ML24344A067
| ML24344A067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/2024 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 10 CFR Part 53, NRC-2019-0062, RIN 3150-AK31, NRC-0107 | |
| Download: ML24344A067 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting to Discuss Part 53 Risk-Informed Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors Rulemaking Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Work Order No.:
NRC-0107 Pages 1-178 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
MEETING TO DISCUSS PART 53 RISK-INFORMED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ADVANCED REACTORS RULEMAKING
+ + + + +
- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via Videoconference, at 9:00 a.m. EST, Nicole Fields, Facilitator, presiding.
PRESENT:
NICOLE
- FIELDS, NMSS, Meeting Facilitator and Rulemaking Project Manager JEREMY BOWEN, NRC, Deputy Director for the Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production
& Utilization Facilities GREGORY BOWMAN, NRC, Director, Division of Physical and Cyber Security Policy BOB BEALL, NMSS, Senior Rulemaking Project Manager ANDERS GILBERTSON, NRR, Technical Lead BILL RECKLEY, NRR, Technical Lead NANETTE VALLIERE, NRR, Technical Lead MAXWELL SMITH, OGC
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com ALSO PRESENT:
JONATHEN FACEMIRE, Nuclear Energy Institute DR. EDWIN LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists PATRICK WHITE, Nuclear Innovation Alliance DR. ADAM STEIN, The Breakthrough Institute RANI FRANOVICH, Nuclear ROSE Consulting SARAH GIBBONEY, Bechtel Corporation MIKE KELLER, Hybrid Power Technologies CYRIL DRAFFIN, US Nuclear Industry Council FRANCIS AKSTULEWICZ, Terrestrial Energy
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 9:04 a.m.
MS. FIELDS: All right. Good morning, everybody. So hello to everybody. Thank you all for your interest in Part 53. We've got 82 people online.
That's great.
So we're here to discuss Part 53 Proposed Rule, Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors. My name is Nicole Fields. I'm the Project Manager from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. I'm the backup Project Manager for this project, and Bob Beall is the Project Manager. And the two of us will be facilitating this meeting. So our role is to make sure that this meeting is informative and productive. And then there's a couple of things I want to go over.
But first, before I do that, I want to introduce Jeremy Bowen, who's going to give the opening remarks. Jeremy is the Director of the Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
And after his opening remarks, I'll go over some important logistical, procedural, and schedule information, and then we'll get into the technical and
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com regulatory discussion. So yeah.
MR. BOWEN: Thanks, Nicole, and thanks for the introduction.
And thank you all for joining us. Despite the long name and title and the multiple words of the name of the role and everything, we do intend for this to be a clear -- a meeting to provide some clarity on where we are.
But I do want to thank everyone for joining us for this meeting this morning about Part 53. We recognize the importance of this. We recognize the value of stakeholder input. I think everybody's aware the rule was really developed in response to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, another long name, NEIMA. But we also are in a place where it's to support the ADVANCE Act, and I won't read the long name for that one just in the interest of trying to move on and get some clarity here.
But the rule -- it really is trying to achieve a couple things, right? Be technology inclusive.
Use risk information and performance-based techniques. Ensure an equivalent level of safety to the operating fleet, but also provide flexibility for licensing and regulating the new and diverse technologies and designs that are being
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com developed right now.
So the rule is currently at the draft stage. We appreciate all the input, and the stakeholder feedback and comments have helped us get to this important milestone. Recognize that your input has been very valuable in developing where we are today. We look forward to continued engagement.
We're obviously in, you know, the formal rulemaking process now. So we just extended the comment period to the end of February. I'm sure Bob and Nicole will talk a little bit more about that, the formal process.
But our intent this morning and through the next two and a half days is really to kind of step through the rule, kind of talk about the language, make sure everybody understands how Part 53 is unique, changes to the rule that might have been seen over the course of the development and where the draft rule was at this stage, and really hopefully provide some clarity where there is any needed.
And then we also look to help inform stakeholder comments and anything that you might send in so that you can understand what the staff is thinking and provide comments to -- if you think that there might be alternative language that can be used -- specificity
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be, obviously, very helpful in that so that we can convey the appropriate revisions to the rule --
and obviously answer any questions you have.
So we do hope that you find the meeting useful today and informative. Thank you again for your engagement and participation, and we look forward to the dialogue.
Greg --
MR. BOWMAN: The only thing I wanted --
Jeremy covered everything I had on my list. I just wanted to introduce myself for those of you who do not know me. I'm Greg Bowman. I'm the Deputy Office Director for New Reactors.
Just one thing I'll reiterate -- we appreciate both your participation today and in developing comments on the rule, but also, a ton of work has gone into getting us here both by the NRC staff and by external stakeholders. So I just wanted to express my appreciation for that as well.
So, not to belabor things, Nicole, back over to you.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Thanks, Jeremy.
Thanks, Greg. Appreciate it.
We're on the right slide? Great. So I just have a few quick logistical things, so please bear
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with me with that. So, for the external participants in the room, I want to remind you that if you need to leave the room for any reason, please let an NRC staff member know since you're all being escorted. After everyone's lobbied, whatever, just let somebody know.
We'll make sure to escort you.
For those in the room, as you can all see, the green mics mean they're live. So, if they're green, they're live; people online can hear you. So just be aware of that. Please also set your cell phones, anything that makes noise or whatever -- set it to vibrate or silent. That includes your laptops.
Please silence your speakers. We don't want any feedback issues, things like that.
And for everyone, if you speak, please speak clearly. Please identify yourself and your affiliation so that those online can hear you and know who you are. They can see some of us, but they can't see everyone. And also, if you're speaking, we request that you use your camera so people can see you. And also, if you're online, please keep yourself muted.
We don't want any distractions unless, of course, you're speaking. And we will mute you if that becomes relevant.
If you joined the meeting using the
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Microsoft Team dial-in number -- I noticed a couple people did that -- you can press *6 to mute yourself, and you can press *6 to unmute yourself. And again, we will mute you if that's necessary. But if you want to ask a question, you can press *6 to mute and unmute.
And we're also going to ask people to turn off their cameras unless they're speaking, just due to bandwidth.
Okay. So we are using PowerPoint Live.
This a bonus. You'll be able to flip through the slides on your own if you're online, so you're not stuck with us. So that's one way to access the slides. If you have not used Teams to attend this meeting or you'd like a copy of the slides, they're available at ADAMS.
That's ML24319A002, and they're also on regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2019-0062. And hopefully somebody will put a link in the chat soon PARTICIPANT: Yes.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MS. FIELDS: Great. But it wasn't me.
So all right. And just so everybody's aware of this, at the end of the slides, there's a couple of slides, like acronyms and things. So, if you want to know what we're saying, please reference the acronym slides.
Okay. I want to talk about the raise-hand
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com functionality. So, to facilitate an orderly discussion, we request that if you're online, you raise your hand. There's a little raise-hand button. It's like a little hand. It's on top of your Teams display, probably, depending on what device you happen to be on.
But if you joined the meeting using the dial-in number, you can use the raise-hand function by pressing *5. As I mentioned before, you may also have to press *6 to unmute. We'll call on folks in order, take the questions in the order in which hands were raised. For folks in the room, if you could raise your hand, then we'll put you in a queue.
Please keep your questions focused so that we have time to discuss as many questions as possible.
We're trying to give everybody an opportunity to ask questions. That's what we're here for. But we also have a lot of topics to cover. If you've seen the agenda, you already know that. So we really want to keep the time allotted in the agenda.
Okay. And then, for folks online, you can use the chat window if you have technical difficulties.
So, if you're unable to raise your hand, if you have a question, if you have issues with audio, video, the slides -- anything like that -- feel free to use the
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com chat for those types of things. Please don't use the chat to ask any technical questions. We like those all to be verbal, and we want to capture them for this meeting as part of the meeting transcription. Chat window is not part of the record, and so, really, just logistical issues with the chat.
Meeting transcription -- so this meeting is being transcribed. So, to get a good transcription, to minimize distractions, please mute yourselves when you're not speaking, and identify yourself and any affiliation you may have.
A meeting summary and transcript of this meeting should be publicly available within approximately 30 days. And then, in support of an accurate meeting summary, for those in the room, hopefully you've noticed there's a sign-in sheet in the back, so please sign in at your convenience. We also plan to report attendance from the digital participants using Teams' functionality. So, folks online, please be aware of that.
So that's all I have in the way of logistics, unless there are any questions. I don't see any questions. Great.
So slide 3, please.
So, over the course of this
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com two-and-a-half-day public meeting, the NRC staff will be providing a high-level overview of the Part 53 proposed rule, its subparts, and a specific request for comments, questions in the published Federal Register notice.
The staff will discuss the structure and content of the proposed rule as laid out in the agenda.
The staff will focus their presentations on proposed content that is significantly different from existing regulations. Each topic will also include a discussion of any related specific request for comment by the Agency.
After the staff's presentation on each topic, people then will have the opportunity to ask questions on that agenda topic. For any topics in the proposal that are not specifically laid out in the agenda, we will take questions in the wrap-up session of this meeting on Thursday morning. So, if you have questions that are not specifically in any of the agenda topics, please hold your questions on those topics until the last issue.
We will try to stick to the agenda as published, but also, we want to make sure that topics with more interest are allotted more time. So we may end sessions early and move on to the next topic if
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com there are no more questions on a given topic.
Also wanted to say, please check back often to see where we're at. We will use the meeting chat to let everyone know when we're starting things when we're on break, things like that. For today, the staff is going to be discussing Part 53, Subparts A through D, and we're going to have three breaks and about an hour of lunch.
Next slide, please.
So Wednesday we'll continue discussion of Part 53 subparts. We start off with Subpart E, and we wrap up with Subpart M. We also plan on providing an overview of Part 26, Fitness for Duty, as related to the Part 53. As with Tuesday, we'll have a very similar schedule, three breaks and lunch.
Slide 5, please.
So we're going to finish up this meeting on Thursday with a half-day discussion, so that's 9:00 to noon. We'll start off with changes to 10 CFR Part 73 security-related topics -- that includes the security
- program, cybersecurity, and access authorization -- and then, as I mentioned before, the last session and the wrap-up session for final questions or any additional questions that we didn't get to or on topics that aren't in the agenda.
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Next slide, please.
We hope everyone has had a chance to see the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register on October 31st, 2024. The citation is 89 Federal Register 86918. And if you click on the link on the slide, it should take you right there. The proposed rule is also available on ADAMS under the session number on the slide. It's ML24095A161. And again, the link on the slide should take you right there.
The slide also includes a link for accessing all the documents associated with the proposed rule at regulations.gov. And of course, all those documents are listed in the Federal Register notice itself in Section XIX.
I really want to emphasize this. This meeting is not a substitute for reading the Federal Register. We're here to answer questions. We're here to help people understand it. We are not going to read the Federal Register notice here today. And there's really a lot to those documents, and we really would like people to read them.
MS. VALLIERE: So can I stop you for a minute? We have a note on the chat that they can't see the slides. Are other people having that issue, or is this just the one person?
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com PARTICIPANT: It doesn't look like it's being shared.
MS. FIELDS: It is being shared.
MS. VALLIERE: It is.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MS. VALLIERE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FIELDS: So, if you have any technical issues, my first rule of defense is always log out; log back in.
MR. FACEMIRE: And I did have a quick question. Some of the documents I was expecting to see with the proposed rule, like Draft Guide 1410, were not a part of the rule package. Are we going to get notified as those documents get uploaded, or how do we see them as they get developed?
MS. VALLIERE: 1410? I don't recall that as being a draft guide associated with the --
MR. FACEMIRE: ASC 4319 endorsement.
It's the earthquake engineering one.
MS. VALLIERE: Yeah. That was not a draft guidance document that was particularly associated with 53. If you look in the Federal Register notice, there's a list of nine documents.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah.
MS. VALLIERE: So that was not one.
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. This is Bill Reckley. But we are continuing to work on that, and some of them will come out independent of but not with this, but with a separate notice. And so the seismic design area is one we're continuing to work, and that'll be issued -- I'm sorry; I don't have the schedule with me. But it'll be issued in the next -- something months.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. I ask on that one because it would help us answer one of the request agenda topic.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. So yeah. So, as I was saying, the full rule is available. The associated documents are available. There obviously are a lot of topics in this rulemaking, and we don't really have time to cover them all in the next two days. So we hope that the pre-publication release in the Federal Register notice and the availability of the Federal Register notice for public inspection a week before publication was helpful in giving more time to look at the associated documents.
Slide 7, please.
Okay. So, as the meeting notice said, this meeting is an information meeting with questions and answers. The purpose of this meeting is to give
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com stakeholders an opportunity to ask questions about the proposed rule in order to support the submission of informed and specific comments on the proposed rule and associated documents.
We encourage all stakeholders to submit their comments on the Part 53 proposed rule and associated documents through regulations.gov. And if you click on the link in the slide, it'll take you right there, and there will be a big blue button. And you can click on that and submit your comments that way.
The comment period was scheduled to close December 30th, 2024, but we got multiple extension requests, and we extended the comment period for the proposed rule through February 28th, 2025, as Jeremy mentioned earlier. The Federal Register notice will come out soon.
I just want to be very clear with everybody, and so I'm going to say this in advance.
During this meeting, we are not accepting comments on the rulemaking.
There will be no formal responses/discussions during this meeting, but we may post additional information on regulations.gov as required. And we'll be making no regulatory decisions during this meeting today or tomorrow or Thursday.
So, with that, I'd like to now introduce
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the NRC staff who will be leading the discussions for each topic during this meeting and are available to answer questions. We also have other NRC staff in the room and online who may also be available to answer questions.
As I said before, I'm the meeting facilitator. Bob Beall is the Senior Rulemaking Project Manager for this rule. We have Anders Gilbertson, Nan Valliere, Bill Reckley from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities. They are the technical leads for this rulemaking, and they'll be leading the majority of the sessions.
We'll also have presentations by Jesse Seymour, Brian Zaleski, Chuck Teal, Brad Baxter, and Tammie Rivera. See all their comments on the slide.
Next slide, please.
So now I just want to give a brief introduction on the rulemaking process and milestones, and then I'll turn the meeting over to Anders to start today's technical discussion on the Part 53 framework.
This slide shows the diagram of a typical rulemaking process. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed rule was published on October 31st in the
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Federal Register. We're currently at the star location. That's the -- we are here.
Once the comment period closes, the staff will formally address the public comment submittals and draft the final Part 53 rule for Commission review and approval.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows some of the key rulemaking documents for Part 53 with links, so hopefully that's helpful to folks. That's the rulemaking plan SECY and the corresponding staff required memorandum, or SRM, and then also the draft proposed rule SECY and the corresponding SRM. Both of the SRMs were included in the diagram that we just saw.
Next slide, please.
This slide briefly shows some key upcoming milestones for the Part 53 final rule: final rule to the Commission, final rule publication, and final rule effectiveness.
And with that, you may do the honors.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. Thank you, Nicole.
All right. Good morning, everyone. My name is Anders Gilbertson. As Nicole mentioned, I'm one of the technical leads for the Part 53 rulemaking
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com activities. As you may have already seen, my name is listed as the point of contact on the Federal Register notice for this proposed rule.
For everybody online, I've got the slides on the screen over to my right here, so if you see me looking off, that's all I'm doing there.
Okay. So, to get started with the technical content, we're going to start with talking about modernization of the regulatory framework and activities that have been done. I'm going to focus only on the Part 53 rulemaking, but of course, there are many activities that have been undertaken that we've tried to represent here and -- as a matter of addressing evolving stakeholder needs and preparing for licensing and oversight of advanced reactors.
But these efforts are helping to transform the NRC's regulatory framework into a modern risk-informed approach and in a manner that's consistent with the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation. So, as Jeremy mentioned in the opening remarks, the Part 53 rulemaking activities were directed by Congress and NEIMA. And the foundations of the proposed rule are built on Commission rules,
- policies, and decisions on risk-informed and performance-based regulations as well as lessons
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 learned from experience with the Part 50 and 52 regulatory frameworks.
But the Part 53 proposed framework directly incorporates the use of risk analyses to inform identification of licensing basis events, safety classification, plant equipment, and it leverages performance-based approaches to enhance other aspects such as staffing flexibility and ensuring defense in depth, to name a few.
So, in that regard, the purpose of the proposed regulatory framework would offer designers and operators enhanced flexibility by allowing different proposed approaches to satisfy high-level safety criteria versus meeting a more prescriptive set of requirements under the Parts 50 and 52 regulatory frameworks.
So the Part 53 rule, again, would be risk-informed and performance-based
- and, more importantly, technology inclusive framework that has benefited from a significant evolution and progress in the state of the art of probabilistic risk assessment
-- or PRA, as it's more commonly referred to -- over the last several decades.
Next slide, please.
Okay. So this slide just shows some of
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the more prominent differences between the key aspects of these frameworks. The safety paradigm under the Parts 50 and 52 regulatory frameworks were developed for and developed around the licensing and oversight of large light-water reactors' technologies, which has resulted in many prescriptive requirements that have been augmented over time to address related operating experience for those technologies.
While the NRC can license other reactor technologies under the current frameworks by using existing regulatory flexibilities in the exemption process, the NRC has long recognized that using Parts 50 and 52 frameworks for other types of reactor technologies would pose some challenges.
So, to address these challenges, the NRC drew on well-developed licensing approaches to develop a technology-inclusive and robust regulatory framework that would use PRAs to assess the risk and help establish technical requirements and manage operations.
So, in that regard, the Part 53 proposed regulatory framework builds on the Licensing Modernization Project methodology, or I'll refer to that as the LMP methodology, which is a
technology-inclusive approach to licensing that
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com leverages insights from the detailed PRA and provides designers and applicants with significant design and operational flexibilities and opportunities.
The Part 53 proposed framework would employ frequency and consequence-based requirements as informed by the use of PRA together with other approaches for analyzing engineered systems to systematically and holistically evaluate the safety of a design.
So, whereas Parts 50 and 52 frameworks address defense in depth through conservative assumptions and prescriptive requirements, the Part 53 proposed rule would explicitly require that defense in depth be addressed, but it would not prescribe the manner in which that would be achieved.
The Part 53 proposed rule would also require the use of comprehensive risk metrics that would support a
performance-based approach to developing an appropriate combination of design features and programmatic features.
And the performance-based approach proposed in the Part 53 rule would include regulatory requirements that would allow applicants to use flexible and graded approaches to the performance of safety functions based on the role of particular SSCs,
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com actions, or programs and limiting the overall risk to the public below accepted standards and through balanced measures to prevent and mitigate possible events.
So the Part 53 rule would provide at least the same level of safety as existing regulations do while also fostering this flexible, efficient, and a predictable pathway for licensing advanced reactor technologies.
Next slide, please.
Okay. So this figure provides a high-level summarized representation of the structure and contents of the Part 53 proposed rule as it would relate to the overall project life cycle for a given facility. And it's intended to serve as a visual aid to generally explain how the proposed regulatory structure would work. So it's not a literal translation of the specific headings of the different pieces of the rule. It's just a representation, just to point that out.
So the Part 53 proposed rule would allow the NRC to make findings required to grant an application for a utilization facility under Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended, and that the utilization of special nuclear material would be in
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com accord with the common defense and security and would provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.
