ML21313A025: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==Title:==
Advisory Committee on Reactors Safeguards Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs Docket Number:    (n/a)
Location:        teleconference Date:            Thursday, September 23, 2021 Work Order No.:  NRC-1675                          Pages 1-227 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
 
1 1
2 3
4                              DISCLAIMER 5
6 7  UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8        ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11          The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17          This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
1 1                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                  + + + + +
4            ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5                                    (ACRS) 6                                  + + + + +
7                        FUTURE PLANT DESIGNS 8                              SUBCOMMITTEE 9                                  + + + + +
10                                  THURSDAY 11                          SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 12                                  + + + + +
13                  The Subcommittee met via Teleconference, 14 at 9:30 a.m. EDT, David Petti, Chair, presiding.
15 16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
17            DAVID A. PETTI, Chair 18            VICKI M. BIER, Member 19            RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 20            CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 21            VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22            GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 23            JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24            JOY L. REMPE, Member 25            MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
2 1 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
2            DEREK WIDMAYER 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309    www.nealrgross.com
 
3 1                                  AGENDA 2 1. Opening Remarks          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                4 3 2. Staff Introduction              . . . . . . . . . . . . .            7 4 3. 10 CFR Part 53 - Subpart B -
5 Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements; 6 Subpart C - Requirements for Design and 7 Analysis - 3rd Iteration              . . . . . . . . . . . .            9 8            Introduction & Comments Received 9            Revised Preliminary Rule Language 10 4. 10 CFR Part 53 - Subpart H - Licenses, 11 Certifications, and Approvals 12            Preliminary Rule Language . . . . . . . .                111 13 5. 10 CFR Part 53 - Subpart I - Maintaining 14 and Revising Licensing Basis Information 15            Preliminary Rule Language . . . . . . . .                128 16 6. 10 CFR Part 53 - Subpart J - Reporting and 17 Other Administrative Requirements 18            Preliminary Rule Language . . . . . . . .                153 19 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      227 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309    www.nealrgross.com
 
4 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                                  9:39 a.m.
3                  CHAIR PETTI: Good morning, everyone. The 4 meeting will now come to order.                    This is a meeting of 5 the        Advisory    Committee          on      Reactor    Safeguards 6 Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs.                            I'm David 7 Petti, chairing this subcommittee meeting.
8                  ACRS members in attendance are Joy Rempe, 9 Ron      Ballinger,    Charlie        Brown,        Vicki    Bier,      Vesna 10 Dimitrijevic,        Jose      March-Leuba,            and  Greg    Halnon.
11 Derek Widmayer of the ACRS staff is the Designated 12 Federal Official for this meeting.
13                  The  purpose        of    today's      meeting    is      to 14 discuss        several    subparts          and      topics    concerning 15 preliminary        rule    language        for      10  CFR    Part      53, 16 licensing and regulation of advanced nuclear reactors.
17                  The agenda includes discussion of the 18 third iteration of Subpart B, technology-inclusive 19 safety requirements, and Subpart C, requirements for 20 design and analysis.
21                  We  will      also      hear      about  Subpart        H, 22 licenses, certifications, and approvals, Subpart I, 23 maintaining and revising licensing basis information, 24 Subpart        J,  reporting        and        other    administrative 25 requirements,        and      Subpart        F,      requirements        for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
5 1 operations,        staff    training,          personnel,    and    human 2 factors.        Other efforts related to Part 53 rulemaking 3 will also be discussed.
4                  The subcommittee will gather information, 5 analyze        relevant  issues      and      facts,  and  formulate 6 proposed positions and actions as appropriate.                          This 7 meeting is one in a series of subcommittee meetings 8 being held to discuss Part 53, and at present, there 9 isn't a session scheduled yet for this matter to be 10 taken up with the full committee.
11                  The subcommittee meeting is planned for 12 both today and tomorrow morning, but there is a 13 possibility that we may finish all discussions today.
14 We will discuss the need to continue the meeting 15 tomorrow as we near the end of today's deliberations.
16                  The ACRS was established by statute and is 17 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
18 The NRC implements FACA in accordance within its 19 regulations found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 20 Regulations Part 7.
21                  The committee can only speak through its 22 published letter reports.              We hold meetings to gather 23 information and perform preparatory work that will 24 support our deliberations at a full committee meeting.
25                  The rules for participation in all ACRS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
6 1 meetings, including today's, were announced in the 2 Federal Register on June 13, 2019.
3                    The ACRS section of the U.S. NRC public 4 website provides our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter 5 reports,        and  full      transcripts            of  all  full      and 6 subcommittee meetings, including slides presented at 7 the meetings.        The meeting notice and agenda for this 8 meeting were posted there.
9                    As stated in the Federal Register notice 10 and      in    the  public      meeting        notice      posted    to      the 11 website, members of the public who desire to provide 12 written or oral input to the subcommittee may do so 13 and should contact the designated federal official 14 five days prior to the meeting as practicable.
15                    Today's        meeting        is      open  to    public 16 attendance and we have received no requests to make an 17 oral statement.          Time is provided in the agenda after 18 presentations are completed for spontaneous comments 19 from members of the public attending or listening to 20 our meetings.
21                    Today's      meeting          is    being  held      over 22 Microsoft Teams, which includes a telephone bridge 23 line allowing participation of the public over their 24 computers using Teams or by phone.
25                    A transcript of today's meeting is being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
7 1 kept. Therefore, we request that meeting participants 2 on Teams and the bridge line identify themselves when 3 they speak, and to speak with sufficient clarity and 4 volume so that they can be readily heard.
5                  Likewise,        we    request        that    meeting 6 participants keep their computer and/or telephone 7 lines        on mute    when      not      speaking      to    minimize 8 disruptions.        At this time, I ask the team attendees 9 to make sure they are muted so we can commence the 10 meeting.
11                  We will now proceed and I call on John 12 Segala, Branch Chief of the Advanced Reactor Policy 13 Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 14 for any opening remarks.
15                  MR. SEGALA:        Thank you, Dr. Petti.                Can 16 you hear me?
17                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.
18                  MR. SEGALA:          All right, great, thanks.
19 Good morning, everyone.              The staff is pleased to be 20 here today.          We remain committed to developing a 21 technology-inclusive,                risk-informed            regulatory 22 framework        in  accordance          with        the  Commission's 23 direction.
24                  The staff continues its novel approach of 25 releasing preliminary rule language to facilitate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
8 1 early stakeholder engagement as we're doing today.
2 The staff continues to consider input from numerous 3 stakeholders, the public, and the ACRS as we evaluate 4 changes to the preliminary rule language.
5                  We plan to release the first iteration of 6 the preliminary proposed rule language for all of the 7 remaining Part 53 subparts over the next several 8 weeks. The preliminary rule language will remain open 9 for discussion as the staff works towards providing 10 the Commission a proposed rule.
11                  We are here today in the eighth ACRS 12 meeting to seek feedback on the NRC's development of 13 Part      53  preliminary        proposed        rule language        for 14 advanced reactors.            We previously briefed the ACRS 15 seven times this year on the preliminary rule language 16 for Subparts A, B, C, D, E, and F.
17                  During the last of those meetings in July, 18 we provided the Future Plant Subcommittee an overview 19 of the Licensing Modernization Project, an overview of 20 the Part 53 preliminary rule language on emergency 21 preparedness, and a status update on the Technology-22 Inclusive Content of Application Project or TICAP, and 23 the Advanced Reactor Content of Application Project or 24 ARCAP.
25                  We appreciate all of the feedback we have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
9 1 received      to  date    from    the      ACRS      on  the  Part        53 2 preliminary rule language.                Today, we plan to discuss 3 the preliminary rule language released since July, 4 which includes several new and revised subparts.
5                  We are looking forward to hearing any 6 insights and feedback from the ACRS today, and that 7 completed my opening remarks.                  Thank you.
8                  CHAIR PETTI: Thank you, John. With that, 9 I guess I turn it over to Bill?
10                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah, that's right, Dave.
11                  CHAIR PETTI:        Okay, good.
12                  MR. RECKLEY:        Thank you.          So, Bill, if we 13 can go to slide two?                As Dr. Petti mentioned, the 14 agenda for today is to go over our latest iteration of 15 Subpart B, which is the general requirements and 16 objectives, Subpart C related to design and analysis.
17 We've allocated a fair amount of time because those 18 are kind of foundational subsections.
19                  Then we'll move onto the recently released 20 first iterations of some of the licensing-related 21 material in Subpart H and I, and some reporting and 22 administrative requirements that we are putting in 23 Subpart J.
24                  As    Dave      mentioned,            it's  possible, 25 depending on the discussions, that we could finish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
10 1 today.          We were just teeing up the last two topics 2 which          are  staffing        related          matters,    operator 3 licensing, those kinds of things that will be included 4 in Subpart F, and then also an initiative to develop 5 a more traditional approach.
6                    But we did not release the text of those, 7 so all we were going to do was kind of tee it up for 8 the next meeting, so that's why we think it might be 9 possible to finish today.
10                    If we go to slide three, this is kind of 11 the framework slide that we've used from the beginning 12 and it lays out our structure and kind of philosophy 13 behind Part 53, and it relates to having basically 14 each part of the project life cycle described in a 15 subpart, and those are Subparts C through G, basically 16 design through decommissioning.
17                    And those are supported by Subpart B which 18 lays        out    the  overall        requirements,        the      safety 19 objectives, the highest level criteria, and so that's 20 why we've put so much focus on Subpart B and we'll be 21 talking        today  about      our    third      iteration    of    that 22 subpart.
23                    But we've given this before just to try to 24 describe the structure, and then kind of highlighted 25 is what we're going to be talking about today, mainly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
11 1 B, C, H and I, and J, and then as I mentioned, teeing 2 up staffing and human factors.
3                So, if we go to slide four, this is our 4 current schedule for this rulemaking, and as we've 5 talked many times, it's quite an aggressive schedule 6 for a rulemaking of this scope.                  So, you can see in 7 red there, it's September 2021, and it lays out what 8 we would be talking about today.
9                In order to meet the current schedule, 10 which is to get the proposed rule package to the 11 Commission by May, we will need to have a few more 12 meetings with this subcommittee, and then early in 13 2022, we'd be looking to schedule a full committee 14 meeting.
15                So, that just goes to the pace that we're 16 currently on and the challenge for both the staff and 17 relatedly to the ACRS for the current schedule.                        So, 18 let's go onto slide five and we can start to talk 19 about the structure.
20                It has been a couple of months.                As John 21 mentioned, our last meeting was kind of a refresher or 22 introduction, depending on whether you were here or a 23 new member to the licensing modernization kind of 24 format and structure, and so it's actually been a few 25 months, so we thought we would summarize the Part 53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
12 1 discussions a little bit more.
2                    Going to slide six, this is just the table 3 laid out in a kind of table of contents format, and 4 you can see again it just goes through the life cycle.
5 We have some general provisions in Subpart A that we 6 presented.
7                    We will need to revisit Subpart A, align 8 all      of    the  definitions        and      so    forth  as  we    make 9 additional changes to the other subparts, Subpart B, 10 again, kind of the cornerstone, the safety objectives, 11 design and analysis sections that we'll be talking 12 about today, our most recent iteration on that, siting 13 requirements for Subpart D.
14                    Subpart        E      was        construction          and 15 manufacturing, then Subpart F, a big subpart because 16 it goes to the requirements for operations, and what 17 we spoke to the subcommittee about under Subpart F was 18 those things related to hardware like configuration 19 control,        those  things      related          to  programs      like 20 radiation protection, emergency planning, in-service 21 inspection,          the    traditional              kind  of    program 22 requirements.
23                    And what we promised was the middle part 24 of Subpart F which relates to operator licensing, 25 overall staffing requirements, training, those kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
13 1 things, and we'll talk about that somewhat during this 2 meeting of the subcommittee, and we'd be looking to 3 release that text, preliminary text in the next week 4 or so, and then hopefully be able to schedule a 5 subcommittee meeting in October to talk about that 6 topic.
7                Subpart G, we also are currently working 8 on that and would hope to get that out later in 9 October on decommissioning.                  Just kind of since we 10 haven't talked too much about that subpart, we're not 11 really expecting it to be significantly different than 12 current requirements.
13                It  will      be    a    challenge        because        the 14 experience    with    decommissioning                non-light      water 15 reactor designs is limited to just a few facilities, 16 so coming up with things like cost estimates will be 17 a challenge and a technical challenge.
18                We will address just the requirement to do 19 that within the rule, but we'll talk about that in 20 October or maybe November with the subcommittee.
21                We're going to talk today about Subpart H, 22 or at least the first part of Subpart H related to 23 design and siting. We're getting ready to release the 24 text on the licensing elements of Subpart H.
25                That's        the      manufacturing          license, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
14 1 construction permit, operating license, or combined 2 license.      That will be released within the next week 3 or so, and then again, that would be, we would hope, 4 on the agenda for October.
5                  We'll talk today about Subpart I, which is 6 maintaining licensing basis information, things like 7 updating FSARs, final safety analysis reports, doing 8 evaluations as is currently done under 50.59 for the 9 operating units, and then Subpart J, reporting and 10 administrative requirements, including things like 11 financial qualification requirements and the current 12 reporting requirements under like 50.72, 50.73.
13                  CHAIR PETTI:        Bill?
14                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
15                  CHAIR PETTI: Just a question, how much of 16 G, H, I, and J are just being pulled from language in 17 Part 50 or 52?
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        A lot.
19                  CHAIR PETTI:        A lot, right?    Yeah.
20                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
21                  CHAIR PETTI:        Okay.
22                  MR. RECKLEY:            Yeah, we're not -- like 23 under Subpart H on licensing, and we'll talk about the 24 major parts of that later today, but you'll be able to 25 see that we're not really inventing anything new, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
15 1 so you'll see the same terms.                      You'll see the same 2 processes.        A lot of those are anchored either in the 3 Atomic Energy Act or have a close relationship to 4 administrative        kind        of    requirements        or    legal 5 requirements in Subpart 2.
6                  So, we'll highlight where we're introduced 7 some      changes,  but    they're        not      dramatic,  I    don't 8 believe.        I wouldn't characterize them as dramatic 9 changes.        So, that's, again, the overall structure.
10                  Billy, if we can go to slide seven?                    Just 11 to summarize, this is a table that actually our Office 12 of General Counsel developed in order to try to follow 13 what we were developing and explain it.
14                  And so, if you go through this table and 15 look at what we were trying to address, it can be a 16 challenge to communicate, and we acknowledge that 17 we've not always been successful, so this is yet 18 another way to try to present the same information we 19 gave before, but in a different format, hoping that it 20 could clarify what we were trying to do.
21                  So, basically, the table is broken down 22 into        those  things      that      are      related    to    normal 23 operations        and  those      things      that    are related        to 24 unplanned events, and then when we get to the next 25 slide, the unplanned events are divided into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
16 1 design basis accident and the events other than design 2 basis accidents.
3                  So, you can see in the table the overall 4 safety objective, and we're going to talk about each 5 subsection in a little more detail and make sure you 6 understand what we did on the last iteration, but it's 7 just summarized here in the table.
8                  So, the safety objective of the whole Part 9 53 is to limit the possibility of either an immediate 10 threat to public health and safety and to control the 11 overall risk that's introduced to the public from a 12 nuclear        power  plant      in  their        area,  and  that        is 13 achieved through the identification and fulfillment of 14 safety functions, and again, we'll talk about the 15 individual subsections.
16                  Now, one thing that Part 53 does and this 17 iteration does a better job, I think, of making a 18 distinction          between        normal          operations,      normal 19 evolutions, normal release of effluence, and unplanned 20 events.
21                  So, the table here lays out in green those 22 things that are related to normal operations, and we 23 will have criteria associated with those which are the 24 traditional ones from either, primarily from Part 20.
25                  That's      achieved        by    the  design,      which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
17 1 enables things like normal effluence to be controlled, 2 and then as we talked about in a previous meeting, on 3 the operations side, it's controlled by the licensee, 4 their implementation, maintenance of the systems, and 5 procedures and other programs.
6                But from the design side, just trying to 7 understand Sections B and C, the criteria are the Part 8 20 criteria, things like not exceeding 100 millirem in 9 a year, and then also the requirements to maintain 10 doses to both the public and workers as low as is 11 reasonably achievable.
12                And so, from the design side, a designer 13 would have to identify design features that help meet 14 that, and then for those design features, they're 15 going to have to say what does that system do?
16                Is  it    a    barrier?            Is it  a  filter?
17 Whatever it is, the functional design criteria would 18 say the filter has to be this efficient or the barrier 19 has to be this efficient.
20                So, that's the normal operations.                  If we 21 go to slide eight, Billy, most of the discussion, both 22 historically and even within Part 53, goes to what is 23 done to control unplanned events.
24                And so, within Part 53, and again, we've 25 always said that one way to do Part 53, one available NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
18 1 guidance document will be the licensing modernization 2 process.
3                  So,  you'll      see      some      introduction        of 4 terminology that's consistent with that, consistent 5 with NEI 1804 and Regulatory Guide 1.233 in which we 6 endorse the licensing modernization process program.
7                  So, that includes the need to identify 8 licensing basis events, and so for the DBA, Part 53 9 does include a requirement to identify design basis 10 accidents, and then we'll get into the discussion 11 later about the more specific requirements on the DBA, 12 but it looks fairly consistent with the DBA from the 13 current processes.
14                  And  then        for      the      non-design      basis 15 accidents, Part 53 uses the language of anticipated 16 operational occurrences, unlikely events, and very 17 unlikely events, and this generally, this aligns with 18 the      LMP  categories        of    anticipated        operational 19 occurrences, design basis events, and beyond design 20 basis events.
21                  But for each event category, then there 22 are safety criteria identified both in Subparts B and 23 C. The criteria for the design basis accident is the 24 traditional siting dose value out of both Parts 50 and 25 52.        That's the 25 rem over two hours or over the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
19 1 course of the event.
2                  I'll hold off talking about the design 3 criteria for other events.              The overall or cumulative 4 metric remains the quantitative health objectives or 5 QHOs from the NRC safety goal policy statement.
6                  So, for the DBA, in terms of how it's 7 implemented in terms of plant hardware, the equipment 8 relied upon for the DBA is safety-related equipment.
9                  For  other events, non-DBA events, the 10 hardware is evaluated, and if any special treatment is 11 required to support the analysis of those events, then 12 coming out of that will be any special treatment 13 requirements.
14                  So, that's one thing that we're trying to 15 do in Part 53 is there's been a long, long history for 16 the light water reactor regulations of safety related 17 and then important to safety, which includes safety 18 related, but also includes other equipment that may 19 warrant special attention.
20                  So, we're just trying to lay that out a 21 little more clearly here, and from the beginning, lay 22 out        how  to    identify          the      special    treatment 23 requirements,      and    the    build      within  Part    53    what 24 controls and measures would be taken to make sure that 25 the      special  treatment        requirements        provide        the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
20 1 necessary capabilities and reliability or availability 2 of the equipment for those non-DBA licensing basis 3 events.
4                Then we talked the last time, because I 5 tried to lay out sort of a parallel between what Part 6 53 does and what exists in Part 50, largely through 7 the general design criteria, which in my view or the 8 way I think of it, the general design criteria were 9 basically developed using a process similar to this in 10 which you consider what design features were going to 11 be used to fulfill safety functions, and then for 12 those design features, how did they need to perform?
13                What are the functional design criteria 14 that are placed upon those equipment to meet the 15 requirements of the analysis?                    And that might be 16 different between the DBA and the non-DBA events, but 17 again, we'll talk about that as we get into the 18 specific sections.
19                Then the analysis row is just summarizing 20 again how the design basis accident is evaluated using 21 a fairly traditional deterministic approach.                        It's 22 related to the PRA in terms of identifying the events 23 that will be assessed as DBAs, but a more traditional 24 approach, whereas the non-DBA events are analyzed 25 using best estimate type approaches with a specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
21 1 accounting for uncertainties, and again, we'll talk 2 about that later on.
3                  Defense in depth, somewhat new in Part 53 4 is to call it out specifically as a criteria within 5 Subpart B.        I think we've had discussions of that a 6 number of times with the subcommittee.
7                  It's    embedded            within      the    current 8 requirements, but given we're taking a technology-9 inclusive approach, we just point it out as a separate 10 requirement        to  take      into      consideration        by      the 11 designers.
12                  And then the last column there, the last 13 row is just talking about special treatments and how 14 those        things  would    be,    how      the    availability        and 15 capability of equipment would be ensured. And so, for 16 the DBA, and again, this is very similar to how it's 17 done now, for the DBA, we would expect those controls 18 to be in places like technical specifications.
19                  It's safety-related equipment, so it would 20 follow quality assurance requirements under what's now 21 in Appendix B, but for non-DBA LBEs, the special 22 treatment would be largely controlled in accordance 23 with licensee programs like a reliability assurance 24 program as is currently used.
25                  So, again, just a summary. Hopefully that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
22 1 helps a little bit refresh people's minds what we 2 talked about in previous meetings.
3                I think we'll talk about each one of those 4 items in a particular slide, so I'll just hold off or, 5 I mean, certainly the members can chime in anytime, 6 but we will be getting into each one of those things 7 in more detail later this morning.
8                So, Billy, if we go to slide nine, I did 9 want to summarize how we were looking at the interim 10 letter provided by the ACRS, the full committee, in 11 their May letter.
12                So, just going -- again, I'm summarizing 13 it since it was a few months ago.                  The interim letter 14 basically said the overall structure of what we talked 15 about in the one slide or in the table of contents was 16 a reasonable approach.
17                We have to date maintained that structure 18 and not really looked to deviate too much from how 19 it's been described since our first meetings.
20                One comment, comment number two was that 21 it would be helpful to have kind of an explanation of 22 how the various subparts and individual sections work 23 together, and we are working on that.
24                That will be a combination of language 25 that will be in the rule, as well as within the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
23 1 statement of considerations that accompany the rule, 2 and in associated guidance, so that's working.
3                  I'll say you won't see that today in terms 4 of changes to either the third iteration of B or C or 5 the new sections.            They were kind of already being 6 developed in the summer time frame, so we haven't made 7 any fundamental changes.
8                  And probably from your point of view, we 9 haven't made any improvements in regards to that 10 recommendation at this time, but we are continuing to 11 work on it as part of the development of the overall 12 package.
13                  So, going to the third conclusion and 14 recommendation, it went to the confusion and the value 15 associated with our previous iterations within Subpart 16 B of calling it tier one and tier two.                      We'll talk 17 about the language change that we've made.                    Hopefully 18 that makes it a little more clear.
19                  Also, part of A was for us to continue to 20 look      at  the  QHOs    and    determine          if they  were      an 21 appropriate metric.          So, again, we'll talk about that 22 when we talk about Subpart B's third iteration.
23                  The letter B goes to providing flexibility 24 in the criteria to support.                      We think that we're 25 allowing that in Subpart B and the supporting Subpart NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
24 1 C, but we can have a specific discussion on B, and 2 those who offered up that comment can kind of weigh in 3 as to whether our changes have scratched that itch.
4                Now, item C is we should include some 5 overarching    general        principles.            Much    of      that 6 discussion      was    related          to      quality    assurance 7 requirements and also some of the higher level or 8 crosscutting    general        design      criteria,    and      we're 9 working on those to see how we can address them.
10                Our view was that this was largely an 11 organizational matter, but we'll acknowledge that and 12 we are evaluating how we might change how we present 13 that information, not only to make sure that it's 14 addressed, that each item is addressed, but also to 15 make sure, kind of the same as item two, to make sure 16 that it flows and people can readily recognize those 17 kind of crosscutting requirements.
18                So, if we go to slide ten --
19                MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
20                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
21                MEMBER BROWN:          This is Charlie.          Can you 22 go back for a second?
23                MR. RECKLEY:        Sure.
24                MEMBER BROWN: That last item C, 3C, maybe 25 I've missed it somewhere else.                    You mentioned the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
25 1 general design requirements. There was a considerable 2 discussion on that, you know, from Walt, and myself, 3 and I've forgotten who else.                    Is there some -- have 4 you intended to try to address how we deal with the 5 current general design requirements or, you know, the 6 GDCs, the GDs, or whatever they're called?
7                  MR. RECKLEY: Yes, the question of have we 8 and are we continuing to consider how we address them, 9 yes, and we'll get into some specifics.                      We have not 10 added the equivalent to general design criteria.                            We 11 --
12                  MEMBER BROWN: Okay, I wanted to make sure 13 I understood that because --
14                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
15                  MEMBER BROWN: -- Walt, I think one of our 16 points in that was not just -- maybe we didn't say it 17 very well --
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        No, no, no, yeah.
19                  MEMBER BROWN:          -- just not excerpting --
20 obviously some of them don't necessarily apply --
21                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
22                  MEMBER BROWN:          -- that could be deleted, 23 but a large number of them, in our opinion obviously, 24 could        obviously  apply,        and      one      of my  thoughts 25 subsequent to that, I was getting worried that maybe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
26 1 they would start being spread out as opposed to 2 coherently put in one place like they are right now in 3 Part 50, so that's really the thrust of my question.
4                  You're saying you really haven't addressed 5 how those are going to be used or not used yet, and 6 the second part of that is if we're going to do them, 7 they ought not be spread out.                    That's just my other 8 thought.
9                  MR. RECKLEY:            Right, and I understand 10 that.        I think we've made a move in that direction.
11 It won't, it probably won't go as far as you and Walt 12 had suggested, that there be basically something that 13 looks a lot like Appendix A to Part 50, but --
14                  MEMBER BROWN:        Obviously, we're very much 15 in favor of something that looks like Appendix A.
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        I know.
17                  MEMBER BROWN: I think you're fairly clear 18 with that.
19                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
20                  CHAIR    PETTI:            Just        as a  point        of 21 clarification, the letter was specifically written 22 because there was not unanimity on this particular 23 comment, so, you know, the words in the letter are 24 what, you know, what the committee agreed to, so.
25                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right, no, we --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
27 1                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:            We understand it was an 3 interim letter, and again, we appreciated kind of a 4 mid-course assessment.            I'm just kind of going over 5 here quickly so that when we get into the sections, 6 you can see where there still may be a delta and where 7 we've made changes to address a specific comment.
8                  So, if we go, Billy, to slide ten, the 9 letter D was to AOOs and establishing safety criteria.
10 This is another case that we made a revision.                      We can 11 talk about the revision we made.                    It's not likely to 12 be as specific as the discussion we had on this topic.
13                  In terms of the members who pushed this, 14 we still may not be as specific as that discussion 15 went, but we did make some changes to Subpart C to try 16 to address that matter, and likewise on letter E in 17 terms        of reaching      a    safe,        stable    subcritical 18 condition, we made some changes to Subparts C and D 19 that we'll describe.
20                  Within the design and analysis, the letter 21 talked about using a graded approach to PRA.                      We will 22 talk about this iteration of B and C.
23                  We'll also talk about an initiative that 24 we've undertaken and that we're going to tee up today 25 and release some text to talk about in the October NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
28 1 meeting that really would provide a more deterministic 2 or traditional alternative to designers, and so that's 3 one way we're addressing this.
4                    And then we are also continuing to look at 5 even potentially other alternatives where the PRA is 6 or the role of the PRA can vary where being central or 7 a leading role to being used as it is now in Part 52 8 as a confirmatory tool, or perhaps for some designs, 9 and we're still in the early stages of looking at 10 this, whether a design can be simple enough and a 11 conservative evaluation of the consequences could be 12 done,        in  which  case      an    approach        like  a  maximum 13 hypothetical accident might be modeled and have little 14 or      no    role  for    a    broader        probabilistic        risk 15 assessment.
16                    B and C go to the design basis accidents 17 and then also the traditional Part 50 single failure 18 criterion.        We had talked in terms of C.                  We don't 19 include a requirement in Part 53 for the single 20 failure criteria and it's replaced by a need to have 21 a reliability assurance program that is based on the 22 probabilistic risk assessment a little more formally 23 than is done now.
24                    That is something I think we believe will 25 be described in the statement of considerations, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
29 1 so you won't necessarily see rule text saying why the 2 single failure criterion is not there, but that is 3 definitely something we would need to describe within 4 the statement of considerations.
5                  And then lastly, there was an earlier 6 letter in October 2020 to address, to make sure that 7 uncertainties are addressed and to make sure that a 8 very thorough evaluation is done for initiating events 9 and the behavior of the reactor in response to those 10 initiating events.
11                  And we'll talk about those in Subparts C 12 and      H,    including    the    possible          use of  prototype 13 testing, which I think when we talk about Subpart H, 14 you'll see that we basically maintained something very 15 similar, similar words to what's currently in 50.43 E 16 for demonstrating the feasibility and the reliability 17 of safety equipment through analyses testing, and if 18 needed, prototype plants, so.
19                  MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
20                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
21                  MEMBER BROWN:          Oh, I'm sorry.        Go ahead, 22 Dave.
23                  CHAIR PETTI: Yeah, just a question on the 24 statement of consideration.                I'm assuming that comes 25 at the very end and that we'll get to look at it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
30 1                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, you'll get to see the 2 whole          package,      including            the    statement          of 3 consideration.
4                    CHAIR PETTI:            Yeah, okay.          Go ahead, 5 Charlie.
6                    MEMBER BROWN:        Okay, just you're still on 7 -- yeah, we still got the right slide up.                        When you 8 talk about the rule eliminates single failure criteria 9 but needs to define the process that replaces it, I'm 10 trying to wrap my brain around thinking about what 11 kind of process could you possibly have that even 12 comes close to replicating the single failure thought, 13 and I don't know quite why --
14                    I guess I don't understand even from the 15 other        meetings  why    that's      even      being  eliminated.
16 We're going to have a single and a half.                          That's a 17 little tongue in cheek, maybe a single and a half 18 failure?        The process seems to be --
19                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah.
20                    MEMBER    BROWN:            I    have  a  hard      time 21 envisioning that after 40 --
22                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah.
23                    MEMBER BROWN:          -- after 40 years.
24                    MR. RECKLEY:        No, no, that's fair enough, 25 but        the    rationale        is    that        by  requiring        the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
31 1 probabilistic risk assessment that's looking at a wide 2 variety of failures and successes, and then using that 3 evaluation, that analysis to ensure defense in depth 4 is provided, to ensure that the appropriate capacity 5 of      equipment      and    availability            of  equipment        is 6 identified, that that serves the purpose that the 7 single        failure    criterion          had      provided    in      the 8 deterministic approach.
9                    And this goes back, you know, a couple of 10 decades        actually    to    this      being      presented  to      the 11 Commission to say can a probabilistic risk assessment 12 and an accompanying reliability assurance program to 13 make sure that the actual performance of the plant is 14 in conformance with the PRA, could that be used as an 15 alternative to the single failure criterion, and the 16 Commission agreed to that.
17                    Again, that was back in the early 2000s.
18 So, it is just, it's basically just a different 19 approach to the design, and we think that you get to 20 a similar place in terms of safety, so that's the 21 short summary.
22                    MEMBER BROWN:          Well, does it even -- I 23 mean, it almost sounds like it's a -- you're allowed 24 to -- not even evaluate.                  Everything's going to be 25 fine if you have no failures as opposed to having to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
32 1 sustain a single failure, and I'm thinking about the 2 diagrams in the PRA.            If there are no failures that 3 you have to consider, that you have to withstand, then 4 it looks like you never get past the first line.                        I'm 5 obviously struggling with the words --
6                  CHAIR PETTI:        Charlie, let me give you my 7 view on this, is that the process as Bill defined it 8 provides      a    technical        basis        for  these      other 9 technologies to come up with the right single failure 10 criterion because the systems are different.                    The way 11 they're potentially configured are different, and how 12 do you know you've picked the right one?
13                  And that's what I always liked about the 14 process is that it was a systematic way to look at 15 everything      to  make      sure      that      you  didn't    forget 16 something and go oh, that really wasn't the worst 17 single failure, that we should have looked over here, 18 but we weren't thinking about that.                    So, I think it 19 provides sort of a rationale and a systematic look at 20 it.
21                  MEMBER BROWN:          Well, I kind of looked at 22 it slightly different, I guess.                  To me, all reactors, 23 no matter what their configuration and no matter what 24 their technology, they have to be able to be shut down 25 in one way or the other reliably, and you've got to at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
33 1 least make sure they don't do something bad reliably.
2                    And  so,    coming        up    with    a  conclusion 3 looking at the new technologies, you're going to say 4 -- I mean, you're going to have a trip system of some 5 kind.        It may not be the same rationale.
6                    It may not be looking the same, but it's 7 got to work when you want it to shut down and you want 8 to maintain, you know, the level of criticality of, 9 you      know,    your  shutdown,          or    at    least  that's        my 10 opinion, and that's why I'm having a hard time saying 11 --
12                    (Simultaneous speaking.)
13                    CHAIR PETTI:        Yeah, I --
14                    MEMBER BROWN:          You have to shut down all 15 of these plants and they all have to be safe.
16                    CHAIR PETTI:        I actually don't see a huge 17 change        in reactor    shutdown.            I    see  this    having 18 differences in things like how one removes the heat 19 and some of the other safety functions and less so on 20 protection.
21                    MEMBER BROWN:          Yeah, but that removal of 22 the heat has to have some failure association with it.
23 What if you have --
24                    CHAIR PETTI:        Yes, it does, of course, of 25 course.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
34 1                MEMBER BROWN:            And so, that's still a 2 single failure type of thing.                You've got to be able 3 to survive a single failure of your cooling system, 4 whatever that is.
5                CHAIR PETTI:          Right, the PRA will show 6 that, but how the heat is removed in the advanced 7 systems is very different, and so one needs a more 8 systematic approach to make sure that you pick the 9 right single failure if you will.
10                MR. RECKLEY:        Right, and combinations of 11 failures.
12                CHAIR PETTI:        Yeah.
13                MR. RECKLEY:          I mean, there's strengths 14 and weaknesses to both approaches, and again, so maybe 15 it will become a little more clear as we walk through 16 the individual sections, but it is kind of a different 17 way and it goes all the way back to basically a Part 18 50 structure that says if you meet these requirements, 19 then your reactor has appropriately addressed the 20 safety requirements.
21                And one way to do that is to say I have a 22 system that can remove heat and then you say okay, if 23 that train fails, I need backup, so you have two 24 trains, and then under the Part 53 or a risk-informed 25 approach --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
35 1                    Again, this goes back even to the days of 2 NUREG-1860        and    the      development          of  the      first 3 technology-inclusive framework back in that time frame 4 of evaluating the availability of heat removal systems 5 and assuming failures of one or two, and then using 6 the PRA and the results of that to say when am I 7 comfortable that I have enough heat removal systems 8 and then using the defense in depth assessment to say, 9 to try to get around the one thing you said, Charlie, 10 which was assuming no failures.
11                    And we really did try to circumvent that 12 through the defense in depth element of saying you 13 can't rely on one thing in order to ensure the success 14 because that, even if you wanted to try to argue that 15 it was very reliable and that you could meet all of 16 the numerical objectives, that the uncertainties are 17 such that, from a defense in depth philosophy, you 18 should have a backup.
19                    You shouldn't be able to try to argue that 20 the reliability of one thing is so great that you 21 don't need to assume its failure, but I see a hand up, 22 so.
23                    CHAIR PETTI:        Vicki, go ahead.
24                    MEMBER BIER: Yeah, this is Vicki. Let me 25 try      a    question    and      see    if      I'm    off    base        on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
36 1 understanding this.              Your example of, well, you need 2 heat removal, and then by single failure, what if 3 something fails?            Okay, that means I need a second 4 train.
5                    I'm wondering if part of the issue is that 6 some of the designs may not be so kind of discrete as 7 far      as    what's  a    single        failure        versus    a  double 8 failure, et cetera.
9                    So,  if    I    think      about,      I  don't    know, 10 passive heat removal through natural convection, is 11 there anything to postulate that has failed or is it 12 more      just,    hey,    we      had    some      of    the  parameters 13 estimated wrong and the system doesn't work the way we 14 thought it did, and we still have to be able to 15 analyze that without postulating a single failure. Is 16 that        part  of    what's        going        on      here    or    am      I 17 misunderstanding?
18                    MR. RECKLEY: No, I think that's fair, and 19 those passive systems, at least what we've seen to 20 date, those passive systems can be highly reliable.
21 Some of them are in constant operation, so, I mean, 22 they're        rejecting      heat    even      when      the  reactor        is 23 operating,        so    you      have      some      comfort      that      it's 24 available.
25                    But there are uncertainties on something NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
37 1 like natural convection, that it can be interrupted by 2 various things or you do need a flow path for that, so 3 external factors, or weather, or whatever.
4                So, even in those systems, those plants 5 that have used those kind of passive heat removal 6 systems, we've seen them have backups and, you know, 7 sometimes those are going to be actually -- they might 8 be mechanical or electrical powered systems, but there 9 is a backup even to the natural circulations systems.
10                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Yeah, this is Jose.
11 I've been trying to stay out of this, but you and Dave 12 keep bringing up examples of the good designers that 13 have built into their design backups.
14                The question to you is, is this required 15 in the rule or is it something nice that a couple of 16 examples that you're familiar with did it?                      And if 17 it's not required in the rule, why is it not?
18                MR. RECKLEY:          I    would    say  what      I've 19 described, and Dave clarified it some, is required in 20 the rule.
21                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              What is required in 22 the rule, single failure?
23                MR. RECKLEY:        No, not to address in the 24 traditional way a single failure criterion.                    That is 25 associated    really    with      a    deterministic      kind        of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
38 1 engineering approach.
2                What    is      required        is    to  assess        the 3 potential      failure    of    all    of      the  equipment        and 4 combinations of equipment and ensure that the criteria 5 that we'll talk about under Subparts B and C can all 6 be satisfied, which is, in our view, what the single 7 failure criterion was trying to achieve.
8                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              But remind me, when 9 you allow failures of components, you also relax the 10 acceptance criteria, is that correct?
11                MR. RECKLEY:        I don't follow.          I mean --
12                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                When you have the 13 DBAs, do you use the same acceptance criteria then for 14 an AOO?
15                MR. RECKLEY:        No.
16                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Okay, so you relax.
17 Whenever you assume failures, you relax acceptance 18 criteria?
19                MR. RECKLEY:            As the frequency of the 20 failures and combinations of the failures goes down, 21 then the --
22                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You relax acceptance 23 criteria.
24                MR. RECKLEY:        Just as is done now.
25                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Yeah, yeah, okay, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
39 1 just      wanted  to  support      Charlie's          position.        I'm 2 extremely uneasy about the fact that the rule relies 3 on that the designer will be nice and will do things 4 the way the guys you're working with are doing it now, 5 but the rule should consider future and bad designers 6 too.        That's what the rule is for, is to ensure a 7 minimum requirement.            I've said enough.
8                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay, and as we go through, 9 again, I don't -- I think the whole process would be 10 just as the current requirements are, to ensure that 11 a bad design doesn't make it through the system.                          So, 12 we can continue that discussion as we talk about the 13 specific sections.
14                  So, if we can go then to the next slide, 15 Billy? So, now we'll start to get into those sections 16 starting with Subpart B, so we just have a --
17                  CHAIR PETTI:        So, Bill?
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
19                  CHAIR PETTI:        I know it's a little early, 20 but this may be a good break point depending on how 21 long Subpart B is.          We usually take a break, you know 22 --
23                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah.
24                  CHAIR PETTI:            -- 20 minutes from now.
25 Maybe we take it early and then come back.                      Does that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
40 1 work?
2                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah, that would be fine.
3                    CHAIR PETTI:          Okay, so let's just break 4 until the top of the hour.                  We're in recess.            Thank 5 you.
6                    (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7 off the record at 10:42 a.m. and resumed at 11:00 8 a.m.)
9                    CHAIR PETTI:        Bill, I have 9 o'clock, so 10 take it away.
11                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay, thanks Dave.
12                    So what we're going to go through is the 13 next iteration of Subparts B and C and then also kind 14 of      lay    the  groundwork        for      the      discussion      this 15 afternoon.
16                    So, Bill, if you can just, you can skip 17 over 12, and we'll go to 13.
18                    On the discussion table that we released 19 for the third iteration of B and C, and we make a 20 similar note on the other subparts, is that one 21 comment that we received from stakeholders are that 22 some designers were interested in approaches less 23 reliant on PRA.
24                    This is the more the traditional approach 25 from the designer's point of view.                          One reason for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
41 1 this was that they may be interested in international 2 markets.          And the licensing processes, the design 3 processes recognized by other regulators are the more 4 traditional approach.
5                    And  one      example        of      this  is    what's 6 currently included in the International Atomic Energy 7 Agency specific safety requirements for the design of 8 nuclear        reactors    currently          looks      a  lot    like        a 9 traditional Part 50 approach.                    It's evolved somewhat 10 as    NRC    regulations,        but    it    has      that  same      basic 11 construct.
12                    And  some      of  it      goes      exactly    to    what 13 Charlie        and  Jose    were      mentioning,          a  traditional 14 approach          using    single          failure          criterion,          a 15 structuralist approach where you start from design 16 requirements like the general design criteria.
17                    And those designers interested in those 18 markets didn't want to have an NRC process that was 19 different, or only allowed one approach which might be 20 different than those international efforts. So we are 21 looking, and we're going to talk later today or 22 tomorrow          morning      about        developing          this        more 23 traditional deterministic approach.
24                    It's just a recognition that there is more 25 than one way to do a design and to do the licensing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
42 1 and recognition.        It's not like one right, one wrong 2 way.        So we will be developing this alternative 3 approach and talking to you in the future about that.
4                  What  that      allowed        us    to do  in      this 5 iteration, however, was to focus on the more risk-6 informed or PRA in a leading role type approach in 7 this iteration.
8                  So you will see some of that, especially 9 when we get into, for instance, Subparts H and I where 10 what we require in an application and, in Subpart I, 11 how we are evaluating plant changes to determine if a 12 license amendment is appropriate.                        We'll have an 13 increased reliance on the PRA, given that that's the 14 structure that we're assuming throughout Part 53.
15                  So the alternative approach, we'll tee it 16 up today or tomorrow morning.                  And then you'll see it 17 in October.      But, you know, kind of as a teaser, it's 18 going to look a lot like what you're used to seeing 19 in Part 50.
20                  Joy, you have a question?
21                  MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, just curious now. If 22 they do an alternate approach that's more traditional, 23 will they need to meet the single failure criteria?
24 The earlier discussion said you were eliminating it.
25 And to do that you have to have some sort of risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
43 1 based reliability type of consideration.                          And I'm 2 just wondering maybe you need to maintain it for those 3 folks.
4                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      And you'll see in the 5 slides later when we talk about this more traditional 6 approach that it brings with it the traditional things 7 like assuming        single failure criterion, like needing 8 to address the Commission's severe accident policy 9 statement, a number of things that basically would 10 reflect        how  the  light      water      reactor  requirements 11 evolved over the last 50 years.                      They would inherit 12 that within those processes.
13                    MEMBER REMPE:          Okay, that really helps.
14 I think that might have addressed some of the concerns 15 raised by other members if they'd heard that part 16 earlier.        Thank you.
17                    MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So again, what you'll 18 see then throughout the rest of the day, as we reflect 19 on Part 53, is the more PRA in a leading role type 20 approach.        You'll see next month more discussion and 21 preliminary rule language for those designers who may 22 choose to take a more traditional route.
23                    So if we go to 14, we could jump into to 24 Subpart B.          And I'm just going to highlight some 25 things just to keep in mind, again because it's been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
44 1 a few months since we've talked about Part 53, and 2 then also some changes that were made in the third 3 iteration.
4                So in terms of the actual criteria, we 5 didn't change that in this iteration. It remains that 6 the overall objective of Part 53 is to limit the 7 possibility of an immediate threat to public health 8 and safety and, in addition, that the Nuclear power 9 plant has to have additional measures considering 10 potential risks to public health and safety.
11                One subtle change, and this is the first 12 time we see the term, and so as the note says we did 13 change universally throughout this iteration, and in 14 the newly released sections, from advanced nuclear 15 plant to commercial nuclear plant.
16                And the significance of that is that using 17 the term advanced nuclear plant seemed to imply that 18 there would be a test for who could use Part 53.                  And 19 as we looked at the history and the language in the 20 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, the 21 criteria for what isn't under the Act, what they 22 defined as an advanced nuclear plant, it was very hard 23 to limit.
24                Some of the criteria were technical, some 25 of them were energy policy, some others were economic, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309    www.nealrgross.com
 
