ML22299A184
| ML22299A184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/18/2022 |
| From: | Derek Widmayer Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2136 | |
| Download: ML22299A184 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Radiological Rulemaking Policies and Procedures Part 53 Subcommittee Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-2136 Pages 1-267 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:
8 PART 53 SUBCOMMITTEE 9 + + + + +
10 TUESDAY 11 OCTOBER 18, 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, Chair 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 VICKI BIER, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 21 VESNA DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 GREGORY HALNON, Member 23 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24 JOY L. REMPE, Member 25 MATTHEW 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 STEPHEN SCHULTZ 4
5 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
6 DEREK WIDMAYER 7
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 BOB BEALL, NMSS 10 MIHAELA BIRO, NRR 11 KEITH COMPTON, RES 12 DAVID DESAULNIERS, NRR 13 ANNE-MARIE GRADY, NRR 14 JORDAN HOELLMAN, NRR 15 WILLIAM JESSUP, NRR 16 WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 17 JOHN SEGALA, NRR 18 JESSE SEYMOUR, NRR 19 MOHAMED SHAMS, NRR 20 MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 21 BOYCE TRAVIS, NRR 22 KATIE WAGNER, NRR 23 JIM XU, RES 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 CONTENTS 2 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Staff Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 10 CFR Part 53 - Draft Proposed Language for 5 QHOs / Safety Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6 10 CFR Part 53 - Draft Proposed Language for 7 AERI Methodology and Guidance Documents . . . . 151 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 8:30 a.m.
3 CHAIR PETTI: Good morning, everyone, the 4 meeting will now come to order. This is a meeting on 5 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 6 Radiological Rulemaking Policies and Procedures Part 7 53 Subcommittee.
8 I'm David Petti, Chairman of the 9 Subcommittee. ACRS Members in attendance today are 10 Joy Rempe, Ron Ballinger, Charlie Brown, Vesna 11 Dmitrijevic, Jose March-Leuba, Greg Halnon, Vicki 12 Bier, and Matt Sunseri.
13 Our consultant, Steve Schultz, is on the 14 line. I do anticipate Dennis Bley will be joining as 15 well. Derek Widmayer of the ACRS Staff is the 16 designated federal official for the meeting.
17 The purpose of this Subcommittee meeting 18 is to hear from the Staff concerning the preliminary 19 rule language for 10 C.F.R. Part 53 risk-informed 20 technology-inclusive regulatory framework for 21 commercial nuclear plants.
22 This meeting is the last Subcommittee 23 meeting in a series of meetings on the preliminary 24 rule language for 10 C.F.R. Part 53. The next time 25 the Subcommittee sees the rule, we will be reviewing NEAL 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 proposed rule language prior to it being published for 2 public comment.
3 The Subcommittee will gather information, 4 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 5 proposed positions and actions as appropriate.
6 There's a section scheduled for discussions at the 7 November 2022 full Committee meeting at which these 8 matters will be presented and discussed.
9 And the Committee plans on preparing a 10 letter report on these matters at that meeting. The 11 ACRS was established by statute and is governed by the 12 Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
13 The NRC implements FACA in accordance with 14 its regulations found in Title 10 of the Code of 15 Federal Regulations Part 7. The Committee can only 16 speak through its published letter reports.
17 We hold meetings to gather information and 18 inform preparatory work that will support our 19 deliberations at a full Committee meeting. The rules 20 for participation at all ACRS meetings including 21 today's were announced in the Federal Register on June 22 13, 2019.
23 The ACRS Section of the U.S. NRC website 24 provides our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter reports, 25 and full transcripts of all full and 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
6 1 meetings including slides presented at the meetings.
2 The meeting notice and agenda for this meeting were 3 posted there.
4 As stated in the Federal Register notice 5 and in the public meeting notice posted to the 6 website, members of the public who desire to provide 7 all written or oral input to the Subcommittee may do 8 so and should contact the designated federal official 9 five days prior to the meeting as practicable.
10 Today's meeting is open to public 11 attendance and we have received one request to make an 12 oral statement at the meeting.
13 Time is provided in the agenda after 14 presentations are completed for spontaneous comments 15 for members of the public attending or listening to 16 our meetings.
17 Today's meeting is being held over 18 Microsoft Teams allowing participation of the public 19 over the computer using Teams. A bridge line is also 20 established to allow listening by phone and a 21 transcript of today's meeting is being kept.
22 Therefore, we request that meeting 23 participants on Teams and the bridge lines identify 24 themselves when they speak and to speak with 25 sufficient clarity and volume so they can be readily NEAL 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 heard.
2 Likewise, we request that meeting 3 participants keep their computer and/or telephone 4 lines on mute when not speaking to minimize 5 disruptions.
6 At this time, I ask the Teams and 7 telephone bridge line attendees make sure that they 8 are muted so that we can commence the meeting.
9 We'll now proceed and I call on Mo Shams, 10 Director of the Division of Advanced Reactors in Non-11 power Production and Utilization Facilities of the 12 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make opening 13 remarks. Mo?
14 MR. SEGALA: Hi, this is John Segala, I'm 15 filling in for Mo. I am the Special Assistant in the 16 Division of Advanced Reactors in Non-power Production 17 and Utilization Facilities in the Office of Nuclear 18 Reactor Regulation.
19 I'd like to say good morning to everybody.
20 We are excited to be here today to discuss 10 CFR Part 21 53, which would be a new alternative risk-informed, 22 performance-based, and technology-inclusive framework 23 for the licensing and regulation of commercial nuclear 24 plants.
25 The objective of Part 53 is to continue 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
8 1 provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of 2 public health and safety in the common defense and 3 security, promote regulatory stability, 4 predictability, and clarity, reduce requests for 5 exemptions from the current requirements in Parts 50 6 and 52, establish new requirements to address non-7 light water reactor technologies, recognize 8 technological advancements in the reactor design, and 9 credit the possible response of some designs of 10 commercial nuclear plants to postulated accidents, 11 including slower transient response times, and 12 relatively small and slow release of fission products.
13 The NRC Staff previously briefed the ACRS 14 full Committee on Part 53 in July of 2022 and 15 benefitted from the feedback we received during those 16 discussions.
17 On August 2nd, the ACRS issued its fourth 18 interim letter on Part 53 and on September 30th, the 19 NRC Staff issued a response addressing each of the 20 eight ACRS recommendations.
21 Since the July ACRS meeting, the NRC Staff 22 has continued to engage extensively with stakeholders 23 and has had an opportunity to consider verbal and 24 written feedback from stakeholders as part of the 25 Staff's ongoing efforts to enhance 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
9 1 package.
2 To support today's ACRS Subcommittee 3 meeting, the NRC Staff released the draft proposed 4 Part 53 rulemaking package on September 30th, which 5 includes the draft proposed rule language from 6 Framework A and B, the accompanying preamble, or what 7 we used to call the statements of consideration, and 8 five draft guidance documents supporting the draft 9 proposed rule language.
10 Today and tomorrow the NRC Staff plans to 11 provide the ACRS Subcommittee an overview of the 12 enhancements the Staff has made to Part 53 rule 13 language since we last briefed the ACRS in July, which 14 reflect consideration of the input received from the 15 ACRS and stakeholders.
16 The NRC Staff also plans to provide an 17 overview of the five draft guidance documents. We are 18 looking forward to having discussions today and 19 hearing any ACRS Members' thoughts and feedback.
20 This completes my opening remarks and I 21 will now turn it over for the Staff discussions to 22 Jordan Hoellman. Thank you.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Thanks, John.
24 Good morning, everyone. My name is Jordan 25 Hoellman. I'm a Project Manager in the Advanced NEAL 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 Reactor Policy Branch in NRR. I'm happy to be here 2 today to talk you through some of the introduction 3 material for Part 53, give a recap of how we got here, 4 and let's move to the next slide.
5 The next slide just lays out the agenda 6 for today. There is another slide like this later in 7 the package that lays out the agenda for tomorrow.
8 So, I'll begin with an overview of, like I said, the 9 schedule, how we got here, that kind of stuff.
10 I'll turn it over to Bill Reckley to talk 11 about Framework A, and I think Bill Jessup will talk 12 about Framework B. And then we'll talk about the 13 draft proposed language for the QHOs and safety 14 analysis and the differences between Frameworks A and 15 B there.
16 And then this afternoon we'll have a 17 discussion of the proposed rule language for the 18 alternative evaluation for risk insights or AERI 19 methodology and guidance documents for licensing 20 events.
21 Next slide, Billy.
22 As John mentioned and everyone knows I'm 23 pretty sure, we briefed the ACRS a number of times 24 over the past two years so we didn't feel it was 25 necessary to cover everything including the enactment NEAL 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 of the nuclear energy innovation and modernization act 2 in January of 2019 and all the activities leading up 3 to it.
4 But we did think it would be worthwhile to 5 walk through some of the steps we took and direction 6 we've gotten that took us to where we are now.
7 Back in 2020, we issued the rulemaking 8 plan. We proposed to develop a new 10 CFR Part that 9 could address performance requirements, design 10 features, and programmatic controls for a wide variety 11 of advanced reactors through the life of a facility.
12 We said we'd focus the rulemaking on 13 risk-informed functional requirements building on 14 existing NRC requirements, Commission policy 15 statements, and recent and ongoing activities.
16 And then we said we would be seeking 17 extensive interactions with external stakeholders 18 including the ACRS on the content of the rule.
19 The SRM that the Commission issued in the 20 fall of 2020 approved the Staff's proposed approach 21 but the rulemaking directed the Staff to provide a 22 schedule with milestones to provide the draft proposed 23 rule to the Commission by October 2024 to identify key 24 uncertainties impacting publication of the rule, and 25 to provide options for the Commission regarding 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
12 1 licensing and regulation of fusion energy systems.
2 And the SRM also directed the Staff to 3 develop and release preliminary proposed rule language 4 intermittently followed by public outreach and dialog.
5 So, we've been doing that, like I said, for the past 6 two-plus years.
7 In the fall of last year, the Staff 8 requested a schedule extension which was approved by 9 the Commission to do mainly three things, provide 10 additional time for the Staff to continue efforts to 11 reach alignment with external stakeholders on the 12 scope of the rulemaking and to further develop the 13 language to allow additional time for external 14 stakeholders to participate constructively in the 15 rulemaking process, and to ensure better coordination 16 with other NRC advanced reactor readiness activities.
17 So, mainly, over the past year, we really 18 dove into the development of Framework B, which 19 stemmed from what we presented last year on what we 20 called Part 5X, and continued to engage with 21 stakeholders extensively on the progress of the rule 22 and the preliminary proposed rule language.
23 So, we got a number of comments from 24 public stakeholders in the industry throughout the 25 public comment period on the preliminary 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
13 1 language, which closed on August 31st of this year.
2 And like John mentioned, on September 30th 3 we issued the draft proposed Part 53 rulemaking 4 package to support these meetings and other 5 stakeholder engagements.
6 Billy, let's move to the next slide.
7 Please feel free to interrupt if you have any 8 questions.
9 MR. BLEY: Jordan, Dennis Bley. On your 10 last slide I didn't see interactions with the 11 Committee showing up. When do you folks expect to be 12 back to the Committee again? Is it going to happen as 13 you develop more guidance documents?
14 Where do you see it happening?
15 MR. HOELLMAN: You're talking about ACRS, 16 correct?
17 MR. BLEY: I am.
18 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay, so at the bottom you 19 see October, November 2022, that's ACRS interactions 20 on the rulemaking package. There are a number of 21 guidance documents that are being developed. We'll 22 talk about that tomorrow afternoon a little bit.
23 A number of them are proceeding separately 24 from the rulemaking package and the strategy or reason 25 for doing that is essentially to be able to issue NEAL 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 guidance to support early applications under the 2 existing regulations to continue to learn lessons from 3 early reviews and gain experience, be able to make 4 modifications, things like that.
5 So, as we came to you with, say, NUREG 6 2246, the fuel qualification guidance for advanced 7 reactors, the endorsement of ASME Section 3 Division 8 5, endorsement of the non-light water reactor PRA 9 standard, we'll continue to engage with the Committee 10 on those.
11 But it would be separate from the 12 rulemaking, this rulemaking package.
13 They will support the rule when the final 14 rule is issued. It's just the timeline we're all in.
15 We're trying to move in parallel to both support the 16 Part 53 rule and support applications under the 17 existing regulations.
18 MR. BLEY: On the rule itself do you see 19 coming back to the Committee before issuance of the 20 draft final rule?
21 MR. HOELLMAN: I may need to rely on our 22 rulemaking Project Manager for this. I know we're 23 coming back next month for full Committee. I'm not 24 sure we plan to have another interaction before the 25 rule goes to the Commission in February of 2023.
NEAL 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 Bob, Bill, if I'm wrong please correct me.
2 MR. BEALL: This is Bob Beall. I'm the 3 Project Manager in the NMSS Rulemaking Branch and so 4 this is the formal presentation of the Part 53 5 rulemaking package to the ACRS for the ACMR and the 6 full Committee in November.
7 So, this is the last formal process or 8 presentation of this package to the Committee.
9 As Jordan mentioned, we have other 10 supporting documents that we're removing separately 11 from the package but what you have that's been sent to 12 you and been presented to you today and tomorrow will 13 be the documents that will be moving with the package 14 to the Commission in February of 2023.
15 MR. BLEY: After you receive public 16 comments -- well, go ahead, Dave may have more 17 questions on this later.
18 CHAIR PETTI: Yes, I have the same concern 19 about will there be any interaction on your slide 20 before December 2024? I'm assuming there will be 21 public comment, you'll make some changes?
22 MR. BEALL: Yes, Dave, that's correct, 23 that will be for the final rule and so, yes, we will 24 come back to you, we will have a number of 25 interactions with you at the proposed rules published NEAL 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 and when we come back we'll have public comments and 2 we'll have additional interactions with you as we 3 develop the final rule.
4 CHAIR PETTI: Got it, thanks.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Can I ask a question? This 6 is Charlie Brown.
7 MR. BEALL: Yes, sir.
8 MEMBER BROWN: I wanted to springboard off 9 of Dennis's comment on the supporting documents, the 10 Regulatory Guides or comments. Since we've got 11 Framework A and B, Framework A is kind of the new age, 12 Framework B is roughly kind of like the old stuff with 13 a few enhancements.
14 That's my personal opinion, whether that's 15 accurate or not, I'm not sure.
16 Are these additional guidance documents 17 going to be focused on the Framework A approach to 18 doing business? Are they going to be mixed, or are 19 they going to be separate ones for each framework?
20 MR. HOELLMAN: Thanks for the question, 21 Charlie.
22 The way I think we're envisioning it now, 23 a lot of the documents we're working on, I know we've 24 presented as part of Part 53 on the technology-25 inclusive content of application project 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
17 1 advanced reactor content of the application project, 2 commonly referred to as TCAP and RCAP.
3 Those guidance documents are being 4 developed for Parts 50 and 52 only right now. They're 5 being done that way because if we develop them for 6 Part 53, they can't be used or implemented or issued 7 as official Agency documents and guidance until the 8 Part 53 rule is published as a final rule.
9 And because we know we have applications 10 coming in under the existing regulations, we think 11 it's better to get guidance out there to support early 12 movers to be able to exercise the guidance, learn 13 lessons from doing those reviews, and make 14 modifications.
15 So, in between the proposed and final rule 16 for Part 53, those guidance documents will need to be 17 updated to include applicability to Part 53. And to 18 answer your question more directly, I think for the 19 most part we plan on developing guidance for both 20 approaches.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Excuse me, Jordan, the 22 stuff that's been done under RCap and TCap, Part 50 23 and 52, I understand you want to get those out so they 24 can be used.
25 But you talked about, my inference 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
18 1 your comment was that to go along with Part 53 there 2 were going to be five or some number you listed types 3 of guidance documents.
4 I thought those were Part 53 documents.
5 I didn't see how they related to the RCap TCap stuff, 6 which is Part 50 and 52.
7 And so on these additional documents, my 8 question fundamentally, I think you answered it right 9 at the end, are going to be segregated or separated 10 however way you want to phrase it, those that would be 11 guidance relative to Framework A and one or two or 12 three guidance we've developed to be exercised with 13 Framework B.
14 Maybe they would be consistent with the 15 Part 50 and 52 stuff or come from those but it would 16 seem to me that your Framework A is pretty much 17 different from the 5052 approach and that you'd need 18 to be able to separate some of the older stuff with 19 whatever you want to do relative to the Framework A.
20 That's why I thought they should be 21 separated but I wasn't quite sure what they were going 22 to do.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, Charlie, that's 24 correct. The documents moving with the package 25 specifically support rule language and Part 53 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
19 1 essentially doesn't exist under the existing 2 regulations, the new stuff for operator licensing, the 3 AERI approach.
4 I guess the one outlier is the draft guide 5 1413, which we'll discuss this afternoon. That 6 guidance document actually has applicability to Part 7 50, Part 52, Part 53 Framework A and Part 53 Framework 8 B.
9 And the reason I think we've tagged that 10 along with the rulemaking package is because there was 11 a number of stakeholder comments, I know the ACRS was 12 interested in having guidance on that systematic 13 identification of licensing and events.
14 We've had a number of discussions.
15 There's been at least some confusion I've heard from 16 external stakeholders about how to choose which 17 framework you're in. And so that guidance is kind of 18 set up to help in that respect.
19 CHAIR PETTI: Keep going, Charlie.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, is that you, Dave? I'm 21 sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
22 CHAIR PETTI: No, keep going.
23 MEMBER BROWN: I guess my concern is, 24 having built lots of stuff, having mixed guidance 25 where you decide to pick a Part 53 Framework B and 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
20 1 you sort through guidance documents that have mixed 2 guidance, some that applies to A, some that would be 3 applicable to B.
4 How does the industry sort that out unless 5 they're separated? I'm struggling a little bit with 6 mixing guidance for both Framework A and Framework B 7 in the same guidance documents, and then having people 8 sort it out.
9 Because inevitably, they start getting it 10 comingled and then it becomes a problem for the 11 industry and the Applicants to figure out what the 12 heck they're dealing with, which just makes it harder 13 on everybody.
14 MR. HOELLMAN: I understand the concern, 15 Charlie.
16 I think what we'll need to do clearly is 17 identify what's the regulatory basis, which 18 regulations the guidance documents are associated 19 with, and be really clear in the guidance documents.
20 What we're doing in the Part 5052 space, 21 we do that sometimes and we need to depending on 22 what's required for a construction permit application 23 versus a combined license application.
24 And so it's similar to that. We developed 25 a number of guidance documents, obviously Framework 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
21 1 was essentially based off of the licensing 2 modernization project guidance document in Reg Guide 3 1.233.
4 We used that as the foundation, as a 5 risk-informed performance-based methodology to do the 6 key stuff at the beginning to selection and identify 7 licensing basis events, selecting and classifying your 8 structure's system and components and sharing adequate 9 defense in-depth.
10 So, we used that as the basis for 11 Framework A to develop this performance-based 12 technologically-inclusive approach. The TCap guidance 13 expands upon that a little bit.
14 It does include some guidance that is 15 specific to following the licensing and modernization 16 project methodology but there's other guidance in 17 there that can be used regardless of what methodology 18 you're using.
19 So, we're getting ready to issue that for 20 public comment.
21 I know we've briefed you all a few times 22 on that, I'm looking forward to having the opportunity 23 to brief you guys before we issued that final. So, 24 hopefully maybe that will clear up some of the 25 concerns related to how that is done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 But obviously, under Parts 50 and 52 and 2 Framework B, we require principal design criteria.
3 In Framework A, we don't really do that, 4 so we're definitely going to need to make some 5 modifications to the TCap draft guide and some of the 6 RCap ISGs to appropriately clarify how it works within 7 Framework A.
8 I know I talked a lot there, I hope I 9 helped.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Fundamentally, it sounds to 11 me like it's a wait and see.
12 I just think you ought to be able to 13 address that be able to explain to us at our next 14 time, whenever we get through the public comment and 15 we're into the preparation of the final rule 16 processes, to make sure that's explained as to how 17 this additional guidance for the Reg Guides are going 18 to be able to be used and not get tied between each 19 other.
20 I won't beat on this anymore. I'll let 21 you go on unless Dave has --
22 CHAIR PETTI: I had a question.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: I was just going to say 24 quickly, Dave, we can talk about it more tomorrow. We 25 have a whole discussion on the various 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
23 1 documents. So, maybe that will be another chance to 2 recap and hopefully clarify things a little bit.
3 CHAIR PETTI: I wasn't going to ask this 4 now, I was going to ask this question later, but you 5 talked about this idea of issuing some of these guides 6 in parallel with the rule and outside the rule so that 7 early movers could have access to that.
8 And the question that has always been in 9 my mind is AERI and why wouldn't AERI be useful in 52 10 given there will be micro-reactor applications coming 11 in well before 53 becomes a rule and that guidance 12 might be useful.
13 I don't necessarily need an answer now but 14 it's in the back of at least my mind about whether or 15 not there is some value there.
16 MR. HOELLMAN: I appreciate the question.
17 I think we'll get into it more as we get into the AERI 18 discussions this afternoon but I think fundamentally, 19 it's because Part 52 requires a PRA and Part 50, it's 20 Commission policy and expectation to do a PRA.
21 So, I think that's the fundamental reason 22 why in Part 53 we're introducing this methodology to 23 get out of having to do a PRA upfront and I think 24 under the existing regulations, you'd need to request 25 an exemption to do 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
24 1 Does that help? Marty --
2 CHAIR PETTI: We'll come back to it 3 because I think it's a natural question. The other 4 one, the event selection Reg Guide, obviously has 5 great value so it's just a natural question to ask.
6 Let's just keep going.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: I would assume that we 8 could in pre-application discussions and various other 9 forums and conversations with the Applicants, I think 10 as we put things out, even if it's not a formal 11 guidance document, it could be used to have a 12 conversation in pre-application space and during early 13 parts of the application to figure that out.
14 I'm sorry if I overtalked someone.
15 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. I want to 16 get back to this slide if we can. The draft guidance 17 for public comment, 60-day public comment period, I've 18 seen a lot smaller rules get requested extensions well 19 past 90 days, if not 120.
20 Are you prepared to be able to extend this 21 if the industry and public come back and say the size 22 of this rule, the amount of guidance, 60-day comment 23 period is just not enough?
24 MR. BEALL: Hi, Greg, this is Bob Beall 25 with Rulemaking again. Yes, we will take 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
25 1 considerations and requests if we get them from the 2 public for extents of the comment period.
3 We would have discussions with our 4 management and we would seriously consider whether or 5 not we should grant those extensions based on the 6 input we get from those extension requests.
7 MEMBER HALNON: Have you guys encouraged 8 the industry to start working on it now relative to 9 their formal comments given the fact that the rule 10 language is public at this point?
11 MR. SHAMS: Bob, I can help with that.
12 Mr. Halnon, this is Mo Shams with the Staff.
13 Yes, the answer to that is yes, in our 14 interactions with the industry we've started to 15 indicate that the rule is already out now and the 16 package that we're sending to you all is out.
17 The changes that we would anticipate is 18 not likely to be significant or very fundamental so 19 there's an opportunity to start assembling comments 20 now and leveraging the timeframe until the actual 21 comment period.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Very good, thanks a lot, 23 I appreciate that.
24 MR. SHAMS: Always.
25 MR. HOELLMAN: Any other questions before NEAL 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 we move on? Billy, let's move to Slide 4. Here are 2 the layouts of the two frameworks we've been 3 discussing for a couple meetings now. This is 4 intended to give a broad overview of Part 53.
5 It's a series of subparts A through U.
6 Subpart A is common to both frameworks. It provides 7 the general provisions and definitions, both common 8 and framework-specific.
9 Subparts B through k are the technical 10 application requirements for Framework A as I noted 11 before. And in the rulemaking plan, Framework A was 12 intended to align with the licensing and modernization 13 project, a PRA-led approach.
14 It's a top-down approach starting with 15 high level of safety objectives, technology-inclusive 16 safety requirements, and high-level performance 17 standards. Subparts N through U are the technical and 18 application requirements for Framework B.
19 The genesis of Framework B was really in 20 response to stakeholder feedback requesting that a 21 technology-inclusive traditional licensing option that 22 aligns more with international guidance and 23 approaches. It uses a traditional use of risk insight 24 and specific design rules.
25 And it requires the Applicant to 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
27 1 principal design criteria, and it includes the 2 alternative evaluation for risk insights, or AERI, 3 approach, which would not require a PRA if certain 4 entry conditions are met.
5 As mentioned in previous meetings, while 6 some of the subparts in each framework are reproduced, 7 you'll see that with a number of them, the classic 8 example we've been giving is Subparts G and Q on 9 decommissioning.
10 The internal cross-references within the 11 subpart started to cause some confusion and were a 12 little bit more trouble for us as the staff then just 13 reproduced it in the new framework.
14 So, from our perspective, we thought it 15 provided some clarity to make two distinct frameworks 16 with their own set of consolidated requirements. And 17 so that's how we ended up with Framework A and B.
18 Like I mentioned, some of the subparts are 19 equivalent between the two frameworks and we've tried 20 to increase clarity in the preamble discussion by 21 having a common preamble for those subparts.
22 So, you'll see like I said, Subpart G and 23 Q will have a common write-up in the preamble 24 discussion. I'm ready to move to Slide 5 --
25 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: This is Vesna.
NEAL 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 It's true that we have discussion with you 2 this many times but we have been discussing -- so, you 3 are set on this organization, you are set on that 4 horizontal route, this is an easy part of calling it 5 Framework A and B, renaming it to alpha, beta, or 6 giving it some different name, not to be confused with 7 Subparts B and A.
8 That's my first question.
9 My second question is in these parts which 10 are common you are definitely set to have them as a 11 part, you don't want to keep them not to have 12 repetition. You don't want to keep them as common as 13 you are keeping Subpart A common to the A and B.
14 This is where the confusion starts, or 15 common to that. So, to reduce the pages of the 16 repetition.
17 And my third question was to this Subpart 18 B and C, should they have versions for Framework B if 19 you want to keep those frameworks if your main idea is 20 they can standalone.
21 So, those are my three questions. Those 22 are easy questions actually, compared to what you just 23 had on the previous slide.
24 MR. HOELLMAN: I think the titles of 25 Framework A and B, that's something we've talked about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 a number of times as we've gone along here. That's 2 sort of just where we ended up.
3 I think there's still opportunity to make 4 them Framework I and II if we wanted to do that, and 5 that continues to cause confusion.
6 Hopefully that answers your question, it 7 was just sort of to distinguish they're two and 8 separate and distinct. But I understand the comment.
9 With respect to having Subpart A be common 10 and direct you into the frameworks, we did add some 11 front matter material in 5300 and 53010, which were 12 intended to provide some additional clarity in how it 13 works.
14 I guess we could have done general 15 provision section for each framework but with a number 16 of the comments we got about trying to align the 17 frameworks and with the common definitions, I think we 18 thought that added some -- there was some benefit to 19 aligning where we could.
20 And then with respect to your last 21 question on Subparts B and C and why they're not in 22 Framework B, that's just based on the traditional 23 licensing frameworks where the technical requirements 24 are in the content of application section.
25 So, the technical requirements 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
30 1 Framework B would be found in Subpart R and Billy, 2 Jessup, and Boyce will discuss that later. Mo, I see 3 a hand up, I don't know who to go to.
4 MR. JESSUP: Hey, Jordan, this is Bill 5 Jessup from the NRC Staff.
6 I just wanted to add some comments to 7 Jordan's responses to your questions, the first one, 8 that's correct but this is the formula we've settled 9 on in the preliminary proposed rule text welded to the 10 second question in consolidation with requirements.
11 But from the last iteration, we did find 12 some opportunities for consolidation particularly in 13 the area of operator licensing and staffing and 14 qualifications. You'll see those requirements are now 15 consolidated in Subpart F.
16 So, to your point, that was an 17 opportunity, a unique place, where we could 18 consolidate the requirements and reduce the page 19 counts so-called.
20 But other areas, as Jordan mentioned, it 21 does become a challenge if you start trying to force 22 consolidation.
23 Jordan brought up the example of the 24 decommissioning requirements in Subparts G and Q. You 25 could consolidate them but the usability I think NEAL 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 decreases.
2 We experimented with several options for 3 that consolidation early in the development of 4 Framework B and we've ended up with what's been 5 conveyed here in the preliminary proposed rule 6 package.
7 And on your last question, again, Jordan, 8 you captured it correctly.
9 The safety and design requirements in 10 Framework B, they are captured in Subpart R as 11 technical content of application or requirements in 12 the same way that they are today in the existing 13 framework under 50 and 52.
14 And since Framework B, it does operate 15 more like Parts 50 and 52. We had elected to preserve 16 that format and so those safety and design 17 requirements, again they show up in Subpart R not as 18 separate subparts.
19 So, I just wanted to add that, Jordan.
20 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Thank you. I was 21 aware of all of these things. I'm just wondering, did 22 you think about the possibility of those changes?
23 Because this is what we saw from the beginning when 24 you introduced Framework B.
25 So, I was just wondering did you consider NEAL 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 the improvements in the realization there? But thanks 2 for your response.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Mo, did you want to say 4 something?
5 MR. SHAMS: Nothing in addition to what 6 you and Billy said. So, thanks.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: All right, just wanted to 8 make sure.
9 Vesna, we did align the language between 10 the subparts so that for the most part, the language 11 is the same so there should be less confusion. But 12 you're right, we didn't elect to consolidate specific 13 subparts together more.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay, thanks.
15 MR. HOELLMAN: 5, Billy?
16 This slide, you've seen this I'm sure, 17 this is just the rule package or the draft proposed 18 rulemaking package that we provided to the Committee 19 to support this meeting.
20 We did separate the Federal Register 21 notice into four enclosures, that was intended to help 22 you and stakeholders be able to review the package 23 more effectively, so for example, you could have the 24 preamble discussion up and the actual rule text for 25 either framework at the same time and not have 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
33 1 scroll up and down the page to figure out what we said 2 about it in the preamble.
3 And then the five guidance documents that 4 we'll talk about later today and tomorrow. I think 5 that's all I really wanted to talk about.
6 Tomorrow we'll talk about other guidance 7 develop to support advanced reactor readiness more 8 generally, so we'll get there tomorrow and I think we 9 can move on.
10 This is pretty generic.
11 CHAIR PETTI: Jordan, just a question 12 administratively.
13 All of them together get their own ML 14 number under the rule package but then each individual 15 gets their own ML number, so you can find it in more 16 than one way I guess?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: If I understand the 18 question correctly, the package is on the left side, 19 that package includes all these documents on the 20 right. They do have different numbers, though.
21 CHAIR PETTI: And the package itself gets 22 a number?
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. So, the package 24 itself, if you go to that link it will pull up a list 25 with all these documents in it. If you pull up, 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
34 1 Enclosure 1A, you'll only get the preamble.
2 CHAIR PETTI: Got it, thanks.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Let's move on.
4 I alluded to the front matter sections 5 before, these are things that had not previously been 6 issued in the preliminary form but we've been 7 discussing the layout and purpose of the frameworks 8 the past couple of meetings.
9 Hopefully, these sections provides some 10 additional clarity on how the proposed rule is set up 11 and that each framework is distinct with their own set 12 of consolidated requirements.
13 We do know that we've received a common 14 comment from external stakeholders that the rule 15 should consist of only one framework that can 16 accommodate any licensing approach and use of PRA.
17 We agree that streamlined and efficient 18 regulatory frameworks are desirable and that guidance 19 should be used where practicable to reduce the size of 20 the rule. And like I said, each framework must be 21 viewed independently with some exceptions.
22 The methodologies between the two 23 frameworks were just too distinct for us to make 24 further consolidations, at least at this point in the 25 rulemaking process. That's where 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
35 1 Next slide, we'll talk about Framework A, 2 this is the common subpart. This covers general 3 provisions that are largely equivalent to the general 4 requirements in Part 50.
5 The scope, written communications, 6 employee protections, standards for review, exemptions 7 and definitions, the definition sections where we 8 wanted to focus our time this morning.
9 So, 53020 is the common definitions for 10 both Framework A and B, most of these terms are 11 equivalent to the corresponding terms defined in 12 either 50.2, 52.1, and other existing regulatory 13 definitions.
14 Their use would be consistent with how the 15 terms are used under the existing regulations. I see 16 a hand up. Do you want me to take the question now?
17 MEMBER REMPE: Go ahead and finish what 18 you wanted say. This is Joy.
19 I know you have another slide on safety 20 function but I had a comment about your definition for 21 a commercial nuclear power-plant and I don't know when 22 the best time is to do it but I assume it's after you 23 finish discussing this slide.
24 MR. HOELLMAN: That's fine. I was going 25 to talk about commercial nuclear plant 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
36 1 MEMBER REMPE: That's fine, go ahead.
2 MR. HOELLMAN: If there's a better time, 3 just chime in, please.
4 You may recall that we initially started 5 with the use of advanced nuclear plant which was 6 intended to be consistent with the Nuclear Energy 7 Innovation and Modernization Act's use.
8 This caused some confusion with the public 9 and external stakeholders and so we modified the term 10 about a year ago to recognize that feedback we were 11 receiving. Essentially, it related it to just because 12 you call something a dance doesn't mean it's safer.
13 And so we recognize we've been using that 14 term a lot I think and like I said, Congress used the 15 term in NEIMA so that's why we were trying to 16 consistent with it.
17 We used the word plant versus reactor to 18 recognize that co-located support facilities and 19 radionuclide sources need to be considered in the 20 licensing of a facility in that some of those 21 radionuclides may be outside of the reactor vessel or 22 coolant system.
23 So, it was intended to cover the facility 24 and all hazards I guess. We used the phrase other 25 commercial purposes to recognize that new plant NEAL 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 designs may be used for purposes other than electric 2 power, which was intended to be consistent with 3 NEIMA's definition.
4 And the definition of commercial nuclear 5 plant refers to the commercial nuclear reactor, which 6 comes from 50.2 with some modifications, to not 7 preclude Part 53's applicability to potential of 8 accelerated driven systems.
9 Joy, I don't know, do you want to ask a 10 question now I guess?
11 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, please. I think it's 12 wise that you did this but I also have seen some 13 reports issued from stakeholders who believe that 14 anything that -- a dance in going through Part 53 has 15 got to be safer.
16 Your new definition would allow a large 17 light water reactor to come through Part 53, right?
18 MR. HOELLMAN: It's not precluded 19 specifically.
20 MEMBER REMPE: Right, and so I would 21 emphasize the need to make sure it's recognized that 22 this could happen in the new ISGs that are documented, 23 who claim that the reactors coming through Part 53 are 24 going to be safer and should have some better 25 responses, et cetera.
NEAL 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 Because I really do think that some of the 2 stakeholder comments and reports that are coming 3 through are talking past what the Staff is talking 4 past and so it's very important.
5 And I think your text in the preamble is 6 very good on this point but I just would caution you, 7 you need to make sure it's in the draft text for other 8 documents that are a part of this package.
9 And I can give you specific examples when 10 we talk about the ISGs tomorrow.
11 MR. HOELLMAN: I appreciate that, Joy. As 12 I've worked on different guidance documents, I know 13 that we've been questioned by you guys a couple times 14 on the use of terms like for non-light water reactors 15 and things like that.
16 So, there are specific guidance documents 17 that are written that way and we'll need to take 18 another look at them in the next revisions. A lot of 19 times that was done for efficiency in getting the 20 document issued and in preparation for the types of 21 applications we were expecting.
22 But I understand the point that the rule 23 is intended to be technology-inclusive and the 24 guidance should be also be.
25 MEMBER REMPE: There's really not any NEAL 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 gate, except if you go through the AERI approach, 2 that's the only gate where it might be questionable 3 whether a large light water reactor could use that 4 option within this Part 53, correct?
5 MR. HOELLMAN: That's true I think.
6 MEMBER REMPE: I think that needs to be 7 emphasized.
8 It's fine, I've seen some optimism in some 9 of the new ISGs and I'm pretty sure it's been around 10 in some of the other documents and we just need to 11 make sure so that stakeholders won't be asking for a 12 lot of things with Part 53 that wouldn't apply to a 13 large light water reactor, which is now eligible to go 14 through Part 53.
15 MR. HOELLMAN: Understood. Thanks, Dr.
16 Rempe.
17 So, some of the other terms I wanted to 18 talk about in Subpart A include manufactured reactor 19 and manufactured reactor module.
20 These are defined to recognize the 21 potential for manufacturing a nuclear reactor under a 22 manufacturing license and transporting and 23 incorporating that reactor into a commercial nuclear 24 plant under a combined license.
25 So, these are the micro-reactors that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 folks talk about.
2 The term module distinguishes a reactor 3 that's loaded with fuel prior to transport and we'll 4 talk about this more when we get into the requirements 5 in Subparts E and O related to fuel-loading, which 6 Bill Reckley will cover in a few slides.
7 The framework-specific definitions, in 8 Framework A, I know there's been some discussion about 9 this in the past so things like licensing basis 10 events, anticipated, unlikely, very unlikely event 11 sequences, we moved them all to Framework A-specific 12 definitions and tried to use new terms that didn't 13 conflict with how terms are traditionally used under 14 the existing regulations.
15 And then we have definitions for 16 functional design criteria and the different 17 classifications of structures, systems, and components 18 and special treatment.
19 In Framework B if you remember, a lot of 20 the definitions supporting Framework B we're 21 previously in Subpart N. We'd move those definitions 22 from Subpart N to 53028, which is the Framework 23 B-specific definitions. And Subpart N is now for 24 citing.
25 So, some of the Framework B-specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 definitions include anticipated operational 2 occurrences, functional containment, reactor coolant, 3 pressure boundary, design basis, safety-related 4 structures, systems, and components, and severe 5 nuclear accident.
6 A number of these terms were taken or 7 modified from the existing Part 50 regulations but 8 made technology-inclusive. So, you'll see things 9 like, for light water reactors a safety-related SSC 10 means this, reactor coolant pressure boundary means 11 this.
12 For non-light water reactors it's modified 13 slightly.
14 Construction is one that we did put a 15 separate definition in each framework.
16 It is defined framework-specific but it 17 would cover the same concept but be applied to a 18 slightly different scope of activities based on how 19 structures, systems, and components are classified 20 under each framework.
21 So, in Framework A, it's based on 50.10, 22 the definition of construction but modified to apply 23 to safety-related and non-safety-related but safety-24 significant SSEs based on the analysis requirements in 25 Subpart C.
NEAL 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 And Framework B is essentially equivalent 2 to 50.10.
3 Slide 8 will talk about safety function.
4 Safety function was included as a common definition in 5 response to feedback we received from both ACRS and 6 external stakeholders. It was noted in your guys' 7 fourth interim letter.
8 We originally did not include a definition 9 of safety function in Framework A because there were 10 requirements to establish safety functions in Subpart 11 B. See, Vesna, I'm doing what you told me about.
12 In Framework B we did not originally 13 include a definition either because safety functions 14 are implicitly captured through the requirements for 15 PDC. So, we received feedback to better align the 16 frameworks and feedback that safety functions are 17 technology-inclusive requirements that should apply to 18 both frameworks.
19 The definition, as you can see on the 20 screen, which is just reproduced from the rule text, 21 has generic elements but it's bifurcated to 22 acknowledge the fundamental differences between the 23 frameworks.
24 Defining critical safety function remains 25 an explicit requirement in Framework A and there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 1 requirement for primary and additional safety 2 functions.
3 There, in Framework B, the safety 4 functions are addressed implicitly through the 5 requirements to define principle design criteria and 6 that's consistent with the current approach in the 7 existing regulations.
8 MEMBER BROWN: This is the question, 9 Jordan. They exist, like Parts 50 and 52 had, you 10 know, Appendix A is fundamentally a bunch of principle 11 design criteria when you really get down to it. And, 12 this does not have any of that at all.
13 So they're not, you don't, you don't have 14 a listing. They still have to be developed from what 15 I can see the way this is written.
16 Is that correct?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: Are you talking about 18 principle design criteria?
19 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
20 MR. HOELLMAN: In Framework B, yes.
21 MEMBER BROWN: So they would have to be 22 developed independently, even though there's no 23 Appendix A, per se? Like there is in 50 and 52.
24 MR. HOELLMAN: Correct. Correct.
25 I mean we have guidance for, for well, 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
44 1 GDC in Appendix A. I assume we would rely on that as, 2 as sort of guidance for, for future light water 3 reactor designs.
4 For non-light water reactor designs, we 5 have Reg Guide 1.232, which lays out how principle 6 design criteria can be developed and defined, for 7 certain non-light water reactor designs.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Well, this can apply to a 9 light water, as well as non. I mean 53 is not 10 restricted to a non-light water design. At all.
11 MR. HOELLMAN: That's true, that's true.
12 MEMBER BROWN: So, your comment is that I 13 guess your thought would be that even though there's 14 no GDCs, somebody's going to have to develop them 15 because you asked for them to be developed. They're 16 going to have to go somewhere.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes.
18 MEMBER BROWN: And reinvent the wheel?
19 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, yes, Charlie, so --
20 (Simultaneous speaking.)
21 MEMBER BROWN: We've had this discussion 22 before, unsuccessfully.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, no, I understand. I 24 think this goes back to something we were discussing 25 earlier with the, with 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
45 1 And at least from my perspective, I see us 2 capturing this when we go to update Reg Guide 1.232, 3 to include the applicability to Part 53.
4 I see that as a place where that, that 5 gives up an opportunity to really clarify how, how 6 PDCs can be developed for Part 53, Framework B.
7 And it gives us another opportunity to, to 8 learn from the work ongoing with applications under 9 Parts 50 and 52.
10 I know it's maybe not the most 11 satisfactory answer to your question, but these are 12 things that, that we are considering.
13 It's just that a matter of the time line 14 we were on for Part 53, and, you know, the work that 15 we were expecting and have ongoing under the existing 16 regulations.
17 We're trying to make sure we have robust, 18 you know, clear guidance to support applications under 19 Parts 50 and 52. And, so we didn't under Part 53, 20 undertake trying to revise those guidance documents.
21 And, I think the Commission to 22 acknowledge, you know, that we're going to learn from 23 early applications and their SRM, I think they've 24 reinforced it in, in a number of SRMs they've issued.
25 That, that those interactions 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
46 1 experience we gained from, from those application 2 reviews, will continue to inform the Part 53 3 rulemaking as we move to the, you know, next stage 4 and, you know, the draft final rule stage, I guess in 5 2024.
6 But you'll see them all again. So you'll 7 have a chance to question us when we say --
8 (Simultaneous speaking.)
9 MEMBER BROWN: Well, the --
10 MR. HOELLMAN: -- here's the revision to 11 Reg Guide 1.232.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, but is it going to, 13 it's not going to have, 1.232 it's it just seems like 14 we're throwing the -- I've made the comment before, 15 throwing the baby out with the bath water.
16 We've learned how to build light water 17 reactors. We know what the problems are. And now 18 we're saying we're going to go, go to Part 53.
19 We've got to redevelop that or dictate it 20 somehow. I just don't know how that's going to work.
21 I'll let you go on. That's been my 22 concern from the beginning.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, I understand the 24 concern, Charlie. I think hopefully in guidance space 25 I guess, you know, we'll for, you know, we have to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 things like that for light water reactors.
2 You know, Appendix A to Part 50 is the 3 general design criteria, that I think we would expect 4 to be defined as the principle design criteria in 5 Framework B.
6 Or at least we'd be asking --
7 (Simultaneous speaking.)
8 MEMBER BROWN: I would agree with that but 9 --
10 MR. HOELLMAN: We would be asking questions 11 to, to say why not. And, it would be the applicant's 12 you know, job to defend if they didn't want to, to do 13 that. So.
14 There may be where, you know, that could 15 happen, but we'll see when we get there, I guess. I'm 16 not familiar enough with some of the light water 17 reactor applications, NuScale and such, and I'm not 18 sure if there's any exceptions there, but.
19 MR. SEGALA: Hey Jordan, this is John 20 Segala. Just wanted to add that Framework B for light 21 water reactors still has the general design criteria 22 as requirements.
23 And then the guidance in Reg Guide 1.232 24 lists, has advance reactor design criteria, has high 25 temperature gas cooled reactor criteria, has sodium NEAL 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 cooled fast reactor criteria.
2 And then says that the general design 3 criteria can be used as guidance for establishing PDCs 4 for, for non-light water reactors.
5 But we included that in guidance and then 6 made it a requirement that, that PDCs have to be 7 established in Framework B.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, but it's not in the 9 Rules part of it. It's I guess it's in the guidance, 10 not in the Rule the way it is in Part 50 and 52.
11 That's the way I read your comment, your 12 response.
13 MR. SEGALA: Yes. Yes, and when it comes 14 down to it, it's going to be highly dependent on the 15 technology, and on the actual reactor design.
16 And for, you know, reactors such as the 17 Kairos Hermes test reactor, you know, they, we've 18 worked with them and they submitted reports, on what 19 their principle design criteria are going to be.
20 Mo, did you want to add something?
21 MR. SHAMS: I want, I want actually to 22 respond to Charlie specifically.
23 Charlie, you're 100 percent right. We are 24 putting the principle design criteria, and the GDCs 25 outside of the 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
49 1 And part of that is, is that as a fresh 2 look on things, optimization of how much regulations 3 and requirements we have in the Regulations versus 4 areas that we can handle effectively through guidance.
5 And, that was an area that was candidate 6 for that.
7 So, so we often get the comments about, 8 you know, how much of this Rule that you could, or 9 should put a guidance.
10 So these are just examples of where we 11 found opportunities to leverage in that regard.
12 MEMBER BROWN: To me, it just generates 13 churn in some areas that you rehash what we've learned 14 over what is it now, 60 years of building reactor 15 plants.
16 An awful lot of that is perfectly germane 17 to anything new. We're not going to melt reactors, 18 regardless of what type of reactors they are. So.
19 MR. SHAMS: I'd like to associate myself 20 definitely with that comment, that we're not melting 21 reactors.
22 But no, your point is well taken. It does 23 create its own set of opportunities and challenges.
24 You know, having them in the rule, you know, having 25 them in the Regulation.
NEAL 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 Had opportunities and challenges. Having 2 them outside of the Regulation will offer a different 3 set.
4 But the technical content, the regulatory 5 content, is still there. So we're hoping that that 6 would offer the value that we're looking for.
7 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
8 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. I got a 9 quick question on the safety function definition.
10 Yes, as you may be aware, there's always 11 been an ongoing issue with the definition in the large 12 light water reactor world, relative to the reporting.
13 And I noticed the reporting language is pretty much 14 the same.
15 Have you guys table topped this definition 16 in 53.230 to make sure that we haven't created the 17 same decades long argument we've been having with the 18 operating reactors, on reporting of loss of safety 19 function?
20 (No audible response.)
21 MEMBER HALNON: I'll take that as maybe we 22 need to look at it.
23 MR. SHAMS: Yes, I've got to go back to the 24 staff. Yes, maybe Bill Reckley knows or others --
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
51 1 MEMBER HALNON: And, maybe it will come 2 out in the comments, and maybe we should encourage 3 industry to table top it as well.
4 But I know that we've always had that 5 conflict of, you know, what the industry thought the 6 definition is. What the NRC decided it was. What the 7 reporting criteria really meant.
8 And I didn't want to see the same, same 9 argument come out with this. And we've got an 10 opportunity to make sure we table top it and don't 11 create that confusion.
12 MR. SHAMS: We'll take that and reflect on 13 it, Greg. Thank you.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Great, thanks.
15 MR. SHAMS: Joy, you have your hands up?
16 MEMBER REMPE: I do. I think Boyce had his 17 up though before me. Did he want to make a comment?
18 Or it disappeared.
19 Okay, so I'll make my comment.
20 This is a theoretical one. When I look at 21 Part 50, 52, and 53, I think even, severe accidents 22 are part of that framework. We don't regulate severe 23 accidents, but they're there in Part 50 and 52.
24 And I'm seeing you shake your head up, 25 down, you agree with me Mo. And I, in fact with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
52 1 Framework A, the staff has a sort of cut off 2 frequency, which is nice because there wasn't with 3 Part 50 and 52.
4 So, I just wanted to get that out there in 5 the open so if somebody, a stakeholder were to come in 6 and say well now you're going down to lower 7 frequencies, I think the answer is no, there's 8 guidance and it's part of the Framework as it has been 9 since TMI occurred.
10 But it's not something we're regulating.
11 We still have design basis accidents.
12 Is that a good way to answer that? Or are 13 there some other insights that we could use to help 14 clarify what's being done with Part 53?
15 MR. SHAMS: I think I associate 100 percent 16 with the awards Joy, in the sense that we're not 17 regulating in a way that's setting a bar any higher.
18 It's the intent was to offer again, a 19 coherent set of requirements that capture what was in 20 policy, what was in, what was in guidance, what's in 21 practice.
22 And to your point, infusing their 23 opportunities for cut off frequency that perhaps 24 wasn't there before, or at least was done 25 deterministically.
NEAL 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 So, but the end of the day is that the bar 2 is not being set higher, you know, in terms of what 3 we're regulating versus now.
4 MEMBER REMPE: Good, thank you.
5 MR. SHAMS: Sure.
6 MEMBER PETTI: Let's keep going.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay. I think we're moving 8 into Framework A, and I think I'm turning it over to 9 Bill Reckley.
10 MEMBER PETTI: I just wanted to say that I 11 do think that the preamble helped a lot. It put 12 things in more context.
13 I think you know, seeing, seeing it more 14 in holistically with, with the preamble I think helps, 15 you know, as opposed to getting it in pieces. I 16 wouldn't call them bite sized pieces, but pieces. So.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: I appreciate that. Go 18 ahead, Bill.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Thanks, Jordan, this is Bill 20 Reckley.
21 Just one clarification from the previous 22 discussion, and Bill Jessup and Boyce Travis might get 23 into this as we talk about Framework B.
24 For light water reactors, the rule 25 requires them to follow the GDC. And, so there is no NEAL 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 gap there, Charlie.
2 For as Jordan was saying, for non-light 3 water reactors, they would build their PDC with the 4 expectation that they start with the GDC.
5 So that, that really hasn't changed from 6 the current requirements in Parts 50 and 52.
7 But that's Framework B, and I'm here to 8 talk about Framework A. Dave, I think some of this 9 will naturally also be what we were going to talk 10 about in the next session.
11 And, so I'm going to try to quickly go 12 through these. I know we're a little behind already, 13 but I think we can catch up in the session that 14 follows this.
15 Because there's a fair amount of topics 16 we've already talked about, or will have already 17 talked about by then.
18 So, Billy, if we can go to the next slide.
19 We've laid this out, we've laid this out 20 in this presentation to go through each Subpart. But 21 I do not plan to talk about each Subpart because we've 22 gone through this many, many times before, for each of 23 the Frameworks.
24 I'll point out where we're going to have 25 additional discussions, and either in the 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
55 1 session or tomorrow.
2 So in Subpart B again, Subpart B is 3 critical to Framework A. It lays out the safety 4 objectives and the safety criteria.
5 These are the basic performance measures.
6 We've tried to make this a performance based approach, 7 and these are where you need to start.
8 You need to have performance standards in 9 order to have that kind of a structure. So the safety 10 objectives, highest level limit, immediate threats to 11 public health and safety, and take additional measures 12 as appropriate considering the risk to the public 13 health and safety.
14 And, then the safety criteria are laid out 15 for design basis accidents, for event sequences other 16 than design basis accidents.
17 And this is where we introduce the, the 18 use of the QHOs as one of the performance measures.
19 And, we'll talk about that following this morning's 20 presentation.
21 And then the other items, defense in 22 depth, normal operations, et cetera. So, that is 23 Subpart B.
24 Subpart C if we go to the next slide, 25 Billy, is laying out the design and 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
56 1 requirements.
2 Again, this, this feeds into the general 3 construct of Framework A where you have safety 4 criteria.
5 From those, you identify the needed safety 6 functions. From the safety functions, a designer is 7 able to pick what design features they, they are going 8 to use in order to perform the safety function.
9 And, then from there, once you get into 10 the event analysis and other design requirements, 11 you're going to define the functional design criteria 12 for the equipment that is either safety related, or 13 non-safety related, but safety significant.
14 So that gets into the bolded text, the 15 safety categorization. We're going to talk about 16 that.
17 There's some discussion about whether you 18 need to have safety related, non-safety related but 19 safety significant, and non-safety significant.
20 Or under Framework B, we also continue to 21 have basically three categories. Safety related, 22 important to safety but not safety related.
23 So we'll get into that discussion and why 24 we think it's appropriate to have at least three 25 categories.
NEAL 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 So that in comparison to what we have 2 provided you most recently, and what we provided you 3 in the previous meetings including back in the summer 4 when we went through all of Framework A, not really 5 many changes to Subpart C.
6 But if as I'm going through these and 7 you've looked at the changes that were made, or the, 8 or the preamble if you have questions, obviously 9 interrupt me.
10 Otherwise, I just have one or two items in 11 Framework A that we were going to talk about as being 12 kind of new, and significant. So that's really 13 Subpart C.
14 Billy, if you want to go to the next 15 slide. Slide 12 for Subpart D. This is the siting.
16 Again, really not any changes from what we 17 had given you previously. Siting requirements remain 18 there to basically answer the fundamental question:
19 what can the site do to the plant, and what can the 20 plant do to the site?
21 And, so you have the same things in terms 22 of external hazards that need to be considered in the 23 plant design.
24 And then things like population related 25 considerations, for what might be the consequence 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
58 1 plant events to nearby populations.
2 Note again, no significant changes in the 3 most recently released text compared to what we had 4 released in the, in the summer.
5 So Billy, if you want to go to slide 14.
6 This is construction and manufacturing.
7 This is an item that, that we want to have a 8 conversation about.
9 In the construction arena, really no 10 significant changes from what we released in the 11 summer.
12 And, those were largely taken from the 13 construction requirements, the need for programs. The 14 need for quality assurance and so forth, during 15 construction.
16 The same is true for manufacturing. Much 17 of the manufacturing section within Subparts E and O 18 are related to those same things. The quality 19 assurance, the need to have programs in place, and so 20 forth.
21 I should have mentioned, this is the 22 first, the first one we're going to have but this is 23 as Jordan mentioned, a place where we have a common 24 preamble.
25 Because the Subparts in E and O are very NEAL 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 similar, again you just have differences in some 2 terminology. And, some differences in internal 3 references.
4 And as Jordan mentioned, you really are 5 faced with the choice of having repetition, which 6 might make it longer versus within the Subparts, 7 having multiple discussions of how it's applicable to 8 one Framework or another Framework.
9 How it, how references are to here to 10 there, and to answer the previous question, we did 11 look at this a lot and made a conscious choice that 12 repetition has its downsides, but it was preferable 13 over having relatively complicated language.
14 Because you were pointing back and forth 15 between, between the frameworks and having multiple 16 references.
17 Because we were trying to reinforce what 18 Jordan mentioned earlier. These are distinct 19 Frameworks.
20 And, so this is just another way to, to 21 reinforce that once you're in, or once you've elected 22 to use Framework A, then those Subparts are the ones 23 that you're going to be referring to.
24 Likewise, if you're in Framework B, you're 25 going to be in, in this second set of Subparts.
NEAL 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 The one thing that --
2 (Simultaneous speaking.)
3 MEMBER PETTI: Hey Bill?
4 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, go ahead, Dave, sorry.
5 MEMBER PETTI: Just a comment. You know, 6 we had commented on the length of the Rule, and you 7 know, we've seen your reconciliation, your response, 8 if you will.
9 I'm beginning to believe that this is a 10 case where you're stuck between, the staff is stuck 11 between a rock and a hard place.
12 There's no easy way. And it, yes it's 13 shorter, I'll agree with that. But it just may not be 14 short enough for some stakeholders.
15 And, that's, you know, that's sort of 16 where you are. So.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, no, I agree with you 18 that there's, I mean there's tradeoffs. There's, we 19 don't disagree with people when they make a comment, 20 but there are tradeoffs.
21 And, we were forced to make some. And 22 make some choices. And, so we picked what we thought 23 was, was best.
24 And for example, in regards to rather have 25 repetition or multiple internal pointers. And, 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
61 1 The other thing I would suggest to people 2 is Rules. When we're looking at it now, it's kind of 3 like a novel.
4 But once things are in place, people don't 5 read the Rule anymore from beginning to end. They go 6 to its section and they want to know, what is the 7 requirement for the activity that I'm working on 8 today.
9 So if you look down the road, you know, 10 10 or 15 years, that was another thing that we had had in 11 mind was that the length is a secondary thing to 12 clarity, when you look at it in that respect.
13 So, but again, it's not a right/wrong 14 answer, this is just, you know, we were faced with a 15 problem and we, we made a selection as to which way we 16 were going to go.
17 The one thing that is different in 18 manufacturing from the summer to, to this most recent 19 revision, is we always had placeholders in place to 20 talk about how we would address the loading of fuel in 21 a manufacturing facility, and then the transport of 22 the reactor module loaded with fuel, to a site.
23 And so we put effort into that, and this 24 most recent revision and both Subparts E and O address 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
62 1 So if we go to the next slide, Billy.
2 MEMBER PETTI: I'm not sure. Did we go to 3 slide -- there we go.
4 So, the requirements in Framework A are 5 620D or delta, and in Framework B it's 5341.20D. And 6 it lays out the requirements for the loading of fuel 7 into a manufactured reactor module.
8 And, the dilemma that we faced, and I 9 think we might have talked about this before, was you 10 basically have a reactor at that, at that point.
11 And we have requirements both in our 12 Regulations and history, and also within the Atomic 13 Energy Act, of what makes a utilization facility.
14 And if you call it a utilization facility, 15 what other things come into play?
16 And so for example, if the loading of fuel 17 by itself into the manufactured reactor module was 18 deemed to make that module a utilization facility, 19 then we're going to have to have a combined license to 20 support that operation, just like you need a combined 21 license or an operating license under Part 50, to load 22 fuel into a reactor.
23 So, after a lot of thought and a lot of 24 work, we put in place a technical requirement, which 25 is that in the manufacturing facility you would have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
63 1 at least two independent mechanisms that can prevent 2 criticality, should optimum conditions be, should you 3 have an event that, that gives maximum moderation, for 4 example, or maximum reactivity.
5 So two independent systems to keep you 6 subcritical. This is generally consistent with the 7 double contingency in Part 70.
8 But if that is in place, then what we're 9 saying here is the Commission is finding, and this is 10 relatively important and we'll point out in the paper, 11 this is an area where the Commission is making a 12 finding as part of this rulemaking, that that 13 manufactured reactor module is not a utilization 14 facility.
15 That means we can address it through 16 largely the Part 70 requirements that, that are in 17 place.
18 The manufactured reactor module becomes a 19 utilization facility when it's delivered to the site, 20 and the Commission makes all of the ITAAC related 21 findings associated with the manufacturing license, 22 and the combined license at the, at the site to which 23 the module is being delivered.
24 And, then that allows at the site, once we 25 make the ITAAC findings for the license, the COL NEAL 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 licensee to undo these protections, such that the 2 module, excuse me. Such that the module can be 3 operated.
4 So I know this is a, you know, it's a 5 combination of both technical and legal hoops that 6 we're defining but again, it's a relatively important 7 thing.
8 Because this is a new thing we're adding 9 to Part 53, both Frameworks, in order to support what 10 we've learned is a possible deployment model for 11 smaller reactors, for the micro reactors, that Jordan 12 mentioned earlier. Or, Joy, someone mentioned.
13 So this is what one of the just a couple 14 things I want to do. One of the ones that is new from 15 what we released in the summer.
16 MEMBER REMPE: So, Bill? This is --
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, go ahead. Joy?
19 MEMBER REMPE: Oh, okay. First of all, I 20 think I'm going to paraphrase your words. The reason 21 why you have this prevention of criticality is to 22 avoid having to have licenses for operators at that 23 facility, and so it doesn't become a utilization 24 facility.
25 Is that what I'm paraphrasing and taking NEAL 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 away from this discussion?
2 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, it would not only be 3 operators, but if it is a utilization facility, then 4 the Atomic Energy Act would, would bring into play a 5 number of provisions under the Act.
6 Operators, but we'll talk about operators, 7 given that we're introducing another transformational 8 thought through the generally licensed reactor 9 operator.
10 But we were able here to just limit it to 11 a fuel handler requirement. And, it's more --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MEMBER REMPE: -- subcriticality testing?
14 MR. RECKLEY: We are working on that 15 element, and it's we're going to have some, at least 16 some questions in, in the rule package to try to 17 enable us to perhaps expand it to allow that.
18 But that's another hurdle. And, so every 19 time you introduce a complicated again, both 20 technically and legally, it's a challenge. And, we 21 just weren't able to do that within the time frame.
22 So, but we recognized that is a potential 23 interest and we'll have some questions, at least we'll 24 have some questions within the, in the Rule package.
25 MEMBER REMPE: 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
66 1 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, Billy, if, or Derek, or 2 someone, did somebody else have a question?
3 MR. WIDMAYER: Yes, Bill, it's Derek.
4 And I think that you answered partially, 5 because you said you were going to have some questions 6 in the rulemaking package.
7 But I was kind of surprised to see the 8 word mechanism. You know, I was sort of kind of 9 expecting functions.
10 I don't know if you were thinking about 11 something other than functions, as far as how to 12 prevent criticality.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, we just wanted two 14 independent and diverse means to do that. I won't get 15 into.
16 If there, there might have been better 17 ways to word it, but that was the thought that we were 18 going after.
19 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I expected to see two 20 independent and diverse means, because that seems to 21 align with criticality, the thought process.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
23 Yes, okay, we'll take a look to see. And 24 I'll be honest, I don't remember if I was pulling that 25 out of somewhere else or not, for consistency.
NEAL 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 But we would want to be as consistent as 2 we can with requirements in Part 70, and elsewhere.
3 So, we'll take a look at that language.
4 I think technically, we're all on the same 5 page, but we'll take, we'll take a look at the 6 language.
7 MEMBER REMPE: And is --
8 (Simultaneous speaking.)
9 MEMBER REMPE: Go ahead, Dave.
10 MEMBER PETTI: I just, you know, in your 11 preamble you're asking a lot of input from the public 12 on, on this area in particular.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
14 MEMBER PETTI: And, you know, my view is 15 prudency is best. This is a really new area, not a 16 lot of experience.
17 Going slow is I think the right thing at 18 this point. So just one member's thoughts.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thanks, Dave.
20 MEMBER REMPE: And along those lines, one 21 of the areas that I don't think you've still decided, 22 are what to do about bringing back the module.
23 And again, sometimes we've heard oh, the 24 requirements are all there in Part 70 or wherever, but 25 it sounds like there are some issues still 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
68 1 evidenced from this addition into Part 53, right?
2 MR. RECKLEY: Right. We say that we didn't 3 look at the back end. It has to be basically 4 addressed, but Part 53 addresses the decommissioning 5 of the site, but it does not address the potential 6 refurbishment of modules, or the use of the module as 7 a waste container itself.
8 So, there are rules in place that would 9 need to be addressed, and we think we could handle 10 that within the existing rules, should it come up 11 before we're able to make the adjustments ahead of 12 time.
13 MEMBER REMPE: And as I recall, one of the 14 issues that we raised was well how many modules are 15 allowed, and where would the guidance be for that so 16 you don't have a parking lot of spent modules when you 17 don't have a place to ship it back to.
18 And, the staff actually had a good answer 19 in the response to our letter, but that's not probably 20 the best place to have guidance on how to address that 21 topic.
22 And, is there going to be an effort to try 23 and maybe develop some guidance for these modules, for 24 manufactured reactors that helps --
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
69 1 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I do --
2 MEMBER REMPE: -- all these requirements?
3 MR. RECKLEY: I do think this would be an 4 area where future guidance, once we're a little more 5 clear what direction things are going to go, that this 6 would be a logical place to develop some more 7 guidance.
8 MEMBER REMPE: I agree. Thank you.
9 MR. RECKLEY: All right, slide 15, Billy.
10 So Subpart F addresses basically like 11 configuration control and maintenance for equipment, 12 and then it has requirements for operational programs.
13 Those we really did not change very much.
14 We shortened up facility safety program, 15 but by and large, it remains the same kind of a 16 concept.
17 We had given it some thought, and took out 18 some of the detail that might be addressed in guidance 19 and sharpened up the criteria. But again, high level 20 and very similar to what we provided before.
21 The bolded text here, and we're going to 22 talk all of tomorrow morning about staffing and 23 operator licensing, and the, and the thought of a 24 generally licensed reactor operator, and human factors 25 engineering, and all of that will be talked about 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
70 1 the morning.
2 So by and large, Subpart F other than the 3 staffing and human factors didn't change much.
4 MEMBER PETTI: Bill?
5 MR. RECKLEY: Yes?
6 MEMBER PETTI: Just another question.
7 There are some who are arguing that 8 there's an increased level of regulation here, through 9 the programs.
10 I always understood them as compensation 11 in some cases for lack of operating experience, for 12 some technologies that have never been built.
13 And, I know you're asking in the preamble 14 for feedback in some of these specific areas, like 15 facility safety and the integrity assessment.
16 Is that, you know, as I just captured it, 17 is that a fair characterization?
18 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I think we've gotten 19 that feedback. The actual if you look at the list, 20 the only thing you won't find in Parts 50 and 52 are 21 integrity assessment, and facility safety programs.
22 MEMBER PETTI: Right.
23 MR. RECKLEY: And integrity assessment, you 24 just sometimes you need to be a little careful as to 25 say what, what are the regulatory 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
71 1 Will you find the need for integrity 2 assessment programs in Parts 50 and 52? No.
3 Do licensees have the equivalent of 4 integrity assessment programs through things like the 5 BWR vessel internal programs? The PWR materials 6 programs that were put in place to meet other 7 regulatory requirements?
8 Or to address issues that had came up 9 during the operating lifetime, like intergranular 10 stress corrosion cracking? Yes, they do.
11 So, is it a new program in the Rule? One 12 might argue. Is it a new program that, that would be 13 foreign to licensees? You know, my own personal 14 opinion is no, they have these things. So.
15 MEMBER PETTI: My opinion, I mean you're 16 asking in the preamble for comments from the public, 17 and we're going to take if I get my way with the rest 18 of the committee, we're going to give you some 19 comments on these, as well, figuring that you probably 20 want to hear.
21 And in this area, this makes a lot of 22 sense. I mean we are using corrosive, some coolants 23 that are very aggressive.
24 And, if we don't take advantage of what 25 we've learned from the existing fleet, it just seems NEAL 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 to not, you know, it just seems almost, just 2 uninformed engineering to not do this given, you know, 3 water had problems, what do you think some of these 4 chemicals are going to be like?
5 This is the, you know, very smart thing to 6 do for the advanced systems, I think.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the other area going 8 back, you know, to what I mentioned before of a 9 performance based approach. Performance based 10 approach always has a monitoring function.
11 And, so I just look at this as a, as the 12 performance monitoring function of what was put in 13 place in, in the design section.
14 So anyway, but like you say, to some 15 degree, it's, it might be the way it's organized but 16 we, we did ask for comments and so we'll see.
17 And to your point, we would certainly 18 appreciate ACRS observations on this, and in every 19 other area, so.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
21 Doesn't Section 11, Division 2, pretty much require 22 this?
23 MR. RECKLEY: That's a new addition and 24 we've looked. I'm not an expert on the REM.
25 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes, yes, I mean that's.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
73 1 MR. RECKLEY: But it does, we were aware of 2 it and as we were building this, we were looking at 3 REM and saying hey, that would be a vehicle to address 4 this type of a requirement. So, yes.
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: But it's not a, it's a 6 -- if you're using Section 11, Division 2, it's a 7 requirement.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Right. But it would be, yes, 9 but by following that code and standard, that would be 10 a way to meet this regulatory requirement.
11 We don't, Part 53 and especially Framework 12 A, we don't call out specific consensus codes and 13 standards to use.
14 We encourage their use, but you're exactly 15 right. By using that, that might very well be a way 16 to meet this technical requirement.
17 Okay, Billy if we can go on to.
18 MEMBER PETTI: Hey Bill, just want to let 19 the members know that I'm hoping Bill can get through 20 his part before our break.
21 I know we're running, we've been going 22 here for a little bit. So, keep going.
23 MR. RECKLEY: I think we can get through 24 Framework A and then we can take a break, Dave.
25 So, especially since most of these are 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
74 1 areas that we didn't change very much. So, G and Q 2 were the decommissioning requirements.
3 Again, this comes out of 50.75 on 4 decommissioning, and 50.82 on the termination of 5 license. Nothing really changed from what we had 6 released in the summer.
7 So if you want to go to slide 17, Bill.
8 Subpart H.
9 Again, in Framework A, we didn't change 10 much in Subpart H. And, just we highlighted here just 11 to reinforce that the way Subpart H is laid out, the 12 siting related information that would be in 13 applications, is defined under the early site permit 14 section.
15 And, then construction permit, operating 16 license, combined license requirements refer back to 17 the early site permit, for the information to be 18 provided.
19 And likewise, on the plant design, we used 20 the standard design certification as kind of the base, 21 or starting point for what information would be 22 provided on the design.
23 And, then within the other sections would 24 make slight adjustments to it. For example, under 25 construction permits, just recognizing that you would NEAL 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 not need to have, but just the recognition that you're 2 in a different place when you apply for a construction 3 permit, than under a standard design certification.
4 You might still have research and 5 development going on to prove the performance of a 6 particular system, for example.
7 But the information and the need to 8 describe the systems, refers back to the standard 9 design certification as the base.
10 But we also as I mentioned, we really made 11 no major changes to Subpart H, from the summer to this 12 most recently released version.
13 So, Billy, if you want to go to 18.
14 Subparts I and S, likewise, some changes 15 if we, for consistency between I and S, which are the 16 two Subparts in the two Frameworks for maintaining 17 licensing basis information.
18 All of the processes for doing license 19 amendments and so forth were taken out of Parts 50 and 20 52.
21 Some changes in the equivalent, for 22 example, to 5059, and that's an area that we continue 23 to interact with stakeholders.
24 And in particular, there's a DOE industry 25 cost-shared activity looking at some of this change NEAL 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 control mechanism, along with the content of 2 applications guidance that Jordan mentioned.
3 But no significant changes from what was 4 released in the summer.
5 So, if we want to go to J and T, Billy, 6 next slide.
7 Subparts J and T reporting administrative 8 requirements, such as financial requirements, 9 reporting unfettered access, and so forth.
10 These were basically just a collection of 11 various requirements taking from Parts 50 and 52.
12 Greg, you had mentioned the immediate notifications 13 and licensee event reports.
14 We took those primarily. We know there's 15 another rulemaking being contemplated in response to 16 a petition for rulemaking.
17 Just like in some other areas ongoing 18 rulemakings, we will have to see where they go, and 19 what impact they have on Part 53.
20 By and large, our approach was to take 21 from, where we were trying to provide a comparable 22 requirement from 50 or 52, we took it from, from 50 23 and 52 and acknowledged that another rulemaking may be 24 in play.
25 And, you know, another thing that we 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
77 1 do in that area, is to put in a request for comment or 2 a question in the FRN in section 7. And, we do have 3 one of those for reporting requirements.
4 And, that brings us to the last one, 5 Billy, if you want to go to slide 20. This is the 6 quality assurance requirements in Subparts K and U.
7 And, so that slide basically has the 8 column going down the other side showing that except 9 for some minor wording changes to address terminology 10 for example, in Framework A, we don't use the term 11 important to safety.
12 They are the equivalent to the Appendix V 13 criteria, and so we maintained that close relationship 14 in both, both Frameworks, and Subparts K and U.
15 So, and no changes from what was released 16 in the previous versions for either Framework in that, 17 in that area.
18 So, that brings us to the end of Framework 19 A, in terms of a summary and where we introduce some 20 changes. Again, just a couple changes since what we 21 had released in the, in the previous iterations in the 22 summer.
23 So Dave, I think if you wanted, we could 24 take a break here, and the Bill Jessup can pick up 25 Framework B. And, then we can finish out 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
78 1 discussion.
2 MEMBER PETTI: Okay.
3 Joy has a question.
4 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, and I apologize I 5 didn't get this earlier, but I, when I was looking at 6 the preamble, I got a little bit confused. And, help 7 me understand.
8 Is anything changing with respect to what 9 the requirements are for a standard design approval, 10 with Part 53 and finality of it?
11 And, it was a little confusing to me when 12 it was referencing the NIA report. Could you help me 13 out a little bit in understanding what you're trying 14 to get to here?
15 MR. RECKLEY: We're not proposing to really 16 change the standard design approval from what's 17 available in 50 and 52.
18 We tried and the reason to reference the 19 Nuclear Innovation Alliance report, was that the use 20 of the standard design approval for a major portion, 21 remains somewhat of a, of a new concept.
22 It's in there now, it just hasn't been 23 used. We've only done a couple standard design 24 approvals, and by and large, they've been for the 25 complete design, not for a major portion.
NEAL 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 That report even under 50 and 52, tried to 2 clarify how it might be used for a major portion.
3 And, we were just trying to carry that forward in the 4 progress that we had made in that area.
5 But it's not really any different than 6 under 50 and 52.
7 MEMBER REMPE: So if someone has an 8 application for an SDA, and then they were to come in 9 subsequently with a Part 52, or a Part 53, there would 10 still need to be some additional review that's more 11 than the site specific characteristics.
12 And there's no reason to assume that the 13 process, that just because you have, I mean there's no 14 finality with an SDA, and so --
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the finality with the 17 SDA is limited to you, and us, ACRS and the staff.
18 The Commission doesn't weigh in on a standard design 19 approval.
20 But the finality afforded is that those of 21 us looking at the technical requirements should stick 22 to our previous finding unless new information is 23 provided.
24 Unless they change something with which 25 obviously would kind of call into question the value NEAL 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 of the standard design approval.
2 Or if we change our minds, in which case 3 we need to go to the EDO, the Executive Director of 4 Operations, and explain why we don't want to abide by 5 our previous finding in this, in the approval.
6 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.
7 And, okay, this helps in understanding 8 what you're trying to get to here. And, thank you.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
10 MEMBER PETTI: Hey Bill, just one more 11 comment.
12 You know, we've heard a couple questions 13 today from members responding to some other comments 14 out there about, you know, this changing the bar.
15 You know, it's more restrictive 16 regulation, or more, you know, over-regulation. This, 17 the comment relative to the programs.
18 It just seems like maybe a few more 19 sentences in the preamble to try to head this off so 20 that it's out there in the preamble, might be worth 21 thinking about to be more explicit.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Right, okay.
23 MEMBER PETTI: Okay.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Point taken, point taken.
25 MEMBER PETTI: Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
81 1 Okay, let's break. We've been going at 2 it. Let's go till ten minutes to the top of the hour.
3 So, at 10:50 Eastern we'll be on break.
4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 5 off the record at 10:27 a.m. and resumed at 10:50 6 a.m.)
7 CHAIR PETTI: Okay, we should all be back.
8 Bill, are you ready to go with Framework 9 B?
10 MR. JESSUP: Great. Thank you, Dave.
11 Yes, this is Bill Jessup from the NRC 12 staff, and I am ready to go.
13 So, good morning, everyone, again.
14 Welcome back.
15 Like I said, my name is Bill Jessup. I'm 16 Chief of the Advanced Reactor Licensing Branch 1.
17 I'm going to cover Framework B, and that 18 is just the balance of Framework B. Jordan walked 19 everyone through Subpart A, common to both Frameworks 20 this morning, and Bill Reckley already covered the 21 Subparts in Framework B that are very similar.
22 So, I will try and get us back on 23 schedule. I've only got three slides to focus on 24 here.
25 So, Billy, if you could go to the next NEAL 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 slide for Subpart N? Thank you.
2 So, Subpart N, when we last met with ACRS 3 in the summer, we foreshadowed the development of a 4 Subpart dedicated to siting requirements in Framework 5 B. Initially, as you'll recall, Framework B gave a 6 cross-reference to the requirements in Part 100 for 7 siting. We recognized there were some weaknesses in 8 that approach.
9 And so, what we've come up with here is 10 Subpart N, and it's new in the sense that it didn't 11 exist the last time we met and in the first iteration 12 of the Framework B preliminary proposed rule text.
13 However, it is largely derived from some of the 14 existing requirements in Part 100.
15 Subpart N is a fairly compact set of 16 requirements for siting, and I've actually only 17 highlighted one section here in Subpart N, that 18 section being 53.3525, Geologic and Seismic Siting 19 Criteria. That's really the only substantive 20 difference when compared to Part 100. All the other 21 sections on the slide generally align with Part 100.
22 However, they are in Section 3520, 53.3525.
23 We worked to broaden the proposed 24 requirements here, specifically, relative to ground 25 motion response spectra. And this relates closely 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
83 1 the seismic design requirements that I'm going to 2 touch on in a couple of slides.
3 So, Section 3525, and if you look at 4 paragraph 53.3525(c), you'd see it would rely on the 5 development and use of ground motion response spectra.
6 And that's defined in 53.3510.
7 The current wording, if you look in Part 8 100, the requirements, the analogous requirements, are 9 "determination of the safe shutdown earthquake ground 10 motion," SSE ground motion. What we've done is we've 11 changed that to "determination of the ground motion 12 response spectra."
13 And the key here is that the ground motion 14 response spectra would be used to either develop the 15 safe shutdown earthquake ground motion as it is today 16 for applicants using Appendix S to Part 50 or multiple 17 design basis ground motions, if an applicant were to 18 pursue the seismic design alternatives under 53.4733.
19 That's a new section, again. I'll touch on that here 20 in a moment.
21 So, again, really, the only difference is 22 that we've broadened out the requirements relative to 23 ground motion, and they can either be the existing 24 safe shutdown earthquake ground motion or multiple 25 design basis ground motions. And I'll draw 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
84 1 connection between those concepts when we talk about 2 Subpart R. So, again, that's really the only primary 3 difference here between Part 100 and what you see in 4 Subpart N.
5 Billy, could you go to the next slide, 6 please? Okay. Thank you.
7 So, Subpart P, these are requirements for 8 operation. I'm kind of following a similar format to 9 what Bill Reckley did in the previous presentation.
10 I'm just highlighting the areas that have changed 11 significantly from the previous iteration and the last 12 time we spoke to ACRS.
13 As you'll see on the slide, and as you may 14 have seen on Bill's slide relative to Subpart F, most 15 of the sections here, they align very closely with 16 those in Subpart F with a handful of exceptions --
17 environmental qualification of electrical equipment 18 and primary containment leakage testing. Those are 19 derived largely from their analogous requirements in 20 Part 50.
21 I've highlighted some of the sections that 22 have changed significantly, though. One is Section 23 53.4220. Those are the requirements for staffing, 24 training, qualifications, human factors.
25 This came up earlier, and I only want 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
85 1 highlight it because it's very short now. And it just 2 tells you that all of these requirements are now in 3 Framework A in Subpart F. And I know there's an 4 entire session dedicated to that tomorrow morning.
5 So, I'm not going to go into any great detail beyond 6 what the folks will do tomorrow.
7 I just wanted to point out, though, that 8 this is one of those areas where we've internalized 9 the feedback we've gotten and worked to consolidate 10 those requirements, so that now they are centralized 11 and it did make the rule shorter. But it's unique.
12 It was just one of the few areas where we felt like we 13 were able to do that while maintaining a level of 14 clarity and usability that we seek to preserve.
15 Under the programmatic requirements, I've 16 highlighted fire protection. There's been a lot of 17 stakeholder interest in this topic. What I would 18 offer is that the fire protection requirements in 19 Framework B, they've been significantly modified and 20 streamlined compared to the first iteration, and they 21 now really align with what's in Framework A from a 22 structural perspective, the basic components, 23 including requirements for a fire protection plan, a 24 fire protection program, program performance criteria, 25 and fire hazards 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
86 1 Through that streamlining and the updating 2 that we've done to those requirements, we did resolve 3 one of the comments or recommendations in the 4th 4 Interim Letter from ACRS about ensuring that the 5 requirements remain technology-neutral. So, that was 6 an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, but, 7 again, highlighting an area that has changed 8 significantly.
9 And then, the final highlight here is a 10 new section. It's 53.4420, Mitigation of Beyond 11 Design Basis Events. This section was added in 12 response to some stakeholder feedback that we had 13 gotten. Initially, Framework B, it cross-referenced 14 the existing requirements in 50.155 for mitigation of 15 beyond design basis events, a more recent set of 16 requirements.
17 We appreciated the feedback that called 18 out that some of those existing requirements may not 19 be technology-inclusive. So, we went back, evaluated 20 the bases for what's currently in 51.55 and tried to 21 develop a set of requirements that parallel that, but 22 are technology-inclusive.
