the 7 staff. We've tried to address that through the 8 guidance, the ARCAP guidance. And we'll have much the 9 same discussion in the Statement of Considerations 10 again given the degree to which we've had to talk 11 about this with stakeholders.
12 So, if there's nothing more on Subpart B, 13 we can go to Subpart C.
14 MR. STUTZCAGE: Bill, could I just add 15 something? This is Ed Stutzcage at Radiation 16 Protection.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, please do, Ed.
18 MR. STUTZCAGE: Just real quick. Yes, I 19 think what we're trying to do is -- like Bill said, is 20 very similar to the way it's done in 50 and 52. And 21 just to talk about the public dose real quick, for 22 example, the -- I lost my train of thought. I'm 23 sorry.
24 So the requirement for the dose limit is 25 there, and you have to meet that. And then like Bill NEAL 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 tried to mention, Part 5, Appendix I has numerical 2 design objectives along with 50.34a, which then 3 references Appendix I -- has numerical design 4 objectives which kind of give dose values that are low 5 enough to meet as low as reasonable achievable. So I 6 think that maybe partly answers your question as to 7 what's low enough?
8 Now we're thinking of may having a little 9 bit more updated criteria potentially than what's in 10 Appendix I, but that's kind of how -- what kind of 11 lays the groundwork for when is your design good 12 enough to meet ALARA for the public dose? Does that 13 help?
14 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, it does. Thanks, Ed.
15 And I think the key thing, as you nailed it, is where 16 does the designer stop? I mean clearly every time --
17 if they have to RAIs and other things to negotiate 18 where that stopping point is, that's significant in 19 the design aspect of the plant. And I realize you can 20 add programmatic aspects in it, but many of the 21 programmatic aspects are not set this early in the 22 design aspect of it. So you might be promising some 23 programmatic aspect that either can't be done down the 24 road or maybe a commitment that they can't meet or 25 don't want to meet because of staffing issues or NEAL 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 whatever the case may be.
2 So that disconnect there puts the designer 3 in a very precarious position. Try to figure out do 4 I under-design and then see where I go with it or do 5 I over-design and hope that I get it through the staff 6 review? So that's kind of the point I'm trying to 7 make.
8 MR. STUTZCAGE: Right. Okay. Thanks.
9 MR. RECKLEY: And again, part of the 10 challenge -- and it's also part of the opportunity 11 that we have in taking a more integrated approach is 12 -- even at that design stage. Again through the ARCAP 13 guidance we're trying to say you can point and have 14 perhaps a more logical hand-off at the design stage b 15 telling us what you envision that the operator is 16 going to need to do. And that allows us to have a 17 smoother, hopefully a smoother path through the whole 18 life cycle, which is what we were trying to achieve 19 because -- anyway, I'll leave it there.
20 I know it would be a little different, but 21 again a more integrated approach where the designer 22 can say we took it this -- we take it this far. We 23 know there are programmatic requirements and here are 24 a couple of the high-level needs of that programmatic 25 requirement. And then the staff can way, okay, 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
118 1 know how that would work. And that can get carried 2 then through ultimately down the road where an 3 operator has to put those programmatic requirements in 4 place that would hopefully confirm what the designer 5 was laying out in the beginning. So --
6 MEMBER HALNON: Right. And that would be 7 a licensed operator, not a certified operator?
8 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, this is -- I'm sorry, 9 operator --
10 MEMBER HALNON: (Laughter.) That was a --
11 MR. RECKLEY: I know. I know.
12 MEMBER HALNON: -- a prelude to June.
13 MR. RECKLEY: I know. I know. Operator 14 in that -- licensee of --
15 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, okay.
16 MR. RECKLEY: -- this. Anyway, okay.
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, Bill, just a quick 18 comment. My view looking at this through an advanced 19 reactor lens is that design plays a role and 20 programmatic controls play a role and that -- let's 21 call it that ratio could be very different in the 22 advanced systems than in the current fleet because the 23 technologies are different and in fact better at 24 retaining radionuclides.
25 I always joke about how Fort St. Vrain, NEAL 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 you know, the gas reactor, you really didn't need the 2 film badge for the workers. You had to have it by 3 law. It's a very clean system. I think some of the 4 other systems will be that way, but then still others 5 I'm still trying to think through may be more 6 difficult. What I always thought when I read this is 7 it's this combination of the two and the historical 8 practice of how much of each may not be what the right 9 answer is in the advanced reactor space.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. I mean, that will be 11 the challenge that every technology, every design has 12 to really give this --
13 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Right.
14 MR. RECKLEY: -- thought. And you're 15 right, light water reactors have history. We kind of 16 know what -- where the radioactive materials go and 17 where you have to be careful in which -- but -- and 18 gas reactors would be different. And molten salt 19 reactor is going to be a different animal all 20 together, right?
21 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Right.
22 MR. RECKLEY: So yes, everybody will have 23 to give it some thought.
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: And there are designs out 25 there where they're putting the reactors sort of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
120 1 inside hot cells. I mean because they recognize that 2 what's in the coolant is quite radioactive.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
4 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. Thanks.
5 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. All right. So, okay, 6 we'll go to -- Billy, if we go to the next one?
7 Hopefully -- Dave, just process-wise I think we can 8 get Subpart C and then you can make a decision for 9 whether we want to take another break.
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Well, yes, lunch is 11 normally at noon, but if we can get through C, that 12 would be really good.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. We'll see.
14 So again, C is design and analysis 15 requirements. The layout was unchanged. It goes 16 through that -- again through that figure. You have 17 design features for licensing-basis events. And for 18 each design you would have to lay out what are the 19 functional design criteria for each of those design 20 features, for DBAs, and then for licensing-basis 21 events other than DBAs?
22 Dennis?
23 DR. BLEY: Yes, Bill. And C is where this 24 comes up. In our letter from a year ago we pointed 25 out that in an effort to come up with something less NEAL 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 than a full PRA the discussion on selection of 2 licensing-basis events and design-basis events became 3 a little -- well, I'll say unclear. It led to 4 situations where you could really be having a problem 5 with increasing risk.
6 I think that by separating out -- what are 7 we calling them, attachments -- Attachment B from 8 Attachment A you've gotten rid of most of that 9 language and that area now reads very much like the --
10 I forget what NEI the report number is, but the --
11 MR. RECKLEY: 18.04. Right.
12 DR. BLEY: Yes, okay. Reads pretty much 13 like the guidance there.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
15 DR. BLEY: If you can talk about that as 16 you go through --
17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
18 DR. BLEY: -- or do I have it kind of 19 right?
20 MR. RECKLEY: No, I think that's the way 21 we've moved. Yes.
22 DR. BLEY: Okay.
23 MR. RECKLEY: Walt?
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Bill, could you 25 point out now where the advanced reactor 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
122 1 criteria would be invoked? How do they fit now in 2 this outline that's in front of us? Where do they 3 come in?
4 It's a two-part question. The second part 5 is the extent that you for regulatory certainty would 6 refer to those as the basis for doing your preparation 7 of your SERs, for example?
8 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So within Framework 9 A the ARDC, the advanced reactor design criteria, 10 would be a logical place for a designer to start to 11 look at what are both the safety functions and the 12 design features, and to some degree some of them even 13 creep down into functional design criteria, and 14 include or consider those as they're doing the design 15 of the plant.
16 Ultimately the criteria that they would 17 need to meet are that echelon that I gave before. And 18 so we would in that context with Framework A not be 19 referring to the ARDC. We'd be saying that that 20 design has shown that it meets the performance metrics 21 under Subpart B and that they've adequately defined 22 the design features and the functional design criteria 23 to show that they've met those, along with some other 24 requirements that we have imbedded in Subpart C that 25 we'll get to in a minute. But we would not 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
123 1 referring to the ARDC.
2 Now in Framework B, a more traditional 3 framework, they may very well point to that and say 4 that is part of the basis for meeting the regulations.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: There wouldn't be a 6 requirement for the applicant to define their 7 principal design criteria?
8 MR. RECKLEY: Not in Framework A. But 9 again, if you go back to that echelon; and we talked 10 about this last year, that echelon figure, when you go 11 through the exercise you end up doing that. It's kind 12 of like which is the horse and which is the cart? In 13 a traditional approach experts over the years have 14 defined those design criteria and a designer can pick 15 them up and say I'm going to show I meet these. The 16 collective body of knowledge has said this is what I 17 need to meet and if I meet this, I've got a good 18 design. And then not to oversimplify, then we add on 19 bells and whistles like do a PRA to confirm it and so 20 forth.
21 Coming from on the other direction, 22 Framework A says redo all of that work that's 23 incorporated into the body of knowledge that formed 24 the GDC and come up with the necessary functions and 25 design features and functional design criteria to meet NEAL 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 risk metrics in Subpart B, some of which are the 2 same metrics that are used in the traditional 3 approach.
4 And that's what Dave and I were talking 5 earlier, you very often end up in the same place 6 because it is a similar exercise. It's just from a 7 designer's point of view. You're picking it up at a 8 different point. In the design criteria realm that 9 we're used to you're picking it up in the middle, and 10 the middle is there because the body of knowledge has 11 already defined it for you.
12 In Framework A we're telling people go 13 back one additional step and redo some of that work to 14 come up with things like design functions, safety 15 functions. So I know it's kind of hard to follow that 16 logic, but it is why we don't cite the pre-existing 17 general design or principal design criteria within 18 Framework A.
19 It's also a reason -- although they will 20 basically be similar when you're coming to the design 21 of a particular component in regards to like a 22 purchase specification. When I'm developing a 23 purchase specification for, as Charlie said, a 24 particular valve or motor, the functional design 25 criteria that are coming out of this exercise will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
125 1 support that purchase specification the same as the 2 principal design criteria route. We avoided calling 3 them that just so that we would keep straight that you 4 came at it from a slightly different direction.
5 I know that's -- it's almost 6 philosophical, but it's -- and it leads to probably 7 more questions than what I was trying to answer, but 8 that's why we --
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- following you.
11 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. That's why we don't 12 cite the principal design criteria within Framework A.
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. But now I'm 14 trying to play this out. By default the applicant 15 will in effect have to define -- let's take a 16 function. Containment, or reactivity, or electric 17 systems, or whatever. They will have to have a higher 18 level -- not using GDC -- a principal design criterion 19 for that safety function. And it would seem to me 20 efficient from a regulatory standpoint that they 21 borrowed from Reg Guide 1.232 or the GDCs. And that 22 in your engagement with the applicant from your side 23 there's general agreement on the applicability of 24 these higher-level design requirements so that there's 25 more certainty in the regulatory review 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
126 1 I mean there's the PRA numbers. I get all 2 that. You can review that, you can peer review it, 3 and then your staff can independently review it and so 4 on. And you come to agreement on the different 5 events, et cetera. But now you actually have to 6 design and build and procure -- design, procure, and 7 put together a constructed reactor. And at that point 8 the PRA has done its fundamental job. Now you're into 9 more conventional engineering.
10 And it would seem to me from the 11 standpoint of you and the applicant, the staff and the 12 applicant being of a similar mind these higher-level 13 -- agreement on those -- so you would then, when you 14 do your SERs and do your review, like you currently 15 do, you cite these higher level requirements like 16 reactivity control or containment or whatever. And 17 then there's a common ground both sides to -- what the 18 applicant has to provide you and what you are going to 19 be looking at to convince yourself that this 20 particular structure system or component meets the 21 functional requirements such that you have confidence 22 that the PRA numbers are right. Did I say that well?
23 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Oh, I did?
25 MR. RECKLEY: And I think that's the 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
127 1 it will work and we expect it to work, that people 2 aren't going to ignore all of that work and all of 3 that history. And you pick a good example of 4 reactivity. Let's pick that one.
5 So I'm a designer. GDC and ARDC say 6 you'll have these reactivity control systems. And 7 part of the logic for having that is that in the 8 absence of having that my backup cooling system has to 9 remove 1,000 megawatts of heat for a 300-megawatt 10 reactor, right? Well, that's not practical. That's 11 why I have a reactivity system to bring the heat 12 demand from our heat removal system down to a 13 manageable number, decay heat.
14 So that kind of logic is built into the GDC and 15 ARDC.
16 And for Framework A it will logically fall 17 out that unless I want to have a backup heat removal 18 that can bear the full capacity of the reactor, I'm 19 going to need a reactivity system to shut the reactor 20 down. And we point that out, but we say you identify 21 the function and fully expect that it will give you 22 the same answer. And all the history is for reactors 23 of much size, meaning hundreds of megawatts, it comes 24 out the same.
25 We will see when we get to microreactors NEAL 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 if some of those rules start to change a little bit in 2 terms of what are the functions and what are the role 3 of the different functions? But anyway. So I think 4 we're in agreement.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: We are, but I'm thinking 6 in the absence of citing principal design criteria, 7 then when you conduct your review would you fall back 8 on Reg Guide 1.232 and use those as the basis for 9 structuring your SER? Because currently that's -- to 10 first order that's what you do with the GDCs. You 11 cite applicable regulations. Here it could be 53.410 12 plus ARDC -- I forget the numbers for reactivity --
13 27.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You're looking at their 16 reactivity control system. Is that what you would do 17 if they don't provide you --
18 MR. RECKLEY: Well, this --
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- explicit principal 20 design criteria?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Something similar, but again 22 not in the terms of the principal design criteria, but 23 the safety functions that they have defined. And the 24 way I think that this would evolve -- I mean, you're 25 talking about safety evaluations and we're a ways away NEAL 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 from that yet, but if you look at the work that's 2 being done under the Technology-Inclusive Content 3 Applications Project, the industry-NRC exchanges, the 4 FSAR is proposed to be reorganized and to reflect what 5 the role of -- how they did this process and then what 6 are the roles of particular structures, systems, and 7 components in meeting those safety functions? And 8 then that determines how much those structures, 9 systems, and components need to be described in the 10 SAR.
11 I would think our safety evaluation would 12 be revised to follow a format more like that that 13 would come from the top down to say look, here's the 14 general discussion of the design, here's the safety 15 functions that have been defined for this reactor 16 design, here's then the design features and functional 17 design criteria that have been defined for those and 18 follow a structure like that. It's somewhat similar 19 to what you're saying. It's just following that top-20 down logic of the earlier figure.
21 Dennis, you have your hand up.
22 DR. BLEY: I do, and I want to say a 23 little bit about what Walt said, and then, I want to 24 come at this from a little different direction. And 25 maybe the TICAP stuff he just talked about fits 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
130 1 there well. I haven't completely reviewed where that 2 sits lately.
3 Walt kind of talked about, if you have a 4 PRA, and then, you go to design, well, now you've got 5 to -- if this works right and you use PRA in the 6 design process, it's all part of the design team. So, 7 somewhere you come up with a preliminary design, and 8 these concepts are around and you need to think of 9 them as you do that. And then, the PRA tells you 10 places where you can improve the design. And it 11 evolves.
12 And in the end, I agree with you, Bill, 13 when you've done all this, if the risk ends up high, 14 you can't live with it. If it doesn't, you've 15 probably met all of those things.
16 But let's go back to the Principal Design 17 Criteria and the GDCs. They didn't exist in the 18 beginning. They didn't exist in the fifties; they 19 didn't exist in the sixties. In the late sixties, 20 there started to be drafts of something like this, and 21 ACRS kind of pooh-poohed it saying, gee, that's just 22 kind of general knowledge stuff at the time.
23 But where it came from -- and those of the 24 older folks around will remember what became known as 25 the "regulatory ratchet" -- people would submit 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
131 1 questions, and the questions were kind of never-2 ending. And folks said, hey, is there a way we can 3 come up with something that will help curtail these 4 unending questions? And the GDC came out that way, 5 such that, if somebody could show they met the GDCs, 6 then the questions in that area were pretty well 7 answered ahead of time.
8 Now what I wanted to suggest to you is two 9 things. One is the designers are going to be using 10 something like that from the start. Otherwise, the 11 risk numbers are going to come out crazy. And it's 12 part of the general knowledge.
13 But that idea that it kind of helps in 14 communication between the regulator and the applicant 15 might come back here. I would also suggest, if I were 16 a reviewer on staff, I would pull out the Applicable 17 General Design Criteria or Principal Design Criteria 18 that I would have selected for this plant. And if 19 some of those weren't met, I'd start saying, "How 20 could the risk be good if this isn't met?" and really 21 make sure I understood that.
22 I don't quite get the logic for not having 23 people eventually state their Principal Design 24 Criteria, other than you don't really need to. And I 25 think that would give some common discussion grounds NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
132 1 along the way. And I don't think it would be a burden 2 because you will have already had to have done 3 something like that in this whole process.
4 So, that's a long ramble saying maybe it 5 wouldn't be a bad thing to say, eventually, you need 6 to define what your Principal Design Criteria are and 7 why they're a good thing, but I'm not really saying 8 you need to change anything. I'm saying just 9 something to think about.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Dennis, this is 12 Walt. I didn't mean to just put the PRA in a corner 13 after you had used it. Of course, what you suggest is 14 the optimum thing to iterate and keep improving the 15 design, getting the risk down.
16 I was thinking, I was approaching it more 17 what you said at the end, was in my mind. It's that, 18 if there's agreement upfront in the engagement between 19 the applicant and the staff on the PDCs, I think it 20 would provide a lot more regulatory certainty and 21 probably efficiency in getting to the end game.
22 That's my kind of overriding concern. So, that it's 23 not all freeform; that there's general agreement 24 amongst the applicant and the staff that, yes, these 25 are the criteria we're looking for to control 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
133 1 function or that function, whatever it is, unique to 2 this particular design.
3 If there isn't that kind of mental common 4 ground, then I think there will be trouble down the 5 road in getting to closure or endless AIs. Just an 6 observation, not a question, Bill.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Bill, I think at this 9 point we might as well take a break; we might as well 10 do lunch.
11 MR. RECKLEY: I was going to say, Dave, I 12 was overly optimistic. So, yes.
13 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Let's break for one hour.
14 Be back at 1:15 Eastern.
15 Thanks.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 12:14 p.m. and resumed at 1:15 p.m.)
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay, folks, we're back.
19 Bill, are you out there?
20 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
23 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Let's hope we can go 24 faster here.
25 MR. RECKLEY: I was just getting ready 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
134 1 say, historically, Subpart B garners the most 2 attention. So, I think we will be able to pick up the 3 pace, as we go forward.
4 So, we ended on this slide with just the 5 kind of table of contents for Subpart C. Little has 6 changed. I'll get to the last item on earthquake 7 engineering on the last slide for this subpart.
8 So, Billy, if we could go to the next one?
9 Just a few things to point out. Again, 10 not necessarily major changes, but things you might 11 have noticed, if you looked at the second iteration of 12 the consolidated text.
13 We clarified references to use of 14 consensus codes and standards, primarily by adding the 15 fact that they needed to be in some form accepted by 16 the NRC. That's just a requirement that we cannot 17 kind of have an open reference to something like a 18 consensus code and standard without closing the loop 19 and saying that the NRC has found that to be 20 acceptable.
21 We added or clarified the aircraft impact 22 requirements. Again, this is just bringing over the 23 requirements from Part 50, Section 150, and 24 incorporating it into the design requirements.
25 In the February version, I believe 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
135 1 added a requirement, 440(k), to address chemical 2 hazards related to licensed materials. This was 3 primarily in response to ACRS observations kind of 4 early in our interactions, and then, also, reflects 5 even recent discussions. For example, in your April 6 4th letter following up on the meeting we had on 7 source terms, the ACRS made a mention of chemical 8 hazards. And so, we did add a requirement, a design 9 requirement, that chemical hazards needed to be 10 considered, along with the radiological hazards of a 11 release. We plan on pulling in guidance as much as we 12 can from fuel cycle facilities that already include a 13 requirement in this area.
14 And the last bullet on this slide, we 15 picked up something we had missed early on, and that 16 is that the design needs to address the requirements 17 in Part 20, Section 1406, that during the design it 18 has to consider and minimize the contamination, 19 largely in support of longer-term decommissioning of 20 the facility.
21 So, Billy, if you could go to the next 22 one?
23 One of the changes that Mike had picked up 24 on, if you looked through -- and I'll address this on 25 the next slide -- is we clarified the need that, 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
136 1 addition to the cumulative risk metric that we talked 2 about earlier in Subpart B, the quantitative health 3 objectives. When the analysis is done, you need to 4 define acceptance or evaluation criteria for each 5 event that you're analyzing.
6 And that was always intended. That's 7 reflected in the Licensing Modernization Project and 8 Regulatory Guide 1.233. It's just that we wanted to 9 clarify and emphasize that. So, there's now a 10 sentence. I'll show it on another slide.
11 And then, another thing within Subpart C 12 is, with the consolidation of all the QA requirements 13 in Subpart K, we clarified within the section related 14 to the categorization of structure systems and 15 components that safety-related equipment are required 16 to meet the requirements in Subpart K, and non-safety-17 related, but safety-significant equipment can or may 18 cite Subpart K when that is needed to provide either 19 the capability or reliability of that particular 20 system or component. So, one is a requirement for 21 safety-related, and one is an "as appropriate" for 22 non-safety-related, but safety-significant SSCs.
23 That's just to clarify matters. That's 24 generally consistent with how it's done now. Safety-25 related equipment meets Appendix B equipment that 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
137 1 relied on for beyond design basis events. It usually 2 has an allowance to use Appendix B, but not a 3 requirement and such. We've used terms like augmented 4 quality to differentiate between simply commercial 5 grade equipment. But, anyway, again, generally 6 consistent with current practice.
7 Billy, if we can go to the next --
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Can I ask you a 9 question? I have a question.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Are these the same 12 requirements from Framework A and Framework B?
13 MR. RECKLEY: Again, since we're 14 reflecting in large part the traditional approach, I 15 would say it's very consistent. When Framework B is 16 presented in June, they can maybe provide a little 17 more detail. But generally consistent, yes.
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. Because you 19 said that Framework A is the PRA base. So, I 20 wondering, are you going to use pure deterministic 21 criteria to determine a safety classification? And 22 you are telling here we are using the same criteria we 23 always use and only going to consider the --
24 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, yes, I guess maybe I 25 should be clear. The criteria for the designation 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
138 1 safety-related equipment might be slightly different.
2 However, the treatment -- and that's what I meant on 3 this slide; I apologize -- the treatment of that 4 equipment that is categorized as safety-related would 5 be the same between the two because they're both 6 picking up the requirements based currently in 7 Appendix B to Part 50 and in Subpart K in this current 8 discussion. So, the criteria for entry might be 9 slightly different, but, once categorized, the 10 requirements would be the same.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, you know why 12 I asked you. Because if you use a PRA categorization, 13 then they will not be safety-significant, SSCs which 14 are not safe activity, right? All safety-significant 15 SSCs could be designated the safety -- I mean, that 16 was my question, you know, because I was always 17 against having this category if we are going to use 18 the risk insight in categorization of safety, and 19 then, you know.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Uh-hum.
21 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I thought that that 22 could be the difference between A and B, but it's not.
23 So, okay.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So, Billy, if we go 25 to the next slide?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
139 1 This just highlights that sentence that I 2 mentioned, that the analysis -- this is in the 3 analysis section, 450 -- "The analysis of licensing 4 basis events, other than design basis accidents, must 5 define the evaluation criteria for each event or 6 specific categories of licensing basis events."
7 And I'll just kind of quickly show that on 8 the next slide. Using the Licensing Modernization 9 Project as an example, and using slides back from the 10 day when we were presenting these to the ACRS, this 11 is, basically, all we're trying to say with that 12 sentence, is that all of the event sequences 13 categorized as anticipated operational occurrences 14 would have to define some acceptance criteria within 15 the NEI 18-04 methodology. That's generally the 16 consequence limits from Part 20.
17 And if you go down to the next slide, 18 Billy, it just goes up by category. Then, for under 19 LMP, what was called design basis events, we changed 20 that to "unlikely event sequences" within Part 53, 21 but, generally, the same meaning.
22 And you have some alternative -- you have 23 another set of evaluation criteria. In this 24 particular case, it would be a sliding scale, based on 25 frequency, ending at the maximum dose of 25 rem, at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
140 1 the exclusionary boundary at a frequency of once in 2 every 10,000 years.
3 And then, again, continuing the example 4 for -- and, Billy, go to the next slide; yes, thank 5 you -- under LMP, what was called beyond design basis 6 events, what Part 53 refers to is very unlikely event 7 sequences. You have the frequency consequence target 8 for those lower frequency events.
