ML20218A576: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:


==Title:==
==Title:==
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs Subcommittee Docket Number:   (n/a)
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs Subcommittee Docket Number:
Location:         teleconference Date:             Monday, July 20, 2020 Work Order No.:   NRC-0992                         Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Monday, July 20, 2020 Work Order No.:
NRC-0992 Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433


1 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
2 3
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
4                              DISCLAIMER 5
1 2
6 7  UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8        ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
3 DISCLAIMER 4
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.
5 6
16 17          This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23  


1 1                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                + + + + +
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
4            ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5                                  (ACRS) 6                