23 An example would have been, you know, if 24 you look in 53.4420, we did modify some of the damage 25 states. If you look in the existing 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
87 1 some of the damage states, they're very light-water-2 reactor-specific. And so, we've tried to come up with 3 a more generic set of damage states, those that would 4 challenge the safety functions at the plant.
5 So, again, these are really the only major 6 changes to Subpart P that have taken place since we 7 last met. Otherwise, very minor changes to other 8 sections; the administrative process another one is.
9 Billy, if you could go to the next slide, 10 please? Thank you.
11 So here, this is Subpart R. This is kind 12 of the last generic slide I'm going to go over for 13 Framework B.
14 Just as a review, Subpart R, it mirrors 15 Subpart H and Framework A. They both were directly 16 covered in the last presentation.
17 Many of the provisions, especially the 18 process-related ones, are equivalent between the 19 Frameworks when you put them side-by-side. And we 20 actually did put them literally side-by-side over the 21 summer to ensure that there were no provisions that 22 were misaligned where they shouldn't be.
23 I've highlighted two sections that have 24 undergone some changes since the first iteration of 25 the preliminary proposed rule text was issued 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
88 1 last met with you all.
2 Section 53.4730, this was discussed at 3 length with the ACRS back in June and July of this 4 year. And this section contains most of the technical 5 requirements in Framework B in the form of application 6 requirements. I alluded to that this morning, and I 7 know we had significant discussion on that over the 8 summer.
9 It's undergone some changes I'm actually 10 going to discuss in some detail in the next session.
11 I just wanted to highlight it here to flag its 12 importance and to note that, again, we will talk about 13 some of the key changes in the next presentation 14 that's coming up.
15 The other section I've highlighted is 16 Section 53.4733. This is a new section that goes 17 along with the siting requirements in Subpart N that 18 I was just describing. While it's new for Framework 19 B, conceptually, it's very similar to what has 20 previously been presented in Framework A in Section 21 53.480. Those are the seismic design requirements in 22 Framework A.
23 Here, as the section title suggests, these 24 are alternatives -- very similar to, actually, the 25 section title above it, the risk-informed NEAL 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 classification SSCs that mirrors 50.69.
2 So, what we wanted to do here is to 3 provide some risk-informed, performance-based seismic 4 design alternatives. Those alternatives would be 5 against the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 6 S. The Appendix S requirements remain the baseline 7 for Framework B applicants. But again, what we're 8 proposing here is a set of risk-informed, performance-9 based alternatives for applicants that can develop 10 sufficient risk insights, such that they could grade 11 seismic performance criteria.
12 And again, they were developed in parallel 13 to the seismic design requirements in Framework A, 14 where those seismic margins, they're really developed 15 consistent with the risk significance of each SSC 16 within the risk-informance goals. Essentially, this 17 would permit a graded approach to seismic design based 18 on the risk significance of a given SSC.
19 And so, again, I want to draw some line-20 of-sight back to Subpart N. So, if you're pursuing 21 the baseline requirements in Part 50, Appendix S, you 22 would use that safe shutdown earthquake ground motion 23 that we are familiar with today. If you pursue these 24 alternatives under Section 53.4733, you would go kind 25 of to the other fork in the road in Subpart N, 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
90 1 instead of developing a single safe shutdown 2 earthquake ground motion, you would develop multiple 3 design basis ground motions. And that would allow you 4 to kind of grade the seismic design requirements using 5 what's here in 53.4733.
6 We're in the early stages of developing 7 implementing guidance for this alternative. So, 8 developing the guidance for how to effectively risk-9 inform and categorize SSCs in this Framework, that's 10 going to be one of our key focus points for this.
11 But I did want to call it out. It is a 12 new alternative, not unlike several risk-informed 13 initiatives that have been implemented previously.
14 And it would rely on some risk information to be 15 provided by applicants.
16 So, that's all I had for Framework B. I 17 don't know if you want to stop.
18 CHAIR PETTI: Yes. Bill, I had a question 19 on the seismic.
20 So, it's allowing greater flexibility in 21 design, as I sort of look at it. And it's something 22 that fits in the philosophy of Framework A, but you 23 wanted to give some optionality, if you will, to 24 people using Framework B, to give them some 25 flexibility.
NEAL 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 Because it's a huge cost driver, you know, 2 in plants to seismically harden. And as I understand 3 it, potentially, excessive margin using the existing 4 rules, and this would allow a more sophisticated 5 analysis this risk-informs and still provides adequate 6 margin. Is that a fair --
7 MR. JESSUP: That's correct, Dave. You 8 know, if you look at it from a ground motion 9 perspective -- and, Jim Xu, speak up, if you'd like --
10 but, just as you said, if you look at the existing 11 requirements, you know, you're forced to consider that 12 minimum .1 g peak ground acceleration. If you're able 13 to grade those design requirements, then you move away 14 from a single minimum deep ground acceleration to a 15 more graded set of requirements. But, as I 16 acknowledged, that does require some amount of 17 information regarding the risk to the plant. Tech 18 should get to that point, and I don't want to 19 undersell that point.
20 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown. Can 21 I ask a question on the seismic part of this?
22 MR. JESSUP: Sure.
23 MEMBER BROWN: In developing this for Part 24 B Framework, and giving this additional relaxation or 25 flexibility to evaluate what seismic criteria they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
92 1 need, was any consideration given to the North Anna 2 seismic event, which I live in McLean, Virginia.
3 That's fairly far away. I watched my house rattle.
4 In terms of, what were the results of the inspections 5 that were done at North Anna and relative to the 6 actual size of the impact at the site itself in terms 7 of developing this, quote, "more flexible" approach to 8 evaluating what seismic displacements you have to 9 consider?
10 MR. JESSUP: That's a good question, 11 Charlie. I would ask that Jim Xu speak specifically 12 to whether the operating experience in North Anna was 13 factored in, has factored into this approach overall, 14 and not just for Part 53.
15 But what I can say is that the baseline 16 requirements that exist today, they remain in 17 Framework B. As you mentioned, this is a relaxation, 18 provided that sufficient risk insights are available.
19 And I say that because a lot of where we're going, it 20 acknowledges that we are at this time able to develop 21 greater risk insights about the plants and what's 22 significant.
23 And so, I think, if I compare a plant like 24 North Anna that may not have had those tools around at 25 that time, that is a difference, but I think 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
93 1 pointing out that that's bosch, then, maybe; that 2 North Anna withstood it so well, perhaps because it 3 did have all that margin. Is that what I understand?
4 MEMBER BROWN: That's exactly my point.
5 MR. JESSUP: Right.
6 MEMBER BROWN: I mean, from what I live, 7 I'm quite a distance away, and my house suffered no 8 damage. Several neighbors, their chimneys fell apart.
9 So, they didn't fall apart; they cracked. They had to 10 be redone and reworked. And obviously, chimneys are 11 an outlier. North Anna doesn't have a chimney like 12 that per se.
13 It's just seemed to be it was a great data 14 point to look and see, yes, the requirements stay the 15 same, but when you give flexibility to evaluate stuff, 16 that's a near-term actual occurrence of a plant riding 17 through, and it was amazing how they were back in 18 operation almost immediately. I say that 19 figuratively, not explicitly. So, it seemed to be a 20 good data point. That's why I asked the question.
21 MR. JESSUP: Yes. No, I appreciate it.
22 I was intimately involved with that effort and felt it 23 as well.
24 So, I don't know, Jim Xu, if you're on and 25 if you have anything to add relative to how operating NEAL 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 experience has been considered --
2 MR. XU: Yes.
3 MR. JESSUP: -- you know, as we're working 4 to develop this methodology.
5 MR. XU: Yes, sure. Yes.
6 This is Jim Xu. I'm Senior Technical 7 Advisor out of Research.
8 In terms of this alternative, I mean, this 9 is really a goal we have to provide more flexible 10 design options when they occur, kind of a broad-brush 11 approach for seismic design.
12 So, the operating experience in North 13 Anna, obviously, is part of the consideration. And 14 the plant restarted very quickly, obviously, performed 15 very well under that particular scenario. And we 16 understand that the technical issues behind why it 17 performed well, right? So, yes.
18 But I think the seismic design alternative 19 under Subpart A -- or Subpart R, it's very similar to 20 Framework A, the alpha. And I think it's all a graded 21 approach. It gives more flexibility to a designer to 22 design the SSC in accordance with their safety 23 contribution to the system, rather than design all of 24 the safety-related to the same standard, right?
25 But, as to the challenges, what 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
95 1 safety criteria for determining the adequacy of that 2 design? I think that's still a challenge to us. For 3 Framework A, we have a quantitative safety criteria we 4 can use to judge the adequacy of the design. For 5 Framework B, we should rely on principal design 6 criteria. I think that gives us some challenge 7 because the principal design criteria are qualitative, 8 and yet, if we want to rely on qualitative design 9 criteria, we need to have some qualitative or quasi-10 qualitative acceptance criteria to assure that the 11 design meets that qualitative principal design 12 criteria. I think that remains a challenge to us, and 13 we're going to work that out in the future.
14 Thank you.
15 MEMBER BROWN: From the question I asked, 16 I presume there were measurements taken at North Anna.
17 Was it below their design criteria by much? Or a lot?
18 Was that --
19 MR. XU: Yes. No, it was on the high side 20 of the safety margin in terms of the seismic, I mean.
21 And also, if you look at the exceedance from middle 22 Virginia events, which are mostly in the high 23 frequency range, you know, I mean it cannot really 24 affect the performance of most safety-related safety 25 system components. I mean, that plant performed very NEAL 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 well under that particular earthquake event, yes.
2 MEMBER BROWN: So, I presume, then, what 3 you're telling me -- I'm trying to work through your 4 discussion -- is that the actual measured seismic data 5 was well within their design criteria? Is that a --
6 MR. XU: Yes, that's correct.
7 MEMBER BROWN: When I say, "well within,"
8 somebody made the comment, I think made the comment a 9 minute ago, it was very conservative. Was it way 10 conservative or half the criteria or -- I never heard 11 any results from that.
12 MR. XU: I think it was conservative with 13 respect to the margin --
14 MEMBER BROWN: So, that's why I ask.
15 Pardon?
16 MR. XU: I think it's conservative with 17 respect to the design margin for the North Anna.
18 MEMBER BROWN: By a lot or just a little?
19 MR. XU: You know, I think the margin is 20 significant enough to, you know, I mean, to ensure the 21 good performance of that plant. I mean, there are no 22 vulnerabilities from a seismic perspective, at least 23 from our investigation, you know, after the 24 earthquake.
25 MR. BLEY: Charlie, this is Dennis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
97 1 MEMBER BROWN: Yes?
2 MR. BLEY: There were some parameters that 3 were outside, but nothing was close to damage. There 4 was a really interesting Commission meeting with the 5 staff and with the people from North Anna and EPRI 6 folks on this. I don't know if that's still available 7 as an archive, but if it is, you'd find it really 8 interesting.
9 But, yes, the plant was pretty far away 10 from any significant damage, but some of the 11 parameters were outside of the design basis, but not 12 in a way that challenged anything.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, I just -- obviously, 14 that's one of the significant things we have to deal 15 with, if we want to be able to site these things 16 around the country.
17 MR. BLEY: Yes. Just a point. I was at 18 Woods Hole in Massachusetts and felt it up there.
19 But, still, feeling it is a lot different than causing 20 damage to equipment designed for earthquakes.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, but it's kind of a 22 testament to me that maybe people could say, "Well, 23 gee, you're overly conservative." Well, this is 24 another one you don't want to throw out the baby with 25 the bath water -- that's all -- in terms 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
98 1 flexibility-type things.
2 If you do something less, build it a 3 little less structurally formidable, how much does 4 that really save you in terms of really preserving the 5 ability to continue to operate that plant for 60 6 years, and then, maybe even 80 years?
7 That's all. You answered my question.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. XU: Thank you.
10 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, this is Greg.
11 I've got a question, back on, I think, 12 4420, the Spent Fuel Pool Monitoring that you put a 13 site number in there of five years of elapsed time for 14 the monitoring. That feels like a legacy number.
15 What is the real criteria? Is it to be able to air-16 cool the most limiting fuel?
17 MR. JESSUP: Hey, Greg, I understand your 18 question. There's an echo. I understand your 19 question. That number did come from 50.155. What 20 you've said about air-cooling, that sounds reasonable, 21 but if you'll let me take that back? I don't have --
22 I haven't read the final rule and the preamble 23 discussion that was there. So, I don't want to answer 24 right off the bat.
25 MEMBER HALNON: 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
99 1 MR. JESSUP: But I know it's in there.
2 MEMBER HALNON: Yes. I should have gone 3 to the preamble to see if my question was answered.
4 But it just feels like a legacy number and that maybe 5 we could get more flexible by saying what the real 6 criteria is by analysis for the most limiting fuel 7 assembly, and geometry needs to meet X, rather than 8 just an arbitrary five years. Just it would be more 9 technology-inclusive, I think, if you could put the 10 actual criteria in.
11 MR. JESSUP: No, it's a good comment, and 12 I was actually referring to the preamble or statements 13 of consideration for 51.55.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Oh, okay. Okay.
15 MR. JESSUP: Yes.
16 MEMBER HALNON: Well, I certainly didn't 17 do that.
18 MR. JESSUP: Yes. I did, but it's been 19 three or four months. But let me take that back now.
20 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
21 MR. JESSUP: Dave, I think, just coming 22 back to your first question, I just wanted to point 23 out that there is a Predecisional Draft Guide on the 24 technology-inclusive, risk-informed, performance-based 25 methodologies for seismic design that supports what's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
100 1 going on, you know, that supports this discussion and 2 the proposed requirements. And I think that we would 3 expect that would come to ACRS as part of a future 4 interaction. So, I just wanted to point that out.
5 And it is out as a draft, publicly available now.
6 CHAIR PETTI: Thanks.
7 MR. JESSUP: Okay. Thanks.
8 Billy, you can move to the next slide, and 9 I'll turn it over to Bill Reckley.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Thanks, Bill.
11 So, the next few slides will talk about 12 safety analysis and, in particular, the use of the 13 Qualitative Health Objectives, or QHOs, and then, 14 Boyce Travis will talk about the safety analysis in 15 Framework B.
16 So, Billy, if we want to go to the next 17 slide.
18 Just as background, it's been interesting, 19 ever since we have tried to develop Framework A. And 20 just as background, under the bullets there, "existing 21 paradigm," we have a system in Parts 50 and 52 that 22 has evolved since the '60s. And basically, on a few 23 occasions, the question of, well, what is adequate 24 protection or how is it defined has arisen. And the 25 Commission has largely said, "We're not going 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
101 1 define it in technical terms."
2 But, given the evolution of the 3 requirements, along with the technology in the '50s, 4 '60s, and '70s, all the way up to the current day, the 5 election of all of the requirements that have been put 6 in place provide, or can be presumed to provide or 7 assure, adequate protection at a minimum.
8 And so, that kind of establishes that, 9 through experience, we're comfortable, but it's not 10 defined in technical terms. And you have to look at 11 all the requirements that are in Part 50 and in other 12 parts of NRC regulations and various ways that the NRC 13 has imposed requirements.
14 And then, in addition to that, the Act 15 provides, the Atomic Energy Act provides, that the 16 Commission can, as it deems necessary or appropriate 17 or desirable, take additional measures to protect the 18 health or minimize danger to life or property.
19 So, those are the two things in the Act, 20 Section 182 and Section 161 of the Act, that kind of 21 define what the NRC is obligated to do and authorized 22 to do. And so, if you're going to come up with a new 23 Framework and you're not simply going to bring over 24 those existing requirements from all of Part 50 and 25 elsewhere and kind of do a like-for-like replacement, NEAL 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 then you have to do some exercise to say the two 2 Frameworks are providing a comparable level of safety.
3 And that's been a challenge, and you can 4 see in the rulemaking plan it was laid out as one of 5 the objectives that we would in Framework A generally 6 provide a comparable level of safety, as current 7 plants and new plants licensed under 52, and then, 8 provided a few other objectives in terms of the 9 stability; accommodate various technologies, and allow 10 those technologies where they can show they have 11 attributes from the Advanced Reactor Policy Statement 12 to take advantage of them.
13 And this kind of goes back to a comment 14 Joy made earlier. An advanced reactor is, likewise, 15 depending on where you want to look and what you want 16 to define, we've used that term ever since the 17 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement. So, it's to some 18 degree any reactor that's probably beyond generation 19 two, if you look at the timing of that.
20 The difficulty -- it's not a difficulty --
21 but the attributes of the Advanced Reactor Policy 22 Statement, and the Policy Statement acknowledges this, 23 plants can have, some of them, maybe all of them --
24 and how you judge it is based on the merits. And you 25 have to run it through the system, be it Framework 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
103 1 or Framework B, for that matter. And so, that's the 2 reason we got away from that terminology.
3 Even large light water reactors can have 4 attributes from the Advanced Reactor Policy Statement.
5 Obviously, the newer plants have much more passive 6 safety systems. That's an attribute of the Advanced 7 Reactor Policy Statement.
8 So, I'm going off and rambling a little 9 bit. The gist of what I was trying to get to on this 10 slide is that a challenge we've recognized from the 11 beginning is, how do you develop a new Framework and 12 compare it to the existing Frameworks when they're not 13 defined in numerical terms? And so, that's been the 14 challenge, and we've gone through various exercises to 15 try to convince ourselves and the ACRS and 16 stakeholders that we have achieved that.
17 So, Billy, if you can go to the next 18 slide.
19 This is just some of the figures we've 20 used in the past to try to talk about taking an 21 integrated approach. And that, basically, is how we 22 were looking at the development of Part 53. It's why 23 we defined it for the life cycle of a facility. It's 24 how you, in the bottom figure, that bowtie diagram 25 that we used many times early on that shows the scope NEAL 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 of what's addressed through the Licensing 2 Modernization Project, the events analysis, the 3 assessments of the plant.
4 But you can see again, or remember from 5 the bowtie diagram, it didn't take it to the next step 6 and talk about things like how that analysis would be 7 used in siting decisions, for example. So, that was 8 one of the things we did within Part 53, is to fill 9 out the rest of that bowtie diagram to say how the 10 LMP, as a foundation, would support the other 11 decisions.
12 And in many cases, those things are 13 specifically defined in other NRC requirements, like 14 Part 100 for siting or the emergency planning 15 provisions in Appendix Z to Part 50, for example.
16 The other figures are just the figure we 17 used many times to talk about the mechanistic source 18 term kind of approach that we were taking, and which 19 is kind of necessary for non-light water technologies 20 because the system that we have in place has been 21 really built on the established barriers for light 22 water reactors -- the cladding, the coolant, the 23 containment.
24 And some designs may have a different set 25 of barriers. And so, you need to have somewhat of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
105 1 different approach to achieve the same goals, but you 2 have to recognize that you're going to look at it and 3 analyze it differently.
4 And then, the last one is just a 5 representation of a general evolution from active 6 systems to passive systems. And increasingly, what 7 we're seeing is a desire to even more so base it on 8 inherent characteristics of plant features.
9 So, again, this is just kind of background 10 that we've been looking all along to take an 11 integrated approach. It kind of was a eureka moment 12 for me. I was like, what's another way to talk about 13 integrated decisionmaking?
14 So, Billy, if you go to the next slide, we 15 have a whole process on risk-informed, integrated 16 decisionmaking. And that is Reg Guide 1.174, 17 developed shortly after the NRC's Safety Goal Policy 18 Statement and the introduction of QHOs. How do you 19 consider risk-informed insights into the 20 decisionmaking?
21 And so, I looked at the five boxes that 22 have been established and really haven't changed since 23 the initial -- we've provided more detail; we've 24 enhanced them, but the basic structure is the same 25 since the first issuance of Reg Guide 1.174.
NEAL 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 What are the principles and how can we use 2 this tool to look at Framework A, in particular, and 3 say we, looking at it through another lens, have 4 confidence that we're ending up in a comparable level 5 of safety?
6 And so, if you go around the wheel here, 7 at the top is defense-in-depth, and that's stressed in 8 Reg Guide 1.174, and I think it's stressed in both 9 Frameworks, but, in particular, we're talking about 10 Framework A. It is stressed in Framework A that 11 measures have to be taken to ensure that you have 12 defense-in-depth.
13 The next one, going clockwise around, is 14 maintaining that the systems have adequate safety 15 margins. And this goes directly to what Charlie was 16 talking about just a few minutes ago at North Anna in 17 terms of the seismic design. Why did the plant 18 survive that event? Because it had safety margins.
19 And within Framework A, we have a whole 20 section in Subpart C on design requirements. Part of 21 those are to ensure that the systems, the safety-22 related systems, have design margins in terms of their 23 use to make sure that the design basis accident meets 24 the safety criteria in Subpart B, which is very 25 similar to the Part 50 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
107 1 So, it's easy to kind of say, in that 2 arena, there's differences. I don't want to downplay 3 the differences in the DBA, but, in large part, you're 4 achieving a comparable level of safety when you're 5 looking at it in an integrated way. So, this is the 6 caution: if you take the DBA from Framework A and the 7 DBA from Framework B or from Part 50, there are subtle 8 differences. And so, you can't say the DBA is the 9 same in the two. But when you look at it from an 10 integrated point of view, they're playing a similar 11 role, and, in particular, the role they're playing in 12 Framework A is to ensure that you have design margins 13 in the system or systems that you're relying on for 14 the design basis accident.
15 And then, you have a number of other 16 specific design requirements in Subpart C, in 17 particular, 53.440, that talks about following 18 consensus codes and standards; making sure that you 19 have proven the capability of each SSC you're relying 20 on by doing testing, analysis, and prototype testing; 21 the same thing we have in Part 50 under 50.43(e).
22 So, just looking at it again as an 23 integrated decisionmaking, we think we have this box 24 addressed. Then, you go to the next one, going 25 clockwise, in Reg Guide 1.174. It's used in a risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
108 1 metric, and the risk metric that's used in both 1.174 2 and in Framework A is the QHOs.
3 Now, albeit 1.174 is written for light 4 water reactors, and it relies on the surrogates 5 because that's the way risk assessments have been 6 done. So that it's looking at core damage frequency 7 and conditional containment failures as the metrics 8 because that's what's available, and that's what's 9 been used. But 1.174 does talk about the QHOs and the 10 light water reactor surrogates.
11 And that's important. Because you have a 12 risk-informed approach, you want to have a risk-13 related metric to make sure that you're actually 14 addressing the insights gathered from the PRA.
15 Then, the next one at like seven o'clock 16 in the diagram, Performance Monitoring, critically 17 important. We talked about this a little bit earlier.
18 That's the programmatic requirements in Subpart F.
19 It's the change control and other provisions in 20 Subpart I. And so, in terms of performance 21 monitoring, we think we have followed this general 22 process of integrated decisionmaking to make sure that 23 that feature of 1.174 is addressed.
24 And then, the last one is probably the 25 hardest one. And that is 1.174, because it 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
109 1 developed as kind of a change control mechanism, 2 started with the existing requirement. So, this goes 3 back to the original paradigm. We think adequate 4 assurance is provided by the existing set of 5 requirements. So, 1.174 starts with you're meeting 6 the existing requirements, except as you've justified 7 a change by consideration of these other boxes.
8 So, for us, basically, the exercise was to 9 go through methodically and say, from a technical 10 point of view, are we addressing the requirements in 11 Parts 50 and 52 and 100? And Jesse and company will 12 talk tomorrow about 55 for the staffing and human 13 factors elements. Have we looked at that whole set of 14 requirements and have confidence that we've addressed 15 technically the subject matter? And again, we think 16 we have.
17 You won't find the equivalent of, let's 18 say, 50.46 and 2200-degree peak clad temperature in 19 Framework A. You will find a requirement that the 20 designer, since it's technology-inclusive, the 21 designer or other party has to define what is the 22 design feature they're relying on; what is the safety 23 function -- you know, to address the safety function, 24 and then, in turn, also propose what is their 25 functional design criteria. So, we have 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
110 1 requirement for them to identify the equivalent of the 2 2200 degrees.
3 So, again, you won't find the specificity 4 in Framework A, but, as we went through and said, have 5 we addressed all of the technical requirements that we 6 think are relevant to a new plant, we think we did.
7 And so, this is just -- it's another way.
8 To be honest, I wish I had kind of developed this 9 argument and presented this before. We had gone 10 through the exercise, but just hadn't shown it.
11 We, instead -- Billy, if you'd go to the 12 next slide -- again, we were trying to explain it this 13 way, and that was, in part, because we were trying to 14 explain the top-down approach, where you end up in a 15 similar place as you do, for example, if you start 16 with a GDC; that starting top-down from safety 17 criteria to safety functions, to design features, to 18 functional design criteria, you'll end up with the 19 requirements on a particular piece of equipment that 20 is similar to where you would end up if you started at 21 the bottom and said, as a design philosophy, I'm going 22 to require X.
23 Let's say reactivity. I'm going to 24 require two systems, and one system has to do this.
25 Well, if I start from the bottom-up, I'm going to end NEAL 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 up in a similar place on those fundamental safety 2 functions as I do when I start at the top and go down 3 and say, what is my safety criteria offsite dose?
4 What are my safety functions? I need to shut down the 5 reactor. What am I going to use to shut down the 6 reactor? In the light water reactor mode, it is going 7 to be control rods. And then now, how do the control 8 rods need to perform?
9 So, that's the argument we presented early 10 on, and we used this Chevron figure back then. The 11 safety criteria are just defined in this other box.
12 We talked about that earlier in terms of Subpart B for 13 DBAs, design basis accidents, and for licensing basis 14 events; other than DBAs, the need to defense-in-depth, 15 and so forth. Again, going back to that 1.174 figure 16 and addressing the various considerations in an 17 integrated decisionmaking.
18 One of the things that's subtle within 19 Framework A is there is, under 53.450(e) for the 20 analysis portion -- and, in particular, the analysis 21 of licensing basis events other than DBAs -- the need 22 to define for every event or category of events an 23 evaluation criteria. And so, that, under licensing 24 modernization, would be, basically, the frequency 25 consequence target figure.
NEAL 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 And that's a good way to look and analyze 2 individual event sequences, but, like in LMP and in 3 Reg Guide 1.174, you also want to look at the 4 cumulative insights related to plant risk. And so, 5 that's, again, why the QHOs come into both areas, 6 1.174 and Framework A.
7 One of the things I bolded here in the 8 text, just to be clear of the role of the QHOs, 9 because I'm afraid, again, just as we've gone through 10 public comments, maybe people were misunderstanding 11 how we were trying to use them and incorporate them.
12 The QHOs are not being used, in and of themselves, to 13 define what is adequate protection. It's only one 14 measure within all of those things that were shown on 15 the previous figure that we were looking at; all of 16 the requirements.
17 We still do not, under Framework A, define 18 adequate protection. We are, basically, saying we've 19 gone through an exercise to try to make sure that it 20 provides a comparable level of safety when you look at 21 it in total, just like 1.174 is saying, when you look 22 at it in total, you can use this kind of methodology 23 and ensure, even though you might be justifying a 24 change from an existing requirement, you are 25 maintaining adequate protection because you've gone NEAL 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 through this exercise and looked at things like 2 defense-in-depth and cumulative risk from a PRA.
3 Dave?
4 CHAIR PETTI: Yes, this is a really good 5 discussion. I really like the previous slide.
6 I guess the concern that I have is you've 7 shown, or you think you've shown, that Framework A has 8 a comparable level of safety. But how do you know 9 it's not overregulation to get there?
10 And I think part of it must be. I mean, 11 looking at it in an integrated way, I just worry that 12 many of the comments you hear from stakeholders are 13 cherry-picking different aspects of it. And I think 14 if you cherry-pick, you can lead yourself to a 15 different answer than, you know, if you look at it in 16 an integrated way. Have you got a start of that?
17 MR. RECKLEY: Well, yes, I think we've 18 tried to. Again, since neither system, neither 19 Framework, existing or Framework A, is going to define 20 it in numerical terms, it's going to be a subjective 21 judgment on both that it's comparable; that we've 22 convinced ourselves, and two, that we didn't go way in 23 excess in Framework A.
24 And one of the ways that we can see that 25 is really drawn out of the experience on the evolution NEAL 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 of the Licensing Modernization Project, its use in the 2 pilots that were done, and the observations that those 3 designers and staff involved in looking at those 4 tabletops -- the reason they were using the LMP and 5 thought it worthwhile was it was a way to take 6 advantage of the risk insights and focus activities in 7 the right spot, and not overdo it.
8 It does change the emphasis somewhat, as 9 does many of these things we're talking about, from 10 overdesign to what some might say is overanalysis, 11 right? So, you have to gain your objective to 12 simplify a design. Mostly under Framework A you do 13 that through analysis.
14 And so, again, I guess I'll just leave it 15 there. We've talked about it. We've thought about 16 it. It's going to be a very hard thing to have.
17 We're not going to be able to say precisely. We're 18 only going to have to say that we think we've reached 19 the right ground, and as it's exercised, if somebody 20 comes in and says, well, this is overkill, then we can 21 entertain it.
22 But it, basically, is defining a 23 methodology. There's so little prescription in terms 24 of what's actually required of the plant design, that 25 it's kind of hard to say where we would have gone NEAL 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 overboard.
2 CHAIR PETTI: Yes. No, I think your 3 comment on the tabletops is, I think, valuable.
4 Because, in my opinion, the big thing that both the 5 licensee and the NRC have to figure out is, how do you 6 know you're focusing on the right stuff when you've 7 got a brand-new technology? And you don't have any 8 sort of basis. You need a structure. That's always 9 been the strength of LMP.
10 And so, the fact that the tabletops across 11 different technologies led you in the right places, I 12 think at least is sort of a pragmatic, a first look.
13 This looks reasonable. And I think that's a good 14 argument against some of the "Oh, this is 15 overregulation." It's just it's different, you know, 16 than what's there today.
17 No. Thanks.
18 I see Vesna has her hand up.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Uh-HUM.
20 CHAIR PETTI: Go ahead, Vesna.
21 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: My comments will be 22 a little on different aspects of it. I don't even 23 know what to -- well, I want to start with the graph 24 from Reg Guide 1.174. I like how you put this story, 25 but this graph illustrates how deterministic 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
116 1 probabilistic things fit together. And from that 2 point of view, it is equally, or maybe even more 3 applicable, for the Part B.
4 Because the principles which are, you 5 know, the existing stuff, the defense-in-depth, design 6 requirements, performance monitoring, this all applies 7 even if you are not calculating your risk. So, from 8 that point of view, this is what is actually used 9 today. This was the main task in 1.174 to use today.
10 Why isn't something risk-informed? Why is it risk-11 based?
12 But, I mean, I like how you integrate it 13 here. I just want to point out that this was done to 14 show how this information is coming from both sides, 15 come together, and not only on the path where we are 16 calculating risk change at the events which are 17 related to PRA.
18 So, this is just my opinion and my first 19 comment is not a question.
20 MR. RECKLEY: No, I know. No, I 21 appreciate it, and that's what I tried to capture in 22 that. We do have to be careful. 1.174 was developed 23 to evaluate changes from where we were or where we 24 are, and we are kind of extending that to the 25 development of a whole new Framework. So, point NEAL 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 taken.
2 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. And then, an 3 important part of that point is it's equally, if not 4 even more, applicable to Framework B. That's my 5 opinion.
6 Okay. My other point is related to 7 something you know that is my -- because I wrote a 8 separate opinion. It is important for me. And this 9 is the application of (audio interference).
10 So, I wanted to point to something in your 11 preamble. I'm not really good in pronouncing that.
12 But there, when you say that those are well-13 established cumulative risk measures used in risk-14 informed decisionmaking, and blah, blah, blah, in that 15 sense, I challenge this. I don't think that's true.
16 I think it's actually far from the truth because QHOs 17 are not cumulative. When you say, "cumulative risk 18 measure," what do you actually have in mind, Bill? I 19 mean, cumulative in the sense it's cumulative, even 20 sequences?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. It's the integration 22 of the individual event sequences.
23 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, every core 24 damage frequency is a cumulative measure, right?
25 MR. RECKLEY: 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
118 1 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, it's a Large 2 Release Frequency? So, what I want to say what is 3 true, instead of what you are stating, the surrogate 4 for QHOs have been well-established risk measures.
5 Because when you say, "cumulative risk measures,"
6 actually, you can say CDF and LERF because that's 7 cumulative risk measures which are well-established in 8 risk measures using all applications so far. Is that 9 a true statement?
10 MR. RECKLEY: I would say the CDF and 11 Large Release Frequency or Large Early Release 12 Frequency have been used much more than have the QHOs 13 in terms of latent cancer and prompt fatality.
14 Because --
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But is there much 16 more that's implied that you endorse their use in the 17 risk implications?
18 MR. RECKLEY: Where CDF and LERF were not 19 an appropriate measure -- for example, in some of the 20 Fukushima work, they were not deemed to be an 21 appropriate measure; the work on spent fuel pools is 22 a good example that's not going to use CDF or LERF --
23 we used the QHOs.
24 Likewise, when we were evaluating 25 engineered filtered vents on BWRs, that was based on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
119 1 latent cancer and prompt fatality, the numerical QHOs, 2 not on the surrogates. So --
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. So, let me 4 just go back and I will try to explain why I have an 5 issue with this.
6 So, for example, if you are going to use 7 the latent cancer measure of less than 2 to the minus 8 6 per year, right? And there is not any importance 9 measures, risk-importance measures, risk-significance, 10 anything based on that, or any plants reporting what 11 is the cancer fatalities. That is sort of a measure 12 which is denied on something which connects core 13 damage frequency, weak cancer which is based on all 14 studies, and you had the million assumptions under 15 this.
16 So, for example, does anybody say that 17 this only applies if there is no cleaning of the soil?
18 Or does this only apply if people come back and live 19 there for 50 years? Or does anybody -- I mean, there 20 is so many assumptions and uncertainties. And did you 21 look in the results, latest results for Level 3 which 22 show that this connection is like triple order of 23 magnitudes of -- you know, this connection which said 24 the cancer fatalities are connected, given core damage 25 frequencies are 40 minus 3? Did you guys look in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
120 1 results for the latest Level 3 PRA?
2 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. So, I guess I would 3 acknowledge what you're saying, that it's a more 4 complicated calculation as soon as you need to go 5 offsite and start to calculate the dispersion and the 6 dose to individuals, and then, the health effects of 7 those doses on individuals. Yes, we'll acknowledge 8 that that's a more complicated calculation than is 9 CDF, and by its nature, then, it's also increasing or 10 introducing additional uncertainties.
11 But that is kind of built into the 12 methodology that they'll need to address those 13 uncertainties.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But that's not built 15 of you give them 2 to the minus 6 as the number.
16 Then, you ought to be giving them the number which is 17 based on all of these uncertainties and it's not true.
18 MR. RECKLEY: Well, but the comparison to 19 2 minus 6 might have the uncertainties you're 20 mentioning. The 2 times 10 to the minus 6 itself is 21 just the quantitative goal of .1 percent times the 22 current estimates of the cancer occurrence. And 23 that's how you get 2 times minus 6 --
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, I have to say 25 (audio interference), but as far as what I said 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
121 1 this discussion, if your plans come -- like, for 2 example, if NuScale comes under this part, they could 3 have a core damage frequency of 10 to the minus 2 4 because their correction to core damage frequency in 5 terms of that is not established. So, that's a point 6 I'm trying to make. I'm trying to make, if you stay 7 on a higher level, you can avoid all of those 8 questions and just say nothing to this higher risk to 9 the public.
10 My other concern in this is also, let's 11 say that we have a NuScale that comes now and says 12 that they meet this 10 to the minus 4 CDF, but, then, 13 in order to do the QHO, right, they have to -- you 14 know, you say also the right measures. So, let's say 15 that we have established that you already accept the 16 CDF and LERF are surrogate measures, right?
17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right. So, 19 therefore, if they satisfy the 10 to the minus 4 for 20 CDF, that will imply they satisfy cancer deaths, 21 right?
22 MR. RECKLEY: For light water reactors, 23 yes.
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, for example, 25 does that mean that, then, light water reactors don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
122 1 need to do the Level 3 to show those deaths or not?
2 If they have a CDF and LERF, are they good to go?
3 MR. RECKLEY: Basically, yes, as long as 4 they can provide a reasonable argument. And for light 5 water reactors, it's a well-established history that 6 those surrogates are a conservative way of showing you 7 meet the QHOs. So, yes, they could come in and say 8 that they meet the light water reactor surrogates and 9 the surrogates are applicable to them. And so, we --
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, they don't need 11 to do the Level 3 --
12 MR. RECKLEY: The Level 3, right. And 13 likewise, any non-light water reactor, by the way, 14 could do the same. For example, the simplest way to 15 show you meet the QHO is to show you don't release 16 radioactive materials.
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right.
18 MR. RECKLEY: You don't need to do a Level 19 3 PRA or you don't need to do the dispersion models if 20 there was nothing dispersed.
21 So, if any design were to come in and say, 22 "We're don't need to calculate the QHOs," based on a 23 code like MACCS, "because we don't have any release,"
24 as long as they can convince us that they don't have 25 a release, then they're finished. You meet the QHOs NEAL 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 if you don't have a release.
2 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, right, but, in 3 that case, you also need that you are not 4 presenting -- you know, if you go back to qualitative 5 goals, you are also meeting this. Why do you need to 6 do these qualitative things, which are very 7 questionable and based on these uncertainties?
8 What you're saying, they also, you know, 9 meet the goal that you are not presenting -- you are 10 not adding to any risk of an average person in the 11 vicinity of the plant if you don't have the reactivity 12 release. You are introducing something which is based 13 on a lot of -- basically, cancer fatalities are 14 calculated based on the position of the land, the 15 people coming back, living there 50 years, being 16 exposed to that. See, I mean, this is so -- this is 17 so much of the things introduced. There would be no 18 need if you just stay on the qualitative risk goals; 19 you don't have to deal with any of those assumptions.
20 So, I don't see what benefit you were 21 adding, especially because I claim it is not true that 22 they are well-established. They have been called in 23 certain circumstances, but they're not well-24 established. 1.174 is not based on them. PRA 25 standards are not based on that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
124 1 I have never reported it -- and I have 2 been doing PRA for 20 years -- I have never reported 3 cancer fatalities in my life. I never said that the 4 importance of the SSCs are based on increase of cancer 5 fatalities. That's totally foreign to me.
6 Okay. This is just my comment.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: And I will stop 9 here. I have already expressed my opinion.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And, you know, the 11 only point -- and we make it in the preamble as well 12 -- is those that you mentioned, the particular ones 13 for light water, are well-established and we 14 acknowledge that.
15 The surrogate measures for other 16 technologies are not there, and we would end up having 17 to define the equivalent surrogate measures for each 18 technology then.
19 The nice part, if you want to say it that 20 way, about going back to the QHOs themselves, is they 21 are technology-inclusive.
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, so is quality 23 risks and such, you know; they are all technology-24 inclusive. And one of the things is that, you know, 25 you can avoid -- you're talking about safety-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
125 1 significant components, right? If you don't have 2 surrogate measures and somebody is coming with a 3 totally different design, then how are we going to 4 establish safety importance of the components? That 5 has to be discussed also at the beginning.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Is safety importance 8 of the components going to be established based on 9 their cancer risk or purely fatalities? I mean, you 10 know, this is -- what I was saying, we should leave 11 the door wide open than trying to push this very much, 12 in my opinion, at the official health objectives into 13 this.
14 So, okay, this is how I feel.
15 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, I think 17 everybody knows this by now. So --
18 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So, we have one last 19 slide, and then, Boyce, I think, can finish up the 20 Framework B Safety Analysis stuff before lunch. I 21 know we're running a little late.
22 But, Billy, if you go to the next slide.
23 This just basically goes through the 24 comments we've received, some of which we just 25 discussed.
NEAL 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 So, the general feedback, both from ACRS 2 and other stakeholders, has been not to include a 3 cumulative risk measure, to include a different 4 cumulative risk measure, as we were just discussing, 5 in particular, surrogates for the QHOs, and then, to 6 develop new safety goals.
7 So, this is also reflected in the response 8 to the most recent letter from the Committee.
9 So, we continue to think it's important to 10 have a cumulative risk measure, and I'll point back to 11 the Reg Guide 1.174 kind of integrated decisionmaking 12 process to explain why we think that.
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. I come again 14 -- sorry -- but I do here, because I brought this 15 discussion. What is it that you mean by cumulative 16 risk measure? You mean, actually, the integrated 17 sequences?
18 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But they have always 20 been used? What is the other option than cumulative 21 risk measure?
22 MR. RECKLEY: Some stakeholders have said 23 we should not have a cumulative risk measure.
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, what is the 25 alternative to not cumulative? Just analyze 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
127 1 sequence?
2 MR. RECKLEY: One would be, for example, 3 that the current way we do it in Part 52 is there is 4 no requirements in the rule to meet the safety goal, 5 but we do it through guidance. We do it in Chapter 6 19.
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But nothing 8 different than saying, cumulative? What you are 9 saying, that's two different stuff, right?
10 MR. RECKLEY: No.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I mean, you know, 12 what is opposite of "cumulative"?
13 MR. RECKLEY: Well, Billy, if you can go 14 back up one slide perhaps?
15 For example, if you were looking at the 16 frequency consequence curve in the yellow, and you 17 look at every event sequence, if you can convince 18 yourself that every event sequence is to the left of 19 the frequency consequence curve, but, in addition to 20 that, you want to look, we think you want to look at 21 what is the cumulative risk.
22 MR. BLEY: I'd like to jump in, Bill, if 23 I might?
24 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, please, Dennis.
25 MR. BLEY: When you go to the LMP NEAL 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 approach, like Bill is pointing out here, using this 2 FC curve is done on a sequence-by-sequence basis, and 3 then, when you're all done, you're still left with the 4 question, well, how many sequences are there? What's 5 the total risk from this thing? And is it too high 6 for the whole plant?
7 And several things have been proposed in 8 the past. 1860 has two of them. One is that there be 9 developed a CCDF curve that's a limit curve, and you 10 shouldn't exceed it anywhere with your total result 11 from your PRA.
12 The other one that was set up there, and 13 has continued in what they're saying here, is that the 14 QHOs are -- because they are a result of the sum of 15 everything in the risk, they give you a place to see 16 if the overall risk is too high or too low.
17 I always like the first of those, but 18 nobody has pursued that very much. But that's what 19 they're talking about, is, how do you make sure you 20 don't have too many of these sequences that are okay, 21 but all together the design is not okay?
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, thank you, Dennis.
23 So, Billy, if we can go back.
24 The two last bullets then. We talked 25 about the use of an alternative like surrogates. 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
129 1 say it's allowed, but keep as the measure what we 2 think is the technology-inclusive measure, which is 3 actually the QHOs.
4 And then, the last thing was some had 5 proposed that we develop new safety goals, either to 6 address concerns beyond public health or in some 7 stakeholders' views, because the safety goals should 8 be revisited. They were developed in the 1980s, for 9 example.
10 And our response -- and this is reflected 11 in the letter -- is that we stuck to the rulemaking 12 plan that, where we're going to use established 13 measures; that we really didn't have the time or 14 capacity in this Part 53 effort to do something like 15 revisit foundational things, like the safety goals or 16 linear no threshold, or some other things that people 17 thought maybe we should consider, as we did Part 53.
18 So, we stuck with Commission findings like 19 that in the Staff Requirements Memorandum for 20 SECY-10-0121, and to some degree later on, after 21 Fukushima, SECY-12-0110, where the question of, should 22 we come up with new safety goals was posed, and the 23 Commission came back and said the existing safety 24 goals are fine and should continue to be used.
25 So, that's where we are. We're not, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
130 1 basically, taking a position on the merits of doing 2 new safety goals or not. We're just saying that we 3 weren't able, as part of this effort, to undertake 4 something like that.
5 So, with that, Dave, I think Boyce can 6 probably be done by 12:30. Do you want to --
7 CHAIR PETTI: Yes, let's do that, and 8 then, we'll go to lunch.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Boyce?
10 MR. TRAVIS: Thanks, Bill.
11 So, this is Boyce Travis from the staff.
12 I'll be moving on to the Framework B, 13 Safety Analysis and Technical Requirements, as opposed 14 to the ones we've been discussing for Framework A over 15 the past hour or so.
16 So, moving on to the next slide.
17 So, the Framework A, Safety Analysis and 18 Technical Requirements, are largely located in Subpart 19 R, which is the licensing certifications and approval 20 section. And this is very similar to how the 21 requirements are reflected in the existing Parts 50 22 and 52 Framework.
23 And so, this slide focuses on 24 53.4730(a)(1), which is Site Safety Analysis. The 25 safety analysis requirements are derived from those 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
131 1 52.79 and the corresponding Part 50 requirements. The 2 first few requirements there are largely identical to 3 Part 52 requirements. I'm not going to spend a lot of 4 time on those. We've discussed them at a previous 5 ACRS meeting.
6 We have made some changes in (a)(1) to 7 ensure that the rule was appropriately technology-8 inclusive, and we've also made some, what I'll call, 9 clarifying changes that don't change the technical 10 meaning of what's there, but did find the opportunity 11 to provide some additional clarity.
12 In addition, the preamble provides some 13 background and context discussion that we think helps 14 provide the appropriate level of detail for why we've 15 chosen the requirements that we've chosen here.
16 The third bullet contains the exact text 17 that we provided for making the rule technology-18 inclusive with regards to Site Safety Analysis. And 19 we've afforded some additional flexibilities regarding 20 the fission product releases that could be calculated.
21 But I'll note that, consistent with what's done in 22 Parts 50 and 52, the Site Safety Analysis is based on 23 a major accident, and what that major accident looks 24 like might be different for different technology 25 types.
NEAL 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 You know, we're not going to prescribe the 2 specific release, as has been done historically for 3 LWRs because that would be generally overly 4 constraining, we think, for the broad variety of 5 technology types being considered that we know about 6 and the ones we don't necessarily know about on the 7 near-term horizon.
8 In addition, there's a requirement or an 9 optional requirement in this section that would allow 10 an applicant to comply with more restrictive dose 11 criteria, effectively, inherit these dose criteria as 12 their new Site Safety Analysis requirement if they 13 were looking to, for instance, use the Draft EPZ Rule 14 or other requirements that would impose a more 15 restrictive dose requirement rather than the 25 rem, 16 which is there in this requirement, consistent with 17 the Part 50 and 52 requirements today.
18 And so, that largely covers the Safety 19 Analysis, as I know not a lot of changes were made 20 since you all last saw this rule or this text.
21 CHAIR PETTI: Boyce?
22 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, go ahead.
23 CHAIR PETTI: I understand what you mean 24 by the italicized bullet, but, for like a molten salt-25 fueled reactor, fuel and core damage, they may argue NEAL 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 that they don't ever sort of get that. So, it might 2 have to be covered in some relevant guidance to expand 3 -- you know, you're looking for anything. There's a 4 potential for large radiological releases from any 5 source.
6 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, I do agree with that.
7 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
8 MR. TRAVIS: So, I think this is 9 relatively clear in the preamble discussion, but, I 10 mean, as you know, molten fuel designs are 11 technologically unique. And I would consider the 12 release of molten fuel from the reactor coolant system 13 to be fuel damage. I understand those designers might 14 not. And so, in that case, it is a non-traditional 15 technical, not argument, but discussion to be had. We 16 think the rule captures that, but we are very 17 receptive to feedback, if we can make this more clear.
18 CHAIR PETTI: I always thought it was like 19 core upset, something like that, that might be 20 broader, but, you know, it's just something to think 21 about.
22 MR. TRAVIS: No, that's good feedback and 23 we will take it to consider. I'm sure that there are 24 numerable ways that this could be approached and I 25 would not please everyone with whatever language got NEAL 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 chosen.
2 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
3 MR. TRAVIS: And so, moving on to the next 4 slide, the next large set of technical and safety 5 analysis requirements is in 53.4730(a)(5), which 6 breaks out the initiating events and accident analyses 7 requirements. They're all located in one place and 8 they are more explicitly divided by event 9 classification than they are in the Parts 50 and 52 10 requirements.
11 However, the genesis behind all of the 12 requirements, but the last one that we'll discuss here 13 in a second, is derived from the philosophy and the 14 regulatory requirements in Parts 50 and 52. All of 15 what's here leverages the language that was previously 16 developed as part of Part 5X that we came before ACRS 17 with a little over a year ago, maybe a little closer 18 to a year and a half ago. And the preliminary 19 proposed rule maintains top-level requirements that 20 are consistent with acceptance criteria consistent 21 with those in 50 and 52.
22 So, moving on to the next slide, I'll 23 break these out by what's in each category of both 24 4730(a)(5). There's a top-level, you know, little 25 Roman numeral (i) for analysis and evaluation 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
135 1 kind of describes the high-level analysis and 2 evaluation requirements that's derived from 52.79(a).
3 We've made changes there to accommodate multi-unit 4 language that was perhaps a little muddled or not 5 explicitly clear in the previous revision of the rule 6 text.
7 In Roman numeral (ii), Design Basis 8 Accidents, we've made some contextual changes, just to 9 provide additional clarity and clean some things up.
10 And this really includes -- this is the traditional 11 requirements for deterministic analyses from Parts 50 12 and 52; i.e., your design basis analyses are defended 13 against using only safety-related equipment.
14 Roman numeral (iii), there has been a 15 change made since we last came before ACRS, additional 16 context for normal operation and anticipated 17 operational occurrences. This is consistent with the 18 existing requirements and includes the Part 20 19 acceptance criteria, and it adds normal operation.
20 And some of this discussion is provided in the 21 preamble. But there are no analytical requirements 22 for normal operation, but the Part 20 acceptance 23 criteria still do apply for normal operation. The 24 expectation is, you know, and always has been, that 25 you would remain below those as an applicant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
136 1 Continuing on to the next slide for 2 (a)(5), little Roman numeral (iv) has been renamed to 3 Additional Licensing Basis Events. These are -- and 4 we've provided some additional clarity and text 5 changes in the requirement itself -- just to kind of 6 better hone in on what the scope of initiators and 7 event sequences that need to be considered to be 8 defended against using SSCs and those that need to be 9 looked at analytically as part of the plant design as 10 a whole, consistent with what's done in Parts 50 and 11 52 today under the RTNSS classification system.
12 And so, the requirement breaks out that 13 there are events like ATWS and SBO that are not 14 design-basis in the traditional sense, in that they 15 require either multiple failures or are outside the 16 scope of what's looked at in that traditional 17 deterministic analysis, but our operating experience 18 has shown that these events do need to be evaluated, 19 and the Commission has decided that there is a need to 20 provide appropriate measures to defend against these 21 events.
22 We don't want to prescribe rule text as 23 what's in the ATWS and SBO rules now because those are 24 very technology-specific to LWRs, and we acknowledge 25 that there are ways for non-light water reactors 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
137 1 design these out without having to provide additional 2 equipment in some cases. And that would be a viable 3 path forward to satisfy this requirement.
4 Finally -- or not finally, I guess; 5 there's two more -- severe accidents is Roman numeral 6 v. This is derived from what's in 52.79(a)(38).
7 We've made modifications here to support technology-8 inclusiveness because the (a)(38) requirement 9 specifically refers to LWR severe accident mechanisms 10 that would not be sufficiently technology-inclusive.
11 And then, originally, in Roman numeral v, 12 I had defined a severe nuclear accident. That's been 13 moved up to the definition section to kind of bring 14 everything into one place. And that will be talked 15 about later, further this afternoon, by I believe 16 Marty.
17 Finally, there's a chemical hazard 18 requirement, Roman numeral vi. This is consistent 19 with what's been put in Framework A and it's to 20 address substances that are commingled with licensed 21 or radiological hazard-producing material.
22 Moving on to the next slide --
23 CHAIR PETTI: So, Boyce, just to --
24 MR. TRAVIS: Yes?
25 CHAIR PETTI: I wanted to come back. Joy NEAL 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 had asked this earlier question. There's a design 2 basis, and here are additional requirements formerly 3 outside the design basis. And so, there's been some 4 comment from stakeholders about, you're including 5 license events outside the design basis now in the 6 overall licensing of a plant. But, in fact, they've 7 kind of been there all along. You're just pulling 8 them all together here. Is that --
9 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, that is correct. And I 10 would go further to say, we tried to hone this 11 requirement as much as we could because there's a fine 12 line to tread here in making it technology-inclusive, 13 trying to address the appropriate scope of events.
14 And as you know, there are a series of requirements 15 for, I'm going to call them, regulated beyond design 16 basis events for the purposes of this discussion, like 17 ATWS and SBO, that have been added to the scope of the 18 licensing basis, but are not -- and design basis is a 19 loaded term in the sense that it's not captured in the 20 structure. It's stylized design basis analysis, but 21 it is part of what is required for the plant to defend 22 against.
23 And so, the goal with this requirement was 24 to provide something akin to that that didn't 25 prescribe specifically here's what you have to do 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
139 1 ATWS; here's what you have to do for SBO, because we 2 wanted a more integrated look at what the hazards were 3 for the plant from the perspective of, and using this 4 as an example -- and this is in the preamble -- to 5 say, effectively, if there are things on the frequency 6 level of the design basis accidents, and they just 7 aren't captured there because of the stylized nature 8 of the analysis, you know, they need to be evaluated 9 and dispositioned somehow, whether that's via design 10 features that aren't safety-related or programmatic 11 controls or various other mechanisms that are 12 available to the designers.
13 And so, we think this provides 14 flexibility, but, as you know, this is not a 15 departure, as it were, from the existing regulatory 16 structure. It's just a different way to write it 17 down.
18 CHAIR PETTI: All right. Well, thanks.
19 That's good to have out there. Thank you.
20 MEMBER REMPE: So, again, I agree, but to 21 avoid any misconceptions by others who may not fully 22 understand it, for whatever reason, I think it's 23 important to emphasize that in the preamble, as Dave 24 suggested earlier, wherever you can, just to make sure 25 folks understand this. Because, again, I think it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
140 1 great that you've kind of tried to put things in the 2 frequency regime because that's not done in the other 3 Frameworks.
4 But, anyway it's just something to think 5 about. And I know you can't do that with Framework B 6 because the frequencies aren't there, but I just would 7 make sure that everybody understands this, so there 8 aren't comments about that we're regulating down to a 9 more restrictive; you know, we've changed the bar and 10 we're making things more restrictive.
11 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, thanks, Dr. Rempe.
12 I'll note that the staff paid particular 13 attention to developing the preamble for this section 14 because we knew this was an area that the rule 15 language probably could not be sufficiently specific, 16 and the preamble was the best place to provide that 17 additional context. And so, we do appreciate that 18 comment.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Boyce?
20 MR. TRAVIS: Yes?
21 MEMBER BROWN: Charlie Brown.
22 When I go back -- I'm trying to figure out 23 where we are. Slide 30 was Framework A, Consideration 24 of Feedback, Including QHOs. The previous slide was 25 Framework A, et cetera. Now, I'm in Subpart R; it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
141 1 Framework B.
2 MR. TRAVIS: That is correct, yes.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. You've flipped to 4 Framework B now in your discussion, but yet, the 5 Framework B shows up -- I had to go find what you were 6 talking. So, I pulled up this other text. Then, we 7 get back into Framework B around slide 37.
8 Is there a reason? You didn't announce 9 that. Did I miss this or something?
10 MR. TRAVIS: No, I apologize. I could 11 have been more clear. And certainly, there was a --
12 I think we were trying to appropriately tie the safety 13 to -- or to draw an appropriate distinction between 14 the Safety Analysis requirements in Frameworks A and 15 B.
16 Because once we got into Subpart R, 17 Framework B, on slide 24, I believe, the two 18 Frameworks do have different ways to approach safety 19 analyses. And so, we knew that QHOs were going to be 20 a point of discussion. And so, we went into that 21 starting on slide 25, but, in reality, from a 22 consistency -- or sorry -- from a Framework B flow 23 perspective, yes, slide 30, or excuse me, slide 31 24 kind of follows slide 24 in the sense that slide 31 is 25 talking about -- starting with slide 31 is again NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
142 1 talking about Framework B specifically; whereas, 2 slides 25 through 30 were talking about how the QHOs 3 in Framework A, Safety Analysis, were developed.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I was trying to 5 connect this with QHOs and everything else, and I lost 6 the bubbles. Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. TRAVIS: No, I apologize. In 8 Framework B, QHOs are handled the same way they are 9 handled in Parts 50 and 52 today.
10 MEMBER BROWN: All right. Thank you.
11 MR. TRAVIS: No problem.
12 So, moving on to the next slide, which 13 maybe is 35, slide 35. Thank you.
14 This is 53.5730(a)(36), which is the 15 containment requirements. This is the other, I would 16 say, large area of technical consideration in 17 Framework B that is very different from Parts 50 and 18 52 and different from what's in Framework A.
19 The containment requirements are split to 20 acknowledgment differences between non-LWRs and LWRs.
21 For LWRs, the same approach as applies under 50 and 52 22 currently is put in the regulatory requirements for 23 containment in Framework B. That is, that you need 24 leak-tight primary containment that meets Part 50, 25 Appendix J, and you need to address any technically-NEAL 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 relevant requirements related to LWR operating 2 experience. And that's consistent with the 3 Commission's policy that was expressed in the SECY 4 paper on functional containment.
5 For non-LWRs, we afford designers an 6 additional level of flexibility to say they need a set 7 of barriers -- plural -- that are used to meet 8 requirements for AOOs, DBAs, and siting criteria. And 9 this set of barriers comprises their functional 10 containment. That definition, which was kind of 11 implicit in the text of what was previously in 12 (a)(36), has now been moved up to 53.020(a).
13 And then, the safety classification of 14 those SSCs that are credited to defend against 15 radiological releases that make up the functional 16 containment barriers need to be classified as safety-17 related. That's explicitly required here.
18 There are no other requirements per se.
19 So, there's no, for instance, direct requirement on a 20 leakage test, as there is in Appendix J. But, using 21 as an example, if a designer was crediting the 22 performance of a building to have a certain leakage 23 level, that would be inherited as a design 24 requirement, and the NRC would expect there to be 25 maybe a technical specification, or something like NEAL 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 that, to justify that leakage level that's being 2 credited as a functional containment barrier.
3 And so, that kind of covers the 4 discrepancies in deltas between both Framework A and 5 the language that we showed you previously on 6 Framework B for safety analysis requirements and what 7 currently exists in the proposed rule.
8 And if we move on to the next slide --
9 CHAIR PETTI: Boyce, before you go 10 there --
11 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, let's go back.
12 CHAIR PETTI: -- I'm not sure we're going 13 to talk about tech specs and LCOs, and the like, but 14 in the preamble you guys were interested in expanding 15 the definition of LCOs. And the little bit that was 16 there, I just worried that it may not be implementable 17 in some aspects of functional containment. And I was 18 trying to understand. Maybe I've misunderstood what 19 the additional wording meant. We're not going to 20 cover that later, right?
21 MR. TRAVIS: No, it's not planned as a 22 topic. I can kind of try to speak to that. I mean, 23 so we are asking a question in the FRN on --
24 CHAIR PETTI: Right, right.
25 MR. TRAVIS: -- on the change.
NEAL 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 So, the short answer is we made a change 2 to what's there because the old requirement says 3 something to the effect of -- and I'm paraphrasing a 4 little bit -- primary success path, and it wasn't 5 exactly clear to us how. So, in the previous 6 requirements there's an expectation for a containment, 7 and that containment is going to have technical 8 specifications; it does have technical specifications 9 associated with it. In the new Part 50, or the new 10 requirements, we weren't sure there was a way to catch 11 that. And so, we modified the language slightly.
12 But we are asking the question because 13 we're not sure what we did was necessarily the best 14 way to go about that. And so, I appreciate the 15 feedback, and I think we're still in the learning 16 process. We just wanted to make sure that functional 17 containment as a concept, and how those barriers were 18 reflected, specifically, that they are going to 19 perform as they are assumed to in the Safety Analysis, 20 is reflected somehow operationally. And so, we added 21 the language we chose.
22 But I think I understand your comment.
23 And does that address it at this --
24 CHAIR PETTI: I'll stick it in the letter.
25 Hopefully, it will survive discussion with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
146 1 Committee. But I was worried about like, of course, 2 in TRISO fuel the barriers are so deep in, you know, 3 they're part of the fuel particles; there's more than 4 one barrier in there. How you measure stuff, that's 5 what I'm worried about. I'm not worried about an 6 external barrier that is an engineering barrier at a 7 scale that one can do traditional engineering stuff.
8 MR. TRAVIS: Yes.
9 CHAIR PETTI: That was just the concern I 10 had, was how the language could be interpreted.
11 CHAIR PETTI: Sure. So, I totally 12 understand where you're coming from, Dr. Petti.
13 So, this is me personally talking. How I 14 would be addressing, how I expect that to be addressed 15 by a designer is a damaged -- basically, when you have 16 damage, you no longer meet the LCO. So, for instance, 17 a circulating activity requirement tells you that you 18 have failed TRISO barriers; therefore, you are no 19 longer -- your functional containment is no longer 20 intact, if that makes sense.
21 CHAIR PETTI: Okay.
22 MR. TRAVIS: So, not measuring the TRISO 23 directly, but saying I have a coolant activity 24 requirement that needs to relate -- for me to operate, 25 I need to remain below a certain level. And 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
147 1 indicative that I still have a functional containment 2 barrier intact with the TRISO.
3 CHAIR PETTI: Right. Okay. Yes, I 4 understand. Okay.
5 MR. TRAVIS: Yes. That's all I have on 6 safety analysis.
7 The next slide contains a high-level 8 discussion of areas. If there are any questions on 9 general technical requirements, I'll let Bill Jessup 10 address those. And this just kind of goes over areas 11 where we made some changes to technical requirements 12 in 4730.
13 MR. JESSUP: Yes, thanks, Boyce.
14 And I understand I'm in the way of lunch.
15 So, I will be efficient, but please stop me if there 16 are questions.
17 Again, for context, we are still talking 18 about Framework B. Boyce hit on kind of the safety 19 analysis requirements. I wanted to wrap up to talk 20 about just some of the deltas in the other general 21 technical requirements that have been implemented or 22 proposed in the most recent iteration.
23 If you look at paragraph (a)(2) for 24 facility description, we had a requirement here 25 related to codes and standards that would be used 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
148 1 the design of SSCs. And we did that because we looked 2 back at the existing requirements for light water 3 reactors under 50.55(a) and recognized that, while we 4 maintained the 50.55(a) -- excuse me -- 10 CFR 5 50.55(a) codes and standards requirements for light 6 water reactors, we didn't have a similar requirement 7 that would explicitly cover other technologies. So, 8 did a paragraph to that effect under (a)(2).
9 Under (a)(4), this ties back to what 10 Jordan had mentioned earlier about the definition of 11 safety function. We appreciated the recommendation 12 from ACRS about adding clarity around that concept.
13 And so, in (a)(4), we did add a sentence that would 14 make that implicit relationship between the PDC and 15 safety functions a bit more explicit, because we 16 agreed there would be value in doing that.
17 Under paragraph (a)(11), dose (audio 18 interference) to the public, the changes really here 19 are focused on aligning these requirements more 20 closely with those that are currently in 10 CFR 21 50.34a -- it's just 50.34a, not parenthetical (a) --
22 not including the references to Part 50, Appendix I, 23 where we made some slight changes in comparison to 24 Appendix I, Part 50, Appendix I.
25 Paragraph (a)(14), Earthquake Engineering NEAL 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 Criteria, again, linking back to the discussion that 2 we had earlier this morning, the addition here is 3 reflective of that alternative set of seismic designs 4 performance criteria that we talked about. So, this 5 paragraph preserves the baseline, Part 50, Appendix S, 6 seismic design requirements, but there is a new 7 sentence that reflects that applicants could pursue 8 the alternatives under 53.4733 that we discussed this 9 morning.
10 Paragraph (a)(34), the description of risk 11 evaluation, this is where PRA and AERI are discussed, 12 and there's going to be a full afternoon session on 13 AERI. So, I just flagged it here because there were 14 changes to the AERI approach, but those will be 15 discussed at length this afternoon.
16 Paragraph (a)(37) contains the 17 requirements specific to water-cooled reactor designs 18 that would come under Framework B. Several references 19 in this paragraph back to Part 50. Just two notable 20 changes.
21 We deleted a requirement that was related 22 to containment leakage testing because we felt it was 23 redundant to requirements that are already in Subpart 24 P, and also, what Boyce mentioned in 4730(a)(36) on 25 the prior 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
150 1 And the last item was that we removed the 2 requirement for evaluating conformance of a design 3 against the standard of U-PLAN (phonetic). Deletion 4 of that requirement actually aligns us with some of 5 the ongoing policy work in the 50-52 harmonization 6 rulemaking that recognizes that new guidance beyond 7 the SRP is going to be available for new reactors; and 8 also, that new designs are likely to be sufficiently 9 different from the large light water reactors that 10 inform the current SRP. So, maintaining and 11 performing that conformance evaluation would likely 12 have limited benefit for the staff and prospective 13 applicants as well.
14 And the last note is just kind of a 15 catchall, the other changes to 53.4730, largely 16 organizational and administrative, since the last 17 iteration.
18 So, again, I'm in the way of lunch, which 19 is a dangerous place to be. But if there are any 20 questions, I'm glad to take them.
21 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. I'm not hearing any 22 questions.
23 Let me just ask some questions. I'm 24 trying to decide, do we need the full hour for lunch?
25 And I think that, in part, depends on how long 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
151 1 think the discussions this afternoon will take and 2 whether members want to push beyond that. Do we want 3 to take 30 minutes out of lunch here to assure 4 ourselves we'll get done by 5:30 Eastern? Or do we 5 just want to keep with the hour and hope we're more 6 efficient this afternoon than we were this morning?
7 Members, anybody have --
8 MEMBER HALNON: Dave, this is Greg. I 9 only need 30 minutes for lunch. But my restaurant is 10 right next door.
11 CHAIR PETTI: Yes. Okay. Well, let's do 12 a 30-minute lunch then, and let's come back at 5 13 minutes after the hour, and then, hopefully, it won't 14 drag us too late in the afternoon today.
15 Thanks, everyone. That was a monstrous 16 amount of material to get through this morning.
17 And thanks, Bill and Bill and Boyce. It 18 was good.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 12:36 p.m. and resumed at 1:05 p.m.)
21 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. Hopefully everyone is 22 back from lunch. It's five after the hour. And let's 23 start talking about AERI.
24 MS. WAGNER: Good afternoon. Welcome to 25 this presentation on Part 53, Framework B, alternative NEAL 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 evaluation for risk insights and Draft Guide DG-1413 2 and DG-1313. Next slide, please. My name is Katie 3 Wagner, and I'm a project manager in the Division of 4 Advanced Reactors and nonpower production and 5 utilization facilities in the Office of Nuclear 6 Reactor Regulation. Next slide, please.
7 So as part of our agenda today, we have a 8 number of presentations. First, we'll go through 9 introductions and recent activities which I will 10 cover. And then Marty Stutzke will cover the proposed 11 AERI entry conditions including the draft proposed 12 real text and FRN sections.
13 Then Keith Compton will present on the 14 evaluation of dose based AERI entry criteria using the 15 MELCOR accident consequence code system which we call 16 MACCS. And then the respective authors will present 17 on DG-1413, technology inclusive identification of 18 licensing events for commercial nuclear plants and DG-19 1414, alternative evaluation for risk insights or area 20 methodology. Next slide, please. So to briefly 21 introduce -- oh, previous slide, please.
22 Okay. So to briefly introduce my 23 colleagues, Marty Stutzke is the technical lead for 24 the Graded PRA Working Group. He is also the senior 25 level advisor for probabilistic risk assessment 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
153 1 the division of advanced reactors and non-power 2 production and utilization facilities in the Office of 3 Nuclear Reactor Regulation or NRR. And Keith Compton 4 is the lead for the MACCS calculations related to the 5 AERI entry conditions.
6 And he is a senior reactor scientist in 7 the Division of Systems Analysis in the Office of 8 Nuclear Regulatory Research. We also have with us 9 today Mihaela Biro who is the principle author of DG-10 1413, technology inclusive identification of licensing 11 events for commercial nuclear plants. And she is a 12 senior reliability and risk analyst in the Division of 13 Risk Assessment and NRR.
14 And our other presenter is Anne-Marie 15 Grady And she is the principle co-author of DG-1414, 16 alternative evaluation for risk insights or area 17 methodology. And she is a reliability and risk 18 analyst also in the division of risk assessment, NRR.
19 And I already introduced myself. Next slide, please.
20 So moving on, this side shows the 21 membership of the Graded PRA Working Group. And as 22 you can see, the working group is composed of over 23 seven technical staff from several divisions of NRR 24 and also receives support from the Office of Research 25 and Dr. Robert Budnitz who is a consultant. 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
154 1 membership of the working group is diverse. And so 2 that ensures that the technical questions receive 3 feedback from a variety of points of view. Next 4 slide, please.
5 So to briefly recap recent activities in 6 early summer 2022, the AERI team briefed the ACRS 7 subcommittee. And then a few weeks later on July 6th, 8 we had another briefing with the full committee 9 meeting at ACRS. And then the ACRS issued a letter 10 dated August 2nd, 2022 regarding AERI.
11 And the path forward discussion in late 12 June covered just a few -- or covered a few items 13 including for both draft guides making revision and 14 response to stakeholder feedback including the ACRS 15 and monitoring changes to the preliminary proposed 16 rule text. And for DG-1414 in particular, our group 17 had planned to develop guidance, area maintenance, and 18 upgrades. And now my colleague, Marty Stutzke, will 19 discuss the AERI-related draft proposed rule text and 20 FRN sections.
21 MR. STUTZKE: Good afternoon, everybody.
22 Next slide, please. So as Katie introduced me, I'm 23 Marty Stutzke, the senior technical advisor for PRA in 24 NRR DANU. Next slide, please. This diagram provides 25 kind of the big picture behind AERI emphasizing some NEAL 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 of the regulatory basis.
2 And I wanted to reiterate it to help 3 orient everybody as to how AERI has been constructed.
4 So on the left-hand side of the diagram, you will see 5 some policy statement quotations there. I apologize 6 for the small font size in some cases. But we start 7 out with the policy statement on the regulation of 8 advanced reactors.
9 And in that policy statement, we find the 10 Commission expects that advanced reactor designs will 11 comply with the safety policy statement. So you can 12 see the little arrow going off to develop this 13 demonstrably conservative risk estimate in order to 14 achieve that expectation. Further down in the policy 15 statement, it also notes the Commission has issued 16 policy statements on the use of PRA and severe 17 accidents. It goes on to say the use of PRA as a 18 design tool as implied by the policy statement on the 19 use of PRA.
20 This one is interesting because when you 21 actually read the PRA policy statement, I'm talking 22 now about the box in the lower left-hand corner, you 23 find this very interesting quotation that says, it's 24 important to note that not all of the Commission 25 regulatory activities lend themselves to a risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
156 1 analysis approach that uses faltering methods. In 2 general, faltering methods are best suited for power 3 reactor events that typically involve complex systems, 4 and I'll emphasize that, complex systems. The policy 5 segment and we'll talk about the use of other sorts of 6 techniques, for example, integrated safety assessments 7 from material licensees, and concludes with a quote, 8 Commission realizes that a single approach for 9 incorporating risk analyses is not appropriate.
10 MR. BLEY: Marty?
11 MR. STUTZKE: Yes.
12 MR. BLEY: It's Dennis Bley. I like this 13 quote you pulled up. It essentially says event 14 tree/fault tree PRA isn't the only kind of risk 15 analysis you can do. Given that the question that 16 arose earlier seems in need of some further explaining 17 and that is why AERI wouldn't be applicable to 18 licenses under Part 50 or 522.
19 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, I'll try to address 20 that briefly here. I have to admit I hadn't thought 21 about it a great deal until the question was asked 22 earlier this morning. My personal view, Dennis, is 23 it's kind of a coordination or a priority issue.
24 The Part 50, 52 rulemaking started way 25 back in 2009 which clearly predates NEIMA by a decade NEAL 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 like that, and it received various emphasis. It took 2 a long pause. And finally, in June of this year, they 3 submitted the rulemaking package to the Commission.
4 So it has not yet been issued for notice and comment 5 like that. So --
6 MR. BLEY: I guess what I was getting at 7 is some members of the Committee and they included me 8 when I was a member and still look at PRA as kind of 9 a continuum of more complex and less complex kinds of 10 analysis of risk such that many different approaches 11 can fit under that name. And we seem to have locked 12 into PRA means event trees and fault trees and 13 extremely complex modeling which has been very useful 14 for the large reactors but may not be the best 15 approach for lower power and simpler systems. So it's 16 kind of definitional.
17 And this statement by the Commission seems 18 to agree with that kind of definition. But go ahead.
19 I won't interrupt anymore. I'll let you keep going.
20 MEMBER HALNON: Hey, Dennis. This is 21 Greg. I think I sent you the email. But one of the 22 things I thought of was that if we keep the same entry 23 conditions for an area type analysis, then the whole 24 part of 53 or the facility being as simple and less 25 complex if you will would probably benefit 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
158 1 rest of the Part 53 rule.
2 So going under Part 50 or 52 with such a 3 simple facility may or may not be the right call for 4 a design. So I was just thinking through what you 5 were talking about. I think stepping back, 53 and 6 AERI are pretty complementary. 50 and AERI may not be 7 as complementary.
8 MR. BLEY: Yeah, I think so. But as Dave 9 pointed out for the next three or four years or maybe 10 more, that wouldn't be an option if anybody wants to 11 come in.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, I agree with that.
13 That was a good point.
14 MR. STUTZKE: I would add to it. There 15 are a variety of ways of doing PRA as Dennis noted.
16 And specifically the non-LWR PRA standard provides a 17 way to grade the technical content of PRAs according 18 to where you are in the licensing process.
19 And that was originally how we had 20 approached the problem was, can we grade the technical 21 content by accepting lower capability categories or 22 certain supporting requirements and that sort of 23 thing? And we realized, well, it's already built in 24 to the non-LWR PRA standard like that. The second 25 thing and I agree with what Greg was saying is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
159 1 for a plant to come in under AERI, they're already 2 going to meet all the other regulations.
3 In other words, they're going to have 4 principle design criteria and a full set of design 5 basis accident analyses, et cetera, et cetera. That 6 being AERI is not a maximum hypothetical accident 7 approach like we would use for research or test 8 reactors. So in that sense, the purpose of AERI is 9 like the purpose of PRA in that it is providing a 10 confirmatory or a supporting role to ensure you 11 haven't missed anything or I should say to help ensure 12 that you haven't missed anything.
13 As far as about applying AERI over to 14 Parts 50 or 52, I mean, I would just point out Part 52 15 is pretty clear. You have to have a PRA. So an 16 applicant that wanted to go down that path would have 17 to seek an exemption.
18 And as we'll discuss a little bit later in 19 this presentation, while there is currently no 20 requirement to have a PRA for Part 50 applicant, the 21 Commission certainly expects that to be the case. And 22 that's in fact one part of the rulemaking that's 23 ongoing is to require a PRA. So I won't speculate 24 beyond that.
25 Anyway, so let's flip to slide 45. 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
160 1 the text in the upper portion, the italics text is a 2 quote out of the preamble that's trying to explain 3 AERI would apply to commercial and nuclear plants with 4 relatively straightforward designs. Not overly 5 complex system and notice the same language appears in 6 the PRA policy statement.
7 So not overly complex systems and 8 interactions and accordingly wouldn't warrant the 9 development of PRA to provide the qualitative insights 10 or quantitative insights like that. So the big 11 challenge behind AERI is deciding when it would be 12 permissible to allow a plant to use AERI and 13 accordingly when they would be required to do a PRA.
14 And it centers around this notion of complexity and 15 interactions.
16 And quite frankly, it's been a real 17 challenge to put that down into words about where's 18 the boundary between them. So in the left-hand side 19 of the diagram, you'll see the proposed rule text that 20 we had presented to you all back in June. And then 21 the right-hand box shows what we're currently 22 proposing like this.
23 And you will notice that the entry 24 condition in 53.47, 38.34(ii), it's split into two 25 separate entry conditions, A and B as shown there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
161 1 And we have worked on the language to A, but it still 2 retains the essence of dose at a distance. So they 3 acknowledge it partially demonstrates the consequence, 4 et cetera, et cetera.
5 We then added this qualification in B that 6 says, you need to demonstrate that you meet A without 7 reliance on active safety features or passive features 8 except those that don't require equipment actuation or 9 operator action, et cetera, et cetera, like this. So 10 again, that's trying to get at this point of 11 complexity versus simplicity. And I'll show you a 12 little bit later that Qualification B also enables the 13 use of generally licensed reactor operators elsewhere 14 in Framework B. So let's go to slide 46, and I'll try 15 to explain --
16 CHAIR PETTI: Hey, Marty. Just before you 17 go there.
18 MR. STUTZKE: Yes.
19 CHAIR PETTI: The second capital B, I 20 understand passive heat removal. I think I can 21 envision systems that don't require the operators to 22 do anything or any equipment to actuate. But shut 23 down, I can also envision that not requiring an 24 operator. But some equipment, a latch has to be 25 moved. There's some equipment actuation most likely.
NEAL 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 Does that mean that those guys can't get in?
2 MR. STUTZKE: I think you raise a good 3 point that we might need to explain better in guidance 4 about what sorts of systems. I certainly didn't mean 5 to exclude the idea of a SCRAM system and dropping the 6 rods in. But it gets very interesting when you think 7 about the distinction between inherent and passive and 8 active.
9 In my mind, clearly the gravity inserting 10 the control rods is inherent based on physical things.
11 But as you pointed out, you need other systems, 12 passive or active, to decide when to shut down the 13 reactor like that. So I find it very hard. I tend to 14 think of it as they're passive components but not 15 necessarily passive systems. They rather seem to be 16 a blend.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Marty, this is Greg. I 18 was going to wait till later. But this term passive, 19 there's no definitely of it. There's no real good 20 explanation of it.
21 So you're always qualifying it with 22 different stuff. Is it time to -- when you're talking 23 about this to define what you mean by passive, you 24 mentioned the GLRO. And back in that section, you 25 introduced a term called self reliant mitigation NEAL 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 facility which is not really defined. It's kind of 2 sort of defined.
3 And now you're mixing that with the AERI.
4 And you're kind of defining it a little bit different 5 but kind of you can kind of make the case that it's 6 the same. I think you might consider taking those two 7 terms, self reliant mitigation facility and passive as 8 it's used in that and consider a very succinct clear 9 definitely so that there's no confusion when you're 10 going back and forth between GLRO, AERI, passive, and 11 that sort of thing.
12 So consider it. I get confused going back 13 and forth when I was trying to read it. And you can 14 kind of make a case that they're closed. But they're 15 not quite the same.
16 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah. Dave Desaulniers, did 17 you want to add something to the conversation? Or 18 Maybe Jesse Seymour? You'll get a whole explanation 19 on self reliant mitigation facilities tomorrow when we 20 talk about the operator licensing.
21 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, we can wait to talk 22 a little bit in detail then. But I just wanted to lay 23 that out there because Dave brought up the passive 24 issue. Again, in our regulations and guidance, I 25 never really find a good definition of passive. 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
164 1 you mentioned inherent.
2 But in this thing, it talked about 3 passive, but you can't have any active portions of 4 that. Well, it should be part of the definition of 5 passive. But there's nothing active.
6 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, and we have looked at 7 IAEA guidance trying to get some ore clarity. But 8 I'll take that one back.
9 MEMBER HALNON: And we can talk more in 10 detail about it tomorrow. But if you need some cross 11 referencing, I can show you where got more confused in 12 the license operator portion.
13 MR. STUTZKE: Certainly. Jesse, do you 14 have a comment?
15 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, Marty. I was just 16 going to add on. This is Jesse Seymour from the 17 operator licensing and human factors branch. And just 18 that we do intend to talk a little bit more about the 19 Framework B GLRO criteria and specifically the 20 criteria that apply to non-AERI and AERI facilities 21 within that context as well as what the underpinning 22 bases are really for all the criteria.
23 So tomorrow, we'll get into that. The 24 criteria look different depending on whether or not 25 you're talking about Framework A, 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
165 1 AERI. But what are the underlying objectives and what 2 are we trying to achieve there?
3 So yes, we'll dig into that. It is -- I 4 will say it's something that we continue to think 5 through and to discuss as we approach this problem.
6 And Marty and I have spent a lot of time talking about 7 what is the objective and what are we really trying to 8 achieve and exclude here.