45 1 and it just did not seem practical to try to say the 2 use of Part 53 is limited to an advanced nuclear plant 3 using a criteria under FEMA.                    And so we just changed 4 it to commercial nuclear plants.
5                  So the advantage of that for us is Part 53 6 is limited to nuclear reactors.                    It's not, as Part 50 7 is,      open  to  s    broader        set      of    production        and 8 utilization facilities.                  As an example, we don't 9 intend to address research and test reactors within 10 Part 53.      So we are able to limit the scope, but the 11 scope will be basically any nuclear power plant design 12 would be able to come in under Part 53.                          So again, 13 that's kind of a subtle change, but we wanted to point 14 this out in case anybody had noticed that language.
15                  But in terms of the safety objectives, we 16 did not change them in this iteration.                      These are the 17 same ones we used in the second iteration.
18                  So I see an hand up.                Vesna?
19                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Yes. Sorry, I had 20 to find the microphone.                  Actually, I was a little 21 confused      with  this      statement          of    this  commercial.
22 Doesn't that mean that any plant coming, whatever, 23 even traditional, you know, light water reactor or 24 whatever advanced designs we went through in NuScale 25 AP1 would be coming through this Part 53?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
46 1                  MR. RECKLEY:        It's a voluntary rule.              But 2 yes, what we're saying is any of those designs would 3 have available to them Part 53.
4                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                So now when we're 5 discussing PRA or not PRA and, you know, I am a PRA 6 person.        But I have not supported using total PRA, 7 you know, for these very advanced designs.                            And I 8 have agreed with some of the conclusions they can be 9 used in supporting role.
10                  But does that mean the plants which have 11 come under Part 52 have submitted                    the full scope PRA 12 and showed that they satisfy safety goals could be 13 submitting now with no PRA, you know, the similar 14 designs, they will come in now with no requirement 15 from the PRA?
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        I'm not following.          I mean, 17 a light water reactor would be able to come in, and 18 even a non-light water reactor would be able to come 19 in under Parts 50, or 52, or 53.                        If they come in 20 under Part 53, as we have it structured, and as the 21 previous slide talked about, the assumption is, in 22 this iteration, that they will be using a PRA in the 23 design and the licensing process more so than what was 24 done in the past.
25                  So a light water reactor would have to do, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
47 1 under Part 53, under our proposed language, the full 2 PRA.      They would have to do all the assessments that 3 we're going to talk about in the coming sections.
4                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, I thought that 5 we were just discussing here the possible that could 6 be the two different approaches, one when the PRA come 7 in the main role and one when the PRA come in the 8 supporting role.        Did I understand that well?
9                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, right.
10                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. So therefore, 11 there is no -- they could choose the part, right?
12                  MR. RECKLEY:        Correct.
13                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: And the Part 53 does 14 define safety goals in the CDF and LWRS thing, but it 15 could be some, I mean, they may have option to choose 16 or use the QHO or whatever.                    It will be different 17 goal, right?
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        Well, we would not propose 19 to change the safety goals to specifically address the 20 light water surrogates like CDF and LWRS.                  Those were 21 largely developed working backwards from the QHO.                        So 22 they would have an advantage, perhaps, in that those 23 surrogates have already been developed.
24                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, I just want to 25 say I have always attributed this to be for advanced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
48 1 reactor.      So now, you know, if I have to think about 2 the, you know, the previous generation, Generation 3, 3 it changes how I think about this.                      So that's why it 4 truly made me pause when you said this.
5                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
6                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Because I thought 7 that this will be reactors coming with very low 8 passive features, low risk, and be different part of 9 that, you know, animal for the licensing.                      Okay.
10                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
11                  MEMBER HALNON:          Bill?
12                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
13                  MEMBER    HALNON:            This    is  Greg.          The 14 commercial aspect of it, did you guys purposely leave 15 out the word industrial, like 50.22 talks about 103 16 licenses for commercial and industrial facilities.
17 Was that intentional?
18                  MR. RECKLEY:            Well, our definition of 19 commercial would be for either electrical production 20 or to support an industrial process like hydrogen 21 production or process heat.
22                  MEMBER HALNON:            Okay.        Is that defined 23 somewhere, or --
24                  MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, we will have to define 25 it in Subpart A.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
49 1                    MEMBER HALNON:          Okay.
2                    MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. But we didn't mean to 3 limit to electrical production.
4                    MEMBER HALNON:            Okay, I just wanted to 5 make sure it's consistent with what people see in 6 50.22.
7                    MR. RECKLEY: Right.              Okay, so that's the 8 highest objective, the 53.200.                          Again, we didn't 9 fundamentally change it from the second iteration. If 10 we go to Slide 15, the primary change here was we have 11 heard numerous times the confusion that was introduced 12 and associated with our use of first tier and second 13 tier.          It was, in retrospect, a wrong choice.                        It 14 implied, potentially, importance, it implied or got 15 confused with how that language is used in Part 52.
16                    And so what we did in this iteration is 17 two-fold within the safety criteria in 53.210.                            And 18 the primary change was to actually try to call it for 19 what it actually is. This is the criteria for design-20 basis accidents.          And it we didn't change the actual 21 criteria.        It remains, again, the traditional offsite 22 dose associated with design-basis accidents with the 23 siting criteria, as it's been used in Part 100, and 24 Part 50, and 52.
25                    The related change, however, was by saying NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
50 1 this        is  the    safety        criteria          for design-basis 2 accidents, we're limiting 53.210 to the unplanned 3 events, and we separated the normal operations into 4 its own section.          And we'll talk about that shortly.
5                  And then as highlighted below, we did it 6 for the next slide as well.                  So the change is to the 7 title and in the organization but not a technical 8 change to the criteria itself.
9                  And then if we go on to 16, you'll see the 10 next section within Subpart B, 220, 53.220.                                  We 11 changed the title to this is the safety criteria for 12 licensing basis events other than the design-basis 13 accident.        We maintain the high level objective as 14 being associated with the cumulative plant risk, and 15 we maintained that the criterion is the NRC safety 16 goal QHO.
17                  So these two sections, 210 and 220, had 18 been called first tier, second tier.                        They are now 19 called Safety Criteria for Design-Basis Accidents and 20 Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events, other than 21 design-basis accidents.
22                  And then the other change to them was to 23 relocate      the  requirements          associated      with    normal 24 operations.        So we're trying to better describe what 25 they are, but we didn't change the technical criteria NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
51 1 that are associated with these two sections.
2                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              So this is Jose.        So 3 you've changed just the title, what used to be Tier 2 4 still does not go into tech specs, right?
5                MR. RECKLEY:        As we get into Subparts F, 6 the current construct is that the equipment needed, 7 for 210, the safety-related equipment, would go into 8 technical      specifications.                And    the  equipment 9 associated with meeting the criteria associated with 10 other licensing basis events would get captured in 11 program documents and licensee-controlled documents 12 associated with the reliability assurance programs.
13                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Okay.
14                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              I just want to say, 15 I mean, I am definitely against using QHO, and I can 16 write the additional comments about that.                  But here, 17 at least when it comes to the numbers, which we say 18 that our goal is to be five in ten million when it 19 comes to the immediate health effect and two in one 20 million when it comes to latent, that doesn't really 21 make any sense in manual.
22                I know, I mean, where that comes from. It 23 comes from that the nuclear power should present small 24 additional risks to the other risks to the public and 25 then in quantitative, says that you have those says NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
52 1 that small means going by percent.                      And then they 2 estimate in 1986 that this, during the withdrawals, 3 you know, from the cancers or from accidents, and 4 that's where those numbers come from.
5                  However, these numbers imply that they 6 actually know something about this. Because you don't 7 say one in ten million, and you don't say one in one 8 million, but exactly two.                  So why not 2.5, 3?            You 9 know, when the NRC, in '86, defined this goal at least 10 they transferred it to the round numbers to the CDF 11 and LWRS, CDF ten to minus four and LWRS ten to minus 12 five.          It's  approximation.                This  is  all    being 13 approximation of everything.
14                  So why do you have a specific five and 15 two, you know?          That's really -- and I think if you 16 want really to make attempt to use this QHO, you 17 should, you know, look in maybe new statistics on the 18 risk and make some approximate numbers, not such a 19 specific number.
20                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay, and point taken.              We 21 have looked more recently at those numbers and whether 22 the derivations of those numbers from the 80s remain 23 valid. I know that was done for some of the Fukushima 24 work and for the updating of guidance on regulatory 25 analysis.        And basically, the numbers still hold.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
53 1 Using the exact numbers, I understand what you're 2 saying.        But in terms of doing a confirmatory look, 3 the staff has done that in recent times.
4                  Okay. So that's basically the changes we 5 made to 210 and 220, again trying to clarify and be 6 more specific as to what the roles of those criteria 7 area are.
8                  If we go to the next one, 230, these are 9 safety functions.          We made some conforming language 10 changes.        Again, for safety functions, the primary 11 safety function is limiting                  the release.      And then 12 there's a requirement that a designer or applicant 13 identify additional safety functions as needed to meet 14 the criteria.
15                  We had given examples.                One comment or 16 discussion we had had in the past was to specifically 17 include reactivity in the examples. We have addressed 18 reactivity        in  Subpart      C,    so    hopefully  that      will 19 address the people who had that concern.
20                  We didn't include it here again, primarily 21 because these were just examples, and they'll be 22 safety functions for both radioactive inventories 23 associated with the core and then also radioactive 24 inventories in waste systems or other systems.                            But 25 when we get to Subpart C, hopefully we can have the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
54 1 discussion on any specific requirement related to 2 subcriticality.
3                    So Slide 18, again this is trying to put 4 into context the discussion I think we had at the last 5 two meetings where the safety functions are this 6 highest level criteria.                    And there's the primary, 7 which actually relates to the release of radionuclides 8 outside the plant.            And then there is the additional 9 one such as controlling reactivity or heat production, 10 the removal of heat.                And then in this example, we 11 used, from the modular high temperature gas reactor, 12 MHTGR,        they  included        chemical        interactions    as    an 13 additional safety function.
14                    But then looking forward, when we get into 15 Subpart C, that those safety functions are achieved 16 using a combination of design features and also human 17 actions, we'll talk about that a little later, maybe 18 tomorrow morning, and then functional design criteria 19 which lay out the specifics for what a design feature 20 has to do.
21                    So if a design feature is a barrier, a 22 functional design criteria might be a leak rate.                            If 23 a design feature is a heat removal system, then the 24 functional design criteria would go to more of the 25 specifics of how much heat to remove.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
55 1                    So this is the basic structure. And as we 2 talked        about  last    time,      and      I    know there's      not 3 universal agreement, but that this gets you to a 4 similar place as the GDC, because this is the exercise 5 that they went through in the late '60s and '70s to 6 come to the GDC for light water reactors, and a 7 similar exercise when we went through the development 8 of that advanced reactor design criteria, or ARDC, in 9 Regulatory Guide 1.232.                This similar exercise was 10 done to add requirements for technology such as metal 11 cool reactors or gas cool reactors.
12                    MEMBER HALNON:          Hey, Bill, this is Greg.
13                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
14                    MEMBER HALNON:          I know that, you know, I 15 came into this a little bit later in 2021.                    But I know 16 that there are some thoughts that there should be some 17 form of the GDC or something like that, to your last 18 comment.          Did you guys look at the GDC and see if 19 there's any of those, or concepts that transcended any 20 technology as opposed to just saying, well, we're not 21 sure what we're going to get, so we'll just make it 22 real general?
23                    MR. RECKLEY:        Well, I think when you look 24 at the GDC, the GDC is laid out in four sections.                          And 25 the sections are reactivity, fluid systems or heat NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
56 1 removal systems, and containment systems, or retention 2 of radionuclides.        And then the fourth category is 3 things like electrical power, quality assurance, fire 4 protection,    that    go      cross      cutting    across      those 5 functions.
6                And so the answer to your question is yes, 7 we looked at it in quite a bit of detail, especially 8 given that we went through the exercise of developing 9 the ARDC, and feel comfortable that this process gets 10 you to the same place.
11                MEMBER HALNON:              Okay.      All right.            I 12 haven't studied this deeply enough to have a great 13 conversation with it, but I just wanted to see, 14 relative to what we tried and true over the years, and 15 it sounds like you've done your due diligence.
16                Let me view this a little bit more.                    Next 17 time we get together I'll be more --
18                MEMBER REMPE:          Greg, this is Joy.              And 19 just so you understand the acronym, ARDC is advanced 20 reactor design criteria.              And Bill's referencing a 21 document where they did some sample design criteria 22 for a gas reactor, a sodium reactor, I've forgotten 23 what else, a general one.            So they did do quite a bit 24 on that.
25                MEMBER HALNON:          All right.      Thanks, Joy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
57 1                  MR. RECKLEY:          And as a specific example, 2 and it was the one I mentioned before on the previous 3 slide, one place where there was a concern, both by 4 the staff and some members, that this approach may not 5 capture something was an area of subcriticality.
6                  And so in looking at that, and you can 7 take that from GDC 26 or 27, I forget.                      But we went in 8 and said we're not sure that the methodology that 9 we've laid out here does that. So we added a specific 10 design requirement.
11                  And there was another internal discussion 12 whether        long  term    cooling        was    captured    by      this 13 methodology,        so  we    likewise        included    a  specific 14 requirement for that. So we did look through and use, 15 because like you said, this is a, you know, it's a 16 long standing, tried and true process.                        So we looked 17 through and did assess, and if anything was missing, 18 used a specific requirement within Part 53 to fill the 19 gap.
20                  But we'll get to that when we talk about 21 Subpart C.          So anyway, just wanted to repeat this 22 slide for the general structure.                          When we get to 23 Subpart        C,  we'll      see    the      design    features        and 24 functional design criteria.
25                  If we go to Slide 19, Billy.                      This is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
58 1 laying        out  a  requirement            in      53.240    for      the 2 identification of licensing basis events.                        We really 3 only made conforming changes here.                      The assessment is 4 that,        or  the  requirement          is      that    they  identify 5 licensing basis events, including a wide spectrum from 6 anticipated to very unlikely.
7                    We did add the sentence, this is more 8 editorial, but we did add a sentence that they are 9 required to do one or more design-basis accidents in 10 accordance with the analysis section, 53.450.                              Just 11 clarifying, we didn't think anybody thought otherwise, 12 but given we changed the title of Section 210 to 13 design-basis accidents, it just seemed appropriate to 14 reflect that within licensing basis events to make 15 sure everybody was absolutely clear that you have to 16 do a design-basis accident evaluation.
17                    Going on to Slide 20, we didn't make any 18 changes to the defense in depth requirement.                          Again, 19 this goes, we think, in some measure to addressing the 20 concerns that Charlie had that you might be able to 21 argue, or somebody may try to argue, that a system is 22 so    reliable      that    you    don't      need    to  assume      it's 23 failure, and you have no backup to it.
24                    The last sentence in this requirement is 25 that      you're  not    allowed      to      do    that. No    single NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
59 1 engineered      design    feature,          or    human  action,        or 2 programmatic control should be exclusively relied on 3 to meet the criterion in either 220 or 230. So that's 4 the safety functions, and meeting the QHO.
5                  So if we go on then to the next one, we 6 added        a section,    53.260,        for      normal  operations.
7 Because we took it out of what had been called the 8 first tier under 210.            So we still want a high level 9 objective to address normal operations.
10                  And  the      requirement            is that,      under 11 Paragraph A, licensees under this part have to ensure 12 they meet the Part 20 dose, that's the 100 millirem in 13 a year dose.        And it may be subtle, but that's the 14 reason I highlighted it, licensees under this part.
15                  And that's in recognition that although 16 the design contributes to the ability to meet that, 17 it's only the design in combination with programs and 18 procedures that can ensure that an actual dose does 19 not exceed the 100 millirem due to normal effluents.
20 And so that's one change.
21                  But, and this has remained a continuing 22 point of discussion with some stakeholders, we did 23 maintain      Paragraph    B    that    says      that both    design 24 features and programmatic controls must be established 25 to keep the dose as low as reasonably achievable.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
60 1                  So this is a requirement where we would 2 look at a design, if it was a design related review.
3 And we would look at the combination of the design and 4 the programmatic controls if it was for a actual 5 license.
6                  CHAIR PETTI:        So, Bill?
7                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
8                  CHAIR    PETTI:              Just    as  point        of 9 clarification, does Part 20 call out ALARA?
10                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      As --
11                  CHAIR PETTI:        Okay.        I'm talking about in 12 the comment that was made.                  I mean, if you had just 13 said you've got to meet Part 20, it doesn't, I mean, 14 putting        it here    is    nice,      but      does  it  change        it 15 anything really in terms of what they have to do?
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        The reason we continued to 17 want to put it here is, in addition to Part 20, it's 18 also mentioned in places within Part 50 and, by 19 reference Part 52, that does include designers.                          And 20 that was originally done through Appendix I, the Part 21 50.
22                  And it's in other parts of Part 50 and by 23 reference, at least, 52, that we expect, for example, 24 in a design certification, that they will talk about 25 what was done in the design to keep the doses to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
61 1 public as low as reasonably achievable for normal ops.
2 So that's the reason we just didn't want to introduce 3 a gap.
4                  Now, the reason many stakeholders take 5 issue with this is that this is an area in past 6 reviews where a lot of attention has been paid at the 7 design stage.        And some stakeholders think that it's 8 too much too early.              So from our perspective, the 9 reason to not include it is because we may have, from 10 a certain perspective, we went overboard in the past.
11                  So what we're trying to do is to keep the 12 requirement.      And then under the TCAP, RCAP guidance 13 development,      the    content        of    application    related 14 guidance, we're trying to put this in more of a 15 performance-based framework that should, we think, 16 allow us to address that issue and maybe, through a 17 performance-based approach, get a little less specific 18 at the design stage into design details associated 19 with ALARA.
20                  CHAIR PETTI:          Okay.        Well, that helps a 21 lot.      Thanks.
22                  MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.
23                  MEMBER HALNON: And this is Greg. Part of 24 the whole issue is the economics of it.                      I mean, if 25 you're in the application process, you can do the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
62 1 financial and the economic benefit analysis that shows 2 so many dollars per rem or whatever, millirem. It can 3 show that it's not reasonable to do it.
4                  The problem is the subjectivity of how far 5 you have to go to do this.                And it's early on in the 6 design process, so it could change the focus from 7 making sure you have the safest system to making sure 8 you      have  ALARA.        And    operational        practices        can 9 compensate for designs that don't necessarily provide 10 the lowest amount of dose for what you have to do.
11                  So I think it's got to be balanced here.
12 And as long as we're able to do that analysis, and 13 continue to do what's reasonable, then I think it's 14 going to be okay.          But again, it comes down to the 15 details of the reviewer saying that's not reasonable 16 or it is reasonable and the designer having argued the 17 case.
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, exactly, and the level 19 of the design associated with a particular system and 20 where it stands when we're doing the review.                    And so, 21 yeah, and that's, again, what we're trying to develop, 22 you know, by the guidance.
23                  And things changed, and we didn't change 24 the rule.      I mean, that was another issue that, you 25 know, Appendix I is still on the books.                    It's $1,000 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
63 1 per person rem.          You know, when we do a regulatory 2 analysis, we're using a number like $6,000 per person 3 rem just because of inflation and other changes since 4 that was put in place.
5                  So we understand the issue, and we're not 6 trying to make light of it.                But at the same time, we 7 didn't want to eliminate the requirement. And we were 8 hoping that the guidance can help reach some middle 9 ground.        So another hand?
10                  MEMBER BIER:        Yes, hi, this is Vicki.                I 11 want to follow-up on kind of a related point to Greg.
12 I was just recently looking it over, and I can share 13 some of the information if people are interested.
14                  Historically, there is a big tendency that 15 the cost of safety and environmental improvements tend 16 to be way over estimated before they're actually 17 implemented.          And    I    think      part      of that  is    just 18 because, you know, industry may have an incentive to 19 say, oh, sorry, that's going to cost so, so much, you 20 can't make us do it.
21                  But also sometimes just, in all honesty, 22 the technology doesn't get cheap until it's mandated.
23 And suddenly there is a market for somebody to figure 24 out how to do it cheaper.                And so I also worry about 25 this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
64 1                  You know, I think the cost effectiveness 2 criteria      make  a    little        more      sense    in  existing 3 technology where you know exactly what's there, and 4 what's built and, you know, how to change it to meet 5 some new backfit rule or whatever.                      Whereas in a new 6 technology I think it's going to be very difficult to 7 estimate accurately and with possibly an incentive to 8 overestimate the cost.
9                  MR. RECKLEY:            Okay,        thank  you.          I 10 understand your point.
11                  So again, we'll just continue to engage 12 stakeholders.      Again, from our point of view, we laid 13 Part        53  out  as      the      process          from  design        to 14 decommissioning.          And although ultimately you don't 15 have to worry about effluents until you have an 16 operating plant.
17                  We just wanted to make sure that a problem 18 wasn't overlooked, and kick the can down the road 19 until you get to the operating phase.                        And now the 20 ALARA requirement kicks in.                And it wasn't reasonably 21 addressed at an earlier stage in the process.
22                  So it's a tricky balance.                  We all agree 23 with that. And that's, again, what we're trying to do 24 through the guidance is reach some reasonable measure 25 to make sure that an issue is not ignored early on, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
65 1 because        the  Advanced        Reactor          Policy  Statement 2 basically was trying to say, if you do things better 3 at the design stage, you can save things like human 4 actions and other programmatic controls later on. And 5 so it's trying to reach that balance.
6                    And whereas -- anyway, I'll just leave it 7 there.        I hear what you guys are saying, and I think 8 we're all in agreement.                It's just trying find the 9 sweet spot.
10                    So if we can go on then to 22.                    It's a 11 very similar requirement, but related to protection of 12 plant workers.        And like we did for normal effluents, 13 Paragraph A is for licensees, because ultimately it's 14 a combination of things that needs to be taken into 15 account.
16                    And it's only the licensee at an operating 17 plant that has the ability to ensure an actual dose to 18 an actual person is maintained within Part 20 limits.
19 But then as we did for normal effluents, we include 20 that      both    the  design      features          and programmatic 21 controls must be used to show that dose to workers is 22 kept as low as reasonably achievable.
23                    So these weren't big changes from the 24 second iteration.            Primarily the change was in the 25 previous slide, just organizationally to move it out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
66 1 of the first and second tier to its own section.
2                    So that is the third iteration on Subpart 3 B, the overall objectives and highest level safety 4 criteria.          I  guess      we    can      see    if  there's        any 5 questions.
6                    Billy, if you want to go to 23, it's just 7 a slide that says discussions.                    Or we can just start 8 to get right into the next section which is more 9 specifics that are Subpart C on design and analysis.
10                    CHAIR PETTI:        I'd just keep going, Bill, 11 if you don't have anything from the members.
12                    MR. RECKLEY:            Right, I don't see any 13 hands.        So thanks, Dave.
14                    So if we go down then to Slide 24, and it 15 just shows the design analysis within the overall 16 construct of Part 53.              Again, it's kind of the first 17 process, first stage of the design and licensing 18 process.
19                    So if we go to the next slide, this is 20 related to the third iteration.                      And as I mentioned 21 before, for the third iteration, we are basically 22 assuming an approach to the design and the licensing 23 in which the PRA is used as a fundamental tool in both 24 design and licensing.
25                    And  we    will      address        the  alternative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
67 1 approach        where    the      PRA    is    done    as  a  kind        of 2 confirmatory tool in another series of sections.                              And 3 the preliminary language for that will be coming out 4 fairly soon.          And we would think we could probably 5 address        that  at    the      October        meeting    with      the 6 subcommittee.
7                    So if we go to slide -- yes, the next 8 slide.        Most of the changes, and I didn't include, 9 since these are longer sections, I didn't include the 10 actual preliminary language.                      If you have access to 11 the table and it would help, we can pull up the 12 discussion table if needed.
13                    But just to summarize that 53.400, we kind 14 of changed this just to conform to the changes we made 15 to Subpart B.          53.400 becomes design features for 16 licensing basis events.                So these are basically kind 17 of high level requirements that an applicant would 18 have to address design features to address both the 19 design-basis accident criteria, 210, and also the 20 licensing        basis  events        other      than    the  DBA    under 21 53.220.
22                    And then 410 and 420 lay out that they 23 have to identify the functional design criteria for 24 each of those.          So again, if you go to Slide 27 it's 25 the same slide just highlighting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
68 1                  Now we've gone from safety functions, 2 which are the higher level requirements in Subpart B 3 to identify them, to getting down into the specifics 4 of how they're going to identify them, I mean, what 5 they've identified to fulfill those safety functions.
6 And      then  what  are    the    actual        engineering    design 7 criteria for meeting them?                Again, if you think of a 8 barrier as the design feature, then a leak rate would 9 be the functional design criteria.
10                  So then we can go down to the next one.
11 We did add that design features and functional design 12 criteria had to be identified for normal ops.                            We 13 added this section because we added the higher lever 14 one in Subpart B.        Consistent with what I was saying 15 earlier, we expect this to continue to be an item of 16 discussion with some stakeholders.
17                  Because again, this is bringing in the 18 ALARA principle at this stage and saying designers 19 need to address that underlying requirement for the 20 design to consider normal ops and to keep the dose to 21 the public as low as reasonably achievable.
22                  53.430, I think, was just renumbered. But 23 it does the same for design features and functional 24 design criteria for the protection of plant workers.
25                  If we go to Slide 29, you start to see NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
69 1 some changes here as we go through this.                        Consistent 2 with the discussion that we had earlier with some of 3 the members, you know, as we go through here, and we 4 continue to comb through, we get additional staff 5 involved, we have interaction such as these today, we 6 do identify things and then decide on where to address 7 them.
8                    So one of the areas was in the specific 9 design requirements.                And we had a number of things 10 listed        here  before      where      we      thought    maybe      the 11 methodology didn't address some important thing in the 12 design,        or  we    needed      more        information.          Fire 13 protection        is  an    example        that,        in  the  previous 14 iteration,        we  got    some      general        language,    but      we 15 sharpened that up a little bit based on internal 16 discussions.
17                    One of the things that we added in this 18 section, in this iteration, is within Subpart F, this 19 is the second bullet, within Subpart F on programs, we 20 added        a  requirement        for    an    integrity    assessment 21 program.            And  this      is    to    look      for  particular 22 degradation mechanisms like aging, fatigue, chemical 23 interactions, areas where the history of light water 24 reactors has shown that what was put in place in the 25 early days may have needed to be supplemented.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
70 1                  And it was through various regulatory 2 requirements, through inclusion in programs, or codes 3 like the ASME, or in programs where NRC and industry 4 reached agreement and things were taken care of, but 5 maybe the rules weren't changed.
6                  And one area that falls into that category 7 is for both BWRs and PWRs, some of the stress erosion 8 cracking      concerns    associated          with    either    reactor 9 vessel internals or steam generators.                    Programs were 10 put in place to address those kind of degradation 11 mechanisms.        And whether a rule was changed or not, 12 the NRC had assurance that that was being addressed.
13                  In this particular case, since we added a 14 requirement in Subpart F that degradation mechanisms 15 be addressed during operations by having a monitoring 16 program, we thought it appropriate to put some onus on 17 the designers as well to support the identification of 18 possible mechanisms and then to help develop whatever 19 monitoring program was going to be put in place to 20 make sure that, if something unexpected did happen, 21 that it would be caught as early as possible.                              So 22 that's the second bullet.
23                  As I mentioned, we sharpened up the fire 24 protection        language.          And      then    I  highlighted 25 Paragraphs G and H in this iteration, because they go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
71 1 to discussions we've had internally as well as with 2 the        subcommittee,      in    that        they    are    specific 3 requirements for the reactor and waste stores to 4 maintain        sub-critical        conditions          and    long      term 5 cooling.
6                  And  so    the    reason        we  add  a  specific 7 requirement is when we look at how the analysis is 8 expected to get done, and we had this discussion, I 9 think, maybe last time, the actual analysis might run 10 to a safe, stable condition.
11                  And in some reactor designs, as far as I 12 run the event analysis that safe stable condition 13 could still be critical if it's based on inherent 14 feedback such that I reach a new equilibrium and it's 15 safe and stable.
16                  But that brought in the possibility of 17 this gap that we talked about before. And so we added 18 Paragraph G to specifically say, if you're going to 19 run an event and stop your analysis at safe and 20 stable, you have to show that you are able to reach a 21 subcritical        condition        as    an    extra,    as  an    added 22 requirement that might follow after the end point of 23 the analysis.        And likewise for long-term cooling.
24                  So in cooling, as an example, 50.46 for 25 the      ECCS  rule  includes        long-term        cooling      as      a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
72 1 requirement.        Traditionally, I'll date myself going 2 way back, the local codes, the ECCS codes, would be 3 run out and then long-term cooling was assessed, kind 4 of not using the evaluation model, but using another 5 engineering review to make sure that long-term cooling 6 could        be  established        and    maintained.          So    these 7 requirements for subcriticality in Paragraphs G and H 8 would have the same effect.
9                  If a designer were to argue that the 10 analysis ends its safe and stable, we would go one 11 step further and say, you still need to show that you 12 can      reach    a  subcritical          and      long-term    cooling 13 configuration as an add on to your actual event 14 analysis.
15                  And  then      Item    I    was    just  added        to 16 reinforce that under Part 53, the nuclear plant is, 17 all of the analyses are being done on a plant basis, 18 which        includes  all      the    units        and  all    of      the 19 inventories.
20                  So we can go on then to the next.
21                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hey, Bill, let me ask 22 you this.
23                  MR. RECKLEY:          Ah, there we go.              I was 24 expecting something on that slide.
25                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
73 1                MR. RECKLEY:        If we can go back to Slide 2 29.
3                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Did you define safe 4 stable?
5                MR. RECKLEY:        Safe stable, and I'll look 6 to Marty, is a defined term.              And our plan would be to 7 use the discussion of that that comes out of the non-8 light water reactor PRA standard.                  The ANS-ASME joint 9 standard.
10                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Which can do, I'm not 11 familiar with.      I try to stay away from PRA myself.
12 And tell me what it says?              Paraphrase.
13                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, I'll look, Marty?
14                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: The real question is, 15 if you have a condition which is slowly degraded but 16 it hasn't gotten bad yet after 72 hours in your 17 calculation, is that safe and stable?
18                For example, this, it clearly oriented to 19 reactors that want to overheat their fuel to get 20 feedback, and not achieving k effective 1 that's 21 slightly below it.        That temperature, you can almost 22 say      that temperature        is    achieved,      but  it      will 23 eventually want to cool.            It might take 32 hours, it 24 might take 32 days.
25                So in the statement concentration, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
74 1 need to define what you mean by safe stable.
2                    And also, you should really define what 3 you mean by this mysterious backup system that makes 4 the system subcritical afterwards.                      How it's defined, 5 how it's described.            Is it in the reliability program 6 or it's just a pinky promise, we'll have something?
7                    MR. RECKLEY: Oh, yes. It wouldn't be the 8 latter.        The thought is however that it could be a 9 non-safety related system.
10                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Oh, it would be a 11 non-safety related system.                  You design it like that.
12 Okay.        Let's be honest.
13                    If the rule permits it to be a non-safety 14 related        system    to    evaluate          whether    the  rule        is 15 acceptable,        you  have      to    show      me    it's  non-safety 16 related.        Otherwise the rules should say it has to be 17 safety related.
18                    MR. RECKLEY:        No.      Yes. Yes, I wouldn't 19 argue that point.            It will be a conscious decision, 20 and we'll have to talk about that in the context of 21 the rule and what it's allowing.
22                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Yes. And then you 23 mentioned ECCS earlier.                  I mean, one rule you do 24 include is the requirement, Part 50 has a requirement 25 to have a highly reliable I&C system and a protection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
75 1 system.          And we don't have that anymore.
2                    Because if an inherent feedback gets you 3 to 2,000 degrees, but k effective of .999, you don't 4 need a protection system.
5                    MR. RECKLEY: Well, it would depend on the 6 design.          I'll say, I will say --
7                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Now, let me, before 8 you go on.
9                    MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.
10                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              If it will depend on 11 the design, that means that the rule allows it.                              And 12 if the rule allows is, when I judge the rule I have to 13 assume the worst.              I have to assume what your rule 14 allows        a  bad  designer        to    do,      not  what  the      good 15 designer is likely to do.
16                    MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.
17                    MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:              I mean  when      the 18 Department of Transportation puts a speed limit of 55 19 miles per hour on the road it doesn't mean, but if you 20 have a good Mercedes with good brakes you can go 75, 21 just you go 55.
22                    Anyway, you know where I'm coming and you 23 know --
24                    MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.
25                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              -- my feelings about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
76 1 this.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.      Right.
3                  MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:              But  you  need      to 4 define safe and stable if you want to take credit for 5 it.
6                  MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.      Yes, we will, we'll 7 define those terms as we're using them here.
8                  And then, again, a same caution that I did 9 at the last stakeholder meeting is, in terms of what 10 the rule allows, the design as it comes forward, the 11 combination of the rule and the design will dictate 12 the results.
13                  An example of that is, at least to what 14 we've        seen to  date,      any    reactor        that  is    in    the 15 hundreds of megawatts is going to have a safety 16 related protection system.                  Because you need it in 17 order to meet the criteria. And everything we've seen 18 has shown that.
19                  Much of the discussions of what this will 20 allow goes to the concepts of smaller designs that 21 might rely more on inherent features.                        And the rule, 22 if they can show it, might allow some of that.
23                  So I take your point, Jose, that the 24 burden will be on them to show that.                      But we would not 25 expect to see the rule resulting in dramatically NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
77 1 different acceptance for those that have traditionally 2 been looked at.      And those are the ones that --
3                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              No. And, Bill --
4                MR. RECKLEY:          --    in    the hundreds        of 5 megawatts.
6                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                You realize people 7 talking about building reactors that will be loaded on 8 a helicopter and parachute dropped in the middle of 9 Alaska. Maybe exaggerated a little bit, but the rules 10 should not allow you to parachute drop a reactor 11 without operators in the middle of Alaska.
12                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      And I know --
13                (Simultaneous speaking.)
14                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              -- with that.
15                MR. RECKLEY:          Those are the conceptual 16 ones that I was talking about.                They're very small.
17                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Yes.
18                MR. RECKLEY:        And we'll just, we'll have 19 to see as they're developed and as the safety case is 20 presented for them, how that might play out.                        Okay.
21 I say --
22                MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:                But my,    let      me 23 finish, I promise, 30 seconds.
24                MR. RECKLEY:        Go ahead.
25                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                  My philosophy is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
78 1 there is an exception process in every rule.                                The 2 rules should provide the general design principles 3 that are the best designed practices.
4                    I would expect you to have a protection 5 system        and  operators.          Now,      you    have  a  special 6 consideration where you can be exempt from that, as 7 for an exemption.          Don't build exception on the rule 8 just because somebody might ask for it. And I'm done.
9 Thank you very much.
10                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        I see other hands.
11                    CHAIR PETTI:        Joy, go ahead.
12                    MEMBER    REMPE:          Yes,      I'm  unmuted      now.
13 Okay, so, I waited till now to ask this question or 14 make another repeat plea.
15                    You talked about, well, we didn't add 16 reactivity at the beginning because it was a such as.
17 But then the next figure has, reactivity control, 18 reactivity/heat generation.                  That would have made me 19 happy.
20                    And here you have maintained subcritical 21 conditions and cooling.              You don't just say maintain 22 cooling.
23                    I think you need to put reactivity up 24 front to just be very clear and very consistent.
25 That's been an important aspect.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
79 1                    And if we have some of these reactors 2 returning to criticality in longer term, they're not 3 generating much heat, it's more that we don't want 4 them to be going back to criticality when they're 5 shutdown.        So what was, other than it was a such was, 6 well, you have other things that are such as.
7                    Was there some real reason to not put it 8 up front?
9                    MR. RECKLEY:          We'll look at that again.
10 One of the problems, and I hope you're sympathetic, is 11 we worked on this a couple of months ago.                        And I have 12 to go back and think and look at our records as to 13 what our logic was, but we'll rethink it.
14                    And again, I come back, give it's a such 15 as, there is no harm in adding it.                        So --
16                    MEMBER REMPE:          Okay.        Well, anyway, it's 17 one number, but I just don't get why not to put it up 18 front.        I like the figure --
19                    MR. RECKLEY:        And I --
20                    MEMBER REMPE:          -- later.
21                    MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        All right.        And I 22 don't remember.          So, yes, we'll re-look at it.                        It 23 really wouldn't, and I understand the feeling in 24 retrospect.        I don't think we, there is no problem in 25 adding it, I don't think, so we'll look at that again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
80 1 I'll look at my notes.          So thank you.
2                MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
3                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
4                MEMBER BROWN:          The safe stable, you say 5 Paragraphs G and H are 440 and I don't find, and this 6 is in Part C, right?
7                And I don't see the safe stable in the 8 actual Part C words in the documents that we were 9 given to look at.      Other than in the discussion side, 10 not the read side.
11                And 53.40, 440 flips to 450 and then flips 12 to 53.220 under Part C.          Did the documents get messed 13 up somehow?    I can't find the words is the problem in 14 Part --
15                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      And it's currently in 16 Paragraph F, which says, when you're analyzing design-17 basis accidents, they need to reach a safe stable end 18 state.
19                MEMBER BROWN:          Is that in Part D or C?
20                MR. RECKLEY:        C, 450 f.          But that's for 21 design-basis accidents.            They have to reach a safe 22 stable end state.      For --
23                MEMBER BROWN:          So I just key worded that 24 and I did not get --
25                MR. RECKLEY:        Oh, okay.        Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
81 1                MEMBER BROWN:          This is 450 f you said?
2                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
3                MEMBER BROWN:          I was just trying to get 4 the whole word in there.
5                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
6                MEMBER BROWN:          Yes, okay.          But it says 7 53.250 not 450.
8                MR. RECKLEY:        Oh.
9                MEMBER BROWN:        And it's under Part C, not 10 part, it's on Page 17 of the document and we're, right 11 now we were talking about Page 14.
12                CHAIR PETTI:        14.
13                MEMBER HALNON:          Charlie, I'm seeing g and 14 h.      It's got what he's saying, 440 g and h.
15                MEMBER BROWN:          Yes, but it doesn't say, 16 that's over in the discussion paragraph.
17                MEMBER HALNON:          Well, it says a system, a 18 commercial nuclear plant must be capable of achieving 19 and maintaining a subcritical condition during normal 20 operations      in  following        any      license      basis    events 21 identified.
22                And then h is similar, only it says, 23 capability      to  provide        long-term          cooling  for      the 24 reactor --
25                MEMBER BROWN:          I'm just saying the safe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
82 1 stable words are not in --
2                MEMBER    HALNON:            Oh,    the  safe    stable.
3 Okay, I got you.
4                MEMBER BROWN:          -- are not in g and h.
5                MEMBER HALNON:          Yes.
6                MEMBER BROWN:        Now it says, in accordance 7 with 53.240, and then if I flip a couple of pages 8 there is something in 53.250 about that.                    I was just, 9 it was inconsistent because all a sudden I flip to 53, 10 I'm back into the 53.200s which were under Part B.
11 And then I got to 53.460.
12                So I didn't recognize that when I was 13 looking at it before.          That's on Page 18, we're back 14 to 460 again.        So there's a segue back to 53.200 15 whatever it is as we're going from 440 to 450 and then 16 we're back into the 253s or the 250s.
17                Anyway,      it    just        seems      to    be      it's 18 something, but I did not see the words, like you say, 19 under, Greg, they're not under the 440, they're only 20 in the discussion paragraph.
21                MEMBER HALNON:          And I --
22                CHAIR    PETTI:          250      f    has  safe    stable 23 instate.
24                MEMBER BROWN:          That's right.          But that's 25 on page --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
83 1                  CHAIR PETTI:        Right.
2                  MEMBER BROWN:          -- it's under Part B, not 3 Part C.        53.250 is not a part of Part C, if I'm not 4 mistaken. Because we go right back into the 400s next 5 on Page 18.        It's an organizational thing.
6                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      And I'll, yes, we'll 7 take a look.        I mean, it is a disintegrated thing so 8 it's very hard.          We tried to build it again from 9 higher to lower but it is hard to keep from referring 10 back and forth.
11                  But again, under the design requirements, 12 440, we added, the point here on the slide is, we 13 added specific requirements that for normal ops and 14 following any licensing basis event that that it needs 15 to be able to achieve and maintain subcriticality and 16 long-term cooling.
17                  Part of the confusion is then, in terms of 18 instate discussions, that's really an analytical term 19 and so it shows up in 450 under the analysis saying 20 that for licensing basis events you have to basically 21 analyze all the licensing basis events to an instate 22 and for design-basis accidents it has to be a safe 23 stable instate.
24                  That simply for FLEX, that in an PRA an 25 instate for the very unlikely events might very well NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
84 1 be a bad outcome.            That's the nature of the PRA 2 analysis.      So it would reach an instate, but within 3 the PRA analysis it could be a bad circumstance.
4                And so, as maybe as we get in to 450, if 5 there is additional questions.
6                MEMBER HALNON: That number you're looking 7 at the top of the page where it says, 53.220 and 8 53.250, that's a part of the narrative under Echo, 450 9 e.      That's not a new paragraph.
10                MEMBER BROWN:          No, I just realized that.
11 The way it tracked through the page, I've lost the 12 bubble on that, but it's still, the safe instate is 13 not under g and h.
14                MEMBER HALNON:            No, it's under the f, 15 Frank.
16                CHAIR PETTI:        Right.        It's under 450.
17                MEMBER BROWN: Yes. And it's okay, I just 18 --
19                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
20                MEMBER BROWN:          -- we just seem to be out 21 of whack relative to where we say stuff is.
22                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
23                MEMBER    BROWN:            I    apologize    for      the 24 confusion, but --
25                MR. RECKLEY:        No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
85 1                  MEMBER BROWN:        -- it's a trouble of going 2 back and actually reading the words as opposed to the 3 slides.        I'm not criticizing --
4                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
5                  MEMBER BROWN: -- the way you're trying to 6 track through this it's a --
7                  MR. RECKLEY:        A challenge.          Yes.
8                  MEMBER BROWN: All right. I'm sorry about 9 that.
10                  MR. RECKLEY:            Okay.        No, no.      No, no 11 problem.
12                  MEMBER BROWN: It's really in 450 is where 13 the safe stable instate is.
14                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.        Right.
15                  MEMBER BROWN:          Okay.
16                  MR. RECKLEY:          So, we can go on then to 17 Slide 30 and talk about the changes in this iteration 18 of 450.          And again, 450 becomes a, it's a very 19 important section because it's talking about all of 20 the analyses that are done just to make the safety 21 case.
22                  So there were some --
23                  MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
24                  MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.      I'm looking at the 25 slide now and I'm lost, so let me see.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
86 1                    MEMBER BROWN:        I just, this gets back to, 2 the information is in there, but why wouldn't a nice 3 general design criteria that says you need to achieve 4 a    nice      safe  stable      instate        with    the  subcritical 5 operation instead of sprinkling it around in the, just 6 burying it in the, that's the wrong words --
7                    MR. RECKLEY: Yes. No, I understand. No, 8 I understand.
9                    MEMBER BROWN:          It's just --
10                    MR. RECKLEY:        So you --
11                    MEMBER BROWN: -- some of these high level 12 general design criteria are showing up, but they're 13 not, you got to fish through the document to find out 14 what they are, whereas in Part 50 you can see where 15 they are and then the implementation is in places like 16 this.
17                    MR. RECKLEY:        Right.        Okay.
18                    MEMBER    BROWN:          Apologize      for    my      own 19 confusion.
20                    MR. RECKLEY:        No, that's fine.          So Slide 21 30,      looking    at  the      changes        to    450. Just      some 22 editorial changes.
23                    Probably the most important thing is, we 24 maintain the requirement in 450, in Paragraph A in 25 particular, to do a probabilistic risk assessment.                              A NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
87 1 change that was made was, we removed degradation 2 mechanisms from something you get out of the PRA. And 3 we added additional requirements in other places to 4 make sure that degradation mechanisms were looked for 5 and addressed and monitored for.
6                    But the comment was that the PRA, in and 7 of itself, doesn't identify degradation mechanisms.
8 So that was that change.                Largely editorial.
9                    The    other        change        in    450  is    within 10 Paragraph E.          One thing that we had lacked in the 11 previous        iterations      was    a    requirement      to    define 12 evaluation criteria for a specific events.
13                    Subpart      B    has    the      criteria  that      the 14 licensing basis events, other than the design-basis 15 accident, need to ensure you meet the accumulative 16 risk measure.          But we didn't have a requirement that 17 for each event it has its own event criteria.
18                    And so, that was an oversight.                And so we 19 put in Paragraph E, that for every event you need to 20 identify an evaluation criteria.
21                    That could be a barrier, integrity type 22 criteria, or it could be a frequency consequence 23 target        figure  type      criteria.            Or  it  could      be    a 24 combination of the two.
25                    Under the licensing modernization it's the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
88 1 frequency consequence target figure.                    But a lot of 2 discussions over time.
3                  And associated with NEI 18-04 in Reg Guide 4 1.223 has been the easiest way to show you meet the 5 frequency consequence target, is to show that you 6 maintain the integrity of, in particular, the first 7 barrier.      And so, the analysis, even under NEI 18-04 8 could support that kind of approach.
9                  But the requirement that we added was to 10 make sure that for each event, or each event category, 11 that an acceptance criteria be defined.
12                  The second thing that we added, and this 13 will become evident when we talk about Subpart I this 14 afternoon, was a requirement that they have within 15 their methodology a way to identify risk significant 16 event sequences.        Or risk significant events.
17                  That was in addition, because as we were 18 developing change control mechanisms, we wanted to 19 take advantage of such a designation in our decision, 20 or in the criteria, for when a license amendment would 21 be required.        So this is just an example as we're 22 working on future subsection, or future subparts, that 23 need to go back and look and make sure that we can 24 support it by the requirements in an earlier subpart.
25                  So this changed to Subpart B came directly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
89 1 from our development of Subpart I.
2                But within the licensing modernization 3 that we talked about last time, this is satisfied by 4 the area, oh, actually I'll show it in a slide or two 5 so no reason to discuss it on this slide.
6                Let's go to the next couple of slides.
7 These are ones we've used before in our meetings. So, 8 again, going back to needing to identify an evaluation 9 criteria for each event, this is the slide I've used 10 many times before.
11                Basically      showing        that      ultimately        the 12 success of the system can rely on one barrier or 13 multiple barriers.          And so, the requirement under 14 Subpart C to come up with an evaluation criteria could 15 reflect either approach.
16                Either    the    integrity          of  a  particular 17 barrier could prevent a release or something like a 18 frequency consequence target figure where for various 19 event sequences you might credit multiple barriers.
20 And that's reflected on the next slide, 32.
21                Which is the figure from SECY 1896, the 22 functional containment paper.                Which shows the same 23 thing.
24                That  for      example,        when    you  look        at 25 anticipated events, or anticipated operational events, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
90 1 the plant level performance criteria could either be 2 a frequency consequence target or a fuel design limit.
3 And likewise, design-basis events could be a frequency 4 consequence assessment or an assessment of particular 5 barriers.
6                  So,  just      kind      of    bringing  up      that 7 assessment.        Those discussions we had back when we 8 were, I know that's now three years ago or four years 9 ago when we talked to the ACRS about this, but same 10 principles were on the same basic process of looking 11 at event categories, event sequences and coming up 12 with plant level performance criteria.
13                  So, the last slide in this discussion, 14 Slide 33, is the one I started to allude to.                        Under 15 the licensing modernization, NEI 18-04, this risk 16 significant category is this hatched area.                    And it's 17 basically an area defined as two orders of magnitude 18 or one percent of the frequency consequence target 19 line.
20                  And so the requirement would be, for any 21 applicant to describe how their methodology provides 22 something akin to this hatched area.                    Something that 23 said,        a particular      event        sequence    is    a    risk 24 significant event sequence so that it can result in 25 additional attention by both the applicant and by the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
91 1 NRC Staff.          So that is the change to 450 on the 2 analysis.
3                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Bill, this is Jose 4 again.        From the point of your philosophy, from high 5 level thinking, you keep saying, it may, it could be, 6 I don't know, we'll see when we receive the, but our 7 rules should be specific.                I mean, you should have a 8 speed limit, be it 55 or 75 or 90, whatever you want 9 to make it.
10                    But you keep talking as if you don't know 11 how the rule will be implemented.
12                    MR. RECKLEY:        No.
13                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                If I'm not expert, 14 how do I know what I need to do?
15                    MR. RECKLEY:        Well, I would say the rule 16 language is going to be written, is being written to 17 support the probabilistic approach.                      We have not put 18 in the rule the specific frequency consequence figure.
19                    Although we're on the record under Reg 20 Guide 1233 and the rulemaking plan for Part 53 to see, 21 LMP is unacceptable approach to this.                      But we did not 22 put in the specifics.
23                    In light of, that there are different ways 24 that this could be done, and although this is one way, 25 there are different even risked informed ways to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
92 1 develop a target figure.
2                And so, we're open to somebody proposing 3 an alternative to NEI 18-04 and a different frequency 4 consequence target.          But the general notion is that 5 the rule will be written in those kind of terms.
6                How an applicant meets it, if you go back 7 up, Billy, if you can go back up to Slide 31.                    So the 8 rule will ultimately be written in the terms of the 9 atmospheric    dispersion        because          in the  end      what 10 presents a risk to the public health and safety is the 11 release of a radionuclide.              Or radionuclides.
12                However, although the rule is written that 13 way, you can demonstrate you meet the rule by showing 14 the radionuclides don't get by the first barrier.                        So 15 that's a flexibility that's built in to the rule.
16                So there is, you know, the speed limit can 17 be 55, and I can control that through the gas pedal or 18 I can put the gearing in to make sure the vehicle 19 doesn't go above 55.            How you meet the 55, we're 20 providing some flexibility.
21                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Is your statement 22 completely compatible to something you said an hour 23 again about defense-in-depth that not a single system 24 can be used to satisfy the safety goals?
25                MR. RECKLEY:        We --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
93 1                MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:              So  you  said      the 2 barrier one doesn't let iodine through, I'm done, 3 would that be okay?
4                MR. RECKLEY: Not if the only thing you're 5 relying one is barrier one.
6                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                But you just said 7 that.
8                MR. RECKLEY:          Well, but we have another 9 requirement for defense-in-depth that says, if the way 10 I'm meeting the QHO is totally relying on barrier one, 11 then you have to do more.
12                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Okay. It doesn't 13 take the frame of mind when you talk.
14                CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.      So, Bill --
15                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Okay, you show what 16 you're thinking.
17                CHAIR PETTI:        Bill, but let me see if I, 18 the way I interpreted what you said is, okay, you have 19 an event sequence and barrier one still maintains its 20 integrity so that there is no release.                    And so, the 21 analyst of an applicant says, that sequence is okay, 22 I don't need to go all the way to the FC curb because 23 my acceptance criteria remained intact.
24                But, I also have barrier two, three and 25 four, as you show here so I still have defense-in-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
94 1 depth.        But I just didn't talk about it in that 2 sequence because those weren't challenged in that 3 sequence.        They may be challenged in other sequences.
4                  MR. RECKLEY:          They may be challenged in 5 other sequences.          And when I assess defense-in-depth 6 for that sequence, I'll say I have barriers two, three 7 and four.
8                  CHAIR PETTI:        Right.
9                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, but you will not 10 --
11                  CHAIR PETTI:        To me the --
12                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                  But you will not 13 perform a calculation for barrier two to the term, 14 efficient effective, because you said it maybe it came 15 out to one.
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        But the defense-in-depth --
17                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              And that's where the 18 single failure criteria come along.                      You have to say, 19 look at the problem and say what is the worst thing 20 that can possible happen to me.
21                  In this case it would be barrier one 22 breaks out.        Then do the analyst.              What you're saying 23 is, barrier one won't let anything out so I don't have 24 to any analysis for two, three and four. I can design 25 the weak, I can design them so that they can be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
95 1 breached under certain circumstances.
2                    I don't know. You guys need to think this 3 --
4                    CHAIR PETTI:          No, no, no.          Jose?      Jose, 5 you're misconstruing.                Because there are sequences 6 where barrier one fails and then you have to rely on 7 barrier        two  and  barrier        three,        or  barrier      four.
8 Depends on the sequence.                They're all in there.
9                    MR. RECKLEY:          Right.
10                    CHAIR PETTI:          In this approach.            So you 11 can't, yes, you can't look at any specific sequence 12 when you look at the whole picture, right?
13                    I  mean,      come      on,      these    scenarios        in 14 existing light water reactors where you never breach 15 the primary system, you're done.                        It's an event but 16 it's not a big event.
17                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                In part --
18                    CHAIR PETTI:          And those others will --
19                    (Simultaneous speaking.)
20                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                In part --
21                    CHAIR PETTI:          -- right?
22                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                In Part 50, design 23 criteria for anticipated occurrences, thou shall not 24 breach the first barrier until this for sure will 25 remain intact.        It is a requirement not to breach the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
96 1 first barrier.
2                  You    remove          that        for    anticipated 3 occurrences.        That bothers me.              We've operated these 4 reactors for 60 year safely, and suddenly we are 5 relaxing the requirements.
6                  MR. RECKLEY:        And like I --
7                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: For better reactors.
8 I mean, the reactor you're designing now are better 9 than the ones that we're operating. You don't need to 10 relax the requirement.
11                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      And I guess the delta 12 would        be  coming,    where      it's      characterized        as    a 13 relaxation        in    requirements              because      I    don't, 14 personally, I don't view it as a relaxation in the 15 requirements.
16                  It's a different way to do the design and 17 assessment.        But it's not a relaxation in terms of, 18 ultimately        our  goal      is  to      limit      the release        of 19 radionuclides.
20                  The way that has historically been done, 21 and it's for a variety of reasons for light water 22 reactors, has been a very barrier based system.                                I 23 will,        for  certain      events,        show      that  the      first 24 barriers, the cladding, is maintained.
25                  For another set of events I'll make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
97 1 that        the  reactor      coolant        pressure        boundary        is 2 maintained.        For another set of events, I'll look and 3 make sure that the containment will contain whatever 4 radionuclides might come out of a significant event.
5                  That's the way that was evolved.                          And 6 plenty of reasons.            And I'm not arguing that it has 7 not been an effective way to address it.
8                  But the alternative is not less safe.
9 It's going to provide the same ultimate protection to 10 the public from the release of radionuclides.
11                  What it may relax, and again, I'm going to 12 be careful about the term, but I'll say it, it might 13 be viewed as a relaxation, is that the development of, 14 let's say anticipated operational occurrences, from 15 the early days had one measure, for example, that the 16 plant could restart following an AAO.
17                  We fully expect that that will be the 18 expectation. But if you use the frequency consequence 19 target,        a  frequency        consequence            assessment      type 20 approach,        you  don't        inherently            have  in      it      a 21 requirement        that    the      plant      be      able  to    restart 22 following an anticipated operational occurrence.
23                  We're fully, I'll use first person.                        I'm 24 confident        that    other      factors,            other  than        our 25 regulations, would provide ample incentive that a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
98 1 designer is not going to want to design a plant that, 2 for an anticipated operational occurrence, you meet 3 the frequency consequence type criteria, but you're 4 unable to start up the plant following the event.
5                That becomes an economic incentive.                        It 6 becomes other things.            So in that light one might 7 characterize it as a relaxation.                  Because we move it 8 from something needed for public health and safety to 9 something that a designer better address or they're 10 not going to have a practical design.
11                But in terms of ultimately, the protection 12 of public health and safety, there is no relaxations 13 under this.      I don't believe there is a relaxation 14 under this Part 53 construct.
15                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              I do, but --
16                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
17                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              -- as I said before, 18 I'm just hoping you can give you an example of a 19 particular reactor that needed to access that AAO 20 requirement.      Okay,      keep    going.        It's  probably 21 lunchtime.
22                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        All right. So we'll 23 go down to finish out Subpart C, on Slide 34.
24                So these we just highlight because we 25 didn't really, in the third iteration, make changes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
99 1 from the second iteration.                  And those are the ones 2 that are related to safety categorization and special 3 treatment.
4                  The  application            of    analytical      safety 5 margins,      this  is    again,      the      adoption    of    a    more 6 restrictive        criteria        in      order        to  justify        an 7 operational      flexibility.            And      so    the  example        is 8 establishing for the unlikely and highly unlikely 9 events, a design goal of one rem versus the higher 10 ones that might be shown in a frequency consequence.
11                  And then saying, based on the fact that 12 none of my event sequences exceed one rem, 96 hours or 13 over a month, whatever your time frame, I can then use 14 that flexibility, that margin, to have a flexibility 15 in emergency planning or flexibility in sighting or 16 flexibility in staffing, as we'll discuss later.
17                  We didn't change the quality assurance 18 requirements for the design.                    And we maintain the 19 design and analytical interfaces.                    So.
20                  So that is the second, I mean, the third 21 iteration of Subpart C.            And I guess the next slide, 22 Billy, is just a discussion slide.
23                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hey, Bill, this might 24 be a little bit of a tangent, but you discuss the 25 emergency planning zones.              So what you're saying if, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
100 1 if the calculated numbers are below one rem and the 2 EPZ is inside the side boundary, what, is Part 53 3 completely silent on that, does it rely on other 4 guides?
5                MR. RECKLEY:        Well --
6                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Can you talk about 7 that?
8                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.        The way we see that 9 working is that the criteria itself is within the 10 existing EP SMR rule.          And so we would be relying on 11 that rulemaking to say that a designer, an applicant 12 can, if they can show that the dose is less than a 13 criteria, which is the one rem over 96 hours, at a 14 given distance, then that distance is the emergency 15 planning zone.
16                So if it's at the, let's say it's at the 17 exclusionary boundary, then the exclusionary boundary 18 and the emergency planning zone would be the same --
19                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: But Part 53 is silent 20 --
21                MR. RECKLEY:        -- boundaries.
22                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              -- Part 53 is silent 23 on these.
24                MR. RECKLEY:        No.
25                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                  It would rely on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
101 1 existing regulations.
2                MR. RECKLEY:            Right.        Except that the 3 relationship within Part 53 is, the calculation of 4 that      dose is  coming      out    the      evaluation    of      the 5 licensing basis events.
6                And we've built in this provision in 470 7 that says specifically, when you're evaluating your 8 licensing basis events, you can establish a criteria 9 in like the one rem for emergency planning to use in 10 place of the, something like the frequency consequence 11 target figure out of NEI 18-04.
12                And then the other thing that's achieved 13 by doing that is, once that's integrated into your 14 licensing basis analysis, all the future updating, 15 maintenance, tests that would be done under Subpart I 16 for evaluating whether an amendment would be needing, 17 all of those things are integrated such that it's now 18 built in.        And the fact that you're doing that, 19 justifying a lower emergency planning zone, becomes 20 integrated into your whole licensing case, your whole 21 safety case, the whole need to update, maintain and 22 evaluate plant changes.
23                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Boy, you're making 24 everything      complicated.            So    basically    you    would 25 restrict a failure criteria from 25 to one rem --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
102 1                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
2                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              -- if you don't want 3 to have an emergency planning outside your boundary?
4                And there's a way to enforce this for the 5 life of the plant?
6                MR. RECKLEY:        That's right.
7                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                I'm afraid to say 8 tech specs again, but these aren't tech specs or is it 9 the licensing basis or --
10                MR. RECKLEY:        Licensing basis and --
11                MEMBER      MARCH-LEUBA:              I'm  sure        the 12 inspectors won't let you get away with it if they --
13                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
14                (Simultaneous speaking.)
15                MEMBER    HALNON:            Bill,    let  me    help.
16 There's a requirement to keep your EPlan up to date 17 based on your licensing basis. So if you're licensing 18 basis changes --
19                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
20                MEMBER HALNON: -- the analysis going back 21 for your EPlan has to change.
22                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.        And when we get to 23 Subpart I, on the maintenance of the licensing basis, 24 we'll talk specifically about how we address this 25 particular item of emergency planning.                  Or any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
103 1 flexibility that you're gaining by showing that you 2 achieved a lower consequence.
3                    MEMBER HALNON:          And I think Dave said it 4 yesterday,        we'll    be    looking        for      the  connectivity 5 between this --
6                    MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
7                    MEMBER HALNON: -- 50.160, the source term 8 determination          efforts      going        on      and  some      other 9 activities.        There's a lot going on and they all have 10 to --
11                    MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
12                    MEMBER HALNON:          -- a lot of them hinge on 13 this spec, "spectrum of accidents" that you have to 14 deal with.
15                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
16                    MEMBER HALNON: And we'll continue to look 17 at that.
18                    MR. RECKLEY:            Right.          And I think a 19 meeting is getting setup in February, I believe, to 20 talk to you guys about that.
21                    MEMBER REMPE:          I'm kind of wondering now 22 about your, again, thoughts about not requiring, or 23 having        less  reliance        on    a      PRA    and  how      that 24 connectivity could be impacted. It's going to make it 25 more complicated, with what we heard yesterday in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
104 1 discussion about the EP rule.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:        I would say we've been able 3 to integrate it here because we were developing them 4 in parallel.        50.160 it doesn't, it can accommodate 5 the more traditional approach for identifying events.
6                  I mean, you're going to, most likely you 7 are going to do that through a probabilistic risk 8 assessment.        But, or at least use the PRA as a 9 supporting tool in identifying sequences in showing 10 consequences are below the one rem.
11                  That's what we've seen in exercises be it 12 the NuScale or, that would be the most recent example.
13 But they were able to do that within the Part 50 type 14 construct.
15                  MEMBER REMPE: Yes, but I'm speaking about 16 a new design that thinks they're so safe they can go 17 with        a  hypothetical        maximum        critical  event        or 18 hypothetical event.            And then how do we know they, 19 that maximum event is a low enough frequency and that 20 it's considered all of the appropriate challenges 21 without a PRA.
22                  And we've let people get away without a 23 containment and now we're going to maybe get away 24 without having to do emergency planning.                      And it's 25 based on someone's assessment of a maximum critical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
105 1 event.        It just seems like it's going to make things 2 a little more difficult to justify.
3                    MR. RECKLEY:            And the burden of proof 4 would be on them and the burden of making sure it's 5 true would be on us.                But just because people talk 6 about it, my caution would be, that's a tall hurdle 7 that they've set for themselves.                      And they should be 8 prepared to testify that.
9                    And the burden would be also on us to 10 review it and make sure that it actually was the 11 maximum hypothetical event.
12                    MEMBER REMPE:            And I like what you're 13 saying, I just hope it's written somewhere so the 14 Staff can rely on it to justify the question they'll 15 be asking when the design developers don't like those 16 questions.        But anyway, that's --
17                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
18                    CHAIR PETTI:        My view was, I don't have a 19 problem necessarily, per say, with an MHA approach.
20 It's      the  technical      basis      upon      which  the    MHA      is 21 selected that's critical.
22                    And that kind of moves you into PRA space 23 to make sure that you use all the risk tools you can, 24 all the tools that are out there, to look at a broad 25 spectrum.        Which goes back to our recommendation that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
106 1 you talked about this morning.
2                At some point you got to do a search. You 3 got to do a good thorough search. You just can't pick 4 it out of the air.
5                MEMBER REMPE:          All of that is true.                But 6 when you don't have data to have that technical basis, 7 it becomes more difficult with lots of uncertainties.
8 And then of course, how good is our imagination to 9 think of all of those events.
10                But that's true with any PRA also. But --
11                MR. RECKLEY: Well, and it's not only true 12 of any PRA, it's true of any new design no matter 13 which of the methodologies that you use.
14                And I would just go back to, we're not 15 guaranteeing anybody that this is easy.                          And the 16 technical requirements to show that your system is 17 going to be capable of delivering what it needs to 18 deliver,      we're    not      proposing            any  significant 19 differences here.
20                The  applicant        needs        to  show,    through 21 combination of analysis, operating experience, tests 22 and experiments, up to and including the operation of 23 a prototype plant, that it actually behaves as they 24 say it will behave.
25                And so that is, it's an underlying premise NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
107 1 here.        And yes, there may be uncertainties in how a 2 design is going to perform.                        So that results in 3 uncertainties in the analysis.
4                  They    have      to      be      addressed    through 5 experiments        or  operating          experience      or  whatever.
6 We're not creating a path here, our view, we're not 7 creating a path here that a reactor can get a license 8 for commercial operation.              And we don't have the same 9 level of comfort that we have now.
10                  CHAIR PETTI:        There is no EZ pass plan --
11                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
12                  CHAIR PETTI:          -- is what you're saying, 13 right?
14                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      Yes.
15                  (Laughter.)
16                  CHAIR PETTI:        Okay.
17                  MR. RECKLEY:        And if you have uncertainty 18 in one area, there is a number of ways you might 19 address it.        But we're never saying is, we don't know 20 how this is going to behave, we'll just see as we go.
21                  They're going to have to have something in 22 place that if there is a high certainty, a high 23 uncertainty, they're going to have to compensate for 24 that one way or another.                  So I see a hand up, I'm 25 sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
108 1                CHAIR PETTI:          Yes, Vesna.
2                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Yes. I would like 3 to comment on this because this is some part of the 4 discussion I also brought last time.
5                First I want to tell you, I really, you 6 know, I think that you getting off this two tier 7 structure      is  very    good      and      moving    in  the    right 8 direction there.        So now I see the next step would be 9 to define this PRA, to split on the PRA having leading 10 role, and PRA having supporting role.
11                Something which I brought the last time we 12 have a discussion that is, when we say PRA, most of 13 the people who are not a PRA practitioner just think, 14 oh,      frequencies  are      complex        models,    fault    trees, 15 things like that.          There is so much in the PRA than 16 that in numbers.
17                And therefore what the PRA brought to that 18 regulation, it is in so many areas which cannot be 19 neglected than if, you know, it's like a genie which 20 is out of the bottle.            And it has to be respected in 21 many areas.      Which don't have to be this complex and 22 huge model.
23                For    example,          a      selection      of      the 24 challenging      events,        which      is      the  part    of      the 25 initiating event PRA and misconducts has to be done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
109 1 for ever, how would we know what can damage the, you 2 know,        and challenge      the    design        if  we  know      what 3 challenges present.
4                  Also now, when we used to just talk about 5 challenges and now we talk about sequences, so logical 6 structures of that event trees is always there.                        What 7 is needed to mitigate those challenges.
8                  So when we say the PRA is going to have a 9 supporting role, in my vision, that's not the role 10 that the applicant should select if he wants to do 11 some risk informed application or something where he 12 can choose not to use the PRA at all.                        That's not 13 possible anymore.
14                  So  therefore        when      you    have  a  maximum 15 hypothetical        technical        accident,          therefore      main 16 principle, at least logical principle maybe with some 17 simplified quantification and frequencies can be, has 18 to be used to select that.                        How can we address 19 uncertainties if we don't think about, you know, the 20 PRA principles and uncertainties.
21                  So, having PRA and supporting rule, it 22 doesn't mean no PRA, it just means it would play in 23 the different role and it will still have to be used 24 in a lot of the principles.                In my vision.
25                  MEMBER REMPE:        I like your vision.            And I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
110 1 hope that that gets conveyed in whatever the Staff's 2 thinking, Vesna.
3                MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      The construct so far 4 is that whether it's in a leading role or a supporting 5 role, it's still required.              Either under, under all 6 three parts. 50, 52 and 53.
7                50 is the current rulemaking to go back 8 and put in place what the Commission policy has been 9 ever since the development of 52. That a PRA would be 10 expected.
11                Albeit, again, it would be more in the 12 confirmatory    role      whereas        under      Part  53    these 13 iterations are that it plays a more prominent role in 14 both the design and the licensing arguments.                    So, and 15 --
16                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              But for example, we 17 can keep the single failure criteria because that's a 18 pretty much agreeable to defense-in-depth and things.
19 But like other things, safety analyst, crediting all 20 these safety systems, not crediting human actions, 21 things like that, those are things which have to be 22 reconsidered given all of these things which we learn 23 in using PRA in regulations.
24                I  mean,      I  just      want    to say,    having 25 supporting role PRA will still be ready, be part of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
111 1 that.        In my, I hope so.
2                  MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Yes, I think we're --
3                  CHAIR PETTI:          We'll hear about that in 4 October, right, Bill?
5                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.      Yes.
6                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.      Well, I don't see any 7 more hands or any more questions, so we'll just a few 8 minutes ahead of our lunchtime, so why don't we break 9 then and we'll be back at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.                          Thank 10 you, all.
11                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 12:56 p.m. and resumed at 2:00 p.m.)
13                  CHAIR    PETTI:            Okay.        Welcome      back 14 everyone.        Bill, if you're there, we can resume our 15 meeting.
16                  MS. VALLIERE:        Actually Dave, this is Nan 17 Valliere from the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch in 18 NRR.        And I'm going to be taking over for the first 19 topic this afternoon.
20                  CHAIR PETTI:        Great.        Go ahead Nan.
21                  MS. VALLIERE:          Okay.        Thank you. Libby, 22 you can go to slide 38.              So, I'm going to provide an 23 overview of the first half of Subpart H of Part 53, 24 which was publically released in August.
25                  As was mentioned earlier, this half covers NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
112 1 the      licensing    processes        for      seeking    limited      work 2 authorizations, early site permits, standard design 3 approvals, and standard design certifications.
4                  And as Bill noted, there's not a whole lot 5 that's new in this Subpart. Next slide, please Libby.
6                  So, Slide 39 provides an overview of all 7 the licensing processes covered in Part 53.                      So, this 8 includes all the existing licensing processes in both 9 Parts 50 and 52.
10                  It also provides some linkages between 11 processes        that  aren't      currently          laid  out    in    the 12 existing regulations.              And those are shown by the 13 dotted lines.
14                  And  I'm      going      to      explain    these        new 15 linkages in more detail, in a few slides. Next slide, 16 please.
17                  So,  there      are    several        issues    within 18 Subpart        H  that  related        to      items    that  are    being 19 addressed in the ongoing lessons learned rulemaking 20 for Parts 50 and 52.
21                  Full    reconciliation              between    the      two 22 rulemakings is going to occur at a later time, because 23 they are both in flux now.                So, this first iteration 24 of Subpart H largely reflects the current version of 25 Parts 50 and 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
 