9 So, all this is saying is you need 10 something like either the frequency consequence target 11 figure or some alternative to judge each event 12 sequence that's being identified. And then, in 13 addition to these, you need to meet the cumulative 14 risk metric from Subpart B.
15 So, Billy, if you'd go to the next one?
16 And again, I'm not spending much time.
17 This has really not changed since either the LMP 18 discussions with the Subcommittee or our discussions 19 last year. Whenever I'm talking about licensing basis 20 events, I do like to emphasize that, in addition to 21 those analyzed as part of the probabilistic risk 22 assessment -- those were the previous three 23 categories-- licensing basis events does include a 24 more deterministic evaluation of design basis 25 accidents. That is required in Part 53 under 450(f).
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
141 1 And again, this has not changed since our last 2 discussions with the Subcommittee; that the role and 3 nature of the design basis accidents is the same.
4 So, Billy, if you want to go to the next 5 slide?
6 This is just the words out of LMP. And 7 again, just not a change. Whereas, in Part 53, we're 8 trying not to limit the approach and the requirements 9 to exactly that of the LMP, it does mirror in many 10 respects the Licensing Modernization Project, because 11 we have always said that our goal was to make sure 12 that that methodology would be one acceptable way to 13 meet Part 53, Framework A.
14 So, Billy, with that, I think we can go to 15 the next slide.
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 17 Kirchner.
18 MR. RECKLEY: Yes?
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Can you go back two 20 slides?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Just there is a foot --
23 yes, this one here. The safety criteria in 53.210, 24 those include the QHOs, right?
25 MR. RECKLEY: No. For design basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
142 1 accidents and the safety criteria in Section 210, this 2 would be referring to the 25 rem --
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Oh, okay. Yes.
4 MR. RECKLEY: -- at the exclusion --
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Right.
6 MR. RECKLEY: -- at the exclusionary 7 boundary.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: All right. Thank you 11 for the clarification.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
13 So, Billy, I think we can go to, yes, this 14 one.
15 So, one change that is kind of significant 16 that was not talked about in 2021 with the ACRS, but 17 this showed up in the version we released in February 18 and in the most recent second iteration of the 19 consolidated text, was the addition of a section in 20 the Design and Analysis Requirements, Section 53.480.
21 And this relates to earthquake engineering and 22 reflects the traditional importance of seismic in the 23 assessment of risk and in the design of nuclear power 24 plants.
25 So, what the section on earthquake NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
143 1 engineering is trying to support is a more risk-2 informed approach, as reflected in more recent codes 3 and standards issued by the American Nuclear Society 4 and the one referenced here, more specifically, the 5 American Society of Civil Engineers, in the Standard 6 4-19, Seismic Design for Structures, Systems, and 7 Components.
8 And this has been under discussion with 9 the ACRS in regards to Draft Regulatory Guides 1.251 10 and 1.252, which involves the use of seismic 11 isolators.
12 DR. BLEY: We haven't had that discussion 13 with you yet, Bill. That's been put off.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I know. So, maybe I 15 should have said, "Some initial planning discussions 16 have been held."
17 And our thought would be that those Reg 18 Guides would be a better vehicle than today to kind of 19 explore this with the Committee.
20 All we're trying to do in Part 53 is to 21 allow that type of approach, within Framework A, allow 22 that kind of approach, if someone wanted to use it.
23 If they want to use the traditional Appendix S 24 approach, we think that can be accommodated within the 25 Framework A, but we also wanted to allow this other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
144 1 approach that allows you to consider the seismic 2 design categories and the limit states or damage 3 states. That can vary based on the importance of the 4 equipment.
5 We are in the process of issuing a white 6 paper on this with a little more specificity than our 7 previous. We had issued, two years ago, a white paper 8 and had a couple of public meetings and a workshop.
9 We're preparing to release another white paper, which 10 is actually in the format of these Regulatory Guides, 11 and use that as a vehicle to engage stakeholders, have 12 a public meeting, and engage the ACRS. So --
13 DR. BLEY: Bill?
14 MR. RECKLEY: Go ahead.
15 DR. BLEY: Since, at least from where I 16 live, seismic risk has been part of the PRA and has 17 evolved over the years like many other parts of PRA 18 methodology, it's not clear to me why you need this, 19 something special on earthquake engineering. Can you 20 specify it a little better? I mean, if they've done 21 a PRA --
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
23 DR. BLEY: -- a seismic PRA that meets the 24 standards for seismic PRA, why do we need this?
25 MR. RECKLEY: This goes more -- and 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
145 1 apologize; the experts on this weren't available 2 today, but I'll give you my brief explanation, and 3 then, we might have another IOU for you, Dennis.
4 But the reason to have this is the 5 translation, if you will, from the PRA to actual 6 designers, so that they can actually reflect, if you 7 will, the fragility of equipment and, for a particular 8 piece of equipment, define what the damage state might 9 be, and within the civil engineering world, what kind 10 of model I can use. Can I go beyond 11 inelastic/elastic, those kind of discussions, in the 12 assessment? And to define a design category, so that 13 I can translate that, again, over into a specification 14 for an actual piece of equipment.
15 But Marty or somebody else might be able 16 to give a better explanation than I have.
17 But it is to be consistent with the PRA; 18 however, to help in the translation of the PRA over to 19 the actual procurement and design of a piece of 20 equipment.
21 DR. BLEY: Well, my confusion comes from 22 the fact that those kind of earthquake experts, both 23 in structures and in geology seismicity, developed the 24 whole approach for seismic PRA --
25 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
146 1 DR. BLEY: -- from the design over. And 2 why they need this coming back, I'm not --
3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. All right.
4 DR. BLEY: -- it isn't completely clear to 5 me.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And I'll just say 7 that those same experts are involved in this part of 8 the activity. And so, I don't know if anyone else on 9 the staff might be on to help in this regard, because 10 I probably already passed my point of comfort.
11 DR. BLEY: And if need it here, do we need 12 it in other areas?
13 Marty's not jumping on this one.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. And again, Cliff 15 Munson, Jim Xu, the people that could answer your 16 question specifically, they just weren't available 17 today.
18 DR. BLEY: Okay.
19 MR. RECKLEY: So, as the last bullet said, 20 future interactions with the ACRS we expect to have.
21 And I've heard, potentially, even later this year 22 through the guidance documents. And so, we'll close 23 the loop there.
24 All we were trying to do in Part 53 is to 25 make sure we could accommodate this kind of an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
147 1 approach. So, if you get a chance to read that 2 section, certainly, we'd be open to any observations 3 that the Committee might have or members might have.
4 So, Billy, if we can go to the next one?
5 Now we get into some of the other subparts 6 that have built off of the foundations that are in 7 Subparts B and C.
8 So, Subpart D was the siting requirements.
9 We presented that in the middle of last year, I 10 believe, to the Subcommittee.
11 There's not a lot of changes, even in this 12 second iteration. Keeping in mind that Framework A 13 decided to include Subpart D on siting as an 14 alternative to going into Part 100 and making changes 15 to Part 100 to try to accommodate Framework A, so 16 Framework A doesn't refer to Part 100. It, instead, 17 has Subpart D. But many of the requirements are taken 18 from Part 100.
19 So, we have the need to identify external 20 hazards, identify site characteristics, things like 21 meteorology, the water table. Again, nothing new 22 under Framework A, as is needed to support the 23 traditional framework really.
24 Some population-related considerations, 25 again, still taking from Part 100, and then, the need NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
148 1 to identify interfaces between the siting and the 2 analysis and design features of the plant.
3 The changes we made since probably 4 presenting last year to the ACRS:
5 We had missed that some siting activities 6 are actually related to safety-related equipment or 7 needed to support safety-related equipment, and if so, 8 then those activities would need to be captured under 9 the QA requirements now in Subpart K. So, that's 10 just, again, part of the internal review and catching 11 where we had missed something.
12 And then, there are some changes, based on 13 the subject I just talked about, under the design, 14 where a couple of changes were made to Subpart D to 15 reflect the earthquake engineering section in Subpart 16 C.
17 So, those things need to get looked at in 18 parallel. And again, I'd propose that, in terms of 19 interactions with the ACRS, that would be done under 20 your pending look at Draft Regulatory Guide 1.251.
21 DR. BLEY: Is it fair to ask you a 22 question about that?
23 MR. RECKLEY: It's fair to ask. I'll tell 24 you if I can answer or not.
25 DR. BLEY: Okay. We were confused by what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
149 1 was going on there and found those interesting.
2 When you say you're writing a white paper, 3 I was thinking back to the ones you wrote in the 4 Fukushima effort, which, then, kind of took over and 5 rewrote some existing guidance and expanded it. Is 6 your white paper going to be like that or is it just 7 explaining these two documents a little better?
8 MR. RECKLEY: No, again, the white paper 9 we're expecting to release is, basically, an early 10 version of the Regulatory Guide. So, it goes into the 11 same level of detail that a Regulatory Guide would.
12 Part of the issue that we had in trying to 13 move forward on these Reg Guides is that this would be 14 an alternative to Appendix S under Parts 50 or 52.
15 DR. BLEY: Uh-hum.
16 MR. RECKLEY: So, in terms of being able 17 to support it in the actual regulations without 18 requiring an exemption, the first opportunity we would 19 have is in Part 53. Well, we can't issue a Regulatory 20 Guide to a rule that doesn't exist yet. So, we just 21 got caught up in process here about how to move 22 forward on these Reg. Guides.
23 The work was basically done. The staff in 24 Research and NRR, working with the Southwest Research 25 Institute, had basically done the work, but we were 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
150 1 a quandary as to how get it out to the public, given 2 it was guidance to a rule that didn't exist yet. So, 3 that's why we're going to this white paper route, and 4 then, we'll bring it to the ACRS.
5 DR. BLEY: Okay. Bill, will there still 6 be two Reg. Guides? Will there be two white papers or 7 is it integrated?
8 MR. RECKLEY: There's, basically, 9 Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the white paper.
10 DR. BLEY: Okay.
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. So, Bill, just 12 for clarification -- this is Walt -- since I have the 13 responsibility for this, I've shared the previous 14 information you've had that's not publicly available 15 on the, quote-unquote, "trial" versions of the two Reg 16 Guides.
17 So, basically, what you're saying is the 18 white paper likely will just attach those two draft 19 documents at this point and --
20 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Because at least 1.251 22 looked fairly complete to me --
23 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- in its initial draft 25 version.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
151 1 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Again, what we were 2 faced with was how to move -- it was more a process 3 than a technical question.
4 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. All right. Thank 5 you.
6 MR. RECKLEY: So, we backed up a step and 7 we're going to issue them through this white paper, 8 but it will look a lot like what you've seen. Okay?
9 So, I think we can, if there's no more on 10 siting or earthquake engineering -- and again, we'll 11 be in touch with Derek on how to move forward on those 12 Regulatory Guides. And we'll let you know when we 13 schedule the public meeting to discuss them, so that 14 members interested can listen in on the public 15 meeting.
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes. Just for a note, 17 Kent Howard is the ACRS staff --
18 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thank you.
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- on that, but he works 20 closely with Derek. So, that will be fine.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
23 MR. RECKLEY: All right. Thank you.
24 All right. So, we can go to Subpart E.
25 Again, if you were to look in the redline/strikeout NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
152 1 version compared to what you saw last year, most of 2 the changes would be the removal of the QA 3 requirements because we moved them to Subpart K. So, 4 not actually changing the technical requirements or 5 the QA expectations, we just moved them and 6 consolidated them in Subpart K.
7 Another change -- and this was, again, 8 just internal review -- we added a section on the 9 slide here, second bullet or second section, 605, on 10 the reporting of defects and non-compliances. That 11 was carried over, largely unchanged from the current 12 requirements in 50.55(e), just to reflect the 13 importance of keeping the NRC informed of any problems 14 encountered during construction.
15 And then, within the sections on 16 manufacturing licenses, we elaborated and expanded a 17 little bit on the earlier drafts on the loading of 18 fuel and added more specific references to Part 70, 19 which is the handling of special nuclear material, as 20 the primary vehicle that we would use to support the 21 loading of fuel inside the manufacturing licensed 22 facility to support the manufactured reactor modules.
23 So, I think we had talked about this -- I 24 know we did in public meetings -- that Part 70 25 provides a lot of controls, and all we really intended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
153 1 to do in this revision was to capture them, to cite 2 them more directly as being the measures we would use 3 to support an application and do the review of anyone 4 proposing to load fuel in the factory.
5 Any questions on that?
6 I know that was a fairly hefty document 7 that we released, and members may not have had a 8 chance to look through it all. But, for those that 9 have a particular interest in this manufacturing, I 10 would just refer you to that 53.620, and it's at the 11 back of that section where we talk about the loading 12 of fuel in a factory.
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill?
14 MR. RECKLEY: Uh-hum.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: This is Walt again.
16 Reflecting on the earlier conversation 17 this morning on nomenclature, it just struck me, one, 18 you've already reviewed an applicant's submittal that 19 uses the word, in their case, "power module." I think 20 you know who I'm referring to. It might be useful to 21 add an extra word and say, "a fuels module," to be 22 very, very clear what you intend in that section and 23 where --
24 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Just an observation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
154 1 because their nomenclature already has wide 2 circulation in the open literature.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thank you.
4 This is an area we struggled with, to be 5 honest. We tried to use a word other than "module."
6 Well, we could just --
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: No, module I think is 8 fine.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: It's just I think maybe 11 you just elaborate with one more word.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. We'll take under --
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
14 MR. RECKLEY: It sounds good on the first 15 suggestion. So, we'll go back and look at that.
16 Because, again, we understand that the word "module,"
17 "modular," related words, have been used so much, that 18 we did really search for an alternative. And every 19 one we could think of had some other issue that made 20 it worse. So, thank you.
21 MEMBER REMPE: But, Bill, when we did our 22 letter on emergency planning, we discussed -- I think 23 that was that letter -- about how you'll deal with how 24 many modules can be delivered to a place where it's 25 being deployed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
155 1 And if we think about earlier this morning 2 when I was asking about what happens if it has to come 3 back to the manufacturing facility because it didn't 4 go as planned when they tried to deploy it, and in our 5 response to the letter, or the staff's response to our 6 letter, they said, oh, well, a site will be licensed 7 after a certain number of number of modules.
8 I'm wondering about the manufacturing 9 facility also, because how many can they have -- you 10 know, I assume that where they fabricate the module 11 will be a limited space. And as they're doing 12 production, how many can be parked outside in the 13 parking lot before it can go on the road to a site?
14 And then, if the site sends it back, will 15 you guys have some sort of siting requirement on how 16 many fueled modules you can have at a manufacturing 17 facility, and where would I find that in the guidance?
18 Because, I mean, right now, some of this stuff I only 19 know about is in something the staff sent back to us 20 in a response to our letter. Where would I find that 21 kind of information, if I was trying to get a facility 22 licensed?
23 MR. RECKLEY: Currently, there's two 24 things, I think, that would address this, but this is 25 a discussion, 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
156 1 One is, one thing that we are limiting 2 this current iteration is that the fuel loaded is 3 unirradiated, right? So, we're not capturing at this 4 point any reprocessing that could reflect that the 5 fueled module is anything other than fresh fuel.
6 That is intended to somewhat limit the 7 need for how much protection needs to be provided in 8 terms of radiological releases. You still have to be 9 analyzed for specific events and prevent criticality, 10 and so forth, but at the factory it will be limited to 11 fresh fuel in this round.
12 If down the road there's a desire to 13 consider closing the fuel cycle and bringing them back 14 and refurbishing, and things like that, that is being 15 discussed in some circles, that might be done in the 16 future, but this round is only addressing the loading 17 of fresh fuel.
18 The other aspect of that, we don't 19 currently have a limit built into the rule, but I 20 would envision that the manufacturing license 21 application would be an opportunity for us, if we 22 needed to say you're limited to a certain number of 23 fueled modules in storage, or whatever.
24 MEMBER REMPE: That would be a good place 25 for the second question. I liked that response and 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
157 1 hope it's somewhere understood in some documentation.
2 But, with respect to your first response, 3 remember, I asked you earlier about what you've termed 4 as "physics testing." Is that still considered fresh 5 fuel, if you've done some physics testing on it?
6 And then, I would be careful of somewhere, 7 like in the preamble or the red test at the beginning 8 of these documents, you clearly state we're only 9 considering fresh fuel. Again, if they didn't run it, 10 if they try to bring it critical, it's going to come 11 back. Or maybe they only run it for a few hours and 12 something doesn't work. Is it still considered fresh 13 fuel?
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Joy, I think the answer 15 is no. But what would be --
16 MEMBER REMPE: I'd like the staff to 17 respond. Okay?
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, but, okay, but I 19 want to point out something, if I may, please.
20 That is, if they were with the fresh fuel 21 -- I'll let Bill answer your question -- if they were 22 to do any kind of critical physics testing, what you 23 will do, and what has been done, is you go and you 24 make an approach to criticality, but you do not take 25 it into the power range and generate a fission product NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
158 1 inventory. And that's typically -- I shouldn't say, 2 "typically" -- these are special cases that were done 3 in the past.
4 But, to answer part of your question --
5 MEMBER REMPE: Well, Walt, is that in the 6 guidance anywhere? I'm not asking for the actual 7 answer. I'm asking, where does one find out the 8 answer? Okay, Walt? And I don't think there's any 9 guidance that says this clearly, right?
10 MR. RECKLEY: Right. So, if I can, first 11 of all, we're jumping ahead insofar as what's 12 currently in 53 doesn't allow physics testing at the 13 factory. So, if we go there, some of these are the 14 questions. And to be honest, some of these are the 15 hurdles that might keep us from getting there because 16 we need to answer all these questions.
17 But, for both of you, I guess the answer 18 is probably, once you've done some amount of 19 operations, it wouldn't be considered, quote, "fresh 20 fuel" anymore, although, to Walt's point, the plan I 21 don't believe would be to generate significant 22 inventories of fission products during this limited 23 testing that would be done in the factory.
24 There would be some, of course, but not --
25 but all of that, we would -- again, all of that 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
159 1 what we would have to address, either in the summer, 2 if it gets included, or perhaps in a subsequent 3 action, if we're not able to close that loop to 4 support physics testing in the factory.
5 Joy, your other question of, "What happens 6 if it gets shipped back?" -- let us take that as a 7 takeaway, because I don't have an answer, to be 8 honest.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, and again, it's 10 something that the design developers will lead you.
11 I agree with what you said on what issues have to be 12 addressed in Part 53. But, on the other hand, if they 13 haven't had much experience with this, helping them 14 think about some things that they might want to think 15 about, so that they're not stuck without -- you know, 16 I don't think people expected that EBR-1 wouldn't go 17 critical when they tried the first time, is why I 18 brought that example up today.
19 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, and this is good.
20 And again, it's one of those rare opportunities, I 21 think, where the whole concept is being developed, not 22 only on the regulatory side, but on the technology and 23 vendor side kind of at the same time.
24 So, some of this, as we have any idea, 25 we'll have to solicit feedback from them and other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
160 1 members of the public, and vice versa. As they kind 2 of develop how this might work, then we can look at it 3 and say, "Oh, now we have a better idea of how to 4 develop a regulation."
5 That's why, speaking selfishly, it's kind 6 of nice that DOD and the Pele Project might be an 7 opportunity to learn some lessons. Again, from our 8 point of view on the regulatory side, that's being 9 done in the transportation arena, but we can also look 10 at it on the reactor side to see what we might need to 11 do.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Dennis?
14 DR. BLEY: Yes, sir. Thinking back to 15 earlier this morning, Walt and Joy had a discussion 16 about these issues. And while I agree with Walt that 17 we've done stuff like this before, looking at your 18 section that you sent us to, 53.620, and the section 19 that deals with loading fuel, it says, if you're going 20 to do that, you have to have three things in place:
21 radiation monitoring, criticality monitoring, and 22 procedures, equipment, and personnel to handle fresh 23 fuel, load it, and monitor the activity.
24 I'm kind of surprised you didn't have a 25 fourth about a means to control the reactivity 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
161 1 whatever shipping form this is in. And that kind of 2 goes to where Walt and Joy were talking earlier.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and I'm not an expert.
4 That would get picked up in Part 71. It's either 5 already there or the requirements would already be 6 there under Part 71.
7 DR. BLEY: Well, that's probably true for 8 all three things that you already include in the --
9 MR. RECKLEY: Well, but 71 is for the 10 transport. The things that we were listing would be 11 what you need to do for the factory floor. And then, 12 in addition to those things that are relatively high-13 level, again, we would point to Part 70, and that's 14 where they would be required to do their safety 15 assessment; make sure they had contingencies for 16 criticality protections against inadvertent 17 criticality. And so, by reference, we're bringing in 18 all of those from Part 70.
19 DR. BLEY: Okay. And in your 20 transportation section, you do refer to Part 71 and 73 21 for that. Okay.
22 MEMBER REMPE: So, I'm not sure -- and I 23 haven't looked at 71 and 73 -- but, today, we were 24 talking about the fact that, even though spent fuel is 25 transferred, they don't have control rods in the spent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
162 1 fuel. And if something were to happen where it -- I 2 mean, you said verbally, "Yeah, I think we'll have to 3 have extra controls to make sure the control rods 4 don't jiggle around unexpectedly." Is that kind of 5 information going to be in Part 71 or 73 or a hook 6 that will make people go look --
7 CHAIRMAN PETTI: It's there.
8 MEMBER REMPE: -- for the guidance?
9 It's in there and --
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: They have to remain 11 subcritical, even if submerged in water.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, but --
13 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, that's very reactive.
14 So that they have to make sure they have rods at 15 the --
16 DR. BLEY: Yes, I believe they do.
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: And they have to do drop 18 tests to make sure that everything holds together, so 19 that things don't move where they shouldn't move.
20 MEMBER REMPE: And that's in 71 or it 21 points to the guidance? I mean, I wouldn't think 71 22 would say you've got to do drop tests. It just says 23 maintain criticality --
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: No. Well, I don't know 25 if it's in the guidance to 71, but drop tests are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
163 1 required.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, that's in 71, or at 3 least the need to address certain foreseeable 4 transportation accidents in there.
5 CHAIRMAN PETTI: If I have a fire.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Right. You have fire, 8 puncture tests, drop tests --
9 MEMBER REMPE: And so, well, the guidance 10 needs to be --
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- and criticality.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Won't the guidance need to 13 be updated to support that for a reactor?
14 MR. RECKLEY: It may be appropriate, Joy.
15 It's not -- I mean, the systems now rely primarily on 16 geometry and poisons that would be in the casks.
17 The transport of a reactor and the 18 reliance on something like control rods will be a 19 change. Our discussions -- and again, I'm not an 20 expert in this -- our discussions with NMSS to date 21 have been they think they can accommodate that within 22 the general requirements that Dave was mentioning, 23 although that's not typically done now. Because, 24 again, you're relying on poisons within the casks and 25 geometry to resist things, like Dave mentioned, 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
164 1 addition of water or moderators.
2 So, yes, it will be different, but that's 3 one of the reasons that, even now, we have discussions 4 ongoing between the Department of Defense, through the 5 Pele Project; DOE, and DOD, and Pele, with NMSS on the 6 transportation issues. And I'm really hoping --
7 selfishly, I guess -- that that will address a lot of 8 the questions you have.
9 And once they solve it for that, which 10 might get looked at as an isolated case, because they 11 will have down-selected by that point -- at some 12 point, they will down-select it to an individual 13 vendor.
14 But the issues and the work with that 15 vendor will lead to what you're suggesting. And I'm 16 not arguing that it's not appropriate to do guidance, 17 but that work is being done kind of in parallel. And 18 that's an opportunity for us to actually look at a 19 real-world case and use that, then, to develop 20 guidance.
21 MEMBER REMPE: And those real-world cases 22 are considering one or two types. What about other 23 types? For example, they keep talking about adding 24 water in a sodium environment. They're considering, 25 will have to consider a broad range of types 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
165 1 chemicals and materials.
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: All I can tell you is, at 3 least from the Project Pele perspective, there's a 4 team of expertise from the laboratories supporting the 5 project. And although the designers aren't happy with 6 the requirements, because they are extremely 7 difficult, nobody is saying, "Oh, there's no way to 8 meet it. You know, it doesn't work."