So this construct would be similar to existing NRC regulations, which the Commission has said on many occasions do not specifically define adequate protection. And that's because, consistent with historical practice, NRC would not be defining adequate protection through individual safety requirements under the Part 53 rule -- proposed rule.
Rather, the Part 53 proposed rule would enable the NRC to make its required findings under the Atomic Energy Act as amended by providing sufficient performance standards, safety criteria, and related requirements on how applicants would be required to demonstrate compliance with Subparts B, safety criteria, and other subparts of the rule.
So, just to walk through this diagram in a little more detail and sort of help explain the concept of operation, if you will, how the proposed rule would work -- starting in the upper left, Subpart B would provide high-level technology-inclusive safety criteria that would serve as the foundational performance standards for the subsequent performance-based requirements used throughout Part
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
- 53.
The subsequent parts of the proposed rule would define how specific activities during various stages of the life cycle of a commercial nuclear plant contribute to satisfying these high-level performance standards. And the performance standards in Subpart B would also establish a means to determine appropriate regulatory controls for SSCs, which are structures, systems, and components -- I don't think I had mentioned that before, abbreviated as SSCs -- human actions, and programs in the following subparts.
So, for -- this is a brief example. The categorization of safety related SSCs would be built on the proposed safety criteria in Section 53.210, or design basis accidents. And of course, all of these sections, we're going to go into more detail, so just going to have a brief overview at this point.
The more detailed requirements for those SSCs needed to meet the safety criteria in Section 53.210 would be further defined in the design and analysis requirements of Subpart C. And likewise, Subpart D would provide requirements related to consideration of siting issues as it relates to meeting the safety criteria in Subpart B.
So you're probably, hopefully, seeing a
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com theme here. Things are all pointing back to Subpart B, again, as a matter of those being the foundations of the proposed rule.
Subpart E would address requirements for construction and manufacturing of a facility to ensure, again, that the requirements under Subparts B and C are met. Subpart F would provide requirements that need to be met during operations, again, as a matter of meeting the safety criteria under Subpart B. And then Subpart G would provide requirements for plant decommissioning activities.
Subparts H
and I
would provide requirements for information related to licenses, certifications, and approvals and the maintenance of licensing basis information over the life of the plant.
And Subpart A would provide the general provision of the proposed rule, and in particular the -- includes the terms and definitions thereof as they would apply.
And finally, Subpart J would provide administrative and reporting requirements, again, for the entire life cycle. And Subpart M would provide enforcement requirements.
So one of the things that you'll see as we talk about the proposed rule today is that many of the subparts later in the proposed rule are reflective
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com or are almost identical to requirements that are provided under Parts 50 and 52, which was of course done intentionally for simplicity and clarity.
And generally speaking -- Nicole had pointed this out a little earlier. We wanted to point out that the proposed Part 53 rule incorporates various concepts from the existing regulatory frameworks as well as the LMP methodology in a technology-inclusive, cohesive, and efficient manner. As such, these concepts that would be incorporated into the proposed Part 53 rule were integrated across and serve as the foundations for why different aspects of this proposed regulatory framework were developed the way they were.
And so we'll point many of these things out as we go through this presentation in the next two and a half days, but just wanted to note that there's a lot of interconnectedness between the different parts of the rule. And so, when contemplating the development of comments, the staff want to just emphasize this interconnectedness, particularly as it relates to developing comments on specific portions of the rule, understanding that it may touch different narratives. So just one point to emphasize there.
Okay. Next slide, please.
Okay. So this table is just a listing of
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the titles of the subparts as they'd be organized in the proposed rule. I'm not going to go over this in any detail since I just went over a lot of that in the previous slide. But I did want to take a quick moment here to explain the purpose of the pink box that's on the right corner of this slide.
This is a feature that you're going to see throughout the presentation on various slides. What this does is it is pointing to the fact that for these specific topics bulleted in the pink box, there are specific requests for comments in the related section of the Federal Register, which isSection VI, so Section 6 of the Federal Register notice.
So we provide these just to point out that these exist, that the staff have a particular interest in getting feedback on these topics. But again, we're not going to spend too much time going through any of these in any detail -- maybe just explain a little bit of what those specific requests are.
Okay. We can go to the next slide.
All right. So I'll start with Subpart A.
So this would provide, again, the general provisions under the Part 53 proposed rule that would be applicable to all applicants, licenses, licensees for the issuance and then termination of
- licenses, permanent
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com certifications approvals for commercial nuclear plants that would be licensed under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act as amended and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
So, like I
mentioned
- earlier, the requirements under Subpart A, as is the case with many other requirements, would largely be equivalent to the related general provisions under Part 50. So, for example, Sections 53.40 through 53.120 are equivalent to related requirements in Part 50.
There are some general differences between the proposed Part 53 and Part 50, which would include framework-specific references to internal references to other portions of the proposed Part 53 rules versus references out to the Part 50 regulations.
And other notable differences between these requirements that would be under Subpart A of the Part 53 and the Parts 50 and 52 are the definitions that would be used to impose the rule.
And we can go to the next slide.
So, for Subpart A, this is probably the most notable difference between the other frameworks.
So, as a matter of fostering clarity and consistency related to the use of defined terms, most of the definitions under Section 53.020 would be equivalent
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to definitions of the corresponding term under 10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 52.1, as well as other NRC regulations.
In some cases, the terms themselves are identical as well as the definitions. In some cases, like I said, it's a related term, so the term itself is not identical, but the definition is. It's either identical or very similar.
Other terms that may be familiar to people that understand or read NEI 18-04, Provision 1 of the LMP methodology are provided here as they're endorsed under Guide 1.233, Provision 0, which is the document that endorses NEI 18-04, and then also terms and definitions that are derived from the ASME AMS consensus PRA standard for non-LWRs, as that document is endorsed in Reg Guide 1.247.
Okay. So I think that that pretty much wraps up what I was -- my points for Subpart A. And I think we can -- Nicole, I can turn it back to you for addressing any questions. I think we have a break scheduled, but --
MS. FIELDS: Yeah. So let's take questions on anything that Anders just presented. One hand up, Jon.
So go ahead, Jon.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah. So thank you for
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that introduction, and I want to start with a comment appreciating one of the revised definitions.
The definition of construction in 53.20 is of key interest to a lot of our members, right?
A recent applicant had to request an exemption under Part 50 that, by my read of the rule, they would not have had to request under Part 53. So that additional flexibility in the definition of construction is much appreciated.
The one definition that I did want to get into -- and this is -- well, give me one moment to come back to that comment because I want to pull up my notes.
Sorry.
Yeah. But before I get into that specific question, how much has the staff tried to incorporate the ADVANCE Act, given that that passed very recently?
The ADVANCE Act does talk about the potential -- well, it addresses some specific issues in Part 53 and suggests that Part 53 is one means of meeting the requirements of the ADVANCE Act. I'm specifically talking about Section 208, micro-reactors. So has that work begun, or where are you at in the process?
MR. RECKLEY: So this is Bill Reckley.
And as you mentioned, that came in kind of late in the process for us in terms of Part 53. So we are looking
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com at it now, and there are cases where we think some of the suggestions from the ADVANCE Act we can address as 53 is proposed. And there's other areas where we're looking to see if an additional change to 53 or maybe a future rulemaking might be necessary to accommodate some of the very specific items.
So it is a range -- and we have a question and a comment on the ADVANCE Act later -- that if you read it and have a specific suggestion for how we might do it in Part 53, that would be a welcome comment.
Again, we're soliciting that in Section 6.
So it's kind of a mixed bag, if you will, and it might depend on the very specific item that you're talking about. And we'll get into some of that when we talk about Subpart E on manufacturing because that's -- when you talk about micro-reactors in general, you're talking more of this factory model or at least potentially using the factory model. And that is addressed somewhat in Subpart E on manufacturing.
MR. FACEMIRE: I appreciate that, and that'll inform our comment. For the definition section, the one I'm talking about is population center distance, which does codify the 25,000 residents as
-- -045 does talk about a more performance-based requirement there. So it's an issue that's been worked
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on for at least four years. The ADVANCE Act calls out implementing it potentially under Part 53, and that is one that we think can be addressed in the near term.
But thank you.
MR. RECKLEY: And we can get to that when we talk about Subpart D, as well, on siting.
MR. FACEMIRE: Thanks.
MS. FIELDS: I don't see any other hands up online or any hands in the room. No. Okay. Let's see. So we are scheduled to have a break at 10:15.
I guess the question is, do we want to have a break now, or do we want to roll into Subpart B?
MR. GILBERTSON: Maybe it would be good to take a break. Subpart B is going to be a little more --
MS. FIELDS: Meaty?
MR. GILBERTSON: -- a little dense material, so yeah. It's a little early, but I think MS. FIELDS: All right. So we're going to take maybe -- we had it scheduled for 15 minutes.
How about we all meet back here at 10:05, giving you all two extra minutes?
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:48 a.m. and resumed at 10:05
34 NEAL 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.m.)
MS. FIELDS: All right. Can we get an okay that the folks online can hear us. I can hear
-- I hear an echo. Somebody needs to mute their computer. Okay. Well, we'll go through the list if we have to. Somebody in the room. No? Okay.
PARTICIPANT: I think it's off.
MS. FIELDS: Great. All right. So with that, I just want to remind by in case you haven't gotten to sign in, please sign in. There's a sign in sheet in the back of the room. Everybody's done that?
Great. Okay. So we're going to get started now with Subpart B, Sections 53.210 through 53.220.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. Thanks, Nicole.
All right. So, Subpart B. So proposed Part 53, as indicated there by the titles of these sections, is to provide technology-inclusive safety criteria that, as I mentioned previously, would serve as the performance standards for the subsequent performance-based requirements that are used throughout the proposed Part 53 Rule.
So the first portion of this presentation is just going to focus on 53.210 and 220 as there's a fair amount to cover there. The regulations themselves are not that long but again, some of the
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com underlying concepts and principles that are incorporated into those regulations are -- there's a decent amount to explain there.
After I finish going through that, I suppose we'll see where we're at as far as timing and after questions and such and as far as the lunch break is concerned. So I am also going to briefly relate some of these foundational concepts that did inform the proposed requirements on the safety criteria. So Nicole, Bob, if you can go to the next slide?
Okay. So to that point, so this figure provides a visual representation of how different portions of the Part 53 Proposed Rule would relate to the principles of integrated risk-informed decision-making described in Regulatory Guide 1.174; these principles which would be foundational to NRC determinations, reasonable assurance of adequate protection under the Part 53 Proposed Rule.
Now the principles under Reg Guide 1.174, that's just a little bit small, but they're presented in the context of a risk-informed licensing basis change for an operating reactor. This is obviously guidance for operating light water reactors, but these principles can be readily generalized behind that context to help draw comparisons to different portions
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com of the Part 53 proposed rule and their foundations.
Particular evaluation of plant risks would be one of several of the performance standards used under Subpart B. The proposed rule would also use multiple performance standards related to deterministic criteria and defense in depth measures.
So in that way, the NRC's approval of using a comprehensive risk metric or set of risk metrics with associated risk performance objectives would, again, not be by itself an indicator of adequate protection.
It's taken together with other aspects.
So the evaluation of plant risks be one part a suite of regulatory requirements that would, when considered holistically, form NRC's basis for decision making. And this approach is analogous to that use for plants licensed under Parts 50 and 52 in that, again, no single requirement governs whether a facility is determined to be safe enough. Okay. Next slide, please?
All right. So getting to the substance of the safety criteria. The proposed Part 53 rule would maintain an important role for our deterministic analyses of design basis accidents, or DBAs as I'll refer to them, in the performance criteria of Section 53.210 and the related analytical requirements under
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Section 53.450(f). So, as regarding Section 53.210, those would provide DBA safety criteria analogous to requirements for DBAs under Section 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(b) which relates to the 25-rem reference value for potential radiological consequences and other similar requirements under Parts 52 and 100.
Subsequent sections in the proposed Part 53 rule would require that the SSCs relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the criteria in Section 53.210 will be classified as safety related. And often you'll see that abbreviated as SR, you have your index.
So the use of safety-related SSCs and the 25-rem reference values for potential radiological consequences would align with traditional deterministic approaches for light water reactors from Sections 50.34, 52.79, and 100.11 where evaluating the effectiveness of plant design features relative to postulated reactor accidents.
So in that regard, similar to Parts 50, 52 and 100, a footnote would be included in Section 53.210 to explain that the use of the 25-rem number would not be intended to imply that the value cost is an acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public under accident conditions. Rather the dose value would be proposed in this section as a reference value
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com used in evaluating plant design features with respect to DBAs to verify that the proposed designs would provide assurance of low risk of public exposure to radiation in the event of an accident. So the footnote in Section 53.210 would be similar to that included in the related regulations under 50.34(a) and requirements under 52.79(a) and Section 100.11(a).
And the inclusion of the safety criteria for DBAs in Subpart B would provide a logical structure for supporting the identification and treatment of safety-related SSEs and establishing the responding functional design criteria for those SSCs.
Now as it relates to the analysis requirements, since these are very closely-related, I'm going to give essentially sort of an overview of Section 53.450 here, and I will just reiterate that a little bit later on when I talk about Subpart C.
So the DBAs analyzed under the proposed Part 53 Rule would be similar to the traditional DBAs analyzed under Parts 50 and 52, but there are some important distinctions to note between the overall role of DBA analyses in Part 50 and the proposed Part 53 Rule.
So for the proposed Part 53 Rule, the DBA analysis would be more narrowly focused on selecting safety-related SSCs and determining functional design
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com criteria for those SSCs to ensure that commercial nuclear plant conservatively meets the safety criteria in Section 53.210. Now the overall control of risks posed by commercial nuclear plants under the proposed Part 53 Rule would be provided by the analyses of and measures taken for both DBAs and other licensing basis events, or LBEs, which include the very unlikely event sequences. And I'll talk about that designation a little bit later on when we talk about SSC categorization.
So the analysis of DBAs under Section 53.450(f) would be required to address event sequences derived from those sequences with estimated frequencies below the expected lifetime of a generation of reactors. So for example, event sequences with frequencies as low as 1 in 10,000 years. And then as proposed in the Section 53.450(f), DBAs would need to be analyzed using deterministic methods and ensure a safe, stable end state only rely on safety-related SSCs and, if needed, human actions performed by operators that would be licensed under the provisions of Sections 53.760 through 53.795. Of course, we'll hear more about those regulations tomorrow.
In contrast, the analyses of design basis events such as DBAs under Part 50 were used to provide
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com bounding assessments and incorporate standard design rules such as assumptions related to single failures and to define conservative performance requirements for safety-related SSCs. The limitations related to the traditional deterministic approach were addressed in Part 50 through case-by-case assessments and specific actions for beyond design basis events such as anticipated transients without scram and station blackout. As such, the goal of the DBA analysis in the proposed Part 53 Rule has been designed to avoid such limitations associated with the Part 50 regulatory framework. Okay. Next slide, please?
Okay. So now moving on to the safety criteria for licensing basis events other than design basis accidents. Section 53.220 would provide those safety criteria and the identification and analysis of which would be required by Sections 53.240 and 53.450(e) respectively. As discussed on the previous slide, Section 53.210 and associated requirements for safety-related SSCs would provide that a defined success path exist for DBAs. In addition, safety criteria under 53.220 for LBEs other than DBAs would consider a broader set of potential scenarios related to both internal and external hazards. So the requirements under Section 53.220(a) would establish
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com connections between the capability and the reliability of SSC design, human actions, programmatic controls for a wide range of plant conditions that otherwise wouldn't necessarily be represented specifically under the DBA analyses.
So these requirements under Section 53.220 would also explicitly address consideration of defense in depth such as balance consideration, preventing against and mitigation of radiological consequences and releases. The safety criterion in Section 53.220(b) would include a requirement to use a comprehensive risk metric or set of metrics and associated risk performance objectives against which calculated values of the risk metric or risk metrics are compared.
So in that regard, the application would be required to include a description of the methodology for the use of the proposed comprehensive risk metric and that would include, among other things, an explanation of the initial conditions, the boundary conditions, and key assumptions that would be used to develop and calculate the risk metrics. Screening tools and bounding or simplified methods could be used for any mode of a hazard provided an applicant supplies an acceptable technical basis for those tools. And
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com as with all risk-informed methodologies, the treatment of uncertainties must be addressed.
So the comprehensive risk metrics or set of risk metrics and the associated risk performance objectives would support a performance-based approach to developing an appropriate combination of design features and programmatic controls to prevent or mitigate LBEs other than DBAs. And I will -- there are a couple more slides. I'll go into a little more detail on the comprehensive risk metrics.
So the requirements throughout the Part 53 Proposed Rule that would support demonstrating compliance with Section 53.220 would be similar to current regulations that contribute to ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety and are desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or minimize danger to life or property as required under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. Next slide, please?
Okay. So again, similar to I did for the discussion of the safety criteria for DBA, the analysis requirements for LBEs other than DBAs is also closely tied to this, so I'm going to touch on this here under Subpart B and just have a brief reference to it later on under Subpart C.
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So the methodology for developing and using a proposed comprehensive risk metrics and associated risk performance objectives would be defined by the proposed requirements for analyses in Section 53.450. Specifically, Section 53.450(e) would provide requirements for the analysis of LBEs, evaluation criteria for LBEs, the starting and end point for analysis of LBEs, and a process for identifying risk-significant event sequences. So the requirements under this paragraph would provide --
would require the analysis of LBEs other than DBAs would not only be used to demonstrate that the performance criteria in Section 53.220 are satisfied, but would also show that the evaluation criteria defined for each LBE or category of LBEs would also be satisfied. Such evaluation criteria for specific LBEs or categories of LBEs would be defined in terms of limits on release of radionuclides or maintaining the integrity of one or more barriers used to limit the release of radionuclides and reflect a graded approach of allowing lesser potential consequences for more frequent events.
For those familiar with the LMP methodology, this may sound very familiar and, of course, an example of the evaluation criteria for a
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com range of LBEs that could likely be expanded for Part 53 is provided in reg guide 4.233 which endorses the LMP methodology in NEI 18-04.
And another proposed requirement for the
-- under Section 53.450(e) analyses is that the methodology would need to include a means to identify event sequences being risk significant such as those event sequences -- such that those event sequences can be given special attention within other sections of Part 53. So again, relating that to the LMP methodology can think of the proximity to the frequency of consequence curve that's described in NEI 18-04.
Thats one example of how that might be achieved. Next slide, please?
MR. FACEMIRE: Can I ask a question on this slide?
MR. GILBERTSON: Sure.
MR. FACEMIRE: All right. So I appreciate the language that is worked into 53.450(e) around generally accepted approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems that identify and analyze equipment failures and human errors that I think is the appropriate flexibility of similar language exist in the preamble. But the thing I'm trying to understand is under 53.450(a), that
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com language isn't there. It says a PRA of each commercial nuclear power plant must be performed to identify potential failure susceptibility to internal and external hazards and other contributing factors. So is the preamble right and 53.450(e) right and you can use bounding and conservative assessment, or is 450(a) right as you have to do a PRA for all hazards?