113 1                  However, requirements for applications for 2 licenses and other approvals have been tailored to 3 match the Part 53 technical requirements.
4                  As  has    been      alluded          to  already,        the 5 guidance        being    developed          under        the    technology 6 inclusive content application project or TICAP, and 7 the advanced reactor content of application project or 8 ARCAP, will support Part 53 in this regard.
9                  So, the first sections under Subpart H 10 that we're going to start to go over here, cover some 11 general application requirements.                        And these will be 12 shown on the next few slides.
13                  So,    Section          53.1100          provides        the 14 equivalent of exiting Section 50.30 for the general 15 administrative requirements for filing applications.
16                  Section 53.1110 is the equivalent of 50.31 17 and 52.8.        And that allows the combining of several 18 applications for different kinds of licenses into one 19 application.
20                  Section      53.1120        is    the    equivalent        of 21 existing      section    50.32,      and      allows      applicants        to 22 incorporate by reference information contained in 23 previous applications or reports.                      Can we go to slide 24 41, please.
25                  Section 53.1130 provides the equivalent of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
114 1 section        50.33      for      general        content      information 2 applicable to all applications or certain types of 3 applications.
4                    And I'll not that there are paragraphs on 5 emergency response plans, and both here and throughout 6 Subpart        H,  we    will      be    updating        those    sections 7 following completion of the rulemaking on emergency 8 preparedness requirements for small modular reactors 9 and other new technologies.
10                    Section 53.1135 provides the equivalent of 11 existing Section 50.36(b), which notes that certain 12 licenses          may    include          conditions          to    address 13 environmental issues.
14                    Section      53.1140        is    the  equivalent          of 15 existing Section 50.37. And those requirements relate 16 to      controls      over    restricted          data    in    classified 17 national security information.
18                    Section 53.1150 provides the equivalent of 19 Section 50.38.            And covers restrictions related to 20 foreign owned, controlled, or dominated applicants.
21                    And    finally,        Section        53.1160    is      the 22 equivalent        of  Section      50.39.          And  that    provides 23 provisions for public inspection of applications.
24 Slide 42, please Libby.
25                    So, Section 53.1162 is a new section. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
115 1 it's going to be populated in the next iteration of 2 Subpart H.
3                  And it will include text from all the 4 existing Part 52 sections on the interrelationships 5 between those processes.
6                  So, think of a combined license that's 7 able to reference either a design certification or an 8 ESP or both.        And as well, this section will explain 9 relationships with the Part 50 licensing processes.
10                  Section        53.1165        would    provide        the 11 equivalent of the site suitability review process.
12 That      process  is  currently          outlined    in  Part      50, 13 Appendix Q and Part 2, Subpart F.
14                  And those requirements cover procedures 15 for NOC staff review and referral to the ACRS of 16 requests        for  early      review        of    one or  more      site 17 suitability issues.            And that would be prior to the 18 submittal of an application for either a construction 19 permit or a combined license.
20                  This process has been around for a long 21 time.        And it was the predecessor to the early site 22 permit process.
23                  So, the staff has asked specifically for 24 stakeholder input as to whether this process should be 25 carried forward into Part 53. To my knowledge, it has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
116 1 not      been  widely    used      since      the      ESP process      was 2 introduced.
3                And in Part 53, Section 53.1170, provides 4 the equivalent of the requirements in Section 50.10 5 for seeking a limited work authorization, or LWA.
6 It's worth noting that currently in Part 50, the 7 definition of the term construction is found in the 8 LWA rule.
9                However, in Part 53, this definition is 10 contained in the definition section of Subpart A. The 11 definition of construction helps to define the NRC's 12 regulatory boundaries.
13                And it's especially important in how we 14 implement our obligations under NEPA.                        So, we've 15 carried that definition forward as it exists.                          Just 16 put it in a new location in Part 53.                          Slide 43, 17 please.
18                This Section -- so, the Sections listed on 19 the bullet here show the Sections in Part 53 that 20 cover early site permits.
21                Again, these Sections are largely copied 22 from the existing Part 52 equivalent Sections.                          But, 23 I'll note a couple of items where we made adjustments 24 in Part 53.
25                In Section 53.1185, on the contents of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
117 1 applications          for      technical            information,        we've 2 introduced some new language to adapt the analysis 3 requirements for a Part 53 L&P like approach.
4                    As  explained        on      this      slide,  and      also 5 included in the discussion table for this Section, the 6 phrase        licensing      basis        events        associated      with 7 potential designs, is meant to acknowledge that an ESP 8 applicant maybe considering one or more designs in the 9 evaluation of its proposed site.
10                    This is somewhat similar to the plant 11 parameter envelope concept that has been used by early 12 site permit applicants under Part 52.
13                    Another item we noted in the discussion 14 table for this Section, was that we inadvertently left 15 out a QA requirement for citing related activities 16 when we issued the first iteration of Subpart D 17 earlier this year.
18                    We will be adding a QA requirement for 19 citing in the next iteration of that Subpart. And the 20 need to submit a description of that QA program is 21 included here in Subpart H, just as it is in the 22 equivalent Section in Part 52.                    Slide 44, please.
23                    Standard design approvals are covered next 24 in Subpart H in the Sections shown here on Slide 44.
25 Again, these Sections are largely copied from the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
118 1 existing Part 52 equivalent Sections.
2                  The one area of new text to note is in the 3 Section        53.1225,    which      discusses        the    technical 4 information requirements for applications.
5                  This    Section          contains      the    existing 6 discussion,        which    allows      an    applicant    to    seek      a 7 standard design approval for a major portion of the 8 design rather than the complete design.
9                  In addition, in Part 53, we've included 10 new text providing more guidance on the requirements 11 for the content of an application for a major portion 12 standard design approval.
13                  The new text adds details for applicants 14 to    provide    information        on    interfaces      with    system 15 outside the scope of the major portion of the standard 16 design, and to define functional or physical boundary 17 conditions between the major portion of the standard 18 design and the remainder of the design.
19                  And this information will help ensure that 20 the scope of the review of the major portion standard 21 design approval is clear to all parties involved.
22                  Now, the last bullet on this slide cites 23 some      references  for      more    information      on  standard 24 design approvals and major portion review.                      And those 25 documents helped us form this additional language for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
119 1 Part 53.
2                  And so this information is also included 3 in the discussion table for Subpart H.
4                  CHAIR PETTI:        So Nan?
5                  MS. VALLIERE:          Yes?
6                  CHAIR PETTI:        I have a question on this.
7 And it maybe because I don't know sort of a regulatory 8 standing of an SDA, of a part of the design.
9                  You know, I think of a part of the design, 10 the systems are so tightly coupled, that one would 11 want to see accident analyses that include that part 12 of the design to assure that, you know, all the other 13 requirements are met.
14                  Is that sort of done separate?                And this, 15 does this provide finality if you approve a standard 16 design, a major portion of a standard design?
17                  Or do you get to come back when it's fully 18 integrated and go oh, well, no.                        Hold it.      No, it 19 doesn't        meet  those      requirements            because  of    this 20 problem in this component over here?
21                  MS. VALLIERE:          Yes.      So, you're getting 22 directly to the reason why we felt it was important to 23 add some additional language here.
24                  So, in a major portion design approval, 25 the idea is that the applicant would get finality for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
120 1 that portion of the design reviewed and approved in 2 the major portion application by the staff.
3                    But, you know, your question gets to the 4 need to define these interface requirements.                          And to 5 ensure that the boundary, the boundaries for that 6 portion of the design for which approval is sought, 7 are clearly laid out in the application.
8                    And, you know, the staff would be expected 9 to review that.            And put any, you know, interface 10 requirements or conditions on things that would need 11 to      be    verified  when      the    entire        design  was      put 12 together.
13                    So, I think the answer is yes, there is 14 finality for that portion. But, it's going to have to 15 be carefully spelled out in the design approval when 16 it's issued, what the boundaries of that finality are.
17                    CHAIR PETTI:        And so there could be a lot 18 of conditions because the staff hasn't seen certain 19 pieces.
20                    MS. VALLIERE: There could be the need for 21 verification, yes, that --
22                    CHAIR PETTI:        Yeah.
23                    MS. VALLIERE: That what the staff assumed 24 would be in the rest of the design was in fact there.
25                    CHAIR PETTI:        Yeah.        Okay. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
121 1                    MS. VALLIERE: Sure. We can go onto slide 2 45.        So, this slide lists the Sections that cover 3 design        certifications        and      outline    some    of      the 4 requirements for design certification applications.
5                    And I will tell you that the requirements 6 for      design    certification          and      design  approval      are 7 nearly identical.          Not 100 percent, but very close.
8                    You'll see that the type of application 9 information required in Part 53 is similar to the type 10 of information required today in Part 52, but tailored 11 again, to the Part 53 process for developing the 12 licensing basis.
13                    Some unique areas to point out include the 14 fact that there may be programmatic information to be 15 provided at the design certification stage, where 16 programmatic controls will be relied upon to support 17 assumptions made in the analysis used in the design.
18 Bill talked about this earlier this morning.
19                    In addition, under the Part 53 process, an 20 applicant will need to describe the special treatment 21 it is assigning to equipment that is safety related 22 and non-safety related, but safety significant.
23                    Also, as Bill discussed this morning, an 24 applicant seeking to use alternative safety criteria 25 to    support    operational        flexibilities        like    a    non-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
122 1 traditional emergency planning zone, we would expect 2 the safety analysis report to describe and identify 3 those alternative criteria, because obviously that 4 will be very important to the staff's review.
5                MEMBER HALNON:          Nan, this is Greg.      Where 6 is the review of the surrounding area or contiguous 7 non-nuclear industrial facilities?
8                Where does that occur?
9                MR. LUPOLD:        Chapter Two.
10                MS. VALLIERE: So, somebody men -- I heard 11 somebody say Chapter Two.            But, the chapters that are 12 being developed in the TICAP and ARCAP process don't 13 align 100 percent.
14                But, it would be in the equivalent to 15 where you would find it today.
16                MEMBER HALNON:            Because that's probably 17 going to be more of a norm than a -- than not.                        I 18 mean, I think that a lot of these smaller advanced, 19 and small modular reactors are going to be putting --
20 be put on existing sites, or right in the center of 21 some other industrial facilities.
22                MS. VALLIERE:          Yeah.
23                MEMBER HALNON:          So, that to me, needs a 24 lot of visibility, and pretty hardcore review by the 25 staff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309    www.nealrgross.com
 