9 The requirements are written in a way that 10 you can apply them. Yes, it's not a cask. It's a 11 package.
12 MEMBER REMPE: So, those are DOE or DOD 13 requirements --
14 CHAIRMAN PETTI: No, no, no, no. These 15 are NRC requirements. These are people -- DOE has a 16 whole bunch of people who support transportation, and 17 they brought those experts in to help the project side 18 get ready and have some of these discussions with NRC.
19 And there's nobody saying, "Oh, no, it 20 won't work. We can't make it work for a reactor."
21 Yes, we can. The designers won't like it, but the 22 rules are written in a way that they believe they can 23 apply them, at least, you know, for this first of a 24 kind. As Bill said, you'll, then, want to learn and 25 clarify some things, but it's not like fundamentally NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
166 1 there's a problem with it. They think they can do 2 that.
3 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, I don't think there's 4 a problem. I just don't think we've thought about all 5 the guidance to support it, is where I'm trying to 6 think about it. And again, I haven't looked at what 7 the guidance clearly says at this time, but that's 8 where I'm going. And it's hard to say the rule is 9 adequate when you can't see the guidance.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So, Vicki, you've 11 been very patient. Thank you.
12 MEMBER BIER: Hey, everybody else is going 13 to have to be patient. I hate to do this, but can you 14 go back slide 14 on QHOs? I will try and keep this 15 brief and maybe address anything through written 16 followup next week, or something, if needed.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
18 MEMBER BIER: All right. So, the language 19 on slide 14 I think was briefed to ACRS a year ago, 20 which would have been like probably my first meeting.
21 So, maybe I was overwhelmed and not catching it.
22 But the Part B, which is where it gets 23 quantitative, it strikes me that what is appropriate 24 for, say, a 1,000-megawatt facility may be very 25 different than what is appropriate for a microreactor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
167 1 that is powering, say, a single factor, or whatever.
2 And the previous slide just says that 3 these revisions were made based on feedback. But, 4 given that a new QHO is really a major policy 5 statement by the Commission, I'm wondering if there's 6 a white paper that supports this or if the written 7 feedback from stakeholders that critiqued the earlier 8 version is available, or where these numbers came from 9 exactly.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Again, these numbers 11 that we're using here came directly from the 12 development and the time period of the development of 13 the safety goals and would have been in the companion 14 NUREG. And I'll apologize --
15 MEMBER BIER: Like ages and ages ago, 16 you're saying --
17 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Yes.
18 MEMBER BIER: Okay. Because the .1 19 percent, or whatever, is what I would have recognized.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Right, right.
21 MEMBER BIER: So, you're saying that this 22 is from the supporting document at that time?
23 MR. RECKLEY: Well, it's from that time, 24 and then, we have it probably in other places as well, 25 but I know because I was involved in the Fukushima NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
168 1 work --
2 MEMBER BIER: Uh-hum.
3 MR. RECKLEY: I revisit to see if the 4 numbers were still holding, especially the cancer 5 fatality numbers.
6 MEMBER BIER: Yes.
7 MR. RECKLEY: And the assessment that we 8 did at that time was, yes, those numbers, this number 9 here that the --
10 MEMBER BIER: Okay.
11 MR. RECKLEY: -- the two in a million 12 years still held as the appropriate number, when one 13 translated the .1 percent over to this.
14 MEMBER BIER: Okay. That sounds fine.
15 So, there is no change to the QHOs being 16 proposed now? It's just scavenging a different set of 17 wording from the original --
18 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and as we've moved 19 forward, we keep getting closer to closer to actually 20 -- and this is pretty close to a quote from the 21 reactor --
22 MEMBER BIER: Got it. Okay.
23 MR. RECKLEY: -- from the safety goals.
24 MEMBER BIER: All right. Thank you very 25 much for the explanation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
169 1 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. All right.
2 Billy, if we can go back?
3 So, that's that. Subpart F. Yes, the 4 next one, Billy.
5 Again, we'll be back to talk about the 6 changes being made to Subpart F, again, primarily in 7 the area of staffing. And that was the subject, of 8 course, of the meeting and your letter in February.
9 So, stay tuned.
10 We can go to the next one, Billy, Subpart 11 G.
12 I don't believe we ever brought Subpart G 13 specifically to the ACRS. We added this to the 14 integrated -- we developed it and added it to the 15 consolidated package. Again, I'd have to go back and 16 look. I don't believe we had brought the details to 17 the Subcommittee.
18 However, on the other side, this is really 19 bringing in the requirements from 50.75 and 50.82, 20 Termination of License. We did not, at least we did 21 not intend to make any significant changes. We did in 22 some places need to address the fact that even some of 23 the decommissioning requirements were light-water-24 reactor-specific. For example, 50.75 has some tables 25 that were done from previous studies of pressurized NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
170 1 and boiling water reactors on decommissioning costs 2 and the contributors to waste from areas like waste 3 disposal and labor.
4 Given those were developed for that 5 technology, in the section that says how much you need 6 to have to support decommissioning, how much money you 7 need to have to support decommissioning, we would 8 simply add something that says that the applicant and 9 the licensee needs to do a decommissioning cost 10 estimate, because we don't have generic numbers for 11 non-light-water reactors. But, other than that, 12 because we didn't have the numbers, we still require 13 a cost estimate. We still require annual adjustments 14 to the funding.
15 We have the same mechanisms in terms of 16 the financial instruments that would be available to 17 support decommissioning. We still require the same 18 reporting and recordkeeping, but, largely, the 19 reporting of those. That's currently in 50.75.
20 The requirements on the termination of the 21 license after decommissioning, and the need to do 22 surveys and meet the Part 20 requirements, are carried 23 over. And what we have there is Section 1070 on the 24 termination of a license. And the same reference to 25 Part 20 for the release of a site for unrestricted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
171 1 use.
2 So, again, I don't think we had brought 3 this forward before, but it is one of those subparts 4 that is, basically, the same. Some of the 5 terminology, the internal references, and so forth had 6 to change, but our intent was, basically, to move it 7 intact as much as we can from the current 8 requirements.
9 MEMBER HALNON: So, Bill, the only thing 10 -- this is Greg -- electric utility you talk about is 11 53.020, and the definition is not in there. So, no 12 one has checked that.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Yes, we have the same 14 exception, but you're right. We will look and make 15 sure we pick up to make sure as needed. That's a 16 defined term.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, it's pretty 18 antiquated, too, because it was back when most 19 electric utilities were regulated and they had rates.
20 They recovered their decommissioning cost through 21 their rates. Not many are like that. Some in the 22 Southeast might, but -- "might".
23 MR. RECKLEY: Right, right. And that, 24 well, yes, then that's -- yes, that is a distinction 25 between those structured, quote, "electric utilities" NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
172 1 and an emergent plant, even if, from the outside, it 2 looks like it's being run by an electric utility.
3 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
4 MR. RECKLEY: Okay? So, with that, Vicki, 5 is your hand up from earlier or did you have another 6 question?
7 MEMBER BIER: Sorry, that's just from 8 earlier.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
10 MEMBER BIER: I'll take it down. Thank 11 you.
12 MR. RECKLEY: No problem.
13 Okay. Well, with that, you'll be happy to 14 hear I'm going to shut up, and Nan is going to talk 15 about Subpart H.
16 MS. VALLIERE: Thank you, Bill.
17 Yes, I will provide a brief overview of 18 Subpart H.
19 Subpart H addresses the types of the 20 licenses, certifications, and approvals available 21 under Part 53 as well as the required content of each 22 application type.
23 We have discussed Subpart H with the 24 Subcommittee previously, I believe at two separate 25 meetings last year. As we discussed in those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
173 1 meetings, there's not a whole lot that's new in Part 2 53, in Subpart H, when compared to the licensing 3 processes in Part 50 and 52.
4 Part 53 offers all the same licensing, 5 certification, and approval options currently offered 6 under both 50 and 52, as you can see from the list on 7 the slide.
8 We've highlighted two of these processes; 9 namely, for early site permits, or ESPs, and for the 10 design certifications, to indicate that these sections 11 are used as building blocks for the remaining sections 12 in Subpart H.
13 Because the requirements for the content 14 of any application that requires a review of the 15 commercial nuclear plant site will be largely the 16 same, we spell out those requirements once for an ESP, 17 and then, refer to the ESP requirements for the other 18 licensing processes.
19 Likewise, for the design information, we 20 lay out those requirements once in the design 21 certification section, and then, refer back to the 22 design certification requirements for the other 23 licensing processes.
24 Next slide, please, Billy.
25 Slide 35 highlights some of the key NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
174 1 changes that have been made since we last briefed the 2 Subcommittee on the preliminary proposed rule language 3 in December.
4 The first bullet is the item I just 5 mentioned, that we consolidated the information, so 6 that key siting and design content requirements only 7 need to be listed once, and can then be referred to in 8 the other sections.
9 The second item here refers to 10 requirements that we carried over from existing 11 Section 50.11 related to the exempting of Department 12 of Defense facilities from NRC licensing requirements.
13 We were convinced that inclusion of this provision was 14 necessary, given that Part 53 only applies to 15 commercial nuclear facilities, but, out of an 16 abundance of caution, we replicated the requirements 17 in Section 53.1120 under Subpart H.
18 Finally, in the latest iteration of the 19 preliminary proposed rule language that was released 20 just last week, we removed provisions that would have 21 allowed a construction permit applicant to reference 22 a manufacturing license. And the reason for this 23 stemmed mainly from the Part 53 expansion of 24 activities that could be allowed under manufacturing 25 license, as we have been discussing here today, 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
175 1 include possible loading of fresh fuel into the 2 reactor module at the manufacturing facility.
3 This expansion added some complications 4 because a fueled manufactured reactor could not be 5 delivered to a site that did not hold an operating 6 license under the CP/OL process. And at the same 7 time, we do not believe the NRC would issue an 8 operating license without the reactor being onsite and 9 installed. So, it would have created a bit of a 10 Catch-22.
11 In addition, we thought this would have 12 been a very unlikely path for an applicant to pursue 13 because, if they were far enough along in the design 14 process that they were ready to get a manufacturing 15 license and start producing reactors, it wouldn't make 16 much sense to use the CP/OL process. A combined 17 license would appear to be the most advantageous path 18 at that point.
19 The remaining changes that were made in 20 Subpart H really related to filling a few gaps that we 21 identified when Subpart H was compared to the Part 50 22 and 52 licensing sections to make changes to be 23 consistent with revisions made in other subparts in 24 Framework A, and then, just to format the subpart 25 consistently for each section, given that, originally, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
176 1 Subpart H was publicly released in two separate 2 pieces.
3 Next slide, please, Billy.
4 So, slide 36 provides an overview of all 5 the licensing processes covered in Part 53. And we 6 presented this figure the first time we discussed 7 Subpart H with the Subcommittee last year. The 8 graphic includes all the licensing process in both 9 Parts 50 and 52 and shows their relationships. It 10 also provides some linkages between processes that are 11 not currently laid out in the existing regulations, 12 and those are the ones shown by the dotted lines.
13 As we noted the last time we discussed 14 Subpart H, Part 53 contains a proposal to allow a 15 design certification applicant to reference an issued 16 operating license or custom combined license. The 17 staff is proposing that a design certification 18 applicant be allowed to leverage the staff's Safety 19 Evaluation from such an issued operating license or 20 combined license in the design cert application, and 21 to grant that safety review finality like that 22 provided for a licensed applicant referencing a 23 standard design approval.
24 Those finality provisions provide that an 25 improved design must be used by, and relied upon by, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
177 1 the staff and the ACRS in their review of an 2 application referencing that design, unless there 3 exists significant new information that substantially 4 affects the earlier review decision.
5 This new connection between licensing 6 pathways will be described in the statements of 7 consideration accompanying the proposed rule.
8 So, that concludes the discussion of 9 Subpart H and changes since we last discussed Subpart 10 H with the Subcommittee.
11 Are there any questions or comments?
12 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Nan, this is Walt.
13 Could you just walk through one more time, 14 for me at least, this dotted connection inside the box 15 here of this slide? You could use, I think if I heard 16 you correctly, you could use an existing COL or OL to 17 develop a subsequent DC. You would do this in the 18 case where the COL or the OL did not have a DC?
19 MS. VALLIERE: Right. So, we're talking 20 about an operating license or a custom combined 21 license. So, we use that term "custom combined 22 license" to refer to someone who comes in with an 23 application for a combined license when they haven't 24 already gotten a design or a site approved. So, a 25 custom COL or an OL could be used as the basis for 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
178 1 design certification application.
2 So, we think this could be used for 3 someone who's pursuing a first-of-a-kind design and 4 they sort of want to work through the process on the 5 first application before they really lock down the 6 design and the design certification.
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm trying to logically 8 figure out, if someone already has an OL or COL, then 9 the actual safety case and design, and such, has been 10 reviewed by the NRC. But you're saying there could be 11 a case where that particular design does not have a 12 DC --
13 MS. VALLIERE: Right.
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- a DCA?
15 MS. VALLIERE: Right.
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay.
17 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, exactly.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So, you would generate 19 a DCA based on that, but, then, when the person went 20 to a new site, you would still have to get an amended 21 COL or --
22 MS. VALLIERE: So, the COL or the OL is 23 very specific to the site.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Exactly.
25 MS. VALLIERE: Right. So, yes. So, 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
179 1 the DC application, they would have to sort of 2 genericize some things.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay.
4 MS. VALLIERE: So, for example, in the 5 custom COL or the OL, they would only be interested in 6 the site characteristics for that specific site. So, 7 in a design cert application, if they wanted to 8 broaden that site parameter envelope, they may need 9 to, you know, make some changes.
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Right.
11 MS. VALLIERE: To do so for the design 12 certification to come up with the generic design that 13 could, then, gain finality and could, then, be 14 referenced in any future COL applications.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. Is that an 16 expected path forward? It seems like a little bit 17 convoluted.
18 MS. VALLIERE: Again, we thought it could 19 be a possible path for someone trying to bring forth 20 a first-of-a-kind design that wanted to work through 21 the full process, you know --
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I see.
23 MS. VALLIERE: -- all the way to 24 operation --
25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
180 1 MS. VALLIERE: -- before locking down the 2 design and the design certification.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I see. Okay. Thank you 4 very much.
5 MS. VALLIERE: Sure.
6 MEMBER REMPE: So, they would actually 7 take their FSAR and do some mods to it, and then, 8 start from scratch? And if I think about it, usually, 9 there's an owner-operator of a plant, but, then, it 10 would be the design developer for that owner-operator 11 who would take the COL and scrub -- or the FSAR and 12 take the COL and change the FSAR for the COL to submit 13 for the DC, right?
14 MS. VALLIERE: That's right, except that, 15 for some of the advanced reactors, the designers will 16 be the owner-operators. So, it's not always going to 17 be the case that a designer and an owner-operator are 18 two separate entities.
19 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, but, I mean, I'm 20 thinking of the established vendors. Westinghouse has 21 never been -- or GE has never been owner-operators of 22 a plant.
23 MS. VALLIERE: I agree, but that's true of 24 the established vendors.
25 MEMBER REMPE: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
181 1 MR. SEGALA: Hey, Nan, this is John Segala 2 from NRR staff.
3 It could be likely that, if a developer or 4 an applicant wants to use this concept, what they 5 could do at the custom COL stage is actually develop 6 a design that's more robust than the actual site 7 characteristics at that one site. So that, later, 8 when they turn it over into a design cert, that design 9 already envelopes a whole bunch of other sites out 10 there. So that it would make this process go more 11 smoothly. Is that something that could work?
12 MS. VALLIERE: Certainly. Yes, certainly.
13 I mean, the whole point of adding these dotted-line 14 pathways was to provide additional flexibility. So, 15 trying to provide maximum flexibility in the way an 16 applicant could choose to use the various licensing 17 processes to best meet their needs. So, yes, I agree.
18 If the needs could be met by expanding the first COL 19 to be a little bit more robust than for that 20 particular site, that might serve someone well, if 21 they were going to plan to, then, use that Safety 22 Evaluation in a design certification application.
23 Any additional questions or comments on 24 Subpart H?
25 If there are no more questions, I'll 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
182 1 turn the presentation back over to Bill to discuss 2 Subpart I.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Thanks, Nan.
4 Billy, if you want to go to the next 5 slide? Thank you.
6 So, Subpart I is the subpart that 7 addresses maintaining and revising the licensing basis 8 information, and includes sections on the control of 9 the license and tech specs, and how to ask for 10 amendments. It has sections on the updating of the 11 Safety Analysis Report and the evaluation of plant 12 changes under the equivalent of 50.59. In our 13 section, that's 53.1550.
14 And then, it also addresses the program-15 related documents, such as the Quality Assurance 16 Program and emergency plan, security plan, some of 17 which are addressed in 50.54(a) now, the Condition of 18 Licenses, or in some other cases might be in another 19 regulation associated with a particular program.
20 And then, it has, also, the sections on 21 transfer, termination, backfitting, and so forth.
22 So, we had provided this to the 23 Subcommittee. In many cases, like backfitting, 24 termination, formations of information requests, 25 largely brought those requirements over from Part 50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
183 1 and 52.
2 One area in Framework A -- Billy, if you 3 want to go to the next one? -- that we needed to think 4 about how it was done within Framework A was in change 5 control for both the FSAR and programs. An earlier 6 draft kind of left open how we would control programs; 7 what kind of criteria we would use for when a licensee 8 would need to submit proposed changes to something 9 like the QA plan.
10 So, in this second iteration that we just 11 released, we basically have defaulted back in many 12 areas to the existing requirements and the way to 13 evaluate changes to those program documents. So, if 14 you look, you will see the addition of change control 15 and evaluation techniques for QA. That was carried 16 over from 50.54(a); the same for emergency planning.
17 And a decrease in effectiveness that would warrant 18 submission for NRC review of a proposed change 19 reflects the Part 54, the 50.54 provision for that, 20 and security is the same that we just brought forward.
21 The logic in just bringing those over was 22 there is guidance that's been developed over the 23 years. And although the terminology is "decrease in 24 effectiveness" within the rule, which might sound 25 vague, there has been both guidance developed 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
184 1 experience gained on how to implement that. So, we 2 decided that the best thing forward would be just to 3 maintain that and largely copied those provisions over 4 for the established programs. The three most often 5 cited are QA, emergency planning, and security.
6 Within the equivalent of 50.59, we also, 7 from the earlier version, added criteria related to, 8 if a change to a facility affects the design basis 9 accident analysis, and also, if it could impact --
10 that's a bad word -- if it could affect, adversely 11 affect, the aircraft impact analysis that's, likewise, 12 required under Subpart C related to design and 13 analysis requirements.
14 And then, we added some of the generic 15 licensing conditions from Part 50 that we had, 16 basically, overlooked on our first iteration.
17 So, Billy, if you can go to the next 18 slide?
19 The only real topic I wanted to talk about 20 and present, just because it gets a fair amount of 21 discussion, is the 50.59 equivalent. So, again, we 22 didn't make major changes -- I know this font is small 23 -- but, basically, the change here was to change the 24 questions as they are in 50.59 to reflect the analysis 25 sections of Part 53. So, it just, generally, since 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
185 1 know that the analysis is going to include actual 2 estimates of consequences and frequency, we were able 3 to have a more specific question in regards to 4 evaluating a plant change.
5 Our first proposal here is that we take 6 values that are currently in guidance and we include 7 them in the rule language in terms of margin 8 reductions. For example, under little (i), you'll see 9 that 10 percent reduction in margin for the licensing 10 basis events in terms of decreasing margin associated 11 with the frequency or consequence. That's still 12 somewhat a matter of discussion as to whether 13 numerical criteria like that are better in the rule or 14 better in guidance, as we go through those 15 interactions up to including even after we do the 16 proposed rule. Maybe the current language of "more 17 than minimal" some people might prefer, and then, have 18 the 10 percent in guidance.
19 So, all of these criteria are the same as 20 we presented before.
21 Billy, if you'd go to the next page?
22 The ones we added are 6, 7, and 8 on this 23 slide. Basically, again, capturing the design basis 24 accident and including a criteria of whether a plant 25 change could, in effect, generate a new design basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
186 1 accident or decrease the margin, again, by 10 percent 2 between the analysis results and the criteria in 210.
3 Again, that's the 25 rem at the EAB.
4 And then, Item 8 was just to add a 5 provision, because we didn't have it elsewhere, to 6 address or require that a licensee evaluate plant 7 changes to make sure it did not undermine the aircraft 8 impact assessment or how the design protects against 9 the impact of a large commercial airplane.
10 So, another reason to just bring this out 11 is there's another industry activity. This is a cost-12 share between the Department of Energy and Southern 13 Company to look at 50.59 for the LMP, the Licensing 14 Modernization Project. And they have submitted, and 15 the staff is just beginning to look at, their 16 proposals to have the equivalent of 15.50 for the use 17 of the LMP, either under Parts 50 and 52, possibly 18 with an exemption to 50.59, and maybe for Part 53.
19 But we're just starting those discussions, 20 and those discussions might lead us to make some 21 tweaks to this section, as we go forward, just sharing 22 views and seeing if they have some good concepts we 23 might want to capture. And hopefully, vice versa, 24 that if we have some thoughts here, maybe that 25 guidance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
187 1 But that would be something I would expect 2 the ACRS to maybe look at down the road, given that we 3 might capture it in a Regulatory Guide down the road.
4 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Question?
5 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. My 7 question here is, what changes are discovered by that?
8 Like the previous slide, it says it shouldn't be 9 changed to technical specification, right?
10 MR. RECKLEY: Well, that's an existing 11 requirement. Basically, any change to technical 12 specification needs NRC approval. And so, as does 13 50.59, that's the first trigger of, does it involve --
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. Yes, so 15 let's discuss what type of the changes are then 16 covered. Changes to design? Changes to safety 17 classifications? Changes to ITAAC? What changes are 18 covered out of this?
19 MR. RECKLEY: Well, this would be post-20 operation changes to the facility or the facility 21 procedures.
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, facility, maybe 23 you can change their design?
24 MR. RECKLEY: Sure. As you can now within 25 the limits of 50.59. The question being answered by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
188 1 both 50.59 and 53.1550 is, when does a change to a 2 facility require NRC approval?
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right. And what 4 they're trying to incorporate here, we have risk-5 informed applications which includes changes to -- so, 6 I'm trying to combine two different modes here. So, 7 you have a 50.59, which is also risk-informed 8 applications, right? And then, you have risk-informed 9 applications which include changes to testing; 10 inspection; specifically, you know, the QA program; a 11 technical specification. So, those currently ongoing 12 risk-informed changes in the future will also require 13 the approval?
14 MR. RECKLEY: It's possible. Again, for 15 programs, I don't have the criteria, but they are 16 largely the existing programs and the existing change 17 control mechanisms that are defined under 50.54(a),
18 50.54(p), for example, and the associated guidance as 19 to when does a change trigger the need for NRC review 20 and approval.
21 Likewise, 50.59 has seven questions and 22 provides the criteria for when a change to a facility, 23 whatever the change is -- the changeout of one pump 24 for another pump; the installation of a new system; 25 the removal of a system -- all of those things can 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
189 1 captured, and then, assessed under 50.59. And all 2 we're doing under Section 1550 is giving criteria that 3 are more reflective of the analysis requirements under 4 Subpart C. That's our intent, in any case.
5 So, I'm not sure I answered your question.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, I have to think 7 about that because it is my -- yes. If you allow the 8 change, adding or removing some system, I don't see 9 why would you require a technical -- we satisfy all of 10 those things. Why wouldn't you require changes in 11 technical specification will satisfy all of those 12 things, see, or these other risk-informed 13 applications --
14 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, yes. It's --
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- that might be 16 ongoing?
17 MR. RECKLEY: Right, right. And that's 18 the first trigger, right? If any plant change 19 requires a tech spec, change to the tech specs, then 20 it would require NRC approval. But there could be 21 other plant changes, and many -- in current practice, 22 most plant changes don't affect the technical 23 specifications. Where the licensee can continue to 24 comply with tech specs, they still need to evaluate 25 the plant change, and they use the criteria in 50.59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
190 1 or, under Part 53, they would use the criteria under 2 1550, to evaluate that change and say, is this change 3 going to make the consequences or the frequency of any 4 licensing basis event more -- increase the consequence 5 or increase the frequency? So, that's all we're 6 trying to --
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, but okay. All 8 right. I have to think about that. This doesn't 9 really, this moment, it doesn't really make sense to 10 me, but I have to think about.
11 Okay. Thanks.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Hey, Bill, on license 14 renewal, that one sentence leaves me wanting 53.1595.