9 What I would say is that our focus with 10 these words had really been to try to narrow things 11 down to safety features that were of a robust passive 12 nature, again, another undefined term. Or things that 13 were inherent, again, to try to -- and Marty, please 14 feel free to chime in if I mischaracterize that. But 15 really what we're, I think, trying to do here is to 16 say that in a relatively uncomplicated fashion that 17 has a very, very low probability of failure that this 18 facility would weather this event and still remain 19 within it's radiological consequence criteria, right?
20 And so that conceptually is very simple.
21 But again, the devil is in the details when you try to 22 put that into words. And one of the areas we found to 23 be something that's a complicating factor is when you 24 start trying to get into a definition for inherent, a 25 definition for passive, right, that these are 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
166 1 that -- again, there is a bit of a lack of good 2 definition in some regards there. So Marty, that's 3 really all I had to add.
4 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, thanks, Jesse. Let's 5 go to slide 46, please. As we had discussed back in 6 June, the original consequence criteria and the AERI 7 entry condition, the dose distance criteria, we're 8 inspired by the EPA PAGs. And to be fair, the EPA 9 PAGs are actually used to respond to actual events.
10 And in contrast, the AERI entry conditions 11 are talking about postulated events used to establish 12 the licensing basis. So there's been some concern 13 that we're inappropriately leveraging the PAGs for a 14 purpose that they weren't originally intended for.
15 Moreover, the PAGs aren't limits.
16 From a quote out of here, it says the 17 trigger points for taking protective actions, they're 18 not just limits that cannot be exceeded. So we don't 19 want to take them out of context. And last but not 20 least, we don't want stakeholders to misconstrue that 21 the proposed AERI entry conditions imply that it's 22 acceptable to ghost the public.
23 So we've had extensive conversations 24 between NRR DANU and NSIR, our Office of Nuclear 25 Security and Incident Response like that to arrive 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
167 1 the current rule text that I showed you on the 2 previous slide like that. And made a number of --
3 I'll be honest -- late night changes to the preamble 4 and to DG-1414 to incorporate those types of changes 5 like that. In a few slides, I'll hand over the 6 presentation to Keith Compton who's going to show you 7 some MACCS calculations that he's done that are 8 looking at the suitability of the AERI entry 9 conditions and some interesting things.
10 But in the second part of this view graph 11 as Jesse had explained before, the idea is to enable 12 operator licensing like this and specifically the use 13 of generally licensed reactor operators like that.
14 And I'll refer you to their white paper, the human 15 practice white paper and which in term cites DOE 16 Handbook 1224 which talks about how to perform hazard 17 and accident analysis. And you'll see a lot of the 18 same terms in there with systems that are designed to 19 survive the event, that type of language. Next slide, 20 please.
21 In addition to allowing an applicant to 22 perform an area in lieu of a PRA, the AERI entry 23 conditions were also proposing they would be used to 24 determine when an applicant would need to address the 25 mitigation of beyond design basis events in 53.44.20.
NEAL 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 In other words, if they met the AERI entry conditions, 2 that requirement would not need to be satisfied, and 3 similarly, combustible gas control requirements in 4 53.47.30(a)(7) like that. And this we discovered in 5 talking that the proposed AERI entry conditions in 6 combination with other conditions would be used to 7 determine when a plant is a self reliant mitigation 8 facility that enables the use of GLROs.
9 MEMBER HALNON: Marty, this is Greg. Just 10 real heads up for Jesse for tomorrow. Take a look at 11 the language here. It says may have generally -- may 12 have GLROs.
13 The language in 800 kind of alludes to me 14 that it's required to have GLROs if you meet that. So 15 when we get to the discussion tomorrow, we can talk 16 about that. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
17 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, this is Jesse. And so 18 just to confirm -- and I apologize if there's a 19 discrepancy in there. The structure of the rule 20 language is such that when the criteria are met, those 21 facilities must be staffed by GLRO.
22 So it's not an option. It's actually like 23 a conditional break point where facilities on one side 24 of the line have traditional SRO and RO staffing.
25 Facilities on the other side of the line, the 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
169 1 called self reliant mitigation facilities have GLRO.
2 So again, in earlier versions, it had been 3 option. And I apologize if that carried forward.
4 It's now, like, a mandatory divide between the two.
5 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. So the slide is not 6 right, but the language is correct?
7 MR. SEYMOUR: That's correct.
8 MEMBER HALNON: Thank you.
9 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, I apologize, Greg.
10 It's hard to keep up sometimes.
11 MEMBER HALNON: I get it.
12 MR. STUTZKE: Okay. Slide 48, next slide.
13 We've added rule text that I don't believe we 14 previously discussed with the committee on the 15 maintenance of risk evaluations. That's patterned 16 largely out of 50.74(h).
17 And I provided the rule text here. But 18 one thing I wanted to emphasize in the slide is the 19 difference between maintenance of risk evaluations and 20 the upgrade of risk evaluations. They have very 21 precise definitions.
22 I provided them to you below from a non-23 LWR PRA standard. And those definitions are the 24 result of a multi-year discussion among the standard 25 developers, the Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
170 1 Management, or JCNRM. But the idea is that -- okay, 2 so I go to the second definition.
3 So PRA upgrade, a change, and the PRA now 4 requires that you apply one or more supporting 5 requirements at a higher capability category and 6 things like that. Items that haven't previously been 7 peer reviewed in the PRA, the use of a newly developed 8 method or method in a different context, that sort of 9 thing. But what's key to understanding PRA upgrades 10 is the standard requires that they be peer reviewed.
11 In contrast, PRA maintenance, if anything, 12 that it's not an upgrade. And the standard does not 13 require that they be peer reviewed. For example, if 14 you're merely incorporating operating experience into 15 your PRA, the assumption is that the methods for 16 performing the data analysis have already been peer 17 reviewed and you're simply exercising those methods 18 like that.
19 So we tried to stay away. We've not used 20 the term PRA update because that's vague. You need to 21 think in terms of maintenance or upgrade. Anyway, 22 enough on that. Next slide, please.
23 These are the questions that we are 24 proposing to incorporate in the Federal Register 25 Notice to seek comment from the public. 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
171 1 understood, earlier, Dave, that the committee or 2 individual members might provide some feedback as 3 well. And that would be wonderful to us.
4 So first question is probably asking, 5 should we even retain the AERI approach under 6 Framework B? Remember that AERI is a change in the 7 Commission's policy. It currently requires all plants 8 to do PRA.
9 And if so, should we change the proposed 10 criteria or the approach like this? And we're looking 11 for some constructive feedback. Please tell us why 12 you want to do this and how it can be changed and 13 things like that.
14 MR. BLEY: Marty?
15 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah.
16 MR. BLEY: A process question for you. If 17 you keep it, do you have to go up to the Commission 18 with a policy paper beforehand or just setting the 19 rule up with this in it is sufficient?
20 MR. STUTZKE: Well, realize the rule is 21 transmitted through a SECY paper. And that will be a 22 policy statement. And we have in addition to AERI, 23 there's some other policy-related issues that the 24 Commission will have to decide upon and direct us.
25 MR. BLEY: Okay, thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
172 1 MR. STUTZKE: So it's all done at one 2 time. The second thing is are there other ways that 3 we could leverage the AERI entry conditions, for 4 example, physical or cyber security, access control, 5 things like that. If so, what programs and how could 6 we do it? Do we need to change the proposed rule text 7 to enable that, things like that. And the third 8 bullet goes back to the idea of the criteria and using 9 them to use generally licensed reactor operators.
10 MR. BLEY: Another question, Marty. Since 11 you came out with AERI the first time, have you had 12 any public meetings with interactions with 13 stakeholders? And if so, have you heard anything back 14 on the entry conditions? Are there places where 15 people have rationales for you to maybe weaken the 16 entry conditions somewhat?
17 MR. STUTZKE: We have heard a comment that 18 the AERI entry conditions are overly conservative in 19 the sense that the concern is that they may be so 20 prohibitive that nobody could actually meet the entry 21 condition.
22 MR. BLEY: I call that restrictive. But 23 conservative would imply there's a safety reason why 24 they should be less restrictive. Has anybody tried to 25 testify that to 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
173 1 MR. STUTZKE: No, we've heard the comment 2 and the notion that there are other ways of doing risk 3 evaluations other than PRAs. But nobody has suggested 4 changing the dose distance criteria to something more 5 generous or replacing it with some other text.
6 MR. BLEY: I was just curious about that.
7 Thanks.
8 MR. STUTZKE: So with that, I shall turn 9 the presentation over to Keith Compton. He will 10 describe his confirmatory MACCS calculations. And 11 hope you enjoy a technically oriented break from all 12 of the discussion of rule text. So Keith, you're up.
13 MR. COMPTON: All right. Thank you. This 14 is Keith Compton from the Office of Research. I'm 15 going to turn my camera on very briefly so that you 16 can see me. I'm going to then turn it off because of 17 bandwidth and because my monitor -- I'm not going to 18 be facing my monitor. And you would just be looking 19 at the side of my head for the rest of the 20 presentation.
21 So all right. So yes, so I'm going to 22 talk today about some work that I had done to examine 23 the relationship between the dose at 100 meters and 24 the latent cancer fatality risk when quantified over 25 ten miles which was conventionally the metric that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
174 1 would be used to assess the safety goal. So could I 2 have the next slide, please. So yeah, so this 3 presentation, by the way, is going to be very narrowly 4 focused.
5 I'm not going to be talking more broadly 6 beyond what the implication is. This is simply if you 7 know the dose at 100 meters, what do you know -- how 8 much do you know about what the ten mile average 9 cancer risk is? And the way I'm going about doing it, 10 and this is building off the work that Marty had done, 11 is the first thing I did is to come up, just reproduce 12 a close form analytic approximation which is building 13 off of what Marty had done.
14 The advantage of that is that when you do 15 a derivation, you have to identify your assumptions in 16 order to justify. So now that allows me to figure out 17 how that simple approximation might translate into a 18 more complex simulation. So therefore, what I would 19 then do is just look at all those different 20 assumptions and examine them using MACCS.
21 So instead of using the closed form, just 22 use MACCS to see to see what answer MACCS will give 23 you. One thing that's very important, all the 24 analyses and the results that are in this 25 presentation, they're where we are now. There's 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
175 1 work to be done.
2 We're still error checking. We're still 3 making sure we're working on the right questions. But 4 I would emphasize that this is not the final work.
5 Next slide, please.
6 So in order to come up with an expression, 7 and I'll give the expression in a few slides. There's 8 a certain number of assumptions that I have to make.
9 One is that I am doing this assumption.
10 I don't include doses to individuals from 11 ingestion. I can explain why that's kind of 12 challenging. But it's consistent with how we would 13 typically quantify the individual latent cancer 14 fatality risk.
15 The second assumption is that the maximum 16 individual dose at any distance R is assumed to be 17 related to the dose at R0 following a power law. And 18 this is important because if you know the does at one 19 point and you know the functional relationship, then 20 principally, you know the dose everywhere. The next 21 assumption is that the material is released in a 22 single plume.
23 And the reason for that is that you have 24 to have some -- you have to understand how the dose 25 varies, not simply radially away from the site but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
176 1 also how it would vary off the centerline. But 2 typically, the max dose is on the centerline. But 3 that is not the does across the entire 360 degree 4 mark.
5 We assume the population density is 6 constant. That is independent of distance. And then 7 finally we've made the assumption that the latent 8 cancer constant -- the risk constant is -- it's 9 constant and it's independent of does. So next slide, 10 please.
11 So now here -- and as we get through the 12 presentation, you'll see this is where most of the 13 interest is. The -- in order for the dose to fall off 14 with a 1 over n kind of relationship, there's certain 15 assumptions that are kind of implied by it. One of 16 them is that the does needs to be at ground level and 17 non-buoyant.
18 In other words, it's not rising above the 19 point of release or it's not released essentially 20 above a receptor set. And the reason -- and I'll have 21 slides that will illustrate the effective model is 22 that if you have an elevated release or a buoyant 23 plume, your dose actually can increase with distance 24 until the plume impacts the ground and starts 25 decreasing. So that can -- that would violate 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
177 1 assumption used to develop the approximation.
2 Second is that protective actions to limit 3 dose are not taken. So this analysis assumes that 4 you're not trying to take protective actions. And 5 again, the reason is that protective actions have the 6 effect of constraining the dose and making the 7 relationship between atmospheric concentration and 8 dose, it breaks it.
9 In other words, if you take protective 10 actions, you'll preferentially eliminate or reduce 11 high doses. The third bullet is -- or the third 12 assumption is that the plume is completely reflected 13 at the ground and it's also unconstrained by a mixing 14 height. And in the atmosphere, there's typically --
15 there's a boundary layer.
16 And at short ranges, the plume does not 17 fill up that boundary layer. But at longer distances, 18 the plume can expand large enough that it will reach 19 an inversion layer and start mixing vertically. And 20 so you no longer have a Gaussian distribution in the 21 vertical.
22 And I've got, again, some things to 23 illustrate that. And finally, the reduction 24 coefficient is assumed to be the dose -- the dose 25 reduction coefficient is assumed to be independent 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
178 1 distance. And I'll show some examples of when that is 2 and is not true.
3 CHAIR PETTI: I had a question here. I 4 always thought that elevated releases resulted in less 5 dose than ground level releases. But your rationale, 6 is this just a relative term? It's a relative 7 increase in concentration if the same material was 8 released at ground level?
9 MR. COMPTON: Yes, and I'll show you 10 something that maybe illustrates that point. The 11 point is that -- well, I'll address that when I get to 12 the slide which is I think --
13 (Simultaneous speaking.)
14 CHAIR PETTI: Okay, okay, great. Thanks.
15 MR. COMPTON: Sure. Next slide, please.
16 Okay. That actually was the next slide. So again, 17 the idea is that if you have an elevated release, your 18 -- and if you can imagine, let's say you had -- now 19 this was a buoyant plume. This is a plume that had I 20 think 19 megawatts of energy. So it was very highly 21 buoyant.
22 I think that's how I generated these 23 curves. But what it shows is that for most of the 24 curves at short distances -- and this is -- the scale 25 is in kilometers. In short distances, the dose 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
179 1 lower than it is as you get downwind.
2 And that's because the plume is basically 3 overhead. The ground level concentration is if not 4 zero, it's something very, very low. And then as the 5 plume continues to move away and grow, then eventually 6 the plume will contact the ground. The ground level 7 concentration will start rising.
8 That is a function of the stability class, 9 in other words, a very unstable condition which is the 10 blue or marked A, grow very rapidly. So they fill up.
11 They basically rapidly get to a uniform -- more or 12 less a uniform distribution in the vertical if you're 13 highly stable which normally would lead for ground 14 level releases to high centerline concentrations.
15 It's still a high centerline 16 concentration, but it's also keeping it from hitting 17 the ground. So you have to go further and further out 18 before you get your ground level concentration. So 19 any questions on this slide?
20 Because this is kind of the key point. If 21 you have a -- and I have a sensitivity where I looked 22 at it. If you anchor your dose at 100 meters and then 23 your dose increases with distance as opposed to 24 decreasing the distance, you can see that you may have 25 problem. I see a hand raised. I don't know who.
NEAL 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 MEMBER BIER: Yeah, Vicki Bier. I have a 2 question not on this slide but on the previous 3 assumptions. I understand the reason for assuming 4 uniform population density. But it seems to me not 5 implausible that population density would actually be 6 quite a bit higher at ten miles than right at the 7 plant boundary. And have you looked at that also as 8 sensitivity?
9 MR. COMPTON: Yes, and I do -- well, yes, 10 my last -- and well, I've looked at it a couple of 11 ways, some of which is in the presentation, some of 12 which I wasn't able to get it into a form ready to 13 assemble. But yes, I ended up with a sensitivity 14 where I just put in an actual site population 15 distribution because typically --
16 MEMBER BIER: Okay.
17 MR. COMPTON: -- population would --
18 typically population density increases with distance.
19 I would note the interesting thing about this is that 20 depending on the application if you had, let's say, a 21 very remote site, it could be that most of your 22 population might be close and not further away.
23 MEMBER BIER: Sure. Thank you.
24 MR. COMPTON: Sure. And the importance of 25 population is that essentially it's a waiting function NEAL 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 on the average dose. If most of your population is 2 clustered away, it's going to -- the average dose will 3 be lower. If it's concentrated close, then it'll 4 weight the doses closer. Okay? I see another hand 5 up.
6 MR. BLEY: Yeah, this is Dennis, Keith, 7 Dennis Bley. I don't know if you were here early in 8 the meeting. If you were, you heard Vesna offer a lot 9 of issues with respect to the QHOs. And the biggest 10 areas here were in the consequence calculations. I 11 guess I would say I've done some PRAs that have 12 carried them all out to eventual consequences and 13 others have done that too.
14 15 But can you address the amount of 16 uncertainty in the consequence calculation, especially 17 given the assumptions you mentioned earlier, and any 18 way to determine if this calculation the way it's done 19 currently is a near bounding calculation? Or is it 20 kind of an estimate of central tendency? Can you say 21 anything about that?
22 MR. COMPTON: I can say something about 23 it. Whether it'll be satisfactory or not, I don't --
24 but I'll speak briefly about it. With respect to 25 whether -- well, I'm not going to -- I won't weight 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
182 1 to -- I'm not going to weigh in on the QHOs and 2 whether one should use or should not use the QHOs.
3 So in terms of uncertainties from a purely 4 scientific predictive point of view, yes, there are 5 uncertainties obviously. Now this is going to be a 6 judgment on my part. But some of the uncertainties 7 that I would consider to be worth recognizing is that 8 there are uncertainties in any atmospheric dispersion 9 calculation, whether you do it for QHO purposes or any 10 other purposes.
11 But those could be noticeable. Also, 12 there are uncertainties in cancer risk estimation 13 obviously, particularly at low doses. There are 14 uncertainties particularly for calculating kind of a 15 long term dose.
16 There are uncertainties associated with 17 what are the actions that people might take in 18 response to an accident. So there's clearly an 19 uncertainty there. The one thing that I would note 20 that those -- how to put it. There are what I would 21 consider to be fairly accepted methods for addressing 22 those. We have accepted methods for doing atmospheric 23 dispersion calculations.
24 And so from that perspective, I would say 25 the models, for example, are used in MACCS 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
183 1 reasonably consistent with what other decision support 2 models would use, the same with cancer. There are 3 methods that have been used to -- in fact, so for 4 example, the does coefficients that are used in MACCS 5 and the risk coefficients are -- these are consistent 6 with the approaches used in SOARCA with Federal 7 Guidance Support No. 13. And then for long-term 8 protective actions, this is something that we've 9 acknowledged is that we use -- we typically use the 10 intermediate phase relocation criteria as a surrogate 11 for return criteria, recognizing that decision would 12 be more of a political and social decision.
13 So now in this analysis, again, what I'm 14 trying to do is compare if you calculated a dose --
15 using the same methods, if you calculated the dose at, 16 say, 100 meters and then using methods that are kind 17 of consistent with how we would calculate it for, say, 18 the Level 3 PRA or any NEPA analysis, what answer 19 would you get? So in a certain sense, it's a little 20 bit narrower. If you calculated the dose using the 21 methods that we would typically calculate, what would 22 be the ten mile cancer risk also using the assumptions 23 and methods that we would typically use? Does that 24 make sense?
25 MR. BLEY: Yeah, that's pretty good. 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
184 1 appreciate it. I'd just make two comments. One, the 2 dose side of the issue, at least for low doses, is 3 certainly an area fraught with some uncertainty. On 4 the dispersion side, I have one example that I found 5 pretty interesting.
6 Back when they invented the TMI 7 containment, some colleagues of mine at the time were 8 using models that are predecessors of the ones you're 9 using today. But they were predicting where that 10 release would go and had people up in a helicopter 11 chasing it. And the predictions were pretty darn 12 close to reality. That gave me a lot more confidence 13 than I had previously. But go ahead.
14 MR. COMPTON: Okay. And one thing, one 15 could have an entire separate meeting on the accuracy 16 of dispersion models. I would note that that has been 17 talked to by the American Meteorological Society, the 18 accuracy of Gaussian models. And the other is that 19 we've also independent of this work, we've done some 20 recent work using a more state of practice model 21 called HYSPLIT. And we're finding that the Gaussian 22 model kind of in an average sense does not do terribly 23 badly.
24 MR. BLEY: And there are specific kinds of 25 locations where you get things that override 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
185 1 quite a bit like lake effects and the like. That's 2 good. Thanks.
3 MR. COMPTON: Yeah, okay. I see another 4 hand up.
5 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: This is Vesna. I 6 have actually my least concern is about dispersion 7 which you said it's the main thing. That's absolutely 8 not what I think is main source uncertainty. And I 9 appreciate all the developments in that.
10 In addition to those, the other important 11 factor is timing. So my question is for how long 12 time? This exposure in the cancer calculation all 13 considered to come from plume? And what is the timing 14 of that exposure?
15 So that's my question when it comes to 16 cancer facility because as much as I saw Level 3 PRA, 17 the cancer facility main exposure comes from land 18 contamination and then the different timing related to 19 that. And I assume that this is also part of the 20 MACCS calculation. So my question is about time of 21 exposure. Is it all related to plume?
22 MR. COMPTON: Well, and I'll speak when I 23 get to the actual cases. I'll speak to the 24 assumptions that I made. But just briefly, the 25 calculations that I will do just assumed that you had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
186 1 a release.
2 I use a 96-hour exposure period for the 3 early phase, the plume phase which is more than enough 4 for the plume to pass buy and deposit. And then I 5 used -- and again, this is consistent with the Level 6 3. I used a 50-year exposure period to represent the 7 long-term dose.
8 And then the dose and that long-term 9 period is -- typically it's dropping because both 10 radioactive decay and there are functions that we use 11 in MACCS to represent the effects of environmental 12 weathering on both the reduction in groundshine dose 13 and the resuspension dose. And those are --
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So for this long-15 term exposure for 50 years, you assume there is no 16 cleaning of the land done. Or what did you assume on 17 evacuation? And do you assume how long people 18 evacuate and when do they return? Do they leave 19 there? I mean, there is so many questions I have 20 about that.
21 MR. COMPTON: Sure. Well, and I think I'm 22 going to -- I think I'll move on because I think that 23 I will have addressed those in the further slides. So 24 for example, I assumed no evacuation. So --
25 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So this much I think NEAL 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 of main sources of uncertainty, not this great 2 mathematical model you have for dispersions. I don't 3 really care about that uncertainty. I haven't said --
4 I can estimate those with acceptable level of 5 uncertainties.
6 But everything which comes after that, I 7 have a -- also, the land (audio interference).
8 Feedback, but my main concern is not with this 9 mathematical models. I think they have the dose 10 calculation.
11 I think that you have acceptable levels of 12 uncertainties there. All my main uncertainties come 13 from these further assumptions. So the land 14 contamination and what happened in the 50 years of 15 that, about where the factors and things like that.
16 MR. COMPTON: Okay. Well, and I'll move 17 on. And hopefully I will at least speak to some of 18 those. I don't know if I will answer all the 19 questions. But why don't we go on to the next slide 20 because I might have something that addresses that.
21 Yes, actually the next one. So this is 22 just illustrating the effect of protective actions --
23 modeled protective actions I would say on both early 24 and late phase doses. This is actually out of the 25 recently published Level 3 PRA that's been put out 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
188 1 a draft for comment.
2 But it shows on the left you see what I 3 did is I pulled out the dose versus distance on the 4 left to the non-evacuating cohort. So that's for the 5 early phase and on the right to the light phase 6 cohort. And so what you can see is that I'm going to 7 pick up the right first is that in MACCS the 8 protective actions -- the MACCS will do whatever is 9 needed to ensure that the habitability criteria are 10 met.
11 In other words, they have acceptable dose 12 levels. And the effect of that is that it keeps the 13 does -- it essentially constrains the dose to be more 14 or less flat until you get to the point where you're 15 not needing to take protective actions anymore. So 16 you can kind of see that.
17 You can see that for some of the release 18 categories it was not very high close end. But it 19 just didn't fall. Whereas for some of the more lower 20 magnitude release categories, it was projecting that 21 protective actions weren't needed and they kind of 22 fell in the more typical fashion.
23 On the left, it shows the effects. Now 24 this was relocation. So -- and again, this was for 25 the non-evacuating cohort. So if you -- essentially, NEAL 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 it's showing that if you didn't -- if they were 2 exposed to the plume, the dose drops off with 3 distance.
4 But if you are able to relocate them 5 before the bulk of the plume had arrived, you could 6 actually -- you would kind of flatten out the curve.
7 I don't know if you can see some of the -- there's a 8 few figures there that are a little bit flat. The key 9 thing -- I don't want to go into detail on all these 10 results. But they just illustrate that protective 11 actions tends to flatten those and result in a lower 12 dose drop off. And then that would affect obviously 13 the derivation. So next slide.
14 So now the next thing that I talked about, 15 the things that could cause the dose not to drop off 16 in a 1 over r to the n fashion is that if you have a 17 mixing height that the plume can expand beyond. And 18 so the figures on the right which I understand that 19 you can't read, but they're just illustrations of some 20 typical mixing heights that you would get across the 21 United States. And so what you get it the mixing 22 heights in the morning can be anywhere from 300 to 900 23 meters, and mixing heights in the afternoon after 24 you've had the insulation and sun exposure can be 25 anywhere from 800 to 2,600 meters.
NEAL 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 The figure on the left shows the standard 2 deviation of the Gaussian plume as a function of the 3 different stability classes. So again, the blue is 4 Class A, highly unstable. What you see is that it 5 rapidly vertically mixes.
6 And so it's going to start -- it's going 7 to essentially hit the cap and start -- then your 8 reduction is not going to be as fast as you have 9 sequentially more stable conditions. You may get to 10 the point where you go out a long distance and you 11 still have not vertically mixed. All right. Next 12 slide. Now the assumption that the power law 13 coefficient would be constant, these are just some --
14 these are the -- some of you may be familiar with 15 these.
16 These are the Pasquill-Gifford diffusion 17 coefficient curves. And what you can see if that 18 transverse dispersion, dispersion in the cross wind or 19 y-direction, it's pretty much a straight line on a 20 log-log plot. So you can represent those curves with 21 a single value for N.
22 But vertical dispersion generally doesn't 23 follow a power law. And so you can see that they're 24 not straight lines. That's the only message to take 25 off of this is that you can't -- vertical dispersion NEAL 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 which would affect the dilution afforded by dispersion 2 is not necessarily going to be represented by a single 3 constant.
4 Under certain conditions, it's not bad.
5 But it's not a uniform thing. Okay. Any questions on 6 that? I don't see any hands. So we'll go to the next 7 slide.
8 Now one other thing that as I mentioned, 9 you have to -- if you have the downwind dose and the 10 rate that it drops off with distance, your problem is 11 not fully specified. You also have to specify how the 12 dose varies off the centerline. Now one could simply 13 just assume that the plume fills in to one 22.5 degree 14 sector, in other words, 1/16th of the arc. So you 15 could model those just as a top hat.
16 What I tried to do is to model the actual 17 kind of average concentration at a certain radius by 18 just averaging the Gaussian over the circumference of 19 the circle. So I'm not going to go into this slide in 20 a lot of detail other than you do have to -- you have 21 to make some kind of assumptions. And one of the 22 things that I'll point out is that if you have 23 multiple plumes meaning that everything doesn't come 24 out in one pulse, your distribution azimuthally is not 25 going to be Gaussian anymore.
NEAL 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 So it makes it hard to do the derivation.
2 But this is all a part of what we're trying to come up 3 with, come up with the analytical approximation. Next 4 slide, please. So this is -- there's not a lot on 5 this slide other than to basically say provided that 6 you have met those various assumptions, you can 7 develop a closed forum solution. So you can look at 8 how the -- basically, all you're doing is you're 9 calculating the average.
10 You're taking a dose at one point and then 11 calculating it as an average over a region. And 12 provided that your assumptions hold, the analytics 13 should be the same as the numerical. And then if you 14 have the average dose and you know the cancer risk per 15 unit dose, then you can calculate a cancer risk.
16 And the nice thing about this 17 approximation is that you can calculate it any given 18 set of distances. It's not dependent on being -- the 19 inner distance being 100 meters or the outer distance 20 being ten miles. So nothing more about that other 21 than this is the equation that I'm using to compare 22 MACCS to the analytic. Next slide, please.
23 Okay. As I mentioned, what I did is that 24 I developed a set of MACCS modeling cases. I'm going 25 to be going through those to examine the impact 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
193 1 those various assumptions. I'm going to use some 2 source terms from the Level 3 to represent some 3 different source term characteristics.
4 And kind of this is the key to the 5 methodology is that I basically scale the size of the 6 release to get exactly 25 rem lifetime dose at 100 7 meters. So I do that by basically taking the source 8 term with the full size core and then just calculate 9 how much smaller would it need to be in order to get 10 to 25 rem dose. I would mention that I did this on 25 11 rem, not on the PAGs.
12 I've got a slide that speaks to that at 13 the end. And then last bullet is that I used just 14 combinations of constant weather conditions, constant 15 population density. And then I used some SOARCA 16 meteorological files and site files to look and sett 17 how much the answers would change if you put something 18 more realistic in. Next slide.
19 So the source terms that I used, so as I 20 mentioned, all of them were inventory scales to get 21 exactly 25 rem dose. The base case plume is an 22 interfacing systems LOCA, then I have a few others 23 that I'm using as sensitivities to see if different 24 types of source terms cause the results to be 25 different. And these are just some characteristics.
NEAL 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 And one of the things that may be worth 2 noting, I mean, this is -- these source terms 3 obviously were developed for a large light water 4 reactor. They're not source terms that would be used 5 for a non-light water reactor or basically any other 6 technology. But what they do is they offer a range of 7 source term characteristics that might impact my 8 analysis.
9 In other words, I've got some that are 10 very early, some that are fairly late. I've got some 11 that have a relatively short duration. It's a short 12 duration release, some that are much more prolonged 13 release.
14 So the -- and some that are relatively 15 more enriched in noble gases and some that have 16 relatively more volatile fission products. So the 17 idea here is not to try to claim that I've covered 18 every possible source term. But I wanted to get a 19 diversity of source terms that kind of cover the 20 attributes of a source term that could affect the 21 results. So next slide.
22 And then so here are the cases that I 23 looked at. So I start off with a case which is 24 designed to be as close as possible to use MACCS to 25 mimic the assumptions that I made in doing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
195 1 derivation. I set the boundary layer heights to its 2 maximum height.
3 I used an approximation which allows me to 4 use just a straight power law. And I'll talk about 5 that more. But the idea is that I start with as 6 simple as possible and then I start adding complexity 7 in.
8 So Case 1 goes in and uses the Pasquill-9 Gifford stability classes and a few other things. And 10 then I look at the effect of having a buoyant plume.
11 And then I look at the impact modeling like effects.
12 So you can read down through here. But 13 the idea is just to sequentially add things such that 14 by the end, I've got something which is a little bit 15 more representative of how we would model an actual 16 source term. I'd point out that the -- in Cases 0 17 through 4, those are modeling single stabilities at a 18 time, in other words, A stability, B stability, A 19 through F.
20 When you star weather sampling, obviously 21 you have a wide range of stabilities. So there are 22 other -- the cases are very -- on other attributes 23 besides stability. Okay. Next slide. And all the 24 rest -- basically, the rest of the -- most of the rest 25 of the presentation is going to be a slide like 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
196 1 just with the different assumptions. So the simplest 2 case, they used a power law.
3 They have constant weather conditions. It 4 was A through F, constant wind speed, no rain, very 5 high mixing layer because I didn't want it to reflect 6 constant deposition, velocity. I'm not going to read 7 through all these. But the idea is that they're 8 supposed to be very simple.
9 Fitted n, there's a column that says the 10 P-G N and the fitted n. The P-G N is what kind of 11 theoretically you would expect the dose reduction 12 coefficient, if it was purely following Pasquill-13 Gifford power law. The fitted n is when I ran the 14 model and I just fitted a power law representation to 15 the curve.
16 And those curves by the way for each of 17 these cases there are some selected dose versus 18 distance curves as supplemental slides in case we 19 wanted to refer to them. And for each one, you see 20 that the overall, the dose, the combined early and 21 prompt phase dose is exactly 0.25 sieverts or 25 rem.
22 And then this gives you a scale so that you get that 23 overall dose, what is the early phase dose?
24 What is the prompt phase dose? And then 25 what is the -- the next column is what is the ten mile NEAL 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 cancer fatality risk? So again, the overall dose, 2 first column, the ten mile cancer risk is in the 3 fourth column.
4 And then the second to last column is the 5 results of the analytic calculation. And then the 6 final column is the difference. So just a few things 7 to observe about this slide is that I can get -- I'm 8 getting different -- for a variety of reasons, but at 9 least because I get different values of n for 10 different stability classes.
11 I get different ten mile cancer risk 12 results from MACCS. But all of them are less than 2 13 times 10 to the -6. And the differences -- the 14 approximation ranges from very good for stable 15 conditions, 0F. That's at 3.6 percent degree 16 difference.
17 It's off for unstable conditions. I 18 believe that's largely due to the effect of the 19 vertical -- effect of the cap. But I'm still trying 20 to understand why is it not exactly right and is it 21 for explainable reasons. So next slide.
22 I'm going to do something very similar.
23 But I make the boundary layer something a little bit 24 more reasonable, 1,000 meters. I use the non-25 spatially constant power law coefficient. I'm using NEAL 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 Kotechek (phonetic) as just -- it's a piecewise 2 approximation to the vertical dispersion coefficient.
3 So those are implemented into MACCS. My 4 deposition velocity, I let it be based on what the 5 results that were associated with that source term 6 were. Instead of using an effective dose cancer 7 coefficient, I use the organ specific cancer 8 coefficients.
9 So that's the difference from the simplest 10 case but still single stabilities. And so again, 11 observations, the 25 rem lifetime dose because ten 12 mile cancer risks ranging from 1.4e-7 to 3.3e-7. The 13 difference between the MACCS and the analytic 14 calculation ranges between 40 percent and 264 percent.
15 Again, the analytic calculation seems to 16 be conservative with respect to the MACCS calculation.
17 The short way to see if it's conservative or not is 18 that if the percent difference is positive, the 19 analytic calculation is higher. If it's a negative 20 number, then the analytic calculation is lower.
21 But again, all the cases produce a cancer 22 risk that's below 2 times 10 to the -6. And I should 23 emphasize this is -- these are all conditional 24 results. So when this is 2 to the -6, this is not 25 multiplied by any kind of frequency.
NEAL 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 This is a risk that is basically the --
2 it's the average cancer risk among the ten mile 3 population given that you have the source term. All 4 right. Next slide. So now I look at plume buoyancy.
5 And if you recall, I said that you if you fixed your 6 calculation so that you get a 25 rem dose at 100 7 meters, you got there because you had plume buoyancy 8 and essentially your plume might've been overhead at 9 that point.
10 Your ten mile cancer risk could be higher.
11 And you would kind of expect that. If you anchor at 12 the same anchor but then let it increase instead of 13 decreasing, you'll get a higher average dose and a 14 higher average risk.
15 So again, it ranges between 2.5e-5 to 16 6.1e-3. The approximation -- the analytic calculation 17 is anywhere from negative -- I should've said -38 18 percent to 566 percent. The key is that the analytic 19 can be either conservative or non-conservative.
20 What you do see is that the fitted value 21 for n can be negative which implies that on average 22 the dose is increasing which, again, makes sense if 23 you look at the figure of plume rise that 24 concentration can increase beyond 100 meters. Next 25 slide. So then I decided to look at -- this was 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
200 1 -- I decided to look at wake effects to see whether 2 wake effects would impact the results. And so I used 3 the -- this is basically using the new near-field 4 capability we put into MACCS.
5 And we're using what is called a Ramsdell 6 Fosmire model. It's essentially the same mathematical 7 relationship for dispersion with distance that's used 8 in the ARCON Model. So it accounts for the fact that 9 you can have plume meander and wake effects.
10 So again, just something to try to bring 11 a little bit more realism or complexity into the 12 calculation to mild cancer risk between 5.5e-7 to 13 1.9e-6. The analytic calculation is generally 14 conservative with respect to the MACCS calculation, 15 not always. But they do all produce cancer fatality 16 risks less than 2e-6 even if it's only barely under 17 stable conditions. Next slide.
18 So now when I model protective actions, 19 again, I'm predicting that the effect of my protective 20 actions is to have a lower value for n. And you see 21 that. Instead of having values for n that were in 1.6 22 to 2 range, these are values that tends to make the 23 curves drop off -- or not drop off very quickly. It's 24 about one.
25 And what you see is the effect of when 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
201 1 credit protective actions, you're -- the analytic 2 calculation by the way did fairly well. But it was 3 generally non-conservative. But you're getting 4 something above to e-6 when you model those protective 5 actions. And again, I think largely because you're 6 flattening the curve. Next slide, please.
7 Now I start moving beyond using single 8 weather trial commissions and using more diverse set 9 of weather conditions. So I sample the -- from a 10 meteorological file both with and without buoyancy.
11 I think I should have said -- I didn't put it on the 12 slide.
13 This is -- I'm sampling the weather, but 14 I'm still releasing everything as a single plume. I 15 just took all the plumes in the original source term 16 and just compressed them into a single release so that 17 a plume only goes in one direction. But now it can go 18 in different directions with different wind speeds and 19 different stabilities.
20 Again, the difference is between MACCS and 21 analytic is between 20 to 40 percent. The analytic 22 calculation is conservative. You are below -- in both 23 cases, below 2e-6. Next slide, please.
24 Now I relax the condition, and it all has 25 to come out in one plume. And I allow it 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
202 1 essentially come out with the time dependence that it 2 would've been modeled in the Level 3. And I looked at 3 -- for this, I looked -- this is where I started 4 looking at different source terms.
5 I use one which again I said it was more 6 of an early post type release and then the late 7 containment failure which was a very prolonged release 8 and then another containment failure source term.
9 Again, scaled them all so that they would get exactly 10 the same dose. And just again note that you're below 11 2e-6 when you do multiple plumes and you sample 12 weather.
13 Now one thing, I just had a little 14 footnote saying that in order to do the analytic 15 calculation that's kind of challenging, I have to pick 16 a transverse dispersion coefficient. I picked what I 17 assumed was highly unstable. It seemed to work.
18 But at this point, you're really not --
19 it's really hard to actually say what would the right 20 value be for the analytic calculation. It's pretty 21 different than the base case assumptions. Next slide.
22 And now -- so again now I've added on weather 23 sampling.
24 I've added multiple plumes. And now I 25 introduce instead of a constant population density, 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
203 1 introduce spatially variable population density. And 2 I think, yeah, I used it based on Peach Bottom.
3 And the -- so again, now this is getting 4 about as far away from the assumptions used to make 5 the derivation as I could get. But the -- so the 6 differences, they're ranged between 180 percent to 7 almost an order of magnitude. But they do tend to 8 result -- they all resulted in cancer fatality risks 9 that were lower than 2e-6.
10 And I think I observed that they were 11 lower than the constant population density as well 12 which would make sense again if you're concentrating 13 your population further away where the doses are 14 lower. Your weighted mean is going to end up being 15 lower. So next slide, please. So what I didn't pull 16 together is that much of the reasons I believe for the 17 thing that drives the relationship between the 100 18 meter dose and the 10 mile average cancer risk or 19 average dose is basically how fast the doses drop, the 20 concentrations and the doses drop off with distance.
21 So I just put it in a scatter plot all the 22 various different fitted values for n. And so you can 23 see there's a fairly clear relationship that the 24 slower your dose drops off with distance, the higher 25 your average risk will be for a given 100 meter 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
204 1 So again, that should make sense from a -- just from 2 a first principles basis.
3 But I just wanted to plot it to see if 4 it's holding up. So all right. Next slide. So now 5 the next thing is that in order to do the -- examine 6 the relationship between dose at 100 meters and the 7 ten mile cancer risk, I have to pick a dose that I'm 8 scaling everything to. But in this slide, I was 9 trying to understand how doses might vary over time.
10 So this slide is where I basically did a 11 case for some different source terms to see -- now 12 this is only looking at the long term dose. But I 13 essentially took my three different source terms and 14 I scaled them all to get exactly 2 rem in the first 15 year. I did this by modeling just a one-year exposure 16 period, and then I just sequentially added --
17 increased the exposure -- the long-term exposure 18 period until I got a total of 50 years and then took 19 the difference to figure out the dose.
20 And so what you see is they don't all drop 21 at the same rate. And also, I put in the early phase 22 does that it took to get exactly 2 rem. And so what 23 you see is the difference -- well, I'll just read the 24 bullets.
25 The accumulation of dose and long-term NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
205 1 phase occurs at different rates for different source 2 terms. And the insight from this is that there's no 3 fixed ratio between early phase dose, the first year 4 dose, and the 50 year dose. In other words, I don't 5 know yet how I could design something that would 6 exactly meet 1 rem in 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />, 2 rem in the first 7 year, and 500 millirem in subsequent years.
8 But what I would note is that for the 9 scale source terms that we used in this analysis, if 10 you meet the 2 rem intermediate phase relocation AG, 11 you'll probably get a lifetime -- it appears that 12 you're going to get a lifetime dose less than 25 rem.
13 The lifetime dose could be anywhere from 5 to 10 in 14 this analysis. So the significance of this is that 15 all this analyses that were done anchoring everything 16 on a 25 rem lifetime dose, if you did have something 17 that met the criteria, you'd probably get a lower 18 lifetime dose. And therefore, you'd get a lower 19 lifetime cancer risk calculation. So next slide.
20 So in summary, we developed the analytic 21 derivation of the relationship between the lifetime 22 dose at a single point and the ten mile average cancer 23 risk and used that to come up with some assumptions to 24 design test cases. Generally, the 25 rem dose at 100 25 meters corresponds to a ten mile population weighted NEAL 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 lifetime cancer risk, less than 2 times 10 to the -6 2 unless you have buoyant releases or protective actions 3 that are accredited in reducing the dose. And in 4 those cases, you can -- your dose reduction is lower 5 or even increases with distance.
6 And again, next bullet, the actual 7 relationship is sensitive to what you -- how you 8 assume that the downwind dose reduction occurs. And 9 then from the previous slide, there's no single --
10 there's no fixed ratio between the early phase dose, 11 the first year dose, and the 50 year cumulative dose.
12 Yeah, and then the last, for the scale, for the source 13 terms we looked at in this analysis if you meet the 2 14 rem, you're probably going to get a dose less than 25 15 rem.
16 It's not on the slide. But I would 17 mention that radioactive decay is always going to kick 18 in. And typically these source terms are going to be 19 driven -- much of the long-term dose is going to come 20 from cesium-137, cesium-134. 137 has a 30-year half 21 life, but cesium-134 has about a 2-year half life.
22 And you've got some other shorter lived.
23 So it's likely that your dose is going to drop. It's 24 going to be less than 27.5. In other words, if you --
25 it's going to keep going down.
NEAL 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 There's also -- I've done some -- I've 2 been trying to do some work to figure out if you use 3 the weathering factors that are currently used in 4 MACCS to reduce the dose, I don't remember them off 5 the top of my head. But essentially -- and this is 6 based on some data from Chernobyl -- about half of the 7 initial dose decays with a fairly quick half life due 8 to weathering -- simply due to weathering, like, with 9 a half life on the order of, I think, a year or so or 10 maybe less. And then about half of the dose -- it's 11 a two compartment model.
12 Half of the dose decays -- drops off 13 because of weathering with a much longer time period, 14 like a 90 year dose. So you get that immediate 15 weathering effect as the positive material kind of 16 migrates down into the soil, gets covered up, and 17 weathers. So it drops rapidly at first and then drops 18 off more slowly.
19 I think that is my last slide. Go to the 20 next slide, please. My bibliography, next slide.
21 Yeah, and then these are just the supplemental slides 22 that just show how weather is dropping off and kind of 23 -- so for example, this one shows under Class A as 24 simple as I could make it.
25 It still managed to fill up the bounder NEAL 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 layer. And so it did not drop with 1 over r 2 relationship. It did out to about a few kilometers.
3 And then it starts dropping off more slowly because 4 the reduction is only due to transverse dispersion 5 whereas under Class F.
6 So much more narrow plume, but it drops 7 off more slowly but it keeps dropping off. So I'm not 8 going to go through all of these unless folks have a 9 question about a specific one. So that's all that I 10 have.
11 CHAIR PETTI: Members, any questions?
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: You know, I have a 13 feeling you've been discussing some things which we 14 understand better than other when you were discussing 15 that. Like, we were talking in light and then looking 16 the dark parts of the problem, you know, when we have 17 much more uncertainties connection, those leading to 18 cancer. I also was wondering what are the exposure in 19 this. This exposure, you said the plume exposure was 20 only analyzed for the four days. And after that, it 21 comes from the positions, right?
22 MR. COMPTON: Right.
23 (Simultaneous speaking.)
24 MR. COMPTON: Go ahead.
25 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So this land, 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
209 1 positions, what would be -- what is the background, 2 the exposure to the people who live in this area? I 3 mean, would that be considered acceptable? I mean, 4 there's a lot of questions I have. But let me just 5 ask you some general question. What kind of doses the 6 MACCS uses to predict this cancer fatality?
7 MR. COMPTON: What are the dose 8 coefficients?
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yeah.
10 MR. COMPTON: The dose coefficients are 11 derived from Federal Guidance Report 13. And --
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: When was this 13 issued?
14 MR. COMPTON: 1999. It's the most -- I 15 think they're updating it. I think they have FGR 15 16 out for external dose coefficients. I could be wrong, 17 but I don't think they've put out the updated one.
18 But those, I'm not expecting the -- now that's the 19 dose. That's essentially the exposure to dose 20 coefficients.
21 The risk coefficients that were used were 22 based on the risk coefficients that were used in 23 SOARCA. And they were provided by Keith Eckerman.
24 And they're also essentially consistent with FGR 13.
25 So they're consistent with federal NEAL 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 guidance. And that kind of goes to I think a 2 statement that I made earlier is that I recognize the 3 uncertainties in it. But I would say the use of the 4 Federal Guidance Report 13, it's an accepted method.
5 One can certainly argue about the uncertainty and 6 everything else in it. But it's as good as we can 7 make it.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. But the 9 results you reported from MACCS are all mean values?
10 MR. COMPTON: Well, yes, for anything with 11 meteorological sampling, I reported the mean values.
12 For the single weather trial, MACCS is going to take 13 it's statistics over the number of weather sampling 14 trials. So if I do a constant weather condition, 15 that's just the value that it is. If I do it over a 16 meteorological file where I'm sampling from different 17 weather, that's going to be the mean value across all 18 the different weather conditions.
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So does MACCS report 20 to you the distribution the 95 percentile?
21 MR. COMPTON: Yes, yes. That's actually 22 -- yes, it does.
23 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Do you know what 24 distribution MACCS runs over different -- not 25 meteorological factors but other factors like a risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
211 1 factor?
2 MR. COMPTON: Sure. So MACCS is set up 3 that typically you would run MACCS -- MACCS will 4 always do if you tell it to a sampling over weather 5 conditions. But it will use single point estimates 6 for all other parameters. It does have the capability 7 to -- you do have the capability to sample other 8 parameters. And that's what it was done in the SOARCA 9 of certain analysis is they sampled a selection of 10 MACCS parameters, came up with distributions, and then 11 sampled them.
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MR. COMPTON: And not surprisingly --
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- risk factors, 15 things like that. So then you had some feeling what 16 type of distributions if it's not meteorological data?
17 MR. COMPTON: You mean whether MACCS --
18 (Simultaneous speaking.)
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: No, no, no. You 20 just explained to me they use a point estimate for 21 everything other than meteorological data, right, in 22 these runs which you have performed. But you said 23 that there were runs performed as a part of SOARCA 24 analysis. We consider other uncertainties other than 25 meteorological like a population density or like risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
212 1 dose, or the time exposure.
2 (Simultaneous speaking.)
3 MR. COMPTON: Right. And some of those --
4 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Do we have any 5 feeling what type of certainty we are talking when 6 these other factors are considered?
7 MR. COMPTON: Well, if I recall, this is 8 from -- there's been a number of SOARCA uncertainty 9 analyses. I think one of the things it does tend to 10 show up -- well, a few things tend to show up as 11 significant. One is usually the source term, the 12 characteristics related to the source term. So 13 obviously if you -- any uncertainty you have in the 14 source term propagates into the Level 3. But of the 15 MACCS parameters by themselves, the cancer risk 16 coefficients --
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right.
18 MR. COMPTON: -- tended to show up as the 19 most significant. I think I got to be careful because 20 Tina is not here to keep me on the straight and 21 narrow. But I believe -- and that makes sense.
22 It's a linear -- that's just a linear 23 multiplier at the end of the calculation. But there 24 is -- and I don't have it memorized. But there is a 25 published distribution of risk factors.
NEAL 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 But again, in this analysis, I'm doing it 2 the way that is fairly consistent with state of 3 practice. We use kind of a single point estimate 4 value. And I can't remember if it's the 50th 5 percentile.
6 And we also have a -- we also sample from 7 the central tendency that the recommended dose and 8 dose rate reduction factor which is also a 9 distribution to account for -- the dose and dose rate 10 factor for this, don't think that that would -- the 11 uncertainty would be that important because if you 12 constrained your doses to be in the low dose regime, 13 you would -- well, I'll be careful. I'm not going to 14 say --
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. Well, you 17 know, I don't really have any issue to take with the 18 AERI criteria except I think it's overly complicated.
19 My -- I'm reflecting on my thinking on acute dose.
20 That's why I'm asking you this because we 21 don't really have -- we have never seen uncertainty of 22 the MACCS results. And somebody told us through these 23 multiple meetings that they're small which is very 24 much against my beliefs. As you say source term has 25 a high uncertainty.
NEAL 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 So basically, uncertainties in the PRA, 2 everybody know they high Level, but they high in Level 3 2. In my opinion, the highest in Level 3 based on my 4 experience. So I mean, for me, I was trying to 5 measure those uncertainties because if the cancer --
6 this latent cancer risk would be our risk measures.
7 We should really have some -- we should 8 really believe that we can actually evaluate that with 9 some reasonable certainty. And that's why I sort of 10 question because you talk about meteorological data.
11 And obviously, the very good models develop them, 12 mathematical models.
13 But there is so many other important 14 factors. Is it 50 years? Is it -- do they ever? Do 15 they come back? Is the land going to be clean before 16 they come back as I point out?
17 And then comes the risk dose which is the 18 major factor. And there is a huge uncertainty 19 associate with it. Thank you. Thanks for your 20 presentation. I learn more about MACCS than before.
21 So appreciate it.
22 MR. COMPTON: Thank you. Any other 23 questions?
24 CHAIR PETTI: I'm not hearing any. So 25 thanks so much again. We've been at this now -- let's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
215 1 see. It's 2:43. I'm just thinking maybe we should 2 take a short break now and then we've got about 20 3 slides left, maybe 17 slides. So why don't we take a 4 break to the top of the hour, and then we'll come 5 back. And these are the last two sets of 6 presentations. Thanks.
7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 8 off the record at 2:44 p.m. and resumed at 3:00 p.m.)
9 CHAIR PETTI: Okay, it's the top of the 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, so let's keep on going and start with Draft 11 Guide 1413.
12 MS. BIRO: Okay, I'll take it up. So good 13 afternoon, my name is Mihaela Biro, I'm a Senior 14 Reliability Risk Analyst in the Division of Risk 15 Assessment in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation. And I'm going to talk to you about Draft 17 Guide 1413, which also goes as proposed new Regulatory 18 Guide 1.254, for technology-inclusive identification 19 of licensing events for commercial nuclear plants.
20 Next slide, please.
21 So as a refresher, this guide applies to 22 all the framework, all light water reactors and non-23 light water reactors licensed under Part 50.52 and 53 24 for Frameworks A and Framework B. As any guide, this 25 comes with three section.
NEAL 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 Before I go there, a refresher that the 2 term licensing event is a generic term we chose to use 3 in this draft guide to -- because the guide applies to 4 all licensing frameworks.
5 I'm going to turn my camera off because 6 it's -- I think I have bandwidth issues.
7 So the licensing events is a generic term 8 we use in the context of this reg guide to refer to 9 those collection of designated event categories 10 identified in Parts 50.52 and Part 53. So this draft 11 guide has three sections.
12 Section A is dedicated to introduction and 13 a view of applicable regulations. Section B provides 14 a discussion and an overview of the ACRS 15 recommendation. And Section C provides the staff 16 guides, which outlines an integrated approach for 17 identification licensing events.
18 And this integrated approach comes in 19 three main aspects. One is the systematic and 20 comprehensive search for initiating events, meaning 21 identifying all possible perturbation to the plant 22 that can challenge the control and safety systems.
23 This work needs to start with a blank sheet of paper 24 without preconceptions or reliance on predefined 25 lists.
NEAL 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 Second part of this is the delineation of 2 -- the delineation of a comprehensive set of event 3 sequences, which is the analysis of the plant response 4 to the initiating events. And finally in Part 3, 5 grouping and mapping those initiating events and event 6 sequences into licensing event categories.
7 Lastly, this guide also contains an 8 appendix that reviews the techniques for searching for 9 initiating events and provide a list of these for 10 references but does not recommend any particular 11 technique. Next slide, please.
12 So since from -- since last time we 13 presented at the Subcommittee meeting in June, we 14 revised the two tables we had in the previous version 15 of this guide and combined them into one large table 16 which attempts to summarize the licensing pathways and 17 the licensing event categories. It looks quite a busy 18 table so I'll try to briefly walk you through it.
19 So in the first column we've captured the 20 various licensing frameworks, such as Part 50.52, 53 21 Framework A and 53 Framework B. Looking at the second 22 and third columns, we noted that the guidance related 23 to the licensing modernization projects, also known as 24 LMP, which includes NEI 1804 and Reg Guide 1.223.
25 This guidance applies only to non-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
218 1 water reactors at this time, and so on the second 2 column, we have to differentiate between light water 3 reactors and non-light water reactors.
4 Also going down to Framework A, note that 5 the existing LMP guidance does not currently apply 6 under Part 53 Framework A. But in the future the 7 staff intends to revise Reg Guide 1.223 to address 8 licensing under Part 53 Framework A.
9 Moving on to the fourth column, I'll 10 summarize the licensing event categories under each 11 framework. You've probably seen that before in a 12 previous version. So note that Parts 50 and 52 do not 13 have clear definitions and the list on this table 14 includes everything that was identifying regulation 15 associated regulatory guides.
16 On the second row, entry, if LMPs use with 17 comments on only licensing event categories that were 18 defined in LMP guidance and so on. Release the 19 licensing event categories under Part 53 Framework A 20 and Framework B.
21 Finally --
22 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley. The row 23 on Part 53 Framework A, when you read through, it says 24 LMP is not applicable. I don't understand that. I 25 thought that was the whole purpose of Part 53, NEAL 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 originally.
2 MS. BIRO: Yeah, but it just -- it's, we 3 have to go based on the status code. So if you go and 4 open Regulatory Guide 1.223, it currently says it's 5 not. It doesn't list Part 53 Framework A.
6 MR. BLEY: So the Reg Guide doesn't list 7 Part 53. But Part 53 essentially asks for LMP.
8 MS. BIRO: Yeah, it's built upon. So this 9 is something that came out during our review with the 10 -- with the little council. So we just had to reflect 11 the present state as of yesterday.
12 MR. BLEY: But it's not that LMP doesn't 13 -- isn't applicable to Part 53. LMP isn't applicable 14 to the reg guide because the reg guide doesn't say so.
15 MS. BIRO: Yeah, and I think you're also 16 getting into those, if you look in the next, in the 17 licensing events, right, the terms that are being 18 used.
19 MR. BLEY: Yeah.
20 MS. BIRO: And Framework A has, for 21 example, micro sequences while they -- the guidance 22 has DBs, BDBs, etc. So we'll have to address that.
23 It's a technicality I think, yeah.
24 MR. BLEY: Yeah, I guess so. It's the 25 logic of the display that's bothering me. It seems 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
220 1 me when I read Framework A, LMP is perfectly 2 applicable. The reg guide you can't use because it 3 says you can't use it. But, and that's your guidance 4 for using LMP. Anyway, you're going to fix it, so 5 that's.
6 MS. BIRO: Yes, that's the point, that's 7 the point. It's just not applicable at this very 8 moment, I would say.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Dennis, if you looked at 10 the table in the draft guide we were given, they've 11 got a footnote saying that they plan to update it. So 12 maybe it's just this slide that's bothering you?
13 MR. BLEY: It's the language that says 14 Part 50 -- LMP is not applicable to Part 53. To me, 15 LMP's not applicable to the reg guide. That's clear 16 until you fix the reg guide. But LMP ought to be 17 applicable to Part 53 Framework A because it 18 essentially tells you to do that.
19 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, I guess I thought the 20 footnote, it didn't bother me when I looked at the 21 table. But it does have an N/A, but it has a footnote 22 right there saying we're going to update it. So maybe 23 it's just the way it's worded with the footnote.
24 MR. BLEY: Yeah, if I were -- if I were 25 doing the table in the reg guide, I would just have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
221 1 the footnote, I wouldn't say not applicable. But 2 anyway, go ahead.
3 MS. BIRO: Yeah, it's very hard to capture 4 all the subtleties in a few words, but I appreciate 5 the comment. We'll see if we can improve the text.
6 MEMBER HALNON: Will the revision allow 7 the light water reactor --
8 MS. BIRO: Excuse me, I didn't?
9 MEMBER HALNON: Would the -- this is Greg.
10 Would the revision include light water reactors? I 11 know it obviously includes non-light water, but.
12 MR. BLEY: Revision of the reg guide.
13 MS. BIRO: Yes.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, for Part 53. Okay, 15 it will be both those --
16 MS. BIRO: I believe so. We haven't gone 17 through all the detailed discussion on that, but I see 18 no reason why not. But I guess we'll have to take 19 back and yes.
20 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thanks.
21 MR. STUTZKE: Greg, this is Marty Stutzke.
22 I'll note NEI 18-04 itself says that it only applies 23 to Parts 50 and 52 non-light water reactors. So it's 24 more than updating Reg Guide 1.233. NEI would have to 25 update its guidance as well.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
222 1 MR. BLEY: Well, wait a minute. You as 2 the regulator, if you update Reg Guide 1.233, can 3 right there say that from a regulatory point of view, 4 LMP is appropriate to Part 53. NEI isn't a regulatory 5 document.
6 MR. STUTZKE: True, but Reg Guide 1.233 7 endorses NEI 18-04, so.
8 MR. BLEY: It could, with the exception 9 that it also applies to Part 53. Then you'd be done.
10 MEMBER HALNON: It would be good to clear 11 everything up. So I'm sure this --
12 MR. BLEY: I think it would but making 13 yourself wait for NEI, if you have to wait for it, 14 doesn't seem to make sense to me.
15 MEMBER HALNON: I'm good, you can go on.
16 MS. BIRO: Yeah, okay. All right, well, 17 thank you. So moving on to the last column, the 18 summarize, the use of a PRA is required. So we noted 19 that under Part 50, a PRA is not required at this 20 time.
21 However, there is some rulemaking 22 activities. SECY-2252 described the NRC proposed 23 changes to the regulations in Parts 50 and 52 to align 24 reactor licensing processes incorporating lessons 25 learn from new reactor 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
223 1 So the NRC is proposing to any regulations 2 to Part 50 to require the construction permit and 3 operating license applicants to submit a description 4 of the plant-specific PRA and its results.
5 So under Part 52, a PRA is required.
6 Under LMP, a PRA is implied. And then moving down, of 7 course Framework A also requires a PRA. And then when 8 you lastly on the, moving on to Part 50, Framework B.
9 An applicant may elect to develop an AERI as an 10 alternative to a PRA if the entry conditions are met.
11 So in summary for a stable, the choice of 12 licensing framework influences the process to be 13 followed for the licensing event identification. And 14 that it establishes what licensing event categories 15 will be used, whether PRA will be used, and how those 16 risk insights from the PRA will be used. Next slide, 17 please.
18 MEMBER HALNON: Just one, just a follow up 19 so that Dennis and I don't bring it back up. Do you 20 have an approximate schedule for the 1.233 revision 21 just so we can see how that all works, or is that 22 still to be determined?
23 MS. BIRO: I believe it's to be 24 determined. I don't think we have that.
25 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, it'll be prior 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
224 1 53 being out for final rule, I would assume, right.
2 Since it's guidance to work Part 53.
3 MS. BIRO: Yeah, I can't answer that.
4 Marty, do you have any thoughts?
5 MEMBER HALNON: Maybe that's just a 6 suggestion to get it out, you know, next year some 7 time.
8 MR. STUTZKE: We'll take that back.
9 MEMBER HALNON: Thanks.
10 MS. BIRO: Thank you. Any other 11 questions? If not, moving on to the next. So on the 12 next four slides, I will walk you through the approach 13 outlined in Section C of the guide for technology-14 inclusive identification licensing events.
15 You've seen this before at our previous 16 engagements. Before we got into the flow chart, we 17 identified a five overarching principle that are 18 color-coded.
19 So NEI will identify application-specific 20 factors. Orange, conduct a systematic and 21 comprehensive search for initiating plants. In blue 22 is a systematic process to delineate event sequences.
23 In green group the initiating events and event 24 sequences into the designated event categories 25 according to -- licensing framework. And lastly, NEAL 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 right, provide assurance that the set of licensing 2 events is sufficient. Our next slide, please.
3 So before I review the process on the flow 4 chart, I'd like to highlight this process is meant to 5 be iterative. And thank you for Subcommittee member 6 comments in our previous June meeting.
7 We have a text the draft regulatory guide 8 to highlight this aspect that the design process and 9 the development of licensing basis information is 10 meant to be iterative. When you -- involves 11 assessment and decisions of system design, operating 12 parameters, programmatic control.
13 So the identification of initiating events 14 and event sequences is expected to be performed as the 15 designer goes through the conceptual phases. And as 16 the design matures, the licensee or applicant should 17 consider the licensing framework it is planning to 18 use. Because as I mentioned before, this decision 19 influences the process for identifying licensing 20 events.
21 Now, go on to the flow chart. You've seen 22 this flow chart before, but since the last meeting, we 23 moved a couple boxes. But generally the same idea of 24 the flow chart remains. Changes we've made are marked 25 on this flow chart in this transparent caption boxes.
NEAL 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 So I'm going to briefly review the 2 process. So again, process starts with box 1, 3 assemble the team. So we -- to conduct an 4 identification licensing event, we believe that it's 5 necessary a multi-disciplinary team with the right 6 expertise.
7 And we listed a number of disciplines that 8 we believe that need to be part of the team. So of 9 course licensing of plan design, thermohydraulics, 10 PRA, even expertise in selected metal analyses, etc.
11 12 Box 2, establish a control -- quality 13 control program. And this is a new explicit step we 14 added in response to the informal subcommittee member 15 comments. We added an explicit guidance and step on 16 establishing a quality control program prior to 17 engaging in the work. And I will discuss this in a 18 lot more detail in the following slides.
19 Then we move in the next boxes to 20 collecting application-specific information. Most 21 yellow boxes at the top. In Box 3, we'll collect all 22 the plant-specific information and site 23 characteristics. In Box 4, identify all radiological 24 sources and transfer barriers from the source and the 25 environment.
NEAL 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 In Box 6, include explicit search for 2 sources of hazard chemical materials, which may be 3 none, similarly to searching for the radiological 4 sources. This, as a refresher, we are thinking of 5 those chemical hazards that are combined with the 6 radiological hazards, which can impact a plan response 7 initiating event or may affect the properties of the 8 radiological release.
9 And also want to mention other hazards.
10 If there's hazards from nearby industrial facilities, 11 that could induce an initiative event to the nuclear 12 plant. I'd expect that to be covered during search 13 for initiating events. And we updated a text on that 14 section as well.
15 Then on Box 6, we'll proceed to the 16 identification of those previously defined safety 17 function and identify assistance needed to perform the 18 safety function. We appreciate ACRS member comments 19 on previous texts and we updated the draft guide to 20 better reflect progress on safety function.
21 But the key highlight here I want to 22 mention is that the definition of safety function is 23 expected to be performed during the design stage. And 24 here in this guide we assume that those safety 25 function have been already defined. And with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
228 1 definition and identification, one can proceed to 2 identifying initiating events.
3 In Box 7, we identified end states for 4 event sequences which will be used to support event 5 sequence delineation selection.
6 So now moving to the bottom of the slide, 7 in -- we aligned the selection of the analysis methods 8 in Box 8. Selecting methods or techniques for 9 identification initiating events. This is the key, 10 selecting the methods is the key for conducting the 11 search that is systematic, comprehensive, and without 12 preconception or reliance on predefined risk.
13 So refresher that we think this search 14 needs to start with a blank sheet of paper to ensure 15 that the plant design is appropriate, analyze and 16 demonstrate it to be safe. The techniques --
17 MR. BLEY: Can I interrupt you here?
18 MS. BIRO: Yes, please.
19 MR. BLEY: This is just a point of 20 argument for me, but to me what you're talking through 21 right now on the systematic and comprehensive search 22 for initiating events is what provides assurance that 23 the set is sufficient.
24 The QA program, I don't know how it does 25 that. It seems inside out. The QA program is kind 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
229 1 an overview to make sure that you're following 2 process. But this search for the initiating events is 3 really the thing that provides assurance that we have 4 a good set.
5 MS. BIRO: Okay. So are you -- are you 6 commenting on the colors, or I'm sorry, it's a good 7 point. Yes, absolutely. That's the --
8 MR. BLEY: Yes, I am commenting on the 9 colors. Now, you have more colors than are used in 10 the Reg Guide, I think. Maybe not.
11 MS. BIRO: Yeah, I think we have them the 12 same, but we can definitely take it back and think of 13 that.
14 MR. BLEY: Anyway, to me, QA isn't the 15 thing that makes sure we've got a good set. It's --
16 think about that when get to that.
17 MS. BIRO: Well, I mean, yeah, of course 18 the work, doing the work correctly, it's important, 19 right. And then the quality assurance is just 20 assurance that another layer on top of it to ensure 21 that the work is done correctly. So yes.
22 MR. BLEY: Go ahead.
23 MEMBER REMPE: So this -- Dennis, are you 24 done?
25 MR. BLEY: I am.
NEAL 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 MEMBER REMPE: This is Joy, and I 2 appreciate your willingness and in a very positive 3 way. So I'm almost embarrassed to be asking for me.
4 But on Box No. 5 where you talk about co-located 5 facilities and you say we're going to talk about this 6 more in Items 26-29, and I, when I went to 26-29, I 7 didn't see what I was hoping to see.
8 I think just a few more words to talk 9 about other site-specific hazards that could adversely 10 affect plant operations. And then adding something 11 about like gas lines, a hydrogen production facility, 12 a rail line. Just a few more items to give the 13 applicant a bit more of an idea of the thoroughness 14 expected would be helpful.
15 MS. BIRO: Thank you for your comment. We 16 tried to capture that somehow based on the previous 17 work that's been done. Just looking for hazards and 18 initiating events, at least external to the plant have 19 been the key in the PRA development over the many 20 years.
21 So there are references, there are a lot 22 of long list of items that have been compiled over the 23 years. And we did provide a reference the latest PRA 24 standard for non-light water reactors. And so it's 25 endorsed in the reg guide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
231 1 So if you open that, it has like 2 everything under the sun that can be considered. But 3 if you feel like you would need more to highlight that 4 importance, we can definitely add a sentence or two 5 and then refer them --
6 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, well like Box 10-12 7 says other hazards such as hazards from your bio-8 industrial facilities that could induce initiating 9 events. And then it says hey, go look at 26 and --
10 paragraphs 26-29 below.
11 So that was where I expected it, but when 12 I got to those paragraphs, it mainly focused on 13 internal hazards like flooding and external hazards 14 like seismic and high winds. I didn't see things that 15 I wanted to see there. So I think some additional 16 words would really help. But again, it's just one 17 member's comment.
18 MS. BIRO: Okay --
19 MEMBER HALNON: So this is Greg, just to 20 carry on the paragraph before that, number 11, it 21 talks about the chemical sources that are outside the 22 scope. Which is fine, it just kind of leaves me 23 hanging.
24 Just, you might consider giving the 25 nuclear designer a place that they can go look or 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
232 1 least an agency that they would go look for guidance 2 on chemical sources, given the fact that we don't know 3 what kind of chemicals will be on some of these 4 plants.
5 That's just a suggestion. The question I 6 -- another question I have is in fact in the quality 7 control program it talks about making sure that the 8 PRA is peer-reviewed or has a self-assessment. The 9 self-assessment guidance in 1.200 points back to an 10 ISG for a DC or COL.
11 Is that what you intend to use for people 12 to see that self-assessment or use the self-assessment 13 guidance in that box or quality control program and 14 the adequacy of PRA?
15 MS. BIRO: Marty, can you help? I'm not 16 familiar with the COL, but I guess we have a, my last 17 slide is covering with, you know, we have certain 18 parts of this guide that we believe they should be 19 subject to quality control. And then others to 20 quality assurance.
21 And the parts that are being traditionally 22 part of the PRA as the initiating event search and 23 event sequences, those would be a quality control.
24 And we would use existing programs such as those that 25 are currently used for a PRA, which include a peer NEAL 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 review guidance and self-assessments.
2 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, if can add to it, 3 Greg. DC COL ISG 028 again applies to LWRs. So we're 4 developing another guidance document that would apply 5 to the non-LWRs.
6 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, I just wanted to 7 make sure that we were not just relying on that one 8 ISG.
9 MR. STUTZKE: Right.
10 MEMBER HALNON: And if you were, that it 11 was going to get looked at.
12 MR. STUTZKE: Right.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Sounds like you got it, so 14 thanks, Marty.
15 MS. BIRO: Thank you. Any other 16 questions? Okay, so I'll continue on then.
17 So we were at Box 8, selecting the 18 initiating event identification method. I want to 19 mention that the Appendix A summarizes know and well-20 established techniques.
21 And we appreciate Dr. Bley's references 22 and information on the system-level FMEA. And we did 23 not get a chance to yet to update the appendix, but 24 are planning to update it in the near future. Okay.
25 So then on Box 9, describe the strategy NEAL 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 for grouping initiating events, and in Box 10, 2 consider any analytical methods for event sequence 3 delineation, such as event trees that are well known 4 to the PRA practitioners and similar event tree 5 diagrams, which is a graphical tool similar to the 6 event tree. Next slide, please.
7 So then the online process proceeds to 8 identify in the list initiating events, applying the 9 selected methods and grouping strategy. We already 10 kind of covered this, that we've tried to add a little 11 bit more detail on the initiating event analysis, 12 listing that to include both internal hazards such as 13 the internal flooding, fires, but also external 14 hazards, seismic events, high winds, external floods, 15 and other external hazards. And multiple reactor 16 modules.
17 So then as I mentioned, we added a 18 reference. There are many reference that provide us 19 a list of external hazards. And so we reference Reg 20 Guide 1.247 and the associated non-light water PRA 21 standard, which provides a pretty comprehensive list 22 which is compiled based on the review of previous 23 references. But we'll take it back and see if we can 24 enhance the text.
25 Then moving on, Box 13 includes a step 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
235 1 reviewing any relevant operating experience, as well 2 as any prior relevant initiating event analysis. Then 3 similarly in Box 15 on the bottom of the page, apply 4 the selected methods to analyze the plant response to 5 initiating events to delineate event sequences.
6 So now I want to talk about Box 14 and 17 7 regarding the independent review and quality control.
8 So in this guide we recommend a quality control of 9 this work for initiating events and for event sequence 10 selection, two items that are on this page of the flow 11 chart.
12 Because they are not directly -- this work 13 is not directly part of the design basis information.
14 And so we don't think this should be subject to formal 15 quality assurance. And this is a continuation of the 16 current practice with those that develop a PRA. Next 17 slide, please.
18 So finally, proceeding to the licensing 19 events. If a PRA's developed, provide initiating 20 events and event sequences to the PRA.
21 MR. BLEY: I'm sorry, can you go back to 22 that last slide? I missed something reading. Right 23 at the end here you were describing the search for 24 initiating events and event sequences. Oh, okay, 25 you're making the distinction between quality control NEAL 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 and quality assurance.
2 MS. BIRO: Yeah, and I have a slide on 3 this. We'll clarify this.
4 MR. BLEY: Okay.
5 MS. BIRO: My last slide is going to cover 6 just this aspect of quality assurance versus quality 7 control and which parts are what.
8 MR. BLEY: Good, I need help with that.
9 MS. BIRO: Yeah, so I'm almost there, 10 almost there, I promise. I got one more slide before 11 that. Okay, so next slide, please.
12 So in Box 20, identify the required 13 categories of licensing events for a selected 14 licensing framework. If the LMP is being used, we 15 just, we discussed currently only applies to non-light 16 water reactors licensed under Parts 50 or 52. And in 17 that case, we expect -- we direct to the use of Reg 18 Guide 1.233 as the relevant guidance for the licensing 19 event identification.
20 As I mentioned, we do intend to revise the 21 guidance in 1.233 to address licensing under Part 53 22 Framework A in the future, but a flow chart reflect 23 the current state of things as we -- as right now.
24 So now going down, for all other 25 application, it will remain in scope of this draft NEAL 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 guide, 14-13. And we'll proceed to licensing event 2 identification in Box 21. The designer applicants 3 expected to define the strategy for grouping event 4 sequences, which can be done by frequency or 5 qualitatively or quantitatively or by type.
6 Then Box 22, apply licensing event 7 grouping strategy. And then Box 23, identify the 8 limiting cases for each group of licensing events.
9 In Box 24, we still have a step for 10 comparison to predefined list. We added this because 11 comparison with the standard review plan is required 12 currently under Part 50 and 52 for light water 13 reactors.
14 And then finally, in Box 25, independent 15 review and quality assurance activities for the 16 licensing event identification. So as you can see 17 here, we are expected quality assurance, or formerly 18 quality assurance program, as opposed to a previous 19 slide, which is was just quality control.
20 So moving on the next slide, try to 21 capture the differences here. So as we said in Step 22 2 at the beginning, it's expected to establish a 23 quality control program prior to engaging in the work.
24 And now there are two parts to this, 25 right. The initiating event and event sequence NEAL 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 analysis are not subject to the quality assurance 2 requirements, the -- which is quality control, because 3 a PRA is not part of design basis information.
4 And we do list several system programs 5 that may be leveraged that we had over there for PRA 6 configuration control and peer reviews.
7 And then finally, the other part --
8 MR. BLEY: I'm sorry to cut in again. If 9 I'm reading your words correctly, the only in NRC's 10 parlance that quality assurance applies to is design 11 basis information? Is that definitional? I mean, 12 there's -- the rest of the world about quality 13 assurance in a somewhat different way, I think.
14 MS. BIRO: Okay, I guess we're kind of 15 considering context of the NRC regulations here. I 16 don't know.
17 MR. BLEY: So it sounds like it's 18 definitional. Quality assurance is something that for 19 the NRC is only applied to design basis information.
20 MS. BIRO: That's how we see it for this 21 guide, yes.
22 MR. BLEY: Okay. I can't argue with a 23 definition, but it's new to me.
24 MR. STUTZKE: Dennis, if I could, let me 25 go back. There was a rulemaking on Part 52 back 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
239 1 2007. And at that time, the staff determined that 2 Tier 2 information -- or the PRA was not part of the 3 Tier 2 information for a design certification.
4 And based on that, SRP Chapter 19.0 was 5 revised to conclude that because the PRA is not part 6 of the Tier 2 information, it's not subject to quality 7 assurance requirements.
8 MR. BLEY: I didn't know or remember that.
9 And it feels odd to me, but okay.
10 MR. STUTZKE: But when we use quality 11 control, we're talking about the guidance that 12 originally appeared in Reg Guide 1.174. Use qualified 13 people, independent review, configuration control, and 14 that thing.
15 MR. BLEY: Okay, so we're covered. It's 16 just this definitional thing.
17 MR. STUTZKE: Right, it's just the 18 boundary between the formal QA program and what we 19 normally do for PRA.
20 MR. BLEY: I thought Chapter 19 was part 21 of Tier 2. It's not?
22 MR. STUTZKE: No, that's the -- actually 23 it's in ISG 28 and SRP 19, yeah.
24 MR. BLEY: Fair enough, okay.
25 MS. BIRO: Thank you, Marty. So that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
240 1 all I have. So again, the licensing event selection, 2 it would be subject to quality assurance as opposed to 3 the initiating event sequence analysis, which would be 4 quality control.
5 That's all I have. If there are any 6 questions? All right, then, I guess we can --
7 MR. BLEY: I guess I do have a question, 8 and this is probably more for Bill. Are we consistent 9 in this use of QA in the language that's in Part 53 10 and this guidance? I'd have to go back and look, I 11 don't know. Is Bill still here?
12 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, I'm still here. I 13 think we are, Dennis, but let us go back and study 14 that. But I think we are.
15 MR. BLEY: Okay.
16 MS. BIRO: All right, well, thank you for 17 your time. I appreciate your time giving me a chance 18 to present today, and I'm going to turn it over to 19 Anne-Marie.
20 MS. GRADY: Next slide, please.
21 Good afternoon, I'm Anne-Marie Grady, a 22 Reliability and Risk Analyst in the Office of Nuclear 23 Reactor Regulation, Division of Risk Assessment.
24 And I'm going to discuss today with your 25 DG-1414, the alternative evaluation for risk insights NEAL 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 methodology. I'll be focusing on the changes that 2 we've made to DG-1414 since we presented to you last 3 in June. And the additions that we've made and a 4 little bit of emphasis. Next slide, please.
5 The alternative evaluation of risk 6 insights methodology provides the guidance on the use 7 of an AERI methodology to inform the content of 8 applications and licensing basis for LWRs and non-9 LWRs. 10 CFR 50.4730(a)(34)(ii) establishes AERI as 10 an alternative to a PRA for a risk evaluation if entry 11 conditions A and B for the -- for an AERI are met.
12 The title of this draft guide is now AERI 13 Methodology to distinguish it from Part 53 Frameworks 14 A and B. The new title does not signal any change in 15 approach.
16 In the green box below is a statement that 17 was in the previous guide that you've already seen, 18 but it bears repeating because it seems like it's 19 understood by some people. And it states the 20 following: applicants who meet the AERI entry 21 conditions, they elect to develop an AERI in lieu of 22 a PRA.
23 However, a PRA confers additional benefits 24 such as a means to operate the design and the ability 25 to take advantage of various risk-informed NEAL 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 initiatives, for example risk-informed completion 2 times, risk-informed categorization of SSCs, etc.
3 Next slide, please.
4 You didn't see this in the Subcommittee, 5 this particular licensing pathways flow chart exactly 6 as it is right here. You did see it for the full 7 Committee.
8 And the differences in what you saw last 9 in subcommittee is in -- under the AERI box, the 10 various elements of the AERI are Q4 has been added, 11 which assesses defense-in-depth adequacy by reviewing 12 all of event sequences. Other than that, there is no 13 change to what you have seen before in subcommittee.
14 Next slide, please.
15 The elements of the AERI methodology.
16 There are some changes. It applies to LWRs and non-17 LWRs under Part 53, Framework B. And the elements 18 include identification and characterization of the 19 postulated part -- the events.
20 MR. BLEY: Anne-Marie?
21 MS. GRADY: Yes.
22 MR. BLEY: I'm a slide behind you catching 23 up with my brain here. This is Dennis.
24 MS. GRADY: Oh, I'm sorry.
25 MR. BLEY: You don't need to back up.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
243 1 From my reading, and I think from what you just said, 2 whether you do a PRA or AERI, you do the same search 3 for initiating events and scenarios.
4 MS. GRADY: Yes.
5 MR. BLEY: Same thoroughness, okay.
6 That's really essential, I think, but go ahead.
7 MS. GRADY: One part of the elements of 8 how the AERI methodology and selection of licensing 9 events, which has already been covered by Mihaela in 10 DG 1413. It considers both core and non-core 11 radiological sources. And the non-core radiological 12 sources is a change that I'll discuss in a little bit 13 further.
14 It performs a consequence analysis for the 15 selected licensing events and multiple bounding events 16 could be considered for events with approximately 17 similar likelihoods of occurrence and similar overall 18 radiological impacts with different radiological 19 release characteristics.
20 The next element would be estimating dose 21 consequence for the postulated bounding event to 22 confirm the reactor design meets the AERI entry 23 conditions. That is covered under Part 24 53.47(a)(34)(ii) Condition A.
25 Condition A is one that you have seen NEAL 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 before, and it talks about the dose at the 2 consequences at 100 meters from a plant to not exceed 3 one rem TEDE over the first four days following a 4 release. An additional two rem TEDE in the first 5 year. And a half a rem TEDE in the second and 6 subsequent years. And those are conditions that have 7 been discussed at length today and you've seen before 8 in this draft guide.