123 1                MS. VALLIERE:          I would agree.
2                MEMBER BROWN:          Where did you say that --
3 excuse me, this is Charlie.            Where did you say that's 4 covered?
5                MS. VALLIERE:          So, in a -- on a license 6 application, I believe it's covered in the -- in what 7 is the equivalent of Chapter Two today.
8                But, I know under the TICAP and ARCAP 9 process, the chapter numbers don't align with the SRP 10 today. So, I apologize at this point in time, I don't 11 have that restructure right in front of me.
12                MEMBER BROWN:          So, we haven't seen that 13 yet is what you're telling me, right?
14                MS. VALLIERE:          Right.        Yes.
15                MEMBER BROWN:          Okay.
16                MS. VALLIERE:        Yeah, I believe you are --
17 you are meeting with that team later this year.
18                MEMBER BROWN:          Oh, okay.        I mean, and as 19 was said --
20                CHAIR PETTI:        Yes, in December.
21                MEMBER BROWN: New licensing applications 22 surrounding areas were a large part of our review.
23 You know, train tracks, airports, --
24                MS. VALLIERE:          Right.
25                MEMBER    BROWN:          Other      --  other      major NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
124 1 industrial facilities.            And there was a considerable 2 amount of analysis needed to work our way though.
3                I mean, it wasn't like it ended up being 4 a problem, but it was all a matter of maintaining an 5 inevitability in the control rooms and the surrounding 6 environments of the plant.
7                MS. VALLIERE:          Right.        Yes.
8                MEMBER      HALNON:            It's    got    huge        EP 9 ramifications too, because much of the major places 10 have a more hazardous impact to the public then the 11 nuclear plant would have.
12                MEMBER BROWN:          Absolutely.        Yeah, there 13 was one where there was a major gas installation.                          My 14 memory is a little bit vague.
15                This was some years ago, that created a 16 lot of interest, because was a -- John Stetkar was 17 famous for finding all the flight lanes into various 18 airports around there and saying hold it, it's flying 19 right over this place.            Which made it interesting.
20                MR. RECKLEY:        Nan, this is Bill.          Another 21 place they'll see this is when you get into the 22 siting.
23                Or if we went back up, a lot of this would 24 have      been addressed      in  the      siting    parts    of    the 25 application.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
125 1                    MEMBER BROWN:          Yes.      That's probably the 2 truth.        I don't remember all that detail.                  It's been 3 a while.
4                    MS. VALLIERE:            Okay.        So, I'll mention 5 here, another item as Bill discussed earlier, another 6 unique item is the need for the applicant to include 7 information about an integrity assessment program.
8                    And again, this -- we're in the design 9 certification section here.                      So, this is a little 10 unique.
11                    And as he noted, the addition of this 12 application requirement results from the addition in 13 the design requirements in Section 53.440 that came 14 out in this third iteration of the rule language for 15 Subpart C.
16                    And that requirement addressed the need 17 for      designers    to    evaluate        and      consider    possible 18 degradation mechanisms like Bill mentioned, aging and 19 fatigue, and others.              And how they could affect the 20 performance of either say safety related, or non-21 safety related, but safety significant SSCs.
22                    This      information              at    the      design 23 certification stage would help inform the development 24 of the integrity assessment programs that are required 25 in the operational program section of Subpart F.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
126 1                  Again, this is somewhat analogous to the 2 design reliability assurance program for passive light 3 water reactors that was established under the Part 52 4 design certification process.
5                  And  in    the    discussion        table  we    have 6 specifically sought stakeholder feedback on how to, 7 you know, appropriately balance requirements that 8 should be fulfilled at the design stage, and then the 9 consideration of performance-based approaches that 10 assess both design and monitoring requirements.
11                  So,      how        do        you      split      those 12 responsibilities between the designer and the ultimate 13 owner operator.
14                  MEMBER HALNON:          Does this have any -- any 15 comparisons in the maintenance rule for the existing 16 plants?
17                  Is that similar?
18                  MS. VALLIERE:            So the -- there is a 19 separate maintenance rule program.                      So, this is --
20 this is a little bit different than that.
21                  MEMBER HALNON:          Okay.
22                  MS. VALLIERE:          Slide 46, please.          So, on 23 slide        46 we  note      this      new      proposal    that      was 24 represented by the dotted lines on the figure I showed 25 at the beginning of Subpart H.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
127 1                  And the new proposal is to allow a design 2 certification applicant to reference an issued opera 3 thing license or a custom combined license.
4                  So, the staff's proposing that they --
5 that a design certification applicant be allowed to 6 leverage the staff's safety evaluation from an issued 7 operating or combined license in their design cert 8 application.
9                  And to grant that safety review finality 10 like that provided for a license applicant referencing 11 a standard design approval.
12                  So, those finality provisions provide that 13 an approved design must be used by and relied upon by 14 the      staff  and  the    ACRS      in    their  review    of      an 15 application referencing that design.                      Unless there 16 exists significant new information that substantially 17 affects the earlier determination.
18                  So, that concludes my discussion of this 19 first portion of Subpart H.              The remainder of Subpart 20 H,        which  addresses          manufacturing          licenses, 21 construction permits, operating licenses, and combined 22 licenses, will be covered in the October Subcommittee 23 meeting.
24                  I  think      they'll          mention  that      that 25 preliminary rule text is expected to be issued in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
128 1 next couple of weeks.
2                    I'll just note that when that text does 3 come out, you'll see we have some notes in there about 4 things that we realized we needed to add to some of 5 the requirements in the design section.                      For example, 6 as      we    were  developing        the      requirements  for      the 7 operation license and combined license section.
8                    So, it's a constant learning process as 9 we're writing rule text and reflecting that rule text 10 back to other Subparts in Part 53.
11                    So, I guess I'll pause here. Maybe we can 12 go to 47. Any additional questions on this first half 13 of Subpart H? Again, very similar to what you're used 14 to seeing in Part 52.
15                    Okay.      If not, then I will turn the 16 presentation back over to Bill to begin the discussion 17 of Subpart I.
18                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Thank you, Nan.      And 19 this is where we were expecting to be able to go a 20 little quicker.            Again, because these processes are 21 generally the same as what you're accustomed too in 22 Parts 50 and 52.
23                    So, I'll talk about Subpart I.                And the 24 way that we broke this apart is that Subpart H, as the 25 title implies, is applications.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
129 1                And Subpart I is largely aimed at the 2 owner/operator, once they take control of the facility 3 and we are looking to them to maintain and when 4 appropriate, revise the licensing basis information.
5                Just like, however, just like Subpart H, 6 much of Subpart I was largely taken from existing 7 requirements in Parts 50 and 52.
8                Where there's some new information or 9 thought, we'll spend a little more time.              But, if we 10 can go to -- we can just skip 49, it's just the title, 11 and go to side 50.
12                So, one thing that we do is set out in the 13 first Section, 1300, what the intent of this Subpart 14 is, and as I mentioned, it's for maintenance of the 15 licensing basis information 16                We have a definition that's similar to the 17 license renewal definition in Part 54.                Not exactly 18 the same. But, in general, it's that information that 19 was provided to us, to the NRC, in support of issuing 20 the license.
21                So, in the context of Part 53, that's the 22 design information that was submitted.                  It's the 23 program information that's provided.
24                So, that just sets the basis for the 25 responsibilities of the owner/operator in making sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
130 1 this plant conforms.
2                    So, the next Section 1310 is basically we 3 broke the control, the licensing basis information 4 into two parts. And again, this is similar to the way 5 we've laid it out in Part 50 in office instructions 6 and in other documents.
7                    But, the first part is, those things that 8 require prior approval.                And these are regulations.
9 They      are  things    that      are    in    the    tech  specs,        a 10 condition of the license, or within an order.
11                    Things    that      from      the    beginning        are 12 understood,        a  licensee      cannot        change    without        NRC 13 approval.
14                    So, then 1311 lays out the process.                        And 15 this is the license process under Section 50.90. It's 16 basically just moved over.
17                    And it's used to define how to request a 18 license        amendment    when    needed        for    an  early      site 19 permit, construction permit, operating license for a 20 combined license.
21                    53.312, public notices, and 1513, issuance 22 of    the    amendment,    are    likewise,          just  taken      from 23 Section 50.91 and 50.92.
24                    So, all of this is basically the same 25 process as is used now in terms of applying, doing a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
131 1 no significant hazards consideration determination, 2 issuing it for comment and opportunity for hearing, 3 and then ultimately issuing the amendment.
4                So, if we go onto slide 51.                Also, within 5 Subpart I we needed to address if the owner/operator 6 would be looking to change information that was either 7 addressed directly within a design certification rule 8 and 53.1316 addresses if they were looking to change 9 information that was approved by the NRC within a 10 manufacturing license.
11                So, 1550 -- 15, I'm sorry, does basically 12 keep the same process as Part 52.                  And it states that 13 they need prior approval to change anything that was 14 certified in a D.C. rule.
15                Likewise, 1316 would require that, to get 16 prior approval for any changes to a design feature 17 that's subject to the manufacturing license.
18                If we go onto 52.                  Amendment starting 19 construction.      Basically again, lays out the same 20 requirements from Part 50 and addresses both the 21 construction permit for which there's a fair latitude, 22 and for the COL, the requirements out of Part 52.
23                So,    this      is    also      an  area,    as      Nan 24 mentioned, we'll need to integrate with the ongoing 25 50.52 rulemaking as it goes forward.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
132 1                  But,    the      intention        in    Part  53    is    to 2 maintain basically the status quo, or the status quo 3 as revised by the 50.52 rulemaking for what would 4 require an amendment during construction, and how that 5 amendment would be handled.
6                  And  the      next    part,        or  the  next      few 7 Sections      within  Subpart        I    address        how  to    update 8 information that does not require NRC approval.
9                  And the first step is -- or a step in that 10 process is to evaluate whether the change requires 11 prior NRC approval.
12                  So, 53.1321 is just updating the FSAR.
13 Which would continue to be the primary licensing 14 document.      And the requirements generally align with 15 50.71, which is the current requirement for updating 16 FSARs.
17                  It  --    there      is      an    assumption,        as    I 18 mentioned earlier, in the other Subparts that the PRA 19 is playing a leading role here.
20                  So,  it's      a  key      design      and  licensing 21 document.      And therefore, it would be included in the 22 FSAR, a summary of the PRA would be provided in the 23 FSAR from the beginning.
24                  And  so,      one    thing        you    would    not      see 25 specifically      is,    an      equivalent          to    50.71(h),        for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
133 1 providing      PRA  updates,      because          it's  going      to    be 2 required to be within the FSAR proper.
3                  So, we can go onto slide 53.                      This is 4 where we do introduce a little bit of change.                              And 5 that is, in evaluating changes as described in the 6 FSAR.
7                  The  process      is    basically      the    same      as 8 50.59.        But, given the analytical basis and the 9 methodology        used    is      this    PRA      approach    that        we 10 previously discussed under Subparts B and C.
11                  We have proposed some different criteria 12 in    comparison    to  the      traditional          seven  or    eight 13 questions listed in 50.59.
14                  And so if we go to slide 54, the first 15 question, or criterion that we would propose, is that 16 if a licensee is doing a plant modification or change 17 to procedures, that it be evaluated and they assess 18 whether the subject plant change would result in 19 either the frequency or consequences of any of the 20 licensing basis events, such that the event moves from 21 the area shown in the plot there, to the left or lower 22 of the risk significant region and moves into the risk 23 significant area.
24                  And so you can see in the plot that the 25 normal expectation is that the licensing basis events NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
134 1 are not only characterized by the mean frequency 2 consequence, but also an uncertainty band for both 3 frequency and consequence.
4                And if any aspect of the event, plus the 5 uncertainty      band    were      to      move      into  what        the 6 methodology      would    classify        as    a    risk  significant 7 licensing      basis  event,        then      it    would  require        an 8 amendment.
9                So, this goes to the little text box to 10 the left.        This is in large part why we added a 11 requirement      under    the      analysis        section    that      the 12 analysis of licensing basis events, the methodology 13 had to include a criterion for determining if any 14 particular      licensing        basis        event      was    a      risk 15 significant event.
16                MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
17                MR. RECKLEY:          Yes?
18                MEMBER BROWN:          This is Charlie.
19                MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.
20                MEMBER BROWN:            How does this reconcile, 21 you know, two years ago, I think it was two years ago, 22 let me check.      Oh, I lost it.
23                We went through considerable angst with 24 changes to the existing 50.59 and the NEI 96-07 25 Appendix, B, C, and D, plus Reg Guide 1.187 revision NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
135 1 to -- well, I&C. Has this been reconciled at all with 2 the -- to be consistent with, or does it change 3 significantly the basis for changes in the existing 4 operating plans?
5                  MR. RECKLEY:        Well, this wouldn't -- this 6 wouldn't affect any operating plan.
7                  MEMBER BROWN: No, I understand that. But 8 why should we -- why should we give away the store on 9 this new thing as opposed to what we do on the 10 existing plans?
11                  MR. RECKLEY:          Well, --
12                  MEMBER BROWN: I'm not saying we're giving 13 away the store.        I'm just -- I read the words, --
14                  MR. RECKLEY:          Yeah.
15                  MEMBER BROWN: And they are certainly, you 16 know, you've got a limited number of words compared 17 with tens of pages to describe the characterization of 18 changes and things like that.
19                  And now it's down too just, it's for event 20 sequences, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which has 21 not been used in the other ones.
22                  MR. RECKLEY:          No, I understand.          And our 23 thought is that guidance will be needed to support 24 this      process,  just      like      the      guidance  that      you 25 mentioned for 50.59.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
136 1                  I mean, the criteria in 50.59 are of equal 2 length.        They're about seven or eight lines of rule 3 text, for which there's a whole document, including 4 the NEI, you mentioned it, 97 --
5                  MEMBER BROWN:          NEI 96-07.
6                  MR. RECKLEY:        96-07.
7                  MEMBER BROWN:          I had to go look it up.            I 8 can never remember all the actual.
9                  MR. RECKLEY:          So, we would -- we would 10 think that we'll have some similar guidance for how to 11 use this.
12                  But, the reason to come up with different 13 questions, or to think we couldn't come up with 14 different questions is because the methodology is 15 different than the typical Chapter 15 assessments.
16                  And under L&P and NEI 18-04, all the 17 licensing basis events will be characterized this way, 18 in terms of the frequency and the consequences.
19                  And it just gives us an opportunity to 20 provide criteria that to some degree are a little more 21 clear under this methodology.                    Because they go back 22 and they relate to how the analysis is done and 23 presented under the L&P methodology.
24                  And so that's the thinking of why to come 25 up with new criteria.              Is just to be specific to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
137 1 methodology being used.
2                  So, under the L&P, they do characterize a 3 risk significant LBE region.                  And the thought was, we 4 can      take    advantage      of    that        and  basically        by 5 definition, that region is a licensing basis event 6 that warrants more attention.
7                  So, it seemed a logical metric to use for 8 evaluating when a change would require NRC approval.
9 Well, as one question.              It's not the only question.
10                  But, to be used as one metric within 11 several        metrics  to    decide        if    prior  approval        is 12 appropriate.
13                  MEMBER HALNON:          Bill, this is Greg.            This 14 is pretty forward to me when you think about a single 15 change.
16                  What about, and I'm assuming it maybe 17 probably in the guidance to follow, when you have 18 multiple changes in play, how do you capture the 19 cumulative impact of both and what is that?
20                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.        And what we, and I 21 kind of glossed over it, under the updating of the 22 FSAR, if we go back up to slide 53, I'm sorry.                        Nope, 23 I'm sorry.
24                  The -- one of the things we include in 25 updating the FSAR in -- I'm sorry, it's one slide up, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
138 1 52 -- 53.21, is a reporting of the cumulative, the 2 changes in the cumulative risk since the last FSAR 3 update.
4                So, to your question, an individual change 5 would continue to be evaluated on its own merits as an 6 individual change. Basically the same is as done now.
7                But, the concern about -- not only the 8 concern, but the ability to then look at what is the 9 cumulative impact of all the changes in that reporting 10 cycle, is captured by requiring one, a report of all 11 the changes made.
12                And second, within the updating of the 13 FSAR, since it's using the PRA as a central tool, to 14 report on the change to the cumulative risk since the 15 last update.
16                MEMBER HALNON: Okay. So, what's done now 17 is the licensees keep sort of a living FSAR between 18 official updates. And that's what they would maintain 19 in this case too probably.
20                MR. RECKLEY:              Yeah.      That's      their 21 practice.      I would -- I would expect that it would 22 stay the same.        I mean, it's done primarily as you 23 know, it's -- was as a tool and as an efficiency 24 measure to make sure.
25                So, I would expect it to be the same.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
139 1 But,      the question    of    cumulative          risk  is    a    good 2 question.      And it's one we thought about and thought 3 to include in the updating of the FSAR.
4                  MEMBER HALNON:          Got it.        Thank you.
5                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        So, --
6                  MEMBER SUNSERI:          Hey Bill?
7                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes?
8                  MEMBER SUNSERI:              This is Matt Sunseri 9 again.
10                  MR. RECKLEY:        Um-hum.
11                  MEMBER SUNSERI:              So, I appreciate the 12 discussion here. My question is, and we have quite an 13 experience base built up with the Part 50.59 and its 14 equivalent in Part 52.
15                  Do you see, really see that there's going 16 to be significant gain by moving away from that large 17 experience      base  in    this    area      to    adopt  this      new 18 practice?
19                  I mean, it took us a long time to get it 20 really worked out how to do 50.59 right.                            And it 21 seemed like there might be an equally steep learning 22 curve on this process.
23                  Just -- just maybe just a comment versus 24 needing a reaction from you.
25                  MR. RECKLEY:                No.        It's    a      good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
140 1 observation.        I haven't been around a long time and 2 lived through the 50.59 changes.
3                  You know, I think that largely resulted 4 from trying to come up with questions associated with 5 the current licensing methodology, the Chapter 15 and 6 the deterministic approach that's used in that.
7                  And it took us some time.                  And you're 8 right, a lot of effort to end up in the right place, 9 including trying to risk inform something that uses 10 risk        insights  more      indirectly          then  what      we're 11 proposing here.
12                  So,  it's      a  --    I    think    it's  a    valid 13 observation and concern.              Again, what we're thinking 14 however, is that this methodology under Part 53, and 15 more      specifically    under      L&P,      can    support    a    more 16 analytical approach to evaluating changes than what 17 was needed under 50.59 and the associated guidance.
18                  Just because we're able to build it from 19 the beginning based on the actual methodology, based 20 on the fact that we're developing what needs to go in 21 the FSAR at the same time we're evaluating now to 22 evaluate changes to the FSAR.
23                  So, we're trying to take full advantage of 24 that experience. At the same time tailoring it to the 25 specific analytical methodology that we're building NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
141 1 into Part 53.
2                    So, but you know, this is another area 3 where we've asked stakeholders to weigh in.                      And it's 4 currently being evaluated by various stakeholders.
5                    And we've put out a special request to any 6 of them that have done tabletops or -- as part of L&P 7 development, or TICAP development, to really look at 8 this and give us feedback since they have direct 9 experience on using the methodology.
10                    So, it's a good point. We'll take it into 11 account along with any feedback we get from other 12 stakeholders.
13                    MEMBER SUNSERI:          Oh, no, no that's good.
14 I'm glad to hear that you've made it a focus point of 15 comment        for  them,    for    the      stakeholders.        So,      I 16 appreciate that.          Thanks.
17                    MR. RECKLEY:        Thanks.        So, if we go --
18                    MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
19                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah, go ahead.
20                    MEMBER BROWN:            Let me just amplify a 21 little bit.        I mean, the effort we went through was, 22 the changes involving going from analog to digital 23 instrumentation.
24                    And digital instrumentation, I mean, your 25 instrumentation control systems are not exactly what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
142 1 I call PRA devices.              I mean, it's -- they're binary 2 devices.        They either work or they don't work.
3                    You turn a switch, an alarm goes off, and 4 you create a different accident then you did initially 5 with the analogy stuff because of the performance 6 characteristics of digital stuff, so that there was 7 considerable work.
8                    And I'm still trying to figure out how 9 this would apply in that role, as opposed to what 10 people        normally    look      at    in      most  of    the      PRA 11 applications.
12                    I'm just nervous about all of a sudden we 13 abandon that and we have to recreate a new effort.
14 And nobody has looked at this specific iteration that 15 was gone through two years ago, and to see how this 16 change impacts that.
17                    MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        That's fair enough 18 Charlie.        And I'm not directly involved in that.                    And 19 so I will take away and we'll talk with our I&C folks.
20 And Ian Young is a part of our team.
21                    So, you know, we will look specifically at 22 how that would work within this.                          And if we see 23 something, maybe we'll add a criterion or rethink what 24 we've done here.
25                    So, I --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
143 1                MEMBER BROWN:          I would appreciate that.
2                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
3                MEMBER BROWN:          And I think you ought to 4 address it in somewhat more detail in one of the later 5 meetings.
6                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
7                MEMBER BROWN:          If you can.
8                MR. RECKLEY:        right.
9                MEMBER BROWN:            I mean, it's -- this is 10 short and crisp, these two, three slides.
11                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
12                MEMBER BROWN:        All right.      Yeah, and it's 13 NEI 96-07, and it's Appendix D.
14                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
15                MEMBER BROWN:          Plus the Reg Guide 1.187, 16 which was modified also explicitly to --
17                MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
18                MEMBER BROWN:        To ensure that the caveats 19 and clarifications were put in. And which we did have 20 some, because there was a big contest between the 21 staff and NEI as to what something else meant and not 22 meant.
23                And we eventually got that resolved.                  And 24 got it approved.        So, which was a good thing.                    It 25 needed some flexibility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
144 1                    But, I don't want to destroy that in this 2 process either.          Or get it -- let it be forgotten 3 about.        All right.
4                    MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        So, if we go onto 5 slide 55, the next question that we would ask is, if 6 the FSAR analysis already included event sequences 7 that were within an area deemed risk significant, then 8 we would look to say, does the change decrease the 9 margin to the acceptance criteria, so, in this case it 10 might be the FC target line, by 10 percent?
11                    And 10 percent is a somewhat arbitrary 12 number.        But, it's generally consistent with the more 13 than minimal discussions in 50.59.
14                    So again, we're trying to take advantage 15 of the analysis and the way it's represented, and 16 basically looking at the licensing basis events and 17 saying, does the plant change actually move the plot 18 in terms of an event sequence, such that it's getting 19 closer to the acceptance criteria or the FC target in 20 the case of NEI 18.04.
21                    Then going onto the next question, on 22 slide 56, again, given that we have the PRA as the 23 central tool, the third question is, look at the 24 cumulative risk.
25                    This goes somewhat to Greg's question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
145 1 But also, it's looking at this in the context of an 2 individual plant change being evaluated.
3                  And does that plant change result in a 4 change result in a change to the cumulative risk? And 5 again,        we use  the      10    percent        to  be  generally 6 consistent with the more than minimal discussions in 7 50.59.
8                  And then the second box there is just 9 referring back to Subpart B and the criteria to remain 10 below the QHOs.
11                  So, then if we go onto 57, an additional 12 question, and this one parallels very closely to 13 59.59(c)(1)(8), and that goes to ensuring that the 14 evaluation of the change is actually evaluating the 15 change.
16                  And  that      a    licensee        is  not    taking 17 advantage of evaluating it at a different way, or 18 using a different code in order to show that the 19 margins have not been reduced.                  You have to basically 20 assess it with the same method of evaluation.
21                  And if you want to change the method of 22 evaluation, you have to follow the process for that, 23 which would be NRC approval or perhaps NRC endorsement 24 within some other consensus code or standard.
25                  Then 58, slide 58, goes to what I was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
146 1 talking        about  earlier,      when      a    margin,  analytical 2 margin, is being used for an operating flexibility, 3 one way to show that within the NEI 18-04 typical FC 4 diagram, would be to put the alternate criteria, and 5 I just picked one rem in this case, which is used both 6 within the staff's paper on siting guidance, also 7 within the emergency planning zone rulemaking.
8                  It might also be used in other parts of 9 53, that we'll get too later.                    But, then if that is 10 established and used to justify something like a 11 reduced emergency planning zone, the question within 12 1322 on evaluating changes, relates to the margin 13 between your licensing basis events and the alternate 14 threshold that was chosen. So, in this case, one rem.
15                  And the criterion is again, put in terms 16 of      a reduction in margin and a value of 25 percent 17 was used in this case.
18                  And the rationale for using a different 19 number for this because we had used 10 percent within 20 the facility safety program as a threshold.                          So, a 21 license amendment would need to be some value higher 22 than that.        And so we picked 25.
23                  But again, all of the specific numbers we 24 would get too in a subsequent discussion.                    But again, 25 the underlying rationale here is to assess the margins NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
147 1 and the reductions in margins to your thresholds, be 2 they        the  frequency        consequence          curve,    or      an 3 alternative such as the one rem shown in red.
4                  So, that is the proposed five questions 5 that would replace the -- or serve the same purpose as 6 the eight questions in 50.59. A little more numerical 7 if you will in terms of considering the reductions in 8 margins.
9                  That's one of the things stakeholders 10 might comment on.            Some like a criterion like 10 11 percent to be in the rule.                      Others prefer vague 12 language like more than -- more than minimal with the 13 guidance used to define what that means.
14                  So, we'll take all of those comments into 15 consideration as we move forward.                    So, that's 1322 on 16 evaluating plant changes.
17                  The next slide, 59 talks about basically 18 the other large set of licensing basis information.
19 And that is the program document.
20                  And here in the discussion table that we 21 released with the language, we included the same 22 questions      that  I  just      went      through    for    program 23 changes.
24                  But, we acknowledged that programs are 25 often, it's harder to assess the change in the program NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
148 1 in terms of its impact on an item like where a plot is 2 on a frequency consequence diagram for licensing basis 3 events.
4                  And  generally          just      opened it  up      for 5 questions about what would be appropriate questions to 6 ask.        The staff has had a challenge over the years 7 because the languages for changes in programs use 8 things like decrease and effectiveness, or reduced 9 commitment in the terms of QA, which are kind of 10 vague.
11                  But, as Charlie mentioned, over the years 12 we've also developed a fair amount of guidance to 13 address those.        So, we basically are just kind of at 14 a point of asking stakeholders to weigh in on whether 15 we can develop questions, generic questions that would 16 be applicable to all kind of programs.
17                  Or just recognize that the criterion for 18 something like ISI/IST, has to be developed separate 19 from the criteria that would be used for radiation 20 protection or emergency planning.
21                  So, this is an area where we didn't fully 22 bake the pie, I guess, and are just asking for some 23 views before we can -- before we go ahead and complete 24 out this section.
25                  And I jumped ahead a slide.                I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
149 1 The updating of the program documents is the same as 2 currently use.
3                MEMBER BROWN:            Bill, could I --
4                MR. RECKLEY:          Yeah.
5                MEMBER BROWN:            Could I interrupt again?
6                MR. RECKLEY:          Yeah.
7                MEMBER BROWN:            Just trying to refresh my 8 memory. You said you'd go do something with it. But, 9 when I went back, I just went and found 10 CFR 50.59, 10 and      that  part  that      talks      about        changes,    to    see 11 wherever it is back in here.
12                MR. RECKLEY:          Right.
13                MEMBER BROWN:            A change to the techni --
14 yeah, C(1).        And then it has the section 2 where 15 there's eight criteria.
16                So, you shall attain a license amendment, 17 it's fairly specific.                And it goes through eight 18 items.
19                You've only got -- you didn't seem to map 20 those over into how the new 1322 covers that, those 21 items as well as whatever was done for digital.
22                So, the original stuff plus that. I guess 23 that's what I would be interested in hearing to see 24 how we -- that doesn't bear a whole lot of resemblance 25 to      result  in    more      than      a    minimal      increase        in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
150 1 likelihood of an occurrence, or create a new accident, 2 or a new malfunction, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
3                  So, I just wanted to make sure that I kind 4 of covered what I was thinking about.
5                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        And --
6                  MEMBER BROWN:        In terms of how we look at 7 it.
8                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        And yeah, we didn't 9 map it out because -- but we can, and support that in 10 a    future    discussion,        just    because      like  you      just 11 mentioned, one question would say, do you increase the 12 likelihood, and other, the consequence?
13                  Well, that -- that's addressed in a single 14 question in terms of the L&P since you're plotting it 15 on a frequency consequence plot that a reduction in 16 margin could be associated with either change in the 17 frequency or the consequence.
18                  But, we can map it out.                And then like I 19 said earlier, we will look at the -- at the digital 20 guidance that was more recently put out.
21                  MEMBER BROWN:        Well yeah, well those, you 22 know, C(2)(a), C(2)(I), you know, roman number I 23 through viii, --
24                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
25                  MEMBER BROWN:          Are dif -- I mean, one of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
151 1 them      is,    you  know,        create      a    possibility      of      a 2 malfunction that hasn't been considered.                          You know, 3 where does that -- where -- how does that -- all I'd 4 like        to  see  is      how    do      we      map  our  existing 5 requirements, and we make sure we cover the, at least 6 the thought process or the basis for why we had those 7 the old way.
8                    MR. RECKLEY:          Right.
9                    MEMBER BROWN:          That's all.
10                    MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.
11                    MEMBER BROWN:          Okay, I'm sorry to belabor 12 it, but I --
13                    MR. RECKLEY:          No, no, no.        I understand.
14                    MEMBER BROWN:          I generalized it the last 15 time.          And I'm just trying to get a little more 16 specific.
17                    MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.
18                    MEMBER BROWN:          Thanks.
19                    MR. RECKLEY:          So, if we can -- yeah, I'm 20 sorry.        So, go back to 59 just for a second.                    So, 59 21 talks about the updating of documents.
22                    And this is generally consistent and along 23 the lines of the FSAR updates.                    The program documents 24 would have to be submitted routinely, updates to them.
25                    And then go on to slide 60, the change NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
152 1 control, 1333, that's the one that I was talking 2 about, that we are trying to engage stakeholders and 3 come up with an approach on whether a generic approach 4 is even possible.
5                Or whether we really need to define change 6 controls specific for each program document.                        Again, 7 recognizing that they range from ISI/IST, to radiation 8 protection, to emergency planning.
9                1340,      1350,        transfer        of    licenses, 10 termination of licenses.            These are largely taken as 11 they are in either 50.80 for the transfer, or 50.82 12 for the termination.
13                Then  we      go    down      to    61,  information 14 requests.      This next couple get into processes that 15 are somewhat scattered throughout Part 50.
16                For  example,        information          requests        are 17 covered in 50.54, paragraph F in particular.                        You're 18 familiar with those.          That's what we cite for generic 19 letters and things like that.
20                But, the requirement that we're proposing 21 in 1360, and this is a burden to put on the staff, is 22 basically the same as 50.54(f).                    We have to justify 23 our request to licensees to provide us information.
24                The revocation suspension, modification of 25 a license in 53.1370 is the equivalent to 50.100 that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
153 1 describes those same things for a Part 50 licensee.
2                Backfitting is 53.1380.                Again, given the 3 history of that, we didn't propose any significant 4 changes to that process.          It reads, it was taken from 5 50.109.
6                And then lastly, 53.1390 is a section 7 entitled renewal.      And we are currently contemplating 8 what to do with license renewals.
9                How much we can take advantage of Part 54.
10 What we would put in Part 53 to either reference it, 11 or mirror the requirements in that part.
12                We really haven't begun that assessment 13 very fully. And so we just have a placeholder for now 14 under 1390 for renewal.
15                And if we go to the last slide, that's 16 just a general discussion for Subpart I, maintaining 17 licensing basis information.
18                Okay. And this is not surprising because 19 again, we're not proposing much change. And I thought 20 this was where we would gain some time.
21                And so Dave, if it's okay, I mean, we've 22 only been at this an hour, we can jump into Subpart J.
23 And then maybe that would be a convenient time for a 24 break.
25                And if we want to try to get ahead and do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
154 1 what we had planned for tomorrow morning, I'll make 2 sure we've got the right staff lined up.
3                And then maybe after the break we could do 4 those two topics.      Again, because we were only teeing 5 them up.      So, we don't think -- they're very major 6 areas, but we're only teeing them up.
7                So,  we    would      be    able    to support      the 8 discussion to fill out the afternoon on those.
9                CHAIR PETTI:          Yeah.        I think let's keep 10 going.
11                MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        So, the next one, 12 Subpart J, reporting and administrative requirements 13 falls into this same category that Nan described for 14 Subpart H, and was true for the majority of Subpart I, 15 which are that the requirements are largely taken from 16 existing requirements.
17                And we're not proposing under Part 53 to 18 introduce any significant changes to them. So, if you 19 go to the next slide.
20                MEMBER HALNON:          Hey Bill, this is Greg.
21                MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah?
22                MEMBER HALNON:          Just general question for 23 this section.      Back in the '17/'18 time frame, the 24 Commission put out that project to the retrospective 25 review of administrative requirements.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
155 1                  And  I  know      that's        still    in  process, 2 nothing's been done, at least resulted yet in -- I 3 mean,        I think  there      had    some        changes,    but      no 4 regulatory changes, or regulation changes.
5                  Are you guys looking at that to leverage 6 some of the good ideas that the staff's come up with 7 on eliminating duplication and unnecessary reports and 8 what not?
9                  MR. RECKLEY:        I think -- I think we have.
10 But, it's always a challenge, because there's so much 11 going on at the same time.
12                  And    there's        not      only    those      agency 13 initiated      activities,      there's        also    petitions        for 14 rulemaking going on.          And we've already mentioned the 15 other rulemakings that are going on.
16                  So,  I    wouldn't          guarantee      that      we've 17 captured everything.          But, we've -- but we've made an 18 effort, I will say by in large, we're capturing the 19 existing requirements and then trying to capture in 20 the      discussion    column      if      there's      some    ongoing 21 activities that are related.
22                  Because      it's,      just      as  a  convention, 23 because if we -- if we try to put things that are in 24 flux within this system that's also in flux, it's just 25 harder to manage.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
156 1                  But, we are trying to keep track of them.
2 And definitely if any changes occur ahead of us, we'd 3 be in a position to take advantage of it.
4                  MEMBER HALNON:          Okay.        And there's some 5 clear potentials, especially with the new technology 6 of communicating, as opposed to the 1970s when that 7 rule was put in place, where you, you know, --
8                  MR. RECKLEY: Right.
9                  MEMBER HALNON:          When the fax machine was 10 the most coolest thing around.
11                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
12                  MEMBER HALNON:          So, and --
13                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yeah.        And I'll agree with 14 you 100 percent on that.                  I will also throw out a 15 caution, and I don't think this will show up in the 16 rule      texts,  but    there      were      a    lot    of  reporting 17 requirements for the first decade or two for light 18 water reactors.
19                  And some of that was just a way to keep up 20 with operating experience.                And I agree with you 100 21 percent, there's better ways to do that now than there 22 was at that time frame.
23                  But,    many      of    the      reports      were      also 24 eliminated        later      on    as      comfort        levels        with 25 technologies        and      behavior          and      so    forth        was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
157 1 established.
2                    And so somehow as new technologies are 3 introduced,        everybody        has      to    realize    that      the 4 regulator        is  interested        in      keeping    track    of    the 5 experience and what's happening for those new plants, 6 even if the reporting requirement was eliminated for 7 light        water  reactors      after        a    couple  decades        of 8 reporting.
9                    MEMBER HALNON:            Yeah.        Well, that's a 10 really good point.          And I acknowledge that we'll want 11 to    know    as  much  as      we  can      about    these  advanced 12 reactors as we get them licensed.
13                    MR. RECKLEY:          Right.        Right. And that 14 happens through a variety of mechanisms.                        I just try 15 to -- we're trying to take the total picture.
16                    I mean, we have another activity under way 17 to look at inspection and oversight kind of activities 18 for advanced reactors.
19                    And so when you're trying to look at the 20 whole regulatory fabric, you can look and say, I might 21 be able to do less inspection, but where is that 22 information going to come from?
23                    Well, one way to do it is through a 24 reporting requirement.                Or vice versa.            If I'm not 25 going to have a reporting requirement, bear in mind NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
158 1 then that as I'm looking at the whole, one way to make 2 sure that I'm learning what I need to know is through 3 an inspection activity.
4                And so, all of that is in play right now.
5 And it's an advantage that we have in trying to 6 develop the whole thing at one time.
7                It's also a tremendous challenge.
8                MEMBER HALNON: Yeah. Yesterday in the EP 9 Subcommittee, the staff mentioned that you guys were 10 looking at the framework for oversight.
11                And I think that we'll be wanting to look 12 at that as well as the EP, with the EP folks and 13 certainly come up with for EP to kind of finish the 14 puzzle that we're putting together with this new 15 reactor stuff.
16                MR. RECKLEY: Right. And that expectation 17 is there.      We're fairly early on that effort.
18                MR. HALNON:        Yeah.        We heard it was like 19 a two-year effort.
20                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        So, if we -- if we 21 can go down then to 66.            So, we start out with 1500, 22 which just generally lays out the purpose of the 23 Subpart.      Again, it's covering many administrative 24 areas.
25                Then we start with 53.10, which is largely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
159 1 taken from 50.70. And that is a requirement to ensure 2 that the NRC has unfettered access to do inspections.
3                We did tweak some of that a bit because 4 the existing requirements reflect the light water 5 world and the current conventions.
6                So, sometimes we change things to say, for 7 example, this is the office space if a resident 8 inspector is to be assigned to the plant. Recognizing 9 that it's possible that not all future plants would 10 have resident inspectors.
11                So, but we didn't provide the criteria.
12 That's coming up.        That will be coming out of that 13 broader effort on inspections and oversight, if we're 14 going to have criterion for when we would have a 15 resident, or how long.
16                You  know,      it's    not      necessarily    --    it 17 doesn't necessarily have to be, once assigned they're 18 there for the duration.            But, all of that is being 19 developed, or will be developed down the road.
20                But, the bottom line is, 1510 says you, as 21 a licensee, have to give the NRC unfettered access.
22 And that even includes making office space available.
23                1520, maintenance of records. Again, that 24 was largely derived from 50.71.                  Then the next two, 25 53.1521 and 1530, are the equivalent of 50.71 -- I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
160 1 mean, 50.72, I'm sorry, on immediate notifications, 2 those that are done largely over the telephone to the 3 operations center.
4                And then 1530 is similar criterion for 5 licensing event reports. Those are the, you know, the 6 reports submitted within 30 days of the event.
7                The    requirements,              we  tried    to      be 8 consistent.      The    changes        are      trying  to  make      it 9 technology inclusive.
10                So, we try to keep the same general level 11 of reporting, but use the terminology associated --
12 not associated with light water reactors, but a more 13 neutral terminology.
14                The second bullet under 21 mentions what 15 I had said before, there is -- we don't fully account 16 for the things that are just getting started, looking 17 at immediate notification requirements.                  So, that, I 18 think, is related to a petition, if I recall.
19                So, if we go to slide 67.                I mentioned 20 1530 is the equivalent of 50.73, the licensee event 21 reports.
22                Again, what we were trying to do in the 23 language was keep the right level, or a similar level 24 in terms of significance. But, just make the language 25 technology inclusive.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
161 1                    The -- 1535 is equivalent to 50.78.                      And 2 that's a form that is filled out to provide facility 3 information to IAEA.
4                    Then we get into a couple of sections 5 related to financial requirements.                        So, 1560 is just 6 an intro.        Then 1561 is the financial qualifications.
7                    That was taken from 50.33(f) which is 8 provided in a content in the section to Part 50 9 related to contents of application.
10                    We just reworded it to be a technical 11 requirement or in this, an administrative requirement, 12 however you want to think about it, to say that an 13 applicant needs to be financially qualified.
14                    And that basically means that they have 15 the funds.          If it's -- if it's for a construction 16 permit        that  they    have      the      funds      for  example        to 17 complete construction.
18                    Other -- there is some work in this area.
19 This is another area in which the staff has a proposed 20 rule before the Commission.
21                    So, we're just watching this. If it moves 22 one      way    or    another,        we'll        just    have  to      make 23 adjustments.
24                    But  the      bottom        line      is,  that      we're 25 maintaining requirements, and more or less have to, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
162 1 out      of    the  Atomic      Energy      Act,      to  include      some 2 consideration          that      an    applicant          is  financially 3 qualified to proceed.
4                    And the second bullet there just basically 5 says, what information an applicant will need to 6 provide, we'll pick up in Subpart H.
7                    What we're trying to do in Subpart H is to 8 include the content of applications.                          And currently 9 the content of applications is also used within Part 10 50 and to some degree 52, as a way to introduce 11 technical requirements.
12                    What we're trying to do in Part 53, is 13 always have a technical or administrative requirement 14 to find within the part so that Subpart H, when it 15 talks about content to application, has a technical 16 requirement to point to.
17                    That might seem a minor point.                  But, it's 18 a kind of convention that we've adopted to try to make 19 sure that the actual technical requirement, or in this 20 case administrative requirement, is defined.
21                    And  then      the    content        to  application 22 sections have a requirement to point to, versus the 23 first time you come across the requirement it's in a 24 content application.
25                    So,  if    we    hadn't        fully    described        it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
163 1 before, that is a convention that we're trying to 2 maintain as we go through Part 53.
3                  And, but it also explains why we may have 4 administrative or technical requirements that look new 5 in comparison to Part 50 or 52, but it's only because 6 50 or 52 introduce those requirements in the context 7 of a requirement content of application.
8                  So, 53.1562 is just the requirement taken 9 from        50.71(b)    for      licensees          to    provide    annual 10 financial reports.
11                  Then if we go onto 68.                    Likewise, 1563 12 just brings in an existing requirement from 50.76 that 13 obligates      them    to    tell    us    of    a    change  in    their 14 financial status.
15                  Likewise, 1564 brings in the requirement 16 form      50.81  that    talks      about        their    obligation        to 17 creditors.        And if that changes, they need to report 18 to us.
19                  Then      53.1570          gets        into    financial 20 protection.        And there's two general provisions that 21 we put in this category of financial protection.
22                  The first is the requirement for insurance 23 to    ensure    that  the      licensee        has    the  ability        to 24 stabilize        and  decontaminate            a  plant    following        an 25 accident.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
164 1                  So, these are the costs that are -- that 2 would be incurred by a licensee to clean up their own 3 facility.      That's currently included or described in 4 50.54(w).
5                  And the current requirement is that they 6 carry insurance in the amount of a little over one 7 billion dollars to meet that obligation.
8                  The one thing that we have added as a 9 thought in the preliminary language is to allow a 10 design specific estimate in lieu of the one billion 11 dollars.      Otherwise, the language is similar or the 12 same as what's in 50.54(w).
13                  They need to have this kind of insurance.
14 The only thing we -- the only thing that we're adding, 15 is a recognition that some of the smaller units being 16 contemplated      might      require        less      than  a    billion 17 dollars.
18                  And so we put in a provision allowing for 19 a design specific estimate that would be reviewed and 20 accepted by the staff.
21                  Then the other one that falls in the 22 financial protection bucket is the liability, the 23 things covered by Price-Anderson Act, Part 140.                            And 24 here again, we're not proposing any changes.
25                  The  Part      140      already        includes      some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
165 1 criteria for -- or it includes some ability to look at 2 things like power level to determine the amount of 3 coverage.      It includes power levels to determine when 4 a licensee would need to participate in the secondary 5 coverage.
6                Price-Anderson            includes        a    primary 7 insurance and then secondary coverage that comes from 8 basically all licensees being required to pitch in to 9 cover the liability if there's an accident at any 10 other reactor.      So, that's called the secondary pool.
11                So, all of that we are proposing to bring 12 in largely by reference to Part 140 without any --
13 without any changes under Part 53 for these -- for any 14 reactor that might be making an application under this 15 Part.
16                So again, this Subpart J, largely just a 17 collection      of  various      administrative          requirements 18 without any substantial changes.                      Or at least we 19 didn't intend to make any substantial changes.
20                So, with that, any questions on Subpart J?
21                MEMBER BIER:        Yeah.        This is Vicki Bier.
22 I had one question about the insurance requirements.
23 Earlier today we heard about how like the dollars per 24 mrem is no longer up to date with current values due 25 to inflation, et cetera.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
166 1                  And  was    there      any    consideration      into 2 specifying that insurance requirement in some other 3 way than just a straight dollar amount if we already 4 have      the experience      that      our    dollar  amounts      are 5 getting obsolete?
6                  MR. RECKLEY:            The short answer is no.
7 We're not proposing to introduce a change like that to 8 either Part 140 that covers Price-Anderson.
9                  That does have a factor that goes up.                    We 10 update that every couple years.                      So, that one does 11 have a provision.
12                  And that's why the amount of available 13 coverage has increased dramatically over the years.
14 The insurance that's at the one billion dollar level, 15 I don't believe that has any kind of an inflation 16 factor built into it.
17                  I'd have to go back and look.                    It's a 18 little -- this gets down into an area of expertise I 19 must admit I don't have, so.
20                  MEMBER REMPE: So, Bill? Greg, you can go 21 first if you want.
22                  MEMBER HALNON: Yeah. I was just going to 23 quickly ask what the decommissioning funding insurance 24 was?
25                  MR. RECKLEY:        We will -- we will address NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
167 1 that in Subpart G.
2                  MEMBER HALNON:          Okay.
3                  MR. RECKLEY:          On decommissioning.                And 4 it's another area where I'm not sure we'll have a lot 5 of changes.
6                  But, Part 75 -- I mean, 50.75 now, you 7 know, it includes values that were derived from the 8 experience of decommissioning PWRs and BWRs.
9                  And somehow we'll have to address that 10 there's        --  that    there's        limited        experience        in 11 decommissioning non-light water reactors.
12                  And so that's one of the things that we're 13 really looking at as we develop Subpart G.
14                  MEMBER HALNON:              Okay.        More to come.
15 Thanks.        Go ahead, Joy.        Thanks.
16                  MEMBER REMPE:            Okay.        So, I'm kind of 17 thinking about consistency of logic.                      And we've heard 18 lots of discussions over the last few months about oh, 19 the physics are different.                These things are safer.
20                  And all of that.              And there's a lot of 21 things that we're trying to reduce, because we think 22 that they have a -- they're more passive and they have 23 a longer response time, and accidents are going to be 24 so less likely.
25                  Are  we      going      --      have    any    of      the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
168 1 stakeholders said, well, we don't need insurance also?
2                    MR. RECKLEY:          Well, I don't know if --
3 we've        not  had    detailed        discussions    about        the 4 equivalent to 50.54(w), the price for recovering their 5 own facility.
6                    We did have a series of public meetings on 7 Price-Anderson and liability insurance.                    And one of 8 the reasons for that is the NRC owes Congress a 9 periodic report on Price-Anderson soon.                        It maybe 10 later this year.
11                    And so, as part of the development of 12 that, we did engage stakeholders and went into, you 13 know, what the current requirements are.                      You might 14 remember back in the NG&P, or even before that days, 15 there was a provision added for modular reactors.
16                    And that was actually a change to Price-17 Anderson and a change to our regulations in 140, Part 18 140      that    basically        allowed        reactors above        300 19 megawatts to be treated as a single facility up until 20 1200 megawatts.          Or I might have the numbers slightly 21 wrong.
22                    But, in any case, it was a provision 23 especially for modular reactors that would limit the 24 impact of their participation in the secondary pool by 25 saying multiple units could be treated as one unit in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
169 1 doing that math.
2                So, basically instead of, if I had four 3 300 megawatt reactors, the way it existed before that 4 change was, that would have been four reactors subject 5 to the secondary pool at 12 million dollars a year, up 6 to 120 million dollars or something.
7                So, what they changed that to was those 8 four reactors, since they in total were less than 9 about 1200 megawatts, that they would be treated as 10 one unit.
11                So, there were some changes. I don't want 12 to say it was all static.              But, the bottom line is 13 when we talked to the stakeholders about changes, they 14 thought by in large Part 140 was already flexible 15 enough.
16                It already showed a dependence on power 17 level that they would not pursue, or they weren't 18 really encouraging us at this time to pursue any 19 changes to that.
20                MEMBER REMPE:        What did research reactors 21 do, the larger ones, like the MIT reactor or NIST or 22 something like the University of Missouri Columbia 23 reactor, do they have any sort of requirements that 24 they have to meet with respect to insurance?
25                MR. RECKLEY:          I'll have to get back to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309    www.nealrgross.com
 