15 Is that going to be expanded somewhere or are we going 16 to be going back to 54? Or how's that going to work?
17 MR. RECKLEY: Our expectation is it will 18 be expanded.
19 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
20 MR. RECKLEY: The earlier version just 21 said to be determined, I think.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Yes. Now you say it can 23 be renewed.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Now we say it can be 25 renewed, but we don't say how.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
191 1 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. That's fine. If 2 you're going to get it later, that's fine.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, that's the intent, is 4 to come back and revisit that. To some degree, we 5 might be able to take advantage of 54 or we might have 6 to come up with another series of sections that would 7 address renewal.
8 MEMBER HALNON: It's probably time to do 9 that.
10 MR. RECKLEY: We just, in prioritizing, 11 thought we would address issuing before renewing.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. If there's nothing 14 more on Subpart I, we'll move over and Jordan Hoellman 15 will talk about Subpart J.
16 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay. Good afternoon, 17 everyone.
18 So, I think we only briefly covered 19 Subpart J before, and I'll briefly cover it again.
20 So, Subpart J addresses the reporting and 21 other administrative requirements. It requires each 22 applicant or licensee, under Part 53, to ensure NRC 23 inspectors have unfettered access to sites and 24 facilities, licensed or proposed-to-be-licensed; 25 requires the maintenance of records and report-making NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
192 1 to the NRC. It requires licensees to meet financial 2 qualification reporting requirements and obtain and 3 maintain required financial protections in case of an 4 accident.
5 Some of the things to note. There's not 6 many.
7 In 53.1645, we continue to maintain a 8 section for periodic reports, and we're considering 9 whether to make or whether to include all the periodic 10 reports in this section or to keep it, keep them where 11 they exist now.
12 Right now, 1645 only includes effluent 13 reports. And so, over this summer, we'll be working 14 to either consolidate reporting, periodic reports, in 15 this section, or renaming the section to be more 16 specific to what's currently there.
17 Another thing we did in the later 18 consideration is, similar to what Bill mentioned in 19 Subpart I, we looked at 50.54, which is Condition of 20 Licenses, to ensure that all the requirements are 21 captured in 53. And we tried to find a logical place 22 within Part 53 for each of these items. Some of them 23 ended up in Subpart J, and the example is the 24 bankruptcy requirements.
25 Other than that, not much change, 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
193 1 review of stakeholder comments submitted related to 2 Subpart J, we've identified some areas where we need 3 to expand in the statements of consideration or 4 preamble. But that's pretty much it for Subpart J.
5 So, I'm not sure if anyone --
6 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, Jordan, this is Greg.
7 What was it? Four years ago, we undertook 8 an admin review of, or a review of admin procedures 9 and reports and requirements. Did that report or that 10 effort get factored into this section? Because this 11 is the one that's primarily affected?
12 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. So, I think in the 13 first iteration, yes. But, Bill, please correct me if 14 I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure we captured that stuff in 15 the first iteration. I'm not sure if there's anything 16 specific that you saw not included there --
17 MEMBER HALNON: I was looking at the 18 reports, you know, the licensee event reports, and 19 other things. I don't see a real big change to what 20 we're doing today, but I know that that was a huge 21 comment from the stakeholders during that review 22 period. Did they make any of the comments on this 23 proposed language relative to LERs and other what we 24 would call 50.72 reporting requirements?
25 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Greg, this is Bill.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
194 1 Part of that -- and we probably should 2 have mentioned it or maybe even emphasized it more 3 earlier -- there are a number of activities, and I'm 4 pretty sure that reporting requirements is one of 5 those in which there are rulemakings either underway 6 or under development. And I think the one you're 7 mentioning -- and I apologize, I don't remember the 8 status -- but I know we're looking at changes to 50.72 9 and 50.73.
10 And within our construct of Part 53, we 11 were faced routinely with what to do with all the 12 rulemakings underway, the 50.52 rulemakings. And 13 actually, Nan has a slide coming up on this, the 50.52 14 rulemaking, the decommissioning rulemaking, and so 15 forth.
16 And by and large, what we did was to stick 17 with the current requirements, even though we knew 18 another rulemaking was underway. And we will talk 19 about in the preamble that these other activities are 20 underway.
21 I'll have to go back -- I 22 apologize -- I'll have to go back and look at where 23 that reporting requirement rulemaking is in order for 24 us to describe how it relates to this one. I don't 25 think that's one we have listed under concurrent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
195 1 rulemakings, but it probably should be.
2 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, and that's why I 3 mentioned it. I think that, especially from a 4 technology-inclusive perspective, some of these are 5 pretty antiquated and may or may not apply. So, there 6 could be some caveats put in the rule language that, 7 if applicable, or whatever the case may be, so that 8 people aren't stuck making useless reports. And I 9 think that was the whole point of the rulemaking, was 10 to try to modernize it. It was written back when fax 11 machines were really, really cool.
12 MR. RECKLEY: We might still have a 13 facsimile reference or two within our Part 53.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MEMBER HALNON: No doubt, no doubt.
16 But, anyway, that's just a real good place 17 to modernize some of the requirements. These admin 18 requirements in Subpart J are quite expensive to 19 maintain continuously, and we're not going to be 20 looking at huge admin staffs for some of these 21 technologies. So, we want to be able to do what's 22 necessary, especially since they may or may not have 23 an onsite resident inspector. Depending on the 24 inspection regime, some of this stuff is picked up in 25 the inspections as well. So, all that needs 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
196 1 kind of balanced with flexibility and 2 comprehensiveness that makes sense.
3 So, it will probably be a further 4 discussion down the road, when we get the rulemakings 5 out and we start modernizing some of the existing 6 rules.
7 MS. VALLIERE: So, maybe I can just add a 8 little bit. I did take a look at this. So, it's the 9 non-emergency event reporting, rulemaking, or a name 10 similar to that. And that rulemaking is just getting 11 underway. So, that's why you won't see it listed on 12 the slide on rulemaking coordination.
13 It appears we're going to be ahead of that 14 rulemaking, but certainly would want to coordinate 15 anything that comes out of that. And definitely agree 16 that we recognize we need to go through, you know, 17 another time to remove some of these either antiquated 18 or very technology-specific requirements.
19 MEMBER HALNON: Right, or put the 20 necessary caveat in the language that --
21 MS. VALLIERE: Yes.
22 MEMBER HALNON: -- allows some flexibility 23 in it.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, and, Greg, just 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
197 1 follow up, while Nan and Bill were addressing your 2 question, I did look through my notes, and we do have 3 comments in our working version that say we need to 4 follow that rulemaking or address it in the SSC.
5 MEMBER HALNON: Thanks, Jordan.
6 MR. HOELLMAN: Uh-hum.
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Jordan?
8 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes?
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: This is Walt Kirchner.
10 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, go ahead, Walt.
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I know we're not talking 12 about Subpart F today, but, to the extent that -- and 13 correct me if I get the terminology wrong -- the 14 Facility Safety Program. It struck me, when I looked 15 at that, that would actually require, beyond the 16 licensee event report system and other things listed 17 here, could require -- I shouldn't draw a conclusion 18 -- but I had the feeling it could require an extensive 19 amount of reporting to the NRC, particularly if that 20 still exists when we see it next month, updating the 21 PRA, et cetera, et cetera.
22 Greg triggered this in my head because he 23 mentioned, you know, there may not be resident 24 inspectors, et cetera. Would those requirements there 25 be more based on inspection and audit rather 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
198 1 reporting?
2 MR. HOELLMAN: So, I'm not sure. It's 3 been a while since I've looked at the requirement on 4 the Facility Safety Program. I'm not sure if -- this 5 is one of those things that I was talking about may 6 fall under the periodic reports. I think there are 7 reporting requirements in the specific Facility Safety 8 Program section.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, that's what I 10 remember as well. And I just was looking to see -- I 11 haven't read the entire -- as Bill said, it's a rather 12 big reading assignment. I didn't get into this level 13 of detail on Subpart J.
14 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. So, my understanding 15 is there's the periodic reporting requirements in the 16 specific program requirements for a Facility Safety 17 Program, as it's currently drafted.
18 As I was mentioning earlier, we do have a 19 section called "Periodic Reports" in Subpart J, and 20 over the summer, as we're working to finalize the 21 draft proposed rule package, you know, we're 22 considering whether it would be easier to consolidate 23 all those periodic reports in one section called 24 "Periodic Reports" or if it makes more sense to 25 include the specific program reporting 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
199 1 within the program requirements. Does that make 2 sense?
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, it makes sense.
4 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I guess one advantage of 6 consolidation is that you get a bigger -- you get one 7 -- how should I say it? In one place, you get to look 8 at the depth and breadth of reporting requirements --
9 MR. HOELLMAN: Uh-hum.
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- rather than trying to 11 sort them out of individual subparts. Just an 12 observation, not a question.
13 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, I appreciate that, 14 Walt. That's similar to how we were thinking about 15 it, too. We just hadn't got there yet, I guess.
16 Anyone else have any questions on Subpart 17 J or comments?
18 Okay. I think we can move on to the next 19 slide, and I think I'm turning it to Nan, I believe.
20 MS. VALLIERE: That's right, Jordan.
21 Thanks.
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Uh-hum.
23 MS. VALLIERE: So, this is the final 24 subpart in Framework A, Subpart K, on Quality 25 Assurance. And we should be able to cover 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
200 1 quickly because we've already talked about it a fair 2 amount.
3 As Bill already mentioned at the beginning 4 of our presentation today, Subpart K was added earlier 5 this year, and prior to that, the QA requirements had 6 been spread out throughout the various subparts.
7 We have received feedback from both 8 internal and external stakeholders indicating a 9 preference for consolidating the QA requirements in 10 one place, as they are currently in Part 50, Appendix 11 B.
12 So, as shown on this slide, the 13 requirements in Subpart K align directly with the QA 14 criteria in Appendix B to Part 50. The requirements 15 in Subpart K are identical to those in Appendix B, 16 except where wording changes were needed to align with 17 the Part 53 terminology.
18 As Bill alluded to, this is an --
19 MEMBER BROWN: Excuse me. What does that 20 mean, "align with" -- this is just "QC".
21 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. So, you may have 22 heard us discuss earlier the fact that we are trying 23 to avoid in Framework A some particular defined terms 24 from Part 50 that don't carry over.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Such as?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
201 1 MS. VALLIERE: Such as design basis. So, 2 where those words appear in Appendix B, you'll find we 3 have substituted the words "functional design 4 criteria," which are the Framework A sort of 5 replacement for that term.
6 MEMBER BROWN: For "design basis"?
7 MS. VALLIERE: Right. So, it's those type 8 of issues. For example, in Appendix B, it talks 9 about, "Nuclear power plants and fuel reprocessing 10 plants include structures, systems, and components 11 that prevent or mitigate the consequences of 12 postulated accidents." And we say, in Framework A, 13 "commercial nuclear power plants and manufactured 14 reactors include structures, systems, and components 15 that prevent or mitigate the consequences of licensing 16 basis events."
17 So, it's that type of terminology change 18 where you will see differences. But, otherwise, the 19 QA criteria are identical.
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, they are more 21 conforming changes --
22 MS. VALLIERE: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN PETTI: -- for the definitions in 24 Part A?
25 MS. VALLIERE: Exactly.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
202 1 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, they don't get 2 confused with the definitions in the other parts?
3 MS. VALLIERE: Exactly.
4 MEMBER BROWN: They're the same thing?
5 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, the same meaning. No 6 change in meaning intended.
7 MEMBER BROWN: It just seems people have 8 to adapt to another set of words, when the 9 functionality -- they're all the same. It's just an 10 interesting -- I just wanted to know what you all were 11 talking about here.
12 Thank you.
13 MS. VALLIERE: Certainly.
14 Yes, and as Bill alluded to earlier, this 15 is an issue that the industry is sensitive to because 16 of the potential impact to the supply chain if the QA 17 requirements are different in Part 53 than they are in 18 50 and 52. So, for this reason, we're being very 19 careful --
20 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that.
21 MS. VALLIERE: Yes.
22 MEMBER BROWN: They ought to be the same.
23 A nuclear power plant is a nuclear power plant, 24 regardless of how you want to refer to it --
25 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. So, we are --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
203 1 MEMBER BROWN: -- or what it looks like.
2 Okay.
3 MS. VALLIERE: We are trying to be very 4 careful to maintain consistency with the existing 5 Appendix B QA requirements.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. No, that's great.
7 Thank you.
8 MS. VALLIERE: Any other questions related 9 to Subpart K?
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes. So, Nan, earlier, 11 in an earlier slide, there was supposedly flexibility 12 for different codes and standards. So, would it be 13 acceptable to use ISO quality standards, or does this 14 really force them to, basically, NQA-1?
15 MS. VALLIERE: So, what you'll see, if you 16 look at places where we mention consensus codes and 17 standards within Part 53, you will see that it says 18 that a licensee should use or could use "generally-19 accepted consensus codes and standards that have been 20 found acceptable by the NRC."
21 So, either that means you are using a 22 consensus code and standard that the NRC has already 23 endorsed through some mechanism or, if not, you are 24 seeking the NRC approval of that consensus code and 25 standard through your application.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
204 1 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. I was wondering 2 about the second part because I know certain designers 3 are talking about ISO and certain designers talk about 4 using Section 8, instead of Section 3, of the code 5 because specific materials are there, but not in 3 6 yet. Those are some of the things I think you might 7 actually see kind of flow --
8 MS. VALLIERE: Exactly.
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron. This is 10 Ron Ballinger.
11 But does that, in effect, mean that -- is 12 there one that takes precedence? For example, if ISO 13 9000 and whatever the number is a criteria or standard 14 language which is different from Appendix B, does 15 Appendix B take precedence? Is there an overriding 16 standard?
17 MR. RECKLEY: If I can, Nan?
18 MS. VALLIERE: Sure.
19 MR. RECKLEY: So, one of difficulties that 20 I think we face in this area is that NQA-1 and its 21 predecessors grew up, if you will, with Appendix B.
22 And so, there's this alignment of the guidance and the 23 requirements that's well-established.
24 However, we do have an activity underway.
25 NEI is sponsoring a working group to look at ISO NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
205 1 standards to meet Appendix B. And so, the answer to 2 your question, Ron, is that, under that activity, 3 they'll show, or will try to show -- and hopefully, be 4 able to show and the staff can approve -- that there 5 are ISO requirements that align with these 18 6 criteria. This will be, as Appendix B is, the 7 requirements.
8 And so, as they bring in the various ISO 9 standards that they may want to show equivalency to 10 NQA-1, or otherwise show that that ISO standard meets 11 Appendix B, then that's the way that will be done.
12 It's not as if ISO 9000 -- the difficulty is it might 13 be structured somewhat differently. So, it may not be 14 as clear an alignment as NQA-1 is because NQA-1, 15 again, they were built to go together; whereas, 16 ISO 9000 was built for broader purposes.
17 But they'll bring that in and try to show 18 how the various aspects of a particular ISO standard 19 meets Appendix B.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes, I mean, for 21 example, as Dave sort of alluded to, if you compare 22 ASME Code Section 2 materials, and the allowances in 23 Section 3, Section 8, and Division -- now I'm going to 24 get -- Section 3, Division 5, you'll find that the 25 same material would have different limits.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
206 1 So, if somebody wants to use Section 8, 2 there would be a more expanded -- I'm pretty sure.
3 Usually, Section 8, the range of temperature 4 applicability is usually wider than for Section 3 for 5 the same material.
6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: But I think, Ron, it 7 would be incumbent on the applicant and the design 8 team to make a compelling case to -- let's just pick 9 something rhetorically -- the reactor vessel, whether 10 you call it a pressure vessel or not, it's one of the 11 main lines of defense in Bill's schematic diagram 12 about containing fission products.
13 If that's relied on for the safety case, 14 it would probably be a difficult argument to use 15 Section 8 instead of Section 3.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: Oh, for sure. That's 17 why Section 8 exists.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, but, I mean, it is 19 for like merchant ships --
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- and land-based 22 boilers and such --
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, fossil oil is 24 used.
25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
207 1 Since I interrupted, I just would like to 2 make this observation to my colleagues. I think what 3 the staff has done here is a distinct improvement. I 4 worry about how the lay public looks at this 10 CFR 53 5 -- probably from the eyes of those different than we 6 do in the business. We're looking for flexibility.
7 We're addressing the Congress' requirements. I 8 shouldn't say, "we." The staff is, et cetera, et 9 cetera.
10 But, from the public -- and I've heard 11 this a few times in stakeholder meetings -- they're 12 looking for a comparable level of safety, as is 13 afforded by 10 CFR 50 and 52. So, I think on this 14 -- pardon the use of the word -- "critical topic,"
15 that 10 CFR 53, essentially, adopts the same quality 16 assurance criteria as is required in 10 CFR 50 and 52.
17 It is a very significant statement. So that the 18 public couldn't erroneously draw the conclusion that 19 there was a lesser level of quality assurance required 20 for a reactor being licensed under 10 CFR 53 versus 50 21 and 52. So, I already said it this morning. I 22 applaud this development.
23 And then, as far as ISO, then it's 24 incumbent on that applicant that wants to use ISO --
25 is it 9000 or 900? I forget. -- to demonstrate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
208 1 comparable quality assurance.
2 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes, this is Ron 3 Ballinger again.
4 As another example, the U.S. Section 2 and 5 Section 3, the limits are, for the same material, if 6 you go to the French code, you'll find that they're 7 different, yes, and expanded.
8 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So, there's an 9 inconsistency if someone comes in with --
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes, yes.
11 CHAIRMAN PETTI: -- a design based on 12 RCC-MR, the French code.
13 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: And that will be 16 especially true with Division 5, Section 3, Division 17 5, where it says, "the high temperature materials" 18 stuff. It will give you plenty to do.
19 MS. VALLIERE: Okay. Do we have any other 20 questions or comments related to Subpart K?
21 DR. BLEY: No, but is this your last one?
22 MS. VALLIERE: It's the last subpart. We 23 have a couple of other topics.
24 DR. BLEY: Okay. I wanted to sneak in, 25 too, and maybe those are the ones you want to talk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
209 1 about.
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Well, I was thinking we 3 might want to take a break.
4 DR. BLEY: Oh, okay.
5 CHAIRMAN PETTI: We've been doing this for 6 a couple of hours. And between now, and then, these 7 other topics would be a natural.
8 So, why don't we break until 3:30? And 9 then, we'll pick it up from there.
10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 11 off the record at 3:13 p.m. and resumed at 3:30 p.m.)
12 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay, we're back. Bill 13 or Nan, I don't know who's going to lead the 14 discussion. Go ahead.
15 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, thank you. So, are 16 there any other questions on any of the Subparts in 17 Framework A before we move on to other topics?
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So something that hits 19 us, and maybe you could help us here, this Part 53 is 20 going to be quite large. I mean, what you've given us 21 is 400 lines. Or 400 pages. I don't know how big 22 Framework B is going to be. And the 23 preamble/statements of consideration.
24 I just worry, sort of optically, that 53, 25 I think there is some expectation that it would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
210 1 streamlined and simpler, but it's not there. So I 2 expect that will be a comment somewhere. You guys 3 ought to think through.
4 And how big, you know, the other thing is 5 we spent a year, a year and a half, on what is now 6 Framework A. And Framework B, we'll have less than 7 two weeks to look at. Given the schedule.
8 How long, how many pages is Framework B?
9 How much homework do we have?
10 MS. VALLIERE: So that's a good question.
11 And myself, don't have a good feel for how long. I 12 don't think it's as long as Framework A, because for 13 example, they don't have a separate citing subpart 14 like we do in Framework A.
15 I guess if Billy or Candace are still 16 online, if they want to offer a --
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
18 MS. VALLIERE: -- just a volume --
19 MR. JESSUP: Yes.
20 MS. VALLIERE: -- estimate?
21 MR. JESSUP: Sure, Nan. This is Bill 22 Jessup from NRC Staff again. Working on the Framework 23 Bravo side. So it's a good question.
24 Currently, the Framework Bravo draft 25 preliminary proposed rule text is approximately 300 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
211 1 pages. However, as you saw in several slides before, 2 a lot of that borrow from Framework Alpha. And we 3 will be providing a crosswalk that indicates where a 4 certain provision came from to assist in understand 5 where things borrow from Framework Alpha, where they 6 may borrow from elsewhere.
7 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay.
8 MR. JESSUP: Just to give you a slice of 9 what it looks like.
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: That helps. Thanks.
11 MEMBER REMPE: Are we going to the backup 12 or the --
13 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes. Yes, we're going 14 into the discussion stuff so go ahead guys.
15 DR. BLEY: Dave, you said we'll have two 16 weeks to look at B. Is that right? They're not going 17 to give us anything approaching our 30 days?
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Well that's a good 19 question. Yes. I mean, some of us are pretty booked 20 till the June committee. But when we'll we see 21 Framework B? I've forgotten.
22 MS. VALLIERE: Bill Jessup, I'll let you 23 answer that one was well.
24 MR. JESSUP: Sure. Thanks, Nan. Bill 25 Jessup again. In working with Bob Beall, who is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
212 1 NMSS rulemaking PM, it's our understanding that that 2 would be provided by June 10th. That's the date that 3 I understand.
4 MEMBER REMPE: When you're subcommittee 5 meeting?
6 CHAIRMAN PETTI: June. There is an extra 7 week in June. It's June 20th. June 20th I think is 8 our subcommittee.
9 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. This is Derek. That 10 provides two weeks.
11 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Two weeks. Okay. I 12 thought I didn't misremember. Thank you.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Are we going to accept 14 that? I mean, I won't have time to look at it at all.
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I don't know what, how 16 else to do it. I mean, the schedule is heavily 17 compressed here.
18 DR. BLEY: Well yes, but they're bringing 19 it to us very late. In fact, we didn't know there was 20 the Attachment B until fairly recently.
21 MR. WIDMAYER: So, you know, David, it's 22 kind of up to you. We can press the Staff and try to 23 reschedule the subcommittee meeting. I mean, it's a 24 substantial bit to read 300 pages in two weeks.
25 MEMBER REMPE: And by the way, there 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
213 1 letter in July full committee meeting. So if you back 2 off the subcommittee meeting, we need to understand 3 the impact on the full committee meeting.
4 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I just don't see that the 5 delay helps us. I mean, it's not like September, 6 we're not doing anything. You know, this is the cost 7 of compression we have.
8 DR. BLEY: Yes, Dave?
9 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
10 DR. BLEY: I think you're in good shape 11 for Attachment A.
12 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
13 DR. BLEY: The idea that you would have a 14 letter that would include something about Attachment 15 B a week after the meeting, three weeks after we got 16 to see anything seems a little beyond reasonable.
17 MEMBER SUNSERI: But isn't, I mean, didn't 18 they just show us, I mean, some of these stuff are 19 like the quality assurance.
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I think there is a lot of 21 stuff --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MEMBER SUNSERI: -- a section of that is 24 the same exact section. You don't have to look at 25 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
214 1 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Most of it is going to be 2 the initial purpose and definition section and that 3 licensing process section for the Vogtle assembly, I 4 think.
5 MEMBER REMPE: And when do we get Subpart 6 F?
7 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I think the same time.
8 MEMBER REMPE: At the same time. So the 9 letter would include any comments on that too?
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
11 MEMBER REMPE: Can any of this be provided 12 to us early? Like, just not B, but there is also 13 Subpart from Part A, right? If I got the parts and 14 names correct.
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes. Subpart F --
16 MEMBER REMPE: Framework.
17 CHAIRMAN PETTI: -- is waiting for the 18 legal guys.
19 MEMBER REMPE: It seems like --
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Is there any chance that 21 could get to us earlier?
22 DR. BLEY: You know, with the kind of 23 agreement we've had in the past that you'll give us a 24 public version before the meeting, but we'd have one 25 we couldn't share.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
215 1 MR. RECKLEY: We can say we'll get it to 2 you as soon as we can. And we can use the provisions 3 you're mentioning, that we might give you something 4 early. But it's May 19th today. And so, if we're 5 able to give it to you we might be able to by a week 6 or something like that. I mean, just as Dave said, 7 everything is compressed.
8 DR. BLEY: Hey, Bill --
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: If I recall, Subpart F 10 was a point of extensive and fairly energetic 11 discussion.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Let's talk about Subpart F.