9 Condition B has been added, as Marty 10 alluded earlier, described earlier today. And it must 11 be without, it says Condition B is now the Condition 12 A must be met without reliance on active safety 13 features or passive safety features, except passive 14 safety features that don't require equipment actuation 15 or operator action to perform their required safety 16 functions that are expected to survive accident 17 conditions.
18 And it cannot be made unavailable or 19 otherwise defeated by credible human errors of 20 commission or omission.
21 One acceptable approach to developing a 22 dose consequence estimate is to provide the postulated 23 bounding event source term to a program such as MACCS 24 or a comparable analytical model.
25 MEMBER HALNON: Anne-Marie, this is Greg.
NEAL 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 That bullet under Condition B just exemplifies the 2 earlier comments we made about being able to define 3 passive. And clearly the passive, if it required 4 equipment actuation, wouldn't be considered passive.
5 Or if it needed operator action, it wouldn't be 6 considered passive.
7 So it's kind of talking past itself. I 8 know Marty took a note, but just wanted to exemplify 9 the earlier comment about defining what passive is.
10 MS. GRADY: Thank you, Greg. I heard your 11 comment earlier today and I think we'll be revisiting 12 that. Not changing it, but making sure that we've 13 stated clearly what we mean.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, and consistency 15 through the, you know, between the GLRO and this would 16 be -- would be good, just to make sure that we're not 17 adding confusion.
18 MS. GRADY: Yes, I'm making a note of 19 that. Okay, next slide, please.
20 There is no change in the presentation on 21 this slide of these elements of the methodology. It's 22 to determine a demonstrably conservative risk estimate 23 for the postulated bounding event to determine that 24 the QHOs are met. And the elements are described in 25 the draft guide and you've seen them before.
NEAL 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 Utilizing the consequence estimate, the sooner 2 frequency of once a year.
3 Compared to the QHOs, the applicant may 4 use a different frequency than once a year with 5 justification, which the staff will review on a case-6 by-case basis. And the applicant should identify any 7 software codes used for consequence analyses and 8 provide information on how the development and 9 maintenance of these codes meets quality standards 10 commensurate with the application. Next slide, 11 please.
12 Okay, what is here that has changed is the 13 definition of severe accidents. And this is the 14 definition that is applicable to Framework B under 15 Part 53. And it's specific to that. And the search 16 for severe accident vulnerabilities involves severe 17 accidents obviously.
18 Severe accidents are those events that 19 progress beyond DBAs in which substantial damage is 20 done to the reactor core and that -- or to any other 21 structure, vessel, or retention system containing a 22 significant inventory of radiological material, 23 whether or not there are serious offsite consequences.
24 Now, that -- the definition that I just 25 read to you is a definition that we've had 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
247 1 decades, except for the part of the non-core source 2 term. And that's been added -- excuse me -- that's 3 been added for this AERI methodology. And it's to 4 make it technology-inclusive.
5 MEMBER HALNON: So Anne-Marie, is this the 6 same definition of severe accident that's in the front 7 of Framework B in the definition section?
8 MS. GRADY: Yes, in 53.028.
9 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, because when I was 10 discussing this with Travis, and it was probably the 11 wording on the slide, it struck me as not. This is --
12 this is a good definition. I don't have some of the 13 same issues with it. So it probably was just the way 14 it was on the slide. Thank you.
15 MS. GRADY: I'm sorry, okay. The search 16 for severe accident vulnerabilities are aspects of a 17 design which represent an over-reliance on a single 18 design feature, either for accident prevention or 19 mitigation that could lead to a severe accident. It 20 encompasses the entire set of licensing events and any 21 additional severe accidents. Searches for cliff edge 22 effects it considers external hazards.
23 The search for severe accident 24 vulnerabilities addresses how identifying severe 25 accident vulnerabilities could enable a design 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
248 1 prevent or mitigate severe accidents.
2 And if in the course of the reactor plant 3 design, if a severe accident vulnerability could not 4 be designed out or was chosen, elected not to be 5 designed out, then the applicant, to meet the -- to 6 meet the AERI methodology would need to justify why 7 the vulnerability was left in the design and why it's 8 acceptable for the design. Next slide, please.
9 The last slide on the elements of AERI 10 methodology includes the identification of risk 11 insights, the objective of which is to understand the 12 issues that are important to plant operation and 13 safety, such as important hazards and initiators, 14 important event sequences and their associated SSC 15 failures and human error, system interactions, 16 vulnerable plant areas, likely outcomes, 17 sensitivities, and areas of uncertainty.
18 The search encompasses the entire set of 19 licensing events. It provides an understanding of the 20 hierarchy of events ranked by frequency. And the 21 assessment for this, and the next bullet is the one 22 that was added since you've last seen this description 23 of the AERI methodology, is the assessment of defense-24 in-depth adequacy, which encompasses the entire set of 25 previously identified licensing events.
NEAL 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 And the facility design should include a 2 reasonable balance among the layers of defense to 3 ensure that failure of a single barrier does not 4 result in a severe accident.
5 MR. BLEY: Anne-Marie 6 MS. GRADY: Yes.
7 MR. BLEY: This is another definitional 8 question. I liked the last bullet, but is layers of 9 defense, I mean, that's used in Europe a lot, but I --
10 is that a defined phrase in NRC speak?
11 MS. GRADY: I don't know the answer to 12 that. I am familiar with it in the IAEA documents.
13 MR. BLEY: Yeah, that's where I've seen it 14 too. And I've kind of liked what they did. I've seen 15 -- I've encountered folks at NRC in the past who 16 didn't like that approach at all. Anyway, I just 17 wondered if layers of defense has a fixed meaning.
18 MS. GRADY: Layers of defense are not 19 defined in this draft guide for sure. And I don't 20 know where I would find it if I were looking for it.
21 Maybe Marty knows, but I don't.
22 MR. BLEY: Okay, but it's something that 23 maybe ought to be clarified. I don't know if it can 24 cause confusion or not. It doesn't bother me, but I 25 could see it maybe being a problem.
NEAL 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 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg, just one 2 thing I wanted to highlight, and maybe you can tell me 3 if I'm wrong. When you do the assessment of defense-4 in-depth, I mean, we've already eliminated any 5 operator action from this assessment, correct?
6 I mean, is that -- because the operator is 7 like a real important aspect of defense-in-depth that 8 we talk about today. But here we've eliminated that 9 operator action from being considered. Is that 10 correct?
11 MS. GRADY: Yes.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
13 MR. BLEY: So even errors of so-called 14 errors of commission, which could create situations 15 nobody thought about.
16 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, that's a question 17 that I was going to follow up with.
18 MR. BLEY: Oh, I'm sorry.
19 MEMBER HALNON: I mean, you're absolutely 20 right, Dennis. Throughout this credited human 21 actions, and the questions would be, well, what about 22 uncredited human actions.
23 And I think part of the assessment of its 24 -- I mean, the entry criteria eliminates those as 25 well, because it talks about -- I think this 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
251 1 area that it talks about. Or is that in the -- see, 2 I get them mixed up now, GLRO, the license operator of 3 this one.
4 MR. BLEY: I think it's in here, but.
5 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, I think it 6 illuminates that errors of commission and omission in 7 the entry criteria so that --
8 MR. BLEY: There's a bit of a problem with 9 that, and that is I don't know of any, I'll call it 10 approved, NRC guidance that gives people guidance on 11 how to search for those errors of commission, things 12 we didn't expect the operators to do.
13 I sat in on a meeting, God, it's probably 14 been 30 years ago, with a passive design group of 15 folks. And nothing could happen to that reactor, but 16 I saw a couple dials and said, well, what if the 17 operators closes those, you could get into a pretty 18 bad state. And their response was well, nobody would 19 ever close those. And you know, that kind of stuff 20 happens.
21 The Athena guidance gave one way to look 22 to try to search for errors of, so-called errors of 23 commission. But I -- maybe somebody on the staff can 24 tell us how they're going to gain confidence that 25 there are no errors of commission that could cause 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
252 1 problem.
2 MR. SEYMOUR: So if I -- if I could just 3 make a point here, again, sorry to interject. This is 4 Jesse Seymour from the Operator Licensing and Human 5 Factors Branch.
6 One thing that I wanted to kind of harken 7 back to we talked about earlier was how the, you know, 8 the AERI criteria, you know, pointed to inherent 9 characteristics and passive safety features of, you 10 know, what I referred to in passing as a robust -- of 11 a robust nature. And the reason for that, the basis 12 for that, gets right to the heart of this issue, 13 right.
14 How do you go through and how do you, you 15 know, address the potential not only for errors of 16 commission, but also errors of omission, right. So 17 either folks going through and doing things that they 18 shouldn't do or failing to do things that they should, 19 right.
20 So in terms of someone not taking a 21 mitigative action, that's a little bit, you know, 22 easier to go through and to assess. In the case of an 23 error of commission, someone, you know, taking some 24 type of inappropriate act, that's a much wider range 25 of things, 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
253 1 And so the types of things that were on 2 our mind as we consider that were what happens if 3 someone goes through and you know, leaves a valve out 4 of position during maintenance, right. Or if they go 5 through and they, you know, leave a train of reactor 6 protections, you know, in a deactivated state, right, 7 inhibited or whatnot.
8 And so as we went through, what we found 9 was that you know, the complexity of that issue was 10 such that if you instead looked at the types of safety 11 features that could be used and you limited those to 12 things that were would be generally resistant to the 13 influence of those types of errors, right, so things 14 of -- you know, and I've used the terms robust, 15 passive, and inherent.
16 But you know, to make it tangible the 17 types of things that we're talking about are, you 18 know, concrete, steel, you know, advanced types of 19 fuels, right, you know, heat pipes, right. These 20 types of things that don't have, you know, valves that 21 move and you know, components that actually so on and 22 so forth. Or even necessarily reliance on stored 23 energy.
24 And if you use those types of, you know, 25 mechanisms, then you're going to be hard-pressed 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
254 1 have human errors that are going to be able to 2 influence their function on these types of conditions, 3 right.
4 And so when we're dealing with AERI, one 5 of the things that we don't have is we don't have, you 6 know, the PRA approach that would go through and that 7 would really dig into, you know, the complexities of 8 active systems and so forth.
9 So another layer to what we had to do here 10 is to say in the absence of that type of approach, 11 what is it that we're willing to credit if we're not 12 going to go through and quantify, you know, the 13 function of those active features and also, you know, 14 the human interaction with them.
15 So again, I just wanted to put those 16 points out there, you know, again, just kind of 17 jumping in a bit with some of what we'll talk about 18 tomorrow as well.
19 MR. BLEY: Yeah, well, given the right 20 design, as you were saying, it gets much easier to 21 show there's nothing anybody can do to cause a 22 problem. But we don't know what designs will come in 23 and try to come in under AERI.
24 So if there are human actions that can get 25 us in trouble, they may be harder to search for. If NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
255 1 the systems are simple enough, maybe, maybe not.
2 Maybe it's easy.
3 CHAIR PETTI: I thought I'd let folks know 4 someone posted in the chat, which we're not supposed 5 to do, but the glossary, the definition of defense-in-6 depth in the NRC glossary has the terms the layer of 7 defense in their definition.
8 MEMBER HALNON: It has emergency response 9 actions too, so if that's the -- what we're 10 eliminating in this, what we're talking about. So 11 anyway, that's a key portion of defense-in-depth, and 12 I think we just have to change our mindset a little 13 bit because we've seemingly eliminated the human 14 portion of this earlier on by getting to this point.
15 MS. GRADY: Largely, the plants that are 16 going to be able to avail themselves of the AERI 17 methodology are hopefully very simple plants. And 18 there's not a lot of complexity that we seem to be 19 thinking of as examples.
20 MEMBER HALNON: I agree, Anne-Marie, but 21 it's very difficult for an operator to put their hands 22 in their pockets and just watch something happen.
23 MS. GRADY: Yes.
24 MEMBER HALNON: So that's the point Dennis 25 is trying to make I think.
NEAL 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 MS. GRADY: Okay, so would you like some 2 elaboration on this further in the draft guide, is 3 that what you're saying?
4 MEMBER HALNON: Not necessarily. I mean, 5 I think that it's something to think about. I think 6 it goes back to the passive discussion to some extent.
7 And you know, you've got it clearly covered in the 8 entry criteria.
9 I think the difference is that we have to 10 change at this point. When we say here defense-in-11 depth, we've to change the paradigm in our mind that 12 there is no human action permitted to be talked about.
13 I mean, we talked about credited human 14 action with the license events. But there's a lot of 15 human actions that aren't credited that could either 16 help or hinder the response of the plant.
17 And those need to be looked at as well.
18 And you sort of have it up front, but I think it just 19 needs to be kept in mind as we go through defense-in-20 depth, because it is a pretty broad terms that 21 includes human actions.
22 MS. GRADY: Thank you. Any other 23 questions? Next slide, please. Could we see the next 24 slide, please? How about the previous one? Thank 25 you, 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
257 1 Okay, the next two slides are new since we 2 spoke about Draft Guide 1414 back in June, when we had 3 promised you that we would address maintaining and 4 operating the AERI risk evaluation. And the material 5 is in the draft guide. And I'm going to summarize it 6 here.
7 And on this slide, the slide one of two, 8 the steps that are going to be recommended are 9 required are to assure that the risk evaluation 10 continue to be useful, valid, and an adequate basis 11 for regulatory decisionmaking throughout the plant 12 lifetime.
13 The initial risk evaluation must be 14 performed by the scheduled fuel log date. The risk 15 evaluation should be maintained or upgraded every five 16 years. The -- we -- also required is to regularly 17 assess that the postulating bounding event selection 18 remains current. If it's not, we need -- the 19 applicant needs to identify a new postulated bounding 20 event to be used in an upgraded risk evaluation.
21 The as-built, as-operated facility needs 22 to be reflected in the -- or an operational scheme 23 needs to be reflected since if it's been changed since 24 the prior risk evaluation. And if it has, then risk 25 evaluation needs to be maintained or upgraded.
NEAL 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 If any new safety issues have arisen, then 2 it needs to be ascertained that the new safety issues 3 that have arisen since the prior risk evaluation, that 4 the risk evaluation would be maintained or upgraded to 5 reflect the new safety issues.
6 Likewise, if new data, information, or 7 analyses become available, they need -- the applicant 8 needs to ascertain if any relevant new data, 9 information, or analyses have arisen since the prior 10 risk evaluation. And if so, to maintain or upgrade 11 the risk evaluation.
12 Now, I need to -- I need to explain a 13 distinction between this slide, which is current and 14 worded carefully to reflect either that the risk 15 evaluation needs to be maintained and/or upgraded, 16 because the draft guide language right now in Part --
17 in Section C in the draft guidance is lagging in this 18 current wording.
19 And in the draft guide, the wording where 20 we have maintaining or upgrade, we have updated. And 21 that's going to be changed at the next opportunity to 22 change the draft guide so that the draft guide will 23 conform to what you see on this slide 98. So 24 maintained and upgraded are the proper terms, the ones 25 that we've relied on and will continue to rely on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
259 1 The draft guide will be updated. And that 2 applies to Sections C 7.2, 7.3, an 7.4. Updated is --
3 will be revised.
4 MEMBER HALNON: Anne-Marie, this is Greg.
5 Thanks, that is a curious question. But also is the 6 five years expected to be or intended to be a backstop 7 in that if there's any significant change, that they 8 should be upgraded in real time? Or is it just keep 9 a list of all the stuff and upgrade it every five 10 years?
11 MS. GRADY: I don't -- the draft guide is 12 not specific, to answer your question. I assumed it 13 was going to be keep track of it and maintain it or 14 upgrade it every five years. But if somebody knows 15 more than I do, then I appreciate any insight they 16 might have.
17 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis. Somebody early 18 today, one of the first presentations, and it might 19 have been Bill, I'm not sure, who first described this 20 language change, and it's nice to have fixed language.
21 I thought, like the PRA, it's updated periodically.
22 And I thought he said this, unless there's a change.
23 And then at that point, you have to upgrade it 24 immediately.
25 Somebody said that, and the reg guide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
260 1 should be fixed to be specific to make that clear.
2 I don't know, Bill, was that you or 3 somebody else talking about this upgrade language? I 4 remember the slide.
5 MR. STUTZKE: Yeah, Dennis, this is Marty.
6 I talked about it earlier. And I will go back and see 7 what the rule text actually says.
8 MR. BLEY: Okay, because I think, it must 9 have been your presentation. I think when you said 10 it, at least the impression I got was you upgrade 11 either at the fixed time interval or if there's a 12 significant change to something that might affect the 13 rest of the plant.
14 MEMBER HALNON: And that's what I was 15 hoping. That's what I'd expect, I thought the five 16 years would just be a backstop to make sure that it's 17 -- it's current.
18 MR. BLEY: Yeah, and yeah, to accumulate 19 changes like they collected date and this sort of 20 thing, yeah. So it ought to say that, and we probably 21 ought to consider that in our response to this.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, I agree.
23 MR. BLEY: That would be a good one to 24 bring up at the full Committee, by the way, and 25 clarify that point.
NEAL 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 MS. GRADY: Yes, we will check the rule 2 language and we will bring -- we will address it at 3 the full Committee meeting.
4 MEMBER BIER: Hi, another question, this 5 is Vicki Bier. First of all, thank you, Dennis, for 6 raising that point. Also, I may have kind of missed 7 some details on this earlier in the day, but what is 8 the distinction of what would require an upgrade 9 rather than just maintenance like repeating the 10 analysis with more up-to-date data?
11 MS. GRADY: If it would change the risk 12 evaluation, the consequences of the evaluation. If 13 the new information would change the results.
14 MEMBER BIER: I guess I'm wondering is it 15 just sort of new plant information, like we discovered 16 a new scenario that wasn't in our original analysis?
17 You know, kind of a Browns Ferry type situation?
18 Or whether it's also, you know, kind of 19 updated methodology that, you know, other plants have 20 been doing more sophisticated AERIs or the NRC has 21 changed the guidance on AERI so now you have to do a 22 little more than you had to five years ago.
23 MS. GRADY: I don't know if you're 24 suggesting that the conditions for the risk evaluation 25 should be changed once somebody has met the entry NEAL 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 conditions. I think they just have to keep them 2 maintained or upgraded. I don't think -- I don't 3 think new requirements can be imposed, I guess is what 4 I'm saying.
5 MEMBER BIER: Got it. Okay, yeah, I think 6 I'm just stumbling over the concept of upgrade, the 7 term upgrade. Because I kind of feel like, you know, 8 gee, upgrade kind of talks about new methodologies.
9 They're a better method for doing this now. But it 10 doesn't sound like that's what is meant by it in this 11 context, so that's fine. Yes, thank you.
12 MS. GRADY: You're welcome. Next slide, 13 please.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Anne-Marie, hi, this 15 is Vesna. I just have to point out that here we are 16 talking about ultimately the evaluation of risk, you 17 cite risk evaluation, so. You know, this risk 18 evaluation doesn't go with AERI, so it's just we have 19 to keep in mind what we are talking in AERI. We're 20 already talking about evaluation of risk is just 21 alternative.
22 It's just my comment on the language, that 23 we have repetition. Maybe this -- you should you call 24 every approach ultimate risk assessment, ARA or 25 something, risk evaluation. But here you already have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
263 1 evaluation of risk in AERI.
2 MS. GRADY: Vesna, I'm sorry, I'm not 3 following your point.
4 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay, then main AERI 5 already has risk evaluation.
6 MS. GRADY: Yes.
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So they just say --
8 so basically what you are saying ultimate evaluation 9 of risk inside risk evaluation. That doesn't make 10 sense. That's what I'm saying, so.
11 Because if that will be equivalent if I 12 say PRA, you know, risk assessment, because risk 13 assessment is already part of PRA, you know, what I 14 mean? It's the way how it's phrased, it's duplicate 15 of the aggravation and the roles.
16 MS. GRADY: Thank you. Marty.
17 MR. STUTZKE: In the, I agree, the title 18 of the slide is a little awkward. In the rule text, 19 we require applicants to perform a risk evaluation, 20 which is either a PRA or this AERI, the alternative 21 evaluation for risk insights. In other words, both 22 AERI and PRA are types of risk evaluations.
23 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. I mean, this 24 is like, because basically your AERI is just 25 alternative to PRA. Simplified PRA or whatever, NEAL 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 something which is not cumulative about the event. So 2 I mean, I just want to say the way how, you know, then 3 maybe you shouldn't have a risk evaluation in the --
4 all right.
5 Just picking on the -- that's okay.
6 Whatever you have, you already developed, so it is 7 best.
8 MS. GRADY: Thank you for your comment.
9 Next slide, please. Okay. Moving on to maintaining 10 and upgrade the AERI. The QHO comparison, if the AERI 11 risk evaluation requires upgrading, the QHO comparison 12 should be revisited and modified if appropriate.
13 Likewise, for the vulnerability search, if 14 the risk evaluation requires upgrading the severe 15 accident vulnerability search should be revisited and 16 modified if appropriate.
17 For the search of risk insights, if the 18 risk evaluation requires upgrading, the search for 19 risk insights should be revisited and modified if 20 appropriate. And likewise on the defense-in-depth, if 21 the risk evaluation requires upgrading, the defense-22 in-depth should be -- evaluation should be revisited 23 and modified, if appropriate.
24 And as I mentioned on the previous slide, 25 the slide itself, this slide is current, the language NEAL 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 is current. The language requiring upgrading and 2 revisiting and modifying are all current. The 3 language in the draft guide is lagging.
4 And where it says upgraded on slide, it 5 says updated in the draft guide. We are going to 6 revise that to conform the draft guide to this slide.
7 And the affects in Section C of the draft guide 8 Sections 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8.
9 That's all I have. If anybody has any 10 further questions or comments.
11 MEMBER REMPE: Hi, this is Joy. I was 12 looking through the updated draft guide, the fact that 13 it emphasizes if you don't have an essentially 14 complete design you may have trouble going through 15 AERI caught my eye. And it was actually in the 16 earlier version.
17 But I'm just wondering if that point has 18 been sufficiently emphasized in your interactions with 19 other stakeholders so everybody understands this.
20 Because I mean, that was one of their complaints, that 21 it was hard to do a PRA for these simple designs. But 22 I'm also wondering if it's also a lack of completeness 23 in their design methodology.
24 Any thoughts on that topic?
25 MS. GRADY: We have a meeting with -- 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
266 1 meetings with stakeholders emphasized the fact that 2 they may want to avail themselves of the AERI 3 approach.
4 And it may be early in their design phase, 5 which probably means that it's going to be kind of an 6 iterative process for them. Because eventually once 7 their design has reached some sort of mature stage, 8 they'll have establish that they meet the entry 9 conditions.
10 So we have emphasized it's iterative in 11 our discussions with stakeholders, yes.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, thank you.
13 MS. GRADY: You're welcome.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Members, any other 15 comments? Well, thank you, Anne-Marie. With that, we 16 have covered everything that we had planned to cover 17 today. And we will be back at it, same time, same 18 place, tomorrow to continue.
19 I just want to reflect there's a lot of 20 information here. The presentations were really 21 helpful. As I think about having to wade through the 22 2000 pages last week, it would have been nice to have 23 had the slides ahead of that. It would have helped me 24 focus.
25 But does anyone want to have any broad NEAL 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 discussion? Or we can obviously wait until tomorrow 2 when we've finished the rest of the topics.
3 I think we're on the down side of 4 diminishing marginal returns here then. So why don't 5 we recess today, and we'll see everybody again at 8:30 6 tomorrow morning. Thank you.
7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 8 off the record at 4:15 p.m.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Radiological Rulemaking Policies and Procedures Part 53 Subcommittee Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-2136 Pages 1-289 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 1
2 3
4 DISCLAIMER 5
6 7 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11 The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17 This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 (ACRS) 6 + + + + +
7 REGULATORY RULEMAKING, POLICIES AND PRACTICES:
8 PART 53 SUBCOMMITTEE 9 + + + + +
10 WEDNESDAY 11 OCTOBER 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, Chair 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 VICKI BIER, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 21 VESNA DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 GREGORY HALNON, Member 23 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24 JOY L. REMPE, Member 25 MATTHEW 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 STEPHEN SCHULTZ 4
5 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
6 DEREK WIDMAYER 7
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 BOB BEALL, NMSS 10 MIHAELA BIRO, NRR 11 KEITH COMPTON, RES 12 DAVID DESAULNIERS, NRR 13 CYRIL DRAFFIN, Public Participant 14 ROBERT FORTNER, Public Participant 15 RANI FRANOVICH, Public Participant 16 ANNE-MARIE GRADY, NRR 17 NIAV HUGHES GREEN, RES 18 JORDAN HOELLMAN, NRR 19 WILLIAM JESSUP, NRR 20 CONNIE KLINE, Public Participant 21 HILARY LANE, Public Participant 22 STEPHANIE MORROW, OEDO 23 LAUREN NIST, NRR 24 WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 25 AARON SANDERS, NMSS NEAL 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 MAURIN SCHEETZ, NRR 2 JOHN SEGALA, NRR 3 JESSE SEYMOUR, NRR 4 MOHAMED SHAMS, NRR 5 MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 6 BOYCE TRAVIS, NRR 7 KATIE WAGNER, NRR 8 KALENE WALKER, Public Participant 9 JIM XU, RES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 C O N T E N T S 2 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 10 CFR Part 53 - Requirements for Operations 4 Draft Proposed Language for Staffing, Role of 5 STA, and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6 10 CFR Part 53 - Frameworks A and B 7 Draft Proposed Language Addressing Other ACRS 8 Comments and Major Industry Comments . . 124 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 8:30 a.m.
3 CHAIR PETTI: Good morning, everyone.
4 Welcome back to Day Two of our discussions on Part 53.
5 For the benefit of the court reporter I'll 6 just go through who I see online, we have Member 7 Brown, Consultant Bley, Member Halnon, Member March-8 Leuba, Member Rempe, Member Sunseri, Member Ballinger, 9 Consultant Schultz, Member Dimitrijevic, and Member 10 Bier. So we have everybody we had yesterday.
11 With that I'll just turn it over to the 12 staff to continue following the agenda.
13 MR. GREEN: Hi, good morning. This is 14 Brian Green. I think we still have one member who's 15 still trying to get into the meeting, so let me just 16 confirm, Maurin, have you made it in yet? This she 17 was having trouble with one of the links --
18 (Simultaneous speaking.)
19 MR. SCHEETZ: No, I'm in. I think Theresa 20 was just joining, I think we got Theresa in now, too, 21 so we're good.
22 MR. GREEN: Okay, great, we'll get 23 started.
24 Thank you. My name's Brian Green, I'm the 25 Human Factors Team Lead for NRR. I worked -- previous NEAL 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 to joining the NRC 12 years ago I got my PhD in 2 industrial engineering and human factors at the 3 University of Buffalo, where I studied trust of 4 automation and different human factors aspects related 5 to the aviation industry.
6 Today I'm going to be bringing the Human 7 Factors team to discuss some of the aspects of Part 8 53, about how operator licensing and human factors 9 will be treated under there, as well as the key 10 guidance that we have.
11 Just like to start with a few opening 12 remarks and then I'll go through an agenda, and 13 introduce the rest of the team.
14 Throughout the history of nuclear power 15 the nuclear power plant operator has been considered, 16 often assumed, and sometimes taken for granted as a 17 last line of defense. When active systems like pumps 18 fail, it's expected that the operators will recognize 19 the condition and take appropriate actions to ensure 20 safety.
21 The NRC has taken an active role in 22 ensuring that operators are capable of completing such 23 actions by verifying their qualifications through 24 operator licensing program, and ensuring the operators 25 have the correct displays, controls, alarms 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
7 1 tools necessary to complete important tasks, by 2 conducting human factors license reviews.
3 It is true that we have always relied on 4 the operator as the last line of defense, however it 5 may not always have to be that way. Small source 6 terms, inherent safety features and other design 7 features have already decreased the role that the 8 operator plays in ensuring safety. This trend is 9 likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
10 Recently NEIMA challenged the to create a 11 regulation that is technology-inclusive, risk-12 informed, and performance based. Therefore, the staff 13 drafted Part 53 which proposes certain regulations 14 that allow for more flexibility of operation, 15 training, and human system interface design for 16 facilities that have a strong safety case that 17 operator action is in fact not necessary to ensure 18 safety.
19 For designs that continue to rely on 20 operator actions to safely manage emergencies under 21 abnormal events, the requirements are scaled 22 appropriately.
23 Skeptics of what we proposed in the draft 24 rule language may believe that it is appropriate to 25 maintain the high standards currently used 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
8 1 operator licensing and human factors design.
2 Maintaining these high standards would certainly help 3 ensure safety, we know this because the existing rules 4 have been in place for decades and they've served us 5 well in that time.
6 However, maintaining these high standards 7 comes with a significant financial cost. It is 8 expensive for utilities to develop and maintain 9 operator licensing programs under Part 55, and it is 10 expensive to implement a human factors design process 11 like the one described in NUREG-0711 which is 12 currently used with Part 50 and Part 52 licensees.
13 While these costs are justified with large 14 facilities, they may be impediments to innovation for 15 smaller designs. In some cases these costs may not be 16 necessary or justified to provide a reasonable 17 assurance of safety, especially for the smaller 18 designs. Therefore, the staff proposed a series of 19 gatekeeping elements in the draft rule to help ensure 20 that these designs have robust inherent designs with 21 demonstrated lower consequences are not subject to 22 overly burdensome regulatory requirements.
23 Previously the human factors and operator 24 licensing staff presented draft rule language to this 25 committee, the industry, and to the public on numerous NEAL 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 occasions. The rulemaking language is written at a 2 high level and many of the details that the staff had 3 considered were not included in that language, because 4 it was reserved for key support-guidance documents 5 where this level of information is more generally 6 preferred.
7 On September 30 the staff released the 8 first draft of several key guidance documents 9 associated with the human factor and operator 10 licensing programs.
11 The staff and I believe that this 12 guidance, when paired with the draft rule language, 13 will provide a flexible framework that is consistent 14 with the congressional mandate described in NEIMA to 15 be risk-informed, performance-based, and technology 16 inclusive. While still relying, to the degree 17 necessary, on various regulatory mechanisms, like 18 human factors licensing design reviews, operator 19 licensing principles that are scaled to appropriate 20 levels, based on risk associated with the specific 21 design characteristics.
22 The staff welcomes any feedback that this 23 committee provides that will help ensure that we meet 24 the mandates in NEIMA, while still providing a 25 reasonable assurance of safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 And I'd like to quickly run through our 2 agenda and introduce the team. Next slide, please.
3 So we've just gone through our 4 introduction here, we're going to go through the 5 updates to Subpart F and P since the second iteration.
6 And then we're going to go through a quick summary --
7 well, I guess how quick it will be, I think we've got 8 four hours to go through it -- but we are going to go 9 through overviews of several ISG documents for 10 operator licensing program reviews, staffing plan 11 reviews, and a scalable human factors engineering 12 review plan. And of course, we'll have plenty of time 13 for questions. Next slide, please.
14 I'd like to thank many of the staff that 15 are here to support us today, including Theresa 16 Buchanan who will be speaking, Dr. Dave Desaulniers, 17 Dr. Niav Hughes Green, Dr. Stephanie Morrow, Lauren 18 Nist our Branch Chief, Maurin Scheetz, and Jesse 19 Seymour. All of which have played a key role in 20 developing the rule -- the draft guidance that you'll 21 be discussing, and there have been several others who 22 have contributed to this effort as well.
23 Now I'd like to turn the presentation over 24 to Jesse Seymour. Jessie?
25 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, thank you, Brian, 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
11 1 appreciate it.
2 So, my name is Jesse Seymour and I am an 3 operator licensing examiner and human factors 4 technical reviewer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 5 Regulation.
6 And I will be discussing several items 7 before we get into this morning's detailed discussion 8 of our key guidance documents that cover the areas of 9 the operator licensing program, staffing plan, and 10 human factors engineering reviews under Part 53.
11 Specifically I'll be highlighting certain 12 changes that have been made to the preliminary Part 53 13 rule language since the last presentation that we made 14 to this committee, some of which were in direct 15 response to points raised by the committee members.
16 I'll also be discussing the present status 17 of our approach within the areas of engineering 18 expertise and generally licensed reactor operators, as 19 well.
20 Lastly, I'll also discuss the related 21 portion of the staff's latest letter response to the 22 committee and how these considerations informed our 23 portion of that response.
24 To begin with, a significant change since 25 our last presentation -- actually, I'm sorry, can 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
12 1 move on to the next time, please? I just realized the 2 slides had advanced, thank you.
3 To begin with, a significant change since 4 our last presentation is that all of the operations 5 phase requirements from human factors engineering, 6 staffing, operator licensing, and training have now 7 been consolidated under Subpart F.
8 For its part, Subpart P now just contains 9 a single pointer that is located at 53.4220 to 10 indicate the dual applicability of Subpart F's single 11 set of requirements for these areas within both 12 frameworks.
13 This approach was used in conjunction with 14 some limited modification to Subpart F's wording to 15 allow for those requirements to apply to both 16 frameworks, A and B. In this way we've been able to 17 substantially reduce the overall quantity of rule 18 language needed to cover the full scope of Part 53's 19 requirements for operations.
20 Additionally, in response to a request 21 from stakeholders to provide a specific name for the 22 class facilities that would utilize generally licensed 23 reactor operators, we've defined the class of reactors 24 meeting those technical requirements under the new 25 term of self-reliant mitigation facilities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 This term reflects that a primary 2 characteristic of these facilities is that they are 3 not dependent on operator interaction in the 4 mitigation of events, and as a result can be viewed as 5 relying upon the characteristics of their own design 6 in that regard.
7 Another area where we have sought to 8 simplify our requirements has also been within the 9 area of programmatic requirements for procedure 10 management.
11 Based upon a careful review of other 12 related requirements within Part 53, we determined 13 that our separate requirement located under 53.730(e) 14 was duplicative and could be consolidated without 15 leaving any gaps in the regulatory treatment of these 16 programs.
17 With regards to facility staffing plan 18 requirements of 53.730(f), we modified the nature of 19 the description provided for non-operations personnel 20 such that greater emphasis will now be placed on 21 describing how support functions like maintenance, 22 fire protection and radiation protection will be 23 accounted for under the proposed staffing plan.
24 Instead of the focus being on defining the numbers of 25 staff within various support roles.
NEAL 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 intent here is to be able to gain the 2 same insights about what support is provided to 3 operators, as well as what additional responsibilities 4 might compound the operator's workload, without 5 necessarily locking a future licensee into unwarranted 6 license amendments to modify the number of 7 individuals, like maintenance staff, later on once the 8 staffing plan has undergone its initial approval.
9 Separate from these areas, we've updated 10 our requirements for operator licensing examination 11 programs to explicitly require that such programs 12 provide for exams to possess the fundamental testing 13 attributes of being both, valid and reliable. This 14 update is interrelated with the operator licensing 15 program guidance that will be discussed in the next 16 portion of the presentation.
17 And these concepts of validity and 18 reliability in exams factor centrally into that 19 approach.
20 A further enhancement to the rule language 21 within the area of operator licensing is that remedial 22 training is now explicitly mandated for operators who 23 do not pass their periodic continuing training 24 examinations.
25 Lastly, within the context of the training NEAL 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 and examination programs for licensed operators, a 2 change has been made such that commission approval is 3 no longer required for simulation facilities.
4 Instead, an approach comparable to that currently 5 utilized for plant reference simulators would be 6 utilized exclusively instead. Under which the 7 suitability of stimulation facilities would be 8 determined the via inspection by the staff.
9 It is anticipated that this will allow for 10 a more efficient process for new simulation facilities 11 being placed into service. Next slide, please.
12 MR. BLEY: Jesse, this is Dennis Bley.
13 Are you going to talk more about that last bullet?
14 MR. SEYMOUR: I don't have another, you 15 know, slide that comes back around to it. So we can 16 certainly talk more about it now.
17 MR. BLEY: Yeah, if you could go over it 18 again I'd appreciate it, and I guess I'm not 19 completely familiar with the commission approval 20 process for current large reactors. Say a little 21 more about this if you can, explain it.
22 MR. SEYMOUR: Sure, I'll start out and, 23 you know, Maurin, you know, if you have insights as 24 well, too, that you'd like to share please, you know, 25 feel free to add on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 But currently, under, you know, the 2 existing simulator regulations, you know, so again 3 55.46, there are two tracks by which you can get a 4 simulator essentially, you know, able to be used, you 5 know, from a regulatory standpoint.
6 And one is to use a plant reference 7 simulator and the other is commission approval, right?
8 Now, commission approval, you know, is a little bit 9 different in that it leaves alternatives to the use of 10 a full-scope plant reference simulator. So, again, it 11 is something that could be used to address a wider 12 variety of approaches.
13 However, as we went back and we looked 14 through this approach what we found was that we could 15 leverage the same, you know, type of approach that's 16 currently used to review plant reference simulators, 17 and consider a wider variety of technologies without 18 necessarily having to go through that, you know, 19 administrative step of commission approval.
20 So, again, you know, the simplification 21 here is that, under a plant reference simulator 22 approach, we wouldn't be going through and doing, you 23 know, a review and approval, you know, of the 24 simulator in a way that -- actually, let me re-phrase 25 that. We wouldn't be going through and, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 doing this, you know, commission approval process in 2 necessarily the same structured way.
3 What it would do is let us come in and, 4 using an inspection procedure, inspect the facility 5 that was intended to be used and then go ahead and, 6 you know, allow it to be used within that context.
7 So, again, it's a mechanism -- and by that 8 I mean, commission approval is a mechanism that's 9 really there to allow for alternatives, you know, to 10 a full-scope plant reference simulator. And, really, 11 what we would be doing is taking that plant referenced 12 type of structured approach and just allowing it to be 13 used for a wider variety of simulation facilities.
14 Maurin, did you have anything that you 15 felt that you could, you know, add onto that?
16 MR. SCHEETZ: I actually don't, Jesse.
17 And I thought Theresa covered this a little bit in her 18 ISG, I wasn't sure.
19 MS. BUCHANAN: I think there is a slide 20 related to that section, there's a section on 21 simulators in the operator licensing ISG, Jesse.
22 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay. Yeah, so we will 23 circle around a little bit.
24 MR. BLEY: That helps me a bit, thank you.
25 MEMBER BIER: Another interruption, 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
18 1 is Vicki Bier. I don't want to get us too off track 2 before getting into the detailed discussions, 3 obviously, but I have a little bit of concern with 4 some of the language. Both, with what you said about 5 self-reliant mitigation facilities and with Brian's 6 comment that we are no longer relying on humans as the 7 last line of defense.
8 And, you know, I understand that, yes, 9 there may be circumstances with the safety case 10 doesn't depend on human involvement and where, for 11 whatever reason, inherently safe features, or a small 12 source term, or whatever we feel comfortable going 13 with, a lesser level of requirements for human 14 operators.
15 But I think the language that says that we 16 don't need to rely on humans maybe sets a little bit 17 of a wrong expectation, because in a number of these 18 cases I think the technology, whether the reactor 19 design or the software design -- if it's an automated 20 safety actions -- is not necessarily going to be 21 mature at the beginning of licensing.
22 And, you know, I was just talking about 23 this with a colleague of mine about, you know, what is 24 and isn't mature in automation. And you can think of 25 a car as being automation but it's at a mature level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 where I can set out driving from, you know, D.C. to 2 California and I don't need to bring a mechanic or, 3 you know, plan for stops along the way for upgrades or 4 whatever.
5 But that's because we have, you know, a 6 century of design experience and improvement, and, you 7 know, if you think about even just, for example, the 8 Browns Ferry fire, you know, we had learning along the 9 way of what was needed to achieve safety for our 10 current fleet.
11 And so, it's one thing I think to say that 12 we don't anticipate that human involvement would be 13 needed, but I think it's still helpful to keep a 14 mindset that, even though we aren't anticipating that 15 human role, humans may still be the last line of 16 defense. Even, for example, if it is not an operator 17 based at the site, but somebody brought in, you know, 18 in an unanticipated type of emergency.
19 So there's just that caution from my side 20 about let's not put too many assumptions in the 21 language. It's one thing to say that, you know, we 22 think we can have a lesser reliance on humans, but not 23 think that humans are out of the loop. Because there 24 could still be unanticipated occurrences where we turn 25 out to need humans, even though we didn't think 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
20 1 would.
2 So that's my comment.
3 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charles Brown --
4 (Simultaneous speaking.)
5 MR. GREEN: Hi, Vicki --
6 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charles Brown. I 7 wanted to echo Vicki's thoughts, particularly 8 discounting the operators specifically but also the 9 thought process that maintaining the high standards --
10 which was stated in the introductory comments --
11 maintaining the high standards of the past was kind of 12 counterproductive to where we were going.
13 That's the way I read the comment, 14 counterproductive to where we're going in the future 15 with this rule. So that's somewhere disturbing to me, 16 to cut the operators out and/or either to not cut them 17 out, but then think they don't need to be as well 18 trained. I just have a psychological problem with 19 that, that's my thought process.
20 MR. GREEN: This is Brian Green, I'll 21 respond to both of those together.
22 We are not making any assumptions that the 23 operator will be cut out, we understand that that is 24 a desired place for the industry to go and we're 25 attempting to be flexible, and create a rule that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 flexible that should somebody be able to propose a 2 design that relied very little on a human, that we 3 could scale the oversight to that particular facility 4 appropriately.
5 Now, whether anybody or not can ever get 6 there and prove that to us, that remains to be seen.
7 But, I don't want to send the message that we're 8 assuming that that's the way things are going to go, 9 we're just planning for the flexibility to have a rule 10 that adjusts the regulatory oversight accordingly to 11 what the facility design needs.
12 And Vicki, I agree with your statement 13 that, you know, when an applicant comes in some of the 14 design is still unclear. So, you know, when we get 15 into the human factors, the scalable human factors, we 16 have designed a process where we will, you know, 17 consider what we know throughout the pre-application 18 process and adjust that as we go as we learn more 19 about the design.
20 But we are sensitive to that fact that, 21 you know, the design on day-one is not necessarily the 22 same as it's going to be by the end of the licensing 23 process.
24 MEMBER BROWN: At some point you have to 25 make a thought that -- it's still walking past me 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
22 1 think that, yeah, that's where industry wants to go, 2 where they can totally divorce a site and you're just 3 giving them the flexibility to justify that.
4 At some point I just think the NRC should 5 be putting their foot down and say, no, we will have 6 operators regardless. I'll quit with that.
7 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
8 I'm going to, I guess, extend a little bit of what 9 Vicki was saying.
10 I'm assuming that you're connected with 11 both, the NASA people and actually the state of the 12 art of the aircraft industry, they don't use the term 13 self-reliant mitigation but that's what it is.
14 And what they have is kind of a 15 supervisory program which, for lack of a better word 16 -- I'll use a buzzword, I'll call it a digital twin, 17 but maybe not -- where, at least in the NASA case, 18 while there's obviously no operator if the device is 19 200 million miles away from the earth, but they have 20 rules by which they calculate what they call time to 21 critical event in the case of a satellite.
22 And in the case of an aircraft, like the 23 777 or the even newer ones, they have the same kind of 24 thing which these planes will fly themselves from 25 take-off to landing with no operator intervention, NEAL 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 except to change the coffee cup.
2 But if something is going wrong the system 3 kind of detects it and then lets somebody know that 4 you're getting into a region of the operating envelope 5 that's not quite what it should be, and that some kind 6 of operator -- whether it's 200 million miles away or 7 in the pilot seat -- has to take some action.
8 So I'm assuming you're cognizant of that 9 stuff?
10 MEMBER BROWN: Also look at how well that 11 philosophy worked with the Boeing issues, they locked 12 the pilot out, he couldn't recover --
13 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well --
14 MEMBER BROWN: Because the software wasn't 15 good enough.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, but the prime 17 directive here is you can't fix stupid.
18 MEMBER BROWN: Well are we going down that 19 path or not?
20 (Laughter.)
21 MEMBER BROWN: I'm just disturbed by 22 thinking we're going to allow anybody to think we're 23 going to allow these reactors to operate unattended, 24 period.
25 MR. SEYMOUR: So if I could speak to 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
24 1 points -- and actually, if we could just advance the 2 slide, see the next slide number 107, it'll, you know, 3 provide some additional information that we're get 4 into it.
5 Because I kind of want to, you know, tie 6 in some of this information to speak to those points.
7 And what I think is essential to realize here is that, 8 there's a few underlying principles that we worked off 9 of.
10 One is that there's no circumstance where 11 we completely remove a human being from, you know, 12 from involvement with a plant, right, from an 13 operation standpoint, it doesn't exist within our 14 framework here, right?
15 The other thing that I just want to point 16 out is that there's extensive gradations that go on 17 here, and there's still a floor, right, so even though 18 we may scale down requirements, right, there's still 19 a prescriptive floor that's set, you know, that 20 establishes a level of capability and instrumentation 21 that we just don't go below, right?
22 So, again, you know, on this slide here 23 what we begin to talk about are the criteria that 24 screen which plants can have the generally licensed 25 reactor operator versus, you know, plants that require NEAL 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 the traditional ROs and SROs.
2 And in conducting that evaluation, you 3 know, again there's a number of factors that we look 4 at but really what we're doing is we're trying to say, 5 is there a credible context where, you know, the 6 operator is going to have to interact with that 7 facility in order to assure, you know, an acceptable 8 safety outcome.
9 And, if that's the case, what we do is we 10 keep things in the regime of having specifically 11 licensed SROs and ROs, right, which, you know, as the 12 NRC we come in, we independently evaluate, you know, 13 to assess the competence and so forth to provide that 14 independent check.
15 However, even when the plants do cross 16 that threshold and, you know, qualify for the 17 generally licensed reactor operators, that's where 18 they end up, they don't go to a state of having no 19 people, right?
20 So I'll give an example, for the SRO and 21 RO plants, right? Again, you know, this threshold, 22 right, the self-reliant mitigation facility 23 technological threshold applies to more than just the 24 operation staffing right? It's crosscutting in that 25 influences how we consider the staffing of a facility NEAL 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 and the human factors engineering requirements as 2 well.
3 So for a facility that has this, you know, 4 this, you know, kind of foreseen credible, you know, 5 role of the operator in assuring, you know, the safety 6 performance of the facility, we're going to require 7 that the state of the art in human factors engineering 8 be required in all contexts where the operator is 9 going to be in a position to have to fulfill safety 10 functions.
11 For the plants that meet that threshold to 12 be a self-reliant mitigation facility, what we do is 13 we still establish that there's a minimum suite of 14 indications and capabilities that the operator has to 15 have. And those indications are derived from the post 16 TMI, you know, HSI design requirements.
17 So again, you know, indications that would 18 be indicative of core damage states, radiological 19 release, and so there's a whole suite of those. So 20 that's required whether or not that plant, you know, 21 qualifies for that treatment.
22 Additionally we mandate from a staffing 23 perspective, that the generally licensed reactor 24 operator, even though we don't require the 25 performance-based testing to show how many of them NEAL 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 need to be there, we establish a prescriptive floor 2 that there must be a provision for continuous 3 monitoring of the fueled reactors, and a continuity of 4 responsibility for them across the life of a facility.
5 So what that equates to is that at any 6 given point in time there has to be someone with, you 7 know, some oversight of that facility. So again, you 8 know, we have minimum indications, we have, you know, 9 that minimum, you know, staffing floor that we put 10 there.
11 And an additional factor that I think it's 12 very important to point out is that we also mandate 13 that the generally licensed reactor operator, you 14 know, has a dedicated set of capabilities that they 15 have to have.
16 And this is something that, even if the 17 human factors engineering requirements were to scale 18 down to close to zero for these facilities -- because 19 there's no human role in the safety functions -- these 20 operators, right, we still mandate for these self-21 reliant mitigation facilities that the generally 22 licensed reactor operators have to have the capability 23 to shut down the reactor from their location.
24 To, you know, essentially be able to 25 monitor those reactor parameters and those other items NEAL 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 that I described before, you know, indications of core 2 damage state, you know, so on and so forth. They have 3 to have the capability to implement notifications that 4 may be required, again, if they have emergency plan 5 responsibilities.
6 And also, perhaps as importantly, they 7 have to have the capability of dispatching operations 8 and maintenance personnel to that facility. So again, 9 what we do is we establish a floor, you know, below 10 which no more, you know, gradations and capabilities 11 occur.
12 Now, what about the capabilities of the 13 operator themselves, right? And again, we'll get into 14 this when Theresa goes through the operator licensing, 15 you know, process. But what we'll see is that, you 16 know, nearly identical, you know, testing and 17 evaluation, you know, measures are established under 18 the guidance for what we would look for in SRO and RO, 19 you know, examination programs, as well as for the 20 GLRO programs.
21 A key difference is the regulatory 22 footprint that we have there, so in both cases we're 23 reviewing them against essentially the same standards, 24 it just really comes down to, are we going out there 25 and administering, you know, those examinations. 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
29 1 then there's also, you know, the general licensing 2 aspect of it.
3 So again, there would be the same type of 4 rigor expected in going through, you know, a task 5 analysis that looks at what the required, you know, 6 job responsibilities are for those generally licensed 7 reactor operators, and testing them to make sure that 8 they do have that confidence. And then, you know, for 9 the ongoing re-qualification supplement assessments 10 and so forth to make sure that they maintain that, as 11 well as proficiency.
12 So again, what I want to do is really just 13 dispel this notion that we ever go to a state of 14 having zero people in the loop.
15 MEMBER BIER: So this is Vicki Bier again.
16 I understand that and I understand that, yes, there 17 may be reasons to have fewer people in the loop, or 18 less requirements on the people who are in the loop.
19 But I'm still just concerned about the 20 language setting a wrong expectation, because your 21 description that a licensee could come in and persuade 22 you that their design is sufficient, that they can be 23 considered self-reliant. You may nonetheless find 24 sometime during the life of the facility that, oops, 25 they weren't actually self-reliant and there was 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 unforeseen circumstance.
2 So I just feel like the language kind of 3 sets a little bit too high an expectation -- and I 4 don't have new language to propose but something that 5 is, you know, more like anticipated self-reliant, or 6 whatever. But says, hey, we may learn as we go along, 7 so.
8 MR. SEYMOUR: That's a fine point, too, 9 that -- this has come up in one of our earlier 10 discussions as well. And I just want to kind of weave 11 Bill Reckley in the discussion as well in case he has 12 anything to add, but one thing that we talked about in 13 the past with us is that the NRC retains a very broad 14 authority to modify, suspend licenses, right, issue 15 orders if we find that there is a condition that is 16 going to be unacceptable from a public health and 17 safety standpoint, right?
18 So we do have regulatory mechanisms that 19 we can go through to take action and require. And 20 again that's a circumstance where backfit does not 21 apply, right? So if we need to order that a licensee 22 take a certain action and modify that license or 23 whatnot, because there is some unacceptable issue that 24 hasn't revealed itself and that puts the public health 25 and safety into an unacceptable state, then we do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 retain that authority to do so.
2 So something I think is important to keep 3 in mind though is that would that type of a revelation 4 -- once we've licensed the facility, would that 5 necessarily automatically equate to needing to adjust 6 the staffing such as for example taking a general 7 licensed reactor operator plant and shifting it to 8 being a SRO/RO plant be in order or something like 9 that?
10 I think what we probably would have to 11 consider is that the licensee; and by that I mean the 12 facility licensee, would have to determine whether or 13 not they wanted to try to address whatever the 14 underlying issue was via an engineering means or via 15 a staffing means.
16 So again, if the issue is that there is 17 some inherent or passive safety characteristic or 18 feature that we had predicated -- our designation of 19 this facility is being self-reliant -- on and later on 20 we find out that there's some performance issue, 21 there's something that appears in the data and we find 22 out that we can't make that assertion anymore, then I 23 think the logical next step in that process would be 24 in the licensee going to remedy that by adding a new 25 safety feature to address that or are they going 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
32 1 leave it relegated to something that requires human 2 action to assure the safety performance of the 3 facility? And in that case the (audio interference) 4 treatment.
5 So again, I think that's an important 6 point to bring up, just that the regulatory and legal 7 mechanisms are there, right, to take those actions to 8 protect the public health and safety on our part as 9 the regulator. And also that there's more than one 10 possible outcome for how a facility licensee might 11 choose to address that just based on the nature of the 12 assessment that's done to determine whether a facility 13 is self-reliant or not, right?
14 Because inherently what you're getting, 15 and pardon the pun there, but what you're getting down 16 to at a fundamental level is this use of safety 17 features that are generally going to be inherent or 18 passive, perhaps under certain concepts even active, 19 but again there's something that you determine about 20 their performance that leads to questioning the 21 designation of that facility. So again, there's an 22 avenue where potentially the fix to that is 23 engineering instead.
24 But, yes, I just wanted to see if Bill 25 Reckley had anything that you wanted to add on 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
33 1 because I know we've had some good discussions in the 2 past.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Before Bill says anything, 4 could I ask a question?
5 One of your sentences early in your 6 discussion in response to Vicki relative to, quote, a 7 plant being self-reliant. And then you said 8 something; and I'm hoping I'm saying this correctly, 9 was that the NRC's thought process would be that no 10 matter where the operator is he would be able to 11 intervene, which gave the impression that the operator 12 could be 500 miles away, a remote operator that's 13 trained to take the action. That implies then that 14 you have some very significant method of communicating 15 and trying to take action that is not a manual backup 16 to significant automated-type systems. And that's 17 very hard to do from a distance outside the plant in 18 some other city.
19 I am not sure that -- that idea of no 20 matter where the operator is he'll be able to take 21 manual action infers that your automated systems are 22 accessible via the internet or some wireless means 23 such that they could then actuate the stuff, the 24 equipment, which is also software-based, which may be 25 malfunctioning. That just seems to me those doors NEAL 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 being half open just leads to a lot of difficulties.
2 Just throwing that in.
3 You got to be careful when you're thinking 4 about this kind of stuff. There are a lot of 5 ramifications. Operators are important. They're 6 probably the most important thing we have in the plant 7 and on-site with a manual backup that overrides or 8 that can bypass the software-based or automated 9 systems is pretty critical whether you've got a self-10 shutting-down plan or, quote, a safe plant, they've 11 all got uranium in them. They've all got a propensity 12 to do something we don't expect. So maybe I'll give 13 up after this.
14 MR. SEYMOUR: No, those are absolutely all 15 legitimate concerns that weighed heavily in our 16 thinking. And something else -- just like I wanted to 17 emphasize the point that we never truly take the human 18 out of the loop in this paradigm, something else I 19 want to point out is that we -- and again, by that I 20 mean operator licensing and human factors engineering, 21 and basically the team that worked on this particular 22 set of requirements -- we are not the cybersecurity 23 folks, right? So again, what we don't do is -- within 24 the course of our language here is we don't establish 25 any requirements that would govern the cybersecurity NEAL 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 implications or so forth, right? That's outside of 2 our wheelhouse. And that would be a matter that we'd 3 have to have other folks speak to.
4 When I discussed the language in question, 5 right --
6 MEMBER BROWN: I wasn't dealing with 7 cybersecurity. I was just talking about manual 8 backups to automated systems that are failing that 9 we've been relying on with operators hundreds of miles 10 away, not cybersecurity issues. Don't conflate and 11 mix the two.
12 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Those are two different 14 issues.
15 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, I appreciate that.
16 MEMBER BROWN: That was not relevant to 17 this particular discussion. That's my only point.
18 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes. And so what we do is 19 we say that the general licensed reactor operator has 20 to be able to shut down the reactor from their 21 location, right? And again, we leave that where it 22 is. So within a traditional framework that means a 23 location that's somewhere co-located with that 24 reactor, right? So again, we leave our language where 25 it is, but we don't weigh in on the broader NEAL 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 ramifications of remote operations.
2 But what I would say is there's also 3 another layer to that language as well, too. And what 4 we require is that the operator has to have the 5 ability to dispatch maintenance and operations 6 personnel as well, right? So a general licensed 7 reactor operator, besides have the capability to shut 8 the reactor down, also has to have that ability to 9 dispatch maintenance and operations personnel. And 10 part of our reasoning, part of our rationale in 11 establishing that requirement was to leave the door 12 open for those types of local manual actions should 13 they be require.
14 Again, what we see within the legacy fleet 15 that's out there is that you'll have reactor operators 16 and senior reactor operators located in a control 17 room. And when there are circumstances that require 18 local manual actions out in the plant, generally --
19 and there are times where the licensed operators would 20 actually go do it themselves such as a control room 21 evacuation. But generally speaking what they're doing 22 is they are directing non-licensed equipment operators 23 to go out there and perform certain field actions.
24 So our rationale in including that 25 requirement was to achieve a similar type 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
37 1 functionality. Again, for the sake of that self-2 reliant mitigation facility technological designation 3 we don't want those types of things to have to be 4 credited to meet the analytic requirements. However, 5 that being said, from a prudent standpoint we still 6 want that capability to be there for those reasons 7 that you discussed. You get out in that un-analyzed, 8 beyond-design-basis-type of space into some situation 9 that was never envisioned.
10 And just from the standpoint of prudence 11 it's wise to still have that trained and qualified 12 operator who has the capability to shut the reactor 13 down and also to get individuals out into the field to 14 take local backup actions that may be needed. But 15 again, the difference is with those types of 16 facilities we don't want that to be credited in 17 meeting the analysis.
18 CHAIR PETTI: I see lots of hands.
19 Dennis, why don't you go, and then Greg?
20 MR. BLEY: Okay. Yes, I'm kind of coming 21 back to where Vicki was talking with you earlier, and 22 it's a mix of what's actually in the rule language.
23 And the way Brian introduced this in some of your 24 language leaves a little area of discomfort. Now it 25 might well be that we need a different kind of quality NEAL 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 depth for these general licensed operators and 2 maybe it's not the hands-on kid of activities we've 3 seen the past. Words that worry me are credible and 4 self-reliant, those kind of things.
5 We always get surprised by something we 6 though was incredible somewhere along the line, and an 7 operator who understands how this system works and how 8 it might fail perhaps beyond those things we call 9 credible is going to be important. Your idea of 10 having a capability floor for the operators makes 11 sense to me and I think that's the way the rule 12 language is pushing.
13 The thing Ron talked about; and I don't 14 think you gave him an answer back, or maybe you did, 15 a computer system that monitors the operation of the 16 facility. And not so much operates it, but alerts 17 someone when the machine isn't responding the way the 18 computer system was trained to expect to respond is 19 really a very useful idea and seems to me it might be 20 very important to include.
21 I think all of us are a little worried 22 about designers' and perhaps regulators' hubris and 23 naivete on a new machine that's better than the others 24 because we solved problems, but until we get a pretty 25 broad base of experience we ought not have as 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
39 1 confidence as we do in things we've observed for many 2 years.
3 MEMBER BALLINGER: It may be that every 4 one of us has sworn up and down that one of our 5 designs or experiments are perfect only to find out 6 that we've been hoisted by our own petard.
7 MR. BLEY: It's happened to all of us I 8 think. That's all I want to say.
9 MR. SEYMOUR: So, if I could speak to 10 that. What I want to point out is where some of the 11 mechanisms that we have built in tend to address those 12 interfaces irrespective of how involved the automation 13 might be.
14 And so what I want to begin with is let's 15 start with a plant that doesn't meet the self-reliant 16 mitigation facility criteria, right? So a plant that 17 has our traditional SRO and RO staffing. What they're 18 going to be required to do is they're going to be 19 required to apply the state-of-the-art in human 20 factors engineering to essentially any place where 21 they're going to have those interactions for 22 fulfillment of safety functions.
23 So again, if you're talking about 24 automation that is involved in those plant safety 25 functions being fulfilled; and by that we're talking NEAL 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 about generally things like reactivity control, heat 2 removal, control of radioactive releases via 3 containment or functional containment, then what we're 4 going to expect is that state-of-the-art human factors 5 engineering be applied.
6 And traditionally that's involved 7 something that's akin to NUREG-0711-type of process 8 where a designer goes through this essentially systems 9 engineering process that's been adapted to human 10 factors engineering. Again 12 steps from the 11 operating experience all the way through task analysis 12 continuing on into design of the HSI, verification and 13 validation and graded system validation, resolving 14 discrepancies and so forth, and then ongoing 15 performance monitoring.
16 So again, we don't intend to step away 17 from that type of requirement.
18 And again, if you look at how does that --
19 how would that get involved with a heavily-automated 20 facility, well again those are the types of things 21 that are going to integrate into the task analysis, 22 right, into the training and procedures aspects of 23 that process. There are things that have to be vetted 24 out in the integrated system validation. And also as 25 you move through that process what's going to come out NEAL 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 of that as well, too, is the influence on staffing.
2 So again, staffing -- and again, Maurin 3 will talk about this later, but when we get into how 4 the staffing plan is reviewed for those types of 5 facilities, what we would find is that again it 6 doesn't mirror all the steps of that human factors 7 engineering process that I've described, but it 8 borrows fairly heavily from that. And what it does is 9 it applies this performance-based approach to 10 essentially confirm that the number of operators via 11 performance-based testing is going to be sufficient to 12 fulfill what's needed for safety.
13 And what we've seen historically when that 14 type of a process has been applied is that operators 15 are put into challenging high workload situations with 16 failures of the automation and so forth to make sure 17 that that staffing complements can use the procedures, 18 the training, and the human system interfaces that are 19 provided in the presence of those types of failures, 20 right, under high-workload conditions and still 21 mitigate that that's successful and so forth.
22 So again, on that side of things we've got 23 mechanisms that are going to cover a range of 24 automation going from things that are very manual-25 intensive all the way up through the hypothetical NEAL 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 almost fully autonomous facility.
2 When we're talking about plants that have 3 the generally licensed reactor operators, again the 4 threshold to get into that regime was that even down 5 to the level of defense-in-depth, we went through and 6 we said that there isn't a human role to meet that 7 analytical requirement. So at that point what we do 8 is again we set that floor for capabilities. And 9 again, we discussed what that looks like and so forth, 10 but again the difference is is that by virtue of those 11 analyses what we've done is we've said that we 12 credibly don't think that that human role is there.
13 And what we do is we instead kind of fall 14 back on that minimum capability floor such that there 15 still be someone that's there in the loop, someone 16 with that minimum suite of indications, like 17 capabilities and so forth. We just don't require the 18 performance-based testing to necessarily go through 19 and vet that out. And again, that's predicated on 20 those very rigorous analytic requirements being met.
21 And that's something that I'll be speaking to a little 22 bit more on this slide as well.
23 MEMBER HALNON: Jesse, it's Greg Halnon.
24 This discussion has been very, very helpful, but 25 there's a couple of things: One is that as you hear NEAL 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 the primary concern we're dealing with now is the role 2 and qualifications of an operator. And you go often 3 go back to the administration of the licensing process 4 or licensing status to answer that. And I think that 5 we need to separate the two issues.
6 There is a level of automation that may 7 decrease the requirements for operators, and I don't 8 think you've heard -- I haven't see any concern with 9 the K&As and other things that we will use to qualify 10 the operators. I have a couple things about the 11 administration of the licensing process that we'll 12 probably get into, but the key thing is is that we are 13 talking about another class of operators that we're 14 perceiving to me less qualified or less rigorously 15 trained that the SRO and RO. I don't think that's the 16 case. I think there will be fully-qualified operators 17 for what they need to do.
18 However, we're doing this because -- and 19 I think it was talked about by Brian as well, that 20 it's going to reduce the cost and increase 21 flexibility. I haven't seen a study or any kind of 22 analysis that shows what the cost savings would be 23 versus the potential I guess lack of increase in 24 safety. I don't want to say -- because I think the 25 words were that we didn't need as much training.
NEAL 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 But is there a study out there that -- I 2 mean, this is a good conversation and a lot of gut 3 feels and other things, but is there a study that 4 actually quantifies all these discussions that we're 5 having that shows that everything we're going through 6 to get a GLRO is worth it from the standpoint of a 7 cost savings?
8 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes. So there's a 9 regulatory analysis that we've been working through, 10 or have actually done some tabulation of that. And 11 when I get done here momentarily I'll see if Aaron 12 Sanders is willing to speak to that a little bit.
13 So one thing that we've done is we've gone 14 through and we have studied for plants that would have 15 SROs and ROs that would come in under this process and 16 just encounter the new flexibilities and so forth that 17 are involved here. What it projected, cost savings 18 over the course of -- a 60-year facility life would be 19 again 40 years plus a license extension.
20 And we've also gone through that 21 experiment to -- kind of thinking through for the 22 general licensed reactor operator facilities what that 23 type savings would amount to over the course of 24 facility life as well.
25 And again, I'll see if Aaron can speak 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
45 1 some of the data that turned up in that a little bit 2 more. And again, Theresa Buchanan and I worked with 3 him fairly extensively on that.
4 What I will say is that by and large just 5 by virtue of the flexibilities and some reductions in 6 the regulatory footprint at various points you do see 7 this aggregation of savings.
8 Now what I would characterize it as is for 9 plants with SROs and ROs there's a modest savings over 10 facility life. And for plants that qualify for 11 general licensed reactor operators I would 12 characterize that as being a significant savings over 13 the life of the facility.
14 Now it's important to realize that there 15 is some cost associated with the development of these 16 programs, right, because they have to be developed to 17 customize the facility. There's a little bit more 18 review work that's involved on the front end, whereas 19 a lot of the things that we're talking about in Part 20 53, if we say that there's a savings, a lot of times 21 it's pointing to perhaps savings on the front end.
22 With these costs what's important to 23 realize is it's a little bit different because these 24 are costs that are realized over the life of the 25 facility. And depending on the stakeholders involved, NEAL 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 I think the discussion can sometimes go in different 2 directions. If you're talking to someone who's 3 interested in building the plant, designing it, 4 selling it to an owner-operator perhaps, they're 5 looking at those costs from a different angle. The 6 owner-operator is probably the party that's going to 7 benefit the most from that, right, again that modest 8 savings over the life of the facility for the ROs and 9 SROs. And again, a significant savings for the GLROs.
10 So again, that's where I think the key 11 point is that we approached this in a very methodical 12 way because by no means do we ever want to sacrifice 13 anything that's needed for providing for public health 14 and safety and ensuring that only suitably qualified 15 individuals get into these positions of great 16 responsibility.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Can you share cost study 18 with us?
19 MR. SEYMOUR: So, yes, Aaron Sanders, if 20 you're willing to speak to it? Again I'm not sure how 21 much you can get into in the specifics, but are you 22 able to discuss any of that?
23 MR. SANDERS: Yes, hi. So Aaron Sanders, 24 cost analyst at the NRC. So I'm the cost analyst for 25 this Part 53 rulemaking. And I want to be cautious NEAL 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 here because there's a draft estimate still under 2 review. We haven't gone through concurrence yet and 3 we're still actually hashing things out as we finalize 4 the rule language.
5 But what I can tell you is that due to 6 scalable training program requirements for the RO/SRO 7 we're looking at about a half an FTE per year saved, 8 which comes to about $1 million across the life of the 9 plant using a 7 percent net present value; a lot more 10 in un-discounted terms obviously.
11 And then for the GLRO Program it's much --
12 it's greatly simplified, if Jesse will allow me to 13 summarize it that way in layman's terms. And that's 14 more on the order of one-and-a-half FTE per year. So 15 you're looking at more like over $3 million in savings 16 across the life of one of these plants while 17 operating. And again, that's 7 percent net present 18 value.
19 I'm not comfortable releasing more, but if 20 you have any questions about that, we can --
21 MEMBER HALNON: I don't think that's --
22 qualifies, Jesse, as significant. That's actually 23 within the noise of an organization, even a small 24 organization. I would submit that all the discussion 25 that we're having on GLRO and the discussions 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
48 1 going to have on the next slide is moot because you're 2 really not showing any significant savings at all.
3 And in fact it sounds like we're -- and it feels like 4 we're backing away from the standards of the Part 55 5 that we've been enjoying so many years. And that's 6 just my opinion, but I'll let you go on and discuss 7 the next slide, see if anyone else has it.
8 But I do want to go back and reemphasize 9 two points: One, the self-reliant mitigation 10 facility. I mentioned yesterday that I think you 11 would benefit from getting a succinct definition under 12 the definition section so you can use that succinctly 13 throughout. And there are some nuances and some 14 confusing language that's in there right now.
15 And then the second is that the -- we need 16 to continue to separate the administration of the GLRO 17 Program discussion from what we've just been talking 18 about, which is the role and qualifications and levels 19 of licensing for the operators at these facilities.
20 So I would enjoy looking at the cost 21 analysis when you finally get it. A million-and-a-22 half dollar savings or three million savings over a 23 60- year life or a 40-year life doesn't excite me all 24 that much.
25 MR. SEYMOUR: What I would contend is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 1 again what we have to keep in mind is the sheer range 2 of facilities that we're talking about under Part 53.
3 And we're talking about the generally licensed reactor 4 operator approach, just by virtue of the criteria that 5 are used to get there, in many cases the types of 6 facilities that we're probably thinking of -- and not 7 necessarily, right -- it's possible that larger 8 facilities could potentially get there as well, too.
9 But we're probably talking by and large mostly about 10 microreactors.
11 So again, when you're talking about 12 microreactor facilities, if we envision this 13 hypothetical microreactor that has maybe one or two 14 operators at it and just some type of a very scaled-15 down reduction of support personnel associated with it 16 -- again for a large light water reactor, again $3 17 million over plant life. And again, I used to work 18 for a utility. You're right, that would be a drop in 19 the bucket.
20 But when you're talking about a 21 microreactor again where you're running that place on 22 just a few FTE at best -- and again, I'll see if Bill 23 Reckley or one of the other folks can speak more to 24 this, because we have engaged in some work where we've 25 actually received some study numbers about what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 1 FTE margin might be for such a hypothetical 2 microreactor facility. And it really is -- it's very, 3 very lean, right?
4 So again, when you're talking about three, 5 a little bit more million dollars aggregate over that 6 life, for a large light water reactor that's nothing, 7 but for a very small facility that's just running on 8 just a handful of FTE, to be quite frank, our 9 perspective is that could make or break the business 10 case, right? So what that does is it justifies us 11 taking a very deliberate look at is what we're 12 requiring necessary for safety, right? Because if it 13 is, then to be quite frank, the entities on the other 14 side of the table need to find a different business 15 model, right? We won't compromise on what's necessary 16 for safety.
17 However, if there's a reasonable spot that 18 we can get to where we don't compromise on safety and 19 we require what's truly necessary and it provides that 20 type of a reduction, then that could be a spot where 21 perhaps taking a fresh look at what's required within 22 those contexts could potentially influence I think the 23 commercial viability of some of these entities. Now 24 again, that's not our role, right? That's not my 25 perspective coming into this that I'm necessarily NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
51 1 worried about whether these businesses succeed in that 2 regard. What I'm worried about is safety.
3 However again, once one of the 4 commissioners has said in the past that really stuck 5 with me is that we can't regulate ourselves to zero 6 risk, right? So again, what I want to do is take a 7 very balanced look and ask that challenging question 8 about what's necessary for reasonable assurance and 9 safety in this context.
10 And again, if there are places where we 11 can adjust those requirements what I don't want to do 12 is I don't want to say let's not make the change 13 because it's going to be an insignificant cost for a 14 large light water reactor, right? I don't want to do 15 that because again we're looking at a very, very wide 16 range of facilities that are out there.
17 But I did want to give a chance if Bill 18 Reckley --
19 MEMBER HALNON: I agree with what you just 20 said, however there's also a scalable savings for 21 large versus small and that's why looking at the 22 assumptions in the cost analysis would be crucial.
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger 24 again. I mean, we're getting into an apples and 25 oranges comparison now. There's a big difference NEAL 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 between head count and GLROs in terms of cost. Is 2 that right, Greg?
3 MEMBER HALNON: Well, yes, that's what I'm 4 just saying, that there's a -- you have a scalable 5 cost or a savings. If you only have one or two FTE on 6 site on a microreactor, then the savings are going to 7 be much, much, much less than -- I mean from a dollar 8 -- that's a value of the dollar amount than it would 9 be from a large light water reactor that you're trying 10 to license 25 people.
11 So that's why looking at this cost 12 analysis to convince me that all this discussion and 13 the reduction in requirements for the operators and 14 the licensing aspect is actually worth it.
15 And just the qualitative discussion tells 16 me it doesn't sound like it's worth it and that we 17 should just go back -- and again, we're on pretty much 18 the next slide -- why shouldn't we just do like we do 19 now, which is different technologies and different 20 plants have different NUREGs that basically implement 21 Part 55, but the licensing aspect is the same.
22 So I just don't get the cost savings and 23 all the time and effort we're spending on this. And 24 I'm not sure why we're even going there. So we 25 weren't comfortable with the certified operator. 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
53 1 brought the GLRO in and basically gave us the same 2 program and just said we'll call them licensed. And 3 I think, as you can tell, we're still not comfortable 4 with the reasons of why we're doing this.
5 And I think that's what you were talking 6 about, Ron. I mean it doesn't seem like we're really 7 -- we're spending a lot of time and effort on an area 8 that's really going to make a big difference.
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
10 MR. RECKLEY: This is Bill Reckley.
11 MEMBER SUNSERI: (Audio interference.)
12 MR. RECKLEY: Go ahead. I'm sorry, Dave.
13 MEMBER SUNSERI: Yes. No, this is Matt 14 Sunseri.
15 Hey, I just want to give kind of a --
16 maybe a little different perspective on this thing.
17 I've looked at this whole section, 70-53, 725 through 18 53, 830 and all the Reg Guides or ISGs that support 19 it, and there's a lot of detail in there and I think 20 Jesse's doing a good job of explaining the details 21 that are actually in these documents that does not 22 appears on these slides. And what's not appearing on 23 these slides is causing us a lot of concern, but if 24 you get into the details a lot of that concern goes 25 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
54 1 And I think when I look at the GLRO 2 Program, whatever -- however, the Generally Licensed 3 Operator Program, what the staff has done, at least in 4 my opinion, has followed their -- what I'll call 5 precedence of the past of creating specific Reg Guides 6 or NUREGs for the different types. You've got the 7 PWR, the BWR, the NPUF facilities, all that stuff. So 8 the process that they're outlining in these documents 9 for the GLR -- generally licensed operator is --
10 follows that process almost identically from a 11 systematic approach, the K&As and all that stuff.
12 What it only lacks is -- what Greg I think 13 was getting into earlier is the administration of it, 14 right? Who approves the license for the operator and 15 when does it get applied -- approved? Instead of 16 being individually licensed like the SRO and ROs are 17 you get a facility license through the process. But 18 at least from a safety perspective in my mind -- and 19 I'm going to not even get into the cost part of it, 20 but from a safety perspective it seems like all the 21 elements are there. And I'll just leave it at that.
22 MEMBER HALNON: And, Matt, I agree that 23 Jesse's made a good case of where the programs are 24 comparable, if not equivalent in many ways. And I 25 agree with you it's in the administration, and that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
55 1 the same position we had with the certified operators.
2 It's in how it's administered by the licensee and 3 where the NRC is inserted or not.
4 So I think that's where we have the 5 biggest issue and I think could probably have more 6 dialog on administration of it.
7 Like I said, the ISGs and the K&A's and 8 all those other items, I have no issue with it. I 9 think the operators will be qualified for what they 10 need to be doing.
11 MEMBER SUNSERI: So I'll just add one more 12 piece and then I'll stop, but I think some of our 13 concerns about the way the Certified Program was going 14 to be administrated we were concerned about 15 accountability of the operators to their performance 16 and to the public in general. But so I think the 17 staff has addressed that. They put a lot of hooks in 18 there about what to do with the operators if they 19 don't perform well. It's written in there now, which 20 I didn't see before. But I'll leave it at that.
21 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, I think my only big 22 issue with it now from an administration is how do you 23 deem a licensed operator on the list? And, Jesse, 24 this is just a point that -- a comment that I think 25 that you should require at least NRC concurrence NEAL 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 before a licensee says this person is generally 2 licensed or on the list for licensed operators. I 3 think that there should be some interaction and some 4 at least concurrence or verification by the NRC that 5 the program has been successfully completed, the 6 person's not on any other kind of, for lack of better 7 term, terrorist list or person of concern list and 8 what not.
9 So after the person gets through the 10 training and takes all the tests the licensee gives 11 them I feel like there should be some concurrence and 12 verification by the NRC prior to that person assuming 13 licensed duties. But that's a comment that I have 14 that I -- if you want to respond to that or just write 15 it down as a thought, that's fine.
16 MR. SEYMOUR: No, I will definitely 17 capture that. It's a good point. This is a delicate 18 balance we've been trying to strike here. Again, the 19 notion of general licensing of operators is not 20 something that we've historically done in the past.
21 And I made the comments at one point that this is the 22 first time since about 1956 that we've actually 23 modified kind of the hierarchy of the license levels 24 and so forth by considering a new one.
25 And what we currently have built in 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
57 1 that there's an annual reporting requirement to report 2 the names of operators who are under the general 3 license. But again, what that doesn't address is your 4 concern about that happening prior to them being able 5 to assume those duties.
6 I've captured that. That's something that 7 we'll have to think through. There are some legal 8 kind of aspects of a general license versus a specific 9 license and how that mechanism works, but again that's 10 just something I'll have to take for further kind of 11 review amongst the group and so forth. Again, it's a 12 point that's not lost on us.
13 I think something to keep in mind, too, is 14 also that there are other programmatic features 15 outside of operator licensing that do tend to 16 buttressing a little bit in that regard. One is that 17 you'll still have the -- your Part 26 and Part 73 18 requirements. So again, there will still be 19 provisions for behavioral observation, right, for 20 these individuals. So again, issues of aberrant 21 behavior and so on and so forth. And there will also 22 still be plant access requirements, right?
23 So again, in terms of again the terrorist 24 watch list, I mean it's a good example, right, of 25 okay, well, how do you account for that, right? 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
58 1 again, there are certain things that we do in the 2 current operator licensing process with specific 3 licenses. For example, when we go to issue a license, 4 one of the things that we have kind of a trigger to do 5 in NUREG-1021 is to check to see if that person has 6 had significant enforcement action against them in the 7 past, right? So again, that's something that's 8 embedded on their specific licensing. And we don't --
9 under a general license approach we will have the same 10 corollary there.
11 So again, all I can say is that I jotted 12 that down and that's something that we'll definitely 13 chew on and see what we can do it.
14 Okay. Yes, so if it's okay with the 15 Committee, I'm going to go ahead and just move onto 16 this next slide.
17 CHAIR PETTI: But I thought Bill wanted to 18 say something.
19 MR. SEYMOUR: Oh, sorry. Okay. Yes.
20 MEMBER RECKLEY: It's largely been said.
21 The only thing I was going to add; and this goes to 22 some of the previous comments about operating 23 experience and the entry into using some of these 24 provisions that Jesse's talked about, is keep in mind 25 the burden of proof would be on the applicant 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
59 1 actually show they meet these and that they've done 2 the testing of the machine to prove their point.
3 In that regard I think it's likely that 4 you would see a transition. And just like the example 5 that was brought up with driverless cars, you have a 6 transition. And we're not there yet, but we're going 7 through steps, right, where the machine takes on some 8 responsibility but you still have a person. Will we 9 get there? Most likely, but there will be a 10 transition. And I think just like any other 11 engineering exercise you could foresee something like 12 that happening here where you would not go basically 13 from -- in a binary step from what we have right now 14 to basically the full implementation of what we're 15 putting in Subpart F in Part 53.
16 So just something to keep in mind that 17 this -- these machines will have to be tested.
18 Operating experience will have to be gained. It's not 19 as if we have to be necessarily fearful that we have 20 one time to make a decision. And like I say, it's a 21 binary step. It's going to most likely evolve. The 22 rule is trying to be written such that it can reach 23 the end point, but that doesn't mean you reach the end 24 point on the first application that we receive.
25 So that's all I was going to add, Jesse.
NEAL 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 MR. SEYMOUR: Bill, if I could just ask 2 while we still have you, are we at liberty to discuss 3 the feedback that came via the recent study that we 4 did with MIT? Is that something that we can discuss 5 or --
6 MR. RECKLEY: Well, we can certainly say 7 we had a conversation and that there's a study 8 underway, so if you want to fill in some of that. But 9 the regulatory analysis, as Aaron mentioned, we're 10 working on. That will be part of the rulemaking 11 package to the Commission. We won't have it by the 12 Full Committee meeting.