170 1 you.      I forget. If -- since -- but since the -- even 2 if they did, given that it is power dependent, it's 3 like in the -- it's a much reduced number.
4                  But, the applicability to RTRs, offhand I 5 forget.        I'll get back to you.
6                  MEMBER REMPE:            Yeah.        And I know they 7 don't operate all the time.
8                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
9                  MEMBER REMPE: But now we're talking about 10 a lot of changes here, like with the EP planning.
11 Well, okay, if we're going to do something like that 12 for these reactors that operate all the time, and if 13 we really believe all of this analysis, I'm just kind 14 of wondering, well, maybe they don't have to do 15 insurance.
16                  I mean, it -- I mean, either we do or we 17 don't believe it.            And so, and I'm not sure why I 18 followed that question.              But, it just seems a little 19 inconsistent.
20                  MR. RECKLEY: Well, another -- another way 21 to possibly address this, and we don't set rates, but 22 another way to look at it is, you require insurance 23 and improved performance can be reflected in the 24 rates.
25                  Not -- not a binary no insurance required.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
171 1 But,      insurance  required,        but      if    you're  able        to 2 demonstrate --
3                  MEMBER REMPE:          Being a safe driver.
4                  (Laughter.)
5                  MR. RECKLEY:          You're a -- that's right.
6 If you've got the -- if you plug in the little thumb 7 drive to your car, you can get less of -- less rates.
8                  And I see Steve Lynch has his hand up.
9 And he's going to answer the question I couldn't 10 answer.
11                  MEMBER REMPE:          Okay.
12                  MR. RECKLEY:        So Steve, go ahead.
13                  MR. LYNCH: Sure. Sure. No problem. So, 14 my name is Steve Lynch, Senior Project Manager with 15 the Non-Power Production and Utilization Facility 16 Licensing Branch at the NRC.
17                  So, the research reactors are required to 18 have insurance.        And this is implemented through the 19 Price-Anderson Act.            And there are specific amounts 20 that are required for these reactors implemented in 21 our regulations in 10 CFR Part 140.
22                  The  amounts        of      insurance      that      were 23 determined for different facilities, if you go back to 24 the statements of consideration for this, were all 25 based on the expected radiological hazard of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
172 1 facilities.
2                  And the NRC established different amounts 3 of insurance that would be needed based on increasing 4 radiological hazards from very small reactors up to 5 the large power reactors.
6                  MEMBER REMPE: So, anyway that's something 7 that maybe we ought to think about at some level.
8 But, we'll just have to see where it goes.
9                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Any other questions 10 on Subpart J?
11                  CHAIR PETTI:        I don't see any hands.
12                  MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        So Dave, maybe if 13 it's okay with you, I think -- because again, we were 14 just going to tee them up.                And we only have maybe, I 15 don't know, 10 or 20 slides on Subparts F and the 16 deterministic or traditional option.
17                  Do you want to take a break and then come 18 back and knock those two out of the way and free up 19 your -- free up your --
20                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yeah.        I think most of them 21 -- most of them would want --
22                  MR. RECKLEY:        Free up your morning?
23                  CHAIR PETTI:          Would want Friday morning 24 back.        So yeah, let's -- let's break.                Well, let's 25 just break to the top of the hour.                    We'll come back at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
173 1 the top of the hour.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:          Okay.        All right, great.
3 Thank you.
4                  CHAIR PETTI:        We're in recess.
5                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 6 off the record at 3:37 p.m. and resumed at 4:00 p.m.)
7                  CHAIR PETTI:        Okay.        Bill, it's 4:00, so 8 let's reconvene the meeting and --
9                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Thanks, Dave.
10                  Maybe if we could just go to slide 71. So 11 as I mentioned earlier -- and we have just a few 12 slides to go over this because we have yet to release 13 the preliminary rule text for either of these topics, 14 but we're planning to do so in the near future and 15 would expect to be able to talk in more detail about 16 both of these items at the October meeting.
17                  And so the two topics are the personnel-18 related sections of Subpart F and then the development 19 of a more traditional deterministic option for those 20 reactor designers or licensees who want to take that 21 approach for various reasons, like I mentioned one of 22 the        major  ones      being        consistency        with        the 23 international marketplace.
24                  So if we go down to slide 72, the first 25 topic is Subpart F, requirements for operation is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
174 1 title of the subpart, and then this one is general 2 staff training, personnel qualifications, and human 3 factors requirements.
4                And Jesse Seymour is on the line and I 5 would just ask Jesse -- just weigh in whenever you 6 want to provide an additional detail or you see me get 7 hung up or say something wrong.                    Just feel free to 8 weigh in.
9                So slide 73, just the title for this 10 section.
11                And slide 74 -- we had talked when we 12 developed -- when we had talked to you some time ago 13 Subpart F that we generally line Subpart F up into 14 three parts, and that's the plant or the hardware, the 15 people, and the programs.                  And those three major 16 components of Subpart F address those things that 17 would be needed during operations to make sure that 18 the plant behaves, the people are able to support it, 19 the programs support, keeping the plant consistent 20 with the licensing basis, with the analysis and so 21 forth.
22                So we talked on the hardware side about 23 things like configuration management, the technical 24 specifications        for        safety-related            equipment, 25 reliability    assurance      programs          and  other  special NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
175 1 treatment requirements for non-safety-related, but 2 safety-significant equipment, the maintenance -- the 3 equivalent of the maintenance rule and things like 4 that.          Today  we're      going    to    tee    up  the  missing 5 sections in Subpart F which are related to the people.
6                    So we did -- in May of 2021 Jesse and Juan 7 Uribe        walked  through        a  white      paper    that    we    had 8 released to support discussions with stakeholders and 9 initial interactions with the ACRS.                        And if you can 10 recall that white paper, much of what we'll talk about 11 today was introduced and some of the proposals that 12 will be in the preliminary rule text to be released 13 shortly relate directly to that white paper.
14                    In    terms        of        existing      regulatory 15 requirements that will get picked up in these sections 16 of Subpart F are some of the human factors engineering 17 requirements        that    followed        the      Three  Mile    Island 18 accident and were captured in 50.34(f); portions of 19 50.54, like 50.54(m) that currently gives the number 20 of operators based on the number of units; 51.20, the 21 training rule; and potentially we would roll in all 22 the requirements that are currently in Part 55 related 23 to operator licensing.
24                    So if we can go onto slide 75?                As you're 25 aware, even for recent light-water applications like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
176 1 NuScale the notion of a more flexible approach and 2 determining a number of operators, for example, that's 3 different than 50.54(m) has been undertaken/assessed 4 by the staff.        And going forward we just see that 5 expanding and requiring even more flexibility and 6 ability on our part to consider alternatives to the 7 fairly prescriptive requirements that are currently in 8 place based on the operating experience and history 9 and      analysis  associated          with        large light-water 10 reactors.
11                  That said, the notion of assessing the 12 role of people and the importance people can play is 13 going to be central to this whole assessment.                              So 14 we're not entering into this with a notion of no one's 15 required, we are obligated to show where people are 16 necessary. It's more; at least I'll speak personally, 17 the view of it's a tall hurdle that one will need to 18 show if one is going to try to say that people play a 19 significantly lesser role.
20                  Now that said, that is -- the goal of the 21 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement would be that the 22 design of the machine can support less reliance on 23 human actions.      And that's not surprising if you look 24 at the history and the timeline, the development of 25 the Advanced Reactor Policy Statement in and around NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
177 1 the time of the accident at Three Mile Island.                            So 2 we're trying to take a balanced approach here.
3                The middle bullet, Functional requirements 4 analysis and function allocation.                    I like to start 5 with that one personally because it really -- just 6 like we're thinking for the machine and the analysis 7 of the design, starting from the premise of what needs 8 to be done and how is it going to be accomplished and 9 to what are you allocating the responsibility for 10 meeting that function?          What systems on the hardware?
11 And then in particular under these sections under 12 Subpart F what are the roles that might be assigned to 13 people in performing or guaranteeing any of those 14 functions are required -- are fulfilled?
15                And then from that the applicant would be 16 required to build out their concept of operations, how 17 they envision running this facility.                      What is the 18 command and control?            Again, what is the role of 19 people and various staff in the operation of the 20 machine and interactions with -- in the emergency 21 response mode and so forth?
22                So  really      in    large      part  those    couple 23 middle bullets in my mind take a prescriptive approach 24 that we've put in place for light-water reactors by 25 going through this exercise and looking at operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
178 1 experience by doing numerous, numerous studies and 2 putting in place fairly prescriptive requirements for 3 machines that are similar: boiling water reactor, 4 pressurized water reactors, and replacing that within 5 the requirements with basically a requirement or set 6 of      requirements    that      require        the  designer,        the 7 licensee, the applicant to perform the assessments 8 that were done for the large light-water reactors and 9 come up with their own justification in this case for 10 what is the role of people in performing the safety 11 functions and how they're going to organize that.
12                So in that way this set of requirements 13 related to personnel aligns with the other parts of 14 Part 53 that we've shown you, and it is a little 15 different because it puts more onus on the designers 16 to do the analyses and make the proposals, albeit 17 we're laying out the methodology that they use.
18                So building from that, once you assign --
19 how we envision this being laid out is once you 20 determine that the operators and other personnel have 21 a role, then you do the human factors engineering to 22 make sure that it can be done, task analysis and so 23 forth. You make sure that the human system interfaces 24 are supportive.        If they need to know -- this goes 25 back to the 50.34(f)-type requirements to make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
179 1 displays are providing the right information, to make 2 sure that if there's operator actions to be taken, 3 that they can be taken, and they're straightforward 4 and labeled and understood and so forth.
5                Then operating experience needs to be 6 considered.        The staffing plan would need to be 7 developed.      Again, we're trying to make sure that we 8 can accommodate a fair degree of variety and how that 9 might look and remain flexible, but the amount of work 10 to be done in areas like this one can look at the 11 recent NuScale experience and understand that it's not 12 a minor undertaking to try to say you're going to base 13 all of this on an assessment of your design and its 14 behavior versus a prescriptive requirement.
15                And then lastly; and then I'll ask Jesse 16 to fill in his thoughts on this slide, would be you 17 need        to have    appropriate              training    programs, 18 appropriate examination programs to make sure again 19 that the operators are able to fulfill any role that 20 might be expected of them.
21                So, Jesse, if you want to correct anything 22 or clarify?
23                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                I have a question.
24 Within this framework do you envision remote operation 25 of a reactor all if all this human factors analysis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
180 1 satisfies it, or God forbid no operators at all?
2                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes, that was my question, 3 too.
4                  MR. SEYMOUR:          So this is Jesse Seymour.
5 I'm one of the Human Factors and Operator Licensing 6 staff members.        So again, without getting into too 7 many of the specifics of our rule language because it 8 hasn't gone out to the public yet, what we currently 9 are working towards is a framework that does not 10 explicitly address remote operation.
11                  And, Bill, again you can correct me if I'm 12 mischaracterizing that within the broader Part 53 13 framework.
14                  In terms of no operators at all, that is 15 not something that we presently envision.                        And to 16 clarify that --
17                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              But what I'm asking 18 you is will the language allow it if somebody had a 19 question?
20                  MR. SEYMOUR:          So the current framework 21 that we're working on would essentially require that 22 certain important administrative tasks would always 23 exist and that there would be someone that would have 24 to account for those tasks.                  So even in a framework 25 that      didn't  require        operators          to implement        any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
181 1 preventative or mitigative role for accidents there 2 are still certain important administrative functions 3 that have safety implications that need to get done, 4 and somebody needs to do those.                  So our intention is 5 to propose a vehicle that would support that.
6                So the way that we currently see it is 7 that you never get to a point to where there is no 8 human involvements, even if a plant can run itself, 9 because people still need to do things like technical 10 specification      calls,        operability          determinations, 11 emergency notifications, departing from the license 12 conditions in the event of an emergency when it's need 13 for the health and safety of the public.                    There are 14 certain things like that --
15                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              But all those --
16                MR. SEYMOUR:        -- that can never go away.
17                MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:                But  all    those 18 functions can be performed remotely. If I'm operating 19 21 megawatt reactors in different locations, I only 20 need one operator centrally located.
21                MR. SEYMOUR:        Yes, and I certainly won't 22 argue that point.      I mean the logical is true there.
23 It's just a -- it's kind of a self-imposed -- shall we 24 say a restriction on -- the boundaries that we've set 25 for the current framework is that we didn't explicitly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
182 1 address remote operations. For the most part our work 2 here in Subpart F is silent on that point.
3                  Bill, I'm not sure if there's anything --
4                  (Simultaneous speaking.)
5                  MR. RECKLEY: No. Well, and we had during 6 the development of the white paper -- we have other 7 activities looking at remote operations, but remote 8 operations      bring  in    other      considerations      such      as 9 cyber-security and things that we weren't yet ready to 10 take on.      And so --
11                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You brought the magic 12 word; I was going there, cyber security.                    It's almost 13 impossible to guarantee a two-way connection into a 14 reactor that is safe.            It is essentially impossible.
15                  MR. RECKLEY: So for that reason, as Jesse 16 said, we're basically planning in this round to be 17 silent on it. Any proposal, were it to be made, would 18 have to tackle all those issues.                    And we're not aware 19 in the short term that anybody will be pushing to do 20 that in a specific application.
21                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And that's completely 22 relevant, Bill.        The whole approach of Part 53 is you 23 want to give flexibility for the irresponsible reactor 24 operators to do bad things.                  And you should not be 25 silent on it.      You should say you cannot do it unless NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
183 1 you have a cyber security plan that allows two-way 2 communications with a reactor protection system, which 3 is impossible.
4                  MR. RECKLEY:        Well, and for that we have 5 a different activity and a different working group 6 looking at that.
7                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                So why doesn't the 8 rule say you don't do remote operations? If a reactor 9 comes and can do it, that's what the exemption process 10 is for.        I just don't see this desire, this guide for 11 the Part 53 designers to allow everything they want to 12 do and we'll give you it later on.                        You should --
13 anything you're not 100 percent sure, the rule should 14 forbid it.        Whenever there is information that allows 15 you to do it, get an exemption.                    I mean --
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Well, what --
17                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              You clearly --
18                  MR. RECKLEY: As Jesse said, we're getting 19 probably one step ahead because what we're proposing 20 to release in terms of the preliminary language is 21 still under internal review, but this is certainly a 22 discussion and we can continue it in October on the 23 specifics.
24                  CHAIR PETTI:        Hey, Bill, I have sort of a 25 broader question. Autonomous operation is everywhere, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
184 1 right?        Automobiles, planes.              Are you guys in touch 2 with the other government regulators in these other 3 areas, either formally or informally to kind of keep 4 your finger on the pulse of what's going on there just 5 to stay abreast of some of that sort of stuff?
6                    MR. RECKLEY:        I'll ask --
7                    MR. SEYMOUR:        Bill, I can probably start.
8                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, go ahead, Jesse.
9                    MR. SEYMOUR:          Okay.        Yes, if you don't 10 mind.        And again this is Jesse.              I'll kind of start by 11 fielding that question.
12                    You know, Bill allude to that we do have 13 a separate project that has begun the investigation 14 into remote operations.                And that currently isn't a 15 publicly available product at this point, but one of 16 the      aspects    of    that      work      was      to  conduct      some 17 benchmarking and interviews with other industries 18 essentially on the government side, the regulatory 19 side of it that deal with automation and specifically 20 like autonomous or remote operations and to probe into 21 those        issues. So    again,      we    do    have  some      good 22 learnings from that.
23                    What  I    will      say      is    that  that's        one 24 example.        The things that we've picked up on so far 25 when we take that and we weigh it against kind of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
185 1 safety implications of what we're working with here, 2 I think we feel that we're still in a comfortable 3 spot.          But  again,      the    specifics          of  that    remote 4 operations report aren't quite out there in the public 5 domain yet.
6                    MR. RECKLEY:            In addition to that we 7 commissioned a report from Sandia that started to 8 weigh in on this.              And then I'll just add from my 9 perspective; and we address this somewhat, or we had 10 Sandia address it somewhat in the paper they provided, 11 there's different ways to think about autonomous, and 12 one is something like an autonomous car which has to 13 get multiple inputs from sensors and make decisions on 14 what to do.        And that's kind of a digital autonomy.
15                    And then there's another autonomous -- and 16 these can be mixed, but there's another autonomous 17 which can be more mechanical and process related to 18 kind      of  inherent    characteristics              of  a  particular 19 design.        And so you might be able to have from the 20 safety side a certain amount of autonomous operation 21 or comfort from inherent features or something that 22 would be either inherent, passive, or whatever term 23 you wanted to use, and then -- but less reliant on 24 artificial intelligence or digital controls to achieve 25 that autonomy. But all of that is stuff that you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
186 1 to really think through and see what a particular 2 designer might be proposing.
3                  And again, as Jesse said, some of this is 4 the        subject  of      ongoing          studies      that      we've 5 commissioned.
6                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Let me put a personal 7 opinion on the record.              Okay?        What I hear from you 8 guys is we don't have sufficient information to know 9 whether autonomous operation of a nuclear reactor is 10 a      safe    condition.          We      don't        have  sufficient 11 information to know whether remote operation of a 12 nuclear reactor is safe.            Completely irresponsible to 13 write a rule that is silent on what we know, we don't 14 know. It is irresponsible. Okay? It's on the record 15 and you can quote me.
16                  MEMBER BALLINGER:              I mean; this is Ron 17 Ballinger, you don't have to go very far to discover 18 autonomous operation of even a nuclear plant. Cassini 19 -- go to NASA.            Those probes and stuff are all 20 autonomous and they all operate and they all have 21 software and intelligence to decide when something is 22 going wrong and notify the people back here, or 23 wherever they are, that you have X minutes to fix 24 this, otherwise we're going to shut the thing down.
25 So I mean this is not unusual.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
187 1                  MR. SEYMOUR:              So if I could I guess 2 provide        some  clarification,            and      again  with      the 3 understand that next month we'll have kind of a full 4 picture out there for everyone's consideration.
5                  The    framework            that        we're    currently 6 proposing does not rule out the ability for us to look 7 at a potentially autonomous design and to navigate 8 that and to try to do that in a way that we think 9 provides a reasonable assurance of adequate safety.
10                  The thing that I want to point out is 11 simply        that  there        are      certain        administrative 12 responsibilities associated with the operation of that 13 facility that do need to go somewhere, right?                          And so 14 there is an aspect of that that we have to address.
15 It's        a  little    different          when        we're  taking          a 16 radioisotope thermoelectric generator; I believe they 17 call them the RTGs, and we're putting that on a probe 18 and sending it off into space. A little bit different 19 considerations.          You don't have the same factors at 20 play necessarily.
21                  But we're not excluding the fact that 22 someone could build an autonomous reactor that is able 23 to -- via safety mechanisms that are inherent and 24 passive and so forth to provide us that assurance that 25 without the person right there to take action that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
188 1 it's going to be safe.
2                    What we're saying is that because it's a 3 licensed nuclear facility within this framework there 4 are certain -- and I call the administrative, but not 5 to diminish the safety significance, right, we're 6 talking about things like departing from the license 7 basis in an emergency, making sure that the facility 8 remains compliant with the tech specs so that you stay 9 in that analyzed state at the beginning of an accident 10 and so forth.          And it requires someone that has a 11 requisite level of qualification and training that we 12 have an assurance that they're going to be able to 13 implement those.
14                    So that's really what we're talking about 15 without having the full specifics here for everyone's 16 consideration.          But what we're now saying is that 17 we're        just  carte      blanche          not      considering        the 18 possibility of autonomous operation.                        That's not the 19 case at all.
20                    Bill, I'm not sure if you had anything you 21 wanted to add there.
22                    MR. RECKLEY:        No.      Again we're trying to 23 -- and this is always a challenge when you're trying 24 to      do    a technology-inclusive              and    forward-looking 25 rulemaking is we're trying to remain flexible. I hope NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
189 1 people don't confuse that flexibility with any notion 2 that we're predisposed to approve anything.                                The 3 burden would be on the applicant to show that they are 4 able to fulfill all the functions with whatever number 5 of people and whatever the role they assign to the 6 people, and the absence to do that would mean they 7 wouldn't get a license.
8                  And so it's just a challenge.                        And I 9 understand      the  feelings,          but    it    is  part    of    the 10 challenge to build in flexibility to a rule.                              But 11 again, hopefully          people don't read that it's any 12 reduction in a burden. Instead of having requirements 13 from which they would need to ask for exemptions; 14 that's a fairly traditional approach, we would just 15 build in the flexibility.              But the burden is on them.
16 They have to come up with the concept of operations.
17 They have to come up with the functional requirements 18 and      the  allocation      of    the      people    to  meet      the 19 functions.        They have to come up with the staffing 20 plans and all of that.            And they have to justify it.
21                  So but in any case, I --
22                  (Simultaneous speaking.)
23                  MEMBER SUNSERI:          Hey, Bill, this is Matt.
24                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, go ahead.
25                  MEMBER SUNSERI:          Vicki -- Dr. Bier's had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
190 1 her hand up for a while.
2                    MR. RECKLEY:        Oh, sorry.
3                    MEMBER SUNSERI: You might want to call on 4 here.
5                    CHAIR PETTI: Yes, I was going to the same 6 place.        Thanks, Matt.
7                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Go ahead.
8                    MEMBER BIER: Thank you. This is in a way 9 kind of related to the previous discussion and in a 10 way broader.          So we've kind of learned from TMI and 11 over      the    years  that      we  do      need      to  have    special 12 requirements and research and all the rest of it for 13 human        factors,    that      people        are    different        than 14 engineering and physics and whatever, and we need to 15 study that and control it separately.                          And it seems 16 like even aside from remote operation of what if 17 somebody doesn't want to have an operator on site --
18 even if there is an operator on site I think we still 19 need      to    treat  sort      of  computerized          or  AI-based 20 controls almost the way we treat human factors due to 21 the complexity.
22                    And if I were to draw a distinction, there 23 might be some reactors that you claim you can operate 24 without an operator physically there because they're 25 inherently safe by the physics of it.                        And you may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
191 1 wrong about that. You may mis-estimate. You may have 2 some things wrong about the physics or not have 3 considered all the possibilities or whatever, but the 4 physics is pretty well understood relative to claiming 5 that a reactor doesn't need an operator because the 6 computer runs it.              And that is not remotely in the 7 same ballpark of as understood as the physics. And it 8 seems like it's kind of right now maybe a little bit 9 of      an    orphan  because        it's      different    than      what 10 historically has been done under digital I&C where 11 you're talking about individual sensors and whatever.
12                    And so this is not necessarily something 13 that has to be discussed right now because it isn't 14 directly related to Subpart F, but I just wanted to 15 kind of put that on the table for some time whenever 16 is appropriate.
17                    MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And it's a good point 18 and      there's    some      discussion          in    the report        we 19 commissioned from Sandia that goes along those lines, 20 that you have to be very careful of that because --
21 well in any case, I'll leave it there.
22                    And, Dave, one of the things you might 23 want to consider, or along with us and Derek when 24 we're planning for the October meeting, is how much 25 time to give to this particular section.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
192 1                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.      Yes, good point.
2                  MEMBER HALNON:          Hey, Bill, this is Greg.
3 I got a quickie, I think.                I hope.
4                  First of a kind.          For these reactors they 5 may be able to justify a very small of operators for 6 the -- but without the operating experience.                        Are you 7 guys holding your cards such that you can require 8 additional operators for first of a kind without being 9 called backfit and everything else when --
10                  MR. RECKLEY:          Yes.      Yes, first of kind, 11 first number of cycles, first whatever.                      But yes, we 12 would always have and are holding the possibility that 13 that might be appropriate until you get some operating 14 experience and prove the point that people may be 15 required until you have that operating experience 16 gained.
17                  MEMBER HALNON:          Okay.      Yes. Thanks.
18                  MR. RECKLEY:        So if we can go onto 76, I 19 think?        So  in  terms      of    addressing        the    role      of 20 operators, what we're setting out to do is again to 21 make sure that the assessments that would be done by 22 the designers are able to support whatever they're 23 proposing.        So the requirements would put the burden 24 on those evaluations to support the finding.
25                  And so this is somewhat repetitive, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
193 1 the specific areas are the HFE analysis.                              We are 2 adding some -- or expect to add if it makes it through 3 the reviews some provisions for load following to 4 clarify some points in that area, some points to 5 address online refueling as you move to something like 6 a pebble bed reactor, need to accommodate current 7 requirements that say that it has to be -- specific 8 reactivity additions need to be overseen by a licensed 9 operator.        Well, need to allow provisions for the 10 designs        that  will      be    different          in  areas      line 11 continuous refueling.
12                  And then the last bullet is the one I 13 think we'll talk about a lot in October, and that is 14 the      potential    for    certain        facilities      to    have        a 15 different        kind  of    operator,          one    not  necessarily 16 licensed by the NRC if it can be justified and certain 17 specific safety criteria could be satisfied.                            And as 18 the bullet says, a key consideration would be what is 19 the role of the operator in either mitigating or 20 preventing licensing basis events?
21                  But before opening it up I'll just say at 22 this time; and what you'll see I think, assuming it 23 comes out similar to what we have prepared so far, is 24 don't confuse non-licensed with unregulated.                            And we 25 are      looking    at  other      models        like    certified      fuel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
194 1 handlers where it is a very regulated activity.                            It's 2 just that the activity is supported by a certification 3 by the licensee.          And the NRC oversees those programs 4 and evaluations and doesn't necessarily administer and 5 examine and license the operator per se.
6                    But, Jesse, you want to weigh in on this 7 one and then we can --
8                    (Simultaneous speaking.)
9                    MR. SEYMOUR:        Thanks, Bill, I appreciate 10 it.      Bill, I think the way that you captured making 11 sure that that distinction is clear that non-licensed 12 does not equal unregulated is important even for a 13 non-licensed equipment operator.                        And I'll use this 14 example:        We still under the existing training rule 15 and what we envision for Part 53 for the equivalent we 16 still          anticipate        mandating            certain    training 17 requirements for those individuals.
18                    Similarly this other category of operator 19 that we're kind of touching upon here, we see that 20 there's opportunity for us to review and approve the 21 training        and  examination          programs        used  for      such 22 individuals to directly inspect certain aspects of the 23 ongoing program thereafter, but not necessarily to 24 take that operator's qualification to the level of 25 licensing that we necessarily administer.                        And again, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
195 1 all that would be tied to the specifics of that design 2 and some pretty rigorous criteria.                      So that's the 3 point that I had to make there, Bill.
4                MEMBER SUNSERI: Hey, Bill and Jesse, this 5 is Matt.      I'm not disagreeing with anything you're 6 saying there, but just think about this for a second; 7 and you don't have to respond do this either, but 8 having operated a plant and having had operators that 9 were licensed by the NRC when you face the public on 10 certain issues being able to say that your operators 11 are licensed by the NRC was a pretty big confidence 12 builder. It at least builds confidence in the public.
13 So don't underestimate the value of that as you think 14 about what changes you want to make here.
15                MR. RECKLEY:            Understood.      Thank you, 16 Matt.
17                Okay. I think we can move on to 77.                  So 18 what we're getting to here is that for operator exams, 19 even for the current arrangement and what we expect to 20 see going forward is for the licensed operators it's 21 not necessarily such that every facility would need 22 the      same program,      the    same      training,  the      same 23 requirements.      And so even within licensed operators 24 there's a certain flexibility.
25                And that can be seen today.                      It's a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
196 1 perhaps overused example.                  I don't like to bring in 2 RTRs too much, but RTRs have licensed operators.                              And 3 it's      understood      that      the    RTRs      are    operating        on 4 different          principles,          different            source      terms, 5 different whatever, and the operator licensing program 6 for them is significantly different than it is for a 7 large commercial light-water reactor.
8                    And so we're looking that even within this 9 realm there's flexibilities that we would want to 10 build in, and the process to determine and take 11 advantage of that flexibility would be to use things 12 like, as has already been addressed, in an area like 13 NuScale where you do job task analysis to really 14 narrow down on what operators need to do, ensure they 15 can do, what they need to do to evaluate what would be 16 the appropriate training given the complexity of the 17 machine and use the flexibility in terms that exist in 18 terms        of  our    ability        to      develop      and    deliver 19 examinations and look at the training programs.
20                    In  addition        to    that,        the  last    bullet 21 there,        when  you're      looking        at    the    potential        to 22 introduce operators that would not be licensed, that 23 similar approaches could be taken for them in terms of 24 making sure the appropriate training is provided and 25 so forth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
197 1                So again, I think this will be a little 2 more clear when we're able to show you in a week or so 3 the preliminary language and you can see how all of 4 this plays out and the similarities that would exist 5 for many of the requirements that would be associated 6 with a licensed operator or an operator that's not 7 licensed by the NRC per se.
8                MEMBER HALNON:          So, Bill --
9                MR. RECKLEY:        Go ahead.
10                MEMBER HALNON:            -- I think one of your 11 bigger challenges here is not so much coming up with 12 a training program or training requirement for this 13 licensed operators.        It's going to be keeping the NRC 14 staff up to speed on the many different types of 15 reactors.      I mean right now we get inspectors that 16 have gone through generic BWR/PWR training and they 17 may even spend some time of plant-specific simulators, 18 but that brings them up to a pretty high level of 19 knowledge enough to be able to do the inspections and 20 do the training examinations.                But I tell you, that's 21 pretty generalized over 100-some reactors. It's going 22 to be interesting to see how the next step on keeping 23 your inspectors and training examiners up to speed to 24 the point where they can confidently inspect and 25 examine the operators.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
198 1                MR. SEYMOUR:          Greg --
2                MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I agree. Operators and 3 the machine -- and I'm sorry, Jesse.                          I agree with 4 you 100 percent.            And that is something that the 5 Agency will just have to be flexible about and see in 6 what direction things go, right?
7                In    the      extreme        you      could  have      many 8 different technologies and different designs for each 9 technology,      which      would      be      kind      of  a  worst-case 10 scenario from what you're saying in terms of the need 11 for the NRC to be very familiar with a large number of 12 designs.      Or it could evolve differently, in which 13 case it would be less onerous for us.
14                But, Jesse, go ahead.                  I'm sorry.
15                MR. SEYMOUR:          Oh, yes.          No. Thank you, 16 Bill.
17                I was just going to say that I agree 100 18 percent with that observation.                  And just as an aside, 19 up    until  last  year      I  was      an    operator      licensing 20 examiner on the power reactor side full time, and I 21 still maintain the qualifications for Westinghouse, GE 22 BWRs, B&W, CE, and then also AP-1000. And just trying 23 to maintain the proficiency of knowledge across all 24 those, it's challenging.                So one thing that we have 25 discussed internally extensively is how do we craft a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
199 1 program that now has to be able to address a wide 2 potential variety of technologies up to and including 3 fusion, for example?
4                    So there are various options that are 5 there to try to navigate that.                          Some of those are 6 things that would fall more into guidance space. Some 7 of them we do intend to present, at least kind of at 8 a high level, when we discuss our detailed language in 9 October.        But we do have a few options on the table to 10 try to address that, but it's a very valid concern how 11 those -- any one individual maintains that type of 12 knowledge with a reasonable degree of proficiency.
13                    MR. RECKLEY:          Ron, I see you.
14                    MEMBER BALLINGER:                Yes, I'm think I'm 15 assuming you're thinking along these lines, but I 16 would        think  you    would      need      to    tread  very,      very 17 carefully on this training issue.                          I can see the 18 tension,        probably      economic          tension,      between        the 19 regulator and the operator wanting to save a little 20 money.        But as long as things are going fine having X 21 operators and Y other people that aren't licensed 22 operators, that might work out fine.                        But if you have 23 a really bad hair day, having somebody there that, 24 while not operating the plant, has the training such 25 that that person knows the plant, that can save your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
200 1 hide.          And so I think from a human factors and 2 training perspective there's -- I think we need to 3 avoid getting too far into the gray area and assuming 4 that our automation is going to save our hide.                              You 5 can see what I'm saying?
6                  MR. SEYMOUR:          Yes, I think I see where 7 you're coming from, and the first thing I would point 8 to is that very broadly -- and Bill touched upon this 9 at the beginning, but we're talking about different 10 aspects of people and machines here, but really what 11 we're doing falls under a broader umbrella of a new 12 philosophical tack that we're taking, and that is 13 human system integration as the overarching theme.
14 And the idea is that within this framework that 15 operator licensing and training in general, human 16 factors engineering and staffing are not independent 17 deterministic steps that you're going through. Rather 18 they form a cohesive whole where if you adjust one 19 thing it kind of affects the other thing as well, too.
20                  So in this case one of the things that I 21 would point out is that this program would exist in 22 tandem with a flexible staffing program.                          And that 23 staffing model -- in order to set the number of people 24 one of the things that you would be required to do is 25 to      demonstrate      human      factors          engineering-based NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
201 1 analyses and assessments and validations that would go 2 through and demonstrate -- and I'll give an example 3 here, right? One way that that would play out is that 4 you would actually demonstrate that high work load and 5 challenging        situations        could      be    navigated    by    the 6 proposed number of people.                    And again that's out in 7 guidance space so it's not quite within the rule 8 language per se.
9                    But on the development side of things 10 that's how we see that playing out, that ultimately 11 when you have people that are qualified to a certain 12 level of their training program, when you figure out 13 how many of them you need, that there's that step 14 there, right, that you're going to have to go through 15 --    and    using  kind    of    tried      and      true and    robust 16 analyses go through and show that that's going to be 17 sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable assurance of 18 safety.
19                    MEMBER BALLINGER:              Just got to be careful 20 that you don't start -- or allowing, excuse me, the 21 erosion of what we would call -- what I would call 22 margin.
23                    MR. SEYMOUR:          I understand, and it's --
24                    MEMBER BALLINGER:              Yes.
25                    MR. SEYMOUR: Yes, I do. I understand the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
202 1 point and I understand the underlying concern there 2 that the margin -- it also -- and I know we talked 3 about        uncertainly    earlier,        right,      but if    there's 4 uncertainties, right, sometimes that margin can help 5 to offset the uncertainties.                  So that is an area that 6 we're definitely sensitive to is definitely we don't 7 want to come into this saying what's the absolute bare 8 minimum?        We want to say what is going to give us a 9 reasonable assurance of safety given the totality of 10 the design and what we know about it?
11                  CHAIR PETTI: So, folks, I think we should 12 keep on moving.
13                  MR. RECKLEY:        Yes.
14                  CHAIR PETTI: I don't know how many slides 15 you have.        We haven't even seen the language yet.
16                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
17                  CHAIR PETTI: We'll get to look at this in 18 great detail in October.
19                  MR. RECKLEY:        Right.        Right. Thank you, 20 Dave.
21                  So the next slides goes to training.                      We 22 were just talking about that.                  And you'll see in the 23 language what these requirements are.                      Actually this 24 is an area -- Jesse, correct me, but this area is --
25 it's very similar to what you might see, albeit like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
203 1 I said before, in making it technology-inclusive it 2 just maybe raises up a level because it's broader 3 versus very specific things for light-water reactors.
4                  And then lastly on slide 79 is we know 5 that this is going to require guidance, and we have a 6 number of activities under way including those that 7 we're getting support from Brookhaven on scalable 8 human factors engineering reviews.                      We also have some 9 support both internally and with Idaho National Lab on 10 operator      licensing    exams      and      how    they  might        be 11 tailored differently for different facilities.                            Then 12 this also ties into our development of guidance under 13 the advanced reactor content application.
14                  So any last thoughts or key things?                        One 15 area I just wanted to mention is within this whole 16 discussion will also be an assessment of staffing 17 other than those directly associated with operations, 18 like operators, but we do need to look at the role of 19 people in performing other functions.                      And that will 20 also be addressed to some degree within this part of 21 Subpart F.      Technicians, radiation protection people, 22 so forth.
23                  So, Jesse, any last thoughts or --
24                  MR. SEYMOUR:        One item that I did want to 25 point out, Bill, with regards to slide 78; and there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
204 1 no need to go back -- you touched upon that it's 2 essentially        a  variation          on      the    existing    50.120 3 training rule, which itself is driven by statute. And 4 within        the  context      of    Part      53,    Bill,  you      were 5 mentioning that we've talked a lot about operators, 6 but just not to gloss over that there's other people 7 that are doing important jobs in these facilities.
8                    One thing that we do carry forward is the 9 need      to    have  sound        training        programs    for    those 10 relevant categories of individuals.                        A key difference 11 is that we do have to account for the potential for 12 there          to  be    non-traditional                roles,    perhaps 13 combinations          of    responsibilities                into  a    single 14 individual that we haven't seen previously.                          So we do 15 have to be more flexible in some of the nomenclature 16 and how we choose to categorize people, but we do 17 fully intend to carry forward that requirement that 18 folks        that  are    doing      jobs      like    being  radiation 19 protection technicians and so forth will be subject to 20 systematic        approaches        to    training-based          training 21 programs.
22                    So that's what I just wanted to add there, 23 Bill.
24                    MEMBER BROWN:          Bill?
25                    Did we lose Bill?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
205 1                    CHAIR PETTI:        I still see him connected.
2                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, I'm sorry.
3                    CHAIR PETTI:        There we go.
4                    MR. RECKLEY:        I muted.          Go ahead. Sorry.
5                    MEMBER    BROWN:          Yes,      just  something        I 6 didn't bring up earlier, and maybe we've addressed it; 7 I just don't remember. A lot of the discussions we've 8 had      on    advanced    reactor-type            stuff,    SMRs,    small 9 reactors, and even micros I guess, is the potential 10 they'll be located in remote areas which sets up the 11 remote operation philosophy.                    I don't know what part 12 they would be licensed under. I presume they would be 13 under any one of these if they wanted to.                            But the 14 remote operation thing may become a factor somewhere 15 along the line.          In other words, what do you do when 16 you've got some guy sitting in Chicago managing a 17 plant that's located in the foothills of Wyoming?
18 There's technical issues with that because you're 19 using the Internet.              So I don't know how to address 20 it, but is it going to be part of this Part 53 21 discussion under the technical part of it?
22                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, we had talked earlier 23 that we're really not -- we're not addressing it.
24 We're        not  necessarily        precluding            it. We're      not 25 setting up a vehicle to do it.                            We have another NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
206 1 working group within the NRC that's looking at that 2 and related issues: as you mentioned, cyber security 3 and so forth.        And so we're just kind of shelving or 4 putting that item in the parking lot for right now.
5                  MEMBER BROWN:          Okay.
6                  MR. SEYMOUR:            Bill, if I could add to 7 this?        This is a point that I'd like to just make 8 again without going too far down the rabbit hole per 9 se.
10                  But what I want to say is that with 11 regards to the framework that as of right now we 12 intend to present next month there is no current 13 variation of what we intend to present where a human 14 being is not getting indications from the reactor and 15 has the ability to shut it down, right?                  That's kind 16 of a concise assessment of what we intend to put on 17 the table next month.
18                  So by that what I mean is that even for --
19 the way we presently envision even for a reactor that 20 is running autonomously that there would still be a 21 human being that is receiving indications from it that 22 at a minimum has the ability to turn it off.
23                  MEMBER BROWN:          No, but they also have the 24 ability to implement or actuate certain things also 25 even though it's autonomous.                  Autonomous is only good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309      www.nealrgross.com
 