13 If it's with the legal folks --
14 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
15 MEMBER REMPE: -- can't we have that right 16 away? Again, with the understanding we can't discuss 17 it's publicly until it's been released. And there may 18 be some changes they put in, and you'll identify to 19 them. But I don't understand why that hasn't gone 20 ahead and gotten to us for this next meeting.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
22 DR. BLEY: Associated with that, we got 23 two weeks ago --
24 MR. RECKLEY: I'll just say that that 25 subpart is still in flux. And so, as soon as we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
216 1 --
2 DR. BLEY: Yes.
3 MR. RECKLEY: As soon as we feel that it 4 is steady, we'll work to get you something as soon as 5 we can. But it would be counterproductive to give you 6 something and then change it again. So, again, the 7 best we can do is to say we'll get it to you as early 8 as we can.
9 DR. BLEY: Related question, Bill.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
11 DR. BLEY: You got us one two weeks ago, 12 which at least I didn't realize wasn't ready. Are 13 there really substantive changes in what we're likely 14 to see?
15 CHAIRMAN PETTI: There should be. I mean, 16 we had specific comments on the operator part. I 17 don't think there will be big changes on the, as Bill 18 said in the beginning, the facility and the program 19 pieces. The people --
20 MR. RECKLEY: The parts were --
21 MEMBER BALLINGER: But we may still be at 22 odds.
23 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. The parts you are most 24 interested in are those that are being revised.
25 DR. BLEY: Of course.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
217 1 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay.
2 MEMBER REMPE: I hope we have more clarity 3 by the time we have our PMP in June because, again, 4 the agenda for the July has to go out then.
5 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I think we should try our 6 best to stick with the schedule. If we get into 7 letter writing, we can't to a final letter, A, I mean, 8 it could be something where we put in the letter that 9 we're still going to provide additional comments 10 later, or if we have a problem where we can't get to 11 consensus okay, it won't get out in the July meeting.
12 MEMBER REMPE: And again, I don't think 13 you're, there is not a hard deadline for the July 14 ones. And just go ahead and go forward and get what 15 you can --
16 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I think there is a --
17 MEMBER REMPE: -- and we can have a 18 special web call.
19 MR. WIDMAYER: So one thing to remember is 20 that they're going to come again in the fall with the 21 language again. You have a chance to comment on it 22 then.
23 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I'm just worried if there 24 is anything big on Framework B, it behooves us to make 25 sure that's in the July letter.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
218 1 MR. WIDMAYER: So --
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Other issues where 3 there's words or minor things, that's a different 4 thing.
5 MR. WIDMAYER: So I think that you could, 6 I think that, Dave, you could write a letter that 7 says, here is the big thing from Framework B, but 8 we're going to have more to say when we look at it 9 again in the fall.
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Right.
11 MEMBER HALNON: And, Derek, there could be 12 some pre-reading the IAEA stuff that it might be based 13 on.
14 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I just them the email.
15 MEMBER HALNON: And we could probably 16 start now if we can get that information. So the 17 homework is good.
18 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I just sent Derek an 19 email asking for the IAEA document that underlie that 20 figure that he showed so people could, who aren't 21 familiar with that enough, could get a leg up on it.
22 So.
23 But yes. What you guys don't know is that 24 I just got a couple more assignments that are coming 25 up in early September, so it's going to be tough for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
219 1 me too. Other things that have been delayed all of a 2 sudden come up. Okay, please go ahead, Nan.
3 MS. VALLIERE: Okay. If there are no more 4 questions on the Framework A rule language we can go 5 on to Slide 44.
6 So the Staff has two additional topics to 7 discuss with the subcommittee. Next slide please, 8 Billy.
9 The first topic that we know is of 10 interest to members of the subcommittee is rulemaking 11 coordination. And Bill has already discussed, at a 12 high level, how we are handling this.
13 Slide 45 lists ongoing rulemakings that 14 are expected to impact related requirements in Part 15 53. These rulemakings include the final rulemaking on 16 emergency planning for small modular reactors and 17 other new technologies, which is currently with the 18 commission.
19 The decommissioning proposed rulemaking, 20 which is out for public comment. The Part 50-52 21 lessons learned proposed rulemaking, which is expected 22 to go to the commission shortly. And the proposed 23 rulemaking on financial qualification requirements for 24 reactor licensing, which has been with the commission 25 since 2018.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
220 1 In general, under Framework A, as Bill 2 mentioned, our approach has been not to try to 3 parallel in Part 53 all the changes that are being 4 proposed in these rulemakings, instead, we are 5 including rule text in Part 53 that relates to 6 provisions being affected by these ongoing rulemaking 7 -- I apologize. Where we have included rule text in 8 Part 53 that relates to provision being affected by 9 the ongoing rulemakings, we have used the existing 10 rule language, and have noted in our communications 11 with stakeholders, that it is our intent to revisit 12 those rule sections once these ongoing rulemakings are 13 finalized.
14 This avoids the Staff having to constantly 15 keep up with a group of moving targets with respect to 16 these other rulemakings. I'll note that the one 17 exception is the emergency panning rule for which we 18 have included a direct reference to the new section 19 50.160, that will be added with the final EP rule.
20 Because that final rule is already with the 21 commission, we have greater confidence that it will be 22 codified before Part 53 is finalized.
23 We plan to state our intentions with 24 regard to these other rulemakings in the statements of 25 consideration for the Part 53 proposed rule so 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
221 1 external stakeholders are aware of our intention to 2 conform Part 53 to changes made in those rulemakings 3 where applicable.
4 Are there any questions about the way we 5 are approaching our rulemaking coordination?
6 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Just, and I'm not totally 7 worried about decommissioning, would be thrilled to 8 have, about how 53 license plant go through 9 decommissioning. Not urgent.
10 But on 50-52 alignment lessons learned, is 11 there something in there that could affect 53?
12 MS. VALLIERE: I think the main piece from 13 the 50-52 rulemaking that could affect Part 53 is they 14 are making several or proposing several changes to the 15 licensing processes and how they work. I know they're 16 proposing changes related to design certification 17 change processes and perhaps even terms of, you know, 18 for design certifications, things like that. How long 19 they are good for.
20 So those types of things would --
21 CHAIRMAN PETTI: It's more how than what?
22 MS. VALLIERE: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay. I got it. Thanks.
24 MEMBER REMPE: So, while we're discussing 25 that then, talk a little bit about the EP rulemaking.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
222 1 Because I looked at your text and you explicitly call 2 out for, for example, FEMA and how it would be done in 3 consultation with FEMA. Are you planning to mimic 4 what's in the other rule and change that text in your 5 graph that we have in front of us?
6 MS. VALLIERE: And so right now, if you 7 look at the EP programmatic requirements it will, it 8 offers an applicant the option of either sticking with 9 the existing, sort of Part 50 EP paradigm, or using 10 the 50.160, what will be in the final rule, once 11 approved by the commission. If approved by the 12 commission.
13 So we are offering that option. The same 14 option that exists under the EP SMR ONT rulemaking.
15 MEMBER HALNON: There's a branch that 16 would --
17 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.
18 MEMBER HALNON: -- take it to the same 19 place that Rule Part 50 is.
20 MS. VALLIERE: Okay. If there no further 21 questions on rulemaking coordination, we can go onto 22 the next topic which is guidance. And I will turn the 23 presentation back over to Jordan.
24 DR. BLEY: Can I sneak my question in now, 25 Nan?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
223 1 MS. VALLIERE: Certainly.
2 DR. BLEY: I don't think you're getting to 3 it. In the package we got two weeks ago there was a 4 small Part 73 physical protection change. And there 5 was a fitness for duty Part 26 change.
6 The Part 73 looks like it's just 7 somebody's improving the English, as far as I can 8 tell. Is there anything substantive there? I didn't 9 see it if there is.
10 MS. VALLIERE: So there are three, three 11 Part 73 sections that are being affected in the Part 12 53 proposed rulemaking. There is the physical 13 security section, which is 73.100. There is a 14 cybersecurity section, 73.110. And then access 15 authorization section, 73.120.
16 They are all offering, I would say in many 17 cases or more, a graded approach to these requirements 18 than you might see existing under 50 and 52. And 19 those are referred, if you look in the program section 20 of Subpart F, you will see the references to those 21 sections.
22 And offering, again, alternatives to use 23 the existing requirements or the next sections being 24 offered in the 53 rulemaking. If they meet the entry 25 criteria.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
224 1 DR. BLEY: Okay, thank you. All right.
2 MS. VALLIERE: Oh and, Dennis, I 3 apologize.
4 DR. BLEY: It looked like it was just 5 rewording that I saw. On Part 26, maybe you can tell 6 us why fitness for duty needs to be updated, other 7 than including certified operators, which could have 8 been a one-word change.
9 Any other changes seem like they ought to 10 be equally applicable to other people. But they're 11 embedded in Appendix M, which only applies to Part 53 12 applicants. So I'm a little curious about that one.
13 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, so I'll attempt to 14 very high-level overview, but realize the experts on 15 fitness for duty reside in NSIR and aren't with us 16 today, as far as I know.
17 DR. BLEY: I'm looking for high level, 18 Nan. Go ahead.
19 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. So in general they 20 took a, what I will call a transformative approach in 21 fitness for duty and are offering under Part 53, 22 again, a more graded approach to fitness for duty 23 requirements. Again, depending on meeting some 24 criteria.
25 So they have offered a separate program, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
225 1 a fitness for duty overhaul, in the Part 53 rulemaking 2 to try to be transformative. That would allow more 3 flexibility for advance reactors and how they 4 implement their fitness for duty program.
5 DR. BLEY: I hear the words, when I read 6 it, the changes there seem like they would be very 7 good for everybody. I'm just curious why it's locked 8 into just Part 53 applicants?
9 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, that I really would 10 have to defer to the fitness for duty experts to 11 answer those questions.
12 DR. BLEY: You might pass it on to them.
13 It just, it seems like it would be an opportune time 14 to include those same things for everybody.
15 MEMBER HALNON: Hey, Nan, this is Greg 16 Halnon. Could you take that as an action, to bring it 17 in the June subcommittee when we're talking with 18 operations and whatnot? Because I had the same 19 question Dennis did, I didn't get that, you know, the 20 fitness for duty for a reactor today should be the 21 same fitness for duty that's for a reactor tomorrow.
22 And I don't quite, I couldn't get all the 23 language in my mind how it was changing and how it was 24 working. So maybe we can get the NSIR folks to come 25 and explain that in the June subcommittee.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
226 1 MS. VALLIERE: So I've just been informed 2 that as a matter of fact, we do have our fitness for 3 duty expert online with us, so I'm going to let Paul 4 say a few words. Paul Harris.
5 MR. HARRIS: Yes, thank you, Nan. I 6 didn't catch the whole comments. I was sitting here 7 and I actually was not, I was on the call earlier, but 8 not recently.
9 So I understand the question to be, why 10 did we develop a brand new Subpart M for proposed Part 11 26 for advance reactors under Part 53 and why not did 12 we just leverage what exists in Part 26 now or was the 13 question different than that?
14 DR. BLEY: Well there were two parts.
15 That was kind of the first part. The second part was, 16 given what you've written, why wouldn't you just 17 update this for everyone because some of the things in 18 here seem like they would be equally useful to be able 19 to come in under 50 or 52?
20 MR. HARRIS: Yes, I agree with you. The 21 intent on -- the initiative that we have for Part 53 22 licensees starts from the fact that the radiological 23 consequences of these reactors is lower than that of 24 a large light water reactor. That's number one.
25 Number two, the human performance elements NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
227 1 of individuals is a little bit different as well. As 2 you all know, the automated structure systems and 3 components, passive safety systems tends to place a 4 lower reliance on human performance requirements, you 5 might say.
6 You know, the need for immediate actions 7 aren't as high as it is at a light water reactor. If 8 I could just summarize.
9 With those two elements, the human 10 performance elements and the radiological consequence 11 elements, based upon that, we made the conclusion that 12 we can develop this fitness for duty framework based 13 upon the fitness for duty program for a large light 14 water reactor construction sites, like at V.C. Summer 15 and Vogtle Units 3 and 4.
16 We considered the radiological 17 consequences relatively the same because they're 18 small. Smaller than operating reactors. And number 19 two, the contribution of an individual at causing a 20 radiological consequence is much lower during 21 construction as well.
22 So we used the Subpart K regulatory 23 framework, for fitness for duty programs for 24 construction, as the model for Part 53 utilization 25 facilities and manufacturing licensees who elect 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
228 1 manufacture a manufactured reactor and/or fuel loads.
2 So, we started out with radiological 3 consequences and looked at human performance and said, 4 we can leverage Subpart K. Subpart K is very general 5 requirements. I call them objective requirements.
6 Meaning, licensee go drug test your 7 people, licensee implement behavioral observation.
8 And a number of other elements. But we don't tell the 9 licensee how to do it. And that's the model we used 10 for Subpart K. Or Subpart M, for Part 53 licensees.
11 That is not the framework in the current 12 Part 26 subparts that are applied to the Part 50 and 13 52 licensees. The FFD requirements for Part 50-52 14 licensees are much more explicit. They're much more 15 robust. They're very detailed.
16 We actually tell the licensees how to do 17 things. How to conduct a urine test, how to collect 18 the specimen, how to transport a specimen. And the 19 amount of detail is substantial compared to what we're 20 proposing for Part 53 licensees.
21 DR. BLEY: Okay, thank you. If you were 22 designing this for microreactors, that's one thing.
23 But not all of the non-LWR reactors are going to be 24 that low in power so --
25 MR. HARRIS: That's true.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
229 1 DR. BLEY: -- that might be a big leap of 2 faith here.
3 MR. HARRIS: Well --
4 MEMBER HALNON: Yes. Yes, Paul, this is 5 Greg. You're making some assumptions that may not be 6 true until after you have actually seen the 7 application for the technology.
8 For instance, there may be a huge chemical 9 hazard --
10 DR. BLEY: That's right.
11 MEMBER HALNON: -- that human performance 12 could affect. And by making that assumption it's not 13 always necessarily true.
14 So that comes back to, is human 15 performance adequate for a nuclear facility, 16 radiological and chemical protection of the public or 17 is it not. And if it is, then we should have the same 18 level for the existing light water reactors.
19 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
20 MEMBER HALNON: But this is an opportunity 21 to tune it up. In know that there has been a lot of 22 stuff going back and forth on work hours, in the 23 fatigue rule.
24 MR. HARRIS: Right.
25 MEMBER HALNON: Fitness for duty. A lot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
230 1 of learnings and a lot of difficult potential rule 2 changes. And rule changes made for things that have 3 been overly burden or not perspective enough. So it 4 might be a good opportunity just to take an all look 5 and fix it for everybody.
6 MR. HARRIS: Yes. That fixing it for 7 everybody, I would love to do that. I've been in the 8 agency a long time and that's something, that's one of 9 my goals.
10 But I can assure the folks on the Board 11 that the regulatory framework that we're proposing 12 provides and equivalent level of assurance of not only 13 that individuals are fit for duty and trustworthy and 14 reliable, but these individuals -- I lost my train of 15 thought.
16 That these individuals, we have the same 17 regulatory assurance that these individuals will be 18 fit for duty. We did not reduce any worker 19 protections, we did not relax any drug testing 20 requirements, except for the facility that can meet 21 our FFD radiological consequence criterion. In which 22 that would be looking more like, you might say a 23 research and test reactor rather than a utilization 24 facility generating a lot of electricity.
25 So the framework is there, the structure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
231 1 is there. But we did not apply it to the large light 2 water reactor community, like you notice.
3 MS. VALLIERE: And this is Nan. I just 4 want to point out that it would be going beyond the 5 scope of the rulemaking plan approved by the 6 commission for the Part 53 rulemaking if we were to 7 start to address issues related to the existing fleet.
8 MEMBER HALNON: Fair enough, Nan. I agree 9 with that. Maybe there is an option to, almost like 10 50.160, to make it available for everybody if you can 11 justify it. But I understand what you're saying.
12 DR. BLEY: And --
13 MEMBER HALNON: Maybe as we get through 14 this we'll find different areas that, Paul, you can 15 fix that 26 point less than 100 and 200s.
16 DR. BLEY: I did have one specific 17 question. In 26.609, the last paragraph was added --
18 MR. HARRIS: Yes. I think I don't have 19 that memorized, but I think 26.09 delta is what you're 20 referring to. That's behavior observation in the 21 control room. I think that's the one you're referring 22 to.
23 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes. I think it's the 24 video --
25 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
232 1 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes.
2 MR. HARRIS: Yes. Okay, so the Staff 3 concern for that very specific element, and we briefed 4 this through management, and this is the first 5 independent look I'm hearing from others, so this is 6 good.
7 The Staff concern is, is how do we ensure 8 that individuals re under behavior observation? The 9 rule doesn't say, continuous behavior observation, the 10 rule doesn't say, two-man rule, like the military 11 implement for weapons. It doesn't say that. It says, 12 though shall be subject to behavior observation and 13 all individuals shall conduct behavior observation.
14 However, if I have a facility that might 15 be licensed and designed for a very small staff size 16 in that the staff sizes available to operate the 17 facility and there is not too many people there. How 18 do I ensure that people are being observed in the 19 conduct of their roles and responsibilities?
20 Let's say a licensed operator or a 21 certified operator. Or someone at the controls. And 22 that's sort of the, that's sort of the framework in 23 which that delta paragraph is looking at.
24 If we have a small utilization facility 25 that has few people onsite, there might only be 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
233 1 individual at the controls of the reactor facility.
2 And there might be other maintenance people around or 3 security people around but no one else at the control.
4 So how will you monitor what that individual is doing.
5 And it isn't just being fit for duty, but 6 it also deals with the insider threat. We want to 7 make sure that we're aligned with the behavior 8 observation program within the security area and the 9 access authorization program within the security area 10 as well to ensure that that individual was at that 11 control, has some sort of teamwork or peer review or 12 management oversight in the conduct of activities that 13 are being performed.
14 And that's why we're proposing that last 15 paragraph in behavior observation section.
16 DR. BLEY: I apologize for disappearing, 17 I lost the internet out here in Albuquerque, so I'll 18 read the transcript to see what your answers were.
19 MR. HARRIS: Okay.
20 MR. WIDMAYER: So, hey, Greg, this is 21 Derek. I had a huge box on my notes that we needed to 22 bring FFD into the June meeting. Do you still want to 23 have more presentation or is this adequate?
24 MEMBER HALNON: No, Paul did a fine job.
25 I appreciate 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
234 1 MR. WIDMAYER: Okay, thanks.
2 MS. VALLIERE: Okay, thank you, Paul, for 3 an impromptu presentation there.
4 MR. HARRIS: Yes, off the cuff I think.
5 But we are standing by for any questions that the 6 group might have. And be more than happy to answer 7 any emails as well.
8 MS. VALLIERE: Okay. With that, if we 9 have no more questions on the rule language, I think 10 we can move on to the guidance discussion.
11 Can we go to the next slide please? And, 12 Jordan, I'll turn it over to you.
13 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay, thanks, Nan. And 14 good afternoon, again, everyone. I think we can move 15 to the next slide.
16 My goal today is just to give everyone a 17 sort of, continue our coordination with you all on the 18 guidance we've been developing to both support early 19 movers under the existing regulatory framework and to 20 provide guidance, eventually, for Part 53.
21 Bill, you want to move to the next slide.
22 I'll also be discussing the timing of when these 23 guidance documents will be available. And sort of how 24 we plan to reference them in the Part 53 proposed 25 rulemaking package.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
235 1 So as you guys probably know, in the 2 Staff's rulemaking plan we proposed to build a 3 regulatory framework from design through 4 reconstruction and operation, and eventually to 5 decommissioning, decommissioning a new part, Part 53, 6 by December 2027, as directed and required by the 7 Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act.
8 The commission's SRM approved the 9 rulemaking plan. And directed the Staff to provide a 10 schedule with milestones and resource requirements to 11 achieve publication of the final Part 53 rule by 12 October 2024. And directed the Staff to identify key 13 uncertainties impacting publication of the final rule 14 by that date.
15 The timing of guidance document 16 development was identified as a key uncertainty to 17 meeting the commission directed schedule. And this 18 slide covers the reasons and strategies the Staff 19 would undertake to address this uncertainty.
20 So that basically we told the commission 21 that this accelerated schedule would require us to 22 focus resources on developing the proposed rule 23 language and that the possible need to publish the 24 proposed rule before completing draft supporting 25 guidance, that was possible.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
236 1 We told the commission we would continue 2 to engage external stakeholders to ensure common 3 prioritization of guidance documents. And that we 4 would support early applications under Parts 50 and 5 52, such as the U.S. Department of Energy's Advance 6 Reactor Demonstration Program.
7 So, Bill, you want to move to the next 8 slide. Unless there is questions. And please 9 interrupt me if there is questions. If that wasn't 10 clear already.
11 Next. Yes. Okay. So, this slide sort of 12 highlights a number of the key -- a number of the 13 guidance documents that were kind of prioritized or 14 considered key guidance to support Part 53.
15 As you guys know, the Staff has been 16 identifying potential policy issues and gaps in the 17 existing regulatory framework for advanced reactors 18 for decades. And we continue to develop licensing 19 approaches for advance reactors.
20 These activities in the past were done in 21 parallel with, and sometimes interwoven, with the 22 NRC's efforts to improve risk-informed and 23 performance-based approaches within the agency.
24 In 2016 we interacted with stakeholders in 25 the ACRS to develop the NRC's vision and strategy for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
237 1 safely achieving effect and efficient non-light water 2 reactor readiness in response to increasing interests 3 and advance reactor designs.
4 In 2017 we issued the implementation 5 action plans that focused on six strategies to achieve 6 the goals and objectives stated in the vision and 7 strategy. Based on input received from stakeholders 8 and the ACRS that the Staff assigned priority to the 9 execution of Strategy 3 and 5, which is resolving 10 policy issues and ensuring flexible review strategies 11 and developing guidance. However, activities were 12 concluded and are ongoing to support all six 13 strategies.
14 It is important to note that during this 15 time we were focusing on closing key regulatory and 16 licensing gaps for non-light water reactor 17 technologies. The enactment of NEIMA in 2019 put 18 additional emphasis on specific activities that the 19 NRC had identified in the vision strategy NEIPs and 20 directed the Staff to complete the rulemaking, or to 21 complete a rulemaking for the technology inclusive 22 regulatory framework by 2027.
23 NEIMA directed the NRC to provide reports 24 to Congress on a number of these topics. Including 25 increase the use of risk-informed performance-based NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
238 1 approaches establishing stages in the licensing 2 process and developing guidance to account for the 3 unique aspect of advance reactor technologies.
4 So while a number of these activities are 5 being pursued to support advanced reactor applications 6 under Parts 50 and 52, they are essentially, and I 7 know that in some of our previous meetings you guys 8 have pointed out that there are a number of, a number 9 of the document titles have been for non-light water 10 reactors. And I know that's caused some concerns from 11 you all.
12 But that was our focus at the time under 13 Part 50 and 52. And a number of our activities were 14 done and developed with explicit considerations for 15 the licensing modernization project methodology.
16 Which is one of those documents that's says for non-17 light water reactors, although it is considered 18 technology inclusive.
19 So, just to cover the items listed on this 20 slide. A number of these you guys have reviewed.
21 These will, the future and under development 22 documents, some of which we've discussed under the 23 various subparts earlier today, will come to you 24 during the normal regulatory process for seeing these 25 things. Or have already been planned to be presented NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
239 1 to you through the Part 53 rulemaking.
2 So I mentioned licensing modernization 3 project in Reg Guide 1.233. We talked about citing.
4 And earlier, or late last year we discussed the fuel 5 qualification framework that we issued in NUREG-2246 6 in March of this year.
7 You guys have seen the non-light water 8 reactor PRA standard. We presented to you on ASME 9 Section 3, Division 5, for high temperature materials.
10 Tomorrow we'll present on you for ASME 11 Section 11, Division 2, reliability integrity 12 management. We have activities underway to support 13 technology specific fuel qualification guidance.
14 There is work going on in industry to 15 provide guidance for the PRA level of detail. There 16 is the seismic design and seismic isolator white 17 papers that Bill mentioned earlier today. There is 18 emergency planning guidance moving with the final 19 proposed rule that we just mentioned on the past 20 slide.
21 There is an SNC led project on change 22 process that ties into the licensing modernization 23 project that Bill mentioned under the Subpart I 24 discussions.
25 NEI is leading a QA alternatives project, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
240 1 that we mentioned under Subpart K. And then we have 2 a number of operator licensing and operator training 3 program guidance that we're working to develop to 4 support near-term applicants under Parts 50 and 52.