MR. GILBERTSON: Well, I think the 450(a),
it's -- it requires the use of the PRA. So that stands on its own. There's the -- I think it's the lead into 450(a) that talks about the use -- using the PRA together with the other approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems if I am remembering that correctly. Okay. No. I'm sorry. That's the --
yes, so 450(e) -- 450(a) is requiring -- would require that a PRA needs to be performed, and it would need to cover the range of hazards that would be expected that a facility would be exposed to.
The processes for developing a PRA, do you provide different ways of screening out certain types of hazards in the same way that the LMP methodology affords the ability to use other risk-informed supplementary evaluations to complement the PRA?
That's largely spoken to in terms of 450(e) and how those things can be used together. No. I think it's
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
-- you know, one of the ideas with LMP is that, again, the PRA is in a leading role in that analyses, so it's obviously very important when the PRA is reduced in its scope or, you know, things are not included so youre not privy to that information as a matter of making design decisions that can affect what the safety case -- the explanation of the safety case might look like which could be more or less complicated depending on what the design looks like, maybe more simplified more simple designs.
It could be more straightforward. But the idea is that it provides that same construct where it's a combination of those two things. If you have a full scope PRA that addressed everything, I think that's -- you could argue that that's probably one of the more efficient or maybe transparent ways to interrogate a design, because you can make decisions and you can see how that affects the risk understanding a full scope PRA can also be resource-intensive and cumbersome, so maybe not striving for sort of academic perfection but again, that's what the processes for developing the PRA and allowing things to be screened out, dispositions and other ways, that's what those are for, to find that appropriate middle ground.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. Well, I think we're
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com aligned but I want to ask a specific question then to ensure, right? I read both the preamble and (e) as saying that if I want to design my plant for high winds using the traditional reg guides and the traditional design criteria for high winds which already goes down to the 20 to minus 7 high wind event, right, I should not have to do a high wind PRA because I'm not going to get a lot of insight from that because I had already very robustly designed my reactor for high winds. But when I read 53.450(a), I think I have to do a high wind PRA for everything and I'm not allowed to use the screening methods within the PRA standards and scope it out. That's my concern and I think 450(e) does this really, really well. I think the preamble describes it really well. But when I read 450(a), I think I have to do an all hazard PRA for everything no matter what, which I don't think is appropriate.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. Right.
MR. RECKLEY: And that would be, if there's a concern about the language and Anders just explained it, when you looked at 4 -- this is Bill Reckley by the way -- when you look at 450(a), we were just trying to establish that you need to have a PRA, and then 450(b) says how to use it. And those terms are always in combination with other systematic
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com approaches. And that's the way we intended that to work, and so in your specific example, if you have a particular hazard that you did not want to do --
incorporate into the PRA and address it another way, you could do that.
Now one of the things as we develop the guidance is then when you do the comprehensive risk metrics, will you have a star saying we addressed wind this way? Probably --
SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. RECKLEY: -- right, because you didn't include it necessarily in the other part of a metric that might be related to actual radiation dose. You're doing it in a more traditional way by protecting a barrier, so the comprehensive risk metric at that point and the associated performance objective would probably need to identify that you did some hazards a different way.
But, as youre saying, by addressing those winds down to a low exceedance frequency, I basically assured that it's not going to significantly increase the risk of the plant even though it's not modeled specifically in the PRA. So -- but as you look at that, I mean this is this exercise and that's what we're here for is one could read this differently, then that would
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com be a reason to comment to say there seems to be a possibility that this could be misread or there's a discrepancy between how you talk about it in the preamble versus in the rule text so.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes. And that -- yes, I'll provide that comment, but I feel way better about this given this conversation --
SPEAKER: Right.
MR. FACEMIRE: -- because I think we're aligned and I think there needs to be just a small tweak to the language in alpha.
MS. FIELDS: I will just step in and just remind everybody that we are not accepting comments during this meeting, so if you have comments, please submit them on the proposed rule via regulations.gov.
Okay.
SPEAKER: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: I do not see any other hands up.
SPEAKER: There's one.
MS.
FIELDS:
So (Simultaneous speaking.)
PARTICIPANT: Oh, I'll take it down.
Sorry.
MS. FIELDS: Go.
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. We can go to the next slide, please. There we go. Yes. Okay. So regarding comprehensive risk metrics and the associated risk performance objectives, so as it's expanded on in the preamble of the Part 53 Proposed Rule, the comprehensive risk metrics should consist of a proposed plant risk metric or set of proposed risk metrics that approximate the total overall risk from the facility and that address the range of possible plant configurations and associated internal and external hazards to the extent practicable. And the risk performance objectives associated with a proposed comprehensive risk metrics or set of metrics are preestablished acceptable values that are used to compare against the measured values of the risk metrics. And that's, of course, again, used as part of the risk-informed decision-making process.
So an example of an acceptable risk performance objectives are the quantitative health objectives, or QHOs as they're commonly referred to, which are the numerical values of the cumulative risk metrics described in the Commission policy statement on safety goals for a nuclear power plant operation.
So these risk metrics being specifically the individual early fatality risk and the individual latent cancer
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com fatality risk. Those are the risk metrics. The risk performance objectives are, of course, the numerical values for risk metrics, 2 times 10 to the minus 6 and 5 times 10 to minus 7 respectively.
So these use of the individual early fatality risk and the individual latent cancer fatality risk and the QHOs are, again, this -- are just an example of a comprehensive risk metrics that -- and associated risk performance objectives that could be used to form the basis for meeting Section 53.220(b). There may be others but that's probably one of the more prominent examples that most people know and are familiar with.
So this is, again, similar to the use of the approach that was endorsed by Reg Guide 1.233 for applications under Parts 50 and 52 and the use of the LMP methodology. And the use of the comprehensive risk metrics and associated risk performance objectives would be intended to provide a logical performance objective to support the risk management approaches described in the various Subparts of the Part 53 proposed rule.
So applicants could also choose to propose and seek NRC approval of comprehensive risk metrics and associated risk performance objectives that could potentially include surrogate measures that are used
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com in specific analyses to satisfy the proposed requirements in Section 53.220(b). So the surrogate risk metrics measures could be proposed, for example, in a similar manner to the use of core damage frequency and condition null containment failure probability that are typically used for light water reactors within the safety goal evaluation process as described in NUREG/BR-0058. And that provides guidelines for regulatory analysis and other assessments of light water reactors using the NRC's safety goals. Next slide, please.
Okay. So other portions of the Part 53 proposed rule would invoke the need to meet Section 53.220 but with some important considerations. So for example, the proposed requirements for operations in Section 53.710(b) would require controls on plant operations, provide the capabilities, availabilities, and reliabilities of SSCs and their special treatments to demonstrate compliance with Sections 53.220 and 53.440(e).
However, while the risk performance objectives established to meet Section 53.220(b) are likely to involve assessing and averaging the risks over a period of time; so for example, over a plant year, thinking of the use of risk metrics like CDF or
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 those are on a plant year basis. A footnote would be included explaining that those risk metrics would not constitute a real-time requirement that must be continuously demonstrated by licensees.
So the use of a comprehensive risk metric or set of risk metrics and the risk performance objectives that reflect an average risk and that are used to establish performance goals for safety-related and non-safety-related but safety-significant SSCs is consistent with current practices that use other risk assessment techniques to address a short-term plan configuration during plant maintenance activities.
And another example of a proposed regulation that would invoke the proposed Section 53.220 criteria is Section 53.1550(a)(iii) which would provide requirements for evaluating changes to a facility described in the final safety analysis report. And, of course, we'll get into that in more detail during tomorrow's presentation.
And finally for this slide, I'll just point out we've got one of our pink boxes there up on the top right. So we are interested in additional specific feedback on the use of comprehensive risk metrics.
There is a question in that section six at the upper end so please note that and welcome comments on that.
MS. FIELDS: Anders, we've got a question
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com from Dr. Ed Lyman so go ahead, Dr. Lyman.
DR. LYMAN: Yes. Hi. Can you hear me?
It's Ed Lyman from Union of Concerned Scientists.
MS. FIELDS: Yes. We can hear you.
DR. LYMAN: Yes. Great. So I'll try to phrase this like a question rather than a comment but, you know, the overarching principle of this Rule is that it's supposed to represent the same level of safety used for the operating fleet. And the problem with this, you know, subjective selection of risk metrics
-- and I understand that youre beholding to the SRM to some extent, but the problem is that that is going to make it very hard for the public to understand whether the level of safety is actually comparable to the operating fleet and whether the safety of different applicant's designs are comparable to each other. And so my question is, how are you going to address the relativism here? Are you planning to develop guidance that would have essentially a menu of the available, you know, risk concepts with analysis to demonstrate that they're substantially similar that applicants can choose from, because the universe of these metrics is not -- you know, it's not very large. I think we all know what they are. And so it wouldn't be a heavy life really to do that and -- but put an additional burden
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on those who want to do something more exotic to have to show that it is equivalent. So it's just -- there's a big problem here with this ability to pick and choose and, you know, to make sure that it's transparent and understandable to the public.
So my question is, will there be guidance and will you present or provide analysis to demonstrate that the known universe and risk metrics are equivalent to each other? Thanks.
MR. GILBERTSON: So there -- we are currently working on guidance that would relate to the staff evaluation of proposed comprehensive risk metrics. This perhaps gets to a portion of the concern I think that youre expressing. As far as -- that guidance is -- at the moment wouldn't be intended to provide the sort of menu of comprehensive risk metrics that youre describing. The SRM, in part, is, as you probably know, it directed that the proposed rule talk about the proposal of comprehensive risk metrics. So the staff are currently focusing on how we would evaluate that and, you know, as a matter of ensuring that we have a comparable level of safety.
So I guess that part of that description will come from how we plan to do that evaluation. How a specific comprehensive risk metrics -- or metric or
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com metrics that is different than what we are typically used to seeing would equate to each other, I think that's, in part, going to be part of an applicant's proposal to explain that. So I don't know if that helps, but I think that's part of how we're approaching it. Is there anything you want to add to that, Bill or Nan?
MS. VALLIERE: Well, I would just note that the question in section six of the Federal Register notice that Anders mentioned not only asks about, you know, potential comprehensive risk metrics but also asks if, you know, an application comes in proposing a new comprehensive risk metric and the NRC does that review and approves that risk metric, should the NRC somehow try to codify that as an approved risk metric going forward. So that's an important portion of that question in the specific request for comments that I would draw your attention to.
DR. LYMAN: Right. Thank you.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Next we have Jon.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes. And first I'll start with kind of a response to Ed. EPRI is currently working on a report for a technology-inclusive advanced reactor risk metric. Now EPRI represents multiple members across different countries, so some of their
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com considerations are broader than the U.S., but NEI intends to develop a report building on the EPRI work next year to submit to the NRC for review. We expect it to be an offsite dose exceedance frequency of some sort, similar methodology for establishing that to what was used to establish CDF and LERF back in the day.
And we would hope to get that endorsed in a reg guide similar to the current reg guide 1.174. So that's that piece.
But my question was -- I was going to bring this up yesterday, but you put it on the screen. Under 53.1550, the second criteria in there is a more than minimal reduction in the margin to the comprehensive risk metric. Do we have any idea of what that means?
MR. RECKLEY: Well -- and we can -- we'll get into the change control tomorrow.
MR. FACEMIRE: So tomorrow.
MR. RECKLEY: The difficulty we had was we used to say 10 percent, I think, at one point in the preliminary language. But when you don't know what the risk measure and even to the degree that it will be numeric, you have to back off from saying a certain percentage and just leave as a word like "significant" because, again, this is open-ended. We don't know what comprehensive risk measures -- what they would be or
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com what they would look like. So -- but if you look at existing 50.59 discussions of reductions in margin, it usually involves a number like 10 percent --
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay.
MR. RECKLEY: -- if you had a numerical value that you could use. So again, we'll get into 1550 a little bit more tomorrow.
MR. FACEMIRE: That's helpful and we'll discuss it more tomorrow, but I would bring up that we have submitted NEI 22-05 for review. We propose something a little different that we'd ask the staff to consider, something more in line with that proposal.
MS. FIELDS: Okay.
MS. VALLIERE: Oh, we have Patrick.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MS. FIELDS: Oh, sorry. All right.
Patrick?
MR. WHITE: Patrick White, Nuclear Innovation Alliance. So I guess my question is on the footnote here. I appreciate the clarification that we're not looking at -- or the Rule isn't looking at using comprehensive risk metrics as kind of that real-time speed limit, as I think I've heard it described. And I appreciate the note here about having it -- the risk to average over a defined period. Is
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that something that's expected to be kind of within the Rule that is an expectation over a specified period, or is this something that would applicants specify to we will look at averaging the comprehensive risk metric over a certain amount of time? Or if not -- or if it's a different answer, there's a different direction the Rule is expected to go in or intends, happy to get that feedback as well.
MR. GILBERTSON: I think it's the latter.
It's that it would be proposed. You know, the -- on a -- expressing it on a per year basis is probably what most are familiar with doing, but it could be something different.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Great. Thank you.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Next we have Robert Budnitz.
MS. VALLIERE: Bob Budnitz, go ahead.
MS. FIELDS: You have to unmute yourself.
I am unable to unmute people. They have to do it, it seems.
MS. VALLIERE: Bob, you need to unmute yourself if you want to ask a question. We aren't able to hear you.
MS. FIELDS: Next hand we have Adam Stein from the Breakthrough Institute.
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com DR. STEIN: Hello. This is Dr. Adam Stein from the Breakthrough Institute. I appreciate the NRC taking all the time to set up these meetings today and the rest of this week. I would like to say that first.
I have a question about what would be considered adequate or appropriate level of safety for a comprehensive risk metric while we're on the topic?
In the preamble, it says specifically that an applicant must propose a comprehensive risk metric or set of metrics and associated risk performance predictives and on -- I lost my place here in the wording, but it says that it has to result in an appropriate level of safety. And the question is, if we are asking applicants to define their own comprehensive risk metrics, they have to have some concept of what the NRC would consider to be an appropriate level of safety and using a different comprehensive risk metric such as the QHOs might not be the best way to define that for flexibility. So is the NRC considering, in conjunction with other guidance that youve already mentioned, defining what that would be in terms specifically of a comprehensive risk metric, cause do know that they NRC does not plan to define what is adequate protection.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes. I guess as far as
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com it relates to when talking about the QHOs, again, I guess that's the most salient example, that's the guidelines that are provided in the regulatory analysis in the NUREG brochure BR/0058 that I mentioned, you know, that defines it in those terms. I think going forward, you know, as part of what we're going to have to think about when we're developing the guidance on how the staff would evaluate proposed comprehensive risk metrics, which again is still in the beginning stages -- so the thinking is in the process on that.
I don't know, Bill or Nan, you guys want to say any more about that or --
MR. RECKLEY: No. Again, we are open to proposals, so we can't really define ahead of time what is required in a very specific way, because we are open to proposals. It would depend largely, if you go back, for example, to the -- to slide 20 the integrated approach, how an applicant is using those comprehensive risk metrics is part of the overall argument; right?
We have focused, for example, largely on offsite consequences in terms of dose. It's an obvious place to go, and that's what our focus has been on. But to the degree a comprehensive risk metric could be developed, it goes to the barriers. So you get the confidence of low dose based on the integrity of a
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com barrier, but if there's no release, there's no offsite consequence.
So you can develop metrics and associated performance objectives other than dose, because you can prevent the dose or limit the dose another way.
I mean our experience is it's very hard to keep everything inside for every event, but we would be open to someone trying to come up with a comprehensive risk metric that may not relate to offsite dose. But, you know, part of our trouble -- and we're looking forward to additional studies like EPRI is -- there's been discussions of allowing them, but we've been short on examples to actually see how it might work.
So I guess the short answer is no, we don't find it likely to define it other than, again, when you look at all things considered, the integrated approach, reactors going forward have to be of comparable safety to reactors we've licensed in the past.
DR. STEIN: Thank you for that discussion.
I am concerned about the common refrain, especially in ACRS, is the bring me a rock situation where the applicant has no idea of what the NRC may find acceptable. But as is intended with this Rule, I do appreciate the staff's work to try to make this more integrated approach to safety where different metrics
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com or different methodologies can be used to provide safety in different ways instead of being more prescriptive on the way it must be done so thank you.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. So we had a question from Bob Budnitz and he wasn't able to unmute himself.
So I will read his question to you. His question is, the applicant will also need to propose some analysis methodology, a PRA? Something else? If it is not a PRA, how will the NRC review the methodology to assure that it can be used for this application?
MR. GILBERTSON: So under the Part 53 Proposed Rule, the requirement, as it currently is written, would include the use of a PRA. How that would be used in conjunction with other approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems, I think that that's something that has to be analyzed in a --
or it would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
I think as we've kind of -- we've touched on before, when it comes to the comprehensive risk metrics, providing the explanation that draws the connection between the use of the PRA and these other analyses, how those come together to arrive at a conclusion of whatever proposed comprehensive risk metric and the associated risk performance objectives are met, yes, again, that could be more or less complicated depending
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on the design. But it's going to be, I think, essentially an application-specific scenario.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes. And I want to just add --
MS. FIELDS: I had a question --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. FACEMIRE: Oh, sorry.
MS. FRANOVICH: I will allow Jon to ask
-- these are blanket comments -- first.
MR. FACEMIRE: Sorry.
SPEAKER: No, no, no.
MR. FACEMIRE: So one path for non-light water reactors is the use of the non-light water reactor PRA standard section three which has a nice flow chart for when you can use supplemental evaluations. I do want to make the point, though, that my understanding is that NRC determination of PRA acceptability can rely on a peer review and that if a peer review process found the use of that screening criteria in section three to be appropriate, that staff should be able to rely on that peer review finding. Of course, it's open to audit but do we have a shared of understanding that, that a peer review using the section three process and the non-light water reactor PRA standard is one means of addressing a point?
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes. That would be allowable. It's a defined process, we have that down reg guide 1.247 and take any exceptions to it so yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: Thank you. Sorry, Rani.
MS. FRANOVICH: No, no. Rani Franovich, Nuclear ROSE Consulting. So Bill, you mentioned, you know, barriers could be a way of demonstrating. Of
- course, metrics are unmet in a
like an application-specific scenario. And when I think of barriers, I think, of course, the fuel cladding, the reactor system integrity and containment. And so that kind of brings to mind defense in depth aspect of the safety case. Is that kind of the thinking as well, the more barriers there are to release, then the more defense in depth that you have?
MR. RECKLEY: Yes. That's traditionally how it's done. Again -- and a part of the challenge is Part 53 is technology inclusive and we don't know what reactor technologies are --
MS. FRANOVICH: What their barriers may look like.
MR. RECKLEY: What the barriers may be down the road.
66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.
MR. RECKLEY: We know of specific examples now where the emphasis changes, right? So TRISO fuel changes the emphasis from a physical containment structure to the coatings on the TRISO particles and then the compacts or the pellets that they're placed into. So we do see that that can change, but in all of those cases -- and then as Anders mentioned earlier, we have a specific requirement that defense in depth be demonstrated both -- and that would use both a combination of the technology and the methodologies being used to analyze it, one of which would involve the comprehensive risk metric.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
MR. GILBERTSON: I guess then just to add real briefly, again, in response to Mr. Budnitz' question, that the requirement remain -- would be proposed in Part 53 for the PRA, it's also a PRA is defined in Section 53.020. So we tried to, you know, ensure that we're all on the same page talking about the same thing.