207 1 I mean if you really get it right.                      I won't even refer 2 to    something    that    happened          in    the  Naval  Nuclear 3 Program 60 years ago.              So when that thought process 4 was going -- or 65 years ago.
5                    But my point being is that even if they're 6 autonomous you still have an operator that can actuate 7 stuff.        He would get indications of the plant.                      You 8 can send that to him.              The real issue is how reliable 9 is that?        The cyber issues.              And then if something 10 happens and you don't have anybody around, how do you 11 deal with that?        How are you comfortable with that in 12 a -- even though it's a low or pretty much almost non-13 populated area?            I mean, different circumstances, 14 different issues, different criteria, different safety 15 requirements even possibly.                    And all I'm hearing is 16 that we haven't -- we've put that aside and we're 17 addressing that separately fundamentally.
18                    Is that right, Bill?
19                    MR. RECKLEY:        Yes, for now.          And as Jesse 20 said, we're not -- yes.              There's a lot of work to be 21 done before we would be set up to review such a 22 proposal.
23                    MEMBER BROWN:          Or to even accept it?
24                    MR. RECKLEY:        Right.
25                    MEMBER BROWN:          Or get us to accept it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
208 1                    MR. RECKLEY:        So --
2                    MEMBER BROWN:        Another trial.        Okay.      All 3 right.        I just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost 4 in the --
5                    MR. RECKLEY:        No.      No, it's not lost, but 6 it's such an issue that we also don't want it to kind 7 of derail our current effort.                      So that's why we're 8 kind of setting it aside, so to speak.
9                    MEMBER BROWN:        I totally agree with that.
10                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
11                    MEMBER BROWN:        I just wanted to make sure 12 that at least the thought process was there.                          Okay.
13 I'm done.        Thank you.
14                    MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.
15                    MEMBER BROWN:          Thank you, Bill.
16                    MR. SEYMOUR: And what I just want to add, 17 Bill -- again this is Jesse. The same -- there's very 18 similar considerations to what were just discussed, 19 the same types of questions about asking those what-20 ifs.      We've shared almost verbatim many of those same 21 questions in our internal discussion.                      So even though 22 our current stance is that we have by and large tabled 23 that      particular    issue      for    the      time  being,    we've 24 expressed many of those same types of concerns and 25 considerations in our internal discussions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
209 1                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        Ron, did you have a 2 question or is it up from earlier?
3                MEMBER BALLINGER:            My apologies. I got --
4                MR. RECKLEY:        No problem.
5                MEMBER BALLINGER:              -- to lower my -- I 6 just lowered my hand.
7                MR. RECKLEY:        Okay.        So with that, we'll 8 spend the next part of the meeting to go over -- if 9 you want to go down to slide 81?                      And, Boyce, if 10 you're on, I'll hand it over to you.
11                MR. TRAVIS:        Sure.        Thanks, Bill.
12                This  is      Boyce      Travis      from  the      DANU 13 Division.      I'm in the Advanced Reactor Technical 14 Branch.
15                As part of the -- I guess if we can go 16 onto slide 82.      So as part of the broader Part 53 17 effort we've received feedback from stakeholders; and 18 Bill alluded to this earlier, stating that they wanted 19 something that involved a lower reliance on PRA.                          So 20 we've taken to defining what you saw earlier as a 21 path, the broader Part 53 effort as the PRA in a 22 leading role path.        And then separate from that this 23 more deterministic option that's kind of being deemed 24 as the PRA in a supporting role path.
25                And so we're in the -- I was going to say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
210 1 early stages, but I guess I'll say final stages of 2 initial          development        for      rule        language    for        a 3 deterministic option that incorporates a technology-4 inclusive set of rules that leverages and supports use 5 of international -- and aligns with international 6 standards, uses the PRA in a supporting role, and does 7 so as kind of a separate path from the Part 53 8 options, or from the Part 53 rulemaking that also 9 incorporates areas from the Part 53 that can be 10 supported by this deterministic option.
11                    And so if you move onto slide 83.                      So as 12 we discussed earlier; Bill kind of teed this up, this 13 deterministic option would include and specifically 14 require        applicants        consider          the    single    failure 15 criterion, provide principle design criteria using an 16 established standard, whether that is the GDC in 17 Appendix A, the ARDC that have been provided in Reg 18 Guide 1.232, or something that's akin to what's in the 19 IAEA's        SSR/2  effectively          that      look  a  lot      like 20 principal design criteria.
21                    We'd also require the kind of interlocking 22 rings of -- like analyses and SSCs to support against 23 various levels of events including AOOs and DBAs, 24 stepping out to beyond-design-basis events in a couple 25 of different categories to align with international NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
211 1 standards, and then stepping out further to severe 2 accidents.      In the AOO and DBA range we'd be using a 3 traditional safety-related classification with single 4 failure.      As we step out through those rings to 5 beyond-design-basis events and severe accidents the 6 level of qualification of the components would be 7 commensurate with the role they're performing and the 8 analyses would kind of step out to the more best-9 estimate analysis.        And consistent with existing Part 10 50 and 52 guidance this process would use PRA in a 11 confirmatory role and the QHOs, quantitative health 12 objectives, would be -- remain enshrined in guidance 13 rather than specifically put in the rule.
14                If we move onto slide 84.              So this option 15 would be -- is currently envisioned to be separate 16 from what is provided in Part 53 in that the leading 17 -- PRA in a leading role would be one path.                          This 18 path, the PRA in a supporting role would be another.
19 We're not fixed on where this option is going to 20 reside, but currently are thinking it would rely on 21 the existing Part 50 and 52 infrastructure in a lot of 22 cases, but we would leverage flexibility in areas in 23 the Part 53 rulemaking to have a more dose-oriented 24 focus such as emergency preparedness, siting, and 25 security.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
212 1                    And we would allow applicants to use the 2 Part 53 scope for these sub-areas while providing a 3 more traditional deterministic analysis that looks we 4 believe and will be similar to what -- inform to what 5 we would see today from a Part 50 or 52 applicant with 6 the caveat that we'd be providing a framework that is 7 a little more conducive to international standards 8 such as the IAEA and is technology-neutral rather than 9 focused on LWRs.
10                    Some of these shared aspects could include 11 things        like  allowing        for    further      flexibility        in 12 meeting codes and standards such as through the use of 13 alternatives to NQA-1 while still conforming with 14 Appendix B. And we've planned to include a functional 15 containment          concept        directly          in  the  rule        to 16 accommodate the technology-inclusive nature of what 17 we're discussing.
18                    Move  onto      slide      85.      So  as  I    noted 19 earlier, the rule is in the final stages of initial 20 development internally to the staff.                        It's something 21 we plan to put out publicly fairly soon, sometime in 22 October I would expect, and have a discussion with 23 ACRS as well.            Areas that are in there include:
24 requiring        PCs,    as    I    noted;      specific    analytical 25 requirements for AOOs and DBAs, including providing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
213 1 for the option to use a bounding analysis for some or 2 all of the accident analysis up to an including an MHA 3 like as is done in NUREG-1537 for the RTRs. Then we'd 4 step out to having analytical requirements for a class 5 of beyond-design-basis events.
6                  This would be the category of events that 7 would encompass like SBO and ATWS, but also include 8 other events that are in that same sort of frequency 9 range I'll say.        I mean this is -- the PRA Is in a 10 supporting role.        I'm using that frequency kind of as 11 a guidepost so to speak in terms of the severity of 12 the accident, I guess.              And these events would have 13 analytical requirements and SSC quality requirements 14 more commensurate with the frequency and severity of 15 the events and would incorporate the kind of defense-16 in-depth level 3 or 3a from the IAEA or international 17 nomenclature.
18                  And  finally,      there        would be  a    severe 19 accident      layer  consistent          with      the NRC's    policy 20 statement, but providing technology-neutral language.
21 Again we'd be looking to incorporate some of the 22 international concepts related to defense-in-depth 23 level 4 or 4b for this.              And this would be the area 24 that would align with the existing dose requirements; 25 i.e., the siting and 25 rem requirements.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
214 1                So if we move to the next slide.                      So to 2 move forward with this option, as I noted the staff 3 has developed rule language.              We're in the process of 4 engaging stakeholders, management, and the Commission 5 on what constitutes the most appropriate approach 6 here.
7                As I noted, we're still assessing the 8 placement of where this would go.                    Right now we've 9 used the Part 50 and 52 regulations as a baseline, but 10 we recognize there are a number of pathways we could 11 take to put this into rule language, and so we're 12 still exploring that.          And we're reviewing the impact 13 of the required work to develop the framework on the 14 NRC schedule and resources.
15                We have some initial language, but it's 16 far from complete.          As I noted where this goes is 17 going to dictate some of that schedule and resources 18 that's going to be developed and where this needs to 19 make new rules versus where we can rely on existing 20 rules will also inform that effort.
21                So if you move onto the next slide.                    That 22 is the end of the discussion on this.                  I expect there 23 are questions and I will open the floor to the ACRS.
24                MEMBER HALNON: Yes, this is Greg. Is the 25 intention to allow cherry picking between the two or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
215 1 it's either one or the other?
2                  MR. TRAVIS:        This would be a -- I mean 3 I'll speak -- from all the discussions we've had 4 internally these would be pathways that would branch 5 very early in your licensing process.                      You would have 6 to choose one or the other.
7                  MEMBER HALNON:          Thanks.
8                  CHAIR    PETTI:          So    I    have  a  question, 9 Travis.        Does this -- Boyce.            Sorry --
10                  MR. TRAVIS: I get it all the time. Don't 11 worry.
12                  CHAIR PETTI:        Yes.      Does this look closer 13 to research in test reactor framework or closer to say 14 Part 50 framework, or do you see it as right down the 15 middle?
16                  MR. TRAVIS: I would say it's more than 90 17 percent closer to the Part 50 framework.                      It's not a 18 one for one because -- I mean, so the language in 50 19 and 52 in some cases is a single sentence for a 20 requirement, an analytical requirement that we maybe 21 expand on in the rule language that we envision here.
22 It wouldn't constitute new requirements, but it would 23 kind of more better explain the analytical and SSC 24 quality        requirements        associated          with    different 25 classification of event components.                      And so in that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
216 1 respect it is very much -- draws heavily on the 2 existing 50 and 52 framework.
3                    CHAIR PETTI: So again, I just -- and help 4 me because I may be wrong.                            I thought that the 5 feedback        that    you      guys      had      obtained      from      the 6 stakeholders was many of the -- let's call them SMR-7 sized systems were going to use what's a part of an 8 LMP and the stakeholders that wanted something simple 9 were down with the more micro reactor vendors.                              And I 10 think they were maybe hoping for something closer to 11 research        test    reactors        because          the  hazards        are 12 similar.          But that's not where you're going.                          So I 13 think it would be interesting to see what sort of 14 response you get from stakeholders.
15                    MR. TRAVIS:          Yes, so before I move onto 16 other questions I just want to kind of modify what I 17 said a little bit.              This approach would allow for a 18 number of different options under this framework.
19 Again the requirements are at a fairly high level. It 20 could        for  a  simple        reactor        --    the    corresponding 21 analysis        could    be    simple        to    meet    some  of    these 22 requirements.
23                    They are more deterministic in nature and 24 they lay out a set of I'll say guardrails for the 25 different event classes that you need to fill in --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
217 1 color within the lines so that we can determine that 2 you can -- the staff has reasonable assurance that you 3 can      construct,    build,        operate,        and maintain      the 4 facility at the levels that you've provided.                    But how 5 you do that for a simple small reactor could involve 6 less analysis and less -- I mean, this approach would 7 allow for less analysis in some cases if you could 8 demonstrate that level of safety.
9                  CHAIR PETTI: Yes, and would you guys; and 10 I know this is early, have any plan for tabletopping 11 some of this?        I think about the heat pipe reactor 12 which is so different than any of the systems that 13 we've seen.      I mean, you guys have -- there have been 14 tabletops for salt and sodium and gas, but heat pipe 15 is a little different and -- to make sure you don't 16 miss something, you know?
17                  MR. TRAVIS: Yes, I guess I'll say the NRC 18 participated in tabletop exercises, but those were 19 voluntary activities conducted by applicants with 20 relatively extensive technological knowledge on those 21 designs.      I don't know if anyone from the staff has 22 more to provide than that.
23                  Bill, maybe?
24                  MR. RECKLEY:        No, I mean we have observed 25 some of those, but I think what Dave would be talking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
218 1 about would probably be more substantial than what we 2 sat in for eVinci, for example.
3                  CHAIR    PETTI:          Right.        Right.        Yes.
4 Thanks.
5                  MS. VALLIERE:            And, Dave, this is Nan 6 Valliere.        I just wanted to add one thought to your 7 comment        about  who's      requesting          the  deterministic 8 options.        And Bill alluded to this, or I guess it was 9 Boyce that alluded to this earlier that one of the 10 reasons; and frankly one of the reasons we're really 11 pursuing this, is that some designers want to pursue 12 reactors on international markets, and some of those 13 designers who have made those comments have been SMRs.
14                  CHAIR    PETTI:          Okay.        Good  to    know.
15 Thanks.
16                  MEMBER REMPE: I'm hearing silence, so I'm 17 going to go next unless somebody wants to get ahead of 18 me.
19                  Earlier in the meeting today there was an 20 exchange between Vesna and me and I'm looking at your 21 slides and I'm still confused.                    It's very fuzzy, and 22 maybe that's because you haven't decided yet with what 23 the language will be in this new option, but is it 24 possible to come in without something that sort of 25 looks like a PRA to select the maximum credible NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
219 1 accident?      Because the slides don't -- it says some 2 people are trying to not have a PRA or they just want 3 to use it for confirmatory behavior.
4                  Now for confirmatory behavior that's fine 5 with me, but to not have a PRA or something that looks 6 sort of like it, and it doesn't need to have the QA 7 required for when it's submitted to the NRC, but 8 something that's -- has the structure.                      And that's 9 what Vesna was emphasizing in her vision.                        That I 10 think is important.              Where are you guys going with 11 this because it's still not clear to me?
12                  MR. TRAVIS: So, I'll take a crack at that 13 and if it doesn't answer your question, we can have 14 someone else give it a go.
15                  As  is    currently          envisioned    for      this 16 deterministic option, we would be consistent with the 17 existing      Part    50      and      52      rulemaking    and      the 18 Commission's policy on PRA such that we would require 19 applicants to have a PRA and we would expect that risk 20 insights      would    be      used      to      inform  the    design, 21 construction, operation such that there's an extremely 22 low probability of accidents and an extremely low 23 probability of significant release of radioactive 24 material, but we wouldn't be specifying a use case for 25 the PRA or -- I mean in effect there would need to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309        www.nealrgross.com
 