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
6 I have what amounts to, I believe, is an 7 administrative question maybe you guys can help us 8 with.
9 If you look at Division 5 in Section 11, 10 Division 2, when you try to get a hold of those things 11 it's very convoluted. You have to do it on an 12 individual basis from the library and you cannot 13 upload these things to the SharePoint site from the 14 ACRS without running the risk of doing jail time.
15 So, really, I'm wondering whether or not 16 these ASME code sections that we're dealing with can 17 be obtained in a way that we can put them on the 18 SharePoint sites so members can actually see them 19 without having to go through this convoluted exercise 20 from the library where the individual code cases and 21 codes and things are literally stamped with your 22 personal name, and you can't do anything with it. You 23 can't put it on the SharePoint site. That's just an 24 administrative problem which we've come up against, 25 which is a pain.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
241 1 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, Ron, I have the same 2 observation you do. I don't know how to get around 3 that. I'm not even sure I have access to the codes.
4 I know there is a way to get access through the NRC's 5 processes to get on the list. And I don't even know 6 what the program is called that gets you access to 7 them.
8 But I know I did get a warning, once, for 9 someone noticing that one of these codes were on a 10 SharePoint site and we needed to take them all down 11 because they're copyrighted and whatnot.
12 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, Division 5 is 13 quite similar to other versions of the code. But 14 Division 2 of Section 11 has got some really good 15 stuff in it that relates to risk-informing and PRA, 16 use of PRA. Well worth reading.
17 DR. BLEY: And, Ron, just a question for 18 you and Chris. In our SHINE review they setup this 19 box system which seems to be isolated and have more 20 protections than others. Maybe that's the way you can 21 get them to submit.
22 MEMBER BALLINGER: I think that's a, SHINE 23 did that. Right? I don't think we did that. Yes, 24 SHINE did that. So --
25 DR. BLEY: Never mind.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
242 1 MEMBER BALLINGER: No. What I've decided, 2 it's a little late, but what I've decided to do is to 3 print a copy of Division 2 and leave it out. That you 4 can do. You can print a copy, put it in the binder.
5 And as long as you don't copy it, you can read it.
6 But that's the only way I've figured out how to do it.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Ron, we'll take an action to 8 talk to the technical library and see if there is 9 anything we can do. But some of this is beyond our 10 control.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: I know it's kind of a 12 mundane problem but --
13 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, it is. All the 14 staff perfectly understands what you're saying.
15 Again, the best we can do is say we'll talk to the 16 technical library and see if there is an alternative 17 to that.
18 Some of this is, again, is, as Jordan 19 mentioned, it's setup by us or by ASME and there is 20 not much we can do about it. But we will check. We 21 will check.
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay, so moving to the Part 23 53 specific guidance. We currently have guidance 24 underway for systematically evaluating initiating 25 events. And for the quantitative risk estimate or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
243 1 insights. That's part of Framework Bravo.
2 And that's efforts that, I think, Marty 3 Stutzke has talked to you guys about stemming back for 4 a while now. But definitely in the December 5 subcommittee meeting. And we're developing similar to 6 the seismic effort white papers to support those 7 interactions with you all and external stakeholders.
8 And then similarly, the operator licensing 9 stuff, human factor stuff, concept of operations and 10 staffing falls within Subpart F discussions that we'll 11 have later on.
12 In some cases these are supporting, well, 13 I'm not sure the exact timing of a lot of these 14 things. I don't know if the drafts will be available 15 for when we have the Subpart F discussion or not, but 16 they should be available by the, by your September or 17 fall review of the entire proposed rule package.
18 Then we have items that touch on the Part 19 73 and Part 26 security and fitness for duty related 20 portions of the proposed Part 53 rulemaking package.
21 That it will be developed as well. Or are under 22 development I mean.
23 And then the tech staff, and Danny was 24 working to develop a materials compatibility interim 25 staff guidance. Which essentially covers or addresses NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
244 1 parts of the regulation that aren't covered by ASME 2 Section 3, Division 5.
3 That's things like environmental effects, 4 coolant and the radiation items. Where Division 5 5 can't account for every coolant type or reactor type 6 generically enough. So that work is also ongoing.
7 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes. This is Ron 8 Ballinger again. With respect to environmental 9 effects and the like, have you looked at, I hate to 10 keep mentioning ASME, but the ASME fitness for service 11 code section?
12 It used to be an API 5, oh man, 579 and 13 580. And then ASME just basically wholesale adopted 14 it and now it's called fitness for service dash 1 or 15 something like that. It has several chapters in there 16 on dealing with environmental effects. Not radiation 17 effects but environmental effects.
18 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay. I appreciate that, 19 Ron. I will take that back to the team working on it.
20 I am not an expert on every single one of these 21 guidance documents, so I'm not, you know, I've been 22 involved in a number of them but not every single one.
23 So I can't confirm whether or not that's been 24 considered.
25 I would assume, because I know that people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
245 1 work in it are involved in ASME and the like. But 2 I'll take it back to them and make sure that it is.
3 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes. Section, with the 4 fitness for service, Chapter 7 and 9. I got it. I 5 dovetail pretty well with the Division 2 of Section 6 11.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay. Okay. I'm sure the 8 folks working on, you know, we have a whole working 9 group working on this so I --
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: The fitness for 11 service, or the FF, whatever they call it, is not part 12 of the NRC library by the way.
13 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay. Okay. Well, I'll 14 take it back to the team and either, you want me to 15 get back to Derek to close the loop on that?
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: No, not necessarily.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: All right. Okay.
18 MEMBER BALLINGER: I mean --
19 MR. HOELLMAN: I mean you --
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: -- fitness for service 21 one is well worth it.
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. I mean, as we get 23 closer these things will get flagged to you guys for, 24 if you're interesting in looking at them per the 25 normal processes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
246 1 And then for future guidance, and what 2 we've tried to do is, in looking at industry 3 prioritization, and as I mentioned before, 4 coordination with all in the past, try to identify 5 areas where we think we might need additional guidance 6 in the future.
7 These are things that haven't been worked 8 on yet but have kind of been kicked around. And so 9 some of the items are, you know, analytical margins.
10 Chemical hazards, manufacturing, technical 11 specifications. We think under TICAP and ARCAP that 12 maybe we'll be able to rely on that for short-term, 13 but longer-term Part 53 we think we might need 14 something more.
15 Facility safety program and then content 16 of applications for the Framework B side of the house.
17 Which we --
18 MEMBER REMPE: Jordan, slow down for a 19 little bit. I'm sorry, go ahead and finish what 20 you're saying about Framework B, but then can we start 21 at the very beginning and talk a little bit about what 22 you're thinking about with analytical margin?
23 But go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt 24 you, I thought you were done.
25 MR. HOELLMAN: No, that's okay. So, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
247 1 know, the content of the application for Framework B 2 is essentially like an ARCAP/TICAP type thing. And 3 we've only, I think kind of developed an outline for 4 now. But that was, I was pretty much done anyways, 5 Dr. Rempe, so.
6 MEMBER REMPE: So, yes, actually since you 7 just finished. It seems to me that if someone was 8 going to use Framework B, that the contents of 9 application would be something that want pretty soon.
10 But let's start at the very top. And what are you 11 thinking about with analytical margin that you want to 12 generate?
13 MR. HOELLMAN: So, for the analytical 14 margins, what, you know, essentially we've been kind 15 of discussing is whether it's, or how we can kind of, 16 you know, there is a requirement or an option to pick 17 something more restrictive then the QHOs, for 18 instance, as your cumulative risk metric and if 19 someone would pick that, how would that carry through 20 the rest of the framework. Is kind of where --
21 MEMBER REMPE: That helps. I was thinking 22 more about, we looked at something recently where they 23 didn't have data and they used a structured process to 24 deal with the fact that there wasn't data. So I just 25 wasn't sure what this meant. And that's why I was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
248 1 curious about.
2 But you're talking at something pretty 3 high level. Like the QHOs or CDF instead of the QHOs.
4 We were looking at a light water reactor. Is that 5 what you're telling me?
6 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, Jordan, this is Bill.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Another reason --
9 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, go ahead, Bill.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Another straightforward 11 example is, is if you look at the frequency 12 consequence target figure within LMP, for beyond 13 design basis events, it would theoretically allow for 14 very low frequency events to have an offsite 15 consequence in the tens of rems, for example.
16 But if you wanted to keep the consequence 17 below on rem to justify either the citing relaxations 18 or the alternate emergency planning zone, that would 19 be the use of what we're calling analytical margin.
20 Because you're establishing a more restrictive 21 criterion to use and then to justify an operating 22 flexibility like a alternate emergency planning zone.
23 So when we're thinking that guidance might 24 be useful in this area, it was really, with that one 25 example that has been developed pretty thoroughly, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
249 1 what other areas might applicants want to pursue that 2 might be similar to that. And how would you define 3 the margins, how would you maintain the margins 4 throughout the lifecycle of the plant. Things like 5 that.
6 We've not gotten much response on 7 additional uses of analytical margins beyond the ones 8 we're already aware of. So whether we develop this 9 guidance will be in part based on future interactions 10 with stakeholders and having a little better idea of 11 what proposals they may be making.
12 MEMBER REMPE: That helps. I just am 13 curious about this. Then chemical hazards, are you 14 trying to think about acceptable levels, and doesn't 15 EPA already have something like that or what are you 16 thinking about with that?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: So I think for near-term we 18 think we can rely on guidance under Part 70. But 19 we've been, you know, starting to have discussions 20 within NRR and research and NMSS to sort of see if now 21 is the time to do that or if it makes more sense to 22 sort of rely on what's, what we have now and gain 23 experience from early reviews before kind of, or to 24 help inform what would eventually become guidance.
25 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. And then my favorite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
250 1 topic about manufacturing facilities and their 2 licenses. What kind of guidance are you thinking 3 about developing and which guidance, you've heard my 4 colleagues tell me that there is guidance out there 5 and which guidance are you going to be modifying?
6 Can you give me some more details on what 7 you have there? And then I'll ask Walt and Dave to 8 identify what guidance they think that exists that 9 should be modified or is just perfect for the 10 situation.
11 MS. VALLIERE: So, Jordan, I can start out 12 if you would like?
13 MEMBER REMPE: Sure.
14 MS. VALLIERE: So there was --
15 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, go ahead.
16 MS. VALLIERE: There was, under Part 52 17 there was never really any guidance developed for the 18 manufacturing license process. So that's data point 19 one.
20 And then as of course as we have discussed 21 throughout the day today, we are expanding even what 22 would have been allowed under Part 52, to include 23 things like loading of fresh fuel at the manufacturing 24 facility. So it would be guidance for the 25 manufacturing license applicant to help layout some 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
251 1 what we've put in the Part 53 rule with regard to 2 that.
3 And again, as Jordan mentioned on the 4 chemical hazards piece the question is, in our minds 5 at least, it would help us if we had a little more 6 clarity on what applicants were going to pursue before 7 we start making a serious effort at the guidance.
8 MEMBER REMPE: So again, I know Bill said 9 earlier about, well, we may only limit it to fresh 10 fuel this time around. But physics testing was 11 something that he mentioned.
12 Matt had a deal with the maximum number of 13 loaded modules at the site, and things like that. I 14 mean, I heard good things mentioned by Bill today.
15 But I also heard, you Walt, mention that, 16 oh no, we've got guidance for dealing with this and 17 the definitions. What guidance are you referring to 18 that's out there, Walt?
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You're misstating my 20 points.
21 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. Then correct me.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I never said there is a 23 guidance. There is an existing set of regulations 24 that would allow a design team to figure out its way 25 and path through this, with existing regulations. 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
252 1 in different instances in the past, these had been 2 used for those purposes.
3 So the regulations that I'm talking about, 4 like the transportation, et cetera, do exist. And 5 they do credit to the regulators, they are framed 6 often in a fairly generic or fundamental criteria 7 approach, so that as we discussed earlier today, if 8 you're shipping, whether it's fresh fuel or spent 9 fuel, there are existing regulations for doing that.
10 Obviously it's done.
11 When it comes to fresh fuel, criticality 12 safety is a primary concern. Depending on the amount 13 of fuel that's being transported, and the regulations 14 address that.
15 On the return end things get a little more 16 difficult because bringing back an intact module with 17 irradiated fuel has the added complications of 18 shielding and weight that would go with that. But in 19 general, there is a framework out there that allows 20 the industry to move fresh fuel and spent fuel. And 21 the requirements that are specified are fundamental 22 enough that they, for a good design team, they could 23 figure out their way through this.
24 Now, to your point about guidance, that 25 would be nice. I don't know where in the priority 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
253 1 things the Staff's efforts should be. That's not for 2 me or us to determine.
3 You don't want a tail wagging the dog 4 situation where some outlining design is consuming all 5 the attention of the staff as they try and make this, 6 put this rulemaking forward. But the regulations are 7 pretty robust when it comes to moving these materials.
8 There are some quirks, as you might have 9 indicated. If indeed you put the, load the fuel in 10 the reactor, not only do you need a physical and 11 positive way of ensuring shutdown margin, with regard 12 to criticality, you have some other things that 13 aren't, I don't want to call them, well, they're 14 complications in a sense, source term would be one 15 area where you probably would not want to ship an 16 entire loaded intact core without a source term. So 17 you have some signal to reference, et cetera. But I 18 think those are second order details.
19 You're correct. Physics testing at a 20 facility that is mainly a fuel manufacturer, that's 21 going beyond what is normally done in the current fuel 22 fab plants. So there the manufacturing licensing 23 would have probably specifically address that.
24 But in general, what I was asserting was 25 that the regulations provide a robust framework for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
254 1 doing this. Is it readily apparent, probably not.
2 But I think a sophisticated design team who is going 3 to attempt to do this, can find their way through it.
4 And yes, guidance would be nice. Is that 5 the highest priority for the staff in implementing 10 6 CFR 53, I don't know. That's not my call.
7 MEMBER REMPE: So when we doing, which 8 letter was it, where we, I think it was our Part 50-52 9 letter, right, where we talked about we were going to 10 be looking at, the Staff was going to be looking at 11 this in a holistic fashion and to look at these cases.
12 That's why I'm following up on this 13 because I'm thinking about the holistic fashion.
14 Maybe it doesn't need to be done early on, and it can 15 be addressed in the preamble saying we're just 16 starting to think about this fueled transportation and 17 manufacturing of a fueled module, but I'm not sure 18 that we're hearing yet how the holistic look is going, 19 is the point I was trying to make today.
20 And I think that we're in agreement some 21 guidance is needed to address some possible quirks.
22 And again, it might be good to let some design 23 developers know about the things that may be more 24 difficult.
25 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I just want to say 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
255 1 from the design side, there is discussion. Again, not 2 something for today or tomorrow, but longer term of 3 risk-informing transport regulations. Like the rest 4 of the agency is doing under the reactor licensing.
5 Which is an interesting concept and I 6 think both NRC Staff and some of the design developers 7 are starting that discussion. I think we'd be very 8 interested in it when it matures.
9 MEMBER REMPE: So, again, I always think 10 of worst case things. And Dennis brought up something 11 too today that I was thinking about.
12 Okay. So you got a radiation monitor to 13 decide something is not right, what do you do. What 14 prevention is involved there as you start thinking 15 about the risk and those kinds of things.
16 Okay, so, what if we had a situation where 17 you transport something, and something happens. Yes, 18 you'll know that something is not going right because, 19 even though you did a drop test and everything like 20 that, something got jiggled and things are not 21 behaving like it should be and the thing is starting 22 to produce some sort of radiation, how do you stop it 23 on the move?
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: It's producing radiation 25 all the time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
256 1 MEMBER REMPE: Yes. But after --
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: I mean, you're saying --
3 (Simultaneous speaking.)
4 MEMBER REMPE: -- reactor --
5 CHAIRMAN PETTI: It will produce radiation 6 outside the reactor vessel.
7 MEMBER REMPE: -- levels of what you're 8 wanting where that you are --
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: There are, yes. There 11 are --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 CHAIRMAN PETTI: There are accommodations 14 that if your dose is outside this, I can't remember if 15 it's a couple meters, there is some number that's 16 above that, you have to apply for an accommodation.
17 Like a special escort.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
19 MEMBER REMPE: So if there is an unplanned 20 event --
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well, Joy --
22 (Simultaneously speaking.)
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Joy, but the 24 industry deals with these kinds of things already.
25 For example, when you ship fresh fuel you obviously NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
257 1 don't want to drop it.
2 But when upon receipt inspection at a 3 nuclear power plant, if there is obvious damage or 4 there is the determination of leakage, then you go 5 into a corrective action mode. It gets more 6 complicated if you have an entire intact core and so 7 on, I would admit that. But there are processes that 8 the industry and the agency uses for things like, when 9 you have damage and transport and so on and so forth.
10 And that's, you know, as a designer having 11 gone through this once in the '80s, that was one of 12 the biggest concerns. Because it turns out that the 13 drop requirements and such that you might see, the 14 transport loads, probably far exceed even the seismic 15 loads that you designed for.
16 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
17 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So, were you to drop a 18 module, for example, then you would have to go into an 19 inspection mode and determine whether you had created, 20 for example, damage to the fuel elements or 21 functionality of the control system, and so on.
22 It adds a lot of risk for the person, the 23 design team that's going to take that challenge on.
24 And they're going to have to be prepared for that.
25 But the system that is in place has 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
258 1 means to address that. We can't, it would be hard to 2 outline specifics because we don't even know what 3 these modular --
4 MEMBER REMPE: All I'm asking --
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- look like.
6 MEMBER REMPE: -- is for some guidance 7 because I think things may be a little more difficult 8 than what people were anticipating when you're talking 9 about fresh fuel. Okay?
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I should stop myself, 11 but having gone through this again, conceptually, the 12 most difficult thing is retrieval intact. Just trust 13 me on that.
14 It's the complication, the fresh fuel 15 doesn't need shielding, retrieval does. So it's very 16 complicated, you're correct.
17 Guidance is certainly, would be very 18 useful. And the designer teams that are proposing 19 this, be forewarned, the challenges are significant.
20 MEMBER REMPE: That's where I'm going.
21 The challenges are significant, you can't just try and 22 drive it somewhere in a remote location sometimes if 23 you're on the road. That's all of my questions.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay, thanks, Dr. Rempe.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
259 1 Very insightful for me, I know that. And that's why 2 it's on our list of future guidance I guess.
3 Do you want me to go through the rest of 4 these? I sort of touched on technical specifications.
5 We think some of the work going on under ARCAP helps 6 us in the near-term, but there is a potential that we 7 may need to do more to support Part 53 specific tech 8 spec requirements.
9 Facility safety program, of course this is 10 a new program we're proposing in Part 53. And so we 11 think we'll need some guidance to associate to 12 complete that.
13 And then content of applications is of 14 course, we're starting to develop an outline for that 15 and plan for that work.
16 MEMBER REMPE: If you can, yes, the people 17 that are pushing for B, I think that they would want 18 that real soon. But I don't know. I guess you guys 19 are more aware of what they're wanting.
20 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, what does future 21 mean? Still before the rule --
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. Yes, so once we, the 23 next few slides we'll talk about the timing for each 24 one of these categories. But future essentially means 25 we're not doing anything with it now. There 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
260 1 potential is that we won't do anything with it to 2 support the proposed rule. We may have time to work 3 on it between the proposed and final rule, but that's 4 kind of the goal.
5 But like I mentioned before, and as 6 described in our vision and strategy IAPs and 7 supporting near-term applicants under Parts 50 and 52, 8 the light blue stuff is essentially a little more 9 critical than future guidance specific for Part 53.
10 So let's move to the next slide, Bill, and 11 you'll get a feel for how the next slide, how the next 12 few slides will move. All right.
13 So here is, we have existing guidance.
14 These guidance documents currently exist. They'll be 15 referenced in the Part 53 rule making package, as key 16 guidance.
17 Conforming changes will be needed to 18 ensure they're applicable to Part 53. For example we 19 talked about some of the terms used in NEI 18-04, 20 which are a little different than terms we're using in 21 Part 53. Such as beyond design basis accidents. And 22 we used very unlikely events sequences in Part 53.
23 So we'll need some conforming changes in 24 crosswalks to ensure the alignment. Additionally, 25 we'll need to remove some of the things where we say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
261 1 this is applicable to non-light water reactors and 2 make it more technology inclusive.
3 But these revisions will occur between the 4 proposed rule and final stages. Since these guidance 5 documents are being leveraged by early movers under 6 Parts 50 and 52.
7 So the next slide is the guidance 8 documents that are currently under development. So 9 the light blue here are near-term guidance documents 10 that we're working on. Their primary objective is to 11 support near-term applicants under Parts 50 and 52.
12 They'll be referenced as key guidance in 13 the rulemaking package. They'll be issued on their 14 own schedules to support near-term applicants. But we 15 expect them to also support Part 53.
16 So they will, like the existing guidance 17 documents, will need conforming changes to ensure 18 they're applicable to Part 53, to ensure they're 19 applicable to all technologies and the like. And we 20 expect that those revisions will occur between the 21 proposed and final rule stages.
22 And that's how they'll be described in the 23 rulemaking package. Or that's how we envision them 24 being described.
25 The Part 53 specific guidance documents, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
262 1 these are ones that are currently under development.
2 They'll be included with the rulemaking package. Like 3 how the commission's expectation for rulemakings are 4 carried out today. With the guidance moving with the 5 proposed rule.
6 So that's how we envision these documents 7 going on. Like I mentioned earlier, some of these 8 things we'll put in front of you later this summer or 9 before we meet again in the fall.
10 Is there any questions on how any of 11 these -- okay.
12 So let's move to, I think it's the last 13 slide. And this is the future. The future guidance 14 documents. These are identified as future guidance 15 that may need to be developed to support Part 53.
16 These guidance documents may be referenced 17 in the Part 53 rulemaking package as under 18 development. They're expected to be completed to 19 support the final rule.
20 We also know that additional operational 21 program guidance and reporting requirements guidance 22 will be needed eventually. But obviously because they 23 won't be needed for initial licensing, we think that 24 they aren't, or shouldn't be, prioritized as high as 25 some of the other guidance documents needs we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
263 1 identified.
2 The other thing to note is, NEI is working 3 on a prioritization list themselves. And that will 4 help inform if there is any gaps in what we've 5 developed.
6 And sort of help us ensure we're tackling 7 the proper things. As we communicated to the 8 commission in our response to the SRM. And as we've 9 been doing since 2016 in interacting with you all and 10 external stakeholders on these activities.
11 So I guess the last thing I'll mention, 12 and I know that you guys have seen, or the Staff has 13 presented on TICAP and ARCAP in the past, I know there 14 has been a question about sort of the overall content 15 of application guidance. And so a lot of these things 16 kind of get compiled into ARCAP and TICAP to form the 17 content of application guidance in specific areas to 18 inform that technical area.
19 It will point to some of these other 20 guidance documents. And that's kind of, you guys 21 asked, that's the closest thing, I think, to a roadmap 22 that I think one of you asked about earlier today.
23 So with that, I think we can move on to 24 the next slide. Or we can have any sort of other 25 discussions you want to have, but I think that's 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
264 1 end of my prepared remarks, at least.
2 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay, thank you, Jordan.
3 Yes, 13 minutes early. Oh that's right, we've public 4 comments. Sorry. Let's ask USNIC to go.
5 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay. This is Cyril Draffin 6 from the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council. We have 7 slides, which I sent to Derek earlier. Would he want 8 to show it, or should I share screens or just do it 9 without slides?
10 MR. WIDMAYER: You can share your screen 11 as long as Billy, I think you need to give up sharing.
12 And you should be able to share, Cyril. All right, 13 Cyril, see if you can -- yes, there you go.
14 MR. DRAFFIN: So is that, can you now see 15 that?
16 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, sir.
17 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay, thank you. I want to 18 give the results of the survey that we took. They 19 were just publicly released last week at the NRC 20 stakeholders meeting. And I will cover who they, who 21 the people are that submitted, on the next slide, 22 which I hopefully can see the companies presenting.
23 MEMBER REMPE: Cyril, can you put this in 24 presentation mode? You know what I'm saying? Because 25 the screen is hard for us to read. That's 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
265 1 better. Thank you.
2 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay. So there are 22 3 companies that completed the survey. There were 15 4 questions, fairly detailed. This comprehensive survey 5 was sent to the senior regulatory affairs personal of 6 these companies that are potential applicants to the 7 NRC.