13 But to Jesse's point, in terms of what's 14 a significant amount of money, if you're a 10-megawatt 15 microreactor and you're able to charge $100 a megawatt 16 hour1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, that means you have an income of $10 million a 17 year to pay for the machine, to pay for all the 18 people, to pay your taxes, to pay the NRC. So economy 19 of scale, there's a reason that the reactors went 20 bigger. The microreactor model is a very challenging 21 model, and this is financially. And this is what 22 Jesse was mentioning. There's a study underway. And 23 we talked to some of the people conducting that study 24 on the potential financial challenges of 25 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
61 1 But, Jesse, you might recall --
2 CHAIR PETTI: And, Bill, they've also --
3 it probably predates you guys' interaction, but they 4 have published papers on the cost, kind of a work 5 backwards. This is what it needs to be for the whole 6 business case to hold together. And your comments are 7 spot on. It's the eye of the needle for them to be 8 able to make their business case. And O&M costs are 9 really critical. And that's been published. That's 10 on the literature.
11 MR. BLEY: Hey, Bill? I was going to 12 bring this up at some other point, but since we've 13 talked about the cost benefit analysis -- it jumped 14 out at me in the -- I guess it's in the preamble that 15 we just had blanks in there. Usually we get to look 16 at those and comment and sometimes we've found that to 17 be useful. Are we going to get a look at that at some 18 point so we can comment on it?
19 MR. RECKLEY: I'll go back on air. And I 20 guess I don't think we're going to have it ready by 21 the Full Committee meeting, so I --
22 MR. BLEY: Well, this kind of works into 23 the question a couple people asked yesterday of are we 24 going to get a chance to review some of the guidance 25 and other things that's coming out over the next many NEAL 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 months before we get to a final draft rule stage? And 2 you know --
3 (Simultaneous speaking.)
4 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Well, yes, that --
5 MR. BLEY: -- it could kind of work.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Yes, that will be 7 the case. the regulatory analysis will be done, and 8 we could talk about it at that next stage after the 9 publication of the proposed rule. Yes, we could come 10 back. At that point it will be -- it will have been 11 issued. And that's likewise some of the guidance 12 documents. We just couldn't get it all done in the 13 schedule. But as we continue to work on it we'll be 14 continuing to bring it to ACRS. And quite honestly, 15 it's going to continue afterwards, right, even after 16 Part 53 is a final rule. Part 50 has been a final 17 rule for 60 --
18 MR. BLEY: Seventy years, right?
19 MR. RECKLEY: -- more than 60 years and 20 we're still preparing guidance. So it's not a --
21 we'll continue that forever.
22 MR. BLEY: Okay. That works. Thanks.
23 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay. Yes, so I wanted to 24 kind of circle around because, Bill, I know you had 25 mentioned if we could bring Aaron back in 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
63 1 round out that comment.
2 But, Aaron, did you have anything that you 3 wanted to add?
4 MR. SANDERS: Yes, I thought I should. As 5 far as when the RA might be able to be seen by the 6 ACRS, I'm not familiar with that occurring before 7 essentially the package is ready for the Commission, 8 the specific timing. So the way that the schedule has 9 been working out I'd really rather have the PM speak 10 to that. But I don't think it would be in a finalized 11 enough state by the Full Committee meeting on the 2nd 12 of November, but I am working of course as fast as I 13 can, which is -- there's a lot of motion still on this 14 rulemaking.
15 As far as the numbers, I just wanted to go 16 back because when we're talking about $10 million a 17 year in income, I realize that it's probably better 18 for me to speak to the un-discounted costs then.
19 Because if you're saying 10 million a year in income, 20 then what is the savings of the GLRO Program, which is 21 about a third of a million per year, which comes to 22 three-and-a-third percent of the income in that 23 example, which it's not mind-blowingly high. But it's 24 not dismiss-able either, especially since there are 25 lots of other costs that obviously come out 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
64 1 income. So I just wanted to point that out. That's 2 a better way to think of it, is about three-and-a-3 third percent of a $10 million plant's income per 4 year.
5 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay. So --
6 MEMBER REMPE: So, this is Joy, and I 7 guess I'm thinking about sometimes when we hear 8 members comment about why are you guys doing this 9 research, and the response RES gives back saying, 10 well, we have to be ready. Even if we don't think 11 it's worthwhile, we've got to be ready. And I'm 12 wondering if the same argument should be mentioned 13 here that hey, folks are asking for something like 14 this and even if it's (audio interference) significant 15 benefit to them, that's their decision. We're just 16 trying to give them an option that's safe. Is that a 17 response back that could be mentioned here?
18 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, and I do appreciate 19 that. One of the things that we've spoken to before 20 is that we desire to create a rule that's durable. So 21 what we want to avoid is as technologies evolve, as 22 concepts of operation evolve, as we get further down 23 the road and perhaps we move into reactors that are 24 operated remotely and so on and so forth, when we 25 cross that bridge, what we don't want to have to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 1 for these operational requirements is have to go back 2 and engage in rulemaking because we didn't kind of 3 build these possible avenues into the structure.
4 And so what we're trying to do is we're 5 trying to think through those issues, and part of that 6 involves looking at kind of the future-focused 7 research-types of endeavors that we undertake where we 8 go and we look at various things that are out there; 9 just examples of that like remote operations, adaptive 10 automation, right? These are all things that our 11 Office of Research has dug into and done significant 12 work on and so forth.
13 And so what we've done is we've tried to 14 take those concepts and what we learn from that and 15 bake that into the mix, at least put that into the 16 thought process and say if something like this were to 17 emerge, even if requires an exemption to do it for a 18 given regulation, will the rest of the structure 19 accommodate that?
20 And so I think that speaks to that point, 21 but again having that -- I hate to use the term 22 crystal ball, but that's really what the research 23 does, like keeping your finger on the pulse of these 24 various industry initiatives, the technological 25 developments, and being forward thinking with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 1 research lets us kind of see which way the wind is 2 blowing. And again, what we don't want to do is say 3 like, okay, we have to accommodate this, right?
4 Because again, we have a different mission, right?
5 Our mission is to be good stewards of the public 6 health and safety, right? That's our first and 7 foremost consideration.
8 But what it should do is say well, hey, 9 this may be an emergent technology or way of operating 10 these plants that comes up. Is there a way to 11 accommodate that while still being faithful to that 12 role that we have? And if so, what direction do we 13 need to think in to get there?
14 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. Jesse, we've been at 15 this for a while now. We're well behind. So I hope 16 we're going to be able to pick up the pace.
17 I just want to say that I still have an 18 issue but I don't want to deal with it here because of 19 the time, but when we get to Full Committee this --
20 your definition of the self-mitigating facility and 21 the AERI definition of what it takes to get in there, 22 there's an interplay there. And we were concerned 23 that it may have been overly restrictive.
24 So it would be worth in the Full Committee 25 at least being able to spend some time, because 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 seems to me that AERI and GLRO, there is some natural 2 synergies there, at least in the microreactor space, 3 and wanting to make sure that we're not unduly 4 constricting things. This is probably more from an 5 AERI perspective than from a GLRO perspective, but 6 given that they're now linked through this somewhat of 7 a definition we want to be able to go through that and 8 make sure that we have it set properly in our minds.
9 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay. Yes, definitely. And 10 I made a note on that yesterday, so I did capture the 11 point from the Committee about concerns that --
12 limiting things to inherent and certain pedigrees of 13 passive features that are -- perhaps the implications 14 of that may constrain things too much. So between now 15 and the Full Committee that's something that myself 16 and Marty Stutzke and the others will --
17 CHAIR PETTI: Right.
18 MR. SEYMOUR: -- continue to think 19 through.
20 CHAIR PETTI: Great. Great.
21 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay. So continuing on with 22 the next slide, I will try to pick things up a little 23 bit. I appreciate the prompt.
24 So during earlier presentations with the 25 Committee a common topic of discussion has been 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
68 1 approach taken regarding the traditional shift 2 technical advisor under Part 53. As noted in our more 3 recent discussions we have balanced the value afforded 4 by the availability of degreed expertise with 5 broadened flexibilities under our proposed engineering 6 expertise requirement.
7 Aside from some streamlining of the 8 associated requirements the overall engineering 9 expertise requirement remains unchanged from that that 10 we covered in our prior discussion and it remains a 11 required element of staffing plans for all facilities 12 under both Frameworks A and B including for those 13 facilities staffed by GLROs.
14 So again, when we're talking about the 15 self-reliant mitigation facility and staffing 16 considerations, something that's very important to 17 keep in mind is that even for those facilities this 18 requirement to account for engineering expertise would 19 remain as well. So again an important point that I 20 didn't touch upon earlier.
21 So in this way we see the engineering 22 expertise requirement as providing an important 23 counter against the potential uncertainties associated 24 with new designs. And again, that is specifically 25 because the engineering expertise role is explicitly NEAL 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 there to assist the operators when they get into 2 situations that are not covered by their training and 3 procedures. So really when those unknown unknowns 4 emerge this will help to serve as a backstop there to 5 support them.
6 So with regards to generally licensed 7 reactor operators at the time of our previous 8 discussions we had not yet extended the allowance for 9 generally licensed reactor operators to facilities 10 under Framework B. Under the most recent version of 11 the preliminary rule language we have now done so 12 including for those plants under Framework B that use 13 an AERI approach to risk as well as those that instead 14 conduct a PRA. Thus, a structure established under 15 53.800 now exists to assess whether GLRO staffing is 16 appropriate for facilities under either framework and 17 using either approach to gaining risk insights.
18 While there are differences in how the 19 various criteria are structured and presented, 20 fundamentally each of these sets of criteria are 21 derived from a common set of considerations that 22 include no human action being needed to meet 23 radiological consequence criteria, no human action 24 being needed to address licensing basis events, safety 25 functions not being allocated to human action, NEAL 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 reliance upon either inherent or robust passive 2 features with some provisions on when PRA is used to 3 go outside of that, and adequate defense-in-depth 4 being achieved without reliance on human action.
5 Additionally with regards to the criteria, 6 in response to concerns noted previously by the 7 Committee, wording modifications have also been made 8 to the GLRO criteria to clarify areas in which the 9 analysis should be limited to only addressing credited 10 human actions and defense-in-depth capabilities.
11 And again, that speaks to a good point 12 that was raised by the Committee about in the absence 13 of clarifying how far you have to go with that 14 analysis that you could potentially run something like 15 defense-in-depth out through many layers. And really 16 we just want to get through a credited level of really 17 hitting that first layer of defense-in-depth and also 18 getting through credited mitigative actions to say 19 that that analysis is satisfactory for that purpose.
20 And I think it's important to point out here, too, 21 that by no way, shape, or form do we want to constrain 22 the ability of operators to take prudent actions.
23 So what this criteria exists to do is to 24 say that you're able to get through these credited 25 analyses without reliance on human actions, not 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
71 1 preclude those operators from being able to take 2 action. So again, if you get into a circumstance at 3 these plants with GLROs, it would be wholly acceptable 4 for those operators to have actions to be taken for 5 defense-in-depth, so on and so forth to perhaps trip 6 the reactor and things of that nature.
7 The key difference is is that in allowing 8 that plant to have that type of treatment in the first 9 place we don't want that to be credited for safety, 10 right? So again, these would be backup actions.
11 These would be defense-in-depth actions. These would 12 be prudent actions to put the plant into a given state 13 before the automatic action happens, those types of 14 things. But again, from an accident standpoint and 15 from a fundamental kind of first layer defense-in-16 depth standpoint we just don't want those things to be 17 credited.
18 For a non-AERI plant under Framework B the 19 GLRO criteria are comparable to the equivalent 20 criteria of Framework A as adapted to the differing 21 requirements of Framework B. So again, some 22 differences in pointers. A little bit of kind of 23 tweaks in the language and so forth to adapt the same 24 general approach of Framework A to Framework B. But 25 again, there are five criteria for both and in the end NEAL 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 they're both accomplishing the same essential 2 functions.
3 As noted previously, the Framework B GLRO 4 criteria vary depending on whether an AERI is used.
5 Although irrespective of the use of AERI, defense-in-6 depth without reliance on human action is a common 7 requirement across both Framework B approaches: AERI 8 and non-AERI.
9 That being said, for an AERI plant the 10 GLRO criteria are met by meeting the AERI criteria.
11 And yesterday during Marty Stutzke's presentation we 12 did get into what the criteria looks like. And again, 13 I did capture the point for the Full Committee 14 discussion about revisiting whether those criteria are 15 potentially too restrictive.
16 It should be emphasized that the AERI 17 criteria located at 53.4730(a)(34)(ii) restrict the 18 safety features that can be credited in meeting the 19 analysis to those that are either of a robust passive 20 or inherent nature that are resistant to the influence 21 of human error. And again, that's the specific point 22 that Marty and I will revisit between now and the Full 23 Committee.
24 In short, these various sets of criteria 25 have a common goal of identifying when operators 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
73 1 not expected to significantly influence safety 2 outcomes based on a design and to use this threshold 3 to identify when GLROs would constitute the acceptable 4 form of operator licensing for a given facility.
5 We can move to the next slide, please.
6 One further area that I would like to discuss in this 7 presentation before we move onto Theresa Buchanan and 8 the operator licensing guidance discussion is the 9 recommendation made in the Committee's most recent 10 letter that the associated guidance for implementing 11 10 CFR Part 55 could be amended to accommodate the 12 objectives of the proposed rule without the additional 13 volumes of text. And this was a recommendation that 14 we gave consideration to and carefully evaluated the 15 related pros and cons of as we considered our 16 response.
17 Ultimately we concluded that reliance upon 18 Part 55 for operator licensing within the context of 19 Part 53 could not yield equivalent flexibilities and 20 in attempting to achieve similar levels of 21 technological inclusivity would likely necessitate the 22 development and upkeep of an unmanageable inventory of 23 new guidance documentation for every new technology 24 that subsequently emerged. And a key example of that 25 point would be -- and again, this is just one example, NEAL 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 but it's a big one -- would be the need to 2 preemptively develop and issue a NUREG series 3 knowledge and abilities catalog for each new 4 technology and to also accomplish that with sufficient 5 lead time so as not to delay the goal of licensing 6 operators should a Part 55-only approach be pursued.
7 In contrast the new framework for operator 8 licensing under Part 53 is technology-inclusive by 9 design and creates significant flexibilities compared 10 to Part 55. Most notably however the statutory 11 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act are such that 12 the innovative approach to general operator licensing 13 cannot occur absent rulemaking to create a defined 14 class of reactor that would have such operators.
15 Thus, GLROs cannot exist under a Part 55-16 only approach unless a rulemaking were undertaken for 17 Part 55 and such an effort is beyond the scope of our 18 -- and by our I mean the staff's present tasking for 19 the Part 53 rulemaking. Or revised or new guidance 20 could be developed for use under Part 55. Applicants 21 would be required to seek exemptions and justify 22 pursuing alternative approaches where the existing 23 provisions of Part 55 and NUREG-1021 processes were 24 incompatible with new technologies and concepts of 25 operation.
NEAL 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 In contrast the preliminary proposed Part 2 53 will remove the need for such exemptions, allow for 3 the tailoring of examination processes based on 4 technology and operational approaches and enhanced 5 regulatory reliability and clarity.
6 So in light of these considerations our 7 perspective remains that the most appropriate approach 8 to operator licensing under Part 53 remains an 9 approach that borrows from yet remains independent of 10 Part 55.
11 And with that being said, I'd like to go 12 ahead if we could and move the discussion along to the 13 key Part 53 review guidance documents that we'll be 14 discussing today, and the first of those that we'll 15 transition into will be Theresa Buchanan discussing 16 the operator licensing programmatic guidance.
17 MS. BUCHANAN: Thank you, Jesse. Can I 18 just get a confirmation you can hear me?
19 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, I can hear you.
20 MS. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you.
21 Good morning, everybody. My name is 22 Theresa Buchanan and I am going to be giving an 23 overview, pretty brief. The ISG itself is very 24 detailed. It's an overview of the Operator Licensing 25 Program review. I'm going to start with what's not 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
76 1 here in order to help manage some expectations.
2 This ISG does not contain how the staff 3 will review and approve the training programs, the 4 SAT-based training programs. The primary focus of 5 this ISG is on how to review and approve the 6 examination programs. And then there's a couple 7 little additional pieces that we put in here for lack 8 of a better place to put them.
9 Next slide, please. All right. So the 10 purpose of the ISG is to help the staff review 11 applications that come in under Part 53 related to the 12 Operator Licensing Exam Program, and particularly 13 reviewing the tailored approach to the exam programs 14 for both initial and re-qualification.
15 This is for both specifically licensed 16 operators and generally licensed operators.
17 Additionally it has an added thing about 18 addressing proficiency. That's how often you have to 19 stand watch in our licensed position in order to stay 20 active in our license. So we address proficiency for 21 the individually-licensed SROs and ROs as well as to 22 assist staff reviews for non-large light water power 23 reactor exam programs that might be coming in as 24 exemptions under 10 CFR Part 55, primarily for the 25 plants that are going to be coming in before the Part NEAL 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 53 rulemaking is in place.
2 Next slide, please. So the goal of this 3 ISG is to enable facility applicants to identify; and 4 that was mentioned earlier, the KAs or KSAs, the 5 knowledge, skills and abilities that are needed for 6 safe operation as the basis for exam standards; very 7 similar to what we have currently, and establish 8 reliable guidelines for exam program development 9 that's based on current best practices from research 10 and expertise on measurement and testing of these 11 knowledge, skills and abilities.
12 So we worked with INL on the development 13 of this guidance. We also had a workshop earlier this 14 year where we included representatives from different 15 industries, other countries to help get what they saw 16 as their best practices in their industries for the 17 qualification of individuals to try and make sure that 18 we were casting a wide net so that we could get 19 current best practices to include into this ISG.
20 Next slide, please. So the first section 21 talks about the development of your knowledge, skills 22 and abilities for the exam program. So although they 23 are not two different lists I kind of conceptualize 24 them this way because it makes it easier for me to 25 think about 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
78 1 So basically what happens is the SAT-based 2 training process, or SAT process that's used to 3 develop the training program is used to identify a 4 training list of knowledge, skills and abilities that 5 folks are going to train to. It's not going to be 6 solely limited to tasks that are associated to safe 7 plant operation. They'll include other things that 8 may be for economic purposes and things like that.
9 We have an ISG. It's 2023-04, Facility 10 Training Program IG. It's planned to provide 11 additional information in this area on how we would 12 review and approve the SAT-Based Training Program.
13 That ISG is not issued yet. It's in the process but 14 it's a little bit further behind in the process. So 15 we're working on getting that issued. But that will 16 cover that aspect.
17 So this ISG starts with the training KSA 18 list as the output. So it's an input to this program.
19 So the output from the training program becomes an 20 input to this program. And so they use this list as 21 a starting point. And we would expect facilities to 22 perform a screening to identify what tasks are 23 important to safe operation or -- and/or related to 24 the foundational theory of plant operations in order 25 to develop the list that would include what items NEAL 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 would be tested on in an exam for licensing.
2 Depending on the original list you might 3 add items as well as remove items. There might be 4 things that are foundational that are important to 5 test on, but because of the nature of them they 6 screened out of needing to train on as part of the SAT 7 process. Well, they would need to get added here. So 8 this is why I kind of conceptualize it as like two 9 separate lists. They're very much related. There are 10 things that are going to be removed from the training 11 list for the exam list and things that might get added 12 to the exam list. So this section is one of the big 13 parts of the section because this determines the 14 entire content domain, the whole thing of what is 15 going to be tested on the exam.
16 Next slide, please. So this slide 17 basically just shows a little bit of a graphic that 18 kind of describes the process steps that would go 19 through and what's covered by this ISG versus what's 20 covered by the Facility Training Program ISG. So you 21 can see that your SAT tasks and task analysis is done 22 under the training program. And then it's going to 23 come into the exam program. And that's where they're 24 going to do your defense-in-depth reviews, theoretical 25 knowledge that maybe got screened out 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
80 1 training list maybe gets screened back in for the exam 2 program list, additional reviews, screening what 3 doesn't need to be tested because it's not important 4 enough to safety, grouping them and then finalizing 5 the list. Okay. That's it for Section 1 about 6 developing the KSA list for the exam program.
7 Next slide, please. So Section 2 is all 8 about developing the test plan. Basically now that 9 you've got the list; that's great, how you are going 10 to test it? And guidance is provided to staff related 11 to what types of tests are most appropriate for the 12 different kinds of knowledge or ability measured. As 13 an example it talks about, hey, certain cognitive 14 tasks are better tested on a written exam-type format 15 versus other tasks might be better tested in a 16 performance or simulation -- simulated performance-17 type format. And it kind of discusses the different 18 kinds of cognitive tasks and things and what the more 19 appropriate test measures are for them to help the 20 staff evaluate whether or not those were applied by 21 the facility in developing their exam program.
22 It also includes the format for the tests.
23 So an example would be is the written exam a multiple 24 choice, does it include matching, short answer, things 25 like 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
81 1 It also has the content specification, the 2 specific exam, the specific exam type cover. So what 3 specific KSAs, what specific knowledge and ability 4 statements are covered by a written? What 5 specifically would get covered by say an oral board or 6 a scenario GPM? How you're going to sample the KSAs 7 for each exam. Say you have a list that's -- I'm just 8 going to pull some numbers out of the hat. Say you 9 have a list that's 500 knowledge, skills and abilities 10 that would be sampled for the written exam. Well, how 11 are you going to sample them? How do you group them 12 to sample certain numbers or do you just sample out of 13 the whole 500? So there's discussions about that as 14 well as discussions on ensuring that -- how the test 15 items get reviewed to make sure that they're clear 16 quality questions and don't have other psychometric 17 issues.
18 The staff's assumption is due to the 19 diverse nature of KSAs that would be required to be 20 tested. In other words, you have certain things that 21 had cognitive requirements that would be better 22 testing on say a written or oral test and some that 23 would be better done through simulated performance.
24 We would expect facilities to be developing a test 25 plan that has multiple different test measures, or 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
82 1 other words different types of tests. Like I said, 2 written, scenario, et cetera.
3 Next slide, please. That was Section 2.
4 So then Section 3 discusses exam validity. So just 5 because they come up with an exam program doesn't mean 6 that it's going to be acceptable. They have to 7 basically prove it to us by describing how it is a 8 valid test, which means that the test works the way it 9 is intended. It's an accurate measure of the 10 individual's competence or lack thereof. And so it 11 discusses the different types -- the ISG discusses the 12 different types of validity: content validity, 13 concurrent validity, and what should be demonstrated 14 in order to demonstrate that the exam program would 15 provide for valid testing measures. And there are 16 further discussions and definitions for what those 17 validates are and the appropriate ways to demonstrate 18 those.
19 Next slide, please. Section 4 talks about 20 scoring specifications. In our ISG we state that 21 exams are going to be criterion-referenced. That 22 means that there is a score and you get above it or 23 below it and you pass or you fail, basically what we 24 do now. So it's not norm-referenced. There's no bell 25 curves and the score changes, the passing score NEAL 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 changes depending on how folks perform. That's not 2 considered appropriate for a licensing exam and so we 3 define criterion-referenced in the ISG.
4 And one of the things we talk about is 5 describing how each test item is scored and how you 6 combine those scores to get to the total score. So 7 for example, under NUREG-1021, our current process 8 under Part 55, the written exam is a four-part 9 multiple choice and every question is one point and 10 only one point. And you add the points up to get to 11 your total score.
12 For our current operating test we have the 13 zero to three scale on the scenarios for each of the 14 competencies and rating factors. And there's specific 15 weighting that's done and you have to do these 16 calculations to come up with the final score. So 17 that's what we're talking about here is we need to 18 have in the exam program a description of how the test 19 item is scored and how they get those to get to a 20 total score. And then the cutoff score. What is the 21 passing score based on all of that?
22 Additionally if there is part of the exam 23 that's based on score observation there needs to be 24 steps described about how to eliminate any unconscious 25 bias and judgments. So that's kind of like what we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
84 1 have with JPMs and scenarios currently. There are 2 critical steps or critical tasks. They get them or 3 they don't get them. We try to make it as objective 4 as we can so that you don't get that bias and 5 judgments.
6 It's not a perfect example. The intent is 7 to ensure that you have consistency in grading. So 8 again, getting back to our mandate prescribing uniform 9 conditions for operator licensing, for these facility-10 developed exam programs the underlying concept is what 11 we're looking for to ensure the uniform conditions.
12 Is what they're providing a consistent uniform 13 reliable way to measure individuals' knowledge and 14 ability such that only competent operators are 15 licensed?
16 Next slide, please. Section 5 talks about 17 reliability of the tests. So what's the difference 18 between reliability and validity? Jesse just shared 19 a quick quote with me which was very useful, but I'll 20 paraphrase it. Validity is making sure that you're 21 accurately determining whether someone's competent or 22 not; reliability is being able to do so consistently.
23 So they are related but slightly separate concepts.
24 So Section 5 talks about reliability of 25 the tests, which basically means if the individual NEAL 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 were to repeat the test and managed to forget 2 everything that was on the test in between taking the 3 tests, that the result would be similar. So in other 4 words, the test is reliable. Consistency. Stability 5 of performance over time. And they have to provide 6 documentation justifying the use of that test for 7 operator licensing.
8 Next slide, please. Now all of this is 9 stuff that is currently baked in the NUREG-1021, so 10 the whole purpose of this is to allow folks -- the 11 facilities the flexibility to determine what's needed 12 for their plant designs, because what's in NUREG-1021 13 is very prescriptive and very much for large light 14 water reactors. So a 100-question written exam might 15 not be needed for a microreactor that has very few 16 KSAs that would need to be tested in a written exam-17 type format. So this gives them the flexibility to 18 tailor it.
19 Section 6.0 talks about the test manual.
20 That is basically their equivalent to the NUREG-1021.
21 It provides detail related to the specific types of 22 tests as well as some administrative aspects to the 23 tests. So we would expect them to include in this 24 test manual how to administer the exam, the time 25 allowed to take the exam, what test takers are allowed NEAL 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 to look at. Is it open reference, closed reference?
2 Are they given certain materials like steam tables or 3 something for the test? And then how to interpret the 4 test results.
5 So these items -- there is additional 6 guidance that would be expected to accompany each test 7 that is actually developed. I might refer to that as 8 test instance because there's a lot of test things 9 talked about: test manuals, test plans, and what's 10 what. Because there are items that can change from 11 test to test those aren't things that would be 12 appropriate to include in the test manual because the 13 test manual is expected to be more stable, more like 14 the NUREG-1021. So items that would be documented for 15 the program as part of the test development process.
16 There are also things that would be included with the 17 documentation for each test.
18 So this documentation provides the 19 licensing basis for operators so it's important to 20 ensure it's complete and accurate. So the test, each 21 test instance will include developers' names, when it 22 was done, any revisions, evidence of validity, any 23 information related to computer software if it was a 24 test that used computer software. That's all provided 25 as part of the basis for licensing operators. 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
87 1 those would be expected to be developed for each test 2 instance.
3 So Section 6, have to read it as both 4 talking about test manual and what needs to be in 5 that. That's kind of similar to like a NUREG-1021.
6 And then it talks about things that would need to be 7 included with each specific test that's developed or 8 test instance developed. So that would be like test 9 at facility A. Under NUREG-1021 it would have those 10 items.
11 Next slide, please. So Section 7 is just 12 some additional characteristics of high-quality test 13 materials primarily focused on written and computer-14 based tests. And it gives some additional 15 characteristics associated with psychometrics, test 16 instructions, the scoring system, and standardization.
17 A key consideration for computer-based 18 tests is adaptive scoring. If adaptive scoring is 19 proposed there would need to be some kind of 20 justification as to how uniform conditions are still 21 being met for the individuals taking the test. So 22 that's that.
23 I think there's a hand raised. Vicki?
24 MEMBER BIER: Yes, thank you. This is 25 Vicki Bier. I just have a quick question about who NEAL 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 would ordinarily be developing these tests, especially 2 at facilities that may have very small staffing.
3 Because as an educator myself I know that you can be 4 very expert on the material but not knowledgeable 5 about how to create reliable tests. And I've seen 6 plenty of tests that are -- with questions that are 7 easily subject to misinterpretation, where somebody 8 who knows the material could get it wrong for weird 9 reasons. So anyway, I'm just curious what's 10 envisioned especially at small facilities that may not 11 have like a dedicated training staff or whatever.
12 MS. BUCHANAN: That's a great question, 13 Vicki, and I'll let Jesse jump in here in a minute.
14 I'll go ahead and give my response, but I'm sure Jesse 15 will have some thoughts as well.
16 And I agree with. I vividly remember 17 being back in college and taking some exams where the 18 instructors were very knowledgeable in the subject 19 matter, but their exams were just terrible. And so I 20 totally understand that point and get it.
21 And my understanding is that the 22 expectation is in the development of this test manual 23 it will require the use of folks who are both subject 24 matter experts in the field; so on that design type, 25 as well as subject matter experts in the area 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
89 1 testing and measuring. And that's to develop the 2 program. So the program that would come to us for 3 review.
4 Part of the program would include how the 5 folks are qualified, and so that would -- that is 6 where I would see whatever would be required for exam 7 authors. That would get covered under the -- I think 8 that would get covered more under the Training Program 9 ISG than is covered under this ISG. But the 10 expectation is that there would be some level of 11 qualification for the exam authors to make sure that 12 they could write exams that are psychometrically 13 sound. I will as for the -- I'm taking a quick step 14 back -- for the specifically licensed operators we 15 both review and approve the program overall, but then 16 we also review and approve each test instance before 17 it's given. So there is a backstop for the 18 specifically licensed operators where the NRC would 19 have to say yes, you're right, this is 20 psychometrically sound.
21 For the generically licensed operators we 22 still do a review and approval of the test program, 23 which would include all of these requirements I'm 24 discussing here. And then for the test itself we'd be 25 doing more of like what we do with re-qualification NEAL 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 now where we go out and do inspections and we say are 2 the tests that they're writing psychometrically sound 3 or not? And if they're not, then there's violations 4 and things that -- the findings that they can get. So 5 there's some regulatory pathways that we can follow.
6 But, Jesse, I didn't know if you had 7 anything you wanted to add onto that?
8 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, thanks, Theresa.
9 And this is a place where it's a great 10 concern, it's a place where we end up striking this 11 balance between flexibilities and I think some of 12 those pragmatic realities, what happens when you have 13 facilities with small staffs.
14 So in terms of different ways that this 15 program could be developed we've contemplated that in 16 some cases it may be the owner-operator develops the 17 program them self, right? We've envisioned that it's 18 possible that the owner-operator may contract an 19 entity to come in and develop the program with the 20 understanding that that initial development would take 21 more resources than the ongoing administration of that 22 program once it's up and running.
23 Another thing that we've envisioned is 24 that some of the vendors may potentially elect to run 25 that program centrally, right, to basically kind 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
91 1 package that with their product line to go ahead and 2 do that as well, too.
3 So again, these are different variations.
4 The paradigm that we see in the existing fleets is 5 that the owner-operators will run those programs a 6 resource perspective. And again, keeping in mind that 7 this is using an established program. Typically what 8 we see is that there's a single exam author that works 9 on the exam projects and keeps that stuff going.
10 They'll pull in additional subject matter experts as 11 needed for validation purposes and things of that 12 nature, but generally it's like a one-person kind of 13 full-time project to run through that. So that's 14 historically what we see.
15 The other thing, too, that I'll add is 16 that what Theresa and I have tried to be very 17 deliberate with in this guidance is to -- and, 18 Theresa, forgive me, I'll use the term -- sometimes we 19 refer to it as the easy button. What we try to do is 20 allow for the flexibility for facilities to go through 21 and to really craft the exam methods that are used to 22 suit their specific needs. However, what we try to do 23 as well is to leave the door open, that if a plant 24 just wants to emulate the methodologies of NUREG-1021, 25 the established methodologies, that they can really NEAL 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 pick those up and run with them. Again with the 2 review itself that we do accepting that this is a 3 known process that it will work well over time. And 4 versus going through and reinventing things they can 5 just run with that.
6 Now granted there are pros and cons to 7 doing that, but we try to leave that door open that if 8 the resources aren't there are if the facility 9 applicant/licensee doesn't want to put those resources 10 there, they can elect to adapt wholesale significant 11 portions of the NUREG-1021 process and sidestep a lot 12 of this kind of deep psychometric and assessment 13 testing work that would have to be done.
14 MEMBER BIER: So I actually like the 15 model. I mean obviously it's not up to us to dictate 16 what the model will be, but I like the model of the 17 vendor possibly providing testing materials or testing 18 program information because I can kind of envision 19 that at small unique facilities there may not be 20 somebody on staff who's knowledgeable how to write 21 good tests. And at the same time if you look at the 22 world of training consultants, there may not be a lot 23 of people who are knowledgeable the specifics of that 24 facility design. And the vendor would kind of bring 25 both, I would hope, but that's a good option at least NEAL 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 to have in mind. Thank you.
2 MS. BUCHANAN: Thanks, Vicki. And that 3 actually was one of our main considerations when we 4 were drafting this was to give that flexibility 5 because we thought that would be folks who would use 6 that as almost like an economy of scale, have the 7 vendor do it so that the individual facilities might 8 be too small to be able to have the full-time staff.
9 So that's one of our thoughts.
10 Jesse, did you have something else you 11 wanted to add before I move on?
12 MR. SEYMOUR: No, I was just going to add 13 on that at the end of the day it kind of gets back to 14 what I said before, that we have a very distinct role 15 and our role is not to come up with a business case 16 that they should be using. But what we try to do is 17 think through what those business cases might be and 18 where things are acceptable, just to least those 19 flexibilities open. So again, we try to leave a door 20 open to going about it like this or that. And in the 21 end it will have to be a decision that's made by that 22 entity on how they want to approach it. We just want 23 to leave those flexibilities there for them so they 24 can select them.
25 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
94 1 Have you had any conversations with EPRI or NEI or 2 other industry groups? They've been involved helping 3 set up owners' groups and that sort of thing that work 4 in these areas as well as in the engineering areas.
5 But is there any hints of what's going on on that side 6 of this process?
7 MR. SEYMOUR: Theresa, I can speak to 8 that, if you want me to.
9 MS. BUCHANAN: Okay.
10 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay.
11 MS. BUCHANAN: Yes, please. I'm not 12 really aware of any. I know that this ISG is pretty 13 new on the street. It only came out last month, so I 14 don't know that they've had a lot of time to really 15 digest everything that's in there.
16 But yes, Jesse, if you know something.
17 MR. BLEY: Well, was it all developed in 18 house or -- sometimes those kind of ISGs you cooperate 19 with EPRI and NEI in their development. It doesn't 20 sound like that was the case here.
21 MS. BUCHANAN: We work primarily with INL.
22 Jesse?
23 MR. SEYMOUR: Oh, yeah. Sorry, Theresa.
24 Yes. So, and I'll start with that point. So the way 25 that this guidance was developed, for 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
95 1 documents that we're discussing today, only the 2 staffing guidance was developed exclusively in-house.
3 And what we did with, you know, the human 4 factors engineering guidance is we worked with 5 Brookhaven National Lab. And with the operating 6 licensing guidance we're discussing here, we worked 7 with Idaho National Lab. Now, Idaho National Lab, you 8 know, also, you know, worked in tandem with 9 individuals from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 10 with those.
11 So, specifically, you know, we had, you 12 know, academics involved. And notably, one of the key 13 subcontractors was actually someone who had experience 14 with, you know, the pilot certification testing that's 15 done by the FAA, if I remember right. So we tried to 16 reach out to other entities that were involved in 17 assessment testing of people that were, you know, 18 involved in, you know, applications where safety was 19 involved.
20 And so, beyond just, you know, the kind of 21 a contracted staff, one of the things that we did as 22 part of this development project is we actually had a 23 workshop that we hosted over I believe it was a two-24 day span. And for that workshop, we actually invited 25 and we had attendance by a very wide range 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
96 1 individuals.
2 So we had international attendees, you 3 know, like Finland, for example, as I recall 4 correctly, you know, talking about how they approach, 5 you know, their programs. We had an individual from, 6 you know, the Federal Railroad Administration talking 7 about how railroad engineers and conductors are, you 8 know, certified, right, the regulatory requirements 9 that are there. We had individuals from aviation. We 10 had, you know, individuals involved in other aspects 11 of training.
12 And the key audience that we targeted for 13 that were, you know, instances where there was some 14 sort of a regulated or required certification process 15 that people were going through. And it was to let 16 them do a job where there would be safety impact, 17 because we wanted to get a very broad survey of how 18 that was being approached.
19 And in the course of doing that survey, we 20 pulled in information, even in that level, what the 21 passing scores were, you know. And, you know, so I'm 22 looking at, you know, like how do you figure out what 23 the test, what methods do you use to test, you know, 24 what are the passing scores, what are the 25 technologies, you know, for entities.
NEAL 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 Then I'll give the example of the Federal 2 Railroad Administration, you know, getting into the, 3 you know, where does the government, you know -- you 4 basically say, okay, we're going to regulate things 5 down to this level in terms of how this process works.
6 Actually, a lot of good synergy as we noticed there 7 between how they were approaching things and how we 8 were looking to as well, too.
9 You know, we had a retired individual from 10 the Federal Aviation Administration, if I remember 11 right, you know, talking about how they approached 12 things as well. So, again, you know, we pulled in a 13 very broad range of information in putting those 14 together.
15 And something that, you know, something 16 that we found to be quite interesting as we did this 17 was not only did you get into matters of, you know, 18 where there was established science, if you will, 19 right, in terms of, you know, assessment testing and 20 things that are very well established, you know, 21 again, you know, things like the concepts of validity 22 and reliability, you know, content domain, those types 23 of things, but also where, you know, we found that 24 fairly universally certain things are just left to 25 subject matter experts, elicitation and consensus, NEAL 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 right.
2 So there's a number of end points here 3 where, you know, if you really ask a question of how 4 do we scientifically figure out what a passing score 5 needs to be, you're not really going to get a clean 6 answer on that, because it's going to come down to 7 what subject matter experts and incumbents in that 8 field reach a consensus on as to where that 9 performance cutoff is, right.
10 So, again, you know, there's a place 11 where, you know, kind of the science and the art come 12 together on something we learned here, too. So, as we 13 shape the guidance, we tried to be mindful to where 14 things really need to fall back on the subject matter 15 experts for, you know, for that new technology.
16 Now, the last thing I want to touch upon 17 is the working groups. And, you know, we have had 18 interactions, you know, recently with entities, yeah, 19 individuals from NEI, you know, our, you know, 20 interactions with NPO, right, that we have, you know, 21 have our, you know, we meet with them annually and so 22 on and so forth under a memorandum of agreement.
23 And what I can say is that there's other 24 working group efforts that are, you know, other, you 25 know, similar or kind of tangentially related to, 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
99 1 know, what's going on here. But for the purposes of 2 developing this guidance, again, you know, the pool of 3 information that we drew from was what I described.
4 And again, what we intend to do is, you 5 know, last week we had a stakeholder meeting, right, 6 where we presented very similar presentations on these 7 interim staff guidance documents. And we've made 8 those publicly available, and again, to get those out 9 to the stakeholders.
10 And what we anticipate going forward is 11 that, since these are included in the Part 53 rule 12 package, when we get into the public comment period 13 that, you know, that the public will not have had time 14 but the stakeholders will have had time with those 15 efforts that they're, you know, doing individually and 16 so forth to go through to consider what's here and to 17 make informed comments on this and refine what we're 18 doing.
19 Theresa, that's all I have.
20 MS. BUCHANAN: Thanks, Jesse. Yeah, I 21 think the key point is this is still a draft guidance, 22 so it was going to be subject to change. So we do 23 expect to get comments from NEI and those folks on 24 this guidance. All right. If there's nothing else, 25 can we go to the next slide, please?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
100 1 So Section 8 basically is a very short 2 section. It just references back to items in NUREG-3 1021 that are universally applicable. So that really 4 related to plant designs, so, for example, things like 5 exam security or whether or not procedures are going 6 to get frozen or overview of certain generic 7 examination concepts.
8 You know, there's discussion. You know, 9 Appendix A of NUREG-1021 talks about, you know, the 10 generic exam, you know, concepts. And it includes an 11 additional discussion on validity and reliability and 12 things like that.
13 So, basically, what we say in the ISG is 14 that's all stuff that's universally applicable to 15 examination programs since it's not really related to 16 a specific plant design. So, instead of just copying 17 and pasting everything from the NUREG into this ISG, 18 we just reference it back to the NUREG. Next slide, 19 please.
20 So Section 9, this is the slide that we 21 had mentioned earlier. It talks about simulation 22 facilities. This is primarily associated to 23 simulation facilities used for the exams. So there --
24 and I'm sure Jesse or Maurin could talk about it.
25 There's different requirements for simulation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
101 1 facilities used for the HFE testing stuff. That's not 2 in -- that's beyond the scope of this ISG.
3 This ISG is related to, if you're going to 4 use a simulation facility on the exam, it has to have 5 sufficient level of fidelity in order to assess those 6 KSAs. I mean, that just makes sense. You would think 7 that would be what you need to do. So, but we put it 8 in here to make sure it's in writing.
9 So they have to show how, if they're going 10 to be testing things on a simulation facility, let's 11 say they're going to be doing JPMs as an example, they 12 have to show how the simulation facility can actually 13 test those JPMs and have an appropriate level of 14 fidelity so you're not getting into like negative 15 training and stuff.
16 Additionally, the simulation facility 17 should have the same cognitive requirement as the real 18 environment, so glass top to glass top, actual 19 hardware to hardware, so similar cognitive 20 requirements.
21 And if you have a simulation based 22 assessment, again, just like other assessments, you 23 have to have documentation on how that exam is valid.
24 That documentation would include what's 25 measured, who the intended population is here --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
102 1 that's fairly obvious, that would be the operators or 2 the applicants -- what the measurement tools are, and 3 includes things like identifying the jobs and tasks, 4 the specific scenario events, identifying metrics, in 5 other words, how you determine whether or not the 6 examinee achieved the objective, if they passed or 7 not, so what are the metrics, and additionally, just 8 feedback to the examinee on their performance.
9 So that's basically what this covers here.
10 And again, like I said, this covers simulation 11 facilities in the context of the exam program, since 12 that's what this ISG is primarily about. So it does 13 not cover simulation facilities from the context of 14 like HFE testing. Next slide, please.
15 So Section 10 now gets into administration 16 of the operating tests. Now, currently under Part 55, 17 we administer all the operating tests. So the NRC 18 does it. Under Part 53, we're looking at allowing the 19 facilities to administer operating tests while we do 20 inspection to make sure that they're administering 21 them correctly.
22 Regardless, the examination program needs 23 to have documentation and procedures similar to those 24 in NUREG-1021, specific to the type of test 25 administered, to ensure that examiners behave 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
103 1 accordance with the appropriate codes of conduct to 2 ensure exam integrity.
3 Again, examination integrity is still, you 4 know, a requirement under Part 53. So they need to 5 have measures in place in their program to ensure 6 that, so, when administering these tests and also 7 measures in place to retain required records 8 associated with the administration of these tests.
9 Again, these tests help form the licensing 10 basis for licensing these operators regardless of 11 whether you're specifically licensed or generally 12 licensed. And so the records need to be maintained.
13 But this is, administering the operating 14 tests is based on what you have in your operating 15 tests. So, if you have no JPMs, you don't need to 16 have instructions on how to administer JPMs. You 17 really only need to have instructions on how to 18 administer the aspects that are associated with the 19 facility's developed exam program.
20 So, if no scenarios, there's no 21 instructions on how to administer scenarios. But if 22 there are scenarios, you have to have instructions on 23 how you administer the scenarios and make sure that 24 you're retaining exam security. All right. Next 25 slide, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
104 1 Section 11 then covers the change 2 management process for the program. The programs that 3 are required to be reviewed and approved by the NRC 4 also are required to have some kind of change 5 management program, so what changes can be made that 6 the facility can make without having to come back to 7 the NRC and say, hey, we've made changes, you might 8 need to look at this, and what changes do require us 9 to come and take another look at it and say, okay, the 10 changes you've made are okay, you haven't 11 significantly changed the program or you haven't 12 changed the program in a way that would impact the 13 exam program or make the license decisions invalid.
14 So here are some of the examples, you 15 know, exemption from regulation, changing tech specs, 16 and then the last two is the negative impact to exam 17 security or integrity or a negative impact on the 18 consistency of the reliable, valid measure of the 19 exam.
20 An example is also provided in the ISG.
21 It's something that people might not originally think 22 of as a problem with adding it, you know, why would 23 you need to get NRC approval, and that's adding 24 knowledge, skills, and abilities to the exam list. So 25 you're going to be testing on additional 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
105 1 So that's like, okay, well, that should be 2 fine. But you have to think beyond just adding 3 something to the testing pool. You have to think 4 about the, you know, unintended consequences of that, 5 you know. It could have a broader impact on the exam.
6 So questions that would need to be 7 addressed is should sampling be changed, do I now need 8 to sample more from this area versus this other area, 9 do I need to increase the number of my test items. If 10 I had a 500 KSA bank and let's say I added, you know, 11 I added a new system, so I added 20, 25, 50 KSAs, 12 well, now I have a bigger bank, you know. Do I need 13 to add questions now to my exam? Maybe my exam was 35 14 questions before. Maybe now it needs to be 40 or 50 15 questions.
16 So these are all things that -- just 17 adding items to the exam list has broader impacts than 18 just that list. And so that's an example of something 19 that would still need to be reviewed by the NRC to 20 ensure that all the potential impacts of the change 21 are properly considered prior to proceeding.
22 So the exam program itself that they would 23 submit to us for review and approval would have within 24 it how they propose to do the change management, what 25 things we would need to review and approve before NEAL 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 doing and what things the facility could do. We 2 provide a list of both in the ISGs that would be 3 acceptable.
4 An example for the items that they 5 wouldn't need to come back to us on are things like, 6 you know, minor edits for clarity where they're not 7 really changing anything, they're just clarifying 8 things, stuff like that. So that's all in this 9 section of the ISG. Next slide, please.
10 MEMBER BIER: Excuse me. Another 11 question. Vicki Bier.
12 I appreciate the idea that adding items or 13 skills and knowledge to the test bank could require 14 NRC approval for the reasons you stated. But I also 15 wonder whether that creates a disincentive for the 16 licensee to add items when it might be advisable, 17 because they may say, well, but then we're going to 18 have to go through this whole NRC approval, maybe we 19 should just leave those items off and not add them.
20 MS. BUCHANAN: Now, that's a good point.
21 And, you know, my initial response is going to be, 22 well, the SAT process will catch you. But the SAT 23 process is associated with training and not 24 necessarily the exam.
25 So that might be something that we would NEAL 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 need to take a look at to make sure that there's a 2 feedback loop, if you will, kind of like, you know, 3 how SAT process has that feedback loop where if you 4 identify something new that needs to be added to 5 training you get a start back in on your SAT process 6 to, you know, do the task analysis and all of that 7 kind of stuff.
8 So it kind of has this iterative, 9 constantly iterative approach of saying, hey, do I 10 need to add new things to my training program. And I 11 don't think we really have that right now in the exam 12 program. I don't know, Jesse, if you wanted to touch 13 in. But that is something that I think maybe we 14 should consider.
15 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, Theresa, yeah. You 16 know, the systematic approach to training is a living 17 process, right. So, again, we mentioned that, you 18 know, there's another layer to, you know, the equation 19 here. And that's the broader, you know, training 20 program review guidance.
21 And, you know, the training program review 22 guidance, which is, you know, a separate guidance 23 document that we're working through, that really has 24 to be balanced against the potential that, you know, 25 some entities may elect to pursue accreditation 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
108 1 their training programs, right. And historically 2 where, you know, accreditation has been achieved, you 3 know, that's been seen as an acceptable way to meet 4 some of those programmatic requirements. So the depth 5 to which we look at those programs could vary 6 depending on the approach taken.
7 But the bottom line is that that's a 8 living program, right. So, as, you know, as you make 9 modifications to your facility, right, as you do 10 things that, you know, change tasks that need to be 11 done, right, that gets caught up in the analysis 12 phase, right. It would be a task analysis.
13 And that subsequently translate to 14 determining, you know, training needs, right, so 15 identifying learning objectives and so forth. So 16 that's really an upstream process.
17 Downstream of that you have, you know, 18 kind of this, you know, testable body of those 19 knowledge and ability items, you know, that they did 20 out of the task analysis that are of a high enough 21 importance, you know, to warrant, you know, testing 22 within the scope of these examinations.
23 So, for the, you know, for the entity to 24 just say like, well, hey, we're going to forego, you 25 know, making this change because we don't want to go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
109 1 through that, right, again, that's something that we 2 don't want to, you know, inadvertently get things into 3 that position.
4 So what we've been trying to do is strike 5 a balance between letting that SAT process be a living 6 process where, you know, the learning objectives and 7 so forth are, you know, updated and refreshed as they 8 need to be based upon changes to tasking, but at the 9 same time, allowing, you know, the knowledge and 10 ability list to undergo, you know, reasonable 11 modifications and updates, right, you know, in tandem 12 with that, but again, you know, trying to set, you 13 know, the boundaries to where those changes become of 14 a, you know, nature that's substantive enough, you 15 know, for us to have to, you know, provide approval.
16 And really it's when that balance starts 17 to get thrown off. And, you know, and I think Theresa 18 touched upon that, you know. You can really go in two 19 different ways.
20 I'll give an example. So, you know, one 21 of the things that we need to avoid is the potential 22 for a facility to do too shallow of a task analysis, 23 right. So they could come in and they could say, 24 well, you know, the operator is simply someone who 25 implements. They push buttons. They don't need to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
110 1 know the theory, the system operation, and so forth.
2 They simply pick up procedures, see light, push 3 button, right. And that's a gross oversimplification, 4 but that's it, right.
5 So, you know, a proper, a properly 6 rigorous, you know, SAT based process that, you know, 7 again, you know, descends into, you know, this 8 knowledge and ability catalog of testable items would 9 look at, you know, the full scope of, you know, the 10 cognitive aspects as well, right. So, and again, you 11 know, in our guidance, you know, if not here, over in 12 the training guidance, we do matters of like cognitive 13 task analysis, right.
14 So you have to have the underlying 15 understanding, you know, from the fundamentals on up, 16 you know, regarding those. And that's something in 17 the preamble that we talk about more, you know, what 18 the, you know, what we envision the required minimum 19 scope to be.
20 So, as, you know, as this process goes 21 through, there is the peril, you know, that we have to 22 safeguard against that there could be an inappropriate 23 change in the perceived job task scope that's allowed 24 to translate down to, you know, that list of KAs, 25 right. So someone could, you know, narrow the scope NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
111 1 in an inappropriate way, and it starts coming out in 2 things like fundamentals and systems.
3 And then on the other end, right, and I 4 think Theresa spoke to this, you know, as you 5 incorporate these modifications into the plants, 6 right, now, at the level of just the training program, 7 of course, those tasks should be included in training, 8 right, and so on and so forth.
9 However, when it comes time for the 10 license exam, you know, again, we want to keep the 11 focus there on, you know, the safety functions, the 12 important administrative functions, you know, the 13 control reactivity, right, you know, that kind of, you 14 know, pool of things that are evaluated to be of 15 higher importance, right, for the job role.
16 And so what we don't want to do is dilute 17 that pool, right. So, again, you know, we don't want 18 to, you know, necessarily be testing, you know, some 19 ventilation system that's out in the field that's just 20 installed for comfort, right. That's not something 21 that should be showing up on the license exam.
22 So, again, it's a difficult balance to 23 strike. And what we, you know, absolutely want to 24 avoid is what you're pointing to, where somehow we 25 disincentivize, you know, the facility from, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
112 1 being able to take this, you know, this very, you 2 know, kind of honest, forthright approach, and, you 3 know, just updating things in real time as they're 4 warranted, right, and then stalling modifications that 5 are prudent. So --
6 MS. BUCHANAN: Jesse, I just want to just 7 tag on a point that I think that Vicki was making, 8 and, please, Vicki, correct me I get this wrong.
9 But I think the point that I was hearing 10 is, you know, the way that our ISG is currently 11 written, it's kind of static. So the training program 12 based on being SAT is, indeed, iterative, continuous, 13 life cycling, however you want to call it. But the 14 way that the exam program is currently written, other 15 than for the section on making changes to it, it's 16 kind of static.
17 So, having a change to your training 18 program, I don't currently see in our ISG, and maybe 19 I'm wrong, but I don't currently see in our ISG a 20 kicker that says, hey, when your training list 21 changes, you need to go back through and redo the exam 22 program KSA list.
23 And I think that's what Vicki was kind of 24 asking, saying, hey, is there something that kicks in 25 into doing that, because if they have this change NEAL 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 management and they're disincentivized from doing 2 that, they're not going to want to do that unless 3 they're being made to do that.
4 MEMBER BIER: So I will just say, you 5 know, I appreciate that it's a difficult balance, 6 right. If you mandate too many things, then you can 7 get just kind of compliance by checklist and somebody 8 mindlessly trying to fill all the requirements. And 9 on the other hand, if you have too few requirements, 10 then, you know, people can skate by and, you know, not 11 take certain things seriously that they should.
12 So I don't think there's necessarily a 13 right or wrong place to fall on that, but just that 14 that idea of are we inadvertently disincentivizing 15 licensees from adding things to the list of testable 16 items. So --
17 MS. BUCHANAN: Good point, yeah. All 18 right. Can we go ahead to the next slide, please?
19 CHAIR PETTI: Yeah, just, members, I'm 20 hoping that we'll take a break after this presentation 21 --
22 MS. BUCHANAN: Yeah. I've got five slides 23 left, so I'll try and get through them as quickly as 24 I can.
25 CHAIR PETTI: Great. Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
114 1 MS. BUCHANAN: Thanks. Okay. So Section 2 12 is on static, computer based testing. Basically, 3 we just say, hey, that's beyond the scope for right 4 now. But if they wanted, if the facility wanted to do 5 that, they'd have to provide documentation to describe 6 how that's equivalent to what we do have in the ISG.
7 Next slide, please.
8 This section provides some additional 9 guidance on requalification. As Jesse had mentioned, 10 this does specify the fact that, hey, if you fail, you 11 have to get remediated and retested before returning 12 to licensed duties. And we would expect to see that 13 in their program.
14 Periodicity, when I'm talking about 15 periodicity, I'm talking about the length of time that 16 the requalification program cycle runs. And for 17 specifically licensed ROs and SROs, it's the same as 18 what we have for Part 55, don't exceed 24 months.
19 For the generally licensed operators, we 20 allow the facility to define that. But if they're 21 going over 24 months, then they have to provide a 22 basis for why that's okay. And we provide some 23 examples. So we say that includes things like the SAT 24 process, operator performance trends, industry OE, 25 changes in the experience level or turnover 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
115 1 staffing, significant changes to design and operation 2 of the facility.
3 So this periodicity is defined by the 4 program. But based on, as I said, some of the 5 examples we provided, there is a possibility that that 6 periodicity could actually change throughout the life 7 cycle of the facility. And it's going to be defined 8 by the program for the generally licensed operators.
9 Next slide, please.
10 Proficiency, again, I've already 11 previously mentioned that. That has to do with 12 actively performing the functions of a licensed 13 operator. And you have to maintain it and 14 instructions for how to reestablish proficiency that 15 cannot be maintained.
16 Basically, the difference is current Part 17 55 operators is currently defined in regulation. And 18 the difference here is that the facility can define 19 what it is for their facility. But it has to get 20 reviewed and approved by the NRC first.
21 So it's a little bit less proscriptive.
22 Like currently you have to have, you know, 5, like 5, 23 you know, 5 day, you know, 5 days, 12-hour shift 24 within every calendar quarter in order to maintain 25 your proficiency. And if you don't, you have to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
116 1 all of these 40 hours under instruction with a 2 complete plant tour and all these other things. And 3 so we expect them to define that for their facilities.
4 Next slide, please.
5 Okay. Section 15 talks about waivers.
6 When I'm talking about waivers, what I'm talking about 7 here is waiving the requirements for the exams. So, 8 under -- and Jesse you know the rule language a lot 9 better than I do. I don't know the specific one.
10 But for specifically licensed operators, 11 it's in the rule about being able to waive the 12 requirement for an exam. And if I remember correctly, 13 and I could be wrong here, Jesse, correct me if I am, 14 it's similar to what we have currently for Part 55 15 operators in that, you know, there is criteria that 16 can be met that allows folks to request a waiver from 17 the exam.
18 So an example, they were licensed at that 19 facility. They left. They come back a year later.
20 You know, they get refreshed on changes that have been 21 made. And then they put in a request to us under Part 22 55, I think it's 55.47, to say, hey, I want to get 23 relicensed at this facility, but I don't want to have 24 to take the exam, and here's how I meet the waiver 25 requirements that's listed in the 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
117 1 So it's a similar process for the 2 specifically licensed operators. That's why there's 3 no information on that in this ISG. There doesn't 4 need to be. It's in the rule itself.
5 For the generally licensed operators, 6 there isn't any information in the rule specifically 7 on the exam piece of it. So they said, hey, if they 8 have appropriate criteria similar to what's in 55.47, 9 especially, that says, hey, if, as a generally 10 licensed operator, if you were generally licensed, you 11 know, at this facility and you meet these 12 requirements, you don't need to take the exam in order 13 to get relicensed at the facility.
14 If they want to propose alternate 15 criteria, then we'd have to review that. And they'd 16 have to establish a basis describing how the criteria 17 they are proposing ensures that the individuals are 18 going to be able to safely and confidently operate the 19 facility without having to pass another test.
20 MEMBER HALNON: So this is Greg. Just 21 real quick, this goes back to my comment about the NRC 22 having a point in this process to validate or verify 23 that operators have completed everything they need to 24 do before they assume licensed duties.
25 And this is another case where 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
118 1 licensee can waive the requirements either through, 2 you know, very diligent compliance with the program 3 that you guys have already approved, or as we know 4 could happen, wordsmith is such that somebody who may 5 be marginal meets the criteria for a waiver. And 6 there's no check and balance by the NRC anywhere 7 before this person becomes licensed.
8 And I just think that this is another case 9 where the fox has the key to the hen house in some 10 respects. And it further validates why I think there 11 should be a point where the NRC verifies and validates 12 all the criteria met prior to licensed duties.
13 MR. SEYMOUR: Theresa, I can speak to this 14 if you want to --
15 MS. BUCHANAN: Okay.
16 MR. SEYMOUR: -- yield the floor for a 17 moment. So --
18 MS. BUCHANAN: I yield the floor to you 19 for two minutes. I'm going to time it.
20 MR. SEYMOUR: Thank you. I appreciate it.
21 You know, and again, I captured the point earlier on 22 this. It's a really good point. Like I said, you 23 know, it's something that we will, you know, 24 definitely, you know, consider further between now and 25 the full committee.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
119 1 What I can say is that, you know, there 2 are certain legal ramifications that we get into of, 3 you know, a general license and some of the mechanisms 4 that are in fault there. And there are some practical 5 considerations associated with that.
6 So what I wanted to point out, though, is 7 that in, you know, in some aspects, right, you know, 8 there's still enforcement action, you know, potential, 9 right, in some instances. Whereas, previously we 10 might have been in a circumstance where we'd be taking 11 two enforcement actions against both the individual 12 licensee and the facility licensee, which is quite 13 common in issues that happen with individual operator 14 licensing, right, specific operator licensing. We'll 15 actually issue violations against both in some cases.
16 What we would have here is a circumstance 17 where, you know, if we had an entity that, you know, 18 came in, you know, said here's the waiver process that 19 we'll use, presented something to us that, you know, 20 for the sake of discussion we'll say emulates, you 21 know, the structure of 55.47, and then inappropriately 22 applied that, right, well, we have every intention of, 23 you know, having, you know, ongoing inspection 24 activities of these programs, right.
25 Then again, that's a program that 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
120 1 needs to be flushed out, you know. It will be part of 2 the broader inspection methodology that's crafted for 3 Part 53.
4 But our intention, and, you know, I think 5 this is articulated in the preamble as well, is to, 6 you know, have an ongoing oversight of these programs, 7 so, you know, via, you know, regular inspection or via 8 reactive inspections, right, you know, again, post-9 event type of circumstances.
10 If it came to light that there was an 11 inappropriate application of that process, again, you 12 know, this would be an approved program. And again, 13 there would be, you know, the potential there to take 14 enforcement action against the facility licensee.
15 Now, that's an after the fact thing. It 16 doesn't address, you know, your concern about how do 17 you address this on the front end.
18 However, what it does is it creates, you 19 know, a factor that should act as a deterrent against, 20 you know, that type of inappropriate, you know, 21 implementation of these programs, right, because 22 again, there is the potential there for enforcement 23 action and, you know, everything that's attendant with 24 that. So, again, I would just offer that.
25 In some cases, with the general licensed NEAL 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 reactor operator program, the onus has shifted, you 2 know, versus just going away entirely, right. So here 3 is an area where, you know, the regulatory hook, you 4 know, is still with the facility licensee.
5 So, again, it's on us to review that 6 program and to make sure that it's appropriate before 7 we accept it. However, they will be on the hook to 8 implement it, you know, and it will be something that 9 we envision as being enforceable.
10 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, I agree. There is 11 a level of comfort with the inspection program.
12 However, what we told you prior to this 13 and we reiterated it to the Commissioners during our 14 briefing is that the ability to assume licensed duties 15 by being a licensed operator is a really big deal, and 16 we want to keep that in front of us as being a really 17 big deal. And part of that is make sure that the 18 federal government agrees that that person is as 19 qualified as the licensee says they are.
20 So, but I do agree, Jesse. There is a 21 level of comfort that there is both enforcement 22 hanging over people, as well as you assume that 23 everyone is diligently and incredibly complying with 24 the program that you have already approved. So, 25 again, that's just, again, back to my original NEAL 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 comment, I think there should be still a verification 2 of, prior to assuming licensed duties.
3 MS. BUCHANAN: And, Jesse, you said you'd 4 noted that down already?
5 MR. SEYMOUR: Yes.
6 MS. BUCHANAN: Okay. All right. Then I'm 7 not going to write it down a second time since you've 8 got it. Okay. Thank you, Gregory.
9 If we can go on to the next slide, this is 10 my last slide. So everybody can get excited. So this 11 is -- Appendix A to the ISG talks about currently 12 approved examination methods. Basically, what it says 13 is this is that easy button Jesse talked about. He 14 stole my thunder earlier.
15 So, if you have methods that are currently 16 approved in NUREG-1021, you can go ahead and use them 17 without needing to provide any further basis for their 18 use or us having to do any additional NRC review, 19 because we basically looked at it as, hey, this is 20 something that's already been reviewed and approved.
21 So, in other words, if you want to use a 22 four-part multiple choice written exam with an 80 23 percent cut score, you don't have to provide a basis 24 to us on why a four-part multiple choice written exam 25 with an 80 percent cut score is 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
123 1 You would still need to have a basis for 2 which KSAs are being tested using this method, the 3 sampling method that's being used for it, and as well 4 as the number of questions on the exam if you're not 5 doing a 100-question exam. All of those aspects would 6 still need to be justified.
7 But, you know, the fact that you had a 8 four-part multiple choice, you know, format with an 80 9 percent passing rate, that wouldn't need to be 10 justified. You could just use that as is because it's 11 basically been previously approved by the NRC by 12 virtue of being in NUREG-1021 currently. That's how 13 we kind of looked at that.
14 And that is that. That's all that I've 15 got for my presentation. And I know that it was said 16 that you all wanted to look at doing a break. So I 17 was aiming to get done by 11:00, and I managed to do 18 that. So I don't think I made up all the time that we 19 lost earlier, but I think I made up a little bit.
20 CHAIR PETTI: Great. Thanks. Any other 21 comments, members? Okay. Then let's take a 20-minute 22 break, come back at 20 minutes after the hour. Thank 23 you.
24 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 25 off the record at 10:59 a.m. and resumed at 11:20 NEAL 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 a.m.)
2 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. We're back. So let's 3 keep on going. Thank you.
4 MS. SCHEETZ: All right. Good morning, 5 subcommittee. This is Maurin Scheetz. I'm an 6 operator licensing examiner and technical reviewer in 7 the NRC's Operator Licensing and Human Factors Branch.
8 Now I'm going to present on the draft 9 guidance for NRC review staffing plans under the 10 proposed Part 53 rule. This interim staff guidance 11 augments existing staff guidance in NUREG-1791 which 12 is titled Guidance for Assessing Exemption Requests 13 from the Nuclear Power Plant License Operator Staffing 14 Requirements Specified in 10 CFR 50.54(m). It's 15 augmenting this NUREG so that it can be used to review 16 staffing plans submitted under Part 53. Next slide, 17 please.
18 So this slide explains why we wrote the 19 draft review guidance to augment NUREG-1791. The 20 current staffing requirement for licensing Part 50.52 21 plants is very prescriptive, and it's specifically 22 written for up to three large light water reactor 23 units. The NRC can review exemptions to this 24 prescriptive staffing level using NUREG-1791.
25 NUREG-1791 was developed in 2005 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
125 1 anticipation of advanced reactors and an increased use 2 of advanced automation. And it provides a 3 performance-based process for determining an 4 appropriate number of control room operators. It has 5 11 steps, including the review of a staffing plan 6 validation.
7 The staffing plan validation itself is a 8 performance-based test used to determine whether the 9 staffing plan meets performance requirements and 10 acceptably supports safe operation of the plant. The 11 staff used NUREG-1791 most recently to evaluate the 12 novel control room staffing models for the NuScale 13 small modular reactor design. So we are very familiar 14 with use of this review guidance.
15 However, NUREG-1791 cannot be used as 16 written for Part 53 purposes because it relies on the 17 exemption process, the exemptions to Part 50 18 requirements. So because of this, we chose to augment 19 the document for Part 53 purposes. Next slide, 20 please. So the next few slides provide an overview of 21 the Part 53 approach to staffing from the proposed 22 rule language.
23 The staffing rule in Part 53 is flexible 24 meaning that the applicant proposes a minimum staffing 25 level by submitting a staffing plan with their NEAL 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 application. The rule considers differences in 2 staffing needs when operators have or do not have a 3 safety rule. If the applicant is going to use 4 specifically licensed operators, then the applicant 5 must provide additional details in their staff plan 6 submittal, and those details must be supported by 7 human factors, engineering, analysis, and assessments.
8 We also recognize that operators may fill 9 multiple roles at the plant. So the staffing plan 10 submittal has to include information about other 11 responsibilities the operators may have. The staff 12 will review and approve the staffing plan as part of 13 the licensing process.
14 Subsequent changes to approving staffing 15 plans are then subject to administrative controls.
16 Next slide, please. So this is the main excerpt from 17 Part 53.730(f) for the applicant to submit a staffing 18 plan. And that staffing plan focus is on the number, 19 positions, and qualifications of operators, either 20 specific or generally licensed across all modes of 21 plant operations and a description of how the numbers, 22 positions, and responsibilities of personnel in the 23 staffing plan would adequately support all necessary 24 functions in the areas of plant operations, 25 maintenance, radiological protection, chemistry, fire NEAL 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 brigade, engineering, security, and emergency 2 response. Next slide, please.
3 The staffing plan must also include a 4 description of how engineering expertise will be 5 available to the on shift crew during all plant 6 conditions to assist in situations not covered by 7 procedures or training. This is at least one person 8 available to support the crew at all times. And this 9 person must be familiar with the operation of the 10 facility and have a technical degree or a professional 11 engineer license.
12 These are the same education requirements 13 that exist for shift technical advisors or STAs at 14 operating reactors. However the requirement for 15 engineering expertise is different than the 16 traditional STA because it allows for more flexibility 17 and where this person is located to do their job.
18 They could be onsite or offsite, and it could be a 19 single qualified individual providing coverage for 20 multiple facilities from offsite.
21 The overall purpose of this position is 22 also slightly different than the STA. The initial 23 purpose of the STA immediately following the accident 24 at Three Mile Island 2 was to provide additional 25 technical and analytical support and advise the shift NEAL 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 supervisor on actions to terminate or mitigate the 2 consequences of abnormal events or accident 3 conditions. The Part 53 requirement for engineering 4 expertise is focused on supporting the crew in 5 situations not covered by procedures or training, also 6 known as uncertainties.
7 It's aligned with Commission policy for 8 education on shift as described in the 1989 Commission 9 policy statement titled Education for Senior Reactor 10 Operators and Shift Supervisors at Nuclear Power 11 Plants in which the Commission acknowledged the 12 potential for situations to arise which are not 13 covered through training or operating procedures. And 14 therefore, there's a need for some individuals on each 15 nuclear power plant shift who have an innate 16 understanding of systems level performance of a 17 nuclear power plant and knowledge of scientific and 18 engineering fundamentals and basic scientific 19 principles that govern the behavior of electrical, 20 mechanical, and other engineering systems. Education 21 and experience requirements for candidates for 22 operator licenses are traditionally dictated by a 23 facility license's training program requirements.
24 Specifically, reactor operator candidates 25 must have a high school diploma. And senior reactor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
129 1 operator candidates without previous experience as a 2 reactor operator on a commercial or military reactor 3 must have a bachelor's of science degree or equivalent 4 in engineering or engineering technology or related 5 science with some exceptions. This allows for the 6 control room operating crew to have a desirable mix of 7 education and experience requirements -- sorry, a mix 8 of education and experience backgrounds such as senior 9 reactor operators with technical degrees and reactor 10 operators with substantial hands on engineering --
11 sorry, hands on operating experience.
12 The staff anticipates that Part 53 13 applicants may seek alternatives to these traditional 14 categories of engineering and experience requirements 15 for operators. So the requirement for engineering 16 expertise ensures that at least one person is 17 available to provide an engineer's level of 18 understanding for potential confusing or unclear plant 19 parameters or response. Next slide, please. So this 20 slide goes more into an overview of the draft interim 21 staff guidance for reviewing Part 53 staffing plans.
22 So the objective of the staff guidance is 23 to guide the reviewer through a process of evaluating 24 staffing plans, their supporting analyses, and 25 determine whether the proposed minimum staffing level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
130 1 provides assurance that plant safety functions could 2 be maintained across all modes of plant operations.
3 It's intended for plants to have specifically licensed 4 operators. However, we do believe we could scale the 5 review using this guidance for plants with generally 6 licensed operators.
7 We are still trying to decide what we're 8 going to do with those generally licensed operator 9 staffing plants. This ISG is intended to be used in 10 conjunction with NUREG-1791. So you have to have both 11 of the documents open.
12 And it follows the same 11 steps with some 13 review criteria added or removed. For example, it 14 includes review guidance for this engineering 15 expertise requirement that's new to Part 53. And I'm 16 going to show that next.
17 Though it's developed as an interim staff 18 guide, we believe that once we have some experience 19 using it, we can update the parent document, NUREG-20 1791, to include this guidance. Next slide, please.
21 So this is my last slide. And I know that the 22 Committee wanted to specifically look at what kind of 23 criteria we were going to use for review of the new 24 engineering expertise requirement.
25 So step 7.3 of our ISG addresses how 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 staff will review the applicant's method to meet this 2 proposed engineering expertise requirement. There's 3 review criterion --- there is a review criterion to 4 accompany each of the bullets on the slide for this 5 list of high level things we're going to look at. For 6 example, regarding training and qualification, the 7 training and qualification program for the person 8 fulfilling the engineering expertise requirement must 9 be derived from a systems approach to training.
10 The review guidance has the reviewer look 11 for a minimum set of training subjects for the initial 12 training of that engineer such as generic 13 fundamentals, plant systems, operating procedures and 14 their bases, analysis of transient events and 15 accidents, core damage, and others. An example of 16 data needs and offsite response time, if the engineer 17 is going to be located offsite, personnel fulfilling 18 the engineering expertise requirement have access to 19 the same suite of displays or a similar set of data 20 that's available to the on shift crew. And then we 21 have in there that they have to be able to respond to 22 requests for assistance in a timely manner not to 23 exceed ten minutes.
24 If the engineer is going to be located 25 onsite, same ten minute requirement. They have 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
132 1 show up in the location of the on shift crew to 2 provide technical assistance within ten minutes. So 3 those are just some examples of the more specific 4 criteria we're going to look for when we're looking at 5 this overall engineering expertise requirement and how 6 the applicant is meeting it. So this is the last 7 slide I have regarding the staffing ISG. I can take 8 questions now.
9 MEMBER BIER: Hi, this is Vicki Bier 10 again. I'm going to reprise Charlie's question from 11 earlier today about how do you know that offsite 12 engineering expertise will, in fact, have access to 13 the plant information electronically given the various 14 disruptions, whether it's cyber attacks or just 15 outages, et cetera, that could impair that.
16 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay. So there will be some 17 cyber security expectations for this data transfer, 18 also some expectations for data refresh date. That's 19 written in the guidance. So those are things we're 20 going to look at.
21 We're also going to have them demonstrate 22 -- one of the expectations is demonstrating this rule 23 in the validation activities. So we are looking for 24 those kind of things. I mean, maybe we look for a 25 backup plan if they lose all communications. But they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
133 1 have to have some kind of backup communication with 2 the -- so the primary and backup communication 3 expectation for -- between the offsite engineer and 4 the on shift crew.
5 (Simultaneous speaking.)
6 MS. SCHEETZ: Yes?
7 MR. SEYMOUR: I was going to say when 8 you're done, if you don't mind, there's a point that 9 I wanted to add here.
10 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay, go ahead. Yeah, I'm 11 just kind of going through --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MR. SEYMOUR: Okay.
14 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown 15 again. Thanks, Vicki. It's kind of a dual thing.
16 Cybersecurity is cybersecurity. You've got to deal 17 with that when you're going to be whatever.
18 The issue with any of the remote getting 19 offsite information is how do you make sure that the 20 systems that provide that are still okay if you've got 21 nobody onsite. If you've got people onsite, then 22 you've got somebody you can talk to, at least by phone 23 if nothing else. But the cybersecurity issues are 24 ones you have to deal with obviously.
25 But the equipment onsite that you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
134 1 should be treated similar to, like, we have -- what's 2 an example? For example, say if a plant has to have 3 a reactor trip system. It may be safe, but it has to 4 have one. And what we do with the local plants is 5 they have no access from anything via the internet or 6 outside of the quote, defensive architecture.
7 In other words, it's all one way 8 communication from those. And the only place you can 9 control them is from a main control room onsite. Now 10 if you've got offsite stuff where you don't -- that 11 you're trying to control it, now you've made yourself 12 susceptible to the cyber issue. But you also have the 13 issue of how do you know the system is really 14 responding properly.
15 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay. So --
16 MEMBER BROWN: And that's very difficult 17 to do without people that are there onsite. So --
18 MS. SCHEETZ: I just want to clarify that 19 this engineering expertise is, like, technical 20 assistance. They have no control over any plant 21 function offsite. They're going to back up the crew, 22 provide assistance. They are not to direct actions 23 for the crew to take.
24 They can provide their independent 25 assessment of what's going on and what might need 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
135 1 happen. It's technical assistance, not any kind of 2 direction and absolutely no ability to control the 3 plant from offsite. That's not the purpose of this.
4 MEMBER BROWN: But the purpose is they 5 would provide guidance to those who may need 6 assistance in being told what they need to look for.
7 MS. SCHEETZ: Correct. Just like a 8 traditional shift technical advisor. They just don't 9 have to be in the control room. They have similar 10 data feeds offsite and they can advise the crew and 11 talk. There's an expectation that there's two-way 12 communications back and forth.
13 (Simultaneous speaking.)
14 MEMBER BROWN: With people onsite, I'm not 15 -- the training will be what the training will be.
16 Matt and Greg know far more about that than what's 17 needed. But it's not just the reactor plant that 18 needs to have onsite people.
19 I mean, you've got other plant systems.
20 And without people there, I'm worried about everybody 21 thinking you can have everybody offsite and nobody is 22 there. And you don't smell the plant. You don't hear 23 it.
24 Hearing is one of the main ways of making 25 sure you know your plant is operating correctly just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
136 1 like in your house. When you don't hear noises coming 2 from your refrigerator, you know it's not working. So 3 that's one of the biggest issues I have, and I've been 4 in many, many plants as well as Greg and Matt have.
5 And you're standing back at an engineering 6 space and people touring or they're walking around.
7 And all of a sudden, they don't hear things, say 8 what's going on. And it may not be obvious to 9 operators.
10 So having nobody in the plant is my 11 biggest concern, that we're giving seed corn for 12 people to go off and do that or operate that way and 13 have nobody onsite. I don't think that's practical 14 from an NRC safety standpoint in my particular 15 opinion. So as long as we got people there and they 16 can understand direction from somebody else, if Greg 17 and Matt are happy with that, I'll be happy with that.
18 I just don't --
19 MEMBER HALNON: Charlie, I'm keeping an 20 open mind. I always go back to the fact that the 21 staffing plan has to reflect this and it has to be 22 approved by the NRC. So they will have a bite at the 23 apple to see if it's adequate or not for the facility 24 -- specific facility. So I rest on the fact that it 25 will not just be willy-nilly done. There will be some NEAL 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 aspect of review.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah, I got that. I'm 3 always nervous even if the review tells me there's 4 unexpected things that we don't cover by reviews. I'm 5 very leery about having nobody onsite ever.
6 MEMBER HALNON: I agree.
7 MEMBER BROWN: That just doesn't make 8 sense to me.
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
10 These two slides of 135 and 133 are the equivalent 11 work in a previous presentation. And I didn't say 12 anything then.
13 But the balance between education 14 prerequisites and training or experience for this kind 15 of position is something which is to my mind very 16 important because I guess Dennis can chime in as well 17 because we've all operated plants, both of us. And we 18 know the difference. And to arbitrarily say that this 19 person's got to have a bachelor's degree in 20 engineering, under most circumstances, that's a good 21 thing.
22 But when it comes to knowing the plant and 23 experience, I'm not sure that requiring a bachelor's 24 degree wouldn't disqualify arbitrarily somebody who is 25 actually more qualified for that position based on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
138 1 experience and knowing the plant than somebody that 2 just has a bachelor's degree. Maybe I'm not putting 3 it in the right words. And maybe Dennis can say 4 something about that as well.
5 But that's where I was coming from. So 6 I'm curious as to whether the ISG can reword the 7 requirements with respect to the bachelor's degree to 8 put an or in there or something that allows for the 9 case where you've got a person who has got 25 years' 10 experience, knows the plant backwards and forwards, 11 and even knows what it sounds like as Charlie says.
12 And I definitely agree with him on that. Anyway, what 13 do you say, Dennis?
14 MR. BLEY: Yeah, I've been sitting here 15 thinking about all of this. Certainly I agree with 16 you and Charlie on that idea of the sounds in a plant 17 in the plants we know. Now some of these new, very 18 small facilities might not have any of the things that 19 make the noises that helped us a lot in the past.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: How do you spell Davis-21 Besse?
22 MR. BLEY: When we first came up after 23 TMI, when we first came up with having the STA, they 24 grabbed anybody with a degree and threw them in the 25 plants. And it took a good five years or more before NEAL 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 anybody in the plant gave them any credence because 2 they didn't know what they were about when they got in 3 there. So just sticking somebody with a degree isn't 4 enough.
5 And over time, they became very valuable.
6 But at first, it was more -- well, it was a way to get 7 that kind of expertise in the plant. But it took a 8 while to develop it to be useful.
9 So I kind of agree with you, Ron. I'm 10 still thinking about what I mentioned a little while 11 ago is I hadn't really thought about the role of the 12 operator in one of these facilities compared to a 13 normal clean power plant. And it strikes me as quite 14 different because if we get what people are talking 15 about here, the automation is going to run just about 16 everything, including response to upsets.
17 So an operator who understands all the 18 procedures, well, there might not be any procedures 19 because you don't need people to do anything. It 20 strikes me the role of the operator in one of these 21 things if they're really run almost entirely by 22 automation. I'm sorry. I got something wrong with my 23 computer.
24 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay. So this is Maurin.
25 I'm just going to go back to the original purpose 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
140 1 the degree requirement. I hear what you're saying.
2 And yes, there could be somebody who's a really good 3 candidate for this role who doesn't have a technical 4 degree.
5 But we're going after the need for 6 understanding engineering fundamentals, something that 7 the Commission policy says is exactly what having an 8 engineering degree is going to provide you. And so 9 when the crew is dealing with situations that they 10 don't understand, that's where you're going to rely on 11 that engineering degree, those fundamentals that you 12 learn through an academic program. So that's the 13 purpose of this. I do agree that there could be 14 somebody else that would be really good at that. So 15 --
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: Is what you're saying 17 true? In other words, the fact that I know F equals 18 MA, when the plant is coming down around somebody's 19 ears, again, is what you're saying true?