220 1 a PRA.          The level of the staff's review would be 2 commensurate          with    the    use    of    that    PRA  in    their 3 application and there would be no formal requirements 4 on how that PRA would be used.
5                    MEMBER REMPE:          So although they're going 6 to an alignment of Part 50 and 52, Part 50 folks in 7 the old days did not have to have a PRA, right?
8                    MR. TRAVIS:        That is correct.            Same for 9 the Commission Policy Statement on PRA.                          As you're 10 probably aware all of the existing Part 50 and 52 11 applicants for power reactors have a PRA in some form 12 or fashion.          And it is used in other cases such as in 13 the Oversight Program and in informing various rules 14 within        Part  50  that      is    it    advantageous      for      an 15 applicant to have a PRA?                    And so yes, while it is 16 technically true that as of right now a Part 50 17 applicant does not have a regulatory requirement to 18 have a PRA, the Commission has an expectation that 19 they will.        And the Part 50 and 52 rulemaking that is 20 going on right now would bring those concepts into 21 alignment.
22                    MEMBER REMPE:        Right.        So then I think --
23 I hope the wording that you come up with will make it 24 clear it is expected or that an applicant will have a 25 PRA and the review will be commensurate with the use.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
221 1 That would be okay, but to not have it clearly out 2 there I think would be problematic.                  But we see what 3 you guys come up with.
4                And the other thing is will it be that 5 it's -- it's not really submitted but it's there for 6 review if they want to do it is your vision on this, 7 or is that too far in the details to know yet on how 8 the staff would have access to this PRA?
9                MR. TRAVIS:        I'd like to say it's too far 10 in the details, but I definitely wouldn't -- I would 11 expect it to be more consistent with what we see now 12 where it's not submitted, where there's a report or 13 something to that effect.            But I think beyond that it 14 is down in the details. Between the rule language and 15 the practical implementation it's a little far afield 16 for me to envision exactly how it's going to work. So 17 I apologize for that.
18                MEMBER REMPE:          That's fine.        I just am 19 thinking about what's coming down the pike.                        Thank 20 you.
21                MR. SEGALA:        This is John Segala from NRR 22 Advance Reactors.        I just wanted to add for Joy's 23 benefit, we kind of have three pathways going on.                        We 24 have the Part 53 PRA in a lead role and then we have 25 the effort that Boyce is working on.                    And there's a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
222 1 group        of  people    working        with      him  on  this      more 2 traditional        deterministic          approach      with  PRA    in    a 3 supporting role.            And then we have a third working 4 group        that's  off    looking        at    a  more  conservative 5 bounding        deterministic        approach          using  an  MHA      and 6 whether we could use methods such as integrated safety 7 assessments, ISAs, things like that maybe in lieu of 8 a PRA.        That effort is much earlier, is not as far 9 along as the effort that Boyce is working on.                            It's 10 something that we're looking at the feasibility of it 11 now.
12                    So we're kind of looking at the three 13 different pathways based on the feedback we've gotten 14 from stakeholders.              We have the lead role is for 15 people that may be interested in using the Licensing 16 Monitorization Project. The traditional deterministic 17 PRA in a supporting role might be people that want to 18 go international with their designs first and then 19 come to the U.S. and not have to redo their whole 20 application. And then this third feasibility approach 21 on    the    bounding    deterministic            MHA  approach      we're 22 looking at for the really small simple designs and to 23 see if there's something that we can accommodate 24 there.
25                    I don't know if that -- does that help NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
223 1 answer your question?
2                  MEMBER REMPE: Well, then, yes, we're back 3 -- yes, there is -- you're -- it's way -- it's a small 4 effort, but yes, you are thinking about allowing them 5 to do this, which I think that was what you heard from 6 the stakeholders, some of them, that they wanted that, 7 too.      And so we'll see where it goes, but I think it 8 will      impact  your    schedule        to      get    this  done      and 9 included into the Part 53 language.
10                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: This is Vesna again.
11 I just want to say I didn't really engage too much 12 today because it was my feeling, and you can tell me 13 if I'm wrong, that you guys just right breaking this 14 into the PRA leading, with the PRA supporting, and you 15 didn't really -- you're not far in development of 16 this.        So I sort of like say okay, this is in the 17 pioneering phases of development.                        But this was the 18 first time I heard that you have -- a third approach 19 will be pure deterministic because I thought you 20 called deterministic one way that PRA is in supporting 21 role.
22                  So  basically          if      you    will    have        a 23 deterministic approach does that mean that you're 24 going to have a technology-inclusive risk-inform and 25 technology-inclusive non-risk-informed application?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
224 1 Because you know you cannot have a risk-informed 2 application which is deterministic completely. I mean 3 that doesn't make any sense.                        So -- and a risk-4 informed, it's not risk-based. It is informed because 5 the      PRA  and  deterministic            are      sort  of    married 6 together.
7                  Now who takes the leading role can be 8 different and you can have application with takes that 9 -- where the PRA takes the leading role and the 10 application with deterministic takes the leading role, 11 but they have to be together.                  So I mean I don't see 12 how can you have a third approach, but I didn't even 13 realize this until this moment.                      So am I right that 14 this is something you're just developing now and you 15 are not yet there to present how you visualize this is 16 going to look like?
17                  MR. TRAVIS:        So I'll try and characterize 18 this appropriately. What John just discussed -- there 19 are three options under consideration.                      The first is 20 the PRA in a leading role, and that can be seen in the 21 Part      53  language      that      Bill      has    discussed,        the 22 extensive      Part  53,      all    the      subparts,    et    cetera.
23 That's PRA in a leading role, heavily informed by the 24 Licensing Modernization Project.
25                  The option that I just talked about would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
225 1 be    the    PRA  in  a  supporting          role.      What's    being 2 referred to here is deterministic and I think that's 3 where some of the confusion may arise in that it's a 4 more traditional option that uses PRA insights to 5 confirm        deterministic        design        criteria    and    safety 6 analysis that are guided by things like the single 7 failure criterion prescribed design conditions.
8                    Then as you noted, there is a third option 9 very much in the nascent stages being explored by the 10 staff which is a more -- I'm about to use the word 11 deterministic, and that's not the correct word here --
12 an      approach    is    more      centered          on  a  worst-case 13 consequence-oriented approach that would not involve 14 a PRA or involve a PRA in a substantially smaller role 15 than either of the two things that we just talked 16 about and that might involve things like integrated 17 safety assessments and other ways to assess plant 18 safety focused on consequences.                          That approach is 19 still very much early in development and we do not 20 have language to share or -- and was not covered by 21 the slides that you saw today in large part.
22                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Then you will have 23 to come with some really names which better reflect.
24 I think you're talking about some simplified approach 25 when you're not taught that your logical content NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
226 1 cannot cause the severe accidents and things like 2 that.        So but you don't need to develop too much of 3 these details.
4                    The other thing which I want to mention, 5 given that I'm European and I work for French company 6 for long part, when you talk about the international 7 look on the PRA, you should really take step back.
8 You      have    --    the      NRC    have        always    been    leader 9 internationally when it comes to the PRA since '95 in 10 the PRA role.          And now stepping back to satisfy that, 11 that would not make any sense. Europe for example was 12 always going two step behind the regulation when it 13 comes to the risk-informed application and things like 14 that.        And I think that actually stepping back would 15 be real step back.              So I just want to mention that.
16 Okay?
17                    I was actually always proud of the NRC 18 lead in -- U.S. lead in the PRA development.
19                    MR. TRAVIS:          I think we appreciate your 20 comment        and  I  think      we're      just      trying  to    be    as 21 responsive as possible to the needs across a very 22 diverse spectrum of applicants and stakeholders.
23                    CHAIR PETTI: Any other comments, members?
24 I know it's getting late and it's been a long day.
25                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                  But we are done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309            www.nealrgross.com
 
227 1                CHAIR PETTI:          Yes.        So I just want to 2 thank you, Bill, Nan, Boyce and others, for these 3 marathon sessions.        Your ability to do this for so 4 long is really good.          Even though we had a hiccup at 5 the beginning, we made it through.                    I think we really 6 look forward to the October meeting where we're going 7 to be able to discuss these last few items in more 8 detail.
9                With  that      said      and    hearing    no    other 10 comments, let's adjourn the meeting and call it a day.
11 Thank you.
12                (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 5:26 p.m.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309          www.nealrgross.com
 
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Future Plant Designs Subcommittee 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors September 23-24, 2021 1
 
September 23rd Agenda 9:30am - 9:40am  Opening Remarks & Staff Introductions 9:40am - 1:00pm  Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements; Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis 1:00pm - 2:00pm  Lunch Break 2:00pm - 3:15pm  Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 3:15pm - 4:30pm  Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information 4:30pm - 4:45pm  Break 4:45pm - 5:50pm  Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements 5:50pm - 6:00pm  Discussion 2
 
NRC Staff Plan to Develop Part 53 Subpart B        Subpart C        Subpart D            Subpart E      Subpart F        Subpart G Project Life Cycle Design and            Siting          Construction      Operation    Decommission Requirements Definition      Analysis
* Safety Objectives                            External                          Configuration      Funding
* Safety Criteria              System          Hazards          Construction/      Control
                              & Component                          Manufacturing                    Termination
* Safety Functions Design              Site                            Surveillance Characteristics        Ensuring      Maintenance Analysis                            Capabilities/
Requirements    Environmental        Reliabilities    Staffing &
Considerations                        Human Factors Safety                            Change Control Categorization
                                & Special                          Environmental      Programs Treatment                            Considerations    Security, EP Facility Safety Program Other              Plant/Site (Design, Construction, Configuration Control)
Clarify Subpart A General Provisions  Analyses (Prevention, Mitigation, Compare to Criteria)                                Controls and Subpart J Admin & Reporting Plant Documents (Systems, Procedures, etc.)                                          Distinctions Between Other 10 CFR Parts            LB Documents (Applications, SAR, TS, etc.)                Subparts H & I 3
 
NRC Staff Engagement Plan ACRS Interactions 4
 
Part 53 Licensing Framework and Subpart Structure 5
 
Part 53 Licensing Framework and Subpart Structure
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 6
 
Part 53 Licensing Framework and Subpart Structure Requirements for both normal operations and licensing basis events (LBEs)
Safety objective  Limit the possibility of an immediate threat to the public health and safety (§ 53.200)
Safety functions  Primary safety function: limit release of radioactive material during normal operations and LBEs. Additional safety functions (e.g., controlling heat generation, heat removal, and chemical interactions) must be defined. Both primary and additional safety functions are required to meet the safety criteria and are fulfilled by design features and programmatic controls. (§ 53.230)
Requirements for normal operations (i.e., routine operations or planned events)
Safety criteria    Comply with public dose limits in Part 20. Meet ALARA.
(§ 53.260)
Design features    Design features must be defined for each advanced nuclear plant such that the plant will satisfy § 53.260 (§ 53.425)
Functional design  Functional design criteria must be provided to show that § 53.260 dose limit is met criteria
(§ 53.425) 7
 
Part 53 Licensing Framework and Subpart Structure Requirements for LBEs (i.e., unplanned events and including AOOs, DBEs, DBAs, and BDBEs) (§ 53.240)
DBAs                                                        LBEs that are not DBAs LBE classifications          Design basis accidents (DBAs)                              Anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs)
(§ 53.020)
DBAs are derived from design basis events (DBEs) but        Unlikely event sequences assume that only safety related SSCs remain functional      (known in the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) as DBEs) to respond to accidents.
(§ 53.020, § 53.450(f))                                    Very unlikely event sequences (known in the LMP as beyond design basis events (BDBEs))
Safety criteria              25 rem total effective dose equivalent                      Ensure that LBEs are addressed and provide DID, and maintain
[i.e., 10 CFR 50.34 dose limit] for events with an upper  overall cumulative risk from LBEs such that potential for immediate bound frequency greater than 1x10-4 at exclusion area      health effects remains below 5 x 10-7 and latent health effects boundary (EAB) (§ 53.210)                                  remains below 2 x 10-7 [i.e., Quantitative Health Objectives (QHOs)]
(§ 53.220)
Alternative criteria may be used. (§ 53.470)
Structures, systems, and      Safety related SSCs (§ 53.020)                              Take into account the expected responses (successes and failures) components (SSCs)                                                                        of all SSCs within the plant, regardless of safety classification responding to the LBE                                                                    (§ 53.020)
Design features              Design features must be defined for each advanced nuclear plant such that the plant will satisfy §§ 53.210 and 53.220. Design features ensure safety functions (§ 53.230) are fulfilled during LBEs. (§ 53.400)
Functional design criteria    Functional design criteria must be defined per § 53.400    Functional design criteria must be defined to show § 53.220 is met to show § 53.210 is met (§ 53.410)                          (§ 53.420)
Analysis                      Use a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to identify the  All LBEs must be analyzed in PRA. Analysis must demonstrate DBEs and then use deterministic methods to analyze          compliance with safety criteria in § 53.220 and evaluation criteria DBAs and demonstrate compliance with safety criteria in    per § 53.450(e).
                              § 53.210 (§ 53.450(f))                                      (§§ 53.450(a) and (e))
Defense in depth (DID)        N/A -- not directly considered in establishing DBAs (DID    DID is necessary for SSCs relied upon to meet safety criteria in for DBAs is provided for by addressing the other LBEs)      § 53.220 or safety functions in § 53.230 (§ 53.250)
Special treatment            Tech specs, quality assurance (QA) programs, etc.          Licensee programs
(§ 53.020)                                                                                                                                                  8
 
ACRS Interim Letter (May 30, 2021)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
: 1. The overall structure of Subparts A through I provides a logical framework for the rule. It is complete with respect to topics that must be covered and addresses the lifetime of a power reactor. It will be helpful to all applicants and to the NRC staff. (maintained structure)
: 2. A coherent and detailed explanation of the integrated intent of the rule and its associated design-specific guidance should be developed as soon as possible and enshrined in the rule itself. (working)
: 3. Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements, is coming together, but we would like to offer a few specific comments and see some further improvements:
: a. To this point in the development, we find no value in the two-tiered approach to safety requirements. Alternative integral risk criteria to the quantitative health objectives (QHOs) should be investigated. (Subpart B, revised)
: b. Desired flexibility to address the broad range of technologies and power levels is provided by establishing high-level safety criteria that must be assured in top-down fashion as the applicant identifies needed lower-level safety functions. This allows novel technologies to make their safety case specific to their designs, while still precluding release of radioactive materials from the facility. (Subpart B)
: c. The rule should include a set of over-arching general principles in one place (Subpart B)
(working, largely related to quality assurance requirements) 9
 
ACRS Interim Letter (continued)
: d. The rule should state that safety analyses must demonstrate that for normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs) all safety related barriers to release are maintained. (Subpart C, revised)
: e. The rule should state that safety analyses must demonstrate that Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) achieve and maintain a safe, stable, and subcritical condition. (Subparts C & D, revised)
: 4. Subpart C, Design and Analysis Requirements, is generally in good shape.
: a. The requirement for risk-informed analysis is appropriate if the use of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is approached in a graded fashion commensurate with the potential consequences and the simplicity of the design. (Subpart C and working on changes to support more deterministic alternative)
: b. The requirements for selection and analysis of DBAs must be clarified. (Subpart C, revised)
: c. The rule eliminates single failure criteria but needs to define the process that replaces it.
(working)
: 5. The two recommendations in our first letter report on 10 CFR Part 53 of October 21, 2020, still apply: for novel designs with uncertainties due to incompleteness in the knowledge base, systematic searches for hazards, initiating events, and accident scenarios should be required; and a licensing pathway including additional testing and monitoring akin to prototype testing should be available. (Subpart C and Subpart H) 10
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 11
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements 3rd Iteration 12
 