8 And they really do represent the 9 organizations that will determine if Part 53 is useful 10 and efficient or should it be set aside and not used.
11 So we wanted to get their reaction.
12 This is the raw data that's provided in 13 back. But what I'm going to do right now is just 14 summarize who they were. And then a couple of the key 15 conclusions.
16 Just for background. In fact, there was 17 discussion earlier today that some companies are going 18 to be owner/operators and designer/developers. It 19 could be X-energy, it could be Oklo. So there is a 20 new kind of class if you will.
21 But of the respondents, 12 were 22 owner/operators. And ten were designer/developers 23 only. So we really wanted to get a broad swath of 24 organizations that were members of USNIC or NEI and to 25 get their frank comments on what they thought.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
266 1 We checked in a couple cases whether there 2 was a difference between owner/operators and 3 designer/developers and there really wasn't. The ones 4 we checked on basically have the same responses.
5 So I just wanted to immediately give you 6 the lay of the land, if you will, of the kinds of 7 people that responded. Because it gives you the sense 8 of credibility or how useful and credible the 9 responses are.
10 So this is the first of two sets of 11 insights. It's a comprehensive survey, as I 12 indicated.
13 Fifteen of the 22 respondents have 14 submitted an application to the NRC, are in pre-app 15 with the NRC. Or submitted a risk response to the 16 NRC. So these are active organizations that are 17 engaged with the NRC and would be the most likely 18 candidates for using Part 53.
19 There is support for an interest in using 20 Part 53, pretty related to whether they think Part 53 21 is going to be more efficient than Part 50 and 52 in 22 receiving, achieving the same level of safety. And if 23 it's not more efficient than it will probably just 24 stick with Part 50-52 and the exemptions that are 25 required to use those tasks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
267 1 They had -- they basically supported the 2 comments that NEI and USNIC made. There was very 3 detailed, you know, couple hundred-page comments 4 provided to the NRC in the fall. And some additional 5 comments earlier this year. And there is industry 6 support from that for both the owners and developers.
7 Then we got into, and I'll show you a 8 couple, I won't go through them all, but I'll just 9 give you a couple example slides at the very end in 10 the appendix. But I don't want to hold you up this 11 afternoon by going through that level of detail.
12 But for instance, we asked whether there 13 was significant concerns, and they could choose the 14 ones they wanted. And then they rank ordered them in 15 terms of importance.
16 And the ones that came up as being most 17 significant was expanded ALARA to be a design 18 requirement proliferation of unnecessary programs, 19 increase regulatory burden for non-safety SSCs.
20 Safety objectives different than the Atomic Energy 21 Act, expansion design basis and a lack of measurable 22 goals for regulatory efficiency.
23 They also identified four parts, where 24 they though there was benefits. For instance, 25 increased use of performance-based approaches for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
268 1 security and technology inclusive requirements.
2 They also suggested innovations on 3 improvements are needed. Like strictly streamlining 4 the license reviews, the regulatory approvals and the 5 program requirements. It's not just the regulations 6 and the guidance we've been talking about today, but 7 how is that going to be implemented. And that's a 8 question they're interested in, in terms of 9 efficiency.
10 The input provided to the NRC was given 11 regarding what in Framework A should be included or 12 not included. In Framework B, it says a lot of detail 13 on that.
14 There is diversity use of the PRA. Most 15 don't want the PRAs in the rule. And probably the 16 most important one was that many of the goals for Part 17 53 were not met by the current language, but some of 18 them met.
19 So for instance, proving regulatory 20 efficiency, predictability, stability, clarity and 21 flexibility were, they didn't think it had been met.
22 And then in summary, it's a time-consuming process and 23 we certainly had been engaged in that. But there is 24 only limited support for the current language and many 25 areas for improvements were needed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
269 1 There is a lukewarm satisfaction for the 2 NRC rationale for the opposed approach. And high 3 satisfaction with the opportunity to comment, but low 4 satisfaction of NRC's feedback industry.
5 So I'll touch upon what they look like.
6 And obviously you can look up and they might be 7 available in the slides. They were also included in 8 the read ahead background materials from the May 11th 9 stakeholder's meeting.
10 But it gives you data for support for the 11 language, for the applications. Those people are like 12 are likely to use Framework A or not. And maybe a, 13 but a quarter are likely to use, over a third are not 14 likely to use. And the most are, you know, we haven't 15 seen the benefits yet but they're waiting.
16 This is the listing of the approaches, 17 which offer benefits. And so you can we see we added 18 the data both in the numbers of companies and also the 19 percentages. The same thing for where could you have 20 additional benefits in the two-party, in the two 21 approaches.
22 These are the ones where they were 23 concerned. And so, again, it rank orders the ones, 24 they had the greatest concerns. And innovations were 25 recommended.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
270 1 And if you use Part 53, what kind of 2 licensing approach would you use. And how well do you 3 think they met their goals.
4 In most cases the, only about a third of 5 them thought that the key goals had been met. Which 6 was disconcerting, I think, in terms of results. But 7 I just wanted to give you a snapshot of the data.
8 Today, I know it's the end of the day, but 9 I just wanted to alert you that this information was 10 available. It does represent the people might be 11 users of Part 53. And I think that's their key 12 element of how Part 53 is adopted, or not adopted.
13 And so, we just wanted to share that with you today.
14 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley, Cyril.
15 Have you written a report on this, and have you made 16 available to the Staff, and to this Committee, both 17 your questionnaire and the results, other than the 18 slides you're showing today?
19 MR. DRAFFIN: In addition to what you've 20 seen today, this represents maybe a third of the 21 slides. So there is more information on it and data.
22 We could of course give you the questions, 23 but they're basically re-stated at the top of each 24 page. So there is, or the category. So we certainly 25 can share that. But I don't think there is any 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
271 1 information that's not already in the slides.
2 We did not have a report that we've done 3 in addition to this. If there are particular 4 questions you have, let us know. We can go back and 5 look at the data. We're not disclosing any individual 6 response, but we could try to clarify if there is 7 something that you've seen in the data, that you want 8 to hear more about.
9 DR. BLEY: Okay, thanks. And then as long 10 as those questions at the top of each page are 11 reasonably the same as the questions you asked, that's 12 great.
13 MR. DRAFFIN: I think reasonably is like 14 95 percent. They might have been shortened just to 15 fit on this slide.
16 And again, this is available to you. And 17 if you have any particular ones you like to go 18 through, I'm happy to do that at this time.
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Cyril, this is a 20 difficult question. This is Walt Kirchner.
21 MR. DRAFFIN: Certainly.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You represent a broad 23 cross-section of the industry. Obviously some of your 24 participants, thank you, have much more experience in 25 dealing with, and engaging with the NRC, than others.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
272 1 Is there any, when you look through your 2 responses, and I know this is fraught with potential 3 bias, but of the list here, of organizations and 4 corporations that are frequently, have a long history 5 of interaction with the NRC, was there any skewing of 6 their responses that of the whole? Do you see where 7 I'm going?
8 MR. DRAFFIN: Absolutely. The answer is, 9 we did not do that. For a couple of reasons. One, 10 it's hard for us to judge. This is a, you know, a 11 more qualified company than the other one.
12 And also, Part 53 is supposed to last and 13 be useful for decades. And so, it's not just the ones 14 that are currently, have experience with NRC on 50-52, 15 it's a number of the smaller companies which may not 16 have a lot of experience in the NRC but want to, and 17 therefore would be using Part 53. So that was the 18 reason why we didn't split that because we didn't know 19 exactly how to do that and whether it was useful.
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Thank you. Hey, Members, 21 just so you know, we're breaking our rule of asking 22 responses from public comment.
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Apologies, Dave.
24 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Yes.
25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
273 1 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Just, I think it would be 2 nice just to make sure we have the slides for our 3 information in our deliberations.
4 MR. WIDMAYER: So, Dave, this is Derek.
5 The slides are included in one of the background 6 documents.
7 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Oh, good. Okay, I missed 8 that. Thank you.
9 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN PETTI: So let me turn now, is 11 there any other public comments out there? If so, 12 state your name, your comment. Make sure you unmute 13 yourself. Okay, not hearing any.
14 Thank you, everyone. I thank the Staff.
15 This has been a long day with a lot of information.
16 And you've done a tremendous job getting ready for our 17 meeting and I thank you for that.
18 And we'll be back the next --
19 (Off microphone comment.)
20 CHAIRMAN PETTI: Okay.
21 MEMBER REMPE: So the court reporter knows 22 we're off the record.
23 CHAIRMAN PETTI: We're off the record.
24 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 25 off the record at 5:00 p.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
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Regulatory Rulemaking, Policies and Practices:
Part 53 Subcommittee 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regula on of Advanced Nuclear Reactors May 19, 2022
Agenda Topic
- Staff Introduction
- Introduction to Part 53
- Framework A Subparts o A - General Provisions o B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements o C - Design and Analysis Requirements o D - Siting Requirements o E - Construction and Manufacturing Requirements o G - Decommissioning Requirements o H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals o I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information o J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements o K - Quality Assurance Criteria
- Key Guidance 2
Welcome and Introductions Welcome:
- Steve Lynch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
NRC Speakers / Presenters:
- Bill Reckley, NRR
- Nan Valliere, NRR Meeting Slides:
- ADAMS Accession No. ML22125A001 3
Rulemaking Schedule Oct/Nov 2022 ACRS Interactions on Rulemaking Package for Proposed Rule 4
Part 53 Licensing Frameworks Subpart A - General Provisions Framework A Framework B
- Subpart B - Safety Requirements
- Subpart N - Purpose/Definitions
- Subpart C - Design Requirements
- Subpart D - Siting
- Subpart E - Construction
- Subpart O - Construction
- Subpart F - Operations
- Subpart P - Operations
- Subpart G - Decommissioning
- Subpart Q - Decommissioning Alternate Evaluation
- Subpart H - Licensing Processes
- Subpart R - Licensing Processes for Risk
- Subpart I - License Maintenance
- Subpart S - License Maintenance Insights
- Subpart J - Reporting
- Subpart T - Reporting
- Subpart K - Quality Assurance
- Subpart U - Quality Assurance 5
Part 53 Licensing Frameworks Framework B Framework A Emphasis Emphasis Design Criteria Risk metrics
- With addition of DBA used to set design criteria and
- Traditional approach represented by figure from IAEA guidance performance objectives for the design of Safety Related SSCs.
6
Consolidated Preliminary Rule Language (Including Second Iteration)
Summary & Changes 7
Framework A Subpart A General Provisions (Definitions)
Subpart B Safety Requirements (Including QHOs, ALARA)
Subpart C Design and Analysis Subpart D Siting Subpart E Construction and Manufacturing Subpart F Operation (Including Engineering Expertise, Operator Licensing)
Subpart G Decommissioning Subpart H Licenses, Certifications and Approvals Subpart I Maintaining Licensing Basis Subpart J Reporting and Administrative Subpart K Quality Assurance 8
Evolution of Part 53 & Stakeholder Feedback Topic Addressed in Preliminary Proposed Rule Language
- Quality Assurance (QA) requirements consolidated in Subpart K.
Duplicative/overlapping programs
- Added flexibility for licensees to organize and combine programs, as appropriate, to avoid duplication (Subparts F & K).
Expanded activities permitted under ML to include fabrication of entire reactor, Manufacturing license (ML) expansion including fuel loading (Subparts E & H).
Safety criteria structure Eliminated two-tiered approach to safety criteria (Subpart B).
Codes and standards Enabled flexibility in using codes and standards.
Decoupled requirements for normal operation from those for licensing basis Normal operations events (LBEs) (Subparts B & C).
- The staff has removed references to advanced nuclear plant.
Use of advanced nuclear plant and
- No plans to expand applicability to research and test reactors (note that expansion beyond commercial reactors NEIMA is directed at commercial reactors) (Subpart A).
Subpart A - General Provisions
- Selected definitions o Commercial nuclear plant o Commercial nuclear reactor o Manufactured reactor o Manufactured reactor module
- Methodology definitions o Event categories o Defense in depth 10
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.200 Safety objectives.
§ 53.210 Safety criteria for design basis accidents.
§ 53.220 Safety criteria for licensing basis events other than design basis accidents.
§ 53.230 Safety functions.
§ 53.240 Licensing basis events.
§ 53.250 Defense in depth.
§ 53.260 Normal operations.
§ 53.270 Protection of plant workers.
11
Subpart B - Safety Criteria
- Safety Objectives
- DBA Safety Criteria Safety Criteria What function(s)
- Non-DBA Safety Criteria (e.g., a barrier, cooling) are needed to satisfy safety
- Safety Functions criteria
- Licensing Basis Events Safety Functions
- Defense in Depth What design features (e.g., a structure, system) are provided to fulfill the
- Role of: safety function(s) o Structures, systems, and components (SSCs) Design Features (and Human Actions) What design criteria o Personnel (e.g., leak rate, cooling capacity) are needed for o Programs design feature Functional Design Criteria (Personnel; Concept of Operations) 12
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
- Revised criterion related to NRC quantitative health objectives (QHOs) to address feedback.
- Revised criteria related to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) to address feedback.
13
QHOs - Updated Preliminary Proposed Rule Language (May 2022)
§ 53.220 Safety criteria for licensing basis events other than design basis accidents.
Design features and programmatic controls must be provided to:
(a) Ensure plant structures, systems and components (SSCs), personnel, and programs provide the necessary capabilities and maintain the necessary reliability to address licensing basis events in accordance with § 53.240 and provide measures for defense-in-depth in accordance with § 53.250; and (b) Maintain overall cumulative plant risk from licensing basis events other than design basis accidents analyzed in accordance with § 53.450(e) such that the calculated risk to an average individual in the vicinity of the commercial nuclear plant of prompt fatalities remains below five in 10 million years, and the calculated risk the population in the area near a commercial nuclear plant of cancer fatalities remains below two in one million years.
14
QHOs - Basis
- Performance-based approaches use measurable or calculable performance metrics.
- Risk-informed approach benefits from cumulative risk measure as well as success criteria for specific event sequences
- QHOs are well established and have been used in making regulatory decisions since they were developed as part of the NRCs Safety Goal Policy Statement.
Examples include:
o Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 (Using probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) in risk-informed decisions - licensing basis) o NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- Supports risk-informed, performance-based approach as encouraged by NEIMA.
- Provides predictability and stability in that acceptance criteria are defined and are used by both applicants and NRC during initial licensing reviews and maintenance of licensing basis information (Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information).
15
QHOs - Basis
- Methodologies available for performing risk assessments and comparing to QHOs.
o Supported by recently issued RG 1.247, TRIAL - Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Non-Light Water Reactor Risk-Informed Activities
- Applicants may choose to use surrogate measures to show that designs or plants satisfy the QHO-related criteria (e.g., core damage frequency for light-water reactors (LWRs))
- Recent language change to calculated risk and to refer to analyzed in accordance with § 53.450(e) intended to address issues about uncertainties associated with estimating risks to the public from the release of radionuclides.
- Revised to fatalities to maintain alignment with Safety Goal Policy Statement
- Rationale for using QHOs as a metric will be provided in Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule package.
16
ALARA - Updated Preliminary Proposed Rule Language
§ 53.260 Normal operations.
(a) Maximum public dose. Licensees under this part must ensure that normal plant operations do not result in public doses or dose rates in unrestricted areas that exceed the limits provided in Subpart D to 10 CFR part 20.
(b) As low as reasonably achievable. A combination of design features and programmatic controls must be established such that the estimated total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from effluents resulting from normal plant operation are as low as is reasonably achievable in accordance with 10 CFR part 20.
(similar text for occupational exposures) 17
ALARA - Basis
- Consistent with current requirements in § 50.34a, Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents nuclear power reactors. Additional ALARA requirements tied to the initial design of a facility include Appendix I to Part 50; 10 CFR 20.1101, and 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA).
- Consistent with previous design certification (DC) applications 10 CFR 50.34a, Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluentsnuclear power reactors.
(e) Each application for a design approval, a design certification, or a manufacturing license under part 52 of this chapter shall include:
(1)A description of the equipment for the control of gaseous and liquid effluents and for the maintenance and use of equipment installed in radioactive waste systems, under paragraph (a) of this section; and (a) a description of the preliminary design of equipment to be installed to maintain control over radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents the application shall also identify the design objectives, and the means to be employed, for keeping levels of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable.
18
ALARA - Basis
- Recognizes that plant design plays essential role in controlling releases and protecting plant workers
- Consistent with past Commission decisions (Part 20 rulemaking, Advanced Reactor Policy Statement)
- Many cost-effective solutions are most effectively identified and addressed at the design stage of a project
- Staff is proposing more performance-based approach to preparing applications and NRC review of ALARA during design reviews through issuing draft guidance (Advanced reactor content of application project [ARCAP])
- Rationale for maintaining ALARA requirementsfor both licensees and designers will be provided in Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule package 19
Subpart C - Design and Analysis Requirements
§ 53.400 Design features for licensing basis events.
§ 53.410 Functional design criteria for design basis accidents.
§ 53.420 Functional design criteria for licensing basis events other than design basis accidents.
§ 53.425 Design features and functional design criteria for normal operations.
§ 53.430 Design features and functional design criteria for protection of plant workers.
§ 53.440 Design requirements.
§ 53.450 Analysis requirements.
§ 53.460 Safety categorization and special treatment.
§ 53.470 Maintaining analytical safety margins used to justify operational flexibilities.
§ 53.480 Earthquake engineering.
20
Subpart C - Design and Analysis Requirements
- Clarified references to use of consensus codes and standards and requirement that they must be found acceptable by NRC.
- Added design requirements for:
o Aircraft impact o Chemical hazards related to licensed materials o Minimizing contamination 21
Subpart C - Design and Analysis Requirements
- Changes and Clarifications for Analysis Sections o Added need to define evaluation criteria for each event or specific categories of LBEs
Required for safety-related SSCs As appropriate for non-safety-related but safety significant SSCs 22
§ 53.450(e) - LBEs other than DBA (e) Analyses of licensing basis events other than design basis accidents.
Analyses must be performed for licensing basis events other than design basis accidents. These licensing basis events must be identified using insights from a PRA in combination with other generally accepted approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems to identify and analyze equipment failures and human errors.
The analysis of licensing basis events other than design basis accidents must include definition of evaluation criteria for each event or specific categories of licensing basis events to determine the acceptability of the plant response to the challenges posed by internal and external hazards. The analyses must address event sequences from initiation to a defined end state and be used in combination with other engineering analyses to demonstrate that the functional design criteria required by § 53.420 provide sufficient barriers to the unplanned release of radionuclides to satisfy the evaluation criteria defined for each licensing basis event, to satisfy the safety criteria of § 53.220, and provide defense in depth as required by § 53.250. The methodology used to identify, categorize, and analyze licensing basis events must include a means to identify event sequences deemed significant for controlling the risks posed to public health and safety.
23
Event Selection & Analysis Licensing Modernization Project AOOs Anticipated event sequences expected to occur one or more times during the life of a nuclear power plant, which may include one or more reactor modules. Event sequences with mean frequencies of 1x10-2/plant-year and greater are classified as AOOs. AOOs take into account the expected response of all SSCs within the plant, regardless of safety classification.
24
Event Selection & Analysis Licensing Modernization Project DBEs Part 53: Unlikely Event Sequences Infrequent event sequences that are not expected to occur in the life of a nuclear power plant, which may include one or more reactor modules, but are less likely than AOOs. Event sequences with mean frequencies of 1x10-4/plant-year to 1x10-2/plant-year are classified as DBEs. DBEs take into account the expected response of all SSCs within the plant regardless of safety classification.
25
Event Selection & Analysis Licensing Modernization Project BDBEs Part 53: Very Unlikely Event Sequences Rare event sequences that are not expected to occur in the life of a nuclear power plant, which may include one or more reactor modules, but are less likely than a DBE. Event sequences with mean frequencies of 5x10-7/plant-year to 1x10-4/plant-year are classified as BDBEs. BDBEs take into account the expected response of all SSCs within the plant regardless of safety classification.
26
§ 53.450(f) - Design basis accidents (f) Analysis of design basis accidents.
The analysis of licensing basis events required by § 53.240 must include analysis of design basis accidents that address possible challenges to the safety functions identified in accordance with § 53.230. The events selected as design basis accidents must be those that, if not terminated, have the potential for exceeding the safety criteria in § 53.210. The design basis accidents selected must be analyzed using deterministic methods that address event sequences from initiation to a safe stable end state and assume only the safety-related SSCs identified in accordance with § 53.460 and human actions addressed by the requirements of Subpart F are available to perform the safety functions identified in accordance with § 53.230. The analysis must conservatively demonstrate compliance with the safety criteria in § 53.210.
27
Design Basis Accidents Licensing Modernization Project DBAs Postulated event sequences that are used to set design criteria and performance objectives for the design of Safety Related SSCs. DBAs are derived from DBEs based on the capabilities and reliabilities of Safety-Related SSCs needed to mitigate and prevent event sequences, respectively. DBAs are derived from the DBEs by prescriptively assuming that only Safety Related SSCs are available to mitigate postulated event sequence consequences to within the 10 CFR 50.34 dose limits.
(Part 53: Safety Criteria in Subpart B) 28
Subpart C - Design and Analysis Requirements
- Added § 53.480 Earthquake engineering.
o Intended to support the more flexible and graded seismic design approaches afforded by performance-based standards such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) 4-19, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities o Future interactions with ACRS expected on this topic through development of guidance documents 29
Subpart D - Siting Requirements
§ 53.500 General siting.
§ 53.510 External hazards.
§ 53.520 Site characteristics.
§ 53.530 Population-related considerations
§ 53.540 Siting interfaces.
- Added QA requirement for siting activities.
- Made changes related to the earthquake engineering section in Subpart C 30
Subpart E - Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
§ 53.600 Scope and purpose.
§ 53.605 Reporting of defects and noncompliance.
§ 53.610 Construction
§ 53.620 Manufacturing
- Made changes reflecting consolidation of QA requirements in Subpart K
- Added § 53.605 to capture requirements in § 50.55(e).
- Clarified requirements for MLs allowing fuel loading.
o References to 10 CFR Part 70 31
Subpart F - Requirements for Operation To be discussed during June meeting 32
Subpart G - Decommissioning Requirements
§ 53.1000 Scope and purpose.
§ 53.1010 Financial assurance for decommissioning.
§ 53.1020 Cost estimates for required decommissioning funds.
§ 53.1030 Annual adjustments to cost estimates for decommissioning.
§ 53.1040 Methods for providing financial assurance for decommissioning.
§ 53.1045 Requirements for decommissioning trust funds.
§ 53.1050 NRC oversight.
§ 53.1060 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
§ 53.1070 Termination of license.
§ 53.1080 Release of part of a commercial nuclear plant for unrestricted use.
33
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
§ 53.1100 - 53.1121 General/common requirements.
§ 53.1124 Relationship between sections.
§ 53.1130 Limited work authorizations.
§ 53.1140 Early site permits.
§ 53.1200 Standard design approvals.
§ 53.1230 Standard design certifications.
§ 53.1270 Manufacturing licenses
§ 53.1300 Construction permits.
§ 53.1360 Operating licenses.
§ 53.1410 Combined licenses.
§ 53.1470 Standardization of commercial nuclear power plant designs:
licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of identical design at multiple sites.
34
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
- Formatted using early site permits (ESPs) for siting-related content and DCs for design-related content
- Added existing provisions exempting U.S. Department of Defense reactors from NRC licensing (§ 53.1120).
35
Leveraging and Combining Existing Licensing Processes Commercial Operations Fuel Load Operating License Site (OL) selected Combined License (COL)
Use OL or custom COL to develop a CP based on Site subsequent DC SDA or DC selected Standard Design Manufacturing Design Certification Approval (SDA) License (ML) (DC)
Part 50 Site selected Part 52 CP and COL may reference Early Site Permit (ESP) Part 53 Construction Permit (CP) 36
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
§ 53.1500 Licensing basis information.
§ 53.1505 Changes to licensing basis information requiring prior NRC approval.
§ 53.1510 - 53.1520 License amendments.
§ 53.1525 - 53.1535 Specific provisions
§ 53.1540 - 53.1545 Other licensing information
§ 53.1550 Evaluating changes to facility as described in final safety analysis reports.
§ 53.1555 - 53.1565 Program-related documents
§ 53.1570 Transfer of licenses or permits.
§ 53.1575 Termination of license.