MS. FIELDS: We have a question from Dr.
Adam Stein. Go ahead.
DR. STEIN: Hi. Adam Stein, Breakthrough Institute again. I have a question about the QHOs'
67 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com acceptability verse, for instance, the FC curve from LMP. Both have been mentioned as potentially acceptable in this discussion at some point. But the FC curve is not specifically limited to the QHOs. It has other slopes and portions of the curve that aren't specifically the QHOs. Have you thought about that consideration and whether the QHOs would provide enough consideration to be the sole basis for a comprehensive risk metric? I'm asking specifically not to put you on the spot but because both were mentioned separately by the staff, I'm wondering if you thought through this a little bit more in depth on this particular situation?
MR. GILBERTSON: Well, I think the short answer is that the requirements under the proposed Part 53 rule would include, like in the LMP methodology, a comparison against the -- what we call risk performance objective. So, looking at the cumulative risk.
The other pieces of the proposed Part 53 rule, like Id mentioned before, include the evaluation criteria for the LBEs or sets of categories of LBEs.
So, that is perhaps an analog to the use of other pieces of the frequency consequence target from NEI-1804.
DR. STEIN: So if Im hearing you correctly, its you need to look at the rule
68 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com comprehensively to see how these fit together and not just under the comprehensive risk metric portion, which the QHOs might satisfy.
MR. GILBERTSON: Thats correct, yes.
DR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. GILBERTSON: And again, the LMP methodology would be -- is an example of one way that you could meet those requirements. The evaluation criteria described in the rule are - its open-ended, its to be proposed. So, it could be something different. It could be the NEI-1804 frequency consequence curve, yes.
MR. RECKLEY: But, this is Bill, just keep in mind, the frequency consequence curve is not accumulated risk measure, right. It is the equivalent, or it is how one could meet 450(e) acceptance criteria for individual LBEs.
Then, in addition to evaluating each of your licensing basis events against something like a frequency consequence target figure or other proposals, then in addition to that, you have the comprehensive risk measure, which under LMP is met by among other things the NRC safety goals.
MS. FIELDS: I dont see any hands up online. Are there any hands up in person? No? Okay.
69 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So with that -- oh, no, we have one more hand up, sorry. Francis, go ahead.
MR. AKSTULEWICZ: Just a test. Can you hear me, first?
MS. FIELDS: yes, we can hear you.
MR. AKSTULEWICZ: Okay, can I take you back to slide 22 for a second? And it seems to be weve been talking about paragraph B, for bravo, a lot. That would suggest that the language there is not precise.
So my first question, and theres a series of them here, but my first one is if you read the first two lines of that section, it says, The analysis of risks to public health and safety resulting from LBEs other than DBAs.
So are you saying that the comprehensive risk metrics don=t include the LBE sequences that were established to be your DBAs? Because that=s the way that reads. So youre excluding -- you=re excluding the LBEs that are listed as DBAs from the risk metric.
Or at least that wasnt your intent, but thats the way I read it.
So from a clarification standpoint, it would be important to make sure that youre clear what the scope of the risk is, because I think its the full set of LBEs, whether theyre classified as DBAs or not.
70 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com PARTICIPANT: Yes.
MR. AKSTULEWICZ: So thats the first comment. So you need to --
MR. RECKLEY: Well, with the caution that, and again, we were informed by how this is constructed under NEI-1804 in the LMP, you=re informed by that.
The DBAs, depending on the risk metrics that you pick, the DBAs are usually not characterized in terms of frequency and consequence. And so that is why we intentionally excluded it from the comprehensive risk metric under 220(b).
So the DBAs are an important part of the licensing basis events. But traditionally when youre looking at risk metrics, the DBAs are not included in that set. Now, the formation of DBAs is informed by the event sequences that are in PRA and in this example under LMP, informed by the event sequences that are in the PRA.
And so those event sequences do get included and considered as part of the comprehensive risk metric, right. But the traditional discussion is that DBAs, if you actually look at the frequency, are usually very low because theyre intentionally conservative.
71 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. AKSTULEWICZ: So yeah, Bill, I get that, but my question, or my comment, at the moment, is that the language there needs a little cleanup, because I could read that as saying if I, out of my LBE set, and the only difference between an LBE and a DBA is how I evaluate the radiological consequences.
So for my LBEs, Im going to use my best estimate analysis to get me to figure out what my relative radiological consequence outcome is for that particular sequence. But for DBA, Im going to take those conservative assumptions that youve outlined earlier in the rule that you should do conservatively.
So you want -- you want the comprehensive risk metrics to include the full range of licensing basis events. Not whether theyre picked as DBAs or not, because the DBA just is the way its evaluated for its consequences. Thats all.
But if you say other than DBAs here in the context, it sounds as though you=re excluding those sequences from consideration of the risk. Thats my comment. You dont need to go into that anymore, right.
And the second thing, I just want to back and agree that that language on that second part, that you know, the language about objectives that are
72 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com acceptable to NRC and provide an appropriate level of safety, you can certainly see how that would be a difficult standard to meet for anybody, unless youve adopted LMP. And thats -- that just goes without saying.
Because first of all, you got to get NRC to agree something, and we all know how challenging that can be, just on simple topics. But then youve got to establish what that appropriate level of safety is at the same time.
So again, I echo the comment here that was made earlier that that language is a difficult standard to meet. And some could make the argument that its a bring me a rock standard for something other than LMP. And thats my comment.
MS. FIELDS: So this is Nicole Fields.
I just want to remind everybody that were not accepting comment today in the meeting. So if you have comments, please submit them to regulations.gov.
Okay, and then next in the queue we have Jon -- no? Jon put his hand up.
MR. FACEMIRE: Well, I was just going to follow up. I was going to put this just as a comment but since it was brought up in discussion, the language works in this section, and we believe we have gone
73 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com through and checked every section. If you just delete the words other than design basis accidents, and then you can provide the clarification and guidance like in reg guides in the future.
I agree with Frank and its been brought up to us in a number of our meetings reading through the rule that the other than DBAs, all this confusion.
And we think the intent is still there without those words.
MS. FIELDS: Okay, I dont see hands up online. Are any hands up in the room? Okay.
Thank you all for the discussion questions. Its 11:13 right now. So we are --
MR. GILBERTSON: We have slide 25.
MS. FIELDS: I believe -- Anders, do you have your slide for one section?
MR. GILBERTSON: For that, for 53.210 and 220, yes.
MS. FIELDS: Yes.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MS. FIELDS: Okay, great. So were scheduled to have an hour lunch break starting at 11:45.
So I am going to propose that instead of coming back at 12:45, we come back at 12:30. Thatll give everybody an extra 17 minutes. So were going to
74 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com resume at 12:30 with the rest of part B.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 11:14 a.m. and resumed at 12:31 p.m.)
MS. FIELDS: All right, well, welcome back from lunch. Hope, you know, that was good. So yeah, were just going to start off again. Were going to work on the second half of Subpart B. And again, Im just going to, just a couple reminders.
You know, if youre escorted, please make sure and let us know if you need to leave the room for any reason. And again, were not accepting comments during this meeting, so if you do have comments, we ask that you submit them through regulations.gov. And with that, you may do the honors.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay, thanks, Nicole.
Okay, so getting back to Subpart B here.
Lets start talking about the other pieces of the foundational safety requirements and the rest, those Part 53 regulation.
And then at the end of that, I guess well have another break scheduled. But well see how that goes where we are and the questions and such. So, next slide, please.
Okay, so regarding safety functions.
75 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Section 53.230 would specify that limiting the release of radioactive materials from the facility is the primary safety function and would need to be maintained over the life of the facility.
And the primary performance metric used throughout the Part 53 proposed rule would therefore be limiting potential offsite consequences. So for example, a dose to a hypothetical individual.
Section 53.230 would also require identification of additional or subsidiary safety functions needed to limit the release of radionuclides, that may include without limitation controlling processes related to reactivity, heat generation, heat removal, and chemical interactions.
So the primary and additional safety functions would be required to satisfy the safety criteria under Sections 53.210 and 53.220, if an assumed LBE were to occur at a commercial nuclear plant and be fulfilled by the design features, human actions, and programmatic controls addressed throughout the Part 53 proposed rule.
So in that way, the proposed rule would provide flexibility to applicants and licensees in identifying, implementing, and maintaining the safety functions, supporting retention of radionuclides for
76 NEAL 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 facility of varying sizes and technologies. Next slide, please.
Okay, moving on to licensing basis events, or LBEs. Weve been referring to them. Section 53.240 would require applicants to identify and analyze LBEs for the purposes of demonstrating that the safety requirements in Subpart B have been satisfied and one or more of those LBEs must be a DBA.
So LBEs are the unplanned events that would result from perturbations to normal facility operations, address challenges from internal hazards and external hazards, and would be used in the design and analyses required under the Part 53 proposed rule.
So the categories of LBEs would -- are specifically defined in Section 53.20, and theyre defined as anticipated event sequences, unlikely event sequences, very unlikely event sequences, and design-basis accidents.
So understanding that Part 53 is heavily informed by the use of the LMP methodology, they anticipated that the first three of those LBE categories would be equivalent to the anticipated operational occurrences, the design-basis events, and beyond design-basis events in the LMP methodology.
And of course design-basis accidents would carry the
77 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com same connotation here as in the LMP methodology.
So the analysis of LBEs performed under the proposed 53.450 would ensure that the related estimates of offsite consequences would be below the safety criteria identified under the proposed sections 53.210 and 53.220, and that SSEs, personnel, and programs address the safety functions identified in the proposed 53.230 with the safety functions.
So including this high-level performance requirement, which is to say the LBEs are ensuring that consequences are below the safety criteria as it relates to the identification and analysis of LBEs would reflect the historical and continuing importance of evaluating unplanned events as part of the licensing of commercial nuclear plants.
And as Ill talk about later on this afternoon when we get into Subpart C, the analysis of LBEs as per the requirements in Section 53.450 would be required to be informed by a PRA, in combination with other generally accepted approaches for systematically evaluating engineering systems.
So Section 53.240 would also require that the analysis of LBEs serve as a -- serve a confirmatory role for the adequacy of design features and the programmatic controls in meeting the safety criteria
78 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com under 53.210 and 220.
So an example, again, of methods of using a PRA -- a PRA to identify and analyze LBEs would be the methodology described in reg guide 1.233, which, again, its the document that endorses the LMP methodology described in NEI-1804.
And that process of identifying and analyzing LBEs is also discussed in the draft regulatory guide designated as DG-1413 and is part of the suite of documents that were released for this proposed public rule or proposed rule. Okay, next slide please.
Okay, so Section 53.250 would establish explicitly defense-in-depth requirements based on the longstanding philosophy providing defense-in-depth to address uncertainties about design operation and performance of commercial nuclear plants.
So Parts 50 and 52 address defense-in-depth through a layered prescriptive technical requirements for LWRs, such as peer performance, cladding integrity, reactor core and system integrity, etc.
And in contrast, the Part 53 proposed rule would provide flexibility in how applicants could propose to demonstrate compliance with a high level
79 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com of safety criteria. So again, Part 53 does not prescribe the means by which defense-in-depth should be achieved.
So this necessarily creates the need for specific proposed requirements to ensure that defense-in-depth is provided. So specifically, 53 --
the proposed 53.250 would include a requirement for specific types of uncertainties to be addressed by measures taken to ensure defense-in-depth, as highlighted in the slide here.
And the requirements in this deck would also state that no single engineered design feature, human action, or programmatic control, no matter how robust, should be exclusively relied upon to address LBEs other than DBAs.
So here the phrase engineered design feature would not preclude the possibility of crediting inherent characteristics within a design and its analysis. So while defense-in-depth would only be assessed for LBEs other than DBAs, the need to ensure dedicated success paths for DBAs would also contribute to the overall defense-in-depth for commercial nuclear plants under the proposed Part 53. Okay, next slide, please.
MS. FIELDS: Do you have a question on this
80 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com slide?
MR. GILBERTSON: Oh, yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah, so I appreciate the language around engineer defined feature. I think thats a really good piece of this. I want to understand the reg guides that would be supporting this. You mentioned Reg Guide 1.233. That currently is just applicable to non-light water reactors.
Is the intent for that to be updated to be applicable for both non-light water reactors and LWRs?
MR. GILBERTSON: So we are, thats part of our approach for developing the suite of guidance for the Part 53 rule. We are developing an analog to that for Part 53 that would be technology-inclusive.
1.233 is specific to non-LWRs under Parts 50 and 52.
So yes, Reg Guide 1.233 itself is not going to be updated. Therell be guidance specific to Part 53 to that end.
MR. FACEMIRE: I want to repeat back, make sure I understand. So Reg Guide 1.233 will continue to exist in its current form for non-light water reactors following Parts 50 and 52. There will be a separate reg guide endorsing NEI-1804 for Part 53, is that accurate?
81 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. GILBERTSON: Yes, and whether it will specifically endorse NEI-1804 for Part 53 or it would provide the equivalent guidance, one way or another, that guidance will become available. And it will, you know, it will parrot the LMP methodology and the processes involved.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. I asked because I know of 1804 at NEI. I need to know if I need to update that document. So I would appreciate any insight that could help me with that.
MR. GILBERTSON: Understood, yeah.
MR. RECKLEY: But, this is Bill, Ill just weigh in as youre thinking about this and thinking about comments that you might provide, is that as were developing the guidance for Part 53, were faced with not just NRC but also industry segmentation of light water and non-light water reactors. And this is manifest probably largely in the PRA standards for which PRA is a key part of Part 53.
And so were constantly facing this struggle of how to do a totally technology-inclusive approach when the infrastructure both within the NRC and on the consensus codes and standards and other areas if bifurcated. So that might be too strong of a word.
This tends to be two different communities.
82 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And so Ill just - Im just saying this as an observation that as were developing guidance in the short term, weve had to also keep some of the guidance as light water/non-light water guidance because of that infrastructure.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay.
MR. RECKLEY: So trying to keep you from being surprised if you see something that says this is good for non-light water reactors using Part 53.
And the question is well, what do light water reactors do. Were still trying to figure that out.
MR. FACEMIRE: So Ill ask this question because, well, Ill ask this question. 53.250, the only methodology that you currently envision that would meet that would be the reg guide that youre developing building off of NEI-1804 concept. Is that accurate?
MR. RECKLEY: In our guidance, we would say one way to meet this.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah, but theyre not working on any other --
MR. RECKLEY: Were not working on any others, yeah.
MR. FACEMIRE: That is very helpful, yeah.
Well comment on this.
MS. FIELDS: And then we have a question
83 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com from Sarah Gibboney. Go ahead.
MS. GIBBONEY: Can you hear me okay?
MS. FIELDS: Yup, we can hear you.
MS. GIBBONEY: Okay, great. Hi, my name is Sarah Gibboney, Im with Bechtel. My company works on both LWR and non-LWR reactors.
I would like some clarification about how you are producing true technology-inclusive guidance so that were not having to operate under two different frameworks. It doesnt seem like an efficient use of government resources.
What are your plans for consolidating?
MR. RECKLEY: Again, I would just come back to were trying to do the best we can, but everyone needs to recognize that things are set up not only at the NRC, thats something we can control. But more so in terms of industry codes and standards that are separated this way.
So you know, we will, as we typically do, work within the consensus codes and standards processes. We dont usually lead those efforts. But well work within that structure.
Well do what we can as were developing guidance. But again, I brought it up because I wanted to make sure everybody was aware of the challenge.
84 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And its not all the NRCs to fix.
But again, as were soliciting comments, that would certainly be something that we would -- we would welcome in comments. In terms of any particular area, if you see we need to do more to make it even more technology-inclusive.
MS. FIELDS: Hands online. I dont see any hands in the room. Anders?
MR. GILBERTSON: And before we go away from this slide, Ill just note again, weve got one of these pink boxes here up just to indicate that we do have a
specific request for comment on defense-in-depth. So please be sure to look at that.
Okay, next slide please.
Okay, and Bill, did you want to?
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, Ill take it from here.
So this is -- so up until this point under Subpart B, weve talked about the requirements for unplanned events. This is to try to make sure that reactors can address transience, postulated accidents, whatever terminology you want to use.
These two sections within Subpart B, 53.260 and 53.270, are aimed at making sure that the regulations are sufficient to protect the public and
85 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com plant workers during routine operations. If we can go to the next slide.
Im going to depart a little bit from the format here, and were going to actually do a vertical slice of radiation protection through Part 53. As in all these requirements, you can -- we could do it layer by layer or we can do vertical slices. This one I thought would benefit from a vertical slice.
And so this table tries to follow the radiation protection requirements for normal operations through the subpart. So basically 260 and 270, were on the previous slide, short regulations, basically pointing to Part 20 and say by the time you get to operations, a licensee needs to meet the requirements in Part 20.
So, then the next section on the table, 53.425, is related to offsite dose and the engineering features, the design features and the functional design criteria, that need to be provided to meet the radiation standards in Part 20, and then also to meet the as low as reasonably achievable requirements in Part 20.
And an important element of 53.425 is it includes a design objective of 10 millirem TEDE annual dose as being an acceptable design objective, which would mean, keep in mind the traditional discussions
86 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com of as low as reasonably achievable, reasonable goes to cost and availability of technologies and other things that can be considered.
So a design objective to 10 millirem TEDE annual dose means if you can show you meet that through your design features, you dont need to look beyond that for additional improvement. Thats the parallel to Appendix I to Part 50 for light water reactors.
So 425 is saying there should be design features and functional design criteria to help me meet those radiation protection standards and the performance objective.
Then for 30, it says something similar for workers protections. Youll need to have design features and functional design criteria available to limit doses to plant staff occupational exposure.
Then in a parallel to 5034(a), there needs to be an analysis of expected releases and doses to the public. So this goes to what are my anticipated inventories. Where are they, how are they being controlled, and what would be my expected releases to the public in order to show that those doses meet the Part 20 requirements.
Then the next place that shows up is in Subpart F, 53.850, which basically says every licensee
87 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com licensed with a operating license or a combined license needs to have a radiation protection program.
One thing Ill mention about 850 is it not only has the requirements for radiation protection program, it also took what had been in environmental tech specs because Part 50 has 5036(a), environmental tech specs, which included requirements to have things like an offsite dose calculation manual, a process control program for solid waste.
Part 53 doesnt have 5036(a). We dont require environmental tech specs. So we picked up those things from the environmental tech specs and included them as rule text.
So if you look at rule language, it might show us as new requirements, but theyre not new requirements, theyre just relocated requirements into the rule from what had been in environmental tech specs.
So thats the radiation protection program.
The next place it shows up is annual reports or reports of radiation exposure to the public in Appendix J. Again, these are likewise the requirements out of Part 50, very similar reporting requirements. Every licensee is familiar with submitting their annual estimates of offsite doses.
Then you get to really the -- an important
88 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com piece of the puzzle that tries to fit how this works for different applications and different, well, different parts of the design process. And so the requirement as its listed here, we will actually, if you go to the next slide, this gives the requirement for a design certification application.
And getting a little bit into tomorrows presentation, Subpart H for design has as it -- has defined most of the requirements under the design cert application. And then for the siting, it defined most of them under the early site permit requirement.