20 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis. I turned off 21 the noise that was going on. I kind of think the role 22 of the operator in some of these facilities might end 23 up being more analogous to the role of the STA who 24 then has the ability do some operation or shutting 25 down than to the SRO, RO model because they're mostly NEAL 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 going to be monitoring and have to understand if 2 things aren't going the way the automation expects it 3 to go and know how to intervene.
4 So it's something a little different. And 5 that kind of expertise helps. What we saw after TMI-2 6 was that operators at the time, a great many of them, 7 had come into the program and didn't understand the 8 thermal hydraulics of the plants. Now that's been 9 remedied since then. But it was a surprising number 10 to me. And having that kind of knowledge is important 11 if it's a thermal plan.
12 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay. Again, this is also 13 a mix. So we're looking for that mix of experience 14 and education background. So this helps on the 15 education side of that mix. Jesse, did you want to 16 say something? You had your hand up, but there's some 17 other hands.
18 MR. SEYMOUR: Yeah, I appreciate that, 19 Maurin. It's just a couple points I want to make just 20 to clarify. So a very, very fundamental difference 21 here that this team took in putting together this 22 language and this is something we approach very 23 deliberately.
24 And we went through a couple of iterations 25 getting to where we're at is that in contrast with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
142 1 Part 55, we elected to codify the shift technical 2 advisor equivalent, right, this engineering expertise 3 requirements within our language. And it's something 4 that gets overlooked a lot within Part 55 is that the 5 only place where the requirement associated with the 6 STA really appears is in the training rule 7 requirements, right? 51.20, right?
8 So if you go through the staffing portion 9 of 50.54, you don't see a place where it's saying, and 10 you need to have one STA on your crew, right? So it 11 is something that exists as a training program 12 requirement. And it's something lives in Commission 13 policy.
14 So the way that it was implemented for the 15 legacy plans that are out there is they were issued 16 orders in the aftermath of TMI. That's enough to get 17 this STA rule. So that's the way that we go there 18 now.
19 So we have to consider how we want to 20 approach this here. And so by design, we elected to 21 codify the staffing requirement. And one of the 22 reasons why we codified it, one, and the most 23 important reason was for clarity, right?
24 If we're expecting this rule, then put it 25 in the rule, right? So make it very clear so we got NEAL 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 clarity, regulatory certainty. But the other reason 2 is this because what it does is it leaves the door 3 open for the submittal of exemption requests, right?
4 So again, getting back to the point about, 5 well, experience, operations, different 6 considerations, right, this myriad of things that 7 could come up. What if there was a really compelling 8 case where someone could take a different approach to 9 fulfilling this requirement than what we have embedded 10 in the rule here. Because it is codified or would be, 11 right?
12 It advances preliminary rule language.
13 The option would be there to submit an exemption 14 request, right? Now that exemption request would have 15 to meet all the requirements associated with 16 exemptions, right, authorized by law, so on and so 17 forth, right? They would have to clear all those 18 hurdles.
19 Now we see this requirement that we're 20 proposing here as being something that is reasonable, 21 that is flexible, and that we expect to be met.
22 However, just by design, the potential does exist that 23 someone could exempt -- could request an exemption if 24 they really could make a case like that. But getting 25 back to Maurin's point, why a degree requirement, NEAL 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 again, the Commission has laid out in policy 2 statements this desire to have education being part of 3 that mix.
4 And yet what we do with the engineering 5 expertise requirement is we don't completely base the 6 qualification to fulfill that role in solely the 7 education. We also require familiarity with plant 8 operations. And so that is something that Maurin has 9 worked into the guidance as well too is those types of 10 topical areas that we would expect to see.
11 The closest analogy that I can give to the 12 Committee is that I was a non-licensed shift technical 13 advisor at one point in my career, then I was licensed 14 later on. And when I was a non-licensed shift 15 technical advisor, I went through an abbreviated 16 course. Again, it wasn't the 18-month licensed 17 operator in training.
18 It was more, like, an instructor 19 certification that ran for about eight months. And we 20 went through all the fundamental stuff, the systems, 21 right, the generic fundamentals, the emergency 22 operating procedures, functional restoration 23 procedures and so on and so forth, right? Mitigating 24 core damage?
25 We went through that whole suite 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
145 1 things. So again, there's ways outside of a license 2 to achieve that familiarity of plant operations from 3 a training standpoint, right? That's separate and 4 distinct from the college education. And that is 5 something that I think that we adhere to the spirit 6 fairly well within the guidance. So Maurin, that's 7 all I wanted to point out.
8 MEMBER HALNON: Jesse, this is Greg. That 9 STA training program is somewhat driven by INPO. And 10 we're not assuming that these plants are accredited 11 under INPO or the academy. So I think the point is, 12 is that they maybe need to see some kind of language 13 relative to the level of operator training or plant 14 training that's required in addition to the degree.
15 MR. SEYMOUR: So it's a good point, right?
16 And I am familiar with the same INPO, you know, and 17 academy documents and programmatic features that are 18 there. And everything essentially that we do here, we 19 have to always allow for the possibility that plants 20 could pursue accreditation or they might not.
21 So we have to leave the mechanisms in 22 place to approach all these things on our own. But 23 something I want to do is, Maurin, if you could, we 24 actually went ahead and articulated those topics 25 within our guidance, right? So again, this isn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
146 1 derived from anything that would be proprietary or 2 anything like that.
3 This is based on our own analysis and 4 assessment and so forth. And again, Maurin, I don't 5 know, if you have that, could you just go through that 6 real quick? Maybe that will help to alleviate this.
7 MS. SCHEETZ: Right, I mentioned some of 8 them when I went through this slide. But it's in the 9 guidance. There's a list of topics for that initial 10 training program for the engineer.
11 And it's stuff that's very similar to 12 current STA training courses, mitigating core damage, 13 operating procedures, integrated procedures, generic 14 fundamentals. There's a whole thing of them. It's in 15 the ISG itself. You can see them.
16 MR. WIDMAYER: Hey, Dave. It looks like 17 Steve Schultz has a question.
18 CHAIR PETTI: Yeah, Steve. Go ahead.
19 MR. SCHULTZ: I have a couple comments, 20 and the second might turn into a question. The first 21 comment is that really appreciate the job that has 22 been done in providing the augmentation of NUREG-1791 23 in this regard. A very complete job has been done to 24 put that in place in the interim guidance.
25 And I think it will be quite -- it will 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
147 1 relatively straightforward to move it into additional 2 guidance in the future as a modified NUREG. The one 3 piece that needs to be addressed that would be very, 4 very helpful in moving forward next would be to 5 include the revised Appendix A for 1791. The review 6 checklist is not prepared yet. But that would be a 7 next step that would be very helpful in the review 8 guidance.
9 Second comment relates to this discussion 10 on engineering expertise. And where I start with this 11 is that the fleets of plants that are in process of 12 being developed have been designed -- they've been 13 engineered to reduce the need for operator action.
14 And yet it seems there that we kind of have an 15 imbalance here between the training and the focus on 16 operators and the training and qualification for the 17 engineering expertise. It seems as if the engineering 18 expertise needs to be there for sure.
19 But the role that is being proposed is 20 relatively minimal. And the training and 21 qualification discussions and focus again is almost 22 missing. It seems like engineering expertise that's 23 well trained with regard to the function, operation of 24 the facility, all of that needs to be really a major 25 focus. As Charlie indicated, the thing that 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
148 1 mostly likely needed in this area for engineering 2 expertise will be for the individual to know exactly 3 how the facility is designed, exactly how it's been 4 operated and only having educational prerequisites and 5 not having detailed training and qualification 6 associated with a facility is going to be something 7 that's really going to be missing.
8 All the other elements I think are 9 certainly needed. But I get a little concerned when 10 we're talking about some of these new designs. And 11 when we're focused on operator training, operator 12 training, operator training and don't focus on the 13 need for engineering expertise that's very well 14 trained to respond to things that operators will not 15 have knowledge of unless it -- because they're dealing 16 with something that has failed which has been 17 engineered into the plant, designed into the plant, 18 and needs to be addressed.
19 MS. SCHEETZ: So this is Maurin. Just to 20 reply to that, I think the vision behind this is that 21 they are trained in the operations of the plant. And 22 it's actually written in the rule language that 23 they're familiar with the operation of the plant.
24 So it's not just relying only on their 25 engineering degree. There is training 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
149 1 qualification expectations that are listed in the 2 interim staff guidance document. And it looks very 3 similar to operator trainers also, simulation 4 facility. They should be doing this training in a 5 simulation facility.
6 So I would say there's a lot of 7 equivalence between how the operators would also be 8 trained. And an applicant may just put them all 9 together and train them at the same time. That's 10 certainly one way to meet some of these training and 11 qualification criteria in our staffing guidance here.
12 So we're just trying to be very flexible 13 with how this is met and look at a bunch of different 14 ways that an applicant may come up with meeting this.
15 We're trying to be very inclusive. That's all. It's 16 not laid out specifically in the rule language. It's 17 over in guidance.
18 MR. SCHULTZ: I understand that, and I 19 appreciate it. But it does seem as things are 20 presented that the engineering expertise is an, oh, by 21 the way, we need to do that because it's been 22 suggested or it's been required. And I think it's 23 extremely important in the new designs that we're 24 describing and discussing.
25 CHAIR PETTI: So let me just give you sort NEAL 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 of my perspective on some of this. When one looks at 2 some of these advanced reactors, there really is no 3 procedures that some of them can rely on because 4 they've never been built, right? So some of these 5 designs are going to have to have loops I can imagine 6 with molten salt, even with sodium because it's been 7 so long since a sodium reactor has operated in this 8 country and that they may actually do some hands-on 9 training, both at the engineering level and the 10 operator level on those loops so that they can get a 11 sense of what it's like.
12 Because it's not like a water loop 13 necessarily. And so I just think that we just have to 14 make sure we've got the flexibility in there that it's 15 going to look a little different because some of these 16 don't even what to go through prototypes. A lot of 17 stuff you learn if you actually had a prototype.
18 But some of them doing want to go through 19 that step. And so at the very beginning, things could 20 look a little bit different than a lot of the thought 21 process that goes into this stuff where we've got 22 experience out there on systems and similar systems.
23 Some of these are not going to look like anything else 24 that we've seen in the past.
25 Even in rad protection, in some of these, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
151 1 you're going to be dealing with tritium. It's a very 2 different thing than dealing with some of the rad 3 issues and light water reactor plants, for example.
4 I see Jesse has his hand up. Go ahead.
5 MR. SEYMOUR: Oh, yes. Thank you. I just 6 wanted to add to Maurin's point about the training and 7 qualification that we get to at the level of guidance 8 for the engineering expertise individuals because 9 there is that kind of detail about topical coverage 10 and so forth at the level of guidance. I also want to 11 point out that at the level of the rule under 53.830, 12 Part 53 contains its own corollary to the 51.20 13 training rule.
14 So essentially Part 53 has its own version 15 of the training rule embedded in there. And by and 16 large, it's very similar to the 51.20 training rule 17 with a few targeted differences. Namely, it allows 18 more flexibility and time frames.
19 It also approaches the categories of 20 personnel from a higher level and just to account for 21 differences in roles and so forth. And the reason why 22 I saw this is this. Included as an example of one of 23 the types of personnel that would be within the scope 24 of that is individuals who fulfill this engineering 25 expertise role.
NEAL 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 And what that means is that the 2 expectation for those individuals under 53.830 would 3 be that they would be part of a systematic approach of 4 base training program. So again, when we talk about 5 their ability to fulfill their roles and 6 responsibilities and so forth -- again, we're not 7 talking about guidance now. We're talking about rule 8 language, right?
9 They would be required to be covered by a 10 training program that is approached from a systematic 11 approach training standpoint. And what that would 12 entail is, again, all those things we talked about 13 before, a detailed review of the tasks associated with 14 their job, training, learning objectives, assessing 15 their mastery of those skills, right, remediating 16 deficiencies, right, again, going through that 17 process. And that is something that's not just a one-18 time thing, right? That's an ongoing process.
19 So again, we swept up the engineering 20 expertise individuals in the pool of individuals that 21 we see as being covered under that training rule. So 22 I just want to say that even though at the level of 23 the rule and even in the preamble, we don't 24 necessarily get into the specific topical coverage.
25 We do cover that type of detail within 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
153 1 that we would use to review that staffing plan. And 2 also, there will be a regulatory hook to ensure that 3 there is an acceptable training program that's being 4 implemented for these individuals.
5 CHAIR PETTI: Any more questions, members?
6 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah, just one observation.
7 We're talking -- this is Charlie again. We talk about 8 plant, plant, plant. And the focus seems to be pretty 9 much on the reactor plant, the advanced reactors, et 10 cetera, et cetera.
11 But all of these new plants also are 12 supposed to be generating electricity for somebody.
13 And the other half of the plant is a critical aspect 14 of that which is totally different from its modes of 15 operation relative to the reactor plant. And that 16 interaction with that new reactor plant is going to be 17 different.
18 If you look at how do they transfer heat 19 and how do they get the steam to run the TG subs. Or 20 how do they generate the heat such that they become a 21 hot plate for some thermoelectric converters or 22 whatever? But there's got to be something to convert 23 it.
24 And that interaction between those systems 25 and the reactor plan are also critical for this type NEAL 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 of thing. And again, that's operations oriented 2 people familiar with what those things do. If you 3 generate a steam plant, there's a lot of systems that 4 go along with it to generate electricity. That's 5 their purpose, not just to produce neutrons. So we 6 seem to lose that in the discussion or it seems we 7 lose that in the discussion. That's the only thing 8 I'd like to remind us to think about as we're doing 9 this.
10 MS. SCHEETZ: So thank you, Member Brown.
11 I agree with you that that's important and shouldn't 12 be lost for this role of the engineering expertise.
13 So that's where the systematic approach to training 14 which is going to be required by regulation which 15 Jesse just talked about would catch that type of 16 integrated plant operation.
17 What does the engineer need to know about 18 the other side of the steam plant and what's being 19 generated. So that's where the systematic approach to 20 training, the expectation if you have an adequate SAT 21 process, it's going to track those types of tasks and 22 understanding knowledge and abilities for the 23 engineer's position. So that's kind of how this 24 fleshes out and gets implemented. That's all.
25 MEMBER BROWN: There's a lot of heat NEAL 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 removal when a steam plant trips, you know it. And 2 you know how the water reacts. But the new advanced 3 plants based on -- I forget, sodium or this or 4 whatever, FLiBe or whatever they're supposed to be.
5 Heat removal goes away. How do they 6 respond to an instantaneous heat removal -- lack of 7 heat removal? I mean, there's got to be some way of 8 us really understanding what that interaction is.
9 We really haven't addressed that all that 10 much in our discussions. So thanks for your input.
11 That's what I'm interested in getting the point 12 across. So thanks.
13 CHAIR PETTI: Other comments? If not, 14 let's just go on to the next presentation.
15 MS. SCHEETZ: Okay. So that's the end of 16 my presentation. I'm going to turn it over to Dr.
17 Dave Desaulniers. He's going to talk about our last 18 ISG that we have for the subcommittee today.
19 MR. DESAULNIERS: Okay. Hello, everyone.
20 We're right at noon, so I'm a little conflicted if I 21 should be saying -- I guess good afternoon here at 22 12:05. I'm just putting my camera on for a moment 23 here. It's been a while since I've had an opportunity 24 to address some of the members.
25 My name is David Desaulniers. I'm 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
156 1 senior technical advisor for human factors and human 2 performance evaluation. I'm in the Office of Nuclear 3 Reactor Regulation.
4 And now I'll be providing an overview of 5 the third of the ISGs that we're talking about today.
6 And this one is on the development of scalable human 7 factors engineering review plans. So just in a 8 nutshell when we're talking about scalable human 9 factors engineering review plans, we're really talking 10 just simply about how the staff will tailor their 11 review plan to the specific application that's before 12 them for review.
13 And my presentation, I'll address this in 14 three parts essentially. I'm going to start out by 15 providing some background in terms of how we do these 16 reviews today and what our regulatory basis is for 17 that. The second part of my presentation, we'll just 18 focus generally on what is this process of scaling the 19 reviews.
20 And the in the third part of my 21 presentation, I'll go more into the details of the 22 actual guidance document that we've developed.
23 Wouldn't you know I get a call coming in now. I'm 24 like the Maytag repairman here, and I never get a call 25 until we're in the middle of a meeting. Pardon 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
157 1 that interruption. So we can go on to the next slide, 2 please.
3 So speaking to current practice, the 4 bullet at the top of your slide here is the Part 50 5 requirement pertaining to human factors engineering.
6 And it, in essence, requires that an applicant submit 7 for Commission review a control room design that 8 reflects state of the art human factors engineering.
9 When the staff gets applications for large light water 10 reactors under Part 50 or Part 52, our current 11 guidance is to turn to NUREG-0800, Chapter 18 which 12 covers human factors engineering.
13 And that guidance points more specifically 14 to guidance principally in NUREG-0711, although there 15 are other more detailed guidance documents that 16 references. 0711 really provides the overall 17 structure to our reviews. And that review guidance is 18 really based in systems engineering.
19 And the implication there is as we conduct 20 our reviews, what we're doing is we're looking at the 21 review from the design from its early conception 22 through the development of functional requirements 23 analysis and function allocation and to task analysis 24 and the development of a design, whether it's the 25 HSIs, the procedures, the training. And then through NEAL 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 verification and validation of that design into the 2 design implementation and human performance 3 monitoring. Again, my apologies. Someone is 4 desperately trying to reach me.
5 The point I want to bring out from this is 6 that in doing this review which covers 12 different 7 program elements and involves consideration of more 8 than 300 review criteria, as you can imagine, this is 9 a rather resource intensive process. Through more 10 recent review activities, particularly those that were 11 done under Part 53, what we've seen is gained insights 12 that we believe we can be a little bit more targeted, 13 in the way we do our reviews to be more efficient.
14 And also we need to start thinking about the changing 15 role of the operator in the plants that our assumption 16 in the past that the most important actions were those 17 that were going to be performed by operators.
18 And those actions were to be performed by 19 individuals in a main control room. What we're 20 starting to see particularly with advanced reactor 21 technologies that are a conception of the role of 22 human performance, where it contributes, and where 23 it's being performed is beginning to change. And I'll 24 note, for instance, in that regard, intended increased 25 use of inherent safety characteristics and passive NEAL 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 safety systems, the role of the operator may be 2 substantially reduced.
3 Yet those systems need to be maintained.
4 They need to be capable of performing their functions 5 when called upon. So activities such as 6 surveillances, non-destructive examinations, various 7 maintenance activities, verification of lineups could 8 in a relative sense start becoming the more important 9 human contribution to the safety of some of these new 10 plants.
11 And our review practices need to start 12 thinking in those terms. So if you we move on to the 13 next slide, please. So looking ahead to what we're 14 proposing in Part 53, rather than a focus on the main 15 control room for human factors engineering, the 16 requirement and I'll speak to it generally here and 17 more specifically later in the presentation is that 18 HFE would be required where necessary to support 19 important human actions.
20 And aligning with that, our review process 21 would be that we would scale our reviews considering 22 the characteristics of the facility design and its 23 operation. Next slide, please. So I mentioned the 24 Part 53 requirement for HFE. The second bullet that 25 you're looking at on this slide should've been 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
160 1 italics to emphasize really this is an exception from 2 the rule in terms of what is being proposed as the 3 human factors engineering requirement.
4 And you can see it that it parallels 5 what's currently in Part 50 rather closely but has 6 some important differences. It must reflect state of 7 the art human factors principles for safe and reliable 8 performance in all locations that human activities are 9 expected for performing or supporting the continued 10 availability of plant safety or emergency response 11 functions. So it's a non-prescriptive requirement.
12 It provides the ability for the applicant 13 to design their facilities such that there's not an 14 assumption of control functions being performed in any 15 particular location. But wherever those activities 16 are performed, that's where HFE needs to be focused.
17 Next slide, please. So the objective of the guide 18 that we've developed, the interim staff guidance, is 19 to guide the reviewer through the process of 20 developing an application-specific review plan and 21 identifying appropriate HFE review guidance to conduct 22 that plan.
23 So I just want to emphasize that point 24 that unlike the ISGs that you were hearing about 25 earlier this morning where we were talking about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
161 1 guidance or actually conducting the reviews. Here 2 we're talking about really a process for developing 3 the review plan. It doesn't get into specifically 4 conducting the review.
5 So in essence, it will be used in place of 6 NUREG-0800, Chapter 18. And like the other guidance 7 documents that you heard about this morning, this is 8 being developed as an interim staff guidance document.
9 We're taking on although this is -- you will see an 10 evolution from our use of NUREG-0711. I won't say 11 it's completely revolutionary.
12 It is a new process. We expect we'll be 13 learning the process of implementing the ISG. And so 14 that at some point once we gain that experience in its 15 use, we would be looking to integrate those lessons 16 learned and transfer this ISG guidance into a NUREG.
17 Next slide, please.
18 So this just gives you a quick high level 19 snapshot of the overall process in terms of timing.
20 We proposed to begin scaling the review plan during 21 pre-application engagements. And it's noted if 22 conducted, pre-application engagements are not 23 required. But of course, the agency highly encourages 24 applicants to engage with the agency prior to 25 submittal of their 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
162 1 And our experience is that we're seeing 2 applicants doing that and that it's been very helpful 3 for both the applicant and the staff to understand the 4 application, the timing of the submittals what may be 5 missing that the staff may need to be part of that 6 application. So we would be -- beginning our 7 development during that pre-application period and 8 concluding it with the completion of the application 9 acceptance review. And that timing also is useful in 10 that this process as I hope you'll see will provide 11 the staff a good mechanism to really looking at an 12 application to assess it for its acceptability to 13 ensure that it's complete in providing the information 14 that will support the staff's review according to the 15 agreed upon timeline.
16 And in general, this process is conducted 17 in five steps that lead in the end to the staff 18 assembling a review plan that's specific to that 19 particular application. And in my next slides, I'll 20 go into that process now a little bit more in detail.
21 So next slide, please. So what you have here on your 22 screen is the five steps to the scaling process.
23 The first step -- and I'll note I'm going 24 to go through these. I'm going to return to each of 25 these steps later in my presentation when we 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
163 1 about the supporting guidance. So this is basically 2 just an introduction to the process.
3 The characterization phase is noted here, 4 a way of establishing a documented understanding of 5 the design and its operation from a human factors 6 engineering perspective. And this is going to be 7 important because as we've been hearing in the 8 discussions throughout the morning, these facilities 9 are going to be potentially much different than what 10 we've looked at in large light water reactors. The 11 assumptions that we've made in the past or could 12 reasonably make can largely be set aside.
13 We need to as a human factors reviewer 14 understand the overall operation of this facility so 15 obviously the HFE reviewer is not responsible for 16 reviewing all aspects. But they need an integrated 17 understanding of the operation of that facility. What 18 is its mission?
19 It may be electricity production. It may 20 be some other mission. Maybe it's hydrogen 21 production. Need to understand the general size of 22 this facility. Are we talking something closer to the 23 scale of a large light water reactor? Or are we 24 talking about something that's a micro reactor? Is it 25 a multi-module facility.
NEAL 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 These broad observations need to be 2 considered to provide the context for the human 3 factors reviewer to be able to conduct the subsequent 4 stages. And I'll come back to it again, as I said, to 5 some of these things if there's more question that 6 what's involved in these steps. Targeting now is 7 where the second stage where the HFE reviewer is 8 beginning to focus on those specific human system 9 interfaces or operations, specific actions that are 10 required of individuals in the facility to identify 11 what this review is going to begin to focus on.
12 This is the beginning of really the 13 scoping of the review. And the third phase, 14 screening, it's also a process -- oops, please go back 15 to the slide that you were on. Thank you. And 16 screening, now rather than focusing on the human 17 system interfaces or the actions of the individuals, 18 we're looking at the human factors engineering program 19 that the applicant has used what particular activities 20 have they conducted in order to be able to develop a 21 design that supports the human performance role and 22 the safe operation of that facility.
23 We need to understand what activities they 24 have conducted, what activities have they yet to 25 conduct but are maybe ongoing during the process 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 our review and how they really relate to each of the 2 targets that we're potentially look at. In the fourth 3 stage, grading, we're now starting to look at what are 4 the specific standards and guidance documents that we 5 would apply to the review. You will note or perhaps 6 recall that when I was talking about 0711 and the 300 7 criteria that were built in to that guidance document, 8 what we're doing now in this process is basically 9 separating out the specific review criteria from the 10 process.
11 So we'll be looking in the grading process 12 potentially to the criterion 0711, perhaps the 13 guidance in 0700, perhaps the other standards out 14 there. But we will be selecting those based on the 15 particular facility that's before us for review in 16 terms of what would be the most appropriate guidance 17 available at that time. And then in the fifth part of 18 this process, we're putting this review plan together 19 in an integrated fashion considering the preceding 20 four steps such that we bring together a plan that's 21 sufficient to support a reasonable assurance 22 determination but looks at the overall process to 23 ensure that we're gaining efficiencies where we can 24 and that we're doing this in a risk informed manner 25 where we're taking advantage of the available safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
166 1 and risk insights that are provided through the 2 application. Next slide, please.
3 So 20,000 foot level moving on to 4 considering the specific guidance document, it is 5 really set up in two major pieces. The main body of 6 the guidance provides the essential guidance for the 7 reviewer to develop the review plan. And then there 8 are a series of appendices to that document that 9 provides supporting guidance.
10 And those appendices are structured such 11 that they relate to each of the five steps of the 12 process that I just described on the proceeding slide.
13 Next slid, please. This slide provides an overview of 14 the main structure of the main body of the guidance 15 document. Some of the key features that you would see 16 as you flip through that guidance document is of 17 course its applicability.
18 What types of applications does this 19 guidance apply to? And in this case, we're talking 20 about standard design approvals, design 21 certifications, combined licenses, and operating 22 licenses. It also goes into the rationale for scaling 23 the reviews which I spoke to in brief earlier in this 24 presentation talking about a need to have a process 25 that really is capable of addressing a diversity 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
167 1 designs in a focused and efficient manner.
2 The guidance also lists the regulatory 3 basis for conducting the review. And while I noted in 4 this presentation in the particular requirement that 5 underpins the HFE requirement, Part 53 has a number of 6 other requirements that are also supporting the HFE 7 review. Some of these, we've already touched upon a 8 requirement to submit a staffing analysis, a 9 requirement to submit a concept of operations 10 document, a requirement to submit a functional 11 requirements analysis, and so forth as well as Jesse 12 also noted there are various requirements that were 13 analogous to those that you would find in Part 50 as 14 the post-TMI instrumentation requirements.
15 So those are all provided to the review as 16 part of the regulatory basis for doing the review.
17 And then the body of the guidance follows a standard 18 format, taking the reviewer through each step where 19 the objective of the step is presented. The process 20 for implementing that step is provided and concluding 21 with the reviewer responsibilities for completing that 22 particular step of the process.
23 Overall, what this guidance is doing is 24 essentially focusing on what to do or how to 25 accomplish scaling a review which is a little bit 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
168 1 a distinction I'll make from the focus in the 2 appendices which I believe we'll be turning to on the 3 next slide. So now we're getting into the appendices.
4 And this is supporting guidance.
5 So rather than focusing on what to do, 6 this is getting more into methods as to how to 7 implement each of these steps of the scaling process.
8 They're recommended methods. They're not -- the 9 reviewer is not bound to using the particular guidance 10 in the appendices.
11 But it provides a starting point for a way 12 to think about implementing each of these steps of the 13 process. Also, in general, these appendices will 14 provide pointers to other sources of additional 15 guidance. What you'll find here is we drew upon the 16 body of research and guidance that's been developed by 17 our Office of Research over the years relating to 18 modular reactors and advanced reactor designs to point 19 the reviewer to more detailed guidance documents that 20 may support the review. Next slide, please.
21 So coming back to the characterization, 22 what you're getting into now here in more detail for 23 the Appendix A of this ISG is an overview of the 24 characterization process that walks the reviewer into 25 considerations of what really needs to be in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
169 1 characterization. What are the essential elements?
2 And some of those are the concept of operations for 3 the facility, the safety analysis methods and their 4 results that we would be providing the risk and safety 5 insights to help guide the review, the identification 6 of important human actions, the design process, 7 specifically, the human factors engineering design 8 processes that the applicant used, their scope and the 9 timing of those activities.
10 And also things like the compliance with 11 requirements. Is this application looking to take any 12 exemptions from relevant requirements? So all these 13 are the types of things that the reviewer would be 14 pointed to, to ensure to include in the 15 characterization.
16 The guidance also addresses how to 17 organize this characterization. And in essence what 18 we encourage a reviewer to do is to use the concept of 19 operations to organize this characterization. It also 20 finally touches upon noting that this characterization 21 can be an aid in coordinating reviews.
22 You heard earlier this morning about 23 staffing and operator licensing. These reviews are 24 all going to interplay because as you've heard, 25 there's a fair bit of flexibility and what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
170 1 applicants can be proposing. And so again, we can't 2 be making assumptions that, oh, we're going to have an 3 traditional control room and it will have this man ROs 4 and this many SROs and this is what the training 5 program will look like.
6 These are variables that we need to 7 consider and have as context for the HFE review. And 8 the characterization can be used as a tool to ensure 9 that we help coordinate our reviews and inform each 10 other as new insights are developing during the course 11 of the review. I think we'll go to the next slide, 12 please.
13 Targeting guidance, so that's in Appendix 14 B. And here we speak to the general principles for 15 target selection. And the guidance that we provide 16 there is fairly fundamental in thinking about targets.
17 Specifically the three criteria that we recommend for 18 target selection are safety significance, risk 19 importance, and uncertainty.
20 And I'll just take a moment to comment on 21 that last one for a moment because as was commented 22 earlier in the discussions today, these new designs we 23 are looking at less operating experience for many of 24 these designs we anticipate than what we have for 25 large lights. So that introduces a certain amount 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
171 1 uncertainty. So there may be uncertainty associated 2 with the technology, uncertainty associated with 3 perhaps a new type of HSI or a new type of concept of 4 operations in terms of how perhaps a crew would 5 operate or be configured in terms of its staffing.
6 There's also uncertainty potentially 7 introduced by the level of design development that we 8 have at the time the application comes on our desk and 9 how that might be evolving during the process. So 10 these are considerations that are touched upon in the 11 targeting guidance. Going along with that, we provide 12 rather a list of 38 prospective characteristics of 13 advanced reactor designs and operations that should be 14 considerations for targeting if they present 15 themselves in the application.
16 And again, these are just examples. This 17 list is not meant to be all inclusive. It just pulls 18 upon the existing body of research that we have 19 available to the staff in terms of issues that we've 20 seen that could be potentially important to safe 21 operation for some of these new facilities.
22 So these summaries in the targeting 23 guidance touch upon the human performance implications 24 of some of these aspects of the designs or operations 25 and also provides a characterization of the available NEAL 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 guidance for use in conducting the reviews. Next 2 slide, please. Appendix C is for the screening 3 process. And again, this is the process of 4 determining which particular human factors engineering 5 activities that we would be looking at.
6 And again, we're talking about things like 7 operating experience review, task analysis, integrated 8 system validation, and so forth, the general program 9 elements of 0711. Or if they're using a different 10 model, the analogous types of processes that the 11 applicant would be using. Determining which 12 strategies -- excuse me. Determining which of these 13 activities would screen in or screen out of the review 14 process to provide some guidance with respect to 15 conducting that process.
16 Here the staff is essentially using 17 fundamentally a be risk smart type of approach, 18 thinking, all right, what are the potential -- what 19 could go wrong if we leave out one of these activities 20 out of the scope of our review? What are the 21 consequences of that and how likely is that to be?
22 Some of that thinking has to take into consideration 23 there's a balance in looking at some of the 24 developmental activities relative to some of the 25 verification and validation activities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
173 1 If we don't look at something during the 2 development phase, do we have good opportunity to get 3 understanding of the effectiveness of the applicant 4 and that design activity when we go through the 5 verification and validation? The screening guidance 6 also addresses particular implications and challenges 7 of advanced reactor design reviews and their 8 characteristics. As noted, we're looking more now 9 rather than active safety systems.
10 We're looking at passive systems or 11 potentially inherently safe -- excuse me -- inherently 12 safe designs. What are those implications for 13 identifying important human actions? What are the 14 implications of using probabilistic risk assessment 15 let's say as opposed to integrated safety analyses?
16 So the guidance touches upon some of those 17 considerations as well. Next slide, please.
18 So Appendix D addresses grading. And 19 again, grading is this process of selecting the 20 particular standards and guidance documents that'll be 21 used during the course of the review. Now typically 22 an applicant is going to be identifying the standards 23 that were used in the development of their design.
24 And the reviewer's responsibility there 25 would be to verify that choice of document 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
174 1 appropriate. But there may be cases where either the 2 -- well, I'll take the case where the applicant has 3 cited a guidance document that lacks prior NRC 4 endorsement. That's not prohibited clearly, but it's 5 something that we need to consider.
6 So there's guidance to consider if we're 7 going to be conducting a review using a standard 8 perhaps that has not had prior NRC endorsement. And 9 we have to anticipate this with advanced technologies.
10 As we know, it's been difficult for the standards 11 community to keep pace with the development in the 12 development of the reactor technologies.
13 So we'll be seeing cases where standards 14 may have been just recently released but not have come 15 before the NRC for endorsement. To provide a resource 16 for the reviewer in these cases, Appendix D does 17 provide a table that provides references to many 18 different HFE guidance documents. There we've 19 included documents that were developed specifically 20 for the nuclear industry as well as those that were 21 developed in non-nuclear domains but may touch upon 22 technologies that we see likely to be used in the 23 nuclear industry. Next slide, please.
24 So the final appendix is for assembling 25 the review plan. In here what the guidance focuses on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
175 1 is how to guide the -- the reviewer should take a look 2 at the results of the prior steps to develop an 3 integrated review plan focusing on ensuring that there 4 is adequate coverage to in the end be able to support 5 a reasonable assurance determination. And this 6 guidance also addresses just the format for developing 7 the review plan.
8 So there's, in fact, a template that the 9 reviewer can consider in terms of presenting the plan, 10 ensuring that it addresses the resources that are 11 needed, the timing of the activities and so forth. I 12 think that's my last slide. So with that, I'll 13 conclude my presentation.
14 CHAIR PETTI: Thank you. Members, 15 questions, comments?
16 MEMBER SUNSERI: Hey, Dave. This is Matt.
17 I'd just like to say I think the staff has done a 18 pretty reasonable job on a couple of things here.
19 I've spent a fair amount of time leading up to this 20 meeting looking at the proposed ISGs, the revised rule 21 language back and I looked through our letters.
22 And generally, I find that at least once 23 again in this member's perspective that the staff has 24 been pretty responsive to our previous feedback.
25 They've addressed things such as engineering NEAL 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 experience, where the operator licensing requirements 2 should be whether in the rule or in guidance, and 3 such. And while -- like many things, when we look at 4 them again and again, we can always find maybe some 5 additional points to make and there's probably a 6 couple that we can make now. I'd just like to say I 7 think by and large what I've been seeing at least 8 through these ISGs has been an improvement before 9 this. So that's my view.
10 CHAIR PETTI: Thanks.
11 MR. DESAULNIERS: Thank you. I appreciate 12 hearing that.
13 CHAIR PETTI: Other comments from other 14 members? Okay. Well, we get an extra 20 minutes 15 before lunch then as I read the agenda.
16 MR. SCHULTZ: Dave?
17 CHAIR PETTI: Yeah.
18 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a comment for David.
19 The work that you've done here and the staff has done 20 here, it really provides a very thorough and 21 comprehensive approach to developing the review plan.
22 When I went through the document as well as the 23 appendices, it struck me -- I'm not an expert in the 24 area.
25 But it struck me that there was a lot 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
177 1 information -- and maybe this is necessary -- a lot of 2 information associated with the plan development that 3 included also as you've noted here guidance that is 4 related to performing the review itself. And so it 5 was difficult although you got very detailed 6 description of the steps that need to be done to 7 establish the review plan, it seemed like the tasks 8 associated with addressing those steps were mixing the 9 review requirements with the way in which the review 10 would be performed itself. In other words, there was 11 a lot of information in the ISG that focused on both 12 setting it up the review and the planning stage and 13 then also what the review would entail.
14 And I saw that the appendices just 15 somewhat augmented that. I think in the application 16 of the plan, I think it's a good document. But I feel 17 that in the application of this ISG, you're likely to 18 find that you'll be able to simplify the planning 19 stage piece of the document. And you probably have 20 sufficient information within the document itself to 21 actually provide -- it already provides the 22 documentation and the guidance to perform the review 23 itself.
24 MR. DESAULNIERS: Okay. Thank you for 25 that observation. I think that that's probably -- I'd NEAL 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 have to agree -- a fair assessment in that it may be 2 somewhat of an artifact of the nature of the guidance 3 documents that we drew upon in order to be able to 4 pull together this particular ISG, tend to be more 5 focused down into the level of conducting the actual 6 review because that's normally where we spend most of 7 our time. I think that in looking at some of that 8 material, we did struggle in terms of thinking about, 9 well, how much detail that we should leave in here or 10 relegate to other documents.
11 And our inclination at this time was to 12 keep it intact such that although, yes, some of that 13 guidance in the appendices gets more into actually 14 conducting the review, understanding that what it's 15 going to be entailed does feed into developing a 16 review plan in terms of understanding the resources 17 that would need to be involved to conduct that 18 activity, what level of guidance is available to 19 support it. And so I think these, while they're 20 necessary for conducting the review, they do inform 21 how we develop the review plan. But it is a balance.
22 It's something that we'll certainly keep an eye 23 towards how we can improve this guidance as we go 24 forward.
25 MR. SCHULTZ: Thanks for the response, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
179 1 David. Yeah, I saw the same challenge that you had.
2 I reviewed the NUREGs that supported these activities 3 in the past and needed to be incorporated in this 4 documentation as well. And I think you did an 5 excellent job pulling out that information which 6 pertains to the new commercial reactors review. But 7 again, it seemed like there was a lot of information 8 there that as it's presented would perhaps someone 9 might believe it all had to be incorporated into the 10 planning stage when, in fact, it really could be 11 relegated to the review stage. Thank you.
12 MR. DESAULNIERS: Thank you.
13 MR. GREEN: If I can just add onto this, 14 this is Brian Green, the human factors team lead.
15 Myself and some of the others who worked on the 16 NuScale review had provided a lot of input about that 17 planning stage because the idea of scaling a review 18 has gone back some time. And we had considered it, 19 trying to do it in the past.
20 And without a guidance document like this, 21 we realized we weren't going to be able to do it in a 22 consistent and reliable manner. So we had kind of 23 backed away. And we'd had a lot of discussions 24 internally about at the beginning of the review if we 25 knew what we knew at the end of the review, 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
180 1 would've been easy.
2 But that's not necessarily the case. So 3 we had pushed for a lot of the detail to be added in 4 to help us make those decisions and put those 5 guardrails in so that we don't make bad decisions 6 early on. And I think that a lot of the detail you 7 see in the draft is to help us establish what those 8 guardrails should be.
9 MR. SCHULTZ: Brian, this is Steve. I did 10 see that in the guidance as it was developed. And I 11 do appreciate -- I felt that's exactly where it was 12 coming from and where it needs to go. Thank you.
13 MR. GREEN: Great. Thank you.
14 CHAIR PETTI: Any other comments? Well, 15 then with that, we'll recess and be back at 2:00 16 Eastern Time. Thank you, everyone.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 12:48 p.m. and resumed at 2:02 p.m.)
19 CHAIR PETTI: Why don't we just start now 20 here after lunch, Bill?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thank you, Dave.
22 So, what we're going to talk about this 23 afternoon, we're going to go through some of our 24 previous interactions and the letter, and by and 25 large, that will be through the letters, the Interim NEAL 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 Letters that the ACRS provided us; talk about, also, 2 some of the other feedback we have, and then, most 3 likely, just have some additional time, if there's 4 more questions or discussion.
5 So, Billy, if we want to go to slide 153?
6 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron.
7 Before you get started, I'd like to make 8 just a little bit of a statement.
9 I was saying this evolution has been going 10 on a very long time. And I, for one, have been 11 extremely impressed with the evolution and the 12 response that you folks have made to our suggestions.
13 So, I just want to, before I forget and lose my mind, 14 I wanted to make sure I got that out.
15 MR. RECKLEY: Thank you.
16 And the first slide here is probably an 17 indication of that to some degree. You can see your 18 first Interim Letter was two years ago. And we've 19 been working with stakeholders and a lot of 20 discussions with the staff. I don't want to 21 underestimate how much of the iterations have just 22 been due to the discussions and the give-and-take 23 between the staff. You see many of them on these 24 meetings. So, it has evolved over the course of the 25 last two, two and a half years.
NEAL 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 So, thank you. And I really think we've 2 gotten a lot of out of the interactions with the 3 public, the interactions with the ACRS, and again, our 4 own interactions with each other.
5 Just I'll kind of quickly go through these 6 because of them we would have talked about during 7 these last two years, as you've seen the package 8 evolve.
9 So, in the October letter, October 2020 10 letter, at that point we were just kicking off, 11 talking about the general Framework, this notion of 12 laying it out in the form of a life cycle. And 13 basically, that's not changed much over that time 14 period.
15 One of the first comments -- and this is 16 also a comment we got in other interactions related to 17 advanced reactors and some of the other activities in 18 the interactions between the staff and the ACRS -- was 19 this notion of a need for systematic assessments of 20 hazards, initiating events, event scenarios. And so, 21 that's been a repeating topic over the last couple of 22 years.
23 We've responded to that. I think we have 24 fairly specific requirements in both Framework A to do 25 a systematic assessment that's largely based 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
183 1 Probabilistic Risk Assessment within Framework A.
2 Boyce Travis talked to you yesterday about Framework 3 B and the safety analysis and the need to address 4 different categories of events.
5 And then, yesterday you also heard the 6 discussions of DG-1413, which is applicable to not 7 only Part 53, but also would be useful to other areas 8 of the NRC.
9 So, that topic has played out over the 10 last couple of years.
11 The third comment in that first Interim 12 Letter was to support prototype testing. We have 13 included the same provisions of 50.43(e) in both 14 Framework A, in Section 440, and in Framework B, in 15 4730, and there is a typo there. It says, in 16 Framework A, it's a typo, it says, "53.440." That's 17 actually the requirements in Framework A. The general 18 requirements are in 53.90, which is termed Standards 19 for Review.
20 But all of those provisions are there, and 21 we even in the preamble tried to stress that the 22 notion of 50.43(e), and the repetition here in several 23 places in Part 53, that the performance of safety 24 systems needs to be demonstrated through combinations 25 of tests and experiments, analysis, and if 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
184 1 prototype testing.
2 So, that is, basically, unchanged from 3 when that proposal was first put in Part 50, when we 4 started to see safety systems that were different from 5 those that were addressed in the general design 6 criteria or the initial plant designs, the Generation 7 II and Generation III plants.
8 So, that was the first letter. Billy, if 9 we can go to the next slide?
10 The next Interim Letter we got was in May 11 of 2021. Again, the first comment was on this overall 12 structure and dividing the Subparts, largely to align 13 with the life cycle of a plant, sort of a systems 14 engineering approach.
15 The second comment -- and this, you've 16 requested many times; I know we were relatively slow 17 in getting this to you -- was a request to have a good 18 explanation. We tried, to some degree, to do that, as 19 we released the text in the form of the discussion 20 tables, but, really, now is about the first time that 21 we're really putting that together and providing it to 22 you in the form of the whole rulemaking package with 23 both the language and the preamble.
24 So, Billy, we can go to the next slide.
25 A couple of other points that were made in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
185 1 the May letter. In that timeframe, we were still 2 toying with the first iterations where we had a two-3 tiered structure, and that's the language we used.
4 Basically, for design basis accidents and licensing 5 basis events other than design basis accidents, we 6 refer to them in the tiers. Obviously, now we have 7 dropped that several iterations ago.
8 We still do differentiate in the safety 9 objectives, two objectives. One, no immediate threat 10 to public health and safety, and then, the second, 11 actions as deemed appropriate considering risks to 12 public health and safety.
13 And that was a way to still distinguish 14 between the requirements largely for safety-related 15 equipment and things that would be addressed under 16 strict controls, like technical specifications, and 17 those things that we would provide more flexibility, 18 the risk-informed approaches, things that would be 19 addressed more through reliability targets, and so 20 forth.
21 So, we still maintain in Framework A, and 22 also, as does the current requirements carried over 23 Framework B, a distinction between equipment and the 24 role that it plays. But, all that said, we did drop 25 what almost universally was observed to be confusing NEAL 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 using the two-tiered structure.
2 The Item C was a request, generally, or an 3 observation that it was useful to have something like 4 the general design criteria or, in fact, the general 5 design criteria in one place. We've talked about this 6 several times. Framework B uses or refers to the 7 general design criteria for light water reactors, and 8 then, the expectation that the principal design 9 criteria would be developed based on the general 10 design criteria or using them as a guide for non-light 11 water reactors.
12 But, for Framework A, again, we've tried 13 to explain it. It takes a top-down approach. As 14 opposed to starting with those design rules, it's top-15 down starting with the safety criteria, then safety 16 functions, then the design features, and ultimately, 17 the functional design criteria for those SSCs. And 18 you, as we've talked even yesterday, will often end up 19 in the same place, but you've gotten there through a 20 slightly different path, being you've gone through 21 that logic as opposed to starting with the design 22 rules, such as laid out in the general design 23 criteria.
24 Item D was an observation that or a 25 request in that May letter related to anticipated NEAL 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 operational occurrences, and to maintain a barrier 2 base. This was, if you remember still going over the 3 Licensing Modernization Project, the idea of using a 4 frequency consequence target-type approach, even down 5 into the AAO range, where they would be based on the 6 Part 20-type limits.
7 So, that gets picked up in large part in 8 Framework B. Again, the requirements for an applicant 9 to identify acceptance criteria for AAOs under that 10 deterministic construct, that will often be a barrier-11 based approach similar to what's used now for fuel 12 cladding or reactor coolant pressure boundary.
13 But, in Framework A, we allow that; we 14 expect it to actually be the case that in the analysis 15 that an applicant would take a barrier approach 16 because it's a simpler analysis to perform. But it's 17 left under 53.450(e) that the applicant can, or under 18 that requirement, the applicant must identify the 19 evaluation criteria for each individual anticipated 20 event sequence or AAO, or the whole category. And 21 again, that could be a barrier-based approach or it 22 could be, since we've already endorsed it, the 23 approach in Reg Guide 1.223, which uses a frequency 24 consequence target in terms of public dose -- again, 25 comparable to Part 20 or Subpart I for 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
188 1 anticipated sequences.
2 E was a discussion -- again, back in this 3 timeframe there was only Framework A. And so, I'll 4 ask Boyce or Bill Jessup to chime in if there's any 5 observation or if I mischaracterize something in 6 Framework B.
7 But the letter, again, in the context of 8 Framework A at that time, mentioned that DBAs, the 9 rule should require that the end state be a safe, 10 stable, and subcritical condition. So, the changes we 11 made there was we added "safe, stable" to the 12 requirement for DBAs. The end state of the DBAs under 13 53.450(f) has to be safe, stable end state.
14 And we addressed both subcriticality and 15 long-term cooling by the addition of design 16 requirements in 440(g), 53.440(g), which is a design 17 requirement. So, we think we ended up in a comparable 18 place that you were suggesting. We just used two 19 different sections of the rule to get there.
20 CHAIR PETTI: Bill?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, Dave?
22 CHAIR PETTI: Just a question. I couldn't 23 remember this when it came up.
24 Somewhere in a subsidiary document, some 25 sort of guidance, you know, cold shutdown and hot NEAL 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 shutdown have unique meanings for the current fleet.
2 Those won't work for the advanced reactors because 3 some of the coolants will freeze, will take forever to 4 cool down an HTGR, given all the graphite.
5 So, is there a place where some of that 6 stuff gets worked out and recognized by the staff in 7 guidance when they do a review?
8 MR. RECKLEY: It will be, yes, I think 9 there will be an opportunity for technology-specific 10 guidance. Some of that might even come in the context 11 of, let's say, codes and standards. Like the ANS 12 Design Standards --
13 CHAIR PETTI: Oh, okay.
14 MR. RECKLEY: -- could include something 15 like that. And then, we could endorse it.
16 But it's acknowledged, you're exactly 17 right, it will be somewhat different than light water 18 reactors because of the coolants, because of the other 19 constraints. What is the safe, stable end state will 20 vary.
21 CHAIR PETTI: Right. Yes. Okay. Thanks.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And again, Boyce 23 talked yesterday about how the safety analysis works 24 in Framework B. It's very similar to the current 25 construct.
NEAL 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 So, Billy, if we want to go to the next 2 slide?
3 Other issues that were brought out in that 4 May 2021 letter was to clarify the DBAs. We think 5 we've done that to some degree, and it's addressed in 6 guidance. For Framework A, it's in the guidance in 7 Reg Guide 1.223, NEI 18-04.
8 In terms of the single failure, we tried 9 to address that in the preamble discussion in 10 referring to some of the previous Commission 11 decisions, such as SECY-03-0047, where some of this --
12 really, another thing, Ron was talking about the 13 evolution. For those of us that have been around a 14 long time, some of this was started, and is a 15 continuing of the evolution of the work that was done 16 back in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 17 papers such as SECY-03-0047, back in that timeframe.
18 So, some of these issues were resolved 19 back then, and we brought that up in the preamble for 20 things like Framework A, not including the use of the 21 single failure criteria, but including an increased 22 focus on making sure that the performance of the SSCs 23 are established and maintained.
24 So, again, in Subpart F, you look at the 25 non-safety-related, but safety-significant SSCs.
NEAL 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 There's requirements in the rule for the reliability 2 of those systems to be maintained. The reason for 3 that is, basically, to support the logic that was laid 4 out in SECY-03-0047 to replace or to use as an 5 alternative the reliability approach as opposed to the 6 single failure approach.
7 So, then, Item 5, from the May 2021 letter 8 was, basically, a repeat, as a matter of emphasis to 9 do this systematic approach. So, we talked about that 10 from the October 2020 letter. We have, we think, 11 specific requirements to do systematic approaches to 12 identify the event sequences. And in addition to 13 that, the guidance issued in the Draft Guidance at 14 this point in DG-1413 that was talked about yesterday.
15 So, Billy, I think we can go to the next 16 letter.
17 And the February 17th, 2022 letter was 18 dedicated to operator staffing. And so, I wasn't 19 really going to talk about that letter. We responded 20 to it. And obviously, we've had a couple of meetings 21 with Subcommittee and full Committee even in regards 22 to this topic, including all morning. So, I really 23 hadn't planned to go through what we did with these.
24 Much of it is a little bit -- again, unless there's a 25 desire to go through them, Billy, I think we can just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
192 1 go to the next slide.
2 Which brings us to your most recent 3 letter, the August 2nd, 2022 letter, for which we sent 4 a response a couple of weeks ago. And to go through 5 the items in that letter, I'm going to turn it over to 6 Bill Jessup.
7 MR. JESSUP: Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Bill.
8 This is Bill Jessup from the NRC staff 9 again.
10 And I'm going to cover the staff's 11 responses to the eight recommendations and 12 observations that were in the fourth Interim Letter 13 from the ACRS on Part 53. As Bill mentioned, that's 14 the most recent of the ACRS Interim Letters on this 15 topic.
16 Kind of like Bill did on the previous 17 letter, the third Interim Letter, I'd offer -- and you 18 can see on this slide, in particular, is one example 19 -- a lot of the recommendations the staff has talked 20 about on how we've considered the feedback in the 21 current draft of the rule package, including today and 22 yesterday. So, I don't plan on going into that much 23 detail on some of the recommendations and 24 observations, but we did want to at least acknowledge 25 all eight here and make sure we open up the floor 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
193 1 some dialog, feedback, and more questions.
2 So, the slide on the screen right now, 3 this was the first observation, and it focused on the 4 role of the QHOs. I think we had a really robust 5 discussion again on this topic yesterday. And I think 6 as Bill acknowledged yesterday, it's a bit more 7 prominent in Framework A, but certainly relevant to 8 the entire part.
9 So, we did discuss it at length yesterday.
10 I don't have anything else to add beyond that, but, 11 again, wanted to acknowledge the feedback and see if 12 there were more questions or feedback beyond what we 13 talked about yesterday.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, I would like to 15 provide, because I have thought about that in more 16 detail since our discussion yesterday. This is Vesna 17 Dimitrijevic.
18 And I said yesterday my main problem is 19 that we often say the QHOs are -- let me find it in 20 the preamble -- are well-established risk measures 21 using risk-informed decision-making.
22 And as I said yesterday, I don't perceive 23 that risk to be true. So, I was going to, you know, 24 to propose something for consideration. Can you 25 acknowledge that we don't have enough experience with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
194 1 using QHOs because we use the substitutes, which are 2 CDF and LERF?
3 And then, because, you know, 1.174 is 4 becoming prominent residence there, I went to Reg 5 Guide 1.174, which has the QHOs mentioned a couple of 6 times. But in one very interesting paragraph on page 7 10, this is what 1.174 said:
8 "The use of CDF and LERF as bases for PRA 9 acceptance guidelines is an acceptable approach for 10 addressing Principle 4. Use of the Commission's 11 Safety Goal QHOs in lieu of CDF and LERF is acceptable 12 in principle" -- that's 1.174 -- "and licensees may 13 propose their use." QHOs. "However, in practice, 14 implementing such an approach would require an 15 extension to a Level 3 PRA, in which case the methods 16 and assumptions used in the Level 3 analysis, and 17 associated uncertainties, would require additional 18 attention."
19 So, I propose that this in some way, 20 instead of saying, "Oh, we should state that we have 21 a very limited experience with use of QHOs," that with 22 the QHOs, that most of the experience, risk of 23 replication today is based on such use of CDF or LERF, 24 and that introduction of using QHOs directly 25 introduces -- it will require use of Level 3 PRA, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
195 1 which introduces all the new issues associated with 2 the methods with the Level 3 PRA.
3 I think it will be fair to acknowledge 4 that, instead of just ignoring that, pretending that 5 we have experience with QHOs, which we don't. We have 6 a very limited experience, even with the spent fuel 7 pool, things we discussed yesterday.
8 So, also, the one additional thing which 9 I wanted to mention is that QHOs are, basically, as 10 defined in the Commission's statements, they are sort 11 of quantitative objectives used to gauge achievement 12 of the safety goals.
13 And as I proposed in my additional 14 comments, which maybe I didn't formulate so well, it 15 is, if you go to the safety goals back, you know, when 16 you were just talking about, you know, increasing the 17 risk in the qualitative bases, then you can open the 18 door for somebody else to come with different 19 quantitative objectives. Because, for example, the 20 new applicants can consider the CDF is not necessary, 21 when we can actually consider all the risks to the 22 large releases. Or they can propose, you know, 23 different safety study measures.
24 Okay. This is my discussion. My main 25 point is I'd like to acknowledge that we don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
196 1 experience with QHOs; that all of our risk-informed 2 experience is based on substitutes, and the use of 3 QHOs introduces the new issues. That's it.
4 MR. JESSUP: Thanks. I'll probably defer 5 to Bill Reckley on that point.
6 MR. BLEY: Bill, before you go ahead, let 7 me --
8 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Yes, Dennis.
9 MR. BLEY: -- add a little question to 10 that.
11 In your response to our last letter, you 12 didn't defense use of the QHOs very strongly. You 13 fell back on the 1.174 idea that it's part of an 14 integrated decision process. So, it's one out of four 15 or five criteria one looks at.
16 You buried us in material. So, I haven't 17 found my way through to see if you actually say that 18 somewhere in the rule language. I didn't remember it 19 having been there.
20 Are those arguments somewhere in the rule 21 now or in the statements of consideration?
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, that discussion is in 23 the preamble. We can take a look. Again, we'll 24 acknowledge, as the discussion was yesterday, the 25 further you go into these modelings, every time 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
197 1 introduce one, you're increasing the uncertainties.
2 So, generally, the lower the frequency, the higher the 3 uncertainty and the higher the consequence, the higher 4 the uncertainties.
5 But we will take a --
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right, but this 7 presentation, I mean, a lot of the goal of 10 to the 8 minus 6 is equally low. This uncertainty comes from 9 totally different matters using Level 3. So, that's 10 my point.
11 MR. RECKLEY: Right, right.
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: This is general 13 uncertainty of the lower numbers in the PRA. As I 14 said yesterday, this is very well-stated in 1.174, and 15 I was very nicely surprised when I found it last 16 night. It exactly says that you are introducing new 17 methods, new uncertainties. Please keep that in mind.
18 So, if you want to propose using QHOs as one of the 19 options, then we should acknowledge that.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, we'll take a look. In 21 my mind, we addressed this because we talk about the 22 need to address the uncertainties. And that would be 23 the uncertainties that's introduced by not only 24 modeling the plant and the frequencies, but also when 25 you get to offsite doses, the uncertainties associated NEAL 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 with that.
2 But the --
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But you also state 4 in the preamble that these are well-established 5 cumulative risk measures, which is not true.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the risk measures 7 themselves have been around since the 1980s. So --
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Risk measures of CDF 9 and LERF, but not QHOs.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Well, the QHOs have been 11 around since the 1980s.
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: They have not. They 13 have been introduced in this NEI statements of, you 14 know, this 2 to the minus 6 and everything.
15 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, no. No, no, that --
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But the safety 17 goal -- this is where we have a major disagreement.
18 I say one thing; you say the other thing.
19 MR. RECKLEY: No, no. And I'll just say 20 NUREG-0880 -- I think the number is right; Marty, come 21 to my rescue if I've got the number wrong --
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: No, this is very 23 true, but they're not in the -- well, you know, 24 they're not in the safety goal, as you point out.
25 You make them as to be a Bible to this thing. And I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
199 1 just saying something which I think you do have to 2 agree with me: that 99 percent of our risk-informed 3 experience up to this moment is based on substitute 4 measures, CDF and LERF.
5 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Yes, totally agree 6 with you, that's what's --
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: And the substitute 8 measures have been there before QHOs. Do you agree 9 with that?
10 MR. RECKLEY: The use of CDF and LERF 11 was --
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. This was 1400, 13 which is 1974.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, you do agree 16 with me there. There wasn't the QHOs, and then came 17 CDF and LERF. It was CDF and LERF, and then, 18 connection was made in that NUREG, which I questioned 19 logical that connection, so yes.
20 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, we're talking 21 different NUREGs. NUREG-1860 did --
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Right.
23 MR. RECKLEY: -- the exercise that we 24 talked about. I'm just saying the qualitative goals 25 themselves, the 2 times 10 to the minus 6 and 5 times NEAL 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 10 to the minus 7 for prompt fatalities, those 2 numerical measures were in the 1980s. They were 3 calculated in a NUREG that came out in parallel with 4 the Safety Goal Policy Statement.
5 And so, those numbers -- I'm not arguing 6 with you that doing the analysis to compare to those 7 numbers is difficult. Fully agree with you.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I just, not to say 9 they have actually proved their base that 10 to the 10 minus 4 CDF, right, which was used before, and they 11 want to say that corresponds to possible, you know, 12 the cancer deaths. Even I'm just totally questioning 13 the connection between CDF and cancer deaths.
14 But this is irrelevant. Let's not go into 15 the details. I'm sure that both of us are ready for 16 minutia what was done in --
17 MR. RECKLEY: Right. At this point --
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: It was in 1980, it 19 says .1 of the risk. You know, it doesn't say 2 to 20 the minus 6, those things.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Right. But the 22 NUREG that came out in parallel with the Policy 23 Statement took that 1/10th of 1 percent, which is in 24 the actual Policy Statement; you multiplied that 25 number by the risk of getting cancer from any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
201 1 reason, or the reason to die by accident for any other 2 reason, and it gets you the 2 times 10 to the minus 6, 3 or 1 times 10 to the minus 7 numbers.
4 I'm just saying those numbers themselves, 5 I'm agreeing with you they weren't used very much 6 because we were dealing with light water reactors and 7 the measures were core damage frequency and 8 conditional containment failures, yes, but the numbers 9 themselves came out in parallel with the Safety Goal 10 Policy Statement.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. So, I 12 don't want to argue this with you. I have an idea 13 about that.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But I'm trying to 16 make a different argument. My argument here is, if 17 somebody now wants to use dose numbers because it 18 doesn't have a CDF and LERF as substitute measures, 19 then it introduces all new methods. And these 20 methods, we don't have experience with. So, 21 therefore, that should be considered in all of this, 22 you know, when it comes to the technical adequacy of 23 the risk analysis and everything.
24 So, my only point is, let's admit that we 25 don't have experience with QHOs; that they 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
202 1 introduce new methods. Because that's what the true 2 statement is.
3 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. I think we understand 4 ourselves. I mean, let's move on, or Bill will be 5 here forever.
6 (Laughter.)
7 I do appreciate, though, Vesna -- I mean, 8 when you quoted 1.174, I kind of looked at our comment 9 and said, "That's sort of saying the same thing."
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, absolutely.
11 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Absolutely.
13 CHAIR PETTI: So, go ahead, Bill.
14 MR. RECKLEY: All right. I was just going 15 to point out, as you go through and try to make it 16 technology-inclusive and look over to the non-light 17 water reactor PRA standard, which doesn't use the same 18 terminology -- and again, Marty, weigh in, as needed 19 -- but it does talk about using these other measures 20 in that standard that we've endorsed in a Reg Guide 21 for trial use.
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I was just going 23 through that to find the references, and I will finish 24 looking while we are talking.
25 MR. RECKLEY: 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
203 1 All right, Billy -- Bill. Sorry.
2 MR. JESSUP: Yes. Thanks. Good 3 discussion.
4 Yes, thank you, Billy.
5 So, the second recommendation here from 6 the fourth Interim Letter, it focused on the role of 7 safety functions in both Frameworks. We touched on 8 this a few times yesterday and noted that, in response 9 to the recommendation, we did propose a definition for 10 the term "safety function." We agreed that it's a 11 very important concept that we wanted to ensure that 12 we were clear on. And that definition, you know, it's 13 found in Section 53.20 now, as Jordan Hoellman 14 discussed yesterday.
15 And we also made some changes to the rule 16 text that would add some more clarity around how 17 safety functions are defined in each Framework, and 18 those changes were really focused on Framework B, 19 where we see them implicitly addressed through the 20 principal design criteria. But, again, as I mentioned 21 yesterday, we worked to make that relationship more 22 explicit, so, again, that we could add some clarity 23 around this.
24 I don't have much --
25 CHAIR PETTI: I liked what was done, 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
204 1 I thought it helped on the clarity side.
2 MR. JESSUP: Okay. Now, thank you for 3 that feedback, Dave.
4 I'll add that we did spend a lot of time 5 with this recommendation because we appreciated it, 6 but trying to find the right way to do it, we think we 7 struck the right balance and tried to get the point 8 across.
9 So, Billy, if you want to move to the 10 third item, the next slide? Okay, thanks.
11 So, this recommendation focused on pre-12 application engagement, and it recommended several 13 activities to be required as part of pre-application 14 engagement and the process that we use to engage with 15 reactor vendors and prospective applicants.
16 But, as the letter indicated, the staff is 17 working on guidance in this area. We do have a draft 18 white paper that is publicly available, and it 19 summarizes the recommended pre-application engagement 20 activities and the topics that we think are important 21 enough, such that they should be discussed with the 22 staff early in the process.
23 And a lot of those topics are aligned very 24 closely with what the Committee had recommended, and 25 you see a handful of them on this slide. These 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
205 1 from that draft white paper on pre-application 2 engagement, principal design criteria, selection of 3 licensing basis events, SSC classification, 4 Probabilistic Risk Assessment, among others.
5 And we did add a note that we agreed with 6 the ACRS on this topic, but noted, again, that pre-app 7 engagement, it can't be required of the developers and 8 the prospective applicants, but that draft white paper 9 certainly encourages it, and we use it quite often in 10 discussions with these groups, when they're coming.
11 And I personally use it a lot in these engagements.
12 MR. BLEY: All the applications we've 13 received, you've had extensive pre-application 14 interactions, isn't it true? That's with smaller 15 reactors, yes?
16 MR. JESSUP: I would offer, Dennis, that 17 it's varied. You know, there's a couple in-house 18 right now and it's varied, and it continues to vary 19 with prospective applicants today, not the ones that 20 are in-house that you just referred to. But it 21 varies.
22 It's very helpful. As I indicated, it 23 helps us get through a lot of tough technical and 24 policy issues, not necessarily resolve them, but at 25 least identify some of the sticking points early.
NEAL 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 MR. BLEY: Okay. You envision you might 2 get some applications with, essentially, no pre-3 application engagement? Is that what you're saying?
4 MR. JESSUP: I would say it's possible 5 because it's not required.
6 MR. BLEY: Yes.
7 MR. JESSUP: And I think that, right now, 8 that draft white paper, it really outlines not only 9 some of these technical topics, but the benefits and 10 potential schedule impacts are addressed in there as 11 well.
12 CHAIR PETTI: So, Bill, the draft white 13 paper, is it available to applicants? Is it on our 14 website somewhere?
15 MR. JESSUP: It is, Dave. Actually, I 16 Google it sometimes when I can't find it right off the 17 bat. Yes, it's on the NRC's Advanced Reactor Pre-18 application website, public website.
19 CHAIR PETTI: Okay. Good.
20 MR. JESSUP: And if you don't have the 21 Accession Number, we can get it to you.
22 CHAIR PETTI: I mean, here is a case, yes, 23 I don't want to get hung up on what it should require.
24 You guys understood our intent. I think you were on 25 the same page. The fact that there's a white paper NEAL 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 out there for applicants to avail themselves of, you 2 know, that's getting 90 percent of the way there, in 3 my opinion.
4 So, thanks.
5 MR. JESSUP: We were definitely in 6 agreement with ACRS on this.
7 Billy, can you move to the next slide, 8 please? Our slides are hung up. Okay, there we go.
9 So, the fourth recommendation, it focused 10 on ensuring that fire protection requirements in both 11 Frameworks were technology-inclusive. This is a 12 pretty straightforward response. We agreed with this 13 recommendation, appreciated it. It brought up some 14 good points.
15 And I touched on some of the actions taken 16 in this area yesterday, specifically, the fact that 17 major changes were made to the Framework B preliminary 18 proposed requirements in this area. They align a lot 19 more closely with Framework A. And those changes, 20 they inherently address the recommendation, and we 21 feel confident that what's currently proposed in both 22 Frameworks is now technology-inclusive.
23 So, Billy, can you go to the next slide, 24 please?
25 So, this was the kind of fifth NEAL 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 observation, I'd call it. And it focused on the 2 length of the preliminary proposed rule text and noted 3 that some of the text could be placed in guidance, and 4 also pointed out the optics associated with the length 5 of the rule, and that this could cause future issues 6 around usability.
7 I think we touched on this briefly 8 yesterday morning during kind of what I would call the 9 general session. I'd say we've worked diligently to 10 identify areas where some of the rule text may be more 11 appropriately addressed through regulatory guidance.
12 I mean, fire protection in Framework B is just one 13 example.
14 And I think the discussions today and 15 yesterday reflect that consideration, and I mean, 16 probably over 50 percent of the time we spent talking 17 about guidance. And we definitely agree that having 18 a rule that's as streamlined and efficient as possible 19 is a prime objective.
20 I think I want to come back to an item 21 that Jordan Hoellman discussed yesterday regarding 22 Section 53.10. And that's a new section relative to 23 the previously issued iterations of the rule text.
24 That section, it's small, but it's important, and it 25 establishes the independence of the Frameworks. 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
209 1 I think it reinforces the need to look at the 2 Frameworks independently, notwithstanding that there 3 are a few ties between the Frameworks, but not a lot.
4 And that was done intentionally because of that 5 tradeoff between, you know, what I would call volume 6 and usability or clarity that we've worked through.
7 And then, you know, if you get to the last 8 bullet here, if you look at both Frameworks 9 independently and you consider the preliminary 10 proposed rule text in Part 53, it would, essentially, 11 provide an alternative or provide alternatives to the 12 regulations in Parts 50, 52, 55, and 100, then you see 13 that either Framework actually is substantially 14 smaller than that existing set of requirements.
15 And so, I think, to sum it up, we agree 16 that the rule needs to be efficient, needs to be 17 clear, usable, but we also note that, if you look at 18 each Framework independently, again, it suggests that 19 what's been developed so far, it should be considered 20 quite compact, given the appropriate context and, you 21 know, appreciating the fact that it would provide an 22 alternative to a large body of existing requirements.
23 CHAIR PETTI: And, Bill, I think in this 24 area, you know, the response to the letter just didn't 25 speak to me as well as the meeting we're having here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
210 1 where, in fact, you guys kind of have your hat on, 2 looking for inefficiencies and duplication. Just, in 3 fact, that all of the stuff that Jesse talked about in 4 Subpart P just as one sentence saying, "Go back to 5 Subpart F for the requirements," I mean, you're 6 looking for ways to try to streamline it, and that 7 didn't come through in the response to the letter.
8 So, I think you understand our concern and you're on 9 the lookout, if you will, to try to do that, in light 10 of the other constraints you have.
11 MR. JESSUP: Agree, Dave. I appreciate 12 that feedback, not only the positive feedback, but 13 also maybe that the letter didn't come through as 14 clear.
15 And I'll say it probably for the third 16 time, we did look at various ways to try, when we 17 introduced Framework B, in particular, to try and make 18 it as streamlined as possible, all the way to, do you 19 just make several forks in the road in Framework A, or 20 do you, like I said, try to increase the usability, 21 the clarity, by some duplication, but, again, you have 22 kind of a standalone set of requirements now in those 23 Frameworks.
24 So, appreciate the feedback.
25 Billy, can you go 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
211 1 please? Thanks.
2 So, the sixth recommendation, this focused 3 on the generally licensed reactor operator concept and 4 how operating licensing requirements have been 5 proposed in Part 53. I think Jesse Seymour covered 6 this better than I would this morning. I think Jesse 7 had a dedicated slide on this. So, I wasn't going to 8 go into any great detail on this, except to point out 9 some of the highlights that, again, are probably 10 duplicative of what Jesse said this morning.
11 What's been proposed, they're technology-12 inclusive. They have significantly more flexibility 13 than what's currently out there, and I think the last 14 bullet is what always sticks with me, in that it 15 should reduce the need for exemptions from what folks 16 would have to take to the current requirements while 17 enhancing reliability and clarity.
18 So, I don't want to repeat what Jesse 19 said. And, Jesse, feel free to jump in, if you're on.
20 But I'm glad to take more questions on 21 this one, if needed.
22 MR. SEYMOUR: No, Bill, again, I think we 23 talked through those items today, and also, we've 24 responded to them directly, some of the earlier items, 25 in past discussions. So, unless there's further NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
212 1 questions, I think we've covered it.
2 MR. JESSUP: Thanks, Jesse.
3 Billy, you can go to the next slide.
4 Okay.
5 So, the seventh item here, a 6 recommendation/observation. This was focused on SSC 7 classification, and the feedback was that, through the 8 use of PRA, perhaps only two classes of SSCs should be 9 developed.
10 We thought the discussions during the 11 summer meetings on this topic were really good, and we 12 appreciated the insights, but I think, as you saw in 13 the letter, after we went back through the feedback we 14 got and saw the letter, the staff thought that two 15 classes may be a little too limiting, in light of the 16 fact, especially, if you see the last major bullet 17 there, that there are some non-safety-related SSCs 18 that may warrant some type of special treatment due to 19 their role either in providing increased defense-in-20 depth or that they're otherwise risk-significant. And 21 this generally gets reflected in a third class of 22 SSCs.
23 And we noted here on the slide how those 24 considerations, they're reflected in the current rule 25 language or the proposed rule language, where NEAL 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 Framework A, it's somewhat more explicit, in that, 2 with that third class, the non-safety-related with 3 special treatment, but it's also reflected in 4 Framework B in a couple of ways.
5 You see important to safety on here, but 6 also in some specific areas, such as the SSCs that are 7 used to mitigate additional licensing basis events 8 that Boyce discussed yesterday. So, the treatment of 9 that third class or third tier in Framework B, 10 although not explicit, is fairly consistent with the 11 existing requirements that we have today.
12 And I skipped the second major bullet that 13 we had a note here about safety-related SSCs, where we 14 pointed out that both of the Frameworks, they address 15 this class of SSCs generally in a manner that's 16 consistent with what's in the current regulatory 17 requirements. The wording is a little bit different, 18 obviously, between the Frameworks, but, in any case, 19 we think they're fairly consistent.
20 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, let me just ask 21 you a question for Framework A, which is totally PRA-22 integrated. Are the PRA results considered in this 23 safety classification?
24 MR. RECKLEY: Primarily -- the answer is 25 yes -- and primarily in the second category, the non-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
214 1 safety-related, let's say, safety-significant or using 2 the NEI 18-4 terminology, non-safety-related and 3 special treatment.
4 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But my question is, 5 when you do safety classification within safety-6 related and non-safety-related, was the PRA considered 7 as part of that classification?
8 MR. RECKLEY: It is somewhat indirectly.
9 The PRA under Framework A, as it is under the 10 Licensing Modernization, the PRA would inform how you 11 pick the design basis accident. Once you've picked a 12 design basis accident, the requirement is the same, 13 that you use safety-related SSCs. But the actual 14 design basis accident is a stylized evaluation similar 15 to what is done now. So, it kind of becomes separated 16 from the PRA, but the PRA is used to inform the 17 selection of the DBA.
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: But that's where our 19 comment comes. If you use our PRA, you shouldn't have 20 something important for safety which is non-safety-21 related. That's when if you have -- in a perfect 22 world, this would be the case.
23 My other question is, if you are not 24 having a perfect world, what is the position on 25 safety-related which are not important for safety in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
215 1 the Framework A?
2 MR. RECKLEY: The general notion in 3 Framework A -- and this is talked about in LMP -- is 4 you should avoid that. You should be able to avoid 5 that case. And there's a whole part of the Licensing 6 Modernization Project that is separate from the NRC in 7 terms of its implementation and just reflected in 8 white papers, basically, to help users implement it.
9 But there's a whole section on smartly 10 picking your safety-related SSCs specifically to avoid 11 what you're suggesting. And so, I think --
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, see, my 13 position is -- and this is just my, but, actually, the 14 Committee has some similar position -- that in the 15 Framework A, there should be only two categories. You 16 should do this integration during the safety 17 classification. In that Framework B, you should have 18 all four categories.
19 And then, let me ask you something totally 20 separate from the categorization. Did you define 21 "special treatment" in the QA programs?
22 MR. RECKLEY: The special treatment can, 23 but does not necessarily have to include QA 24 requirements. Special treatment could be additional 25 monitoring. It could be -- it's really up to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
216 1 designer to evaluate what that --
2 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: So, do you have 3 discussion of this in Subpart F? I couldn't find it?
4 You know, in the part of the --
5 MR. RECKLEY: The details of this show up 6 in the Regulatory Guide, in 1.223 and NEI 18-04, in 7 the guidance documents.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I just thought there 9 is -- did they make it to the other parts of 53?
10 MR. RECKLEY: No. That's in --
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right.
12 MR. RECKLEY: It's primarily in the 13 guidance. And this does largely fall out of the -- if 14 you look, for example, at NUREG-1860, or some other 15 thoughts about how you grade the requirements base on 16 the risk or safety significance of SSCs -- but when 17 you introduce Appendix B and safety-related and a 18 traditional approach for some subset of SSCs to fall 19 into that category, as Bill Jessup had mentioned, it 20 will largely result in the need to have an additional 21 category where we say, we acknowledge its importance, 22 but it doesn't need to fall into the requirements of 23 the QA program in terms of the procurement and all of 24 the other criteria that are listed in order to serve 25 its function in terms of providing defense-in-depth.
NEAL 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 The trap is, if you have only two 2 categories and safety-related is one, and you apply 3 Appendix B to all of that equipment, that has 4 ramifications in terms of the regulatory impact and 5 the cost of the regulation for those designs. So, 6 that's why we generally introduce the third category, 7 is to address risk in a more efficient manner.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, as you're 9 familiar in application of 50.69, the cost is actually 10 reduced because there is much more SSCs in the 11 category which is not safety -- which is safety-12 related, but not safety-significant. And this is why 13 this, to me, looks like a chair with, you know, three 14 legs, what you have here. This is totally, you know, 15 it looks like -- it lacks total knowledge, what we are 16 doing here.
17 I mean, you know, because if you look at 18 in the reg of 50.69 application, most of the current 19 safety components, you know, there is some of them 20 which are non-safety, but safety-significant, but a 21 much larger number is the safety, non-risk-22 significant, which, in general, reduces the cost. And 23 this is why so many plants are interested in using 24 50.69.
25 What you have here is some hybrid, shaky NEAL 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 hybrid. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me. So --
2 CHAIR PETTI: So, Bill, I'll give you the 3 counter to that, because you probably heard lots of 4 discussions we had in August on this. July we had the 5 meeting.
6 My view is the goal would be to try to 7 have a system that didn't get you into the situation 8 where the classification rule set made you classify 9 something as having some safety significance, but it 10 really had no risk significance, when one looks at it 11 through a PRA lens. And there's costs associated, 12 obviously, with seeing something as safety 13 significance when, in fact, it may not have any risk 14 significance.
15 In my mind, this is all about we need a 16 system that optimizes the safety footprint for these 17 newer reactors, but we've got no operating experience 18 in many cases, or limited in others.
19 How do you know what's important? How do 20 you know what to worry about, so that both the 21 licensee and the regulator can focus on the right 22 stuff and not peripheral things? And that's really, 23 I think, sort of what the intent of what we're -- at 24 least when I looked at the finding that we put in, 25 that's what I where I was going. That was 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
219 1 important sort of thought process.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and I think the way I 3 would answer, the way we're trying to do that is the 4 way we've laid out the requirements in both 5 Frameworks. But in Framework A, to do the PRA, in 6 order to search for that, to do -- again, it goes back 7 to the observations that have been offered by the ACRS 8 numerous times about doing these systematic 9 assessments. And both Frameworks have to do that.
10 They do it slightly differently, but you do these 11 systematic assessments, and then, with the whole goal 12 of identifying what's important to managing the risks 13 associated with those facilities.
14 And again, once you then say you're going 15 to address at least a subset of those using a 16 traditional approach, and bringing in the quality 17 assurance requirements, and so forth, and that's the 18 safety-related component, but experience has shown you 19 also have SSCs that are contributing to the risk 20 profile, that you want to have some controls over --
21 and again, Boyce talked about, under Framework B, the 22 historical for light water reactors of being a few 23 events, and then, supplementing that with severe 24 accidents, and so forth.
25 All of those things were done under 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
220 1 third category, if you will, of special treatment, but 2 not running up the cost by designating them as being 3 safety-related.
4 And the same thing is done in Framework A 5 where you look at the risk and you say, if it's 6 contributing to the risk profile, controlling the 7 frequency or the consequences of event sequences other 8 than the DBAs, or providing defense-in-depth, then it 9 warrants some kind of special treatment.
10 CHAIR PETTI: Yes, I'm worried about that 11 fourth option in 50.69, and maybe that's just an 12 historical artifact because PRA wasn't around when 13 many of the plants did their classifications years 14 ago.
15 MR. RECKLEY: Well, yes, you do have to be 16 a little careful. 50.69 is built for plants that were 17 designed and built already, using a set of 18 requirements, and then, saying, "Now, let's do an 19 overlay considering risk and see if we can justify a 20 slightly different treatment."
21 And so, you do get to a different place 22 when you apply these kinds of methodologies for plants 23 that have already been designed and built compared to 24 those that you're designing from scratch. And 25 hopefully, you can avoid some of the pitfalls, like NEAL 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 having safety-related, but non-risk-significant SSCs.
2 CHAIR PETTI: Right. No, that was my 3 point, was I couldn't, in my mind, understand why, 4 except that it existed, why you decided to take the 5 classification for 50.69, given that historical 6 context, for Framework B, when you're looking forward, 7 when you've got these things occurring at the same 8 time, right? The PRA and the classification can be 9 used in concert, so that you don't have that problem.
10 That's what, mentally, I couldn't get around, why 11 carry that forward, except that it's something that's 12 been around and people know about.
13 But this discussion helps.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Bill Jessup, sorry, back to 15 you, well, both for that last question or observation 16 and back to the presentation.
17 MR. JESSUP: Okay. I don't think I've got 18 anything else to add, though it's good feedback. It's 19 an area that we, obviously, have thought a lot about.
20 But, Billy, I guess you can go to the last 21 recommendation on the next slide. Okay.
22 Yes, so the last recommendation from the 23 fourth Interim Letter, this related to documentation 24 of the basis for the AERI entry criteria. And this 25 was pretty straightforward.