Third Iteration of Subparts B & C
* An important note for this iteration is that the staff is actively assessing various alternative design/licensing approaches to address comments that the rulemaking should support methodologies that are less reliant on PRA.
* The development of recent subparts (including this iteration of Subparts B and C) primarily reflects a risk-informed, PRA-centered approach.
* The staff is developing alternative approaches and related preliminary rule sections for a future iteration that can be considered by and discussed with the ACRS 13
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.200, Safety Objectives Each commercial nuclear plant must be designed, constructed, operated, and decommissioned to limit the possibility of an immediate threat to the public health and safety. In addition, each commercial nuclear plant must take such additional measures as may be appropriate when considering potential risks to public health and safety. These safety objectives shall be carried out by meeting the safety criteria identified in this subpart.
* No changes from the previously released preliminary language other than a conforming change related to referring to commercial nuclear plant licensed under this part versus advanced nuclear plant.
14
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.210, Safety Criteria for Design Basis Accidents Design features and programmatic controls must be provided for each commercial nuclear plant such that analyses of design basis accidents in accordance with § 53.240 demonstrate the following:
(a) An individual located at any point on the boundary of the exclusion area for any 2-hour period following the onset of the postulated fission product release would not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem (250 mSv) total effective dose equivalent; and (b) An individual located at any point on the outer boundary of the low population zone who is exposed to the radioactive cloud resulting from the postulated fission product release (during the entire period of its passage) would not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem (250 mSv) total effective dose equivalent.
* Section titles changed to Safety Criteria for Design Basis Accidents to address numerous comments related to the use of first tier and second tier safety criteria.
* Intended to better describe the role of the two categories of safety criteria, the relationship between these safety criteria and the different types of LBEs, and the relationship to later sections in Subpart B and C.
* Normal operations moved to dedicated section (also for § 53.220) 15
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.220, Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other than Design Basis Accidents Design features and programmatic controls must be provided to:
(a) Ensure plant structures, systems and components (SSCs), personnel, and programs provide the necessary capabilities and maintain the necessary reliability to address licensing basis events in accordance with § 53.240 and provide measures for defense-in-depth in accordance with § 53.250; and (b) Maintain overall cumulative plant risk from licensing basis events such that the risk to an average individual within the vicinity of the plant receiving a radiation dose with the potential for immediate health effects remains below five in 10 million years, and the risk to such an individual receiving a radiation dose with the potential to cause latent health effects remains below two in one million years
* Section titles changed to Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other Than Design Basis Accidents to address numerous comments related to the use of first tier and second tier safety criteria.
* Intended to better describe the role of the two categories of safety criteria, the relationship between these safety criteria and the different types of LBEs, and the relationship to later sections in Subpart B and C.
16
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.230, Safety Functions (a) The primary safety function is limiting the release of radioactive materials from the facility and must be maintained during routine operation and for licensing basis events over the life of the plant.
(b) Additional safety functions supporting the retention of radioactive materials during licensing basis eventssuch as controlling heat generation, heat removal, and chemical interactions--must be defined.
(c) The primary and additional safety functions are required to meet the safety criteria defined in §§ 53.210 and 53.220 and are fulfilled by the design features and programmatic controls specified throughout this part.
* Conforming changes to reflect changes to §§ 53.210 and 53.220.
* Reactivity included within heat generation at this level and addressed more specifically within Subpart C for those functions related to the reactor core 17
 
Technology-Inclusive Methodology Primary Safety Function                What function(s)
(e.g., a barrier, cooling) are (limiting release of radioactive materials)    needed to satisfy safety Primary (MHTGR example)                    criteria Safety Functions Additional Reactivity/Heat                                    Chemical Heat Removal Generation                                      Interactions What design features (e.g., a structure, system)
Design Features        Design Features                    are provided to fulfill the Design Features                                                                    safety function(s)
(and Human Actions)
Functional              Functional                  What design criteria (e.g., leak rate, cooling Functional Design            Design Criteria          Design Criteria                capacity) are needed for Criteria                                                                      design feature (Personnel; Concept of Operations) 18
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.240, Licensing Basis Events Licensing basis events must be identified for each commercial nuclear plant and analyzed in accordance with § 53.450 to support assessments of the safety requirements in this subpart. The licensing basis events must address combinations of malfunctions of plant SSCs, human errors, and the effects of external hazards ranging from anticipated operational occurrences to very unlikely event sequences with estimated frequencies well below the frequency of events expected to occur in the life of the commercial nuclear plant. The analysis of licensing basis events must include analysis of one or more design basis accidents in accordance with § 53.450(f). The analysis of licensing basis events must be used to confirm the adequacy of design features and programmatic controls needed to satisfy safety criteria defined in §§ 53.210 and 53.220 and to establish related functional requirements for plant SSCs, personnel, and programs.
* Conforming changes to reflect changes to §§ 53.210 and 53.220.
19
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.250, Defense in Depth Measures must be taken for each commercial nuclear plant to ensure appropriate defense in depth is provided to compensate for uncertainties such that there is high confidence that the safety criteria in this subpart are met over the life of the plant. The uncertainties to be considered include those related to the state of knowledge and modeling capabilities, the ability of barriers to limit the release of radioactive materials from the facility during routine operation and for licensing basis events, and those related to the reliability and performance of plant SSCs and personnel, and programmatic controls. No single engineered design feature, human action, and or programmatic control, no matter how robust, should be exclusively relied upon to meet the safety criteria of § 53.220 or the safety functions defined in accordance with § 53.230.
* Only conforming changes 20
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.260, Normal Operations (a) Maximum public dose. Licensees under this part must ensure that the contribution to total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from normal plant operation does not exceed the public dose limits provided in Subpart D to 10 CFR part 20.
(b) As low as reasonably achievable. Design features and programmatic controls must be established such that the estimated total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from effluents resulting from normal plant operation are as low as is reasonably achievable in accordance with 10 CFR part 20 [consider also possible updates for consistency with requirements in 10 CFR 50.34a, Appendix I to part 50, and 40 CFR part 190].
* Added as a result of the removal of normal operations from
    §§ 53.210 and 53.220.
* The reorganization of the preliminary rule language does not change the technical requirements from those included in the previously released preliminary rule language.
* Paragraph (a) refers to licensees in recognition that requirement is actual plant performance measure 21
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements
§ 53.270, Protection of Plant Workers (a) Maximum occupational dose. Licensees under this part must ensure that radiological dose to plant workers does not exceed the occupational dose limits provided in subpart C to 10 CFR part 20.
(b) As low as reasonably achievable. As required by Subpart B to 10 CFR part 20, design features and programmatic controls must, to the extent practical, be based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational doses that are as low as is reasonably achievable.
* Renumbered and includes conforming changes to reflect the proposed revisions in previous sections.
* Section 53.270(a) is revised to require licensees under this part to ensure that the dose to plant workers does not exceed limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and in recognition that only a combination of design features and programmatic controls can ensure actual worker doses remain below Part 20 limits.
22
 
Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements Discussion 23
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 24
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis 3rd Iteration 25
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis
* § 53.400, Design Features for Licensing Basis Events o Conforming changes to reflect changes to §§ 53.210 and 53.220 and to better align design features under § 53.400 to those needed to prevent or mitigate LBEs (i.e., unplanned events).
* § 53.410, Functional Design Criteria for Design Basis Accidents o Conforming changes to reflect changes to § 53.210 (Safety Criteria for Design Basis Accidents), which include relocating requirements for normal operations and emphasizing the tie to DBAs.
* § 53.420, Functional Design Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other than Design Basis Accidents o Conforming changes to reflect changes to § 53.220 (Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other Than Design Basis Accidents),
which include relocating requirements for normal operations and emphasizing the tie to LBEs such as anticipated operational occurrences, unlikely event sequences, and highly unlikely event sequences.
26
 
Technology-Inclusive Methodology Primary Safety Function                What function(s)
(e.g., a barrier, cooling) are (limiting release of radioactive materials)    needed to satisfy safety Primary (MHTGR example)                    criteria Safety Functions Additional Reactivity/Heat                                    Chemical Heat Removal Generation                                      Interactions What design features (e.g., a structure, system)
Design Features        Design Features                    are provided to fulfill the Design Features                                                                    safety function(s)
(and Human Actions)
Functional              Functional                  What design criteria (e.g., leak rate, cooling Functional Design            Design Criteria          Design Criteria                capacity) are needed for Criteria                                                                      design feature (Personnel; Concept of Operations) 27
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis
* § 53.425, Design Features and Functional Design Criteria for Normal Operations o Addition of this section results from the removal of normal operations from §§ 53.210 and 53.220 and the movement of normal operations in Subpart B to § 53.260.
o This section and the following presents a challenge in terms of implementing a performance-based approach that recognizes the roles of design features and programmatic controls. Staff is seeking suggestions on how an integrated framework can be best incorporated into the subparts of lifecycle stages.
* § 53.430, Design Features and Functional Design Criteria for Protection of Plant Workers o Conforming changes to reflect renumbering of § 53.270.
28
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis
* § 53.440, Design Requirements o Conforming changes to reflect changes to §§ 53.210 and 53.220.
o Addition of paragraph (c) results from the need for designers to evaluate and consider, in both the design and integrity assessment programs, possible degradation mechanisms such as aging, fatigue, and chemical interactions.
o Paragraph (f) added to provide additional discussion for fire protection.
o Paragraphs (g) & (h) add requirements for longer term capabilities to ensure reactor and waste stores can achieve and maintain subcritical conditions and cooling. (note that longer term may refer to after achieving a safe stable end state in the LBE analysis) o Paragraph (i) added to reinforce that the design and analyses activities under Part 53 are based on the concept of a nuclear plant and need to consider the number of units and radioactive sources and possible interactions between them.
29
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis
* § 53.450, Analysis Requirements o Paragraph (a) adds conforming changes to reflect changes to
    § 53.220 (Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other Than Design Basis Accidents) and removes degradation mechanisms, which are better addressed through the design and programmatic requirements defined elsewhere in Part 53.
o Paragraph (e) revised to include requirements to define evaluation criteria for specific event categories and a means to identify event sequences deemed significant for controlling risks posed to public health and safety.
o Paragraph (f) is revised to clarify the selection of DBAs.
o Paragraph (g) updated for fire protection analysis.
30
 
First Principles See: SECY-18-0096, Functional Containment Performance Criteria for Non-Light-Water-Reactors, INL/EXT-20-58717, Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities, and SECY-19-0117, Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology..
31
 
Functional Containment (SECY-18-0096) 32
 
Risk-significant LBEs (example)
NEI 18-04 33
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis
* § 53.460, Safety Categorization and Special Treatment o No changes
* § 53.470, Application of Analytical Safety Margins to Operational Flexibilities o Conforming changes to reflect changes to §§ 53.210 and 53.450.
* § 53.480, Design Control Quality Assurance o No changes
* § 53.490, Design and Analyses Interfaces o No changes 34
 
Subpart C - Requirements for Design and Analysis Discussion 35
 
MEETING BREAK Meeting to resume in 1 hour 36
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 37
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals Part 1: LWAs, ESPs, SDAs, DCs 38
 
Leveraging and Combining Existing Licensing Processes Commercial Operations Fuel Load Operating License                                                          Site (OL)                                                            selected Combined License (COL)
Use OL or custom COL to develop a CP based on        Site subsequent DC SDA, ML or DC      selected Standard Design            Manufacturing                Design Approval (SDA)            License (ML)            Certification(DC)
Part 50 Site selected                                                            Part 52 CP and COL may reference Early Site Permit (ESP)                              Part 53 Construction Permit (CP) 39
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* Several issues relate to items being addressed in the ongoing lessons learned rulemaking for Parts 50 and 52 and reconciliation will occur later.
o The first iteration of Subpart H largely reflects the current version of Parts 50 and 52.
* Application requirements tailored to match Part 53 technical requirements. TICAP/ARCAP guidance will support Part 53.
* § 53.1100 Filing of application for licenses, certifications or approvals; oath or affirmation.
o Provides the equivalent of § 50.30 for general administrative requirements for filing applications.
* § 53.1110 Combining applications o Provides the equivalent of §§ 50.31 and 52.8 and allows the combining in one application several applications for different kinds of licenses.
* § 53.1120 Elimination of repetition o Provides the equivalent of § 50.32 and allows applicants to incorporate by reference information contained in previous applications or reports.
40
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* § 53.1130 Contents of applications; general information o Provides the equivalent of § 50.33 for general content information applicable to all applications or a subset of applications.
o Paragraphs on emergency plans here and throughout Subpart H will be updated following completion of the rulemaking on Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies
* § 53.1135 Environmental conditions o Provides the equivalent of § 50.36(b) noting that certain licenses may include conditions to address environmental issues.
* § 53.1140 Agreement limiting access to Classified Information o Provides the equivalent of § 50.37 requirements related to controls over Restricted Data or classified National Security Information.
* § 53.1150 Ineligibility of certain applicants o Provides the equivalent of § 50.38 and covers restrictions related to foreign owned, controlled, or dominated applicants.
* § 53.1160 Public inspection of applications o Provides the equivalent of § 50.39 provisions for public inspection of applications.
41
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* § 53.1162 Relationship between sections o This is a new section that will be populated later to include text from the Part 52 sections on Relation to other subparts, as well as explain relationships with Part 50 licensing processes.
* § 53.1165 Site suitability reviews o Provides the equivalent of the Part 50, Appendix Q and Part 2, Subpart F site suitability review process.
o Covers procedures for the filing, staff review, and referral to the ACRS of requests for early review of one or more site suitability issues relating to the construction and operation of facilities separately from and prior to the submittal of applications for CPs for the facilities (predecessor to ESPs).
o Staff is seeking stakeholder input as to whether the process should be carried forward into Part 53.
* § 53.1170 Limited work authorizations (LWAs) o Provides the equivalent of § 50.10 requirements for seeking an LWA.
o In Part 53, the definition of construction from § 50.10(a) is contained in the Subpart A definitions.
42
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* §§ 53.1180-53.1199 Early site permits o These sections are largely copied from the existing Part 52 equivalent sections.
o § 53.1185 Contents of applications; technical information (a)(1)(ix) An analysis of licensing basis events associated with potential designs and their results, as described in § 53.240, considered in the design to determine compliance with the safety criteria in §§ 53.210 and 53.220, or more restrictive alternative evaluation criteria elected under
          § 53.470 of this part. This analysis description must address the elements in §§ 53.450(e) and 53.450(f), as applicable for the licensing basis events associated with potential designs that the applicant may be considering.
            - The phrase licensing basis events associated with potential designs is meant to acknowledge that the applicant may be considering one or more designs in the evaluation of its proposed site, similar to the plant parameter envelope approach that has been used by ESP applicants under Part 52.
(a)(1)(xi) A description of the quality assurance program required by
          § 53.XX applied to site-related activities for the future design, fabrication, construction, and testing of the structures, systems, and components of a facility or facilities that may be constructed on the site.
            - The reference to § 53.XX is to a new QA section that will be added to Subpart D, Siting Requirements, as the staff inadvertently failed to include such a requirement for siting activities in the first iteration of Subpart D.
43
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* §§ 53.1220-53.1229 Standard design approvals o These sections are largely copied from the existing Part 52 equivalent sections.
o § 53.1225 Contents of applications; technical information If the applicant seeks review of a major portion of a standard design, the application need only contain the information required by this section to the extent the requirements are applicable to the major portion of the standard design for which NRC staff approval is sought. If an applicant seeks approval of a major portion of the design, the scope of the application for which approval is sought must include all functional design criteria as can be identified at that stage of design. Such applicants must identify conditions related to interfaces with systems outside the scope of the major portion of the standard design for which NRC staff approval is sought, and functional or physical boundary conditions between the major portion of the standard design for which NRC staff approval is sought and the remainder of the standard design. These conditions must be demonstrated when the standard design approval is incorporated into a subsequent construction permit, design certification, manufacturing license, or combined license application.
Additional discussion regarding SDAs for a major portion of a standard design can be found in the NRCs "A Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light Water Reactors, and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance report Clarifying Major Portions of a Reactor Design in Support of a Standard Design Approval (ML17128A507) 44
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
*      §§ 53.1230-53.1239 Standard design certifications o These sections are largely copied from the existing Part 52 equivalent sections.
o § 53.1235 Contents of applications; technical information o (a) FSAR (Final safety analysis report)
(1) Site Parameters              (6) Programmatic Controls and            (11) Safety and Security    (16) Analytical Margins Interfaces (2) General Plant Description    (7) Design Features and Functional        (12) Probabilistic Risk    (17) Design and Analyses Design Criteria for the Protection of    Assessment                  Quality Assurance Plant Workers (3) Design Features -            (8) Programmatic Controls for            (13) Analyses              (18) Design and Analyses Licensing Basis Events          Protection of Plant Workers                                          Interfaces (4) Design Features and          (9) Codes and Standards                  (14) PRA Maintenance        (19) Design Features and Functional Design Criteria -                                                                          Controls to Address the Normal Operations                                                                                      Minimization of Contamination (5) Functional Design Criteria  (10) Materials                            (15) Special Treatments    (20) Interface Requirements
- Licensing Basis Events o (b) Other application content (1) Environmental Report      (3) Availability Controls (if not  (5) Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and      (7) Safeguards included in the FSAR)              Acceptance Criteria                        Information (2) Technical Specifications  (4) Technical Qualifications        (6) Integrity Assessment Program 45
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
* § 53.1236, Review of applications, contains a new proposal for a DC applicant to reference an issued OL or custom COL with finality provisions like those for a DC applicant referencing an SDA
* Remainder of Subpart H addressing MLs, CPs, OLs, and COLs will be covered in October Subcommittee meeting 46
 
Subpart H - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals Discussion 47
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 48
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information 49
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1300, Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1310, Changes to Licensing Basis Information Requiring Prior NRC Approval o Introduces the requirements for proposing changes to the licensing basis information defined by licenses, orders, and regulations.
* § 53.1311, Application for Amendment of License o Provides the equivalent of § 50.90 for applications to amend an ESP, CP, OL, or COL issued under Part 53.
* § 53.1312, Public Notices; State Consultation o Provides the equivalent of § 50.91 for the NRCs processes related to applications to amend an ESP, CP, OL, or COL issued under Part 53.
* 53.1313, Issuance of Amendment o Provides the equivalent of § 50.92 for the NRCs processes related to applications to amend an ESP, CP, OL, or COL issued under Part 53.
50
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1315, Revising Certification Information Within a Design Certification Rule o Provides the requirements for the holder of an OL or COL issued under Part 53 that references a design certification rule to propose an exemption from the specified characteristics of the certified design.
o Other requirements related to design certification and changes to the DC by parties other than the holder of an OL or COL included in Subpart H.
* § 53.1316, Revising Design Information Within a Manufacturing License o From Subpart F of Part 52, provides the requirements for the holder of an OL or COL issued under Part 53 that references a ML to propose a departure from the specified characteristics of the manufactured reactor.
51
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1317, Amendments During Construction o Provides the requirements for amending the permit or license the holder of a CP or COL issued under Part 53.
o Paragraph (a) reflects the same requirements in § 50.35(b), while paragraph (b) reflects the process for Part 52 changes during construction.
* § 53.1320, Evaluating Changes and Updating Licensing Basis Information Without NRC Prior Approval o This section introduces the requirements for licensees to pursue changes to the licensing basis information in licensee controlled documents such as FSARs and program documents.
* § 53.1321, Updating Final Safety Analysis Reports o This section provides the equivalent of § 50.71 for the updating of FSARs.
o Assuming a risk-informed approach in Subpart C results in PRA information being in the FSAR and therefore a separate PRA update requirement (§ 50.71(h)) is not included in this iteration of Subpart I.
52
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1322, Evaluating Changes to Facility as Described in Final Safety Analysis Reports o Provides the equivalent of § 50.59 for evaluating changes to updated final safety analysis reports (UFSAR) and determining if a license amendment is required.
o Include a risk-informed approach for assessing the results of changes on LBEs and using criteria related to the impact on margins to acceptance criteria.
53
 
                                                § 53.1322(a)(2)(i)
(i) Does not result in a change to the frequency or consequences of an event sequence such that an event sequence previously deemed not risk significant becomes risk significant by the analyses performed in accordance with § 53.450(e).
NEI 18-04
  § 53.450(e)
The analyses must address event sequences from initiation to a defined end state and demonstrate that the functional design criteria required by § 53.420 provide sufficient barriers to the unplanned release of radionuclides to satisfy evaluation criteria defined for licensing basis events, to satisfy the safety criteria of § 53.220, and provide defense in depth as required by § 53.250. The methodology used to identify, categorize, and analyze licensing basis events must include a means to identify event sequences deemed significant for controlling the risks posed to public health and safety.
54
 
                                  § 53.1322(a)(2)(ii)
(ii) Does not result in a change to the frequency or consequences of an event sequence such that an event sequence deemed risk significant in accordance with
§ 53.450(e) has a decrease of 10 percent or more in the calculated margins to the LBE evaluation criteria required to be established in accordance with § 53.450(e).
NEI 18-04 55
 
                                        § 53.1322(a)(2)(iii)
(iii) Does not result in a change to the frequency or consequences of one or more event sequences such that the margin between the calculated cumulative risks posed by the commercial nuclear plant and the safety criteria of § 53.220 decreases by 10 percent or more.
§ 53.220 Safety Criteria for Licensing Basis Events Other Than Design Basis Accidents (b) Maintain overall cumulative plant risk from licensing basis events such that the risk to an average individual within the vicinity of the plant receiving a radiation dose with the potential for immediate health effects remains below five in 10 million years, and the risk to such an individual receiving a radiation dose with the potential to cause latent health effects remains below two in one million years.
56
 
                                    § 53.1322(a)(2)(iv)
(iv) Does not involve a departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in assessing margins in accordance with § 53.450(e) unless the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same, the revised method of evaluation has been previously approved by the NRC for the intended application, or the revised method of evaluation can be used in accordance with an NRC endorsed consensus code or standard.
§ 50.59(c)(1)(viii)
(viii) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.
57
 
                                                      § 53.1322(a)(2)(v)
(v) For commercial nuclear plants licensed under this part for which alternative evaluation criteria are applicable in accordance with § 53.470, does not result in a change to the frequency or consequences of event sequences such that the calculated margins between the results for event sequences evaluated in accordance with
§ 53.450(e) and the alternative evaluation criteria decreases by 25 percent or more.
NEI 18-04 (w/ 1 rem goal)
§ 53.470 Application of Analytical Safety Margins to Operational Flexibilities.
Where an applicant or licensee so chooses, alternative criteria more restrictive than those defined in §§ 53.220 and 53.450(e) may be adopted to support operational flexibilities (e.g., emergency planning requirements under Subpart F of this part). In such cases, applicants and licensees must ensure that the functional design criteria of § 53.420, the analysis requirements of § 53.450(e),
and identification of special treatment of SSCs and human actions under § 53.460 reflect and support the use of alternative criteria to obtain additional analytical safety margins. Licensees must ensure that measures taken to provide the analytical margins supporting operational flexibilities are incorporated into design features and programmatic controls and are maintained within programs required in other Subparts.
58
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1330, Control of Licensing Basis Information in Program Descriptions
* § 53.1332, Updating program documents included in licensing basis information o Provides the equivalent of UFSAR updates for key program documents o This iteration provides a uniform approach for program documents, which correspond to the programs required under Subpart F. The staff is interested in stakeholder views on the benefits of a common approach versus the current practice of establishing program-specific requirements for reporting and change control.
59
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1333, Evaluating Changes to Programs Included in Licensing Basis Information o Provides a uniform approach for program documents, which correspond to the programs required under Subpart F.
o The staff is interested in stakeholder views on the benefits of a possibly developing a common approach versus the current practice of establishing program-specific requirements for reporting and change control.
* § 53.1340, Transfer of Licenses or Permits o Provides the equivalent of § 50.80 for the possible transfer of an ESP, CP, OL, or COL.
* § 53.1350, Termination of License o Provides the equivalent of § 50.82 for the possible termination of an OL or COL.
60
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* § 53.1360, Information Requests o Provides the equivalent of § 50.54(f) for a possible request for information that the NRC would issue to holders of an ESP, CP, OL, or COL.
* § 53.1370, Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause o Provides the equivalent of § 50.100 for the possible revocation, suspension, or modification of a license or permit.
* § 53.1380, Backfitting o Provides the equivalent of § 50.109 for the possible backfitting of requirements to holders of licenses or permits.
o First iteration may require additional measures to fully capture all of the finality provisions within Subpart H and the staff expects to update and clarify as additional sections of Subpart H are developed.
* § 53.1390, Renewal o A section may be added to more fully describe or reference the processes related to requesting and processing applications to renew ESPs, CPs, OLs, and COLs.
61
 
Subpart I - Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information Discussion 62
 
MEETING BREAK Meeting to resume in 15 minutes 63
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 64
 
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements 65
 
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements
* § 53.1500, General Information
* § 53.1510, Unfettered Access for Inspection o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.70 with minor changes proposed to address possible differences related to advanced reactors. Changes to address possible changes to criteria for assignment of resident inspectors and need to address possible power reactor facilities without resident inspectors.
* § 53.1520, Maintenance of Records, Making of Reports o Requirements derived from 10 CFR 50.71.
* § 53.1521, Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Commercial Nuclear Plants o Requirements derived from 10 CFR 50.72 with minor changes proposed to address possible differences related to advanced reactors.
o Preliminary language does not take into account a recently initiated rulemaking activity related to possible changes in immediate notification requirements.
66
 
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements
* § 53.1530, Licensee Event Report System o Requirements derived from 10 CFR 50.73 with minor changes proposed to address possible differences related to advanced reactors and references to Part 53 sections.
* § 53.1535, Facility Information and Verification o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.78.
* § 53.1560, Financial Requirements
* § 53.1561, Financial Qualifications o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.33(f) for contents of applications.
o Note that details on the required contents of applications to show an applicant is financially qualified for a license or permit will be in Subpart H.
* § 53.1562, Annual Financial Reports o Reporting requirement taken from 10 CFR 50.71(b).
67
 
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements
* § 53.1563, Licensees Change of Status; Financial Qualifications o Reporting requirement taken from 10 CFR 50.76.
* § 53.1564, Creditor Regulations o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.81.
* § 53.1570, Financial Protection
* § 53.1571, Insurance Required to Stabilize and Decontaminate Plant Following an Accident o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.54(w).
o Added provision for design-specific estimate
* § 53.1572, Financial Protection Requirements o Requirements taken from 10 CFR 50.57 and 10 CFR Part 140.
68
 
Subpart J - Reporting and Other Administrative Requirements Discussion 69
 
Final Discussion and Questions 70
 
September 24th Agenda 9:30am - 9:40am  Opening Remarks 9:40am - 12:45pm  Overview of Subpart F - Requirements for Operations, Section 73.750 - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements Part 53 Rulemaking - Additional Efforts 12:45pm - 1:00pm  Discussion 71
 
Part 53 General Layout
* Subpart A, General Provisions
* Subpart B, Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives
* Subpart C, Design and Analysis
* Subpart D, Siting Requirements
* Subpart E, Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Subpart F, Requirements for Operation
* General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* Subpart G, Decommissioning Requirements
* Subpart H, Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Subpart I, Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Subpart J, Reporting and Administrative Requirements 72
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
        - Overview -
73
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* The purpose of this discussion is to provide an overview of the human-system integration requirements in the proposed Part 53 rulemaking.
* A more detailed discussion of these requirements will occur during the October 2021 ACRS subcommittee meeting.
* Subpart F Sections related to staffing build from concepts provided in a previously released white paper discussed with ACRS subcommittee in May 2021 (ML21069A003).
* These requirements may fulfil roles similar to that of certain § 50.34(f) post-TMI requirements (including for human factors engineering (HFE)), portions of the § 50.54 conditions of licenses (including for operations staffing), the § 50.120 training rule, and potentially all of Part 55 for operator licensing.
74
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* One key area addressed will be contents of applications.
* Emphasis will be placed on information needed to enable the application of flexible and scalable evaluations.
* The facility-specific operator safety role will be central.
* Specific areas anticipated to be covered include:
o HFE design requirements that are performance-based and focused on safety and emergency response functions.
o Certain specific human-system interface requirements.
o The Concept of Operations.
o Functional Requirements Analysis/Function Allocation o Operating Experience evaluation.
o Staffing plan requirements that are flexible in nature.
o Licensed operator training and examination program requirements that support tailored approaches.
75
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* Addresses conditions for operations staffing (aspects of
  § 50.54).
* Emphasis on providing requirements that are consistent with determining whether a reasonable assurance of safety will exist, while also accommodating new technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
* Specific areas anticipated to be covered include:
o Operator staffing requirements based on HFE analyses (versus prescriptive staff numbers/positions).
o Load-following.
o Online refueling at those facilities capable of doing so.
o Potential for certain facilities to not require licensed operators based upon design-specific safety considerations; a key consideration would likely be the operator role in addressing LBEs.
76
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* Requirements support technology-inclusive and flexible approaches to operator licensing examinations
* In general, this process would be comprised of:
o Using Job Task Analyses to identify the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities for the operator role.
o Selecting training and evaluation methods using a systems approach to training.
o Determining the composition of the examination, followed by piloting the proposed examination.
o NRC review, approval, and administration.
* Elements of this approach may also be applied to those staff with important administrative responsibilities at plants that do not require any licensed operator staffing.
77
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* Part 53 training provisions will:
o Address training requirements for plant staff in general o Establish regulations for the training and qualifications of nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians and other operating personnel.
o Account for the potential of facilities having non-traditional personnel roles within their organizations o Include requirements to base training programs upon a systems approach to training o Continue to provide distinct requirements for licensed operator training and requalification programs 78
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements
* Several areas will require the development of new regulatory guidance, including guidance for:
o Conducting scalable HFE reviews; staff have been working with Brookhaven National Lab.
o Reviewing staffing plans that are flexible; staff have been working to adapt the tools of NUREG-1791 to meet this need.
o Reviewing operator licensing examinations that are tailored based on facility needs; staff have begun working with Idaho National Lab.
* Related areas of staff work include guidance for training program reviews and ARCAP guidance input.
79
 
Subpart F - General Staffing, Training, Personnel Qualifications, and Human Factors Requirements Discussion 80
 
Part 50/53 Supplement:
Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option 81
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option
* The staff have received comments from stakeholders suggesting that PRA should not be required or play a lead role for licensing.
* As a result, the staff have begun to pursue the development of a potential deterministic licensing framework for advanced reactors.
* This framework would be technology-inclusive with PRA used in a supporting role, and leverage Parts 50 and 52 regulations while aligning with IAEA standards.
82
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option
* This traditional, deterministic option for advanced reactors would potentially include Part 50/52 elements such as:
o Single Failure Criteria o Principal design criteria (PDC) o Design basis requirements for AOOs/DBAs Traditional safety classification o Consideration of BDBEs and severe accidents o Confirmatory PRA & QHOs in guidance.
83
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option
* Including a traditional, deterministic option for advanced reactors would potentially include:
o Leveraged flexibility by considering dose-oriented emergency preparedness/siting/security (similar to ongoing rulemakings and what is being considered in Part 53) o Shared Parts 50 and 53 aspects: enable flexibility in meeting codes and standards (including those related to QA requirements); addition of functional containment concept to make technology inclusive 84
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option
* Possible areas of providing alternatives to address:
o PDCs o AOOs/DBAs Including possible option of bounding analysis for some or all the accident analysis in a fashion similar to NUREG-1537 (maximum hypothetical accident).
o BDBEs Building upon traditional station blackout, anticipated transients without scram as well as design extension conditions from IAEA specific safety requirements o Severe Accidents Consistent with Policy Statement, technology neutral 85
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option
* To move forward with a deterministic option, the staff are currently:
o Engaging stakeholders, management, and the Commission on the most appropriate approach.
o Assessing the placement of the traditional, deterministic option within the NRCs regulations.
o Reviewing the impact of the required work to develop the framework on the NRCs schedule and resources.
86
 
Part 50/53 Supplement: Technology-inclusive, Traditional, Deterministic Licensing Framework Option Discussion 87
 
Final Discussion and Questions 88
 
Part 53 Rulemaking Schedule Milestone Schedule Major Rulemaking Activities/Milestones                    Schedule Public Outreach, ACRS Interactions and                  Present to April 2022 Generation of Proposed Rule Package                          (7 months)
Submit Draft Proposed Rule Package to                        May 2022 Commission Publish Proposed Rule and Draft Key                        October 2022 Guidance Public Comment Period - 60 days                    November and December 2022 Public Outreach and Generation of Final Rule      January 2023 to February 2024 Package                                                    (14 months)
Submit Draft Final Rule Package to                          March 2024 Commission Office of Management and Budget and Office          July 2024 to September 2024 of the Federal Register Processing Publish Final Rule and Key Guidance                        October 2024 89
 
Acronyms and Abbreviations Advisory Committee on Reactor EAB  Exclusion area boundary ACRS Safeguards As low as is reasonably      EP  Emergency preparedness ALARA achievable EPA  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Anticipated operational AOO occurrence ESP  Early site permit Advanced reactor content of ARCAP                              F-C  Frequency-consequence application project BDBE  Beyond design basis event    FSAR Final safety analysis report CFR  Code of Federal Regulations  HFE  Human factors engineering COL  Combined license IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency CP    Construction permit LB  Licensing basis DBA  Design basis accident LBE  Licensing basis event DBE  Design basis event LMP  Licensing Modernization Project DC    Design certification DID  Defense-in-depth              LWA  Limited work authorization 90
 
Acronyms and Abbreviations LWR  Light-water reactor          PRA  Probabilistic risk assessment QA    Quality assurance Modular High-Temperature Gas-MHTGR                              QHO  Quantitative health objective Cooled Reactor Rem  Roentgen-equivalent man ML    Manufacturing license SAR  Safety analysis report NEI  Nuclear Energy Institute SDA  Standard design approval U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NRC                                      Structures, systems, and Commission                    SSC components U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NUREG Commission technical report        Technology-inclusive content of TICAP designation                        application project OL    Operating license            TMI  Three Mile Island TS    Technical specifications PAG  Protective Action Guide PDC  Principal design criteria    UFSAR Updated final safety analysis report 91}}

Latest revision as of 12:12, 19 November 2024

Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs Subcommittee Meeting, September 23, 2021, Pages 1-227
ML21313A025
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/23/2021
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Widmayer, D, ACRS
References
NRC-1675
Download: ML21313A025 (320)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21313A025&oldid=3741952"