So this is the requirement for a design cert, but it also is the requirements for standard design approvals, manufacturing
- licenses, and construction permits. Those things that come before operations.
And again, its nuanced, so I want to, thats why I want to take a couple minutes, because this gets somewhat nuanced. So at the -- at this phase, prior to operations, so for design cert or construction permit, we would ask that the applicant describe the design features that would support meeting the requirements under 260, right, which also means supporting the radiation protection programs.
So keep in mind whats missing here. Not
89 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com functional design criteria, just the design features at this point. What are the SSCs that are going to play a role in limiting the offsite dose?
Then the next one, programmatic controls, a description of how programmatic controls, including monitoring programs, will support meeting the safety criteria. Again, stressing the word how. Not submit a program, submit how the program will be used to supplement the design feature.
So were very intentionally limiting what at this state is being provided. Not the filter efficiency. That would be a functional design criteria.
But that fact that Im going to use a filter.
Then if Im going to use a filter, Ill have a monitor on the other end of the, you know, on the other end of the line. So this is whats being provided at the design stage for CPs or design certs.
Then you get something very similar for occupational exposures. What are the design features?
Ill have a wall, and Ill have to provide necessarily the thickness of the wall and the inches of lead thatll be used for shielding. But Ill have a wall.
And then what -- likewise in the programmatic area, how would programs supplement the design feature. So at that point, Ill have radiation
90 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com monitoring on the other side of the wall or its anticipated that the licensee will need to limit residency time in this room. Just so the designer is telegraphing not the details, but the general approach to the design and generally what programs are going to be supplementing them.
So that set the stage for the construction permit or the design cert. If you go to the next slide, you then get into the operating stage. So this is at the point of an operating license or combined license that the applicant would need to give the design information and the radiation protection program.
And the radiation protection program would be the vehicle by which you tie all those things up.
This is the monitor I will have after the C after the filter. And its okay because heres what Im assuming for the filter efficiency.
Im now filling in not just that Ill have a filter, but Im going to factor in at the operating stage how good of a filter and then what monitoring I need to do in lieu of detail, because Ive now at the operating stage filled in the blanks.
Same way with the occupational exposure.
The radiation protection program will be the vehicle by which I now just say its a wall, but its a wall
91 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com and this is how good the shielding is.
And therefore this is the residency time on the other side of the wall, right. The program, the radiation protection program has now come together with the last details of the design in order to provide the whole picture.
So this is the way, if you looked at the SRM, which most of you have, we haven=t talked really much about the direction we got, but trying to distinguish about what was provided, quote, at a design stage and what was provided at the operating stage.
This is our attempt to balance those two things and say yes.
The design impacts radiation protection, right? However, we dont want to get too hung up too early in reviewing that level of information of what would be needed at a design cert or construction permit.
So thats why again, the previous slide, we tried to be very careful on the words. We want the design feature.
At the operating phase, you need the design feature and the functional design criteria. And I need not just the filter, I need filter efficiency at that point. And then also on the programs, in one, its how our programs, and the other one is heres the
92 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com details, step by step. Here=s our procedures, heres the details.
So that was our attempt in the area of radiation protection. Again, taking a vertical slice.
Its not really until you get to Subpart H that you really, in my view, get to see how we try to divvy that up. Because in the end, you need everything, but its a matter of timing.
And so for, again, design certification and construction permit, standard design approval, higher level, operating license, combined license, you need the rest of the story, so.
Thats that. I don=t think I have another slide.
MS. FIELDS: We got a couple of hands, and one in the room. Okay, John, go ahead.
MR. FACEMIRE: So can you go back to slide 32? I want to make sure I wasnt reading too much into one of the NRC requests for public comment. But the first one on the overall organization mentioned numerous references to other parts like Part 20. And was asking if that was appropriate.
So I understand that request for public comment, could, say, 53.260 and 53.270 be removed from Part 53 as a result of that request for public comment?
93 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Because we see those two as duplicative of 10 CFR 20.
You got to meet 10 CFR 20, so we dont see the necessity of having the same requirement repeated again in Part
- 53.
MR. RECKLEY: I think one could say that would be an example. And there are other examples where were pointing to 73 when we talked some more about micro reactors. Weve gone to 71 on transportation.
So in general, the construct that weve pursued is weve tried to be broad and include pointers to other regulations, such that if somebody comes in, they dont need to know before coming into 53 that theres a Part 20. I wont say we are 100% successful there, because there are some rules we probably didnt point to some parts.
But in general, we say you need to meet Part 20. You need to meet Part 140 on financial protections. You need to meet, again, I mentioned the security-related regulations. So in general, we tried to be broad and include pointers to those other regulations.
And what we are getting to with that question is do people like that such that if youre reading it, youre getting pretty much the story. Or, would they rather us not do that. And the regulations
94 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com are there. To some degree, theyre, you know, all of those things are not to our benefit. We know the rules are there and well --.
But so thats the question. And yeah, could this be an example because the requirement says little more than a licensee needs to meet Part 20?
This would be an example.
MR. FACEMIRE: So in our drafting our response, and I will say we are still discussing this internally. But if we do believe that these are duplicative of other parts and therefore should be removed, would it be helpful for us to provide the specific sections that we think are duplicative?
MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. Thanks.
MS. FIELDS: And you said we had a question in the chat?
MS. VALLIERE: Jon has a question.
MS. FIELDS: He also raised his hand online. So, we have another question from Keller.
MR. KELLER: Yeah, this is Mike Keller with Hybrid Power Technologies. Are these radiation protection areas, are they subject to special treatments? Should they be? You know, in the context of design, construction, and operation.
95 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. RECKLEY: They would be -- this comes down, its an interesting choice of terminology. They would be subject to functional design criteria. And whether one wants to call that a special treatment or not, we dont typically.
Typically, we use special treatment in the context of those requirements associated with an unplanned event, and I need to get a commercial product enhanced in some way in order for it serve its role in responding to an unplanned event.
But, the radiation protection design features will have functional design criteria associated with that role. And so take an interior wall. An interior wall might have multiple functions, right. And you have to look at each of the requirements to say what collectively are the functional design criteria for the wall.
It might have to survive a certain pressure or an accident condition. It might have to provide a certain degree of shielding for radiation protection.
And this is no different than really the current way things are done. By the time you do a product specification or an SSC system description, it has multiple purposes and multiple regulations that are trying to meet with that one design feature.
96 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So in our current -- the way we typically use it, I would not put it in the category of a special treatment, but it -- they will have functional design criteria associated with that function.
MR. KELLER: Where Im really coming from are -- is really related to quality measures and the costs associated with that and deviations from the design criteria.
You know, from a commercial power plant standpoint, you wouldnt see any particular quality issues with this stuff, but Im not so sure thats a reasonable approach with the radiation protection items.
But the highest standards are clearly not needed because the risk is low. So its just a, you know, unease in terms of what quality measures, if any, would be applied, in all aspects, design, construction, operation.
MR. RECKLEY: And yeah, so and then again, if you look at the safety classification criteria, this wouldnt come into play in terms of safety classification, which would be then the thing that would trigger Appendix B.
However, its an important function and there will be normal design controls that will be in
97 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com play to make sure that once youve assigned functional design criteria to the wall for shielding, that it actually provides that.
And then, as we talked about, youll also be monitoring the dose on the other side of the wall to make sure that your calculations were correct. So theres also that aspect, usually that aspect when it comes to radiation protection, so.
MR. KELLER: Is there any reason Applicant couldnt identify what quality measures, if any, they would intend to use in design, construction, and operation?
MR. RECKLEY: No, that actually is going to be an expectation, I think.
MR. KELLER: Yes, but its kind of a squishy area, I think, that has the chance for mischief in terms of one party thinking one thing and another party thinking something else. The net result could be added costs, basic bottom line. But anyway, its just food for thought.
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, Jon.
MR. KELLER: But thank you.
MR. FACEMIRE: Question on the 53.430 for functional design criteria, if say a light water reactor applicant wanted to just say my functional
98 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com design criteria is GDC 6363, would that be acceptable?
The general design criteria in Appendix --
PARTICIPANT: (Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. FACEMIRE: Just 60 to 63, the ones that are traditional.
MR. RECKLEY: Right, right. You know, I havent looked in detail, but coming pretty close, I don't know. I mean because for light water reactors, those are the GDCs that are setting out basically the functional design criteria. So generally weve drawn a parallel between the GDC and the concept of functional design criteria.
So Im not going to answer definitively, but in that direction, yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: If the answer is anything but yes, we need to know as an industry.
MS. FIELDS: I saw Ed had his hand up and it went down.
MR. RECKLEY: Oh, okay.
MS. FIELDS: So I dont know if Ed wanted to add something.
DR. LYMAN: No, I have nothing to add, thanks.
MS. FIELDS: Okay, all right.
MR. WHITE: And then just one quick
99 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com question. So I guess just kind of along that similar vein, then I guess a lot of the thinking around things like the PDCs for non-light water designs can also maybe apply in this place as well.
Thinking about just more kind of the technology-inclusive general design criteria that have been developed over the last few years. Potentially there is a similar analogy to the question that you answered.
MR. RECKLEY: Yes, but --
MR. WHITE: With similar caveats I think on your answer.
MR. RECKLEY: Right, yes.
MR. WHITE: Okay, thank you.
MR. FACEMIRE: The reason Im raising this kind of gets back to Sarah Gibboneys point earlier, that like its not efficient to have two different sets of rules, right. Reg Guide 1.232 with the advanced reactor design criteria should be an acceptable way of meeting 53.434, the functional design criteria.
MR. RECKLEY: And that is -- 1.232 or the non-accident requirements will generally align pretty closely because theyre not LMP oriented, right. Keep in mind that Reg Guide 1.232, which is the advanced reactor design criteria, are built from the GDC, and
100 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com theres a gap between how that construct works and how LMP and Reg Guide 1.233 works.
So one of the best places to look still, if you want to see how radiation protection would work under Part 53, is the advanced reactor design criteria that points to those things under ISGs Chapters 9 and
- 10.
And those things we really do think will fit pretty well under Part 53. But they have that same construct, because that was the non-LMP aspects of a design application.
I mean of a
licensing application. And they point to those same things.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah. We discussed earlier high priority reg guides that should be updated for Part 53. Ill put it in as a public comment, but MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
MR. FACEMIRE: More about those three --
MR. RECKLEY: These two ISGs, 9 and 10?
MS. VALLIERE: Well, I think Jon just said 1.232, which we do not anticipate updating for 53 because 53 does not require PDC.
MR. FACEMIRE: But the GDC, which are in many cases the same as the ARDC for controlling the release of radioactive material to the environment --
101 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: Like, that should be acceptable.
MR. RECKLEY: Right, and I think the way we could do that is through updating the ISGs related to Chapters 9 and 10 under the advanced reactor content application guidance.
I know this might be a nuance, but to Nans point, much of the ARDC PDC goes to the unplanned events. And that doesnt really fit this construct we have for Part 53.
But for those things that are non-accident oriented, we also address them in the advanced reactor content application guidance. And we can pick it up there, is a thought.
But anyway, you submit your comments. We dont have to answer exactly how we would do it today.
Its a valid comment, that this is a higher priority item to address. And then we can start the engagement on how to address it.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah. And I want to just echo the earlier comment. Having parallel sets of regulatory guidance, even an ISG, could cause confusion for applicants.
MR. RECKLEY: Right, and actually some of
102 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com them are more amenable to being technology-inclusive, right. This, these areas, its not really necessarily a technology-inclusive area. Its not requiring the
-- it doesnt depend at all on the difference between the light water reactor and non-light water reactor PRA standard.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah.
MR. RECKLEY: So yeah, these are areas I think, again, submit it in your comments and I think this is something we could respond -- be responsive to.
MR. FACEMIRE: Thank you.
MS. FIELDS: Any more comments? Any more hands online? Any more hands in the room? Okay.
Its 1:18. I know we were scheduled for a break at 2:00. Want to go into Subpart C, or do we want to take a break now?
MR. GILBERTSON: Subpart C is pretty long.
So maybe taking a break now.
MR. BEALL: We could start it and then finish up later.
MR. GILBERTSON: I mean, Im happy to accommodate whatever works. I can go now. I guess Im thinking more of where a sort of natural break point would be in the Subpart D -- Charlie, requirements.
103 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. FIELDS: Yeah. Okay, so I think what well do is, its now 1:19. Lets meet back here at 1:35. That gives you all an extra minute. And well start up again with Subpart C.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:19 p.m. and resumed at 1:35 p.m.)
MS. FIELDS: Great. So it's 1:35.
Hopefully you're all back from the break. So we're going to go ahead and get started with Subpart C.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: Thank you.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. Okay. So we can go to the next slide here.
All right. So this is just a brief overview of the substance of the sections in Subpart C. As you can see, this is going to be a portion that we're going to talk about this afternoon. So I will do my best to keep us moving through this.
If we go ahead and move to the next slide, please?
Okay. So before we get into the details of what's in Subpart C and the design and analysis requirements, I first want to walk us through just a broader view of how Subparts Bravo and Charlie relate
104 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to each other. We have been talking about them through the morning here, especially as it related to the high-level safety criteria.
But this diagram is a sort of simple but effective visual aid that the staff had frequently used to help illustrate the systems analysis engineering approach that has informed the development of the structure of the proposed safety requirements.
So to draw some relationships here, the top level of this hierarchy is -- would be represented by the safety criteria in Sections 53.210 and 52.220.
And the subsequent levels below that would all support how those criteria would be met.
The next level are the safety functions that are necessary to ensure the safety criteria are met and maintained, which is to say that, as it is alluded to in that box on the right-hand side, what are the functions that are needed to satisfy the safety criteria? And just as a very general example, a function -- a safety function might be controlling cooling, controlling heat production, or containing radionuclides. So that's the sort of functional level that we're talking about.
And below that are the actual design features that would be proposed to fulfill the safety
105 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com function. So, for example, controlling cooling may be achieved by way of a system with pumps and valves and heat exchangers, et cetera, or multiple systems.
And then at the bottom of this hierarchy you have the functional design criteria that we have been talking about previously that would describe how the design features need to perform to satisfy their associated design function.
So same with that example of a cooling system. The functional design criteria could --
characteristics like the minimum flow rates of a pump, speed of a valve closure or opening, or, as Bill was talking about, the actual effectiveness of a filter that would be implemented for a safety system.
Okay. So next slide, please.
Okay. So I'm just going to step through each one of these and -- as a matter of getting through some of the details of how that hierarchy works.
Section 53.400 would require that design features be provided to satisfy the safety criteria and fulfill the safety functions from Subpart B during LBEs.
Section 53.410 would require functional design criteria be defined for the design features, relied upon to demonstrate that consequences of DBAs
106 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be below the criteria in 53.210, which is the safety criteria for the DBAs.
So those analyses would need to be performed in accordance with the requirements of Section 53.450, paragraph F, like I mentioned earlier today. And that would include the use of insights from both PRA and deterministic analyses.
So Section 53.415 would require that safety related SSCs be protected against or designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, external floods, as well as human constructed hazards, such as dam failures, transportation accidents, and accidents at military or industrial facilities.
So this would include requirements that safety-related SSCs remain capable of performing their associated safety functions under those conditions up to the magnitude of the design basis external hazard levels as that is identified and characterized under Section 53.510. That's in Subpart Delta, and I'll get
-- we'll talk about that a little bit later.
So the requirements under Section 53.415 would support the use of traditional deterministic approaches for determining and protecting against external hazards or probabilistic approaches that are
107 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com developed for seismic and other external hazards.
And Section 53.420 would require functional design criteria be defined for design features that play a significant role in demonstrating that the criteria in Section 53.220 for LBEs other than DBAs are -- would be satisfied.
And, again, as I had mentioned before, the analysis required to -- for that demonstration is addressed in Section 53.450 Echo that we talked about this morning, and that would require that those events be identified and assessed using PRA methodology, in combination with other generally accepted approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems.
So SSCs that would be determined to be safety significant would have associated requirements for special treatments, which would be provided for under Section 53.460, and I'll talk about that in another few slides.
The special treatments would generally refer to measures taken beyond the procurement and installation of commercial grade products to provide confidence that SSCs comply with the applicable functional design criteria, so very much like Bill was talking about earlier before the break.
And the inclusion of a systematic approach
108 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to identify -- identifying the functional design criteria for SSCs and tailoring the special treatments to specific LBEs and safety functions is an important contributor to satisfy the proposed criteria -- safety criteria in Subpart Bravo.
So, again, this is another way that designers and licensees for commercial nuclear powerplants under the proposed rule would be provided flexibility on how LBEs other than DBAs are either prevented or mitigated, and how the calculated comprehensive plant risks satisfy the safety criterion established for Section 53.220 Bravo.
Okay. Next slide, please.
So I just have a very -- again, this is just going to be a brief overview. Bill had already mentioned this a little bit in talking about the ALARA considerations and radiation protection.
Section 53.425 would establish requirements for design features and related functional design criteria, limiting doses to members of the public, and during normal operations, and to satisfy the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20. And, likewise, 53.430, those proposed requirements would do the same, but for protection of plant workers and maintaining occupational doses below the limits in Part 20.
109 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Next slide, please.
Okay?
MR. DRAFFIN: Yes. Cyril Draffin of U.S.
Nuclear Industrial Council. Discussing 53.425 when ALARA is being considered as a design feature, we talked about -- and you have the ambiguity, if you will, but it's not just referencing Part 20, but adding to it
-- Bill had talked about the various stages of thinking of features and then design criteria.
The question is, in the future, how does it get reviewed? And so when will guidance kind of clarifying that be available? And is there something in Appendix I in Part 50 or different standards other than the 10 millirem that could be considered? So I just wanted to open that up a little bit for discussion, if you had anything you wanted to clarify on it now.
MR. GILBERTSON: Well, I guess just, first, the guidance piece, that is part of our overall strategy to -- and that's part of the guidance that we are developing for this proposed rule as part of the content of applications guidance, which -- so we don't have anything that went out with this proposed rule in that regard, if I'm -- if I recall.
MR. RECKLEY: Correct. We didn't issue anything. But, again, the ISGs under advanced reactor
110 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com content application, ISGs 9 and 10, we expect will largely be applicable to this. Now that -- it's been a long time since I've looked. That might refer, given it was 50 and 52 to Appendix I to Part 50, that that would get replaced with the 10 millirem performance objective that would be in Part 53. The number is close anyway.
So I think you can get a pretty good indication by looking at those two ISGs, and there were
-- even there under Part 50, it acknowledges, for example, that an exemption could get requested to provide less information at a design search stage, and it would use a performance-based approach.
So the difference would be we wouldn't need that exemption, for example, under 50.34(a), because we already have the distinction under Subpart H for when information would be expected. So, but if you're looking technically, I think those two ISGs are a pretty good indicator of where we would go.
MR. FACEMIRE: And, for clarification, I think that's DANU-ISG-2022-03 and 04.
MR. RECKLEY: Right.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. Thanks.
MR. GILBERTSON: Which would be -- that's for Chapters 9 and 10 of --
111 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. FACEMIRE: Gotcha.
MR. RECKLEY: Chapters 9 and 10. Right.