NEAL 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 The staff agreed with the recommendation.
2 We're currently working on identifying the right 3 format for documenting that basis, and that would 4 include the MACCS validation that was discussed 5 yesterday during the afternoon presentation.
6 So, that covers the eight 7 observations/recommendations from the fourth Interim 8 Letter. Absent any other questions, I'll turn it over 9 to Jordan Hoellman on the next slide.
10 MR. HOELLMAN: All right. Good afternoon, 11 everyone.
12 This is Jordan Hoellman, Project Manager 13 in the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch.
14 I'm going to cover major industry feedback 15 received on Part 53 so far and guidance initiatives, 16 and then, sort of how they fall in the process to try 17 to add some more clarity around where we're going with 18 certain guidance documents.
19 So, this slide is similar to one that we 20 presented to the ACRS in May of this year. It details 21 some of the comments we received from industry, some 22 of which overlaps with the feedback we received from 23 the ACRS. And it mostly covers topics where we've 24 made an active change and tried to address the 25 feedback. So, we talked a little bit about these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
223 1 throughout the presentations the past two days, but 2 I'll try to cover it quickly here.
3 So, we got some feedback that there are 4 programs that are duplicative of each other and 5 sometimes overlapping. What we've done is we've 6 provided some additional flexibility for licensees or 7 applicants to organize and combine programs, as 8 appropriate to avoid duplication.
9 With manufacturing licenses, from talking 10 to some potential applicants, we recognize the 11 potential for using a manufacturer's license to 12 fabricate a nuclear reactor and the potential for fuel 13 loading in the factory. So, we've enabled that in 14 both Frameworks.
15 We've already talked about the two-tier 16 safety criteria that was causing confusion amongst a 17 lot of stakeholders. So, we've eliminated that, and 18 we discussed that before.
19 For quality assurance requirements, each 20 Framework has their own Subpart that covers QA, and 21 we've consolidated them in their respective Subpart in 22 each Framework and aligned them with Appendix B to 23 Part 50.
24 Industry stressed a number of times that 25 consistency in the QA requirements was essential 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
224 1 suppliers that already comply with the requirements of 2 Appendix B. So, we wanted to acknowledge that and 3 ensure that consistency continues Part 50, Part 52, 4 and Part 53.
5 Another things just with codes and 6 standards in general is we've enabled some flexibility 7 in using codes and standards. We defined consensus 8 codes and standards in Subpart A and sort of allow 9 for, you know, require the use of generally-accepted 10 acceptance codes and standards, but don't specify them 11 as is done in Part 50.
12 For normal operations, towards the 13 beginning of our development of Part 53, some of the 14 requirements for normal operations were sort of 15 intertwined with the requirements for licensing basis 16 events. So, we do couple them to provide some 17 clarity.
18 And then, we've already discussed the 19 safe, stable end state conditions which was one of 20 ACRS's recommendations and, also, a comment received 21 from industry. So, we've added that requirement and 22 made clarifications, as appropriate, in the preamble.
23 So, Billy, if there's no questions, let's 24 move to slide 167.
25 The first item here is the comment 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
225 1 been receiving that Part 53 should only contain one 2 Framework that is methodology-neutral. What we've 3 done in Part 53 for the Draft Proposed Rulemaking 4 Package is created two distinct Frameworks within Part 5 53 that we think provide clarity and predictability 6 for applicants using a variety of approaches.
7 We've developed the Draft Guide 1413, 8 which, hopefully, provides potential applicants some 9 additional guidance on choosing which Framework to 10 pursue and, also, developed the AERI approach and the 11 accompanying guidance for that methodology.
12 Some external stakeholders questioned 13 ALARA in the regulations and as a design requirement.
14 The staff has included Part 20 references in Part 53.
15 We tried to recognize that we're looking for a 16 combination of design features and programmatic 17 controls to fulfill ALARA requirements.
18 And also, as the Advanced Reactor Content 19 Application Project continues, we've tried to provide 20 guidance and ISGs associated with that. That makes 21 that more clear and sort of gets -- well, it hopefully 22 addresses some of industry's concerns about our 23 overburdening them in the review, I guess.
24 For special treatment, this is what we 25 were just discussing some moments ago. So, I'm not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
226 1 sure I need to cover that more.
2 Facility Safety Program, this is a new 3 program with no equivalent requirement under the 4 existing regulations. Industry had commented that 5 this is an increased burden and unnecessary.
6 The staff views the Facility Safety 7 Program as a potential operational benefit. It allows 8 the continued use of PRA for evaluating changes, 9 managing risk, and improving the relationship between 10 NRC's licensing and reactor oversight programs.
11 Because we've gotten many comments on the 12 Facility Safety Program, we did provide questions in 13 The Federal Register Notice, and specifically, request 14 for comments, to see what additional insights we can 15 get during the public comment period.
16 And then, lastly, more guidance is needed 17 to clarify the regulations.
18 So, the staff agrees and we've been trying 19 to align with industry on future guidance needs to 20 ensure we know what different industry groups are 21 pursuing and may request NRC endorsement of. And we 22 continue to do that in our periodic advanced reactor 23 stakeholder meetings.
24 For example, we have prioritized the 25 Technology-inclusive Content Application Project 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
227 1 Southern Nuclear-led effort for technology-inclusive, 2 risk-informed, change evaluation process, which are 3 the follow-on phases to the Licensing Modernization 4 Project methodology.
5 We've also gotten comments around chemical 6 hazards. And so, that's an area where we think we 7 need additional guidance. And as we discussed 8 yesterday, areas surrounding manufacturing and 9 manufacturing licenses is an area where we think 10 additional guidance would be beneficial.
11 CHAIR PETTI: So, Jordan, just a question 12 back on the Facility Safety Program. You say it 13 allows continued use of the PRA, et cetera, et cetera.
14 You could do that today without the Facility Safety 15 Program, is that true?
16 MR. HOELLMAN: It is true. I think what 17 we thought, in at least Framework A, because the PRA 18 provides such a leading role in the licensing, and 19 with the required upgrades to the PRA, we thought, you 20 know, potentially, as the number of reactors 21 potentially can increase from the hundred maybe we 22 have now to potentially many more than that of these 23 advanced reactor designs, we thought that allowing an 24 applicant to implement this program, instead of having 25 the NRC have to take generic actions and assess 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
228 1 generically across the operating fleet, it would be 2 potentially a more efficient way to address risks as 3 things are identified.
4 And we do have efforts underway to sort of 5 modernize our construction oversight and inspection 6 programs. And so, that's one of the areas I think 7 we're thinking about, as we're soliciting specific 8 Requests for Comments on the concept.
9 CHAIR PETTI: Yes. When you say that, I 10 remember Bill Reckley telling us this sometime in the 11 past. To me, that's probably the stronger rationale 12 for it than what's in the slide. At least the slide 13 doesn't speak to me like what you just said. That's 14 all.
15 Thanks.
16 MR. HOELLMAN: No, I'm glad I could 17 clarify that for you.
18 So, if there's no more questions, I guess 19 we'll move to the next slide, 168.
20 So, this is industry feedback we received 21 on Framework B, or more recently this summer after 22 Framework B was released. Some of this is not only 23 applicable to Framework B, but to the entirety of Part 24 53.
25 So, we got some comments that chemical NEAL 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 hazard requirements are unclear. We've tried to 2 amplify this in the preamble. And chemical hazards in 3 question would include substances commingled with the 4 licensed material or those produced by a reaction with 5 licensed material consistent with similar requirements 6 in Part 70.
7 So, we think the Standard Review Plan for 8 fuel cycle facility license applications in NUREG-1520 9 provides a good basis for how we would anticipate 10 addressing this. And like I mentioned on the previous 11 slide, when we talk about additional guidance, it is 12 an area that we're thinking we'll need to develop in 13 the future.
14 We got some comments that the rule 15 language is not technology-inclusive in some areas.
16 And so, you know, as one of the main objectives of the 17 Part 53 rulemaking, we appreciated that comment and 18 took actions in certain places to revise sections to 19 make it technology-inclusive. And that one is more 20 specific to Framework B, where our starting point was 21 the existing requirements in Part 50. So, there were 22 some places where I guess we missed some of the light-23 water-reactor-specific elements.
24 We got comments that PRA development --
25 oops, Dennis, did you have something?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
230 1 MR. BLEY: No, sorry, I left my mic on by 2 accident.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Oh, okay, no worries.
4 So, on the third line there, we got 5 comments that PRA development at the construction 6 permit stage is not reasonable. Here, we intended to 7 align with the Parts 50-52 rulemaking. We do 8 recognize that -- and industry reiterated at our 9 periodic advanced reactor stakeholder meeting last 10 week that -- this is a major industry comment for both 11 the Parts 50-52 rulemaking and Part 53.
12 So, we're trying to maintain consistency 13 with the 50-52 rulemaking and other Commission 14 policies. And, you know, depending on what the 15 Commission decides on 50-52 and Part 53, we'll 16 continue to follow Commission direction there.
17 I would note that we are developing 18 guidance. It's going to be called -- or it's related 19 to the non-light water reactor PRA standard, and we 20 are developing guidance that sort of walks through the 21 requirements of the standard and sort of tries to 22 clarify when certain requirements of the standard are 23 applicable at different stages of the licensing 24 process. So, it would provide at least a staff 25 position and be subject to public comment, like all 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
231 1 our documents, but add a little bit of clarity on what 2 we think is expected and can be done at a CP stage 3 versus an OL stage, and all the other licensing 4 processes as well.
5 But that, just to get it on your guys' 6 radar, I guess, because, like all of our guidance 7 documents, we need to coordinate with you and see if 8 that's something that you're interested in reviewing.
9 And then, we got comments on the proposed 10 entry conditions for AERI, that they are too 11 conservative or too restrictive. As was mentioned 12 yesterday, the main point here is that AERI entry 13 conditions are intended to distinguish between plants 14 with a relatively straightforward design versus plants 15 with more complicated designs. So --
16 CHAIR PETTI: So, Jordan, just a question 17 on that. That industry feedback was before the new 18 language in Framework B, where there's now this 19 discussion of passive and inherent features that we 20 have to be able to deal with? When they said that, 21 were they just worried about the 1 rem, that being too 22 conservative? Had they seen the other language?
23 MR. HOELLMAN: They have seen the other 24 language, and I'll let Bill or Marty correct me, if 25 I'm wrong. But I still think that we're getting 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
232 1 feedback. So, I don't know. Marty or Bill, do you 2 want --
3 CHAIR PETTI: No, that's all right. I 4 just wanted to understand because, you know, 5 everything's on a timeline here.
6 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, right, right.
7 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
8 MR. HOELLMAN: But this is the slide 9 consistent with what we've presented at the advanced 10 reactor stakeholder meeting last week, which occurred 11 after the release of the Draft Proposed Rulemaking 12 Package.
13 CHAIR PETTI: Thanks.
14 MR. HOELLMAN: Mm-hmm. Any other questions 15 here? Okay. Let's move on to 169, which is sort of 16 the guidance landscape that we're sort of dealing with 17 in Part 53 space.
18 So, for everyone's reference, if you 19 haven't got a chance to look at it yet, applicability 20 of guidance can be found in Enclosure 1B to the 21 Rulemaking Package.
22 Under existing guidance -- I'm not going 23 to spend a whole lot of time going back and discussing 24 the non-light water reactor vision and strategy 25 document and the implementation and action plans 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
233 1 were developed in the 2016 and 2017 time period.
2 But, if you recall, at the time we were 3 focusing on licensing non-light water reactors under 4 the existing regulations. So, I think we discussed a 5 little bit yesterday that's why, you know, some of the 6 documents, the applicability is limited to non-light 7 water reactors and things like that.
8 Per recommendations -- oh, Dennis?
9 MR. BLEY: Yes, the ones that are labeled 10 "near-term" --
11 MR. HOELLMAN: Mm-hmm.
12 MR. BLEY: -- how near-term do you think 13 those are? Or is it spread all over the map?
14 MR. HOELLMAN: It's spread all over the 15 map, but relatively near-term. Like TICAP/ARCAP, I 16 think that the latest expectation for that to be 17 issued for public comment is either this month or 18 early next month.
19 For the non-light water reactor PRA 20 standard, we have the trial Reg Guide available. I 21 mentioned the non-light water reactor PRA standard 22 applicability ISG. That is under development and 23 undergoing some preliminary management reviews now.
24 For the endorsement of ASME Section III, 25 Division 5, we presented to ACRS on that last summer.
NEAL 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 That's working through the final stages to be issued 2 as a final Reg Guide 1.87, Revision 2. That should 3 happen either this month or next month.
4 The endorsement of ASME Section XI, 5 Division 2, which Ron was talking about yesterday, 6 we're just sort of in a waiting period with OMB for 7 that one, where they've got to clear the 50.55(a) 8 rulemaking because that one sort of touches on 9 50.55(a) and the revision to that rule.
10 The molten salt reactor fuel 11 qualification, that one I think ACRS reviewed the 12 draft of that NUREG last fall, I want to say, similar 13 to the NUREG-2246. I think it was in the same time 14 period. So, that one is scheduled for issuance the 15 end of this year.
16 Seismic design and seismic isolators, 17 we've just issued as a draft white paper to engage 18 stakeholders last week.
19 MR. BLEY: That's interesting. We had 20 drafts a while back. So, that's gone out to 21 stakeholders. Are you bringing that one to us anytime 22 soon? We had some interest in that.
23 MR. HOELLMAN: We need to get on your 24 calendar, yes.
25 (Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
235 1 MR. BLEY: Okay. Because there's quite a 2 bit of interest in that one, I think.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Mm-hmm, yes.
4 For emergency planning, we provided, I 5 guess it's the final rule, to the Commission at the 6 beginning of the calendar year.
7 The change evaluation is sort of phase 3 8 to the Licensing Modernization Project. That one, NEI 9 -- or I mean Southern provided us a draft. I think 10 they plan to request NRC endorsement next calendar 11 year, but that will be similar to the LMP and TICAP 12 effort, where they're provide to us as an NEI document 13 for endorsement and an NRC-issued Reg Guide.
14 QA alternatives is something NEI has taken 15 the lead on to try to -- and this is sort of generic 16 to Appendix B -- but to look at the ISO standards and 17 sort of help -- well, provide guidance on how the ISO 18 standards can be used to meet Appendix B.
19 MR. BLEY: Have you been -- that's one I 20 haven't heard a whole lot about; I've heard a little 21 about. Are you going for --
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, I haven't been 23 direct -- oh, I'm sorry, Dennis, I'm talking over you.
24 Go ahead.
25 MR. BLEY: No, go ahead. I said I haven't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
236 1 heard much of anything on that one, except the concept 2 floated out there.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Right. I mean, so this was 4 an interesting comment that we, I think, have been 5 almost receiving from the beginning of the Part 53 6 rulemaking effort. I haven't been directly involved 7 in it, either. So, I'm not sure I'm the best to 8 answer any questions regarding it.
9 But I would assume that whenever they get 10 to a place where it's ready to be submitted to us for 11 potential endorsement, we'd get there. But it's more 12 generic to touch Part 50, Appendix B, you know, along 13 with --
14 MR. BLEY: It's going to replace that 15 or --
16 MR. HOELLMAN: I'm sorry, what's that?
17 MR. BLEY: This work might lead to 18 something instead of Appendix B, an alternative? It 19 is an alternative, then, to Appendix B?
20 MR. HOELLMAN: I don't know if it, I don't 21 know if it's an alternative.
22 Bill, do you know?
23 MR. RECKLEY: Dennis, it would be an 24 alternative to NQA-1, not to Appendix B.
25 MR. BLEY: Oh, 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
237 1 And I think I'm going to ask about this 2 schedule. The third one from the top, I didn't 3 interrupt you there; I should have. The non-LWR PRA 4 standard applicability ISG, that's separate from some 5 draft guidance you have out on that? I mean, we saw 6 draft guidance, right?
7 MR. HOELLMAN: You saw the Reg Guide 8 endorsing the standard. What this ISG would do -- and 9 I'm not an expert, but from what I understand and what 10 I've seen -- the ISG would walk through the 11 requirements of the PRA standard and sort of 12 differentiate which requirements of the standard would 13 apply at different stages of the licensing process or 14 apply at the different -- like, for example, a 15 construction permit applicant would be required, or we 16 think that they should meet these requirements of the 17 standard at the construction permit stage versus all 18 of them at the operating license stage.
19 MR. BLEY: Okay. And the idea of getting 20 it out as an ISG, instead of a Reg Guide, is to get it 21 out quickly, so people will be able to look at it?
22 And eventually, it will turn into a Reg Guide?
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, it's --
25 MR. HOELLMAN: -- following a similar NEAL 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 process to what we've done with the ARCAP ISGs. I 2 think, you know, there's some thought or expectation 3 that at some point we would compile all this stuff 4 into something like a Reg Guide or a NUREG, like the 5 Standard Review Plan, something like that.
6 It's just that overarching vehicle hasn't 7 been selected yet. So, as we're getting some of these 8 things out in the near-term, we're issuing them as 9 ISGs, and then, the idea would be to compile them all 10 into something like the Standard Review Plan.
11 MR. BLEY: Okay. Two quick points.
12 It looks like the ones that will really, 13 could really affect Part 53 are pretty well along, and 14 the others maybe have a longer near-term development.
15 And I think you had a couple left at the bottom before 16 I cut in on you. Please go ahead.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, thanks, Dennis.
18 So, the Facility Training Program is 19 another ISG. This one addresses -- I guess training 20 programs are SAT-based training programs and intended 21 to support early movers. So, from what I understand, 22 we're expecting a Topical Report from X-energy in the 23 near-term on not following INPO accreditation, and 24 whatnot.
25 If there's additional questions, you know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
239 1 we have our Human Factors Operator Licensing folks 2 online.
3 But that one should be -- that one is 4 around the corner, too. I think we're planning on 5 discussing that at the next stakeholder meeting in 6 December.
7 And then, the material compatibility ISG 8 sort of covers some of the environmental conditions 9 and different radiological concerns that ASME Section 10 III, Division 5, just doesn't touch on generically.
11 So, it's more specific to, or it's more design-12 specific. So, it goes into, like for a sodium fast 13 reactor, consider these interactions, these 14 environmental effects, that kind of stuff.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron.
16 What's the status of that?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: So, we plan to issue it as 18 a preliminary Draft ISG in the near-term. Here, we're 19 trying to get the final Reg Guide for the endorsement 20 of ASME Section III, Division 5, issued before we 21 issue that. But that's one where we want to get on 22 ACRS's radar pretty soon, potentially, for a 23 discussion early next year or next calendar year.
24 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes, okay, but get with 25 Chris Brown and get it on the schedule, because 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
240 1 are filling up after -- after January is fine, I 2 think, but --
3 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay.
4 MEMBER HALNON: Jordan, will you be adding 5 Reg Guide 1.233 to the Part 53 box?
6 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes. So, this is sort of 7 the complicated -- the situation we're in, I guess, at 8 this point. The things in the existing guidance box, 9 the darker blue color on the left, those are all 10 guidance documents that have been issued. They're 11 being used and implemented for applicants under Parts 12 50 and 52.
13 What we had planned to do with those is to 14 make an update after the proposed rule is issued. It 15 would then be issued for public comment. That would 16 update the applicability for Part 53. We would bring 17 it to ACRS, if you guys are interested in looking at 18 it, and then, we would issue it for public comment.
19 It would happen before the final rule is issued, so 20 that the guidance document could be issued final with 21 the final rule, if that makes sense.
22 Does that help, Greg?
23 MEMBER HALNON: Yes. So, in other words, 24 don't look at the existing boxes being static? It's 25 going to work with the 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
241 1 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, and the same thing 2 applies to the near-term box as well.
3 As we work through the near-term guidance, 4 one of the issues we found ourselves in is if we put 5 applicability for Part 53 in these guidance documents, 6 we cannot issue them as final guidance documents 7 until the Part 53 rule goes final.
8 And we need these guidance documents to 9 support our reviews under Parts 50 and 52 while Part 10 53 makes it through the process.
11 MEMBER HALNON: Good luck on keeping track 12 of it all.
13 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron. Going 14 back to Section 3, Division 5, when we review that, 15 Alloy 617 was not included and I pushed people on that 16 because there is a code case for that now.
17 But I'm curious as to, as we go along, the 18 number of materials that will be needed to be used at 19 high temperature will increase. And these are not 20 identified in Division 5 right now but they would be 21 as soon as they get approved for use in Section 2.
22 So, how does that work?
23 MR. HOELLMAN: Ron, what we did, and just 24 so you're aware, we did take on the review of Alloy 25 617. We issued Reg Guide 1.87 Revision 2 as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
242 1 supplement earlier this year that incorporated the 2 Alloy 617 code cases.
3 So, when that Reg Guide gets issued 4 finally, it will include those code cases and I would 5 envision we do something similar as new materials are 6 identified.
7 So, what we did with Alloy 617, we worked 8 with a contractor, we reviewed the code cases, and 9 then we incorporated the code cases into the Reg Guide 10 issued for public comment, addressed public comments, 11 and now we're getting ready to issue it finally.
12 So, it would I guess just continue to 13 revise Reg Guide 187.
14 MEMBER BALLINGER: I'm ignorant, I have to 15 go get that Revision 2. Okay, thanks.
16 MR. HOELLMAN: No problem.
17 I don't know if we alerted you 18 specifically to that but I do remember in our 19 presentation to ACRS last summer that was a comment I 20 remember you making, and I remember we were in the 21 process of pursuing the technical review of those code 22 cases in parallel with the NUREG and Reg Guide issued.
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: Thanks, I've got to be 24 a little bit more attentive.
25 MR. HOELLMAN: No problem.
NEAL 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 Let's see, I talked about the near-term 2 stuff, I talked about the existing guidance. I guess 3 one thing to note is there are hundreds of guidance 4 documents that exist for the current fleet of 5 operating reactors.
6 While some of the guidance is specific to 7 light water reactor technology, other guidance is 8 technology-inclusive in nature and we think should be 9 considered as applicants come in under the existing 10 regulations.
11 For Part 53 guidance, we talked about the 12 top ones today.
13 In addition to that, we're developing 14 draft guides to support the rule text associated with 15 Part 26 for the fitness for duty programs and fatigue 16 management and for Part 73 on access authorization 17 cybersecurity and security programs.
18 And then I alluded to with future 19 guidance, we've identified some areas where we think 20 guidance would be useful and needed. We've been 21 aligning with industry to make sure we're not missing 22 anything and try to make sure we're not duplicating 23 efforts in developing guidance.
24 I think that covers the slide unless there 25 are specific questions?
NEAL 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 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron again. Now 2 I'm going to jump on your case. I just went on the 3 website and Revision 2 is not there. I was on the 4 public website so maybe it's somewhere else but right 5 now the only thing that's there is Revision 1.
6 MR. HOELLMAN: Revision 1 to the draft reg 7 guide?
8 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay, to the Reg Guide 9 itself. I've got to look at draft guides.
10 MR. HOELLMAN: Draft Guide 1380 and it 11 probably should be Revision 1 because Revision 0 would 12 have went out without Alloy 617.
13 MEMBER BALLINGER: Draft Guide 1380, I'll 14 continue my quest.
15 MR. HOELLMAN: I really hope you find it.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: I'll find it eventually 17 or else somebody smarter than me will.
18 MR. HOELLMAN: If not I can send it to 19 you.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: No, I'll get it.
21 MR. HOELLMAN: Are there any other 22 questions on guidance? I know I've been looking 23 through some of the old letters from ACRS. I remember 24 seeing something that talked about the associated 25 design-specific guidance would be difficult to track.
NEAL 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 And so this is sort of our effort of 2 hoping to keep everyone on track.
3 MR. BLEY: Thank you.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, are you done?
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: I stand corrected, I 6 found it.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: Great.
8 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown, I 9 guess I just realized something.
10 As we've gone through there I was going 11 through the two frameworks again. We've talked about 12 how they have to develop principal or functional 13 design criteria, however those are defined.
14 And I'm kind of parochial, as most of you 15 probably know by now, there's not a single reference 16 in either one of these documents that provides any 17 design criteria or standards or references any 18 standards like the old IAAA standard 603 1991 for the 19 fundamental principles of designing INC equipment for 20 digital INC or any other type for these things.
21 So, it's all up in the air, the only 22 references to those documents are relative to quality 23 and quality control and qualification standards for 24 those two sections in 279 and 603-1991.
25 So, I guess it's the intent of you all 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
246 1 have absolutely no guidance at all, you're just going 2 to fight it out when they come in with something made 3 out of peanut butter and toothpaste?
4 I'm being sarcastic right now a little 5 bit.
6 MR. HOELLMAN: I understand, Charlie.
7 MEMBER BROWN: I understand but there's 8 nothing in there.
9 MR. HOELLMAN: As you recall probably, we 10 came to ACRS maybe two years ago to talk about the 11 design review guide for non-light water reactor 12 technologies.
13 Maybe this is a good time to move to the 14 next slide because the TICAP and ARCAP guidance that 15 really point to this integrated webbing of the various 16 guidance we've developed over the years, and I guess 17 more specifically since the issuance of division 18 strategy and implementation action plans.
19 Within the ARCAP ISGs, there is an ARCAP 20 roadmap ISG that includes references to various 21 guidance documents that are out there and that design 22 review guide is specifically referenced in the INC 23 portion of the application.
24 MEMBER BROWN: In the INC part of the 25 application, what do you mean, their application, 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
247 1 Applicant's application?
2 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes.
3 MEMBER BROWN: There's nothing in the 4 rules anymore, is that correct? Two years ago, I have 5 to admit, it's been far better coordinated based on 6 what we're seeing now and the presentation as you've 7 got it today, yesterday and today.
8 It was somewhat more disjointed two years 9 ago. You all were developing it, we were reviewing it 10 on the fly is what I would say, which I'm not 11 complaining about it, that's where we were at the 12 time.
13 And so I totally forgot that now we're 14 relying on these other documents somehow. I didn't go 15 try to key word all the TICAP and ARCAP, are they 16 referenced throughout this? I didn't do that again.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: They're not referenced 18 specifically --
19 MEMBER BROWN: In the rules.
20 MR. HOELLMAN: They're referenced in the 21 applicability of guidance as eventually TICAP and 22 ARCAP will provide key guidance for Part 53. This 23 kind of goes back to what I was trying to explain and 24 maybe I wasn't doing a very good job.
25 MEMBER BROWN: But it's not in the 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
248 1 Is that in the rule, in the preamble or something like 2 that? I missed it.
3 MR. HOELLMAN: It's in Enclosure 1B, is 4 the availability of guidance discussion.
5 It just touches on TICAP and ARCAP for now 6 but we do recognize that the content of applications 7 is a key guidance document under the existing 8 regulations and we expect it to continue to be an 9 important guidance document for the develop and review 10 of applications.
11 Where INC falls in under this chart here 12 was --
13 MEMBER BROWN: 1B, are you talking about 14 1B right now?
15 MR. HOELLMAN: I'm talking about the 16 slide. Where INC is referenced would be under the 17 safety functions, design criteria, and SSE safety 18 classification, and under the safety-related SSE 19 criteria.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Which part of this block?
21 Is it the upper left-hand?
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Green box, Items 5 and 6.
23 Those are TICAP chapters that have been issued in NEI 24 2107 Revision 1 I believe. And like I said, we're in 25 the process of working through the internal NEAL 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 concurrences for the TICAP draft guide and ARCAP ISGs.
2 And they should be issued for public 3 comment in the next couple weeks here. Hopefully, 4 we'll get a chance to brief ACRS on the contents of 5 those documents before we issue them final next year.
6 But that's really where the roadmap maybe 7 exists on how everything works.
8 And so TICAP is really the next phase of 9 the licensing modernization project and so it assumes 10 that the designer is implementing NEI 1804 and Reg 11 Guide 1.233, and structures the safety analysis report 12 a little differently to more align with that 13 methodology.
14 MEMBER BROWN: But ARCAP and TICAP are not 15 referenced at all in the rules, Framework A or B, it's 16 only in the side documents.
17 MR. HOELLMAN: That's correct.
18 MEMBER BROWN: So, like I say, there's 19 nothing aiding people that they have to meet some 20 minimal design fundamentals for critical stuff, safety 21 systems.
22 It's all up in the air, that's the way I 23 read this. It's guidance and we can argue about it 24 later as opposed to having them come in with a 25 structured 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
250 1 MR. HOELLMAN: There are requirements for 2 safety-related and non-safety-related but safety-3 significant SSCs to be designed using generally 4 accepted codes and standards, which maybe touches on 5 some of the IEEE items you were mentioning, I don't 6 know if we're still specifically talking about IEEE 7 and INC equipment.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Right now for Part 50 and 9 52 the guidance is very clear relative to the 10 fundamentals. They were written back in the analog 11 days before digital stuff came up but those principles 12 apply regardless.
13 I just hate to be parochial but it seems 14 like I wasn't --
15 MR. BLEY: My memory is that those things 16 are in the SRP and in some of the I&C ISGs.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, but they're not part 18 of the rule anymore.
19 MR. BLEY: They weren't part of the rule 20 in the SRP and ISGs. They're not there currently.
21 MEMBER BROWN: No, IEEE-603 is in Part 50, 22 52 at 55AH, people's feet are held to the fire because 23 it's in the rule and those principles are pretty much 24 what we've talked about anytime we've reviewed either 25 new systems for replacement or in the 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
251 1 applications for new plans.
2 So, the only ones that have really been 3 the one of issue is controlled access, which was 4 largely physical access back in the 1990s. You didn't 5 have to deal with electronic access from external 6 sources.
7 So, we've fundamentally eliminated them 8 from the rule now. ISG and the other ones are not 9 part of the rule, neither are the SRPs.
10 MR. BLEY: Yes, I was saying they never 11 have been --
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, the principles have 14 been in IEEE 603-1991, they are dictated by 55AH.
15 I've read it 400 times over the last 14 years.
16 Obviously, my concern is going to be my concern.
17 I think I mentioned this a couple years 18 ago about how those were going to be done and I missed 19 whatever followed on from that.
20 MR. BLEY: I understand your line or 21 reasoning but if an applicant comes in and doesn't use 22 the guidance, the Staff always has to come. We think 23 it's just going to be a check the box, the Staff can 24 say that's not acceptable, right?
25 MEMBER BROWN: Those are not in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
252 1 guidance.
2 MR. BLEY: They will be in the guidance in 3 TICAP and ARCAP and then in the advanced reactor 4 design criteria that information is there.
5 The Applicant comes in and decides they 6 want to use peanut butter and toothpaste, the NRC 7 Staff can say no. I think we sometimes forget about 8 the back part of the overall process, where they can 9 say no, that doesn't meet the requirement.
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MR. BLEY: Any time an Applicant would not 12 use the guidance they have a pretty tall mountain to 13 climb to get through the scale for two.
14 CHAIR PETTI: I just had a process 15 question, Jordan, we're going to get TICAP and ARCAP 16 at the same time, correct?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, you mean both TICAP 18 and ARCAP and Part 53, right?
19 CHAIR PETTI: I think we need to review 20 those together, that's all.
21 MR. HOELLMAN: That would be better, that 22 would make sense. And like I said, we're expecting to 23 issue it for public comment in the near-term here. It 24 walks or sort of discusses how to develop principal 25 design criteria or use that reg guide as well.
NEAL 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 So, maybe once you see it, Charlie, it 2 will ease some of your concerns a little bit 3 hopefully. Well, the Staff in many circumstances has 4 noted that's not covered, therefore, we can't really 5 say anything about that.
6 That happened 14, 13 years ago. We've 7 come past that. So, the argument that the staff can 8 say no anytime they want to, it really turns into a 9 real log jam legally.
10 So, that's the foundation of having those 11 principles in the rule itself, not the details but 12 just the fundamentals, has been pretty instrumental in 13 being able to ensure the systems that have come in the 14 software-based, digital, computer-based world have 15 pretty much complied with those and we've been able to 16 accept them.
17 But without the rule I'm not so sure that 18 would have worked out so well. I got the picture.
19 MR. HOELLMAN: I don't know if there's a 20 whole lot of more to cover here. I'll just recap 21 what's in that Enclosure 1B. So, we're engaged with 22 the Department of Energy and Industry to develop this 23 application of the content of application guidance for 24 advanced reactors.
25 And like I said, it's been initially NEAL 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 developed as the Board applications under Parts 50 and 2 52.
3 The guidance documents TICAP and ARCAP 4 will support developers in developing advanced reactor 5 applications and facilitate the NRC Staff's review of 6 applications for the variety of different application 7 type, CP, OLs, COLs, manufacturing licenses, standard 8 design approvals and design certifications.
9 The guidance documents provide an overview 10 of information that should be included in an 11 application, a review roadmap for NRC Staff with the 12 principle purpose of ensuring consistency, quality, 13 and uniformity of NRC Staff reviews and a well-defined 14 base from which the NRC Staff can evaluate proposed 15 changes to the scope and requirements of reviews.
16 While specific sections of the information 17 are primarily aligned with the licensing and 18 modernization project methodology, the concept and 19 general information may be used to inform the review 20 of applications to using other traditional licensing 21 approaches and methodologies.
22 We think this is a first good shot at 23 trying to take what industry has provided, endorse it, 24 and practice it, learn from it, adjust it as necessary 25 to support the final Part 53 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
255 1 Any other questions on guidance before we 2 move to the last two slides? Dennis, do you have a 3 question? It was a little fuzzy on my end at least.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, you're breaking up.
5 MR. BLEY: I'll be quiet.
6 CHAIR PETTI: Continue Jordan.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: I'm sorry. Dennis, if you 8 get back on and are able to clear up the fuzziness, 9 feel free to ask.
10 This is just the Section 7 of the FRN, a 11 number of issues have been raised over the past two-12 plus years as we've been discussing that preliminary 13 proposed rule language with ACRS and stakeholders.
14 ACRS has acknowledged that the extensive 15 real-time interaction with stakeholders and ACRS 16 presented the Staff with a very difficult challenge 17 and commended the Staff's ability to graciously accept 18 comments from all sources and to seek resolution of 19 competing requests.
20 A number of these topics address specific 21 areas that we've discussed throughout the meeting 22 yesterday and today from the overall structure of the 23 rule and the two frameworks to the use of the QHOs, 24 the role ALARA plays within the rule, construction and 25 manufacturing requirements, and topics surrounding NEAL 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 staffing generally, license reactor operator's 2 training and simulation facilities.
3 Some of the questions were specifically 4 developed to solicit additional feedback on areas 5 where industry continues to have concerns. Other 6 specific requests are related to specific Commission 7 direction such as the financial qualifications.
8 To touch on something Greg mentioned 9 yesterday, at the beginning of the rulemaking after 10 the Commission issued the SRM and in our response to 11 the SRM we did identify the 60-day public comment 12 period associated with the rulemaking as a key 13 uncertainty in meeting the Commission's directed 14 schedule at the time of October 2024 for the final 15 rule.
16 The staff continues to see the comment 17 period as an uncertainty and they intentionally 18 engaged in stakeholder engagement to mitigate the 19 uncertainty.
20 Including these specific requests for 21 comment now allows external stakeholders additional 22 time to prepare comments and continue to engage the 23 Staff in future periodic advanced reactor stakeholder 24 meetings.
25 So, between this and the next slide 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
257 1 list of topics that we've specifically asked for 2 comments on in the draft proposed rulemaking package.
3 Like I said, a number of them, we've 4 already discussed over the past two days but these are 5 the last two slides we have for our presentation 6 today.
7 MR. BLEY: Is my voice clear now?
8 MR. HOELLMAN: Sounds good to me.
9 MR. BLEY: I wanted to sneak in and ask 10 you a couple of us were discussing that it would be 11 helpful, and maybe it's in the preamble and I haven't 12 read past it, to try to explain how you decide what 13 goes into guidance and what stays in the rule.
14 How comfortable are you with your 15 consistency in those decisions you've made along the 16 way?
17 MR. HOELLMAN: I don't think it's 18 specifically called out in the preamble.
19 MR. BLEY: I didn't think so. If there 20 was a way to do it it would be wonderful, but go 21 ahead.
22 MR. HOELLMAN: I think generally what 23 we've tried to do with the rule is to keep things 24 technology-inclusive to the extent possible. Where 25 items get to be design-specific, that's I think where NEAL 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 we've tried to draw the line and thought guidance is 2 the best place to address it.
3 As we talked about, the PRA in a leading 4 role methodology versus starting with PDC or GDC 5 causes some difficulty at least with us trying to put 6 that into guidance and make one framework that we 7 thought would provide the clarity and predictability 8 that we needed in the rule.
9 But that's a good question, I don't know.
10 I'll let anyone else on the Staff side have an 11 opportunity to respond if they want.
12 CHAIR PETTI: Jordan, just to amplify a 13 little bit on Dennis's thoughts, that's one reason to 14 look through. The other one is the what versus how 15 prism, that hopefully Part 53 is mostly about the what 16 and the how is left for guidance.
17 Now, some of the what is sometimes 18 relegated to guidance for flexibility, that I 19 understand. But it's making sure none of the how 20 creeps into the requirements.
21 MR. HOELLMAN: Like I said, I don't know 22 if I have the best answer for you but I'm happy to 23 have someone else chime in if they want.
24 MR. RECKLEY: Jordan, this is Bill. Dave 25 has a great point, we try to do that as much as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
259 1 possible.
2 There are cases, and it's a mix in a 3 package this big, that sometimes what we did is pull 4 over something that if you want to say the how 5 differentiates when you're in a prescriptive mode, we 6 pulled over some of that.
7 But bigger picture, we tried to do what 8 you're saying and I think we've talked in the past.
9 To some degree we were forced to do it because the 10 technology inclusive nature of this, in many cases we 11 couldn't prescribe the how because it's going to 12 differ for different technologies.
13 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. Just to 14 give you a reference of one place that made us think 15 about this comment, it's 53.4370 A1 VI. In that there 16 are words like: in performing this assessment you'll 17 do this, this, and this.
18 Item 2 talks about facility description 19 and it says you should give special attention to 20 certain attributes. There's another place under ALARA 21 that says it seems like that should be or could be in 22 guidance.
23 If you just want to get a context of what 24 we were thinking of, that's where we're at and I don't 25 think we have any specific recommendations, just more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
260 1 of a curious how we're being consistent.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, back on that other 3 subject again -- Greg, are you finished? I'm sorry.
4 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, Charlie, I was just 5 giving a reference of some context.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, you were commenting 7 on not the how to. The reference to 603 1991 and the 8 principles, that is not a how-to, that is just a 9 high-level set of fundamental design criteria but they 10 don't tell you how to achieve independence, 11 redundancy, defense in-depth.
12 It doesn't tell you how, it just says 13 you've got to do those, you've got to look at them.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Right, not every standard is 15 prescriptive and Jordan mentioned on the standards, 16 and again this comes somewhat because of trying to 17 address a wide variety of designs, some of which we 18 don't even foresee right now probably, was that what 19 we put in to the regulation was, as Jordan mentioned, 20 under the design requirements they must use consensus 21 codes and standards where they're available.
22 We didn't list them specifically because 23 right now they don't exist in some cases. And so we 24 put in the broad requirement to follow consensus codes 25 and standards that's been approved by the NRC without NEAL 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 incorporating them by reference, like we have for ASME 2 and IEEE in 5055A, as you mentioned.
3 We came part of the way to where you were 4 but not necessarily being as specific in referencing 5 a particular code like IEEE. So, that requirement is 6 in there in both frameworks.
7 MEMBER BROWN: The point I'm trying to 8 make is that particular standard, 603 1991, is not 9 specific to any technology. It's totally technology-10 inclusive, you don't have to revise it to make it --
11 MR. RECKLEY: I understand.
12 MEMBER BROWN: And that's the beauty of 13 that one. I know the ASME stuff, they are very 14 specific in terms of a lot of things. Make a sample 15 this being and put a notch in it that's so deep and 16 blah-blah-blah, everything else.
17 That particular standard has really 18 withstood the test of time for an overall design.
19 It's what I did back in the Navy programs back when we 20 had --
21 (Simultaneous speaking.)
22 MR. RECKLEY: And as a couple people have 23 mentioned, we would expect people to continue to use 24 that to the degree it's applicable to them. We just 25 didn't list any codes and standards from any standards NEAL 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 development organization in Part 53.
2 We said use them but we didn't list any of 3 them from ANS, IEEE, SAME, or even in the seismic area 4 that we were talking about, the ASC 43, we're trying 5 to make sure the rule can accommodate that but we 6 don't list it within the regulations.
7 MEMBER BROWN: I got it, not that I agree.
8 MR. RECKLEY: I understand.
9 CHAIR PETTI: Just a comment, Members.
10 This FRN-specific request for comments, I have picked 11 a couple that I felt enough to comment on.
12 If you feel like something should be 13 commented on in one of these items, I may have already 14 commented on the draft but come prepared at full 15 Committee if you want a couple sentences put in, if 16 there are any of these where you feel you want to make 17 a comment.
18 Because this is an area that is relatively 19 new in terms of what we've seen today.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Are you talking about the 21 enclosures, Dave, the two which had the content 22 availability of documents?
23 CHAIR PETTI: No. NRC is requesting 24 specific comments on these categories of the last two 25 slides. And if there's one that you feel -- there's 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
263 1 couple, in the draft letter I have I'm touching on a 2 couple of these.
3 But come prepared if there is something 4 that you feel strongly enough.
5 VB: Yes, I wanted to raise one of those 6 comments now, Dave, at least briefly and then we can 7 discuss in full Committee in more detail. I've been 8 thinking a lot today about this issue of the self-9 mitigating or whatever designs.
10 And it seems like one potential pitfall 11 with that is if that is the basis for going with, say, 12 the general operator license instead of specific SRO 13 licenses, then finding even a highly unlikely or minor 14 departure from that where human action might be needed 15 admitted totally derail the licensing basis for that 16 facility.
17 And I'm thinking back when we learned as 18 we went that we needed to think about beyond design 19 basis accidents, we didn't go back and say, okay, all 20 plants are now unlicensed because the design basis was 21 not adequate, we had a mechanical to say, okay, yes, 22 you have these in your design basis but now you still 23 do have to think about these additional items that are 24 beyond design basis.
25 And I'm wondering whether it's worth NEAL 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 reformulating that concept of self-mitigating to say 2 that if you are able to persuade the NRC when you 3 first come for licensing that, yes, you fall in that 4 category and hence should very much lower expectations 5 regarding operator qualifications or licensing, et 6 cetera, if departures are identified that do require 7 some operator action, if it's limited enough this 8 could be accommodated by minor additional requirements 9 without going to the full range of needing an SRO.
10 And again, I'm thinking about this from 11 the point of view of incentives, you don't want the 12 reactor owner-operator to have an incentive to hide 13 the information because they don't want to end up with 14 a requirement for SROs downstream because of it.
15 So, I'm wondering whether that category 16 needs some additional caveats and in some sense it 17 goes against regulatory certainly but we might be in 18 a situation where there's good reason why we may not 19 have regulatory certainty yet.
20 So, that's my comment and I can think 21 about it more, obviously, in the next two weeks.
22 CHAIR PETTI: I'm sure we're going to talk 23 about that coupled with AERI, we've talked about it 24 more than once so thank you. Well, Members, unless 25 there's more comments, we've been going at this 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
265 1 for --
2 MR. HOELLMAN: Dave, this is Jordan Holman 3 again. I just wanted to make sure all the Members are 4 clear that these specific requests for comments, 5 they're in Section 7 at the end of Enclosure 1A.
6 CHAIR PETTI: We've been going at this a 7 while. I think you're done, Jordan?
8 MR. HOELLMAN: I'm done, yes. I wasn't 9 sure from some of the Members' comments if they knew 10 specifically where to find them so I wanted to be 11 clear.
12 CHAIR PETTI: I'm thinking we need to take 13 a break before we move on to the industry and public 14 comment phase because I think we've finished 15 everything, right, from the Staff?
16 MR. HOELLMAN: That's right, Dave.
17 CHAIR PETTI: Why don't we take a break 18 until 45 minutes after the hour? We'll resume then, 19 thank you.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 4:21 p.m. and resumed at 4:45 p.m.)
22 MS. LANE: Yes, can you guys hear me?
23 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
24 MS. LANE: Okay, great. Thanks. So good 25 afternoon, everybody. Again, my name is Hilary Lane.
NEAL 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 I'm the Director of Fuel and Radiation Safety at the 2 Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI. Thank you for the 3 opportunity to provide a few comments today on the 4 recently released draft proposal for Part 53.
5 First, we wanted to acknowledge that to 6 reach this stage in the rulemaking process is a huge 7 milestone for both NRC staff, management alike, and 8 industry. And as can be seen from the volume of the 9 draft package and the volume of industry comments, 10 including the joint NEI USNIC letter that was sent on 11 August 31st just a few weeks ago, an enormous level of 12 effort has gone into the rulemaking from a wide range 13 of stakeholders.
14 We appreciate the staff's presentations at 15 the recent October 12th advance reactor stakeholder 16 meeting which discussed changes to the overall package 17 and the language. We're still evaluating these 18 changes in detail, to include the changes to fire 19 protection language in Framework B which the staff 20 explains was made to better align with framework A, 21 and the new Interim Staff Guidance, or ISG, on 22 operator licensing.
23 We note that the NRC staff is also looking 24 to reconcile changes in the Part 50.52 rulemaking with 25 the Part 53 rulemaking once the Part 50.52 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
267 1 is issued as a final rule. We support that effort and 2 recognize that that will take careful consideration to 3 ensure that the proper changes are made.
4 We would like to correct the record on 5 some of yesterday's discussion related to AERI. The 6 staff acknowledged that while they have received 7 feedback that the entry criteria is overly restrictive 8 that they, in turn, have not received any feedback on 9 alternatives.
10 NEI did, in fact, propose alternative 11 criteria in our August 31st letter to the NRC, both in 12 Attachment B, Bravo, and Attachment D, Delta.
13 Attachment Delta was a full attachment dedicated to 14 our comments on DG 1414. Our comments in Attachment 15 Bravo outlined that it was not clear why the cutoff 16 distance is 100 meters and the basis for that distance 17 cannot be found.
18 Given the AERI approach is intended for 19 facilities with maximum accidents of very low 20 consequence, it would seem the consequences should be 21 calculated using an actual distance of interest for 22 the facility. Things like source terms and 23 meteorology would be site specific.
24 We propose that the distance should be the 25 boundary of the owner-controlled area which is 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
268 1 power reactor sites use in their EP dose assessment 2 consequence model if the distance of that boundary 3 extends beyond 100 meters.
4 Further, the four-day term should be 5 changed to be consistent with the SMR DP rule version 6 of the same criterion, so four days should be changed 7 to the 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> for consistency.
8 With the addition of the AERI process is 9 a positive change in Framework B, the specifics of the 10 entry criteria are extremely restrictive, as we 11 discussed yesterday, and were characterized by the NRC 12 as not being a safety criterion. They effectively 13 become a very restrictive safety criterion for a 14 designer that would seek to use the alternative 15 evaluation.
16 We note that the staff is also soliciting 17 public comment in Section 7 of the Draft FRN on a 18 variety of topics that are important to the industry.
19 We look forward to providing constructive comments on 20 these questions, as well as reiterating our 21 outstanding concerns we have with specific rule 22 language.
23 However, we do note that the nature and 24 the phrasing of some of these questions in Section 7 25 appears to reflect a lack of understanding of 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
269 1 industry's concerns on many of the key issues. As an 2 example, Section 7 solicited feedback on the new 3 facility safety program or FSP, currently in Framework 4 A, asking whether the FSP concept could contribute to 5 improving the NRC's overall regulatory programs and 6 whether the FSP should be included in Framework B.
7 We find the nature of this question to be 8 perplexing as it's incumbent upon the NRC, not 9 industry or members of the public, to justify new 10 programs. In fact, for about 18 months, the industry 11 has made repeated requests to the NRC staff for a 12 detailed explanation of the new FSP, how it would 13 reduce regulatory burden, and examples of how the FSP 14 would have been utilized in contrast to existing 15 processes.
16 We believe the FSP increases regulatory 17 burden without increasing safety. Industry has 18 advocated for its removal from the rule language that 19 NRC now entertains including the provision in 20 Framework B. We find questions of this nature to be 21 counterproductive and misleading.
22 The industry continues to believe that a 23 technology-inclusive, risk-informed, performance-based 24 Part 53 rule is vital to the long-term success of the 25 advance reactor community and in meeting the intent 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
270 1 NEIMA. Our joint comments from NEI and USNIC sent in 2 on August 31st focus on industry's top six concerns 3 which must be addressed in order to have a rule that 4 we consider used and useful.
5 At a high level, those top six concerns 6 are number one, there is no need for two frameworks.
7 Number two, remove QHOs as performance criteria in the 8 rule. Number three, remove ALARA as a design 9 requirement. Number four, remove requirements to 10 design to protect against and withstand beyond design 11 basis events. Number five, remove the facility safety 12 program or FSP. And finally, number six, reconcile new 13 programs and terminology.
14 We note that the ACRS shares many of these 15 same concerns as outlined in your August 2nd letter to 16 NRR which contains eight recommendations to NRR staff.
17 Notably, ACRS challenged the staff on whether Part 53 18 is considered to be streamlined and efficient and 19 stated that the rule may be too cumbersome to 20 implement and may not be used.
21 In short, we view the challenges in the 22 current rule language centering around two main 23 themes. Number one, reduction, predictability, and 24 flexibility to the inclusion of prescriptive details 25 in rule text that are typically found in 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
271 1 And number two, increase complexity and regulatory 2 burdens without any commensurate increase in safety.
3 Over the course of the last 18 months, NEI 4 and USNIC on behalf of our members have provided 5 extensive written comments as the rule is being 6 developed and we have made numerous presentations in 7 public meetings and to this committee. Based on our 8 early reading of the Part 53 draft proposal released 9 on September 30th just a few weeks ago, we're 10 disappointed that none of our six major concerns that 11 were just listed have not been addressed or resolved.
12 Further, many of these issues we believe 13 to be outstanding policy issues which if left 14 unresolved will need to be addressed at the Commission 15 level. This will only add time and complexity to the 16 Commission's review when they receive the package in 17 February.
18 In addition, today's slides have provided 19 industry feedback, starting on Slide 166, did not 20 fully capture the industry's feedback that was 21 provided in our comprehensive August 31st letter from 22 the NEI and USNIC. The slides do not fully capture 23 the major concerns nor fully capture the feedback on 24 Framework B specifically. So again, we encourage NRC 25 to refer back to our August 31st letter which also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
272 1 contains six detailed attachments of our comments with 2 proposed recommendations.
3 Further, the NRC's decision not to address 4 major stakeholder concerns until the formal proposed 5 rulemaking phase creates a distraction from discussing 6 more detailed aspects of the rule such as fire 7 protection, security, and EP which also need more 8 discussion and development.
9 So in closing, thank you for the 10 opportunity to speak with you today and we look 11 forward to future opportunities to engage and interact 12 with the staff and this committee at the appropriate 13 points during the rulemaking process and the staff 14 addresses their formal comments they received. Thank 15 you very much.
16 CHAIR PETTI: Thank you. And next we have 17 -- is it NIA is going to present?
18 MR. WIDMAYER: No, the Breakthrough 19 Institute.
20 CHAIR PETTI: Breakthrough, sorry. I got 21 them mixed up. Breakthrough Institute, please.
22 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you. This is Rani 23 Franovich. Can you hear me?
24 CHAIR PETTI: Yes.
25 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. I speak on behalf NEAL 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 of the Breakthrough Institute or BTI, which is an 2 independent, global research center that identifies 3 and promotes technological solutions to environmental 4 and human development challenges. We believe new and 5 advanced reactors represent critical pathways to 6 decarbonization. BTI does not receive funding from 7 industry.
8 Before joining BTI, I spent 30 years with 9 the NRC staff, including eight years in Region II and 10 20 years in leadership roles in headquarters. I 11 presented to the ACRS then and I appreciate this 12 opportunity to comment as a member of the public.
13 The ACRS plays an important role in 14 reforming regulatory mindsets and encouraging 15 innovation to ensure Part 53 is responsive to 16 congressional mandates and public interest.
17 I was a resident inspector in 1998 when 18 much needed regulatory reforms were the subject of 19 congressional hearings. Under threat of deep budget 20 cuts, NRC commissioners promised to implement risk-21 informed and performance-based rules and programs and 22 NRC survived the near-death experience.
23 In October 1998, the NRC staff conducted 24 a four day public workshop or concluded that four day 25 public workshop to agree in concept to 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
274 1 transformational oversight regime proposed by 2 industry. Under the new reactor oversight process, 3 NRC replaced enforcement of regulatory compliance with 4 a risk-informed, performance-based framework for 5 assessing safety performance.
6 The Commission defined the terms risk 7 informed and performance based in 1999 and called for 8 performance-based regulations to afford applicants and 9 licensees the flexibility to determine how they will 10 achieve improved outcomes and to encourage and reward 11 those improved outcomes.
12 An example might be flexible operator 13 staffing requirements that incentivize innovation.
14 Yes, operators are important, but humans are the 15 weakest link in any system. Reduced reliance on human 16 operator action is a positive innovation that should 17 be rewarded. Performance based regulatory reforms 18 since the late 1990s have not extended to licensing 19 and Parts 50 and 52 remain largely prescriptive and 20 deterministic.
21 In 2009, Southern Company embarked on the 22 LMP to adapt technical requirements in Part 50 for 23 non-light water reactors. As Jordan confirmed 24 yesterday, yesterday morning, the initial Part 53, now 25 Framework A, attempts to codify LMP, and is largely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
275 1 built upon existing regulatory requirements developed 2 decades ago to license large light water reactors.
3 The preliminary rule also attempts to 4 codify operational programs, as Hilary mentioned, 5 adding additional regulatory burden and operating 6 costs for applicants and licensees with no apparent 7 increase in safety.
8 In November 2021, the NRC extended the 9 Part 53 review schedule or rulemaking development 10 schedule by 9 months to reach quote reach alignment 11 with external stakeholders on the scope of the 12 rulemaking and further develop the language end quote.
13 Congress supported the extension quote to resolve 14 major concerns with the existing draft language end 15 quote.
16 In February 2022, the NRC released a hefty 17 402 page consolidated preliminary rule. NEI and USNIC 18 surveyed 22 developers and applicants and presented 19 the results to NRC staff in May. Only 14 percent of 20 respondents were likely to use Part 53. Ten percent 21 indicated they would not use Part 53 for first of a 22 kind designs. Thirty-eight percent did not see the 23 benefit in using Part 53. Another 38 percent were not 24 likely to use it. Many stakeholders objected to the 25 requirement of a formal PRA as a costly burden without NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
276 1 a commensurate safety benefit.
2 In response, the NRC unveiled a new 304-3 page option, Framework B, that offered an alternative 4 evaluation for risk insights for AERI. If, and I 5 agree with Hilary here, a set of overly conservative 6 deterministic and prescriptive criteria are met. Part 7 53 was developed by NRC staff and released for 8 informal comment in a time-consuming, iterative 9 process.
10 NRC staff were not responsive to many 11 comments. Nor were they receptive based on legal 12 counsel to numerous requests for workshops to improve 13 their understanding of stakeholder concerns and 14 provide a more open collaborative framework for 15 stakeholder participation.
16 Former NRC Chairman and General Counsel 17 Steve Burns saw no legal impediment to workshops and 18 cosigned a letter with BTI reiterating the request to 19 no avail. As such, the nine-month extension was 20 squandered.
21 The NRC staff reports today that they have 22 streamlined the rule package as much as possible, yet 23 it weighs in at over 1200 pages. Generally, the 24 volume of any regulation is commensurate with its 25 level of prescriptiveness and the volume 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
277 1 prescriptive nature of Part 53 undermine regulatory 2 agility and the rules' durability over time.
3 Framework A's heavy reliance on a formal 4 PRA makes it almost risk based as opposed to risk 5 informed. Framework B also relies on a formal PRA 6 unless again the applicant can meet the incredible 7 assumptions in AERI. Neither framework affords 8 developers or applicants sufficient flexibility to 9 determine how to meet performance objectives in ways 10 that encourage and reward improved outcomes. For all 11 these reasons, the rule does not satisfy NEIMA, nor 12 does it comply with prior Commission direction 13 disapproving codification of safety goals applying 14 QHOs.
15 The modeling uncertainties that Vesna 16 raises also make QHOs inaccurate for projections of 17 risk and observation of effects to confirm performance 18 is not statistically possible. BTI and other 19 stakeholders have no qualms with throwing the baby out 20 with the bath water to achieve the unrealized, 21 unrealized transformational potential of Part 53.
22 However, that may not be altogether 23 necessary. The NRC staff could retain high level 24 performance objectives in Subparts Bravo and Charlie, 25 but Frameworks Alpha and Bravo should represent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
278 1 acceptable pathways in guidance. This would allow 2 greater flexibility for innovation, while affording 3 regulatory predictability and agility.
4 Unlike rules, guidance can be developed, 5 updated, and enhanced as needed over time and informed 6 by operating experience and lessons learned. By 7 contrast, changes to regulations involve a laborious 8 multi-year process that severely constrains regulatory 9 agility.
10 NRR's executive leadership has argued that 11 the only way to provide predictability is through 12 regulation. The argument is specious. By this logic, 13 predictability is not assured by the Standard Review 14 Plan routinely used now to develop and evaluate 15 licensing submittals under Part 50.
16 Yesterday, and again today, ACRS members 17 on numerous occasions requested assistance navigating 18 the complex rule and guidance. Byzantine flow charts 19 represent the exasperating licensing labyrinth. Last 20 week, an NRC Commissioner observed that stakeholders 21 continue to complain about the volume of Part 53 and 22 cumbersome frameworks that are not usable or likely to 23 be used.
24 NRR's executive leadership responded that 25 it does not want to preclude the Commission 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
279 1 weighing in on the expansive breadth of the rule.
2 This is an abdication of leadership. Hard decisions 3 remain about what is necessary and sufficient for the 4 Part 53 rule.
5 Now the matter is before the ACRS.
6 Yesterday and today, I observed much nervous energy 7 among some ACRS members about how new corrosive 8 coolant media may affect systems, structures, and 9 components and what if we find operator action is 10 needed under certain plant conditions?
11 I echo Greg Halnon's sentiments. Keep an 12 open mind. And by the way, creating a rule that 13 precludes unknowns from occurring is neither 14 reasonable nor realistic. Not every potential 15 condition adverse to quality or instance when operator 16 action is desired can or should be prevented through 17 prescriptive licensing regulations. Attempts to do so 18 constrain innovation and disincentivize improve safety 19 performance of evolutionary designs.
20 Moreover, such attempts are unnecessary at 21 this juncture. Not all unknowns must be resolved at 22 licensing. NRC has many tools in its tool kit to 23 address emergent operating experience and take 24 appropriate regulatory action including issuing 25 generic communications, conducting reactive 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
280 1 supplemental inspections, increasing regulatory 2 oversight under Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, taking 3 enforcement actions including escalated enforcements, 4 issuing orders including shutdown orders, and imposing 5 new regulatory requirements under backfit provisions.
6 Discomfort around unknowns is a fact of 7 life. However, this discomfort must be tempered with 8 legislative context and situational awareness.
9 Legislative context is not limited to NEIMA. Fifty 10 years ago, the Energy Reorganization Act acknowledged 11 the benefits of nuclear energy to quote meet the needs 12 of present and future generations, to increase the 13 productivity of the national economy, and strengthen 14 its position in regard to international trade, to make 15 the nation self-sufficient in energy, to advance the 16 goals of restoring, protecting, and enhancing 17 environmental quality, and to assure public health and 18 safety end quote.
19 The NRC's role is to enable, enable the 20 safe, civilian use of nuclear energy, not to constrain 21 or obstruct deployment with onerous, prescriptive 22 requirements from antiquated regulatory regimes.
23 Situational awareness is the public's interest.
24 Situation awareness of the public's interest is vital.
25 Environmentalists, scientists, scholars, activists, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
281 1 thought leaders, and policymakers from both political 2 parties are increasingly supportive of civilian 3 nuclear power. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has 4 accelerated urgent, urgent calls for safe, reliable, 5 and clean nuclear energy.
6 Now again, BTI received no funding from 7 the nuclear industry. We represent the public's 8 interests. Nuclear power advances the nation's clean 9 energy goals, enhances environmental quality, and 10 supplies reliable electricity to the transmission 11 grid. Rapid deployment of new and advanced reactors 12 is an urgent public interest.
13 In closing, the ACRS plays an important 14 role in ensuring the NRC staff delivers a quality 15 product to the Commission that is responsive to NEIMA.
16 A better rule is more important than a quicker one.
17 BTI strongly encourages the ACRS to craft 18 a letter to the Commission identifying the key issues 19 and recommending the Commission exercise its 20 discretion to redirect the staff to expeditiously work 21 with external stakeholders in a more open, 22 collaborative manner, come to agreement on unresolved 23 issues like what should be governed by regulation 24 versus guidance, and take measures to ensure the rule 25 is significantly streamlined, more 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
282 1 and appropriately risk informed with minimum need for 2 exemptions.
3 Timely agreement on these matters can be 4 reached if the NRC staff is open and receptive to 5 significant revision. A corresponding change in 6 regulatory posture and customer service ethic also are 7 necessary to satisfy NEIMA.
8 I would like to briefly respond to an 9 astute and timely reminder from ACR Member Petti.
10 Guidance does not establish requirements. Guidance 11 provides a roadmap of one or more acceptable approach.
12 An applicant can choose a licensing approach not 13 defined in guidance and should not be discouraged from 14 doing so just because it presents a daunting mountain 15 to climb. The staff's ultimate safety determination 16 must be based on regulatory requirements and 17 engineering judgments, not failure to follow 18 established guidance. This regulatory discipline 19 without a standard checklist must be reinforced by NRC 20 leadership, the ACRS, and the Commission going 21 forward.
22 It is practical for NRC to preserve new, 23 approved approaches that satisfy regulatory 24 requirements and guidance for broad reference. A 25 successful, high level Part 53 rule could eventually NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
283 1 feature a multitude of technology-specific Standard 2 Review Plans. Again, guidance is much easier to 3 develop and update than regulations affording greater 4 regulatory agility.
5 I thank you, Member Petti, and the rest of 6 the ACRS Subcommittee for your audience.
7 CHAIR PETTI: Thank you. Now if there's 8 any other public comments, please unmute yourself, 9 identify yourself, and give us your comment.
10 Yes, Derrick?
11 MR. WIDMAYER: There's at least three, I 12 think that want to speak and some folks have their 13 hands up. I don't know if you want to call on them.
14 CHAIR PETTI: Yes, I see that. Okay, yes.
15 Let's start with Kalene Walker.
16 MS. WALKER: Hi. I'll try and keep it a 17 little briefer than the previous speaker.
18 I'm wondering when the NRC will be 19 addressing Part 72 for these new reactor concepts?
20 There's so many different kinds of fuel: there's 21 molten salt, there's TRISO pellets, there's fluoride 22 salt. All these new fuels. When is that going to be 23 a required assessment as part of -- will that be a 24 required assessment before you allow these things to 25 move forward?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
284 1 I live in a reactor community where we 2 have a -- the spent fuel waste is stranded because of 3 all those reasons that I'm sure you're aware of. So 4 is it possible to answer that question? Part 72.
5 CHAIR PETTI: At this point we don't 6 respond to input from the public. Thank you.
7 MS. WALKER: So you can't mention -- you 8 can't say whether or not you're going to address Part 9 72?
10 CHAIR PETTI: We can't. You can always 11 write directly to the Designated Federal Official, 12 send an email, and they can respond to that.
13 MS. WALKER: No, I mean within this new 14 rule. I mean isn't the waste -- NRC is responsible 15 from cradle to grave, so when is the waste aspect 16 going to be addressed? That's not an easy answer? I 17 thought it would be.
18 MEMBER REMPE: So this is Joy Rempe and 19 I'm Chairman of the ACRS and as Member Petti indicated 20 this is a time for public comments and your question 21 is definitely a question that can be sent to the 22 Designated Federal Official, Derek Widmayer, and he 23 can forward it to the staff and they can respond to 24 you. Okay?
25 MS. WALKER: Okay. Can I make a quick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
285 1 comment then?
2 MEMBER REMPE: Certainly.
3 MS. WALKER: The first, over an hour of 4 today was spent on self-reliant mitigation facilities 5 and discussion about operators and all of that which 6 you all recall.
7 And so what I kept wanting to hear was 8 would the licensee be responsible for showing how they 9 can respond to one of these unknowns? How is there a 10 mitigation strategy when something happens, you know?
11 So that just keeps my ear curved because being in a 12 reactor community with spent fuel storage, I've 13 studied it quite a bit and I wanted to let you know 14 what your fellow colleagues are doing in Part 72 with 15 the Division of Spent Fuel.
16 The canisters are known to corrode and 17 crack eventually and yet, and so the mitigation 18 strategy presented by the industry is to repair 19 technology or to put it into over-packed casks.
20 Neither of those have been approved or evaluated by 21 the NRC.
22 And when I asked the NRC how can they say 23 they can do this when it hasn't been approved? And 24 they said in the unlikely event that this event 25 happens, the licensee will present with us 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
286 1 mitigation strategy and the NRC will evaluate it.
2 This would be way too late and I pity the poor 3 emergency responders of the local community who have 4 to respond to the mess from an irresponsible system.
5 The NRC should require mitigation strategies, 6 certainly for these spent fuel storage canisters.
7 Thank you. Good luck on all of this.
8 CHAIR PETTI: Robert Fortner and then 9 we'll do USNIC.
10 MR. FORTNER: Great. Thank you. My name 11 is Robert Fortner. I'm a journalist. I don't know if 12 this is going to be a comment or a question. I've 13 heard BTI and others request repeatedly these 14 workshops with NRC to hash through some of these 15 issues, presumably the six that were mentioned in 16 NEI's comment in today's session.
17 So I don't know if this is a comment or 18 question but it certainly seems like a matter of 19 public interest what NRC's stance is on that meeting 20 request and I would also be interested to know what 21 ACRS thinks of that request.
22 Yes, so if you answer it, I guess it's a 23 question.
24 I would just comment that it seems like a 25 very important issue. 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
287 1 MEMBER REMPE: So this Joy. If I can just 2 briefly reiterate about this is the time for comments, 3 but I also wanted to expand that we do consider these 4 question-type comments as we assimilate our thoughts 5 and ideas in our letter report. So thank you.
6 CHAIR PETTI: USNIC.
7 MR. DRAFFIN: Hello. I'm Cyril Draffin, 8 Senior Fellow for Advanced Nuclear with the US Nuclear 9 Industry Council. And at the beginning of today's 10 meeting, Ron commented that the NRC staff has been 11 very responsive to ACRS comments.
12 Just to clarify from the industry 13 perspective under the NRC established informal process 14 in advance of the rulemaking package, there's no 15 specific provision for responding to stakeholder 16 comments. And while the NRC staff has addressed some 17 of the industry's input, a substantial portion of our 18 comments have not been addressed to date.
19 As you heard from the industry and NGO 20 speakers today, as well as in prior meetings where we 21 presented and the detail of industry submissions in 22 November of last year and the last couple months, 23 there's substantial uncertainty and concerns with Part 24 53 among many developers and whether Part 53 will 25 indeed be useful or used. So I just wanted to put NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
288 1 that on the record as you wrap up your deliberations 2 for today.
3 CHAIR PETTI: Thank you. Any other 4 comments?
5 Okay, not hearing any, I want to thank the 6 staff. It's been a really full two days covering a 7 tremendous amount of information. We appreciate the 8 perspectives from industry and members of the public 9 and I will call this meeting to a close and we'll see 10 people -- one more.
11 Is that another member of the public, 12 Connie Kline? Maybe not.
13 MS. KLINE: Can you hear me?
14 CHAIR PETTI: Yes. Yes.
15 MS. KLINE: Just very quickly, I was 16 unable to attend yesterday's session. I attended most 17 of today's session. To me, it seems contrary to the 18 industry's comments, it seems to me many concessions 19 have already been either considered or made to the 20 industry. And I strongly disagree with the idea that 21 unknowns don't have to be addressed before licensing.
22 Every effort should be made to address as many 23 unknowns as possible.
24 And I'm just going to close with a trite 25 adage. Better safe than sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
289 1 CHAIR PETTI: Thank you. Okay, and with 2 that, I adjourn the meeting and we'll see everybody at 3 full committee in a couple of weeks. Thank you. Have 4 a good evening.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 6 off the record at 5:21 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
A dvi sor y C om m i tte e on Re a c tor S afe gua rds ( AC RS ) Re gul ator y R ul e m a ki ng , Pol i c i e s a nd Pra c t i c e s:
Pa r t 53 S ubcom m i tte e 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors October 18-19, 2022
Agenda - October 18th 8:35 am - 10:00 am Staff Introduction and Overview of Frameworks A and B 10:00 am - 11:45 am Draft Proposed Language for Quantitative Health Objectives (QHOs)/Safety Analysis 11:45 am - 12:45pm Lunch 12:45 pm - 5:00 pm Draft Proposed Language for Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights (AERI) Methodology and Guidance Documents 2
Rulemaking Schedule Oct/Nov 2022 ACRS Interactions on Rulemaking Package for Proposed Rule
Part 53 Licensing Frameworks Subpart B - Safety Requirements Subpart C - Design Requirements Framework A o Probabilistic Risk Assessment Subpart D - Siting (PRA)-led approach Subpart E - Construction/Manufacturing o Functional design criteria Subpart F - Operations Subpart G - Decommissioning Subpart H - Application Requirements Subpart I - License Maintenance Subpart J - Reporting Subpart K - Quality Assurance Subpart A - General Provisions Framework B Subpart N - Siting o Traditional use of risk insights Subpart O - Construction/Manufacturing o Principal design criteria Subpart P - Operations o Includes an AERI approach Subpart Q - Decommissioning Subpart R - Application Requirements Subpart S - License Maintenance Subpart T - Reporting Subpart U - Quality Assurance 4
Federal Register Notice (FRN)
Enclosure 1A Preamble ML22272A036 Enclosure 1B Section by Section, ML22272A038 Availability of Guidance Enclosure 1C Framework A ML22272A039 Enclosure 1D Framework B ML22272A040 Rule Package (ML22272A034) Guidance Documents DG-1413 Licensing Events ML22272A042 DG-1414 AERI Methodology ML22272A045 DRO-ISG-2023-01 Operator Licensing ML22272A047 Program Review ISG DRO-ISG-2023-02 Staffing Plan Review ISG ML22272A049 Augmenting NUREG-1791 DRO-ISG-2023-03 Scalable Human Factors ML22272A051 Engineering Review ISG
- Purpose
- Provide optional frameworks for the issuance, amendment, renewal, and Sections termination of licenses, permits, 53.000 certifications, and approvals for commercial nuclear plants and
- Frameworks 53.010
- Framework A and Framework B are distinct
- Applicants and licensees subject to the rules in this part must only use the subparts applicable to one framework
- Common Definitions Commercial Nuclear Plant Subpart A - *
- Manufactured reactor General
- Manufactured reactor module Provisions
- Safety function (Definitions)
- Framework A Definitions
- Construction, Licensing basis events (LBEs)
- Framework B Definitions
- Construction, Design basis, Functional containment, Safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs), Severe nuclear accident
Subpart A -
Safety Function Definition
- Safety function means a purpose served by a design feature, human action, or programmatic control to prevent or mitigate unplanned events and thereby demonstrate compliance with requirements in part 53 for limiting risks to public health and safety. Safety functions can be performed by any combination of the elements listed above and can be specified at the plant level or at the level of a particular barrier or system. The approach to identifying and addressing safety functions in Frameworks A and B are as follows:
(1) Within Framework A, the primary safety function is stated to be limiting the release of radioactive materials. Additional safety functions supporting the retention of radioactive materials, such as controlling reactivity, heat generation, heat removal, and chemical interactions, are determined for each reactor design by analyzing a spectrum of unplanned events.
(2) Within Framework B, multiple plant-level safety functions are assumed to apply to all reactor designs based on established requirements and historical practices. These fundamental safety functions include the control of reactivity, removal of heat, and limiting the release of radioactive materials. The protection of a specific barrier or system that contributes to meeting plant-level safety criteria may also be referred to as a safety function.
Framework A 9
Subpart B -
- 53.200
- 53.210 Safety objectives.
Safety criteria for design basis Technology-
- 53.220 accidents.
Safety criteria for licensing basis Inclusive events other than design basis accidents. (including QHOs)
Safety
- 53.230 Safety functions.
53.240 Licensing basis events.
Requirements
- 53.250 Defense-in-depth.
- 53.260 Normal operations.
- 53.270 Protection of plant workers.
§ 53.400 Design features for licensing basis events.
§ 53.410 Functional design criteria for design basis accidents.
Subpart C - § 53.415
§ 53.420 Protection against external hazards.
Functional design criteria for licensing basis Design and events other than design basis accidents.
§ 53.425 Design features and functional design criteria Analysis for normal operations.
Requirements § 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.
§ 53.500 General siting.
§ 53.510 External hazards.
Subpart D -
Siting § 53.520 Site characteristics.
Requirements § 53.530 Population-related considerations
§ 53.540 Siting interfaces.
- Scope and purpose.
Reporting of defects and Subparts E & O
- noncompliance.
Construction Construction and Manufacturing
- Manufacturing
- Fuel loading for manufactured Requirements reactor modules
§ 53.620(d)/53.4120(d) Fuel loading
- A manufacturing license may include authorizing the loading of fuel into a manufactured reactor module
- Specify required protections to prevent criticality o At least two independent mechanisms that can prevent Subparts E & O criticality should conditions result in the maximum Fuel loading for reactivity being attained for the fissile material
- Commission finding that a manufactured reactor manufactured module in required configuration is not a utilization reactor modules facility as defined in the Atomic Energy Act
- Manufactured reactor module becomes a utilization facility in its final place of use after the Commission makes required findings on inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria
§ 53.700 Operational objectives.
§ 53.710 Maintaining capabilities and availability of structures, systems, and components.
§ 53.715 Maintenance, repair, and inspection programs.
§ 53.720 Response to seismic events.
Subpart F -
§ 53.725 General staffing, training, personnel Requirements qualifications, and human factors requirements.
for Operation § 53.845 Programs Radiation Protection Emergency preparedness Security Quality Assurance (QA)
Integrity Assessment Fire protection Inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST)
Facility safety
- Scope and purpose.
- Financial assurance for decommissioning.
- Cost estimates for decommissioning .
- Annual adjustments to cost estimates for decommissioning.
- Methods for providing financial assurance for Subpart G & Q decommissioning.
Decommissioning
- Limitations on the use of decommissioning trust funds.
Requirements
- NRC oversight.
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
- Termination of license.
- Program requirements during decommissioning
- Release of part of a commercial nuclear plant or site for unrestricted use.
§ 53.1100 - 53.1121 General/common requirements.
§ 53.1124 Relationship between sections.
§ 53.1130 Limited work authorizations.
§ 53.1140 Early site permits.
Subpart H - § 53.1200 Standard design approvals.
Licenses, § 53.1230 Standard design certifications.
Certifications, § 53.1270 Manufacturing licenses
§ 53.1300 Construction permits.
and Approvals § 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.
- Licensing basis information.
- Specific terms and conditions of licenses
- Changes to licensing basis information requiring prior NRC approval.
- License amendments.
- Specific provisions (e.g., changes to standard designs)
Subparts I & S
- Other licensing basis information Evaluating changes to facility as described in final safety Maintaining and
- analysis reports (SAR).
Revising Licensing
- Program-related documents Basis Information
- Transfer of licenses or permits.
Termination of license.
- Information requests.
- Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause.
- Backfitting.
- Renewal.
- General information.
- Unfettered access for inspections.
- Maintenance of records, making of reports.
- Immediate notification requirements for operating commercial nuclear plants.
Subparts J & T
- Licensee event report system.
Facility information and verification.
Reporting and
- Reporting of defects and noncompliance.
Other
- Financial requirements.
Administrative
- Financial qualifications.
Annual financial reports.
Requirements
- Licensees change of status; financial qualifications.
- Creditor regulations.
- Financial protection.
- Insurance required to stabilize and decontaminate plant following an accident.
- Financial protection requirements.
- General Provisions Appendix B Criteria
- Organization I
- Quality Assurance Program II
- Design Control III Procurement Document Control IV Subparts K & U
- Instructions, Procedures and Drawings V Document Control VI Quality Assurance *
- Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services VII Criteria for
- Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and Components VIII Control of Special Processes IX Commercial
- Inspection X Nuclear Plants
- Test Control Control of Measuring and Test Equipment XI XII
- Handling, Storage and Shipping XIII
- Inspection, Test and Operating Status XIV
- Nonconforming Materials, Parts or Components XV
- Corrective Action XVI
- Quality Assurance Records XVII
- Audits XVIII
Framework B New subpart that facilitates risk-informed, performance-based approaches to siting and seismic design
§ 53.3505 Scope.
Subpart N - § 53.3510 Definitions.
Siting
§ 53.3515 Factors to be considered when evaluating sites.
§ 53.3520 Non-seismic siting criteria.
§ 53.3525 Geologic and seismic siting criteria.
§ 53.4200 Operational objectives.
§ 53.4210 Maintaining capabilities and availability of structures, systems, and components.
§ 53.4213 Technical specifications.
§ 53.4215 Response to seismic events.
Subpart P - § 53.4220 General staffing, training, personnel qualifications, and human factors requirements.
Requirements § 53.4300 Programs for Operation Radiation Protection Emergency Preparedness Security QA Integrity Assessment Fire Protection ISI and IST Environmental qualification of electric equipment Procedures and guidelines Primary containment leakage testing
§ 53.4420 Mitigation of beyond-design-basis events.
§ 53.4700 - 53.4721 General/common requirements.
§ 53.4724 Relationship between sections.
§ 53.4730 General technical requirements.
§ 53.4731 Risk-informed classification of SSCs.
Subpart R - § 53.4733 Seismic design alternatives.
Licenses, § 53.4740 Limited work authorizations.
Certifications, § 53.4750 Early site permits.
§ 53.4800 Standard design approvals.
and Approvals § 53.4830 Standard design certifications.
§ 53.4870 Manufacturing licenses
§ 53.4900 Construction permits.
§ 53.4960 Operating licenses.
§ 53.5010 Combined licenses.
§ 53.5070 Standardization of commercial nuclear power plant designs: licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of identical design at multiple sites.
Draft Proposed Language for QHOs / Safety Analysis
Existing Paradigm
- Does not specifically define adequate protection but compliance with NRC regulations and guidance may be Framework A presumed to assure adequate protection at a minimum
- Additional requirements as necessary or desirable to protect Integrated health or to minimize danger to life or property Approach to Part 53 (SECY-20-0032)
Ensure 1) Continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the common defense Comparable and security,
- 2) Promote regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity, Findings 3) Reduce requests for exemptions from the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52,
- 4) Establish new requirements to address non-light-water reactor (LWR) technologies,
- 5) Recognize technological advancements in reactor design, and
- 6) Credit the response of advanced nuclear reactors to postulated accidents, including slower transient response times and relatively small and slow release of fission products.
Framework A Integrated Approach to Ensure Comparable Findings
Framework A Ensuring Comparable Level of Safety Additional discussion in Preamble on how an integrated assessment like that in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 can be used to support the comparisons to existing requirements and related regulatory findings.
Framework A QHOs as one of several performance standards for LBEs Additional discussion in Preamble on how QHOs are considered as one of several performance measures within Framework A. Including the QHOs as one of several performance measures does not equate to the QHOs defining adequate protection of public health and safety.
Framework A Comments generally fall into following groups:
Consideration
- Rule should not include a cumulative risk measure
- Rule should include alternative risk measures of Feedback on o Surrogates for the QHOs Including QHOs
- Develop new safety goals
- It is appropriate to include a risk-related performance standard in Framework A as part of an integrated decisionmaking process, especially given the importance of risk assessments and consideration of risk-insights within the licensing process
- In SRM-SECY-10-0121, the Commission reaffirmed that existing safety goals, safety performance expectations, subsidiary risk goals and associated risk guidance are sufficient for new plants
- Surrogate measures tend to be technology- or design-specific. However, the Preamble reinforces that technology- or design-specific surrogates for the QHOs may be developed and proposed for use in supporting licensing under Framework A
- Major efforts such as developing new safety goals not included in rulemaking plan and not feasible considering project constraints
§ 53.4730(a)(1) Site safety analysis.