§ 53.1580 Information requests.
§ 53.1585 Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause.
§ 53.1590 Backfitting.
§ 53.1595 Renewal.
37
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
- Added existing change control requirements for individual programs (QA, Emergency Preparedness, security).
- Added change control provisions for DBAs and aircraft impact.
- Added existing generic license conditions (§ 53.1502).
38
§ 53.1550 Evaluating changes to facility as described in final safety analysis reports (1 of 2)
(a) A licensee may make changes in the facility as described in the UFSAR and make changes in the procedures as described in the UFSAR without obtaining a license amendment pursuant to § 53.1510 only if:
(1) A change to the technical specifications incorporated in the license is not required and (2) The change meets all of the following criteria:
(i) Does not result in an increase to the frequency or consequences of an event sequence such that an event sequence previously deemed not risk significant becomes risk significant by the analyses performed in accordance with § 53.450(e).
(ii) Does not result in an increase to the frequency or consequences of an event sequence such that an event sequence deemed risk significant in accordance with § 53.450(e) has a decrease of 10 percent or more in the calculated margins to the LBE evaluation criteria required to be established in accordance with § 53.450(e).
(iii) Does not result in an increase to the frequency or consequences of one or more event sequences such that the margin between the calculated cumulative risks posed by the commercial nuclear plant and the safety criteria of § 53.220 decreases by 10 percent or more.
39
§ 53.1550 Evaluating changes to facility as described in final safety analysis reports (2 of 2)
(iv) Does not involve a departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in assessing margins in accordance with § 53.450(e) unless the results of the analysis under § 53.450(e) are conservative or essentially the same, the revised method of evaluation has been previously approved by the NRC for the intended application, or the revised method of evaluation can be used in accordance with an NRC endorsed consensus code or standard.
(v) For commercial nuclear plants licensed under this part for which alternative evaluation criteria are adopted in accordance with § 53.470, does not result in a change to the frequency or consequences of event sequences such that the calculated margins between the results for event sequences evaluated in accordance with § 53.450(e) and the alternative evaluation criteria decreases by 25 percent or more.
(vi) Does not result in the identification of a new design basis accident in accordance with § 53.450(f).
(vii) Does not result in a decrease by 10 percent or more in the margin between the consequence of any design basis accident and the safety criteria in § 53.210.
(viii) Does not prevent meeting the design requirements in § 53.440(j) to limit the release of radionuclides from reactor systems, waste stores, or other significant inventories of radioactive materials assuming the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.
40
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements
§ 53.1600 General information.
§ 53.1610 Unfettered access for inspections.
§ 53.1620 Maintenance of records, making of reports.
§ 53.1630 Immediate notification requirements for operating commercial nuclear plants.
§ 53.1640 Licensee event report system.
§ 53.1650 Facility information and verification.
§ 53.1655 Reporting of defects and noncompliance.
§ 53.1660 Financial requirements.
§ 53.1670 Financial qualifications.
§ 53.1680 Annual financial reports.
§ 53.1690 Licensees change of status; financial qualifications.
§ 53.1700 Creditor regulations.
§ 53.1710 Financial protection.
§ 53.1720 Insurance required to stabilize and decontaminate plant following an accident.
§ 53.1730 Financial protection requirements.
41
Subpart K - Quality Assurance Criteria
§ 53.1800 General Provisions 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B
§ 53.1805 Organization (Criterion I)
§ 53.1810 Quality Assurance Program (Criterion II)
§ 53.1815 Design Control (Criterion III)
§ 53.1820 Procurement Document Control (Criterion IV)
§ 53.1825 Instructions, Procedures and Drawings (Criterion V)
§ 53.1830 Document Control (Criterion VI)
§ 53.1835 Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services (Criterion VII)
§ 53.1840 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and Components (Criterion VIII)
§ 53.1845 Control of Special Processes (Criterion IX)
§ 53.1850 Inspection (Criterion X)
§ 53.1855 Test Control (Criterion XI)
§ 53.1860 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment (Criterion XII)
§ 53.1865 Handling, Storage and Shipping (Criterion XIII)
§ 53.1870 Inspection, Test and Operating Status (Criterion XIV)
§ 53.1875 Nonconforming Materials, Parts or Components (Criterion XV)
§ 53.1880 Corrective Action (Criterion XVI)
§ 53.1885 Quality Assurance Records (Criterion XVII)
§ 53.1890 Audits (Criterion XVIII) 42
Discussion 43
Additional Topics for Discussion 44
Rulemaking Coordination
- Emergency Planning for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies
- Decommissioning
- Part 50-52 Lessons Learned
- Financial Qualifications Requirements for Reactor Licensing 45
Key Guidance 46
Rulemaking Plan - SECY-20-0032 and SRM The staff should accelerate its timeline while balancing the need to produce a high-quality, thoroughly vetted regulation to achieve publication of the final rule by October 2024.
- Staffs response to SRM identified timing of guidance document development to support the Part 53 rulemaking as an uncertainty in meeting the accelerated schedule o Focus resources on developing the proposed rule language o Possible need to publish proposed rule before completing draft supporting guidance o Continue engaging external stakeholders to ensure common prioritization of guidance documents o Support early applications under Parts 50/52 (e.g., U.S. Department of Energys Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program)
Key Guidance Coordination Under Development Near-Term Part 53 Existing Future
- Non-LWR PRA Std
- TICAP/ARCAP (NEI 21-
- Qualitative Risk
- Licensing
- Analytical Margin
- 07) Estimate/Insights Modernization
- Chemical Hazards
- High Temp Materials (Alternative Evaluation of Project (NEI 18-
- Manufacturing (ASME III-5) Risk Insights [AERI])
04 & RG. 1.233)
- Technical
- Reliability & Integrity Mgt
- Operator licensing Exam
- Human Factors Engineering 4.7)
- Facility Safety
- Fuel Qualification
- Concept of Operations/
- Fuel Qualification Program (technology-specific) Staffing Framework
- Contents of
- PRA Level of Detail (NEI-
- Fitness for Duty (NUREG-2246) led) Applications for
- Access Authorization
- Seismic Design/Isolators Framework B
- Emergency Planning
- Physical Security
- Change Process (SNC-led)
- Materials Compatibility ISG
- QA Alternatives (NEI-led)
- Operator Training Program
Existing Guidance Existing Future
- Existing guidance documents currently exist
- Licensing and will be referenced in the Part 53 Modernization rulemaking package as key guidance.
Project (NEI 18-04 & RG. 1.233)
- Conforming changes will be needed to ensure
- Siting Criteria (RG they are applicable to Part 53.
4.7)
- Fuel Qualification
- Revision will occur between proposed rule Framework and final rule stages.
Guidance Under Development
- Near-term guidance documents are Near-Term Part 53 currently under development and will Future
- Non-LWR PRA Std
- Initiating Events be referenced as key guidance.
- TICAP/ARCAP (NEI 21-
- Qualitative Risk
- These will be issued prior to the
- 07) Estimate/Insights (AERI) finalization of Part 53 to support
- High Temp Materials
- Operator licensing Exam near-term applicants and will need (ASME III-5)
- Human Factors Engineering conforming changes to ensure they
- Reliability & Integrity Mgt
- Concept of Operations/ are applicable to Part 53.
(ASME XI-2) Staffing
- Revision will occur between
- Fuel Qualification
- Fitness for Duty proposed rule and final rule stages.
(technology-specific)
- Access Authorization
- PRA Level of Detail (NEI-
- Cyber Security led)
- Physical Security
- Part 53-specific guidance
- Seismic Design/Isolators
- Materials Compatibility ISG documents are currently under
- Emergency Planning development and are expected to be included with the Part 53 rulemaking
- Change Process (SNC-led) package as key guidance.
- QA Alternatives (NEI-led)
- Operator Training Program
Future Guidance Future
- Future guidance documents are identified as future guidance that may need to be developed to support Part
- Analytical Margin
- 53.
- Chemical Hazards
- Manufacturing
- These guidance documents may be referenced in the Part
- Technical 53 rulemaking document as under development and are expected to be completed to support the final rule. Specifications
- Facility Safety
- Additional operational program guidance and reporting Program requirements guidance may be provided with the final
- Contents of rule. Applications for Framework B
Final Discussion and Questions 52
Closing Remarks Rulemaking Contacts Robert.Beall@nrc.gov 301-415-3874 Nanette.Valliere@nrc.gov 301-415-8462 Regulations.gov docket ID: NRC-2019-0062 Please provide feedback on this public meeting using this link:
https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/contactus.html 53
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards DEC Design extension condition Agencywide Documents Access and EAB Exclusion area boundary ADAMS Management System EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AERI Alternative Evaluation of Risk Insights ESP Early site permit ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable F-C Frequency-consequence AOO Anticipated operational occurrence IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ARCAP Advanced reactor content of application project ISG Interim staff guidance ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers LBE Licensing basis event ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers LWR Light-water reactor BDBE Beyond design basis event ML Manufacturing license CFR Code of Federal Regulations NEI Nuclear Energy Institute COL Combined license Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization CP Construction permit NEIMA Act DBA Design basis accident NO Normal operations DBE Design basis event NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DC Design certification NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 54
Acronyms and Abbreviations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical SDA Standard design approval NUREG report designation SEI Structural Engineering Institute OL Operating license SNC Southern Nuclear Company PAG Protective action guide SRM Staff requirements memorandum PRA Probabilistic risk assessment SSCs Structures, systems, and components QA Quality assurance Technology-inclusive content of application QHO Quantitative health objective TICAP project REM Roentgen equivalent man UFSAR Updated final safety analysis report RG Regulatory guide 55
Results of Nuclear Energy Institute and U.S. Nuclear Industry Council 2022 Part 53 Industry Survey For ACRS 19 May 2022 Cyril W. Draffin, Jr.
Senior Fellow, Advanced Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Industry Council Cyril.Draffin@usnic.org Marcus Nichol Senior Director, New Reactors Nuclear Energy Institute mrn@nei.org Powered by
Q1: Companies Completing NEI/USNIC Part 53 Survey - April 2022
- 1. Alpha Tech
- 2. ARC Clean Energy
- 3. BWXT This comprehensive survey of Part 53 was sent to
- 4. Constellation senior regulatory affairs personnel of companies that
- 5. Energy Northwest are potential applicants to the NRC.
- 6. Framatome
- 7. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy
- 8. General Atomics
- 9. Holtec International
- 10. Kairos Power
- 11. Moltex Energy
- 12. NuScale Power
- 13. Oklo
- 14. Radiant Industries
- 15. Southern Company
- 16. TVA
- 17. TerraPower
- 19. Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp.
- 20. Westinghouse
- 21. X-energy
- 22. Xcel Energy 2
Q2: What type of applicant to the NRC are you? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 22 Skipped: 0 12 Owner/Operator Responses 10 Designer/Developer 12 Only 10 6 Owner/Operator 6 Both Owner/Operator 8
Only and Designer/Developer 6
4 2
0 Owner/Operator (would apply Both Owner/Operator and Designer/Developer (would for a construction permit, Designer/Developer apply for a design approval or operating license, etc.) support an application for an operating license) 3
Concluding High Level Insights (1 of 2)
- Comprehensive survey
- 12 owner/ operator responses and 10 designer/developer only responses
- Key active organizations provided responses-- 15 of 22 respondents have submitted application to NRC, are pre-app with NRC, or submitted RIS response to NRC
- Support for, and interest in using, Part 53 is directly related to perceptions of whether Part 53 will be more efficient than Parts 50 and 52 in achieving same level of safety
- NEI/USNIC comments supported some NRC approaches but presented significant concerns overall--
strong support for NEI/USNIC comments
- Ten Part 53 items create significant concerns (e.g. expanding ALARA to be design requirement, proliferation of unnecessary programs, increased regulatory burden for non-safety SSCs, and safety objectives different than in AEA)
- Four Part 53 items have benefits (e.g. increased use of performance-based approaches for security, and technology-inclusive requirements) 4
Concluding High Level Insights (2 of 2)
- Innovations needed included streamlining of licensing reviews, regulatory approvals, and program requirements
- Input provided to assist NRC in determining what in Framework A should-- and should not-- be included in Framework B (Industry still prefers a single flexible framework)
- Diversity in use of PRA and type of licensing approach to be used
- Most do not want QHOs in the rule (3 are likely to use and 4 may use Framework A)
- Very few want QHOs in rule (1 likely to use Framework A and 1 undecided)
- All plan to use PRA
- Many goals for Part 53 are not met by current language, but some goals are met
- Not met: Improving regulatory efficiency, predictability, stability, clarity, and flexibility
- Part 53 development and review is time-consuming process, but only limited support for current language, and many areas where improvements needed to address concerns
- Lukewarm satisfaction for NRC rationale for proposed approaches and receptivity to stakeholder response
- High satisfaction with opportunity to comment, but low satisfaction on NRCs feedback to industry 5
Appendix:
Selective Slides from 2022 Part 53 Industry Survey 6
Q5: To what degree do you support the following? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most agreement)
Answered: 21 Skipped: 1 Only moderate support High support 10 Score: 3 Degree of Support1, 2 9
NRC Draft Rule Language:
8
- High Support (score 4 or 5) = 11% (2)
- Moderate Support (score 2 or 3) = 83% (15) 7
- Low Support (1) = 6% (1) 6 Score: 5 5 NEI/USNIC Comments:
Score: 3
- High Support (score 4 or 5) = 78% (14) 4
- Moderate Support (score 3, not 2) = 22% (4) 3
- Low Support (no 0 or 1) = 0% (0) 2 Score: 1 Score: 5 1
0 NRC Preliminary Rule Language from NEI/USNIC Comments Submitted to the NRC February 4, 2022 (ML22024A066) on November 5, 2021 (ML21309A578) 0 1 2 3 4 5
- 1) Moderate support for NRC rule language is consistent with NEI/USNIC comments, in which NEI/USNIC support some of the NRC approaches, but have concerns in key areas. 7
- 2) Not shown are three Dont Know responses. Percentages are of those providing responses other than Dont Know/skip.
Q6: For applications submitted in 2025 and beyond, what is the likelihood that you will use the NRC Part 53 Framework A, if the Final Rule adopts the language and approaches in its current form? (Note that later questions will ask about Framework B, and the overall two-framework approach)
Answered: 21 Skipped: 1 Framework A of Part 53 is the likely first choice (e.g., substantial benefits in comparison to Parts 50 and 52)
Likely to use
= 24%
Will likely use Framework A of Part 53, but not for the first application (e.g., requirements are not conducive to licensing a first-of-a-kind design)
May use Framework A of Part 53, but need to see demonstrated Have not seen benefits of Framework A = 38%
benefits (e.g., current NRC proposal may provide advantages over Parts 50 and 52, but they must be demonstrated by other applicants first)
Not likely to use Framework A of Part 53 (e.g., current NRC proposal does not appear to be better than Parts 50 and 52)
Not Likely to use = 38%
Will not use Framework A of Part 53 (e.g., substantial increases in regulatory burden over Parts 50 and 52, with minimal if any benefits) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8
Q7: Which of the following areas of the current NRC preliminary language and approaches in Part 53 provide significant benefits over Parts 50 and 52? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most beneficial)
Answered: 20 Skipped: 2 Part 53 Content Most (4 or 5) Least (0 or 1) Dont Know Best at providing Increased use of performance-based approach for Security 80% (16) 0% (0) 10% (2)
Technology-inclusive requirements (e.g., safety functions, 75% (15) 5% (1) 10% (2) design criteria, design features) benefits Increased use of performance-based approach for Operators 60% (12) 5% (1) 15% (3)
(e.g., certified operator option)
Increased use of performance-based approach for Fitness for 55% (11) 5% (1) 15% (3)
Duty Fewer exemptions will be required 42% (8) 5% (1) 42% (8)
Increased functionality for Manufacturing Licenses 32% (6) 0% (0) 21% (4)
Organization and structure of the rule (e.g., separation of design, 30% (6) 0% (0) 20% (4) analysis, operations, etc.)
Two frameworks (A and B) in rule based on role of PRA 26% (5) 16% (3) 21% (4)
Inclusion of Quantified Health Objectives in the Rule, rather than keeping 21% (4) 47% (9) 11% (2) as a Policy Facility Safety Program 5% (1) 32% (6) 26% (5) 9
Q7: Which of the following areas of the current NRC preliminary language and approaches in Part 53 provide significant benefits over Parts 50 and 52?
Key Insights from Comments
- 1. Two-Frameworks (A and B) a) Some believe multiple frameworks make little sense, and a single framework that utilizes guidance for details for different approaches would be more appropriate.
b) Some are in favor of using Framework B instead of Framework A, but not as written (likely referring to Part 5X that is expected to be basis for Framework B).
- 2. Facility Safety Program a) This program is untested so it is tough to know what the burden or value will be.
b) Some believe licensee-led, industry-overseen framework for oversight of facility programmatic matters has some potential benefits in reducing regulatory burden without impacting safety; however, it is not clear that current NRC language will actually achieve greater efficiency.
- 3. Exemptions - Some believe what may be required to meet Part 53 is uncertain, and there was suggestion to leverage the Technology Inclusive Risk-Informed Configuration Evaluation (TIRICE) effort to develop 50.59-like process with clear performance criteria (53.895 was viewed as never-ending risk reduction measures).
10
Q8: How concerned are you about the following areas of the current NRC preliminary language and approaches in Part 53? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most concerned)
Answered: 20 Skipped: 2 Part 53 Content Most (4 or 5) Least (0 or 1) Dont Know Expanding ALARA to be a design requirement 68% (13) 0% (0) 5% (1)
Proliferation of duplicative and unnecessary programs 68% (13) 0% (0) 5% (1)
Increased regulatory burden for non-safety SSCs 67% (12) 11% (2) 6% (1)
Greatest concerns Safety objectives that are different than those in the Atomic Energy Act 63% (12) 0% (0) 11% (2)
Expansion of design basis to include Beyond Design Basis Events 61% (11) 11% (2) 6% (1)
Lack of clarity in the purpose and application of some requirements 58% (11) 0% (0) 5% (1)
Lack of clear measurable goals for regulatory efficiency 50% (10) 5% (1) 15% (3)
Missed opportunity to integrate safety, security, EP and siting 50% (10) 6% (1) 20% (4)
Facility safety program 50% (9) 0% (0) 17% (3)
Inclusion of QHOs in the Rule, rather than keeping as a Policy 50% (9) 11% (2) 6% (1)
Lack of consistency in use of regulatory terminology (e.g., PDC vs FDC) 44% (8) 5% (1) 17% (3)
Lack of clarity on the safety paradigm 39% (7) 0% (0) 28% (5)
Only allowing an enhanced/leading use of PRA licensing approach 28% (5) 17% (3) 17% (3)
Two distinct frameworks (A and B) in the rule based on role of PRA 28% (5) 22% (4) 17% (3) 11
Q9: Which of the following innovations that the NRC is not pursuing would greatly enhance the value of Part 53? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most beneficial Answered: 21 Skipped: 1 Part 53 Content Most (4 or 5) Least (0 or 1) Dont Know Streamlining of licensing reviews and regulatory approvals 79% (15) 0% (0) 5% (1)
Streamlining of program requirements 68% (13) 0% (0) 5% (1)
Treating ALARA as a Policy rather than requirements in the 67% (14) 0% (0) 10% (2)
Rule Streamlining of oversight and inspections 65% (13) 0% (0) 10% (2)
More performance-based and modern siting requirements 60% (12) 0% (0) 10% (2)
Integrating safety, security, emergency planning and siting 57% (12) 9% (2) 5% (1)
QA requirements that explicitly allow ISO-9001 for safety-52% (11) 0% (0) 10% (2) related 12
Q11: If you use Part 53, which type of licensing approach would you most likely use?
Answered: 221 Skipped: 0 Notes Enhanced/leading Probabilistic Risk
- If Part 53 used, 46% (10 of 22) of Assessment (e.g., Licensing Modernization respondents plan to use what NRC Project) defines as an enhanced role of the PRA Traditional PRA (e.g., similar to use in Part 52)
- 36% (3+1+4=8) of respondents plan to use PRA in a way not permissible by current Framework A rule text IAEA approach
- Of remaining 18% (4 of 22), two do not plan to use Part 53, one does not care which approach is used, Maximum Credible Accident with a and one did not identify which confirmatory PRA approach (though they did say they are using a PRA)
No PRA (e.g., Technology Inclusive Risk Informed Maximum Accident) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
- 1) Four responses were Other, as described in side bar above. 13
Q13: How well do you think the NRC has met the following goals, so far, for the Part 53 rulemaking? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most fulfilled)
Answered: 18 Skipped: 4 Goals that are most met by current preliminary Part 53 rule language Part 53 Content Most (4 or 5) Least (0 or 1) Dont Know Continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 78% (14) 0% (0) 11% (2) protection (SECY 20-0032)1 Establish requirements that address non-LWRs (SECY 20- 50% (9) 0% (0) 17% (3) 0032)
Safety Focused (industry goal) 44% (8) 0% (0) 17% (3)
Technology-inclusive (July 2021 Unified Industry Position letter) 44% (8) 0% (0) 17% (3)
Risk-informed (July 2021 Unified Industry Position letter) 33% (6) 6% (1) 22% (4)
Reduce requests for exemptions (SECY 20-0032) 33% (6) 17% (3) 28% (5)
Recognize technological advancements in reactor design (SECY 20- 33% (6) 22% (4) 22% (4) 0032)
Credit the response of advanced reactors to postulated accidents (SECY 28% (5) 17% (3) 22% (4) 20-0032)
Flexible (industry goal) 22% (4) 11% (2) 17% (3)
Note: Many key goals (e.g. technology-inclusive, risk-informed & reduced exemption requests, flexible) received low scores (less than half 4 or 5) indicating key goals have not been demonstrated
- 1) Other comments expressed concern that the NRC has increased standards and regulations for public protection (e.g., Beyond Design Basis, ALARA, Programs) - see Q8. 14
Q13: How well do you think the NRC has met the following goals, so far, for the Part 53 rulemaking? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most fulfilled)
Answered: 18 Skipped: 4 Goals that are least met by current preliminary Part 53 rule language Worst at meeting goals Part 53 Content Most (4 or 5) Least (0 or 1) Dont Know Efficiency (July 2021 Unified Industry Position letter) 11% (2) 39% (7) 22% (4)
Promote regulatory stability, predictability and clarity (SECY 22% (4) 28% (5) 22% (4) 20-0032)
Clear (industry goal) 5% (1) 22% (4) 11% (2)
Usefulness (July 2021 Unified Industry Position letter) 11% (2) 22% (4) 22% (4)
Recognize confidence in licensee controls (July 2021 Unified 0% (0) 17% (3) 28% (5)
Industry Position letter)
Requirements at a high level with utilization of guidance to address 17% (3) 17% (3) 28% (5) details (SRM-SECY-20-0032-ML19340A056)
Regulatory framework using methods of evaluation that are flexible and 11% (2) 11% (2) 11% (2) practicable for application to a variety of technologies (NEIMA)
Note: Many key goals (e.g. clear, efficient, useful) received very low scores (less than 20% 4 or 5, and many 0 or 1) indicating key goals have not been demonstrated 15
Q14: How satisfied are you with the NRC engagement with stakeholders on Part 53? (score 0 to 5, with 5 being the most satisfied)
Answered: 21 Skipped: 1 10 NRC Engagement Satisfaction1 High satisfaction NRC Rationale for approaches 9
Lukewarm satisfaction Lukewarm satisfaction
- High (score 4 or 5) = 5 8
- Moderate (2 or 3) = 12 7 Score:
- Low (0 or 1) = 2 3
6 Low satisfaction Opportunities offered to inform/comment 5 Score:
- High (4 or 5) = 11 3
4 Score: Score:
- Moderate (2 or 3) = 7 3
3 3
- Low (0 or 1) = 1 2 NRC Feedback on industry comments 1
- High (4 or 5) = 3
- Moderate (2 or 3) = 7 0
- Low (0 or 1) = 8 Prompt and clear Opportunities offered NRCs feedback in NRC is receptive to rationale provided by by NRC to inform and response to industry modify approaches NRC Receptivity to Input the NRC for proposed comment on the comments is prompt, based upon
- High (4 or 5) = 3 approaches proposed rule clear and rational stakeholder
- Moderate (2 or 3) =11 language comments
- Low (0 or 1) = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
- 1) Not shown are three Dont Know responses. Percentages are of those providing responses other than Dont Know/skip. 16