MR. GILBERTSON: -- under the 12-chapter format. Right. So that's a good clarification.
Okay? Good to go? Okay.
MS. FIELDS: Keller, go ahead.
MR. KELLER: Yes. Mike Keller with Hybrid Power. Are you planning on using guidance documents to establish requirements? If you've got a requirement, wouldn't it make more sense just to put it in the Code of Federal Regulations?
MR. RECKLEY: No. The guidance explains how to meet the requirements. We don't establish requirements in the guidance.
MS. FRANOVICH: And is it a way or --
MR. RECKLEY: A way, yes.
MR. KELLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay? So moving on to Section Proposed 53.440 on the design requirements.
So this section would provide various design requirements specifically included to ensure that the design features required by 53.400 would comply with the functional design criteria required by Sections 53.410 and 420.
So the requirements in the proposed 53.440
112 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be met through design practices considering --
consideration of testing and operating experience and various assessments of LBEs and other environmental challenges to a facility design.
So getting specifically into the items here, Section -- or paragraph A under the proposed 53.440 would provide requirements to demonstrate that each design feature required under 53.400 would meet the functional design criteria. And this requirement is closely aligned with the requirements under Section 50.43 Echo regarding the use of analyses, test programs, prototype testing, and operating experience to demonstrate the performance of a design feature.
Section -- I'm sorry. Paragraph Bravo under 53.440 would require that design features be designed using generally accepted consensus codes and standards that would have been endorsed or otherwise found acceptable by the NRC. This requirement would ensure sufficient testing and qualification of materials and equipment and provide defined processes, specifications, and acceptance criteria for designers
-- for use by designers and suppliers.
The NRC would indicate acceptance through the generic endorsement typically, you know, through a regulatory guidance document, which might include
113 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com limitations or conditions, or through the review of a reference code or standard as part of the review of a specific application.
So paragraph Charlie --
MR. FACEMIRE: Wait. Can we --
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: -- stop on Bravo?
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: So it's really important to note that Bravo talks about the safety-related and NSRSS SSCs. And my specific question is, so -- and QA-1 is endorsed for QA or safety-related SSCs. Has NRC endorsed any QA code and standard for NSRST or S or that criteria? And, if not, we need one like ASAP.
MR. GILBERTSON: So I guess the codes and standards that might apply to that, I guess I'm thinking partially at the example of seismic hazard and the use of commercial codes. I guess the way that we are envisioning that right now is that, again, it's that, you know, we don't have an equivalent section in the proposed Part 53 rule to 50.55(a) or codes and standards that are codified in the rule.
So I guess we are -- it's more focused on application-specific reviews or if codes -- proposed codes and standards to be used for an application are
114 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com submitted through a topical report in advance to the NRC.
Bill or Nan, do you want to add anything to that?
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. I mean, in terms of the quality assurance, the short answer is no, I mean, other than in QA-1. Some of those include appendices or attachments -- I forget what they're called -- that talk about how to do it for non-safety-related, but those were probably not part of our endorsement.
The requirement on safety categorization we'll get to later says non-safety-related but safety significant SSCs may, but don't necessarily need to, meet Appendix B.
But as Anders said, probably the bigger picture we were looking at here was beyond the QA standards, would be something like an ASTM standard for the material you're using for a pipe. We just don't want to say that there's a pipe. Even if it's non-safety-related but safety significant, it meets a certain ASTM standard or it meets a certain ASME or, as Anders mentioned, ASCE standard for a structure, and you would say which one it was.
But to make the reviews more practical, to go back to what the engineers are actually
115 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com referencing and how they -- where they are starting from, right? Because almost everything at some point goes back to some consensus code and standard.
MR. FACEMIRE: Sure. But I guess my question is, does that 53.440 Bravo, as currently written, require you to go have QA for NSRSS systems, structures, and components that is in line with an endorsed standard? I think it's yes.
MR. RECKLEY: If one is available.
MR. FACEMIRE: But they're in synch, so what do we do?
MR. RECKLEY: Well, again, you could --
for that equipment, you would go back to the emphasis being on special treatment, right? And so the special treatment might point to something like a reliability assurance program. So that would be the special treatment for the non-safety-related but safety significant SSCs, not the quality standard that went into the SSC in the beginning, unless a licensee or an applicant wanted to reference it.
MR. FACEMIRE: That is what I think it should be. I read 53.440 Bravo as requiring NSRSS things to be in line with an NRC-endorsed code and standard for QA.
MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And, again, if
116 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com you're reading it that way, that would be a comment to make that could be read that way, and then we'll look at what the intent was, which was not that.
MR. FACEMIRE: Good. I am glad to hear that.
MR. RECKLEY: And then we can address your comment.
MR. FACEMIRE: And then, the follow-on, when you say "endorse," right, like Reg. Guide 1.246, which endorses ASME Section 11, Division 2, there is a table in the back that has safety-related and NSRST, and in the NSRST column there is -- and I want to read the exact words from the Reg. Guide. Give me one second. But it does endorse the ASME B -- well, it arguably endorses ASME B31.1.
And what's the other one? I guess -- oh, sorry, I have the wrong one. It's Reg. Guide 1.87 endorsing Section 3, Division 5. Apologies. But there is -- in the NSRST column, as the B31.1 and ASME B31.3, but there is a note that these standards address design and high-temperature environments and may be acceptable with appropriate justification.
Applicants may propose alternate standards with appropriate justification. I'm assuming that doesn't count as an endorsement. Or does it?
117 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. VALLIERE: I think it would be endorsed with appropriate justification. So it's not a blanket endorsement. Doesn't sound like it.
MR. FACEMIRE: So --
MS. VALLIERE: What?
MR. FACEMIRE: So I could meet 53.440 Bravo by pointing to that Reg. Guide using ASME B31.1, but I would have to provide an additional technical justification.
MR. RECKLEY: Right.
MR. FACEMIRE: Okay. That's really important. Thanks.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Next, we have a question from Keller. Go ahead.
MR. KELLER: Yeah. Just an observation.
You know, there's a vast armada of codes. Attempting to endorse all of those is -- would be logistically difficult. Wouldn't it be easier just to incorporate the major codes by reference into 10 CFR 53 with --
I mean, both industry and the NRC are supposed to be cooperating on these codes anyway, as required by the Nuclear Modernization Act.
I'm just thinking in terms of ways to make the overall process easier for all the parties. And the lesser codes, they're tied into the major codes
118 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com anyway, so it kind of catches everything together.
Just a thought.
MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And we'll go back to the initial thing. If you have a thought and you think it would make it better, please submit the comment and then --
MR. KELLER: Oh, we will.
MR. RECKLEY: -- we can have --
MR. KELLER: We will.
MR. RECKLEY: Good.
MS. FIELDS: Then we have a question from Sarah Gibboney. Go ahead.
MS. GIBBONEY: Hello. This is Sarah Gibboney with Bechtel. I picked up on something that you had said about 53.440 Bravo, the consensus codes and standards acceptable to the NRC. You had said that a QA program for NSRST would point to other special treatments.
I would point to NEI-1804, Table 4-1, where the QA program for NSRST is separate from all the other potential special treatments, including the Reliability Assurance Program that would be invoked.
It is in addition to; it is not a substitution for the QA program for NSRST components.
Thanks.
119 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. GILBERTSON: Okay.
MR. FACEMIRE: And then I guess one more.
To make this requirement workable for NSRSS components under Part 53, there is going to be a lot of endorsement work required. The Reg. Guide 1.246 for rem is currently endorsed just for non-light water reactors.
There is an appendix in there for light water reactors. My understanding is the NRC hasn't looked at that, or I guess we can provide a list of important codes that would be high priority for endorsement in the associated reg. guides that currently endorse them for Part 50 or 52. But to make 53.440 Bravo workable, we need a lot of reg. guide updates in that area. A lot of them.
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. I mean, that -- and, again, all of these are good comments. Please provide them. The motivation for putting this in was in order to get the engineering in a predictable and organized path, the vehicle was consensus codes and standards.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yeah.
MR. RECKLEY: Right? And so that was the thought. And if it -- if it needs some -- or if you feel it needs some clarification or guidance, please, in the comments.
MR. FACEMIRE: And it's a good thought,
120 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com like the path forward I agree with, it just needs to be supported by three or four dozen reg. guides.
MS. FIELDS: With that, we have no hands online, no hands in the room.
Go ahead, Anders.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. Moving on to paragraph Charlie. So this 440, paragraph Charlie would require that materials used for safety-related and non-safety-related but safety-significant SSCs would be qualified for their service conditions over the design life of the SSC.
Paragraph Delta would require consideration of possible degradation mechanisms for materials and equipment to inform both the design processes and the development of integrity assessment programs, which would be active during the operational phase, in accordance with the proposed requirements under Subpart Foxtrot.
So this reflects the important lessons learned from the history of light water reactors as well as operating experience with structures and systems in numerous other engineering areas.
Paragraphs Echo and Foxtrot would provide design requirements similar to existing requirements in Parts 50, 52, and 73, for protections against fires
121 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com and explosions and consideration of safety and security together in the design process.
Paragraphs Golf and Hotel would require that plants under the proposed Part 53 have the capability to achieve and maintain subcriticality and long-term cooling. So these proposed requirements would address the potential for a reactor design to
-- where reactor design may be able to achieve a safe, stable end state for the purposes of an event analysis, but might need further actions to completely shut down and service the facility.
Paragraph India would require consideration of the number of reactor units and other significant inventories of radioactive materials contributing to risks to the public health and safety.
So this would reflect the definition of "commercial nuclear plant" in Subpart A, Alpha, and would reinforce that the evaluation of LBEs is performed on a plant wide basis.
And so this aspect of the Part 53 proposed rule would be different from Parts 50 and 52, the latter of which are generally defined in their safety requirements relative to individual reactor units.
Paragraph Juliet would provide requirements similar to those provided under 10 CFR
122 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 50.150 to address possible impacts of large commercial aircraft.
Paragraph Kilo would require the risks to public health from potential chemical hazards of licensed material that is appropriate given the diversity of reactor technologies and designs that might be licensed under Part 53.
So this would be similar to existing requirements under Part 70 that address both potential radiological and chemical hazards for licensed materials at facilities.
Paragraph Lima would require that measures taken during the design of a facility -- that measures be taken to minimize contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize the generation of radioactive waste in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1406.
Paragraph Mike would include a requirement equivalent to 10 CFR 50.68 that provides options to either have criticality monitoring capabilities meeting the requirements in 10 CFR 70.24 or to have restrictions on the handling and storage of special nuclear material that would prevent inadvertent criticality events.
And then, finally, paragraph November
123 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would require that the design of a facility would need to reflect the state of the art in human factors principles for safe and reliable performance in all settings that human activities are credited for performing or supporting continued availability of plant safety or emergency response functions.
Okay. That concludes 53. All right?
Have you got a question?
MS. FRANOVICH: I do. Rani Franovich, Nuclear ROSE Consulting.
For 53.440 Juliet, physical barriers maintained assuming aircraft impact, I'm just curious whether the NRC and staff have considered the threat environment of today with intelligence, particularly regarding gaining control -- adversary gaining control of an aircraft and using it as a weapon as it did in 9/11 and the reduction in that threat based on intelligence and based on revisions to prevent that from happening again.
Did the NRC consider that in evaluating whether or not this requirement is practical at this point in time?
MS. VALLIERE: So -- can I?
MR. RECKLEY: Yes. Go ahead.
MS. VALLIERE: So, in Part 53, we were just
124 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com attempting to provide an equivalent requirement to that which exists in 50 and is applicable to applicants under 50 and 52 with regard to the aircraft impact assessment.
Of course, we had to make some alterations to make it technology-inclusive here, but that was the goal, to provide a complementary requirement with regard to aircraft impact in 53 that would be equivalent to under 50 and 52.
So we did not undertake addressing the policy issue of whether the Commission should revisit its current policy with regard to aircraft impact.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Is that something that didn't occur to the staff or there was just a decision not -- I mean, was it an oversight or was it, you know, we'll just try to be consistent with current regulations?
MS. VALLIERE: I will tell you that those discussions have been ongoing --
MS. FRANOVICH: Yeah.
MS. VALLIERE: -- recently, especially with regard to things like micro reactors. So that conversation is taking place. But at the time we drafted 53, you know, the goal there was to provide something equivalent to what exists today until --
until, or, you know, the time that policy issue could
125 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com be revisited, if it was to be revisited. Yes.
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Nan. That helps a lot. Appreciate it. That's fine.
MS. FIELDS: And we had a question online from Keller. Go ahead.
MR. KELLER: Yeah. This is Mike Keller with Hybrid Power. Just a thought. Have you guys thought about adding something along the lines of protection and mitigation on aircraft coming in? You know, that would buy time, which would be critical.
And it's kind of hard to miss a large commercial aircraft on radar.
But, broadly speaking, it would reduce the risk where basically the plant could start shutting down. Just a thought. Thank you.
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. There is a requirement in Subpart F for licensee action upon notification of an impending or a threatening aircraft.
So I'll just point you to Subpart F.
MR. KELLER: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. I don't see any more questions online, no questions in the room.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: Just keep going.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. Let's move
126 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on to -- go to the next slide, please.
Talk about proposed 53.450. So this section is related to the analysis requirements. And as I've mentioned before, these requirements would center on the use of a PRA in combination with other generally accepted approaches for systematically evaluating engineered systems.
And the reliance on a PRA is a key component in proposed analyses that reflects decades of improvements in PRA methodologies and the increased use of PRA techniques in design, licensing, and oversight of both operating and future nuclear reactors.
So the proposed Part 53 rule would maintain a role for the NRC's traditional deterministic approaches, particularly as it relates to DBAs, as I mentioned earlier today, and for the defense-in-depth philosophy by including the specific requirements that use those tools and that we have already talked about earlier.
So getting to the specific requirements under the proposed 53.450, paragraph A would require the use of a PRA to identify potential failures, susceptibility to internal and external hazards, and other contributing factors to event sequences that
127 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com might challenge the safety functions identified under Section 53.230, and to support demonstrating ultimately that the safety criteria under Section 53.220 are met or any more restrictive alternative criteria under Section 53.470, which I will talk about that in a few slides.
Paragraph Bravo would include requirements on the specific uses of analyses, which would include using the PRA in combination with other techniques in Part 53 to identify and categorize LBEs, classify SSCs, and evaluate defense in depth.
So this increased role for PRA necessarily means it would be need to be developed, performed, and maintained in accordance with NRC-approved standards and practices, and, of course, for non-LWRs, the suite of guidance is available for that.
We have talked a little bit as well earlier this morning about how that would necessarily work for LWRs, and that is an issue that we are currently thinking about and developing an approach to address that.
So 53.450 Charlie would require periodic maintenance and upgrading of the PRA to maintain alignment between the supporting analyses and the
128 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com design and performance of plant equipment, programs and procedures, and other factors that are associated with meeting safety criteria under 53.220.
And the periodic maintenance of the PRA would also be a means to consider new or revised information related to external hazards, industry operating experience, performance issues with or degradation of SSCs, and other contributors to the frequency and potential consequences of various event sequences.
So these periodic assessments performed by the licensees to support PRA maintenance and other requirements in the proposed Part 53 rule would be complemented by NRC inspections and the programs to assess new or revised information for topics such as natural hazards, operating experience, and potential generic safety issues.
Paragraph Delta would require that the computer codes used to model the plant response and behavior of barriers to the release of radionuclides would need to be qualified for the range of conditions being simulated and for a wide range of unplanned events. But these analyses would need to use realistic approaches and addresses and would address uncertainties associated with state of knowledge,
129 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com modeling, and performance of SSCs.
All right. And getting to paragraph Echo, which we had talked about before, again, these would provide the requirements for the analysis of LBEs.
An important aspect of these requirements is that the analysis of LBEs other than DBAs would not only be used to show that the performance criteria under 53.220 are satisfied but also show that the evaluation criteria defined for each LBE or category of LBEs would also be satisfied.
And so the evaluation criteria would be defined in terms of limits on the release of radionuclides or maintaining integrity of one or more barriers used to limit the release -- releases of radionuclides and is intended to provide a graded approach of allowing lesser potential consequences or more frequent events.
So, again, this is very closely related to and heavily informed by the principles and concepts described in the LMP methodology in NEI-1804, and as we endorsed it in that document and Reg. Guide 1.233.
MS. FIELDS: Anders, I think we have a question from Sarah Gibboney.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay.
MS. GIBBONEY: Hello. This is Sarah
130 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Gibboney with Bechtel. I have a question about 53.450, paragraph Echo. My understanding is this is about the safety analyses that we performed to verify the safety of our design of a power plant. Would this also apply to criticality prevention, such as the extensive benchmarking that we currently perform for preventing criticality outside of the core? There is a great deal of conservatism in the deterministic approaches. Is this signaling that the NRC is open to a more risk-informed benchmarking approach?
MR. GILBERTSON: Let's see. I guess I might need to defer to you, Bill or Nan, for this question. I mean, I think the analyses for criticality prevention, would those be handled -- would those not be handled in other portions of the -- in another subpart?
MR. RECKLEY: Well, if it's in terms of criticality of fuel outside the core, we talked about that a little bit before in terms of 440. I forget the number.
So in terms -- I guess I'm a little lost on your question in terms of 450(e) is related to unplanned events. So this is the PRA-related events modeling plant upsets. If you're talking about the criticality analysis for things like fuel storage,
131 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that's coming up and that's really addressed in another area related to making sure that fuel stored outside the core remains subcritical.
There's the requirements under 440.
Later we'll talk about the procedures that are in Subpart F. So --
MS. GIBBONEY: Well, to clarify, this would also apply to any AOO that would happen inside of the core as well, and the effect on the criticality of the core itself. And that would be an analysis that would be considered a licensing basis event, and that also has some conservatism in it.
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. If it's a -- if it's a plant upset related to the addition or subtraction of reactivity to the core, yeah, it would have to be modeled. And under 440(d), we would be saying that that that has to be qualified with experimental data and validation of the codes, and it's a fairly -- I don't think there is any dramatic difference between what we're proposing here and what would be in place for the current fleet.
MR. GILBERTSON: It may have been -- and I guess maybe I could just add on to that -- that the guidance that's proposed under DG-1413 on the identification of initiating events, that would
132 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com notionally be the type of initiator that, you know, would be identified or that guidance would be intended to help identify through the course of developing the PRA and the analysis of the LBEs.
MS. VALLIERE: And that DG was issued with the proposed rule.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MS. VALLIERE: For public comment.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. I don't see any more hands online. I don't see any more hands in the room.
So --
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. And I mentioned this before with -- earlier today, Section -- paragraph Echo under 53.450 would also include a means to identify event sequences that are risk significant.
So moving on to paragraph Foxtrot, this would require the analysis of DBAs to address event sequences drawn from LBEs with estimated frequencies that are below the expected lifetime of the generation of reactors. I had mentioned that this morning. And also that DBAs would need to be analyzed using deterministic methods to ensure a safe, stable end state, only relying on safety-related SSCs and human actions, if needed.
133 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So, again, just to reemphasize, the purpose of the analysis of DBAs under the proposed Part 53 rule would be broadly to identify and select safety related SSCs and determine the functional design criteria for those SSCs.