- Proposed rule language derived from current requirements in § 52.79(a)(1); (i) through (v) are essentially identical to Subpart R - Part 52 requirements Licenses,
- Requirements in subparagraph (vi) modified to ensure rule Certifications, is technology-inclusive
- Fuel or core damage or potential for large radiological and Approvals releases from sources other than the reactor system replaces fission product release from the core into the containment
- Fission product release analyses can be performed using a mechanistic source term or bounding assessment
- Applicant may elect to comply with more restrictive dose consequence criteria (e.g., 1 rem [roentgen equivalent man]
TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] over 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />)
§ 53.4730(a)(5) Initiating events and accident analysis.
- Objectives
- Provide an equivalent level of safety by developing Subpart R - technology-inclusive analogs to applicable Part 50 and 52 Licenses, requirements for initiating events and accident analyses Certifications,
- Provide an approach that better aligned with international regulatory paradigms, as appropriate and consistent with and Approvals Commission policy
- Leveraged previously developed language from the Part 5X effort
- Preliminary proposed rule language maintains top-level acceptance criteria from Part 50 and 52
§ 53.4730(a)(5) Initiating events and accident analysis.
(i) Analysis and Evaluation
- From § 52.79(a) with modifications to support technology-inclusiveness Subpart R - and Framework B event classifications.
Licenses,
- Recent changes to acknowledge multi-unit facilities (e.g., SMRs)
(ii) Design Basis Accidents Certifications,
- Technology-inclusive requirements for DBA analyses and SSC and Approvals classification drawing from §§ 50.34(a)(4) and 50.46.
- Includes deterministic classification approach for safety-related SSCs (iii) Normal Operation and Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOOs)
- Consistent with existing requirements including Part 20 acceptance criteria
- Changes clarify applicability of requirements to normal operations
§ 53.4730(a)(5) Initiating events and accident analysis.
(iv) Additional Licensing Basis Events Subpart R -
- Technology-inclusive requirements for relevant additional LBEs and analysis requirements for these events; similar to international Licenses, defense-in-depth (DID) requirements Certifications,
- Changes clarify scope of initiators and event sequences that must be considered and design requirements for SSCs used to mitigate and Approvals additional LBEs (v) Severe Accidents
- Derived from § 52.79(a)(38), with modifications to support technology-inclusiveness
- Definition of severe nuclear accident moved to § 53.028 (vi) Chemical hazard requirements address substances commingled with licensed material or those produced by a reaction with licensed material
§ 53.4730(a)(36) Containment requirements.
- Requirements split to acknowledge differences between non-LWR and LWR approaches to containment Subpart R -
- For non-LWRs, § 53.4730(a)(36)(i) addresses:
Licenses, o Set of barriers used to meet requirements for AOOs, DBAs, and siting criteria (functional containment)
Certifications, o Safety classification (i.e., safety-related) and qualification of SSCs and Approvals making up functional containment barriers o Functional containment now defined in § 53.028
- For LWRs, § 53.4730(a)(36)(ii) addresses the need for a leak-tight primary containment that:
o Meets the requirements of Part 50 Appendix J (also addressed in Subpart P) o Addresses any technically relevant requirements from LWR operating experience (containment isolation systems, penetrations, venting/purging)
Other General Technical Requirements
- § 53.4730(a)(2) Facility description.
Subpart R - * § 53.4730(a)(4) Design bases and principal design criteria.
Licenses, * § 53.4730(a)(11) Dose to members of the public.
Certifications, * § 53.4730(a)(14) Earthquake engineering criteria.
and Approvals * § 53.4730(a)(34) Description of risk evaluation.
- § 53.4730(a)(37) Water-cooled reactor requirements.
- Changes to other paragraphs under § 53.4730 largely organization since last iteration was issued
10 CFR Part 53, Framework B Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights, DG-1413, and DG-1414
Introduction Katie Wagner Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Agenda
- Introductions & Recent Activities
- Proposed AERI Entry Conditions
- Evaluation of Dose-Based AERI Entry Criteria Using MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS)
- DG-1413 (proposed new RG 1.254), "Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events for Commercial Nuclear Plants"
- DG-1414 (proposed new RG 1.255), "Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights (AERI) Methodology" 39
Introductions
- Marty Stutzke - Technical Lead of the Graded PRA Working Group (WG), Senior Level Advisor for Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-power Production and Utilization Facilities (DANU), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
- Keith Compton - Lead for MACCS calculations related to the AERI entry conditions, Senior Reactor Scientist, Division of Systems Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)
- Mihaela Biro - Principal Author of DG-1413 (proposed new RG 1.254), "Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events for Commercial Nuclear Plants," Senior Reliability and Risk Analyst, Division of Risk Assessment (DRA), NRR
- Anne-Marie Grady - Principal Co-author of DG-1414 (proposed new RG 1.255),
"Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights (AERI) Methodology," Reliability and Risk Analyst, DRA, NRR
- Katie Wagner - Project Manager of the Graded PRA WG, Project Manager, DANU, NRR 40
The Graded PRA Working Group Membership Project Manager
- Alissa Neuhausen, NRR/DRA*^ - Principal Co-Author of DG-1414
- Katie Wagner, NRR/DANU
- Hanh Phan, NRR/DANU
- Sunil Weerakkody, NRR/DRA Technical Lead
- Marty Stutzke, NRR/DANU
- Robert Budnitz, consultant Working Group Members Management/Coordination
- Hosung Ahn*, previously on rotation from
- Candace de Messieres, NRR/DANU^
NRR/Division of Engineering and External Hazard
- Steve Lynch, NRR/DANU
- Mihaela Biro, NRR/DRA - Principal Author of DG-1413
- Nathan Sanfilippo*
- Anne-Marie Grady, NRR/DRA - Principal
- John Segala, NRR/DANU Co-Author of DG-1414
- Matt Humberstone, RES/DRA *Former WG member
- Ian Jung, NRR/DANU ^On rotation from current position 41
Recent Activities
- Latest ACRS Interactions and Communications o ACRS Subcommittee Meeting - June 23-24, 2022 (ML22172A091) o ACRS Full Committee Meeting - July 6, 2022 (ML22186A166) o ACRS Letter - August 2, 2022 (ML22196A292)
- Path forward discussion in late-June 2022 o DG-1413 & DG-1414 Make revisions in response to ACRS and stakeholder feedback Monitor changes to preliminary proposed rule text o DG-1414 Develop guidance for AERI maintenance and upgrades 42
AERI-Related Draft Proposed Rule Text and FRN Sections Marty Stutzke Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 43
Regulatory Basis for the AERI Approach Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors 73 FR 60612; October 14, 2008 AERI Elements 73 FR 60616, left column: The Commission also expects that Identify and characterize the postulated advanced reactor designs will comply with the Commissions bounding event safety goal policy statement (51 FR 28044; August 4, 1986, as corrected and republished at 51 FR 30028; August 21, 1986),
Demonstrate that the AERI entry conditions 73 FR 60614, left column: the Commission has also issued policy statements on the use of PRA in regulatory activities (60 FR are met 42622; August 16, 1995), and severe accidents regarding future designs and existing plants (50 FR 32138; August 8, 1985). The use Develop a demonstrably conservative of PRA as a design tool is implied by the policy statement on the use of PRA and the NRC believes that the current regulations and risk estimate policy statements provide sufficient guidance to designers.
Search for severe accident vulnerabilities Policy Statement: Use of PRA Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities 60 FR 42622; August 16, 1995 use PRA or an 60 FR 42628, middle column: It is important to note that not all alternative Identify risk insights of the Commissions regulatory activities lend themselves to a risk risk-informed analysis approach that utilizes fault tree methods. In general, a approach as a fault tree method is best suited for power reactor events that design tool typically involve complex systemsthe Commission recognizes Evaluate DID adequacy that a single approach for incorporating risk analyses into the regulatory process is not appropriate. 44
AERI-Related Draft Proposed Rule Text The proposed AERI entry conditions are designed to limit use of the Current Draft Proposed Rule Text proposed AERI approach to commercial nuclear plants whose designs § 53.4730(a)(34) Description of risk evaluation. A description of the risk are relatively straightforward and do not involve overly complex evaluation developed for the commercial nuclear plant and its results.
systems and interactions and, accordingly, would not warrant The risk evaluation must be based on:
development of a PRA to provide quantitative risk insights. (i) A probabilistic risk assessment (PRA); or (ii) An alternative evaluation for risk insights (AERI), provided Draft Proposed Rule Text Presented to the ACRS that:
Regulatory Rulemaking, Policies and Practices:
(A) The analysis of a postulated bounding event demonstrates Part 53 Subcommittee that the consequence evaluated at a location 100 meters (328 feet)
June 23-24, 2022 away from the commercial nuclear plant does not exceed 10 mSv (1
§ 53.4730(a)(34) Description of risk evaluation. A description of rem) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) over the first four days the risk evaluation developed for the commercial nuclear plant following a release, an additional 20 mSv (2 rem) TEDE in the first year, and its results. The risk evaluation must be based on: and 5 mSv (0.5 rem) TEDE per year in the second and subsequent years; and (i) A PRA, or (B) The qualification in § § 53.4730(a)(34)(ii)(A) is demonstrated (ii) An AERI, provided that the dose from a postulated to be met without reliance on active safety features or passive safety bounding event to an individual located 100 meters (328 features except for those passive safety features that do not require feet) away from the commercial nuclear plant does not any equipment actuation or operator action to perform their required exceed 1 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) over safety functions, that are expected to survive accident conditions, and the first four days following a release, an additional 2 rem that cannot be made unavailable or otherwise defeated by credible TEDE in the first year, and 0.5 rem TEDE per year in the human errors of commission and omission.
second and subsequent years.
45
Changes to the AERI-Related Draft Proposed Rule Text
- 53.4730(a)(34)(ii)(A) o The consequence criteria in the AERI entry condition were originally inspired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs); however:
The EPA PAGs are used in response to an actual event; in contrast, the AERI entry conditions refer to a postulated bounding event that is used to help establish the licensing basis.
The Commission has never stated that the EPA PAGs are limits. In addition, the PAGs state: protective action guide doses represent trigger points for taking protective actions. They are not dose limits that cannot be exceeded.
Stakeholders may misconstrue the previous draft proposed AERI entry conditions to mean that it is an acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public under accident conditions.
o Changes to the draft proposed rule text were made during extensive discussions with the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
o Conforming changes were made to the FRN preamble and to DG-1414.
- 53.4730(a)(34)(ii)(B) o Changes made in concert with changes to Part 53, Framework A, Subpart F concerning operator licensing.
o Current draft proposed rule text is consistent with:
Draft staff white paper, Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Human-System Considerations for Advanced Reactors, March 2021, ML21069A003 Section 2.7 of DOE-HDBK-1224-2018, DOE Handbook: Hazard and Accident Analysis Handbook (Interim Use), August 2018 46
Proposed Uses of the AERI Entry Conditions
- Would be used to determine:
o Which applicants could develop an AERI in lieu of a PRA to demonstrate compliance with the proposed risk evaluation requirement in 53.4730(a)(34) o When the requirements to address the mitigation of beyond-design-basis events in 53.4420 must be met o When the requirements to address combustible gas control in 53.4730(a)(7) must be met
- In addition, the proposed AERI entry conditions would be used in combination with other conditions to determine when a commercial nuclear plant is a self-reliant mitigation facility, as provided in 53.800(a)(2) o A self-reliant mitigation facility may have generally licensed reactor operators (GLROs) in lieu of senior reactor operators (SROs) and reactor operators (ROs) 47
Maintenance of Risk Evaluations
§ 53.6052 Maintenance of risk evaluations.
Applicants or licensees required to submit a risk evaluation under § 53.4730(a)(34) must meet the following requirements:
(a) No later than the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, each holder of an operating or combined license for a commercial nuclear plant under Framework B of this part must develop a risk evaluation.
(b) Each licensee required to develop a risk evaluation under paragraph (a) of this section must maintain the risk evaluation to reflect the as-built, as-operated facility. The risk evaluation must be maintained at least every five years until the permanent cessation of operations under § 53.4670. If a PRA is performed under § 53.4730(a)(34)(i), the licensee must upgrade the PRA to cover initiating events and modes of operation contained in consensus standards on PRA that are endorsed by the NRC. The upgrade must be completed within five years of NRC endorsement of the standard.
(c) Each licensee required to develop a risk evaluation based on a PRA must, no later than the date on which the licensee submits an application for a renewed license, upgrade the PRA required by paragraph (a) of this section to cover all modes and all initiating events.
(d) Each licensee who developed an alternative evaluation for risk insights under § 53.4730(a)(34)(ii) must, no later than the date on which the licensee submits an application for a renewed license, confirm that the alternative evaluation for risk insights reflects the as-built, as-operated facility.
Definitions from the non-LWR PRA standard (ASME/ANS Ra-S-1.4-2022)
o Peer review not required by the standard
- PRA upgrade: a change in the PRA that results in the applicability of one or more supporting requirements or Capability Categories (e.g., the addition of a new hazard model) that were not previously assessed in a peer review of the PRA, an implementation of a PRA method in a different context, or the incorporation of a method not previously used.
o Peer review required by the standard 48
Proposed AERI-Related FRN Questions
- The NRC is seeking comment on whether the NRC should retain this AERI approach under Framework B. If so, what changes, if any, would be recommended to the proposed criteria and approach in proposed Framework B? Please provide the considerations and rationale for your answer.
- Could the AERI criteria as written or potentially as revised and the related analyses of bounding events be used to support other regulatory decisions in Framework B (e.g., physical security, cyber security, AA (access authorization), FFD (fitness for duty) and emergency preparedness)? If so, which design areas and programs could logically use the AERI criteria and related analyses and how could requirements in those areas be scaled or graded based on the proposed 53.4730(a)(34)(ii) or a similar concept?
- The NRC is seeking comment on the criteria and how they are used in both justifying an alternative to PRAs and in allowing the use of GLROs, as well as possible alternatives to the proposed criteria. Please provide your considerations and rationale for your recommendation.
49
Evaluation of Dose-Based AERI Entry Criteria Using MACCS Keith L. Compton Division of Systems Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Objectives
- Evaluate the relationship between dose computed at 100 m and the population-weighted individual latent cancer fatality risk (ILCFR) averaged over 10 miles using MACCS o Develop a closed-form analytic approximation to this relationship o Identify assumptions needed to develop the closed-form approximation o Test the impact of these assumptions using suitable calculations with MACCS
- The analyses and results in this presentation provide a status report on work-in-progress. They do not represent the staffs final analyses or conclusions.
51
Analytic Expression Assumptions
- Individual doses from ingestion pathways are not explicitly considered
- The maximum individual dose max at a distance r is assumed to be related to the maximum individual dose max,0 at the distance r0 as follows:
, = ,
- All material is released in a single plume (i.e., there are no wind shifts during release)
- The population density N is assumed to be constant and independent of distance r
- The latent cancer proportionality constant is assumed to be constant and independent of dose 52
Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient The maximum individual dose max at a distance r is assumed to be related to the maximum individual dose max,0 at the distance r0 as follows:
, = ,
Subsidiary Assumption Rationale The release is from ground level and non- Elevated releases or plume rise will result in an increase in bouyant (i.e., (,) is monotonically concentration at short downwind distances as the plume disperses decreasing) overhead before contacting ground Protective actions to limit dose are not taken Protective actions may constrain dose at short downwind distances The plume is completely reflected at the Highly unstable conditions can result in rapid vertical dispersion to the ground surface and is unconstrained by a top of the mixing layer due to insolation of ground surface mixing height The dose-distance reduction coefficient n is Although crosswind (transverse) dispersion is typically represented as assumed to be independent of distance r. a power law, vertical dispersion does not follow a power law relationship with distance 53
Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient Elevated/Buoyant Plume 1
0.9 Normalized Relative Peak Dose 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Downwind Distance (km)
A B C D E F Normalized relative peak dose as a function of downwind distance and stability class Normalized to a constant core scaling factor and maximum peak dose 54
Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient Effect of Protective Actions
- The flatness of the ICF-BURN (red) curve out to 20 miles, and the latent cancer fatality (LCF) (magenta) curve out to 15 miles, is due to early-phase hotspot relocation within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> coupled with a relatively prolonged release
- Doses incurred during the late phase are low near the site, but do not appreciably decline with distance from the site for the most severe scenarios.
Mean value (across all weather trials) of peak total effective dose Mean value (across all weather trials) of peak total (rem) from early-phase exposure to the non-evacuating cohort effective dose (rem) from late-phase exposure Source: NRC 2022 55
Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient Mixing Height 1000 900 800 700 Plume Sigma-z (m) 600 500 400 Isopleths of mean annual morning mixing height (m*10-2) as a function of downwind distance 300 Isopleth levels: 300 - 900 m 200 100 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Downwind Distance (m)
A B C D E F Isopleths of mean annual afternoon mixing height Plume sigma z (m) as a function of downwind distance (m*10-2) as a function of downwind distance Isopleth levels: 800 - 2600 m Sources: Case 2 Model Output Files; Holzworth 1972 56
Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient Power Law Coefficient with Distance Lateral diffusion without meander and building wake Vertical diffusion without meander and building wake effects (y) vs. downwind distance from source for effects (z) vs. downwind distance from source for Pasquill's turbulence types (atmospheric stability) Pasquill's turbulence types (atmospheric stability)
Source: Reference 7 of NRC 1983 57
Single Plume Azimuthal Correction Factor
- A single plume azimuthal correction factor (r) is defined as the ratio between peak individual dose max from a single plume at a distance r and the individual dose averaged across the circumference of a circle of radius r.
- Assuming (Tadmor and Gur, 1969) that the crosswind dispersion factor may be represented as a power function given by = ,
the azimuthal correction factor may be represented as:
Stability 1 Class Ay By 100 m 10 mi
2 2 A 0.3658 0.9031 0.0934 0.0571 B 0.2751 0.9031 0.0702 0.0429
- An alternative would be to simply assume that C 0.2089 0.9031 0.0533 0.0326 the crosswind plume spread may be represented by D 0.1471 0.9031 0.0376 0.0230 a tophat with a width of one 22.5 sector, resulting E 0.1046 0.9031 0.0267 0.0163 in an azimuthal correction factor of 0.0625 (1/16) F 0.0722 0.9031 0.0184 0.0113 G 0.0481 0.9031 0.0123 0.0075 Figure Source: Jow et al. 1990 58
Maximum Dose vs Average Dose / Risk over an Annular Region For nBy+1, the average individual dose () in the annular region between r0 and x may be expressed as:
2 +1 0 +1
= ,
2( 2 0 2 ) +1 The average individual cancer risk in the annular region between r0 and x may be expressed as :
2 +1 0 +1
= ,
2( 2 0 2 ) +1 Where:
- is the power law linear coefficient for transverse dispersion
- is the power law exponent for transverse dispersion
- , is the peak centerline dose at the inner annular radius (e.g., 100 m)
- 0 is the inner annular radius (e.g., 100 m)
- is the outer annular radius (e.g., 16,090 m (10 mi))
- n is the downwind dose reduction coefficient 59
Approach
- Develop a set of MACCS modeling cases to quantitatively examine impact of assumptions
- Use source terms from NRC Level 3 PRA reactor at-power internal events and internal floods Level 2 analyses to represent a range of source term compositions
- Apply scaling factors to source terms to yield a 25 rem (0.25 Sv) lifetime* dose at 100 m
- Use combinations of constant weather conditions, constant population density, and meteorological and site files from SOARCA (state-of-the-art reactor consequence analyses) analyses to examine impact of variability in weather condition and population density
- Lifetime dose, in this analysis, is assumed to be the dose resulting from a 96-hour (4 day) early phase exposure and a 50-year late phase exposure. 60
Summary of Source Terms Source Term Characteristics
- All source terms are inventory-scaled to yield 25 rem overall (EARLY+CHRONC) dose at 100 m
- Base case plume is based on intersystem loss-of-coolant accident (VF/5D) source term
- Scaled source terms may vary in relative radionuclide composition and release duration
- Single segment plume are created by summing/averaging properties for individual plume segments.
Multi-plume releases capture the time dependence of the release.
PDELAY PLUDUR PLUDUR PLHITE PLHEAT RC Case Release Category Description NUMREL (hr) (50%) (hr) (100%) (hr) (m) (MW)
VF 5D Unscrubbed interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident 86 3.2 4.5 68.8 11 19 with auxiliary building failure LCF 1B Late containment due to long-term quasi-static 179 48 32.1 120.0 0.36 5.9 overpressure, unscrubbed NOCF 2R1 Containment is not bypassed or failed, and radiological 199 13 89.9 154.5 32 0.0026 release to the environment occurs via design-basis containment leakage only.
RC Case Xe Cs Ba I Te Ru Mo Ce La VF 5D 8.6E-01 1.3E-01 2.1E-03 1.4E-01 1.3E-01 2.6E-03 3.3E-02 9.3E-05 2.7E-06 LCF 1B 9.1E-01 9.9E-03 3.0E-04 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 6.6E-06 4.0E-02 1.4E-06 5.8E-07 NOCF 2R1 1.0E-02 7.4E-05 2.4E-06 8.5E-05 7.9E-05 3.7E-06 2.0E-04 2.3E-08 2.0E-08 Source: adapted from Tables 3.1-1 and A.1a in NRC 2022 61
Summary of Modeling Cases
- Modeling cases designed to test effect of key assumptions related to plume rise, wake effects, protective actions, plume segmentation, weather variability, and population density Dose Reduction Population Case Coefficient Effects Azimuthal Variation Density 0A-F* Single Stabilities - A-F Power Law Stability Single Plume - VF Constant 1A-F* Single Stabilities - A-F Pasquill-Gifford Stability Single Plume - VF Constant 2A-F* Single Stabilities - A-F Plume Rise Single Plume - VF Constant 3A-F* Single Stabilities - A-F Wake Effects Single Plume - VF Constant 4A-F* Single Stabilities - A-F Protective Actions Single Plume - VF Constant 5A-B Met Sampling - PB None/Plume Rise Single Plume - VF Constant 6A-C Met Sampling - PB None Multiplume - VF/LCF/NOCF Constant 7A-C Met Sampling - PB None Multiplume - VF/LCF/NOCF PB
- Each stability class (A-F) represent a separate subcase for these cases. For example, Case 2A represents Case 2 with stability class A, Case 3F represents Case 3 with stability class F, etc.
62
Case 0: Simple Model
- Simplest Case Results
- Power law representation for Y and z with constant parameters
- Constant weather conditions - specified stabilities, 2.5 m/s, no rain, mixing layer depth 10 km
- Constant deposition velocity (0.003 m/s)
- Single plume - scaled VF source term, ground level release with no plume buoyancy (plume heat of 0 MW)
- Uniform population density with no protective actions
- Single cancer risk coefficient based on total effective dose
- Fitted n derived from power law regression of MACCS results (see supplemental slides)
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 3.6e-8 to 3.4e-7
- All cases produce MACCS ILFCR <2e-6
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 3.6% to 470%
OVERALL EARLY CHRONC MACCS Analytic Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) 10- mile MACCS 10-mile Percent Case at 100 m at 100 m at 100 m ILCFR P-G n fitted n ILCFR Difference 0A 0.25 0.02 0.23 3.6E-08 3.0 2.4 2.0E-07 470%
0B 0.25 0.02 0.23 5.5E-08 2.5 2.4 1.4E-07 160%
0C 0.25 0.02 0.23 2.9E-07 1.8 1.8 4.2E-07 47%
0D 0.25 0.02 0.23 3.4E-07 1.6 1.6 4.6E-07 32%
0E 0.25 0.02 0.23 2.9E-07 1.5 1.6 3.6E-07 21%
0F 0.25 0.02 0.23 2.0E-07 1.5 1.7 2.0E-07 3.6%
63
Case 1: Pasquill-Gifford Stability Results
- Differences from Case 0:
- 1000-m deep boundary layer
- Eimutis and Konicek representation for Y and z with spatially variable parameters for z
- Particle-size-dependent deposition velocity
- Organ-specific cancer risk coefficients
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 1.4e-7 to 3.3e-7
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 40% to 264%
- Analytic calculation is conservative relative to MACCS calculation
- All cases produce MACCS ILFCR <2e-6 OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Peak dose Peak dose Peak dose MACCS MACCS fitted Analytic Percent Case (Sv) at 100 m (Sv) at 100 m (Sv) at 100 m 10- mile ILCFR P-G n n 10-mile ILCFR Difference 1A 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 3.3E-07 3.0 1.6 1.2E-06 260%
2B 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 2.5E-07 2.5 1.8 5.0E-07 100%
2C 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 2.2E-07 1.8 1.8 3.7E-07 68%
2D 2.5E-01 2.4E-02 2.3E-01 2.4E-07 1.6 1.7 4.0E-07 65%
2E 2.5E-01 2.5E-02 2.3E-01 2.0E-07 1.5 1.7 3.1E-07 54%
2F 2.5E-01 2.7E-02 2.2E-01 1.4E-07 1.5 1.7 1.9E-07 40%
64
Case 2: Plume Buoyancy Results
- Difference from Case 1: Ground-level release with plume buoyancy based on 19 MW plume heat
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 2.5e-5 to 6.1 e-3
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 38% to 566%
- Analytic calculation can be either conservative or non-conservative relative to MACCS calculation
- All cases produce MACCS ILFCR > 2e-6 OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) MACCS MACCS Analytic Percent Case at 100 m at 100 m at 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n 10-mile ILCFR Difference 2A 2.5E-01 2.6E-02 2.3E-01 2.5E-05 0.9 1.6E-05 -38%
2B 2.5E-01 1.0E-01 1.5E-01 8.0E-04 0.1 4.3E-04 -47%
2C 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 4.9E-04 2.3E-03 -0.6 8.0E-03 244%
2D 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 9.8E-13 1.9E-03 -0.8 1.3E-02 566%
2E 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 0.0E+00 5.4E-03 -1.0 2.3E-02 331%
2F 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 0.0E+00 6.1E-03 -1.0 2.2E-02 256%
65
Case 3: Wake Effects Results
- Difference from Case 1: Eimutis and Konicek representation for Y and z coupled with Ramsdell-Fosmire model for plume meander and wake effects
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 5.5e-7 to 1.9e-6
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 3% to 210%
- Analytic calculation generally conservative relative to MACCS calculation
- All cases produce MACCS ILFCR <2e-6 OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at MACCS MACCS Analytic Percent Case 100 m 100 m 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n 10-mile ILCFR Difference 3A 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 5.5E-07 1.5 1.7E-06 210%
3B 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 5.3E-07 1.7 8.1E-07 53%
3C 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 6.3E-07 1.6 7.3E-07 16%
3D 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 1.2E-06 1.3 1.3E-06 13%
3E 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 1.5E-06 1.2 1.5E-06 2.7%
3F 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 1.9E-06 1.1 1.7E-06 -11%
66
Case 4: Protective Actions Results
- Difference from Case 1: Early phase relocation at 1-5 rem and late phase interdiction/decontamination at 2 rem in first year and 500 mrem in second year
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 1.5e-6 to 4.1e-6
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 17% to 47%
- Analytic calculation is generally non-conservative relative to MACCS calculation
- Most cases produce MACCS ILFCR >2e-6 OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at MACCS MACCS Analytic Percent Case 100 m 100 m 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n 10-mile ILCFR Difference 4A 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 6.1E-02 4.1E-06 1.2 6.0E-06 47%
4B 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 6.1E-02 3.1E-06 1.4 2.2E-06 -29%
4C 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 6.0E-02 2.6E-06 1.3 1.8E-06 -31%
4D 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 6.0E-02 2.8E-06 1.2 2.3E-06 -17%
4E 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 5.9E-02 2.2E-06 1.2 1.7E-06 -23%
4F 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 5.7E-02 1.5E-06 1.2 9.1E-07 -38%
67
Case 5: Meteorological Sampling Results
- Difference from Case 1: Weather sampled from SOARCA Peach Bottom meteorological file without (5A) and with (5B) plume buoyancy
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 1.3e-7 to 1.4e-6
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 220% to 240%
- Analytic calculation is conservative relative to MACCS calculation OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Analytic Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) MACCS MACCS 10-mile Percent Case at 100 m at 100 m at 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n ILCFR* Difference 5A 2.5E-01 2.7E-02 2.2E-01 1.3E-07 1.8 4.5E-07 238%
5B 2.5E-01 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 1.4E-06 1.1 4.5E-06 222%
- Transverse dispersion assumed consistent with slightly unstable conditions 68
Case 6: Multiple Plumes Results
- Difference from Case 1:
- Weather sampled from SOARCA Peach Bottom meteorological file
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from1.3e-7 to 2.9e-7 for different source terms
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 45% to 460% for different source terms
- Analytic calculation is conservative relative to MACCS calculation
- MACCS ILCFR is comparable to Case 5 (single plume) for source term 5D OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at Peak dose (Sv) at MACCS MACCS Analytic Percent Case 100 m 100 m 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n 10-mile ILCFR* Difference 6A 2.5E-01 2.2E-02 2.3E-01 1.3E-07 1.8 7.0E-07 460%
6B 2.5E-01 1.8E-02 2.3E-01 2.9E-07 2.0 4.3E-07 45%
6C 2.5E-01 6.7E-03 2.4E-01 1.3E-07 2.0 4.0E-07 210%
- Transverse dispersion assumed consistent with highly unstable conditions 69
Case 7: Population Distribution Results
- Difference from Case 1:
- Weather sampled from SOARCA Peach Bottom meteorological file
- Population distribution based on Peach Bottom site file
- Lifetime dose of 25 rem yields 10-mile ILCFR from 6.3e-8 to 1.5e-7 for different source terms
- Difference between MACCS and analytic calculation ranges from 180% to 866%
- Realistic population distribution resulted on lower ILCFR relative to Case 6, particularly for pulse type releases such as VF/5D.
OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Analytic Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) Peak dose (Sv) MACCS MACCS 10-mile Percent Case at 100 m at 100 m at 100 m 10- mile ILCFR fitted n ILCFR* Difference 7A 2.5E-01 2.2E-02 2.3E-01 7.3E-08 1.8 7.0E-07 866%
7B 2.5E-01 1.8E-02 2.3E-01 1.5E-07 2.0 4.3E-07 180%
7C 2.5E-01 6.7E-03 2.4E-01 6.3E-08 2.0 4.0E-07 537%
- Transverse dispersion assumed consistent with highly unstable conditions 70
Effect of Downwind Dose Reduction Coefficient on Individual Latent Fatality Risk within 10 miles 1.0E+00 10 Mile ILCF Conditional Risk Given D_100=25 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 rem 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 1.0E-08
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Effective Dose-Distance Reduction Coefficient 71
Long-Term Time Dependence of Dose
- Accumulation of dose in years after the event occurs at different 1.00 rates for different source terms Ratio of Dose at Given Year to First Year Dose 0.90
- Therefore, there is likely no fixed ratio between early phase dose, 0.80 first year dose, and 50-year cumulative dose 0.70
- However, for the scaled source terms considered in this analysis, a 0.60 first-year dose of 2 rem appears to correspond to a lifetime dose* 0.50 less than 25 rem, probably due to radioactive decay and the effect 0.40 of weathering on groundshine and resuspension 0.30 First 50 year 50 year 0.20 Year Second Year Cumul Cumul 0.10 Case Early Phase CHRONC CHRONC CHRONC* TOTAL*
PAGs 1-5 2 0.5 Not specified Not specified -
VF/5D 0.70 2.0 1.0 9.0 9.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 LCF/1B 0.13 2.0 0.2 3.5 3.6 Years Since Release NOCF/2R1 0.11 2.0 0.4 5.2 5.3 VF/5D LCF/1B NOCF/2R1
- Cumul.: cumulative
- Lifetime dose, in this analysis, is assumed to be the dose resulting from a 96-hour (4 day) early phase exposure and a 50-year late phase exposure.
72
Summary
- Analytic derivation of relationship between 100 m lifetime dose and 10-mile population-weighted ILCFR developed and used to identify assumptions for examination with MACCS.
- A 25-rem lifetime dose at 100 meters generally corresponds to a 10-mile population-weighted lifetime ILCFR less than 2e-6, unless buoyant releases or protective actions are credited for computing dose at 100 m.
- The relationship is sensitive to the value used for the downwind dose reduction coefficient.
- There is likely no fixed ratio between early phase dose, first year dose, and 50-year cumulative dose.
- For the scaled source terms considered in this analysis, a first-year dose of 2 rem appears to correspond to a 50-year dose less than 25 rem, probably due to radioactive decay and the effect of weathering on groundshine and resuspension.
73
Bibliography
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2022, U.S. NRC Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Project, Volume 3d: Reactor, At-Power, Level 3 PRA for Internal Events and Floods, Draft for Comment (ML22067A215)
- Holzworth, G.C, 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States (AP-101), Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1972.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 1 (RG 1.145), Washington DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982, Reissued February 1983 (ML003740205)
- Jow, H-N, J.L. Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I Chanin, 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS): Volume 2, Model Description (NUREG/CR-4691 / SAND86-1562), Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, February 1990. (ML063560409) 74
Confirmatory MACCS Calculations Supplemental Slides 75
Case 0: Simple Model Peak Dose vs Distance 1.E+00 Stability Class A: 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Extremely Unstable 1.E-02 EARLY CHRONC 1.E-03 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 1.E+00 Stability Class F: 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Strongly Stable 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 76
Case 1: Pasquill-Gifford Stability Peak Dose vs Distance 1.E+00 Stability Class A: 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-02 EARLY Extremely Unstable 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 0.1 1 10 Power (CHRONC)
Distance downwind (km)
Stability Class F: 1.E+00 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Strongly Stable 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 1.E-06 Power (EARLY) 0.1 1 10 Power (CHRONC)
Distance downwind (km) 77
Case 2: Plume Buoyancy Peak Dose vs Distance Stability Class A: 1.E+01 1.E+00 OVERALL Extremely Unstable Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-01 EARLY 1.E-02 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 0.1 1 10 Power (CHRONC)
Distance downwind (km) 1.E+01 Stability Class F: 1.E+00 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Strongly Stable 1.E-01 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 0.1 1 10 Power (CHRONC)
Distance downwind (km) 78
Case 3: Wake Effects Peak Dose vs Distance Stability Class A: 1.E+00 1.E-01 OVERALL Extremely Unstable Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km)
Stability Class F: 1.E+00 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Strongly Stable 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 1.E-06 Power (EARLY) 0.1 1 10 Power (CHRONC)
Distance downwind (km) 79
Case 4: Protective Actions Peak Dose vs Distance 1.E+00 Stability Class A: 1.E-01 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv)
Extremely Unstable 1.E-02 1.E-03 EARLY CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 1.E+00 Stability Class F: 1.E-01 OVERALL Strongly Stable Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-02 EARLY 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 80
Case 5: Meteorological Sampling Peak Dose (Mean) vs Distance 1.E+01 1.E+00 OVERALL Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-01 Without plume 1.E-02 EARLY buoyancy 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 1.E+01 1.E+00 OVERALL With plume Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-01 EARLY buoyancy 1.E-02 1.E-03 CHRONC 1.E-04 Power (OVERALL) 1.E-05 Power (EARLY) 1.E-06 Power (CHRONC) 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) 81
Case 6/7: Weather Sampling with Multiple Plumes Peak Dose (Mean) vs Distance 1.E+00 1.E+00 1.E+00 1.E-01 1.E-01 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-02 1.E-02 Peak Dose (Sv) Peak Dose (Sv) Peak Dose (Sv) 1.E-03 1.E-03 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-04 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-05 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-06 1.E-06 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 Distance downwind (km) Distance downwind (km) Distance downwind (km)
OVERALL EARLY CHRONC OVERALL EARLY CHRONC OVERALL EARLY CHRONC Power (OVERALL) Power (EARLY) Power (CHRONC) Power (OVERALL) Power (EARLY) Power (CHRONC) Power (OVERALL) Power (EARLY) Power (CHRONC)
VF/5D LCF/1A2 NOCF/2R1 82
DG-1413 (proposed new RG 1.254)
Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events for Commercial Nuclear Plants Mihaela Biro Division of Risk Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events for Commercial Nuclear Plants (DG-1413)
- Section A: Applies to LWRs and non-LWRs licensed under Parts 50, 52, and 53 (Frameworks A and B)
- Section B (Discussion):
o Identifies licensing events for each licensing framework o Provides historical perspectives (early licensing, development of the standard review plan
[SRP])
o Addresses ACRS recommendations to start with a blank sheet of paper (10/7/2019, 10/21/2020, 5/30/2021, and 10/26/2021)
- Section C (Staff Guidance) provides an integrated approach for:
o Conducting a systematic and comprehensive search for initiating events o Delineating a systematic and comprehensive sets of event sequences o Grouping the lists of initiating events and event sequences into licensing events
- Appendix A (Comprehensive Search for Initiating Events):
o Reviews techniques for searching for initiating events and points the user to helpful references o Does not endorse or recommend any specific technique 84
Licensing Pathways and Licensing Events Regulation and Reactor Application Type Type Use of LMP Licensing Event Categories Risk Evaluation not applicable not required Part 50 (NEI 18-04, Rev. 1 and RG 1.233
- Design-basis events (DBEs) (§ 50.49): (Parts 50/52 lessons-CP, OL LWR currently only apply to o AOOs learned rulemaking)
Part 52 non-LWRs licensed under o DBAs (i.e., postulated accidents)
Parts 50 or 52) o External events PRA required DC, SDA, ML, COL o Natural phenomena not required Part 50
- Non-DBA (§ 50.2 alternate ac source)
(Parts 50/52 lessons-CP, OL
- Beyond-design-basis events (BDBE)
Non-LWR no learned rulemaking)
- Station black out PRA required DC, SDA, ML, COL Part 50 Licensing events are collectively referred to as licensing- PRA implied by CP, OL basis events (LBEs), which include the following use of LMP categories:
Non-LWR yes
- AOOs Part 52
not applicable Part 53, Framework A LWR or
- Very unlikely event sequences
- Additional licensing-basis events 85
- Severe accidents
Overarching Principles Identify application-specific factors (licensing framework, plant-specific design features, and site characteristics).
Conduct a systematic and comprehensive search for initiating events.
Use a systematic process to delineate a comprehensive set of event sequences.
Group initiating events and event sequences into designated licensing event categories according to the selected licensing framework.
Provide assurance that the set of licensing events is sufficient.
86
1 Assemble Technology-Inclusive Identification Multi-disciplinary Team Collect Application-Specific Information of Licensing Events (Sheet 1 of 3) 2 3 4 5 Collect information on plant Identify Radiological Sources Establish Quality Identify Sources of Hazardous design, plant operating states, and Transport Barriers from Control Program Chemical Materials and site characteristics the Source to the Environment 6 Identify Plant-specific Safety Functions
- Systems needed to achieve Added guidance on establishing Updated text on safety safety functions a Quality Control program prior functions, consistent with Part
- Operator actions needed to engaging in the work 53 Framework A to achieve safety functions
- Success criteria Select Analysis Methods 7
8 Define Plant-specific End States for Event Sequences Select Initiating Event 10 Identification Methods 9 Select Analytical Methods
- Inductive methods Define Initiating Event for Event Sequences
- Deductive methods Grouping Strategy and X (e.g., Event Trees, Event
- Human-induced events Characteristics to Sequence Diagrams)
(Appendix provides Sheet 2 discussion and references) 87
Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events (Sheet 2 of 3)
Initiating Event Analysis 11 12 13 14 Account for Relevant Apply Initiating Event Apply Initiating Independent X Operating Experience and List of Identification Event Grouping Review and Quality for Insights from Earlier Initiating Events from Methods Strategy Control Relevant Analyses Sheet 1 Added references for listing of external hazards. The search for Initiating Events and Event Sequences is subject to Quality Control (not QA)
Event Sequence Selection 15 16 Apply Selected Analytical Methods 17
- Identify initiating event impact on safety functions Account for Relevant
- Identify the impact of front-line and support Operating Experience and Independent Review List of system dependencies on safety functions Y
for Insights from Earlier and Quality Control Event Sequences
- Identify the impact of operator actions on safety Relevant Analyses to functions Sheet 3
18 Is a PRA being developed to 19 Y support Provide initiating events and event Technology-Inclusive Identification from the application? yes (PRA) sequences to the PRA of Licensing Events (Sheet 3 of 3)
Sheet 2 no 20 Identify Required Categories Follow NEI 18-04, of Licensing Events for Rev. 1 as endorsed Licensing Framework in RG 1.233 Part 50 or 52 non-LWR applications based on LMP All other applications Clarified that the LMP guidance currently applies to non-LWRs 21 Define Licensing Event Grouping under parts 50 or 52.
Strategy and Characteristics Note: The staff intends to revise RG 1.233 to address licensing under Part
- Group by frequency 53 Framework A in the future.
o Qualitative o Quantitative
- Group by type o Plant response following the initiating The search for Licensing Events event (sequence of events, timing) is subject to QA o Similar challenge to safety functions o End state 24 23 Compare to Predefined Lists 25 (e.g., SRP Chapter 15, 22 Identify Limiting Cases for Apply Licensing Event previous CP, OL, DC, SDA, ML, Independent List of Each Group of Licensing Grouping Strategy or COL applications) and Review and QA Licensing Events Events identify differences from SRP (only for LWRs)
Quality Control Program
- A Quality Control Program should be established prior to engaging in the work; includes personnel, procedures, documentation.
- The initiating event and event sequence analyses are not subject to QA requirements (PRA is not part of the design-basis information).
- Existing programs may be leveraged:
o If a PRA is developed, PRA Configuration Control can be used for analysis documentation.
o If a PRA is developed, PRA peer review can be used for independent review.
The licensing event selection informs the design basis and licensing basis; therefore, it is subject to QA requirements.
90
DG-1414 (proposed new RG 1.255)
Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights Methodology Anne-Marie Grady Division of Risk Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 91
Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights Methodology
- This RG provides the NRC staffs guidance on the use of an AERI methodology to inform the content of applications and licensing basis for LWRs and non-LWRs.
- 10 CFR 53.4730(a)(34)(ii) establishes AERI as an alternative to a PRA for a risk evaluation if the entry conditions A and B for an AERI are met.
- The title of this DG-1414 is now AERI Methodology, to distinguish it from Part 53 Frameworks A and B. This new title does not signal any change in approach.
Applicants who meet the AERI entry conditions may elect to develop an AERI in lieu of a PRA.
However, PRA confers additional benefits such as:
- A means to optimize the design, and
- The ability to take advantage of various risk-informed initiatives, for example risk-informed completion times, risk-informed categorization of SSCs.
92
Licensing Pathways - Risk Evaluation Perspective H I Parts 50 and 52 with LMP Perform Perform design basis Continue design transient and accident radiological and licensing Part 53 Framework A accident analyses consequences analyses activities C D E F Finish PRA Select LBEs Select DBAs Classify SSCs development G
A Comprehensive Evaluate DID and systematic initiator search and event B Select Notes:
sequence 1) Each step builds on all of the preceding steps (considers all information available at that point) licensing delineation framework 2) Feedback loops (e.g., the impact of design revisions) are not shown without preconceptions J K L M N or reliance on Select Perform Perform design basis yes Continue design Elect to Finish PRA predefined lists licensing transient and accident radiological and licensing develop PRA development events accident analyses consequences analyses activities Q AERI Parts 50 and 52 without LMP no Q1 Develop demonstrably Part 53 Framework B ONLY for Part 53 conservative risk estimate Framework B no using the bounding event Applicant decision Q2 Search all event O P sequences for severe Identify and yes Continue design AERI entry accident vulnerabilities DG-1413, Technology-Inclusive Identification of Licensing Events for analyze the and licensing condition met? Q3 Develop risk insights by Commercial Nuclear Plants bounding event activities reviewing all event DG-1414, Alternative Evaluation for Risk Insights (AERI) Methodology sequences Q4 Assess DID adequacy by Alternative Evaluation reviewing all event LMP guidance - NEI 18-04, Rev. 1, as endorsed in RG 1.233 for Risk Insights sequences 93 93
Elements of the AERI Methodology (1 of 4)
- DG-1414 applies only to LWRs and non-LWRs licensed under Part 53, Framework B
- Identification and characterization of the postulated bounding event(s):
o Selection of licensing events is covered in DG-1413 o Consider both core and non-core radiological sources o Perform consequence analysis for selected licensing event(s) o Multiple bounding events could be considered for events with approximately similar likelihoods of occurrence and similar overall radiological impacts, but with different radiological release characteristics
- Estimate dose consequence for the postulated bounding event to confirm that the reactor design meets the AERI entry conditions:
o Condition A - Consequences evaluated at 100m (328 feet) from plant do not exceed:
10 mSv (1 rem) TEDE over the first four days following a release, An additional 20 mSv (2 rem) TEDE in the first year, and 5 mSv (0.5 rem) TEDE in second and subsequent years o Condition B - Condition A must be met without reliance on active safety features or passive safety features, except passive safety features that:
Do not require equipment actuation or operator action to perform their required safety functions, Are expected to survive accident conditions, and Cannot be made unavailable or otherwise defeated by credible human errors of commission and omission o One acceptable approach to developing a dose consequence estimate is to provide the postulated bounding event source term to MACCS or a comparable analytical model 94
Elements of the AERI Methodology (2 of 4)
- Determination of a demonstrably conservative risk estimate for the postulated bounding event to demonstrate that the QHOs are met:
o Utilize consequence estimate.
o Assume a frequency of 1/yr to represent the sum of the event sequence frequencies (based on LWR statistics equal to the sum of initiating event frequencies).
o Compare to QHOs.
o Applicant may use a different frequency, with justification, which NRC staff will review on a case-by case basis.
o One acceptable approach to developing a dose consequence estimate is to provide the postulated bounding event source term to MACCS, or a comparable analytical model.
o The applicant should identify the software codes used for the consequence analyses and provide information on how the development and maintenance of these software codes meets quality standards commensurate with the application.
95
Elements of the AERI Methodology (3 of 4)
- Search for severe accident vulnerabilities:
o Severe accidents are those events that progress beyond the DBAs, in which substantial damage is done to the reactor core or to any other structure, vessel, or retention system containing a significant inventory of radiological material, whether or not there are serious offsite consequences o Severe accident vulnerabilities are aspects of a design which represent an overreliance on a single design feature, either for accident prevention or mitigation, that could lead to a severe accident o Encompasses the entire set of licensing events and any additional severe accidents o Search for cliff-edge effects o Consider external hazards
- Address how identifying severe accident vulnerabilities could enable the design to prevent or mitigate severe accidents
- Justify why a severe accident vulnerability is acceptable for the design 96
Elements of the AERI Methodology (4 of 4)
- Identification of risk insights:
o The objective of the search for risk insights is to understand issues that are important to plant operation and safety such as:
important hazards and initiators important event sequences and their associated SSC failures and human error system interactions vulnerable plant areas likely outcomes sensitivities areas of uncertainty o Search encompasses the entire set of licensing events o Provides an understanding of the hierarchy of event sequences ranked by frequency
- Assessment of DID adequacy:
o Encompasses the entire set of previously identified licensing events o Facility design should include a reasonable balance among the layers of defense, to ensure that failure of a single barrier does not result in a severe accident 97
Maintaining and Upgrading the AERI Risk Evaluation (1 of 2)
- Assure that the AERI risk evaluation continues to be valid, useful, and an adequate basis for regulatory decision-making throughout the plant operating lifetime.
o The initial risk evaluation must be performed by the scheduled fuel load date o The risk evaluation should be maintained/upgraded every five years
- Regularly assess that the postulated bounding event selection remains current o If not, identify new postulated bounding event to be used in the upgraded risk evaluation
- As-built, as-operated facility o Ascertain if any important aspects of the facilitys design or operational scheme have changed since the prior risk evaluation, and if so, maintain/upgrade the risk evaluation
- New safety issue(s) o Ascertain if any new safety issues have arisen since the prior risk evaluation, and if so, maintain/upgrade the risk evaluation
- New data, information, or analyses o Ascertain if any relevant new data, information or analyses have arisen since the prior risk evaluation, and if so, maintain/upgrade the risk evaluation 98
Maintaining and Upgrading the AERI Risk Evaluation (2 of 2)
- QHO comparison o If the AERI risk evaluation requires upgrading, the QHO comparison should be revisited and modified, if appropriate
- Vulnerability search o If the AERI risk evaluation requires upgrading, the severe accident vulnerability search should be revisited and modified, if appropriate
- Search for Risk Insights o If the AERI risk evaluation requires upgrading, the search for risk insights should be revisited and modified, if appropriate
- DID o If the AERI risk evaluation requires upgrading, the DID evaluation should be revisited and modified, if appropriate 99
Discussion 100
Final Discussion and Questions 101
Agenda - October 19th 8:35 am - 1:00 pm Requirements for Operations: Draft Proposed Language for Staffing, Role of STA, and Guidance 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Lunch 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm Draft Proposed Language Addressing Other ACRS Comments and Major Industry Comments 102
Preliminary Requirements for Operations:
Rule Language Updates, Staffing Topics, and Overview of Key Guidance 103
- Introduction
- Updates to Subparts F and P since the 2nd Iteration
- Consolidation of requirements under Subpart F
- Current status of engineering expertise requirements Current status of GLRO requirements Agenda
- Response to recent ACRS letter
- Overview of ISG for Operator Licensing Program Reviews
- Overview of ISG for Staffing Plan Reviews
- Questions 104
- Theresa Buchanan, Senior Reactor Engineer (Examiner)
- Dr. David Desaulniers, Senior Technical Advisor for Human Factors and Human Overview of Performance Evaluation Primary Staff
- Dr. Brian Green, Senior Human Factors Engineer (Team Lead)
Contributors
- Dr. Niav Hughes Green, Human Factors Psychologist (NRR & RES)
- Dr. Stephanie Morrow, Human Factors Psychologist
- Lauren Nist, Branch Chief, Operator Licensing and Human Factors Branch
- Maurin Scheetz, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)
- Jesse Seymour, Senior Reactor Engineer (Examiner) 105
- Requirements for HFE, staffing, operator licensing, and training have all been consolidated under Subpart F, with Subpart P now just containing a single pointer located at 53.4220 (i.e., Framework A and B now use a common set of requirements in these areas)
- The class of reactors meeting the technical requirements for Updates to utilizing GLROs has been defined as self-reliant mitigation facilities Subpart F and
- Procedure program requirements have been consolidated P since the
- Staffing plan requirements for non-operations positions are now functional in nature 2nd Iteration
- Examination programs are required to provide for validity and reliability in testing
- Remedial training is mandated for operators failing requalification examinations
- Commission approval is no longer required for simulation facilities 106
- Engineering expertise remains a required element of staffing plans for all facilities under both Frameworks A and B, including for those facilities staffed by GLROs
- Criteria for potentially allowing facilities under Framework B to Status of use GLROs have been incorporated, in addition to those already in place for Framework A Engineering
- Framework B GLRO criteria vary depending on whether an AERI is used Expertise &
- Irrespective of AERI, DID without human action is needed
- For a non-AERI plant, the GLRO criteria are analogous to the equivalent GLRO criteria for Framework A, as adapted to the differing requirements of Framework B For an AERI plant, the GLRO criteria are met by meeting AERI criteria (plus requirements DID)
- These various sets of criteria have a common goal of identifying when operators are not expected to significantly influence safety outcomes based on the design
- GLRO criteria now are specific to limiting analysis to credited human actions 107
- ACRS letter included a recommendation that the associated guidance for implementing 10 CFR Part 55 can be amended to accommodate the objectives of the proposed rule without the additional voluminous text.
Response to
- Key points form the staff response included the following:
Interim Letter
- New framework for operator licensing under Part 53 is technology-Report from
- inclusive and creates significant flexibilities compared to Part 55 Accommodating such flexibilities while complying with statutory August 2022 requirements necessitates requirements for GLROs being codified in regulations
- Absent Part 53s alternative, applicants would be required to adhere to Part 55
- While revised or new guidance could be developed, applicants would be required to seek exemptions and justify pursuing alternative approaches, requiring NRC staff reviews on an application-specific basis; proposed Part 53 will remove the need for exemptions and enhance regulatory reliability and clarity 108
Overview of ISG for Operator Licensing Program Reviews DRO-ISG-2023-01 Operator Licensing Programs Draft Interim Staff Guidance
- To assist staff reviews of applications under 10 CFR Part 53 related to the operator licensing examination program
- To provide guidance for review of tailored initial and requalification examination Purpose programs
- For generally licensed operators (GLROs)
- To assist staff reviews of exemptions from 10 CFR Part 55 for non-LWR, power reactor examination programs 110
- Enable facility applicants/licensees to identify knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) necessary for safe operation as the basis for the examination standards
- Establish reliable guidelines for exam Goals program developments based on current best practices from research and expertise on the measurement and testing of KSAs 111
- Systems approach to training-based processes are used to identify a training KSA list
- This list is not solely limited to tasks related to safe plant operation
- DRO-ISG-2023-04, Facility Training Programs, is Section 1.0 planned to provide additional information in this KSAs List area
- Using this list as a starting point, a screening is Development performed to identify those tasks important to safe plant operation and/or related to the foundational theory of plant operations to develop the KSA list for the exam program
- Depending on the original list, may have needed to add or remove items to get the necessary KSAs for testing 112
113
- Developed Test Plan
- How the testable KSAs will be measured
- For example, what KSAs will be tested using a written test, or a walkthrough format, etc.
Section 2.0
- What the format for the test will be Operator
- Developed detailed content specification Licensing Test
- What specific KSAs the exam type (written, oral, scenario, job performance measure, etc.) covers Development
- How the KSAs are sampled for each examination developed
- How the test items are reviewed for clarity, quality, and other psychometric issues 114
- Describe validation plan
- What evidence was collected to support validity of the test, that the test works and will work as intended Section 3.0
- Content validity, concurrent validity Examination
- Should require content validity at the least Validity 115
- Criterion-referenced
- Described how each test item is scored and how scores combined to get total Section 4.0 score Scoring
- If based on scorer observation, Specifications described steps to eliminate any bias in judgments
- Provided cut-off score 116
- If individual repeats the test, the result would be similar to the original result
- Documentation that the tests will have stability of test performance over time Section 5.0 Reliability of
- Documentation of findings that are adequate to justify use of the test for the Test operator licensing 117
- Companion to the test plan
- Provides more detail related to the specific types of tests
- Includes administrative aspects of test Section 6.0
- How to administer Test Manual
- Time to administer or time allowed to take the test
- Materials provided to test takers
- How to interpret test results 118
- This section is specifically for written and computer-based tests Section 7.0
- Provides additional characteristics Additional associated with psychometrics, test Characteristics instructions, objective scoring system, of High- and standardization Quality Test Materials 119
- This section references back to sections of NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Section 8.0 Reactors for items that are universally Other applicable, regardless of plant design Examination Program Considerations 120
- Documentation on how the simulation facility provides a level of fidelity sufficient to assess KSAs as required by 10 CFR Part 53.780(e) or 53.815(e)
Section 9.0
- Simulation facilities should have same Simulation cognitive requirements as the real Facilities environment
- For simulation-based assessment, documentation provided on how that examination is valid 121
- Examination procedures should be similar to those in NUREG-1021, as specific to the type of test administered Section 10.0
- Measures are in place to ensure Administering examiners behave in accordance with Operating codes of conduct to ensure examination Tests integrity
- Measures are in place to retain required records 122
- Documentation specifies what changes require NRC approval and which do not Section 11.0
- NRC approval Examination
- Exemption from regulation Program
- Change to technical specification
- Negative impact to examination Change security/integrity Management
- Negative impact on consistency Process 123
- Beyond the scope of the guidance
- The documentation would need to describe how this approach is Section 12.0 equivalent to the guidance provided Static in the ISG Computer-Based Testing 124
- Any requalification failures must be remediated and retested prior to returning to license duties Section 13.0
- Periodicity not to exceed 24 months Guidance for
- For GLROs Requalification
- Periodicity defined by program Programs
- If >24 months, bases provided 125
- Actively perform the functions Section 14.0
- Maintain proficiency and familiarity Proficiency
- Re-establish proficiency if it cannot Programs for Specifically be maintained Licensed Operators and Senior Operators 126
- Appropriate criteria to waive requirements for an examination included in the program Section 15.0
- If similar to 10 CFR 55.47, no further NRC Waivers for review GLROs
- Else, a basis is provided that describes how the criteria ensures individuals are able to safely and competently operate the facility 127
- Methods currently approved in NUREG-1021 can be used without Appendix A needing further basis from the Currently facility or additional NRC review Approved
- Example: use of a 4-part multiple Examination choice written examination with 80%
Methods cut score 128
Overview of ISG for Staffing Plan Reviews DRO-ISG-2023-02 Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1791, Guidance for Assessing Exemption Requests from the Nuclear Power Plant Licensed Operator Staffing Requirements Specified in 10 CFR 50.54(m), for Licensing Plants under Part 53
- Current 10 CFR 50/52 staffing requirement (i.e.,
50.54(m)) is prescriptive
- NRC reviews exemptions to this requirement using NUREG-1791, Guidance for Assessing Exemption Requests from the Nuclear Power Plant Licensed Operator Staffing Requirements Specified in 10 CFR
Background:
50.54(m)
Current
- Developed with advanced reactors in mind Performance-based process for determining appropriate Practice number of licensed control room operators
- 11 steps including a staffing plan validation
- Staff used NUREG-1791 to evaluate novel control room staffing models for NuScale SMR design and concept of operations
- Cannot use NUREG-1791 as written for Part 53 staffing plan reviews because it relies on exemptions to Part 50 requirements 130
- Applicant proposes minimum staffing level by submitting a staffing plan with application
- Consider differences in staffing level when operators have/do not have a safety role (i.e., for specific or generally licensed operators) - if specific licenses then Part 53 applicants must include more detail supported by HFE Approach to analysis and assessments
- Operators may fill multiple roles (e.g., maintenance, Staffing radiation protection, etc.) so must include these responsibilities in staffing plan submittal
- The staff will review and approve the staffing plan.
Changes to approved staffing plans are subject to administrative controls 131
- Addressed under the preliminary requirements of § 53.730(f):
- A staffing plan must be developed to include the numbers, positions, and qualifications of operators Preliminary and senior operators or, if applicable, generally Part 53 licensed reactor operators across all modes of plant operations, as well as a description of how the Staffing numbers, positions, and responsibilities of personnel Requirement contained within those plans will adequately support all necessary functions within areas such as plant operations, equipment surveillance and maintenance, radiological protection, chemistry control, fire brigades, engineering, security, and emergency response.
132
- The staffing plan must include a description of how engineering expertise will be available to the on-shift Proposed crew during all plant conditions to assist in situations Part 53 not covered by procedures or training Requirement
- A person available to support the crew at all times. This person is familiar with the operation of the facility and for On-Shift has a technical degree:
Engineering
- Bachelors in in engineering or, Expertise
- Bachelors in engineering technology or a physical science or, PE license
[§ 53.730(f)(1)]
- Basis: Commission policy for, Education for Senior Reactor Operators and Shift Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants, (published in the Federal Register (54 FR 33639) on August 15, 1989) 133
- Objective is to guide reviewer through the process of:
- Evaluating staffing plans and support analyses submitted under § 53.730(f)
- Determining whether the proposed minimum staffing level DRO-ISG-2023-provides assurance that plant safety functions can be maintained across all modes of plant operations 02: for review
- Approving staffing plans
- For plants that will have specifically licensed operators; of Part 53 could scale the review for plants with generally licensed staffing plans operators
- Use in conjunction with NUREG-1791
- 11 steps that rely on other Human Factors elements
- Includes review guidance for engineering expertise requirement
- Developed as an Interim Staff Guide (ISG)
- Following experience with using the ISG the staff plans to update NUREG-1791 134
- Guidance on what staff will look at for satisfying engineering expertise requirement to include:
Education prerequisites DRO-ISG-2023-
- Training and qualification 02: for
- Responsibilities of the job reviewing
- Data needs if offsite engineering
- Response time if on site Expectations for one or multiple people filling the expertise job
- Communication needs
- Cybersecurity expectations
- Include job in validation activities 135
Overview of ISG for Scalable Human Factors Engineering Reviews DRO-ISG-2023-03 Development of Scalable Human Factors Engineering Review Plans
50.34(f)(2)(iii)) is focused on the main control room
- NRCs HFE reviews for large light-water reactors have been conducted using NUREG-0711,
Background:
Human Factors Engineering Program Review Current Practice Model
- Systems engineering based approach
- 12 program elements and 300+ criteria
- Lessons-learnt from recent Part 52 reviews indicated a need for a new approach to regulation and review of HFE for advanced reactor technologies 137
- HFE to be required where necessary to support important human actions
- HFE reviews to be application
Background:
specific (i.e., scaled) considering the Proposed Part characteristics of the facility design 53 Approach to and its operation HFE 138
- Addressed by the preliminary requirement of § 53.730(a)
- The plant design must reflect state-
Background:
of-the-art human factors principles Preliminary for safe and reliable performance in Part 53 HFE all locations that human activities Requirement are expected for performing or supporting the continued availability of plant safety or emergency response functions 139
- Objective is to guide reviewer through the process of:
- Developing an application specific review plan
Background:
- Identifying appropriate HFE review guidance Draft Guidance
- To be used in place of NUREG-0800, Chapter 18, Human Factors Engineering
- Developed as an ISG
- Begins - during pre-application engagements (if conducted)
- Concludes - with completion of application acceptance review Scaling Process:
Overview
- Conducted - in 5 steps leading to the staff assembling the review plan 141
- 1. Characterization - establishing a documented understanding of the design and its operation from an HFE perspective
- 2. Targeting - identifying aspects of the design and operation for HFE review Scaling Process: 3. Screening - selecting HFE program elements /
activities for review in conjunction with each target 5 Steps 4. Grading - selecting specific standards and guidance documents to be applied to the review
- 5. Assembling the review plan - integrating results of prior steps to produce a plan that supports an efficient, risk-informed, reasonable assurance determination
- Main body (22 pages) - provides essential guidance for developing the review plan Scaling
- Appendices (88 pages) - provide Guidance: supporting guidance for Overview implementing each step of the process 143
- Applicability:
- Rationale for scaling reviews Scaling
- Regulatory basis / acceptance criteria Guidance: Main
- Guidance for each step of scaling process
- Objective Body - Key
- Process Features
- Reviewer Responsibilities
- Focus is on what to do / accomplish when scaling reviews 144
- Focus is on how to
- Recommended methods for each step of scaling process Scaling Guidance:
- Pointers to sources of additional Appendices - guidance Key Features 145
Characterization:
- What to include in the characterization -
essential elements Scaling
- How to organize and document the Guidance: characterization Appendix A
- Use of the characterization to aid coordination with related reviews (e.g.,
staffing, operator licensing, instrumentation and controls) 146
Targeting:
- General principles for target selection
- Descriptions of 38 prospective (example)
Scaling characteristics of advanced reactor Guidance: designs and operations
- Human performance implications Appendix B
- Availability of guidance to support reviews
Screening:
- General strategies and specific considerations for selecting which HFE activities to review or screen out Scaling Guidance:
- Implications / challenges of advanced reactor design characteristics for certain Appendix C HFE activities or their review 148
Grading:
- Guidance for selection of standards and guidance documents to support the review Scaling
- Considerations for use of documents that Guidance: lack prior NRC endorsement Appendix D
- Reference table of HFE standards and guidance documents in both nuclear and non-nuclear domains 149
Assembling the Review Plan:
- Strategies for integrating the results of Steps A-D to develop a plan that is efficient yet sufficient to support a Scaling reasonable assurance determination Guidance:
- Guidance for documenting the review Appendix E plan and gaining management approval 150
Discussion 151
Draft Proposed Language Addressing Other ACRS Comments and Major Industry Comments 152
Interim Letter Report; October 21, 2020
- 1. The staffs proposed approach for developing the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 53 rule is viable.
- 2. The staff should ensure that applicants compensate Concern addressed by requirements in both frameworks for novel designs with uncertainties due to requiring systematic assessments to identify events incompleteness in the knowledge base by performing supporting the design and licensing of commercial systematic searches for hazards, initiating events, and nuclear plants. Examples include §§ 53.240 and 53.450 accident scenarios with no preconceptions that could in Framework A and § 53.4730 in Framework B. In limit the creative process. addition, proposed guidance provided in DG-1413.
- 3. The rule should provide a pathway for licensing Existing pathway for prototype facilities maintained in prototype facilities, when uncertainties in the both frameworks. Provisions included in § 53.440 knowledge base and lack of operating experience (Subpart A, common), § 53.440 for Framework A, and § suggest that additional testing and monitoring are 53.4730 for Framework B. Existing guidance on needed. prototype plants is applicable to Part 53.
Interim Letter Report; May 30, 2021
- 1. The overall structure of Subparts A through I provides a logical framework for the rule. It is complete with respect to topics that must be covered and addresses the lifetime of a power reactor. It will be helpful to all applicants and to the NRC staff.
- 2. A coherent and detailed explanation of the integrated Included some introduction-type sections to various intent of the rule and its associated design-specific subparts. However, most detailed explanation of the guidance should be developed as soon as possible and rule provided in Preamble.
enshrined in the rule itself.
Interim Letter Report; May 30, 2021
- 3. Regarding Subpart B:
- a. To this point in the development, we find no value in the (a1) Revised Subpart B to eliminate reference to two two-tiered approach to safety tiers. However, safety objectives include: (1) ensuring no requirements. Alternative integral risk criteria to the QHOs immediate threat to public health and safety and (2) should be investigated. considering potential risks.
(a2) See previous discussion on QHOs.
- b. Desired flexibility to address the broad range of technologies (c) Framework A continues to define a top-down methodology is provided based on criteria, safety functions, and related requirements for SSCs, personnel, and programmatic controls. Framework B requires development of principal design criteria based on LWR
- c. The rule should include a set of over-arching general general design criteria or other generally accepted standards.
principles in one place (Subpart B) that would apply to any reactor concept.
- d. The rule should state that safety analyses must demonstrate (d) Framework A (§ 53.450(e)) requires establishing evaluation that for AOOs all safety related barriers to release are criteria for each AOO [anticipated event sequence].
maintained. Framework B ((§ 53.4730(a)(5)(iii)) limits offsite dose for AOOs and requires demonstration that events do not escalate to DBA.
- e. The rule should state that safety analyses must demonstrate (e) Framework A (§ 53.450(f)) revised to require safe, stable that DBAs achieve and maintain a safe, stable, and subcritical end state for DBA and subcriticality following LBE required by § condition. 53.440(g). Framework B (§ 53.4730(a)(5)(ii)) requires acceptance criteria for SR SSCs to demonstrate they adequately mitigate the consequences of DBAs. Additional requirements provided though principal design criteria.
Interim Letter Report; May 30, 2021
- 4. Subpart C, Design and Analysis Requirements, is generally in good shape. a. Rule language remains general (requiring use of PRA in
- a. The requirement for risk-informed analysis is appropriate if Framework A) and flexibility afforded through key guidance the use of PRA is approached in a graded fashion commensurate such as RG 1.247 with the potential consequences and the simplicity of the b. Requirements to identify and assess DBAs provided design. in §§ 53.240 and 53.450(f) in Framework A
- b. The requirements for selection and analysis of DBAs must be and § 53.4730(a)(5)(ii) in Framework B. Each clarified. maintains general alignment with Parts 50/52 in terms of
- c. The rule eliminates single failure criteria but needs to define establishing design requirements for safety-related the process that replaces it. SSCs. Additional information available in guidance documents (e.g., RG 1.233 for Framework A)
- c. Use of probabilistic (reliability) criteria instead of single failure criteria for Framework A discussed in Preamble (see also SECY-03-0047)
- 5. The two recommendations in our first letter report on 10 CFR Concern addressed by requirements in both frameworks Part 53 of October 21, 2020, still apply: for novel designs with requiring systematic assessments to identify events supporting uncertainties due to incompleteness in the knowledge base, the design and licensing of commercial nuclear plants. Examples systematic searches for hazards, initiating events, and accident include §§ 53.240 and 53.450 in Framework A and § 53.4730 scenarios should be required; and a licensing pathway including in Framework B. In addition, guidance provided by developing additional testing and monitoring akin to prototype testing DG-1413.
should be available.
Existing pathway for prototype facilities maintained in both frameworks.
Interim Letter Report; February 17, 2022
- 1. The staff is methodically working through the delicate .
balance of flexibility and predictability in regulations for operator staffing.
- 2. The staff should consider the suggestions identified in this Staff agrees with the ACRS, See subsequent iterations and letter to ensure the 10 CFR Part 53 approach yields equivalent discussions safety to current regulatory approaches.
- 3. The staff should approach the concept of not having a Shift See subsequent iterations and discussions Technical Advisor (STA) by having the applicant justify why the STA is not needed rather than a blanket elimination of this position. This is particularly important for the expected wide application of first-of-a-kind technologies that may be licensed under this rule.
- 4. The concept of non-licensed, certified operators should not See subsequent iterations and discussions be pursued. Staff should focus on adapting the existing approach to the NRC operator licensing process to produce training, qualification, and licensing requirements based on the degree of safety reliance attributed to operator actions for the specific plant design. This should take advantage of inherent and passive safety features of the nuclear power plant.
- 5. Staff should develop guidance for judging the acceptability of See subsequent iterations and discussions limited scope simulators.
Interim Letter Report; August 2, 2022
- Discussed during previous session
- 1. There are limitations of the existing QHOs to fully capture the value and
- Additional questions/discussion ?
risk of nuclear technologies and the large uncertainties associated with evaluating individual and societal risk.
This could inhibit flexibility and opportunities for more innovative approaches as the regulator and applicants learn from new nuclear technologies and associated missions.
Interim Letter Report;
- Preliminary proposed rule language includes a August 2, 2022 definition for safety function
- Definition has generic elements, but is bifurcated to acknowledge fundamental differences between the frameworks
- 2. Critical safety functions are
- Defining critical safety functions remains an foundational to the licensing process.
explicit requirement in Framework A (top-down As such, the requirements for approach); primary and secondary (additional) identifying critical safety functions safety functions made explicit should be common to both frameworks.
- Safety functions are addressed implicitly through the principal design criteria in Framework B, consistent with current bottom-up approach in existing framework
- Draft white paper on preapplication engagement Interim Letter Report; for advanced reactor applicants recommends August 2, 2022 early engagement in several topical areas:
- Principal design criteria
- Selection of LBEs
- 3. The staff should require, early in
- SSC classification the preapplication process, each
- Source term methodology applicant to identify numeric safety
- QA dose criteria, the critical safety functions, the safety design criteria,
- Probabilistic risk assessment and the underlying rationale for their
- Safety analysis methods selection and application in the
- Fuel qualification and testing design.
- Pre-application engagement is optional and at the discretion of the applicant
Interim Letter Report; August 2, 2022
- 4. The staff needs to ensure that the
- Fire protection provisions in Framework B have fire protection requirements in both been completely revised (aligned with frameworks are fully technology- Framework A) and are now technology-inclusive inclusive.
Interim Letter Report; August 2, 2022
- NRC staff agrees that streamlined and efficient regulatory frameworks are desirable and that guidance used where practicable to reduce the size of the rule
- 5. The current approach with self-
- Each framework in the preliminary proposed rule contained requirements for each of language must be viewed independently (§ 53.010),
the two frameworks is very long. with some exceptions Furthermore, the rule has a significant amount of implementation
- Requirements in each framework largely replace detail that could be better located in existing requirements under Parts 50, 52, 55, and regulatory guidance. The optics of this 100; either framework is less than half of the approach run counter to a existing requirements streamlined more efficient licensing process, which is an expectation for many stakeholders. As a result, the rule may be too cumbersome to implement and may not be used.
Interim Letter Report; August 2, 2022
- Draft requirements in Part 53 are technology-inclusive and significantly more flexible than those in Part 55
- Development of a new category of license operators and facility class requires codification
- 6. The proposed GLRO description of related regulatory requirements should provide for qualified operating personnel. However, the associated
- Significant amount of new guidance would need guidance for implementing to be developed to address recommended 10 CFR Part 55 can be amended to approach accommodate the objectives of the proposed rule without the additional
- Proposed approach should greatly reduce the voluminous text. need for exemptions while enhancing regulatory reliability and clarity
Interim Letter Report;
- Staff considers two tiers of SSC classification August 2, 2022 generally too limiting
- Both frameworks generally address safety-related SSCs in a manner consistent with current requirements
- 7. The results of the PRA can be used
- At least one additional tier considered necessary to inform SSC classification by aligning for non-safety related SSCs warranting some type the risk assessment and deterministic of special treatment due to DID/risk safety analysis. This should result, in considerations most cases, in just two tiers for classification of SSCs:
- Framework A: Non-safety related with special Safety Related/Safety Significant and treatment Not-Safety Related/Low Safety
- Framework B: Important to safety Significant.
Interim Letter Report; August 2, 2022
- Staff agreed with the recommendation and are
- 8. The simple novel analysis that currently evaluating the most appropriate format provides the technical basis for the for documenting the technical basis for AERI entry criteria to be able to use the entry criteria, including MACCS validation AERI should be documented either in an appendix to the DG-1414 or in another appropriate document (e.g., NUREG).
Major Industry Feedback Feedback NRC Staff Perspectives Added flexibility for licensees to organize and Duplicative/overlapping programs combine programs as appropriate to avoid duplication.
Expanded activities to include fabrication of Manufacturing license expansion entire reactor including fuel loading.
Two tier safety criteria structure Eliminated two-tiered approach to safety criteria Enabled flexibility in using codes and standards; Unify QA requirements (allow broader set of QA requirements consolidated in rule and codes and standards) aligned with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 Decoupled requirements for normal operation Normal operations from those for LBEs Add requirements for safe, stable end state Added requirement and clarified in Statements conditions of Consideration 166
Major Industry Feedback Feedback NRC Staff Perspectives Created two distinct frameworks within Part 53 to Not require or rely on just LMP or International provide clarity and predictability for applicants using Atomic Energy Association approach; Part 53 either approach; developed DG-1413 and AERI can be methodology neutral approach Staff has added Part 20 references to Part 53. Clarified Questioned as low as reasonably achievable to recognize that a combination of design features (ALARA) in regulations and programmatic controls may fulfill ALARA requirements, as appropriate.
NSRSS SSCs reduce sole reliance on safety-related Special treatment for non-safety related but SSCs; Requirements can be scaled to achieve desired safety significant SSCs capability/reliability/overall risk Staff views FSP as an operational benefit. Allows continued use of PRA for evaluating changes, Facility safety program (FSP) managing risks, and improving the relationship between the NRCs licensing and reactor oversight programs.
Staff agrees and has aligned with industry on future More guidance is needed to clarify regulations guidance needs 167
Industry Feedback on Framework B Feedback NRC Staff Perspectives Preamble discussion includes amplifying information to Objectives for chemical hazard requirements are address this feedback. Chemical hazards in question would include substances commingled with licensed material or unclear those produced by a reaction with licensed material, consistent with similar requirements in Part 70 Rule language is not technology-inclusive in some areas (e.g., references to mitigation of Staff revised several sections to ensure that the proposed rule beyond-design-basis events [MBDBE] is technology-inclusive, including MBDBE requirements requirements in § 50.155)
The requirement to have a PRA developed to support a CP PRA development at CP stage is not reasonable application is consistent with the 50/52 rulemaking and other Commission policies AERI entry conditions distinguish between plants with relatively straightforward designs and plants with relatively Proposed entry conditions for AERI are too complicated designs that warrant the development of a PRA in conservative order to understand their risk. The proposed AERI option is a departure from current Commission policy, which requires all new plants to have a PRA 168
Key Guidance Development Under Development Near-Term Part 53 Existing Future
- TICAP/ARCAP (NEI 21-07)
- DG-1413, Identification of
- LMP (RG 1.233)
- Analytical Margin
- Non-LWR PRA Standard Licensing Events
- Siting Criteria (RG 4.7)
- Chemical
- Non-LWR PRA Standard Applicability
- DG-1414, AERI Methodology
- Fuel Qualification Hazards ISG
- DRO-ISG-2023-01, Operator Framework (NUREG-
- Manufacturing
- Technical
- Reliability & Integrity Mgt (ASME XI-2)
- DRO-ISG-2023-02, Staffing Plan
- Developing Principal Specifications
- Molten Salt Reactor Fuel Qualification Review ISG Augmenting NUREG-Design Criteria for Non-
- Framework B
- Emergency Planning
- DRO-ISG-2023-03, Scalable
- Change Evaluation (Southern Nuclear Human Content of Operating Company-led) Factors Engineering Review ISG Applications
- QA Alternatives (NEI-led)
- Part 26, FFD
- Facility Training Programs
- Part 26, Fatigue Management
- Materials Compatibility ISG
- Part 73, AA
- Part 73, Cyber Security
TICAP / ARCAP - Nexus Part 53
- Overall organization
- ALARA Section VII
- Earthquake Engineering Specific
- Construction and Manufacturing Requests for
- Use of references Manufacturing licenses Comments *
- Staffing and GLROs
- OnShift engineering expertise
- Training program accreditation
- Use of simulation facilities
Part 53
- Integrity assessment programs FRN
- Decommissioning Section VII
- PRA information
- Changes to manufacturing licenses Specific
- Specific requirements for Technical Requests for Specifications
- AERI Comments
- Reporting
- Financial qualifications
Discussion 173
Final Discussion and Questions 174
175 Additional Information Additional information on the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking is available at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/rulemaking-and-guidance/part-53.html For information on how to submit comments go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0062 For further information, contact Robert Beall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3874; email:
Robert.Beall@nrc.gov
176 Acronyms AA Access authorization DBA Design-basis accident ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards DBE Design-basis event AERI Alternative evaluation for risk insights DC Design certification ALARA As low as reasonably achievable DG Draft regulatory guidance AOO Anticipated operational occurrence DID Defense-in-depth ARCAP Advanced Reactor Content of Application DRA Division of Risk Assessment Project DRO Division of Reactor Oversight ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BDBE Beyond-design-basis event ESP Early site permit CFR Code of Federal Regulations FFD Fitness for duty COL Combined license FR Federal Register CP Construction permit FRN Federal Register Notice DANU Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities
177 Acronyms FSP Facility safety program LWR Light-water reactor GLRO Generally licensed reactor operator MACCS MELCOR accident consequence code system HFE Human factors engineering MBDBE Mitigation of beyond-design-basis events ILCFR Individual latent cancer fatality risk ML Manufacturing license INL Idaho National Labs NEI Nuclear Energy Institute ISG Interim staff guidance NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISI Inservice inspection NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation IST Inservice testing NSRSS Non-safety related but safety significant KSAs Knowledge, skills, and abilities NUMREL Number of released plume segments LBE Licensing basis events NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical report designation LCF Latent cancer fatality OL Operating license LMP Licensing modernization project PAG Protective action guideline
178 Acronyms PRA Probabilistic risk assessment SNM Special nuclear material QA Quality assurance SOARCA State-of-the-art reactor consequence analyses QHO Quantitative health objectives SRM Staff requirements memorandum REM Roentgen equivalent man SRO Senior reactor operator RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SRP Standard review plan RG Regulatory guide SSCs Structures, systems, and components RO Reactor operator STA Shift technical advisor SAR Safety analysis report Sv Sievert SDA Standard design approval TEDE Total effective dose equivalent SECY Office of the Secretary TICAP Technology Inclusive Content of Application Project SMR Small modular reactor WG Working group
Backup Slides 179
- NEIMA Section 103(4) requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use for commercial advanced nuclear Nuclear Energy reactors no later than December 2027 Innovation and * (9) REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term regulatory Modernization Act framework means the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear (NEIMA) reactors.
- (14) TECHNOLOGY-INCLUSIVE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The term technology-inclusive regulatory framework means January 2019 a regulatory framework developed using methods of evaluation that are flexible and practicable for application to a variety of reactor technologies, including, where appropriate, the use of risk-informed and performance-based techniques and other tools and methods.
180
- SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan on Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors, dated April 13, 2020 (ADAMS ML19340A056).
- In SRM-SECY-20-0032, dated October 2, 2020 (ADAMS ML20276A293), the Commission Part 53 provided direction to the staff.
Rulemaking Plan
- On November 2, 2020, staff submitted a Commission memorandum responding to the SRM direction to provide a schedule with milestones and resources to complete the final rule by October 2024 (ADAMS ML20288A251).
- On November 23, 2021, the Commission approved the NRC staffs schedule extension request 181
- 1. Continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security,
- 2. Promote regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity,
- 3. Reduce requests for exemptions from the current Part 53 requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part Rulemaking 52, Objectives 4. Establish new requirements to address non-light-water reactor technologies,
- 5. Recognize technological advancements in reactor design, and
- 6. Credit the response of advanced nuclear reactors to postulated accidents, including slower transient response times and relatively small and slow release of fission products.
182
Subparts H & R:
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 Part 52 Site selected CP and COL may reference Early Site Permit (ESP) Part 53 Construction Permit (CP) 183