MS. FIELDS: It looks like we have a question from Dr. Lyman.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MS. FIELDS: Dr. Lyman, go ahead.
DR. LYMAN: Thanks. Ed Lyman. So here is where I get confused, and maybe you talked about it earlier and I missed it. But my assumption is that the analysis of the DBAs is going to have to be equivalent to what is currently done under Part 50 and
- 52. The types of -- spectrum of actions may have different, but the analysis and the assumptions are going to be the same.
And talking about the single failure criteria in particular, I read and reread what the preamble says about that, and I don't understand it.
So how are you going to assure that the equivalent level of conservatism, including single failure criterion, is applied to this section?
MR. RECKLEY: Well, if I can, when we --
when we say "to the parallel," we are talking about
134 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com basically the conservatisms and the underlying analysis and the reliance on safety-related equipment.
But a difference is that you are only testing basically one success path for the DBA under Part 53.
And, therefore, the requirements for defense in depth are really provided more under the licensing basis events other than design basis accidents to make sure you have a backup to the SSC that's most likely being credited for the DBA, because you're assuming most likely, or in many cases, that that SSC would have failed and you have a backup. But you're now in Part 53 space we would call a very unlikely event sequence.
So, in terms of the backup, that's where it's provided. The reason we feel comfortable with that is, again, because we do not have the single failure analysis in Part -- single failure criterion in Part 53. It, instead, relies on that probabilistic approach to show you have defense in depth and the need to show and maintain reliability and availability criteria for that backup equipment, the non-safety-related but safety-significant equipment that would be backing you up.
So if you're looking at it exactly as it would be looked at now, where you have two trains of
135 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com safety-related equipment because you assume one failed because of the single failure criteria, be it core cooling, containment cooling, reactivity control, all of the places that the single failure criterions mentioned under the GDC, that's not there. So you won't have two trains necessarily. You could, but you don't have to.
The DBA would be testing, like I said before, one success path to show that that equipment, that safety-related equipment, will keep you below the 210 safety criteria. So there's some similarities.
There are some key differences in the DBA under Part
- 53.
DR. LYMAN: So that isn't really clear --
MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
DR. LYMAN: -- from the rule. So here in comment space, which I'll say, I think you need to spell that out. But I don't see that there -- it's equivalent, because in the -- you're saying you're not going to consider a single failure in a deterministic way where you're not considering the probability of the single failure, right?
That's the way it is now, and here you would be. So it seems that is a level of defense in depth that is not -- that's not equivalent or not clearly
136 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com equivalent. So I'll just put that out there. Thanks.
MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thanks, Ed.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Then we have Dr.
Stein.
DR. STEIN: All right. Thank you. Adam Stein from the Breakthrough Institute. I think this is an appropriate time to carry on from the last clarification, because it addressed in part one of my questions.
This section in the preamble discusses how DBAs and defense in depth are part of the NRC's traditional deterministic approach to regulation.
And that discussion in the preamble implied that defense in depth was going to be handled in the traditional deterministic manner, which would move away from changes that we've seen recently with, for instance, functional containment and other approaches where you can have different ways of addressing defense in depth.
Instead of shrift, you must have X number of barriers or X number of trains, and they will just mention that we would have a probabilistic approach to defense in depth, which does address that. But the challenge still remains in the language in the preamble that implies that Part 53 will use the traditional
137 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com deterministic approach of defense in depth and, more broadly, that Part 53 is supposed to have at least partially encompassed the traditional NRC approach to deterministic regulation, which is potentially not in line with the mandated NIEMA.
So if you could just say a few words to clarify that I'm understanding that you are not intending to take the traditional deterministic approach of defense in depth as had always been done in, say, Part 50 and Part 53.
MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Again, I would just suggest if there is wording that's implying that that you point it out to us as needing clarification, because, really, all -- I think all we were trying to say was we are maintaining defense in depth as the philosophy.
However, the traditional, if you will, deterministic way that was done was through the GDC.
I mean, defense in depth was provided, but it was required specifically because you will have this, you will have the next thing, and you'll have the last thing, and each one of those would survive a single failure.
What we were trying to say in the preamble is we are not doing that here. We're not prescribing
138 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com how defense in depth is provided, but it needs to be provided. It needs to be assessed and addressed primarily, as Anders mentioned earlier, to address the uncertainties associated with your analytical capabilities and the performance of the equipment and then do an assessment to show that you in fact have provided adequate defense in depth with the one proviso being you cannot use a single SSC or a single human action to address the various categories of licensing basis events. You can't have one thing that addresses all levels of the event categories.
So if you are reading into the preamble something where we were -- that you interpreted as we were keeping with the GDC traditional deterministic approach, then point that out, because, again, the way I'm trying to describe it here I think is what we intended for it to say.
DR. STEIN: Sure. I will point that out in comments, but for everybody in the room it's on page
- 2. It's on page 86928 of the Federal Register Notice.
MS. FIELDS: Okay. Jon, do you have a question?
MR.
FACEMIRE:
So appreciate this conversation, and I think this gets back to some of the earlier comments I've made about needing to update
139 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com reg. guides, right? Like if you follow the LMP approach, then, like Reg. Guide 1.233 should discuss how you are meeting 53.450 Echo and you wouldn't have to do single failure criteria.
But, you know, there are great guides for how to do the traditional deterministic design basis analysis, and those reg. guides should say you can meet 53.450 Echo doing it this way, but you also have to meet all of these requirements for single failure criterion.
So that's kind of the broad comment, but I know we need the reg. guides.
MS. FIELDS: I don't see any more hands up. I don't see any more comments in the room.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. Getting to the last paragraph of Section 53.450, this would propose requirements that the analyses are performed to support the design requirements of 53.440(e) on fire protection; 53.440(j) on aircraft impact assessments; and 53.425 on using design features and plant programs to control doses to members of the public that --
resulting from normal operation.
So the proposed analysis requirements related to fire protection would support either a traditional or deterministic approach, or a more
140 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com risk-informed approach where risks from fires are addressed within the identification and analyses of LBEs.
Okay. So that concludes that section.
I did though want to -- I'm going to speak a little more in depth on the notion of PRA acceptability given that there is now a requirement, or we would -- I'm sorry, we would propose a requirement to have and use a PRA for specific purposes.
So if you'd go to the next slide, please?
So I'm really just going to expand a little bit on this similar discussion that's in the preamble of the Federal Register notice and just to mention that there are industry consensus PRA standards and PRA peer review processes that are endorsed in existing regulatory guidance. And those remain acceptable for developing a PRA for use in regulatory decision making but want to -- I wanted to point out that those -- the use of those standards and that guidance are not regulatory requirements and an application under the proposed Part 53 may not need to follow every aspect of an applicable consensus standard as it's been endorsed by the NRC.
So to that point, and as we have talked about a little earlier on, there are processes that
141 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com exist for defining the scope and the capability of a PRA that's supporting an application and offer flexibility in determining the degree to which that PRA needs to be developed for a specific application.
And that can be informed by factors such as design complexity, the needed degree of realism and level of detail, and consistent with the use of the PRA and the substance of the application itself.
So we've alluded to this a few times before, the ASME/ANS non-LWR PRA standard. That's designated as ASME/ANS RA-S-1.4-2021. This provides a process for appropriately defining the needed capability of the PRA and for determining applicability of the supporting requirements in that consensus PRA standard. So this process of defining the scope needed for your PRA is endorsed in Reg Guide 1.247 by the NRC and this could be used to satisfy the proposed regulatory requirements for the specific uses of the analysis under 53.450(b).
So that's a process that's available for the development of the PRA in terms of NRC determinations of the acceptability of such PRAs under the Part 53 proposed rule. This would include consideration of the appropriateness of the applicant-defined capability as part of the NRC's
142 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com determination of the applicability of and conformance to consensus PRA standard supporting requirements and consistent with the state of practice, their current state of practice. So another way of saying that: the NRC determinations of PRA acceptability under the proposed Part 53 rule would not involve applying the PRA consensus standards as a strict checklist of requirements. It would be tied to the needs of the application submitted and the purpose and use of the PRA.
So these determinations by the NRC would also include consideration of other aspects of developing a PRA such as PRA peer review like we talked about this morning and an NRC determination of the acceptability of a PRA includes but it's not limited to assessing the initial and boundary conditions and key assumptions used in the analysis, the treatment of uncertainties, and the use of screening tools in bounding or simplified methods for any mode or hazard provided that the use of those tools and the methods are justified within an acceptable technical basis.
Okay. So and just to point out we -- again we've got one of the pink boxes here. So we were interested in specific comments on PRA acceptability, the way we're talking about it, the way we're thinking
143 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com about it, whether the guidance that's currently available is sufficient, et cetera.
So please take note of that when you're thinking about this and these related requirements.
MS. FIELDS: Anders, it looks like we have a comment, a question.
Yes, Dr. Stein, go ahead.
DR. STEIN: Hi, Adam Stein with the Breakthrough Institute. I appreciate the discussion about how the staff is thinking this is not an exact requirement to use a specific endorsed PRA standard.
That's -- and the discussion earlier about how PRA may be defined a little bit differently in this section verse the preamble verse Subsection A leads me to ask why did the staff not use the recommendation from of the SRM to replace PRA with the similar but more generic, I supposed, risk evaluations terminology?
MS. VALLIERE: So maybe I'm just going to interject here to say the purpose of this meeting really isn't to discuss why or how the staff implemented the Commission's SRM. We implemented the SRM. We sent the package to the Commission for their review and they deemed that the package was suitable and appropriate to be published for public comment. So we are happy
144 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to address questions about the rule as published for public comment and to help understand it, but are not necessarily here for the purpose today to talk about why we did or did not do something in response to the Commission's SRM.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay.
MR. FACEMIRE: I guess since we have someone from OGC here I want to --
(Laughter.)
MR. FACEMIRE: No, I just want to ask --
the language in 53.450(a), I want to make sure I'm not reading that wrong. It says a PRA of each commercial nuclear plant must be performed to identify potential failures' susceptibility to internal and external hazards and other contributing factors. I read that as a clear requirement that the PRA must be performed to identify susceptibility to internal and external hazards. Would you interpret that the same way?
MR. SMITH: Not able to provide legal interpretations in a public meeting, but I would emphasize what Bill has said, that there -- you have comments on ways we think the language could be structured better to effectuate some of the intent you heard Bill, Anders, and Nan talk about today. Now is the time. This would be a great thing to comment on
145 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com so we welcome those comments. They'd be especially valuable to us.
MR. FACEMIRE: I appreciate that. I just want to highlight that that one specific clause is the only thing that I really have issue with.
MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and certainly again comments are welcome on potential places, but also look broader. For example, when we're talking -- get there momentarily -- earthquake engineering, we talk about that there's various ways to address that hazard. And a full-blown seismic PRA is one --
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes.
MR. RECKLEY: -- but not the only way to do that. And so I think that's what we'll fall back on is saying not -- that you don't necessarily have to read it as black and white as it might be read.
But again, going back, it could be read that way. And that's not the way it's intended to be read. That's a good comment to provide so that we can assess it.
MS. FIELDS: And we have a question from Francis. Go ahead.
MR. AKSTULEWICZ: Yes. Hi, this is Frank Akstulewicz again, Terrestrial Energy. I forgot to identify myself the first time.
I'm on slide 42 and the discussion that
146 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com we've been having with respect to the use of the consensus PRA standard as a strict checklist for the acceptability of the PRA, and I'm wondering if the staff went back and looked at -- and this kind of gets to Jon's point -- if you look at what the rule says you're supposed to use the PRA for, then would it actually require the use of the consensus standard because of
-- when it speaks to the issue here, it -- on terms of how the uses of the PRA and the scope and needs of the application -- if the rule is requiring everything, then it would be hard to say you could walk away from the PRA standard.
So I'm curious, did the staff go back and look at that?
MR. GILBERTSON: Well, I guess I would say that with the requirements that we talked about earlier on on using consensus codes and standards and that as
-- and endorsed by the NRC, I think that would be the sort of hook for using that -- the non-LWR PRA standard for a design of that type. If there -- if a standard doesn't exist, the -- meeting a consensus standard --
we talk about in Reg Guide 1.247 on non-LWR PRA acceptability, for example. We talk about meeting a consensus standard as one way to meet the staff's position in that regulatory guidance.
So I guess in the absence of a standard
147 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that's available for a specific case, if there's not regulatory guidance, then we need to maybe think about that. But also that could be an area where something is proposed and it's -- we review it on an application-specific basis.
MR. AKSTULEWICZ: I appreciate that. I just -- again, the question that I have is if you write the rule in such a way that you require everything to be done, then the flexibility that is supposedly within the language of the rule is limited because of the specifications that you built into the rule in terms of what's to be done and how it's to be done and for what purposes you're doing it so that you really --
you suggest there's flexibility, but in the reality of it there's not.
So I would offer that a comment would be
-- and I'm going to go back this later, but are the flexibilities offered by the language of the rule really flexible or are they illusory with respect to the capabilities that you would have to go through to even get the benefit of having some other options?
So just a comment.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. No, and I appreciate that. I guess I would just add, to kind of cap that off, that -- and going back to the PRA
148 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com applications process that is talked about in the non-LWR PRA standard, again sticking with that technology area -- that has different options for being able to consider what the scope you would use for your PRA. There is an option in part of that process to use supplementary evaluations as they're referred to that non-LWR PRA standard.
We've talked about that as -- when we developed the guidance for construction permit PRA acceptability under Reg Guide 1.253. And but I guess I would -- so that is a potential avenue for doing something else to address a hazard that a facility is exposed to. I would also add though that that process does explicitly say that the non-LWR PRA standard does not have requirements for how to address the supplementary evaluation.
So again, this gets back to the notion of if you start to reduce the scope of the PRA and treat hazards using other types of evaluations, there is a connection that needs to be made between how those evaluations are used together with the PRA analysis to arrive at your conclusions of how your comprehensive risk metrics do what you're proposing they need to do, are meeting the appropriate risk performance objectives that have been proposed or defined. So I
149 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com think the process is available. So I'll just -- I guess to reiterate that. I'll leave it there.
MR. RECKLEY: Yes. I mean, the bottom line is look at the guidance because a lot of times the flexibility is afforded in the guidance. And in this particular case the non-light water reactor PRA standard provides a number of flexibilities depending on what you're trying to do. So that's the rule language. And yes, we point to that you need to do a standard, but then the standard provides some flexibility itself.
MS. FIELDS: And I'll just remind everybody that we're not accepting comments during this meeting and if you have comments on the proposed rule or any of the associated documents, please (audio interference).
Okay. I don't see any additional hands online or hands in the room, so --
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. Let's move to the next slide to talk about Section 53.460.
Okay. So this is -- we've been talking
-- alluding to this throughout the day today. So, and the safety categorization. I'll just point out I think we've used categorization, classification. Those terms are ostensibly interchangeable. There's no
150 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com distinction, just for everybody's clarity.
So the proposed requirements under 53.460 would establish a
criteria for the safety categorization of SSCs and determining the appropriate special treatments. The proposed terminology would include the categories of safety-related, which are abbreviated as SR; non-safety-related but safety-significant, or NSRSS; and non-safety-significant SSCs.
And you might recall or you can flip back to the slide on the definitions, at the bottom of that list was a term for special treatments. So that's been defined -- that would be defined in 53.20 to mean those items such as the measures taken to satisfy functional design criteria, quality assurance, and programmatic controls which would provide assurance that certain SSCs would provide defense-in-depth or perform risk-significant functions.
So these requirements would also be --
would also provide confidence that SSCs would perform under the service conditions and with the reliability credited in the analysis of the LBEs and -- or the analysis under 53.450 to satisfy the safety criteria.
So regarding requirements for safety-related SSCs, these could be defined in other
151 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com sections of the proposed Part 53 rule and would include using technical specifications for controls during operations and the application of quality assurance requirements from Appendix B to Part 50.
The safety-related SSCs would also contribute to risk-significant functions and measures taking to ensure defense-in-depth as we've been talking about previously and would potentially warrant special treatments beyond those defined for their safety-related functions.
Requirements for NSRSS SSCs would include the need to identify necessary special treatments such as performance measures on reliability. The requirements for non-safety-significant SSCs would allow those types of SSCs to be (audio interference) under normal licensee programs for commercial-grade equipment and typical industry practices for general plant design and maintenance.
Okay. If we can move onto the next slide, please? All right. I alluded to this proposed requirement earlier on. Section 53.470 would allow an applicant or a licensee to seek operational flexibilities by adopting more restrictive criteria than those provided in Section 53.220 and that might otherwise be used in the analysis of LBEs under
152 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 53.450(e). So this approach could be taken to ensure that there are sufficient safety margins for the purposes of gaining operational flexibilities.
So for
- example, flexibilities in justifying staffing levels or siting in relation to population centers. An applicant could propose justifying different site proposals by adopting alternate criteria for very unlikely event sequences (audio interference) example.
So this alternate criteria could require calculated consequences for an individual at the exclusionary boundary to be less than one REM total affected dose equivalent. And this section would establish requirements to ensure that if restrictive
-- if more restrictive evaluation criteria were used than were required by methodology for the purposes of justifying operational flexibilities, then the analysis, the design features, and the programmatic controls would need to be established and maintained accordingly.
Okay. Next slide, please? All right.
So Section 53.480 will wrap up Subpart C. And this section would propose to establish the seismic design considerations and it would relate to safety criteria in Subpart B, the analytical requirements required to
153 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
-- related to the external hazards under 53.450, and Subpart D siting requirements, which I'll talk about after our next break.
So these requirements under 53.480 would support a variety of approaches to seismic design such as demonstrating that SSCs are able to withstand the effects of earthquakes by adopting an approach similar to that of Appendix S to Part 50.
So alternatively an applicant can follow one of the most recent risk-informed alternatives afforded by standards development organizations. An example of that might be the ASCE/SEI 43-19. Notably the agency has not endorsed this standard, I think as we've mentioned that earlier -- in earlier discussions, but an applicant could propose to use that standard on an application-specific basis and to meet the requirements under the 53.480. And the NRC would evaluate the adequacy of that standard accordingly and for the application it's being submitted with.
MR. FACEMIRE: Quick comment on that.
MR. GILBERTSON: Yes.
MR. FACEMIRE: Going back to the codes and standards requirement earlier for NSRSS, structures that may be appropriate to use ASCE 7, that was discussed in some of the public comments on the
154 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com pre-decisional Draft Guide 1410. So if that -- if ASCE 7 isn't tackled by Draft Guide 1410, that would need to be addressed, the potential use of ASCE 7 for NSRSS structures. And I'd like -- I'd really like to have the draft guide to inform that comment.
MR. RECKLEY: I'll check on the status.
I mean, as you mentioned, we issued a pre-decisional --
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes.
MR. RECKLEY: -- version of that. I know we're working on the actual draft reg guide for publication.
And then the last thing I'll mention is that -- as Anders mentioned earlier, keep in mind one of the ways the NRC has to approve a consensus code and standard is within an application.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes.
MR. RECKLEY: So I know the way we're typically used to -- where the reg guide comes first and then the reference, but given where we are with the state of the technologies and the pace that we're going, there will likely be cases where the approval will be within an application. And the intent here is then it's approved, right? I mean -- so we always have the caveat of wording so that it's not, but
155 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com hopefully we would word it so that once it's approved for one, it would be -- set the scope and others could refer to it up until we're able to catch up and issue it via a regulatory guide.
MR. FACEMIRE: Appreciate that. Thank you.
MR. GILBERTSON: Okay. I'll continue on.
And I just was going to note that, sort of cutting across the broader spectrum of examples for how 53.480 could be met, the design could also have full integration of a seismic PRA through design and development and the licensing approach. So that's another example.
So that's again just to say these requirements have been developed to accommodate a variety of potential risk-informed performance-based seismic design approaches. And to that end we do have a specific solicitation of comments on the earthquake engineering and requirements in there. So we understand that that's a prominent topic, that is a prominent hazard, so please be sure to look at that.
And that's all I have to present under Subpart C.
MS. FIELDS: Let me ask, are there any questions online or in the room about Subpart C we didn't already get to? A question from Dr. Lyman.
156 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Go ahead.
DR. LYMAN: Hi, yes, I have a question about 470. So what's the difference between language there and the situation where an applicant shows they have margin to the original or to the same standard that everyone else is using and then claims that it can get credit for that margin? What's the difference between that and actually setting more restrictive standards and meeting them? I think I understand, but I want to hear it from you.
MR. RECKLEY: Well, I would say that all we're trying to do here is when they say they have margin or they meet a more restrictive criteria that that gets captured in the analysis or record and is thereby maintained. I'll say we have not always at the NRC made sure that a one-time analysis and justification is necessarily captured as you go forward. And this just wants to be very clear that once you've done something -- like as Anders stated the example, I kept the dose below one REM and one month at a certain distance to justify an alternate siting criteria, but that analysis and that result is now captured.
If five years from now I do a power uprate, I'm not comparing my analysis back to the regulatory requirement, let's say, of -- or the topical report
157 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com value for LNP, let's say. I have to show that with the power uprate I stay less than one REM over a month that I used to justify the change in the emergency planning zone or population calculation.
So I mean, it's a little different.
Population is a whole other -- we'll get to that in the next subpart. But the calculation we want to be maintained. So I don't know. Did I mess that up, Ed?
DR. LYMAN: No, I think I understand. So one other question: So when they say they have margin, that's after they've already applied whatever defense-in-depth requirements are there, right? So just because you have margin doesn't mean you really have it unless you've shown that that -- that you still have defense-in-depth. Well, where is that final result? Is that -- you said --
MR.
RECKLEY:
Right.
- Yes, the defense-in-depth is really kind of a separate assessment because it --
DR. LYMAN: Right.
MR. RECKLEY: -- gets to -- you have to show you have multiple ways to protect. So I mean, it's not totally unrelated, but --
DR.
LYMAN:
- Well, when I
say defense-in-depth, I really mean the existence of margin
158 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to limits.
MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
DR. LYMAN: As an additional, right? As an additional level of safety. So you can't --
MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
DR. LYMAN: But I guess ultimately you have no requirement for any margin. You can just be up against the limit. So, all right. I'll stop there.
Thanks.
MR. RECKLEY: Well, it's again -- and just like we -- just like the problems we have when we try to discuss these things for the current system that's been in place for 50 years, margins to limit is considered. If you go back to the integrated approach to looking at the total decision making process, the earlier figure that Anders had, one of those factors is margins. So margins to limits can influence whether it's appropriate to have another layer of defense-in-depth in terms of another system. Or do I reengineer it to have additional safety margin so I'm sure it won't fail? So it's not a -- like everything, it's not a simple thing to describe, but we did try to incorporate and keep margins to safety limits, or limits established in consensus codes and standards as one of the things that would be considered.
159 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com DR. LYMAN: Okay. Thanks.
MS. FRANOVICH: Rani Franovich, Nuclear Rose Consulting. A couple of questions. To Nan, back on the aircraft impact, I'm curious, is -- I know there is discussion about what the staff might want to do, but is a policy paper under development on that issue for the Commission to review?
MS. VALLIERE: So there are several policy issues being looked at in a draft paper related to next-of-a-kind, microreactor issues.
MS. FRANOVICH: Yes.
MS. VALLIERE: I'll be honest, I'm not sure if that one's in that paper or whether that's slated for a future paper. I can talk to those folks, perhaps let you know tomorrow.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. That would be great. That would be great. Thank you, Nan.
MS. VALLIERE: Sure.
MS. FRANOVICH: And -- go ahead, Jon.
MR. FACEMIRE: Just it was a topic that we covered in our microreactor rapid high-volume deployment. We have been told that the NRC staff review on that is targeting before Thanksgiving, which it's very soon, to give us a response.
160 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.
MR. FACEMIRE: So we might get some information there. And then for the NRC staff we have started work on a paper to describe supplemental criteria in line with the two SECYs that said that for microreactors and non-light water reactors supplemental criteria may be required to meet 51.50.
We want to propose what those supplemental criteria can be and get an NRC endorsement. So that's in process. We hope to get it to you next year.
MR. FRANOVICH: Good to know. Thank you, Jon.
Okay. Then my other question may be --
I mean it's kind of a -- for my own information. The non-safety-related but safety-significant, NSRSS, I'm familiar with terminology about important to safety from 10, 15 years ago. How does NSRSS relate to important to safety? Is it synonymous with it? Is it a different kind of category that is new? This is just for my own edification.
MR. RECKLEY: We have said that they're generally analogous.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.
MR. RECKLEY: Kneeing in mind that important to safety under the current construct
161 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com includes both safety-related and non-safety-related but warranting additional attention. And we've used a whole bunch of different terminology for that.
Depending if you're talking about 50.69 or Part 5, you might say that's the equipment that --
MS. FRANOVICH: I see.
MR. RECKLEY: So but we have generally said they're analogous, and keeping in mind again that important to safety is a broader category that has the two parts: safety-related, and non-safety-related.
And under 53 we have safety-related and then the non-safety-related but safety-significant.
MS.
FRANOVICH:
- Thanks, Bill.
Appreciate that. That's all I have.
MR. FACEMIRE: I've got a follow-on on that. Like I appreciate the clarity on that, but I do think that safety-significant under Part 53 is much more clearly defined than important to safety under 50 and 52. So we do want to express our appreciation for that.
And the one concern I have is with important to safety in certain contexts like fire protection have had a somewhat specific definition and we do believe that that historical important to safety definition in that context should still be applicable
162 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com and appropriate for fire protection requirements under Part 53. That is the one case that I am aware of that
-- we like the Part 50 important to safety definition better than safety-significant.
MS. FRANOVICH: For fire protection under Part 50?
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes. Or fire protection (audio interference).
MR. RECKLEY: And this is again a comment in that regard because we don't always know, for example, if there's consensus codes and standards that would make a certain terminology easier to use that's an area where a comment would be useful. In terms of fire protection, yes, we don't have a categorization of that. We say in 53 fire protection could be handled as a licensing basis event, in which case it would get captured by that terminology. It could also be addressed in a more traditional way in which case it wouldn't get captured there. And maybe the terminologies you're mentioning, Jon, would be useful to use, or at least we can acknowledge somewhere, if not in the rule text, that there's ties to -- so, anyway.
MR. FACEMIRE: Reg Guide 1.189 is on my priority list for Part 53.
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Jon.
163 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Thank you, Bill.
MS. FIELDS: I don't see any more hands online. I don't see any more hands in the room. So with that, it's 3:15. We're doing great.
(Laughter.)
MS. FIELDS: We're supposed to have a 15-minute break, but we are about 45 minutes of schedule, so if people don't object, I think we should stick to having a 15-minute break. We'll meet back here at 3:30 and then we'll resume with Subpart D.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3:16 p.m. and resumed at 3:30 p.m.)
MS. FIELDS: It's 3:30. So we're un-muted. Great. Can someone online verify they can hear us?
(No audible response.)
MS. FIELDS: Anybody? There you go. All right. Thank you.
And with that, we'll start again with Subpart D.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. Thank you, Nicole.
All right. We can go to slide 47.
(No audible response.)
164 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. GILBERTSON: Are we able to advance to the next slide?
MS. FIELDS: Your slide person isn't back yet.
MR. GILBERTSON: Well, I'll just start moving here and --
PARTICIPANT: Everybody can --
MR. GILBERTSON: It's live. Everybody --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
(Laughter.)
PARTICIPANT:
Let's exercise.
Everybody, in step.
MR. GILBERTSON: All right. So Subpart D talking about siting requirements. So the first portion of this subpart, the proposed 53.500 on general siting. This would establish requirements to ensure that licensees and applicants are assessing impacts, the impacts that a site and its environs may have on a commercial nuclear plant, and the potential adverse health and safety impacts that the commercial nuclear plant may have on nearby populations relative to characteristics of the site.
So these requirements are consistent with the same reasons that siting requirements have historically been established and the purposes they serve.
165 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So we can jump to slide 48.
And now go ahead to slide 49, please? All right. Great. Okay. So Section 53.510 would propose requirements that design-basis external hazard levels be identified and characterized based on the site-specific assessments of natural and human-constructed hazards with the potential to adversely affect plant functions. And so the site-specific assessments would be used in the proposed
-- to meet the requirements under 53.415, which we mentioned before the break. And that would require that the safety-related SSCs being designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena and human-constructed hazards of levels or severities up to the design-basis external hazard levels.
So the design-basis external hazard levels relevant to a site would need to account for uncertainties and variability in data, models, and methods used to characterize those hazards and the existing approaches could be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
Okay. And paragraph (a) of 53.510 would provide general requirements for addressing external hazards. Paragraphs (b) through (d) would provide requirements related to seismic siting factors that
166 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be used in connection with requirements under 53.480, as proposed.
Next slide, please? Okay. So the proposed 53.520 on the site characteristics would require applicants to identify and assess the site characteristics as it relates to topics such as meteorology, geology, hydrology, or other areas in the design and analysis required under Subpart (c).
The proposed 53.530 would provide requirements for population-related considerations and maintain the requirements and definitions similar to those currently in Part 100 for an exclusion area, low-population zone, and population center distance.
So the NRC's longstanding preference for siting reactors in areas of low-population density would be maintained in Part 53 by using the current language from Part 50 in the proposed 53.530(c) regulation.
And the site-related requirements under 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 73 would remain applicable to commercial plants under the proposed Part 53 rule.
And finally, regarding siting interfaces, the proposed Section 53.540 would require the site characteristics be appropriately considered in other activities such as design and analysis performed and the emergency planning and safety programs under the
167 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com proposed Subpart (f) that will be discussed tomorrow.
And that is all I have to present on Subpart D, so we can open it up to questions.
Rani, you raised your hand?
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you. Rani Franovich, Nuclear Rose Consulting. In 2022 the Commission heard from federal partners including Department of Defense and NASA about applications of reactors for things like transportable reactors to power military installations, nuclear-powered propulsion and stations in interplanetary or lunar applications. And there has been a lot of interest in decarbonizing the shipping industry where reactors are also being looked at for deployment.
So my question is when it comes to siting the technology inclusiveness of microreactors becomes particularly problematic because the deployment models are so unique that siting paradigms, the conventional ones that are being retained from existing regulations, will not support those deployment models.
And so I guess my question is -- and I know that the ADVANCE Act has a provision on microreactors.
There's a specific solicitation for comments on how to implement the ADVANCE Act. But I'm curious to know was any of this considered when the staff chose to
168 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com retain traditional siting paradigms for Part 53?
MR. RECKLEY: I think we were aware of a lot of those things. And as the Nth-of-a-kind policy paper for microreactors that's under development --
I think there's been a couple public meetings on that.
There are policy -- potentially legal issues with transportable and propulsion systems. And so we were aware of those. If you go back to your initial rulemaking plan, we were fairly clear that in developing Part 53 we were going to move forward and not introduce things that really had not been previously resolved.
And so propulsion and transportable would fit into that category. And I think personally those are going to be -- that's going to take a fair amount of work to establish how that might work or whether -- what changes would be needed:
regulations, legislation, whatever, to support those kind of activities.
Now we did look at the time in terms of, for fixed facilities, what we were supporting under 53 and Revision 4 to Reg Guide 4.7. And so we looked at it from two perspectives -- and this goes back again to the paper, which is already four or five years ago now, but four or five years ago.
The siting issues we looked at were
169 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com twofold: One, 500 people per square mile out to 20 miles limited the deployment of any reactor to population centers. And Oakridge and their models, when they came, we had numerous public meetings on this.
And the use then of nuclear to replace fossil, retiring fossil stations was limited because retiring fossil stations tended to be closer than 20 miles, in many cases 20 miles to major population centers. Cities, right? And so the relaxation or the consideration of population was the 20 miles, right? And so the alternative that's introduced in Reg Guide 4.7 is a consequence-oriented assessment and you can shorten the 20 miles.
The other concern at the time was microreactors used for remote operations. So this might be a small village. Well, if the village has a population at all, it's going to be greater than 500 people per square mile at the point of the village.
And so that was also excluded to put the microreactor in the village, or town, whatever word you want to use here. Or mining operation, whatever it's being used for.
So that was also addressed because the distance could be taken all the way down the boundary of the reactor --
170 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. FRANOVICH: Yes.
MR. RECKLEY: -- no matter how small. And under our guidance then that reactor could be put into a population center up to 25,000 people. Jon mentioned earlier that's the way we interpreted it. That's the way we presented it to the Commission. If that's a comment to be proposed, then that could be a comment provided, that 25,000 number is an issue, or you take issue, or you request something in your comment regarding it. But that's the way.
So we were looking at it from both perspectives. And at the time we were addressing both concerns. The change in the policy would allow closer to cities. That was based on the 20 miles. And it would support remote operations as long as the remote operations -- and we looked. Things like Air Force bases and things like that tend to be less than 25,000 people. And so that's what we incorporated into 53 as well. So long-winded answer.
In terms of transportable and propulsion systems, somebody else is looking at that right now.
MS. FRANOVICH: Somebody else? Somebody other than the NRC?
MR. RECKLEY: Well --
MS.
FRANOVICH:
(Audio interference)
171 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com within the (audio interference)?
MR. RECKLEY: And outside. I mean, there's a number of activities that are going on. As Jon mentioned, NEI did their rapid deployment model.
That included some observations and things like that.
So other people are looking at it. When I say other, I mean other than me.
(Laughter.)
MR. RECKLEY: Other than Part 53. At the moment, until we get comments.
MR. FACEMIRE: So this is probably --
MS. FIELDS: So, sorry, I think Sarah was next.
MS. GIBBONEY: Hello. I'm Sarah Gibboney with Bechtel. So to the best of my understanding the NRC is not going to be regulating microreactors that are transportable on trucks or ships, nor propulsion space systems. You've relinquished this to other government agencies, is that correct?
MR. RECKLEY: Well, for the short term those things that are being developed by DOD or DOE would be regulated under those programs of DOE or DOD.
The Project Pele comes to mind. But if there was a commercial proposal for such systems, that would be an NRC responsibility.
172 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. GIBBONEY: But my understanding is you don't have the regulation construct to regulate such an application and -- or you would be -- would you be collaborating with DOD or using any of the information that they would have gathered to be an effective regulator of such a product?
MR. RECKLEY: Certainly. And we're involved in those projects now following the status.
And to the degree that those programs would provide information on a particular technology or a particular approach, then we're privy to that and would expect that when designer came forward and asked for NRC review that some of that experience through those projects would come to bear.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes. So and maybe this is more for the ADVANCE Act folks, but I'm a little concerned it doesn't sound you all are collaborating a bit more closely because the ADVANCE Act for both the population density criteria and the licensing mobile deployment calls out three options for those issues to be tackled within the next three years, right?
The three options are in the existing regulatory framework, in basically part 53 or in a pending or new rulemaking. Because those things will need so many exemptions under 50 or 52, D doesn't sound very
173 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com efficient. So it seems like it should fall under Part
- 53.
So my question is when will the decision on which of those three options are being pursued be made and have you started coordinating how you're going to handle those things if it is under Part 53?
MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and I think we have, but it would also -- depending -- I'm trying to remember that language. But I think one of the things that would be useful is under comments on Part 53 if there's a problem with the way we have it structured
-- in other words, everything is fine, but we want to put reactors in population centers of 500,000, not 50,000, or have no constraint at all. Then that would be a comment. I'm not going to tell you how it would get dispositioned, but I don't recall that the ADVANCE Act specifically told us to replace what we did. You have it open, so I'll --
MR. FACEMIRE: It says you need to consider a siting including the relation to the population density criteria limit described in the policy paper SECY 20-0045. And in that SECY it does talk about instead of having 25,000 you have a graded performance-based approach to that criteria, which to me seems pretty clear, but I'm not a lawyer.
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 MS. FRANOVICH: And that's for the transportation of fueled microreactors.
MR. FACEMIRE: Yes, it says standard language around developed risk-informed and performance-based strategies and guidance to license and regulate and microreactors. And under that it says consider the SECY paper, which says to have the graded approach to the criteria.
MR. RECKLEY: Right, but maintains the 25,000.
MR. FACEMIRE: It was not the option that was chosen in the SECY and voted on by the Commission.
The Commission voted two to one for option 3, which was the graded. Instead of 25,000 you grade the --
unless I read that wrong.
MR. RECKLEY: You read that wrong. It grades the distance. It grades the 20 miles, but it keeps the 25,000. If you want to look, it's Case 3 under the paper. And Case 3 under the paper has two potential options: One is there is a dose and therefore it needs to be outside of the population center. And then the other option under Case 3 was there is no dose off site and it still is not able to be inside a population center bigger than 25,000.
But that said, again, if you have a
175 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com comment, submit it.
MS. FIELDS: I don't see any hands online.
I don't see any hands in the room.
Are there anymore question on Subpart D?
(No audible response.)
MS. FIELDS: Well, with that, thank you everybody for coming to our meeting today. We will resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., same room, same place, same Teams meeting. Everything will be the same.
Same escorting thing, everything else.
MS. FRANOVICH: Are we preregistered?
MR. BEALL: Yes, I preregistered everyone for the whole week.
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. BEALL: Sure.
MS. FRANOVICH: Sorry, Nicole.
MS. FIELDS: No, no.
MR. BEALL: It's okay.
MS. FIELDS: Bob is taking care of stuff.
It's great.
And then we'll start again with Subpart E. And that whole agenda is available on the slides, if you want to see that.
So same room. Same everything. If there any questions for me, I'll take them now.
176 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com (No audible response.)
MS. FIELDS: No questions online. No questions from anybody else.
Okay. Well with that, I will --
MR. BEALL: I have one more thing.
MS. FIELDS: Okay.
MR. BEALL: For the folks showing up in person again, assuming there's no red-line issues on the subway, you can be down there around 8:30 a.m.
Then we'll have the escorts and bring everybody up.
Okay?
MS. FRANOVICH: Do we just keep the same badges?
MR. BEALL: That I don't know. You'd have to talk to the security folks.
MS. FRANOVICH: Security?
MR. BEALL: Yes.
MS. FRANOVICH: Yes, this has the date on it.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR.
BEALL:
But everybody's preregistered, so --
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you.
MS. FIELDS: All right. So thank you to all our speakers. Thank you to all our participants.
177 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Are there any questions?
(No audible response.)
MS. FIELDS: With that, we'll see everyone bright and early tomorrow. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3:52 p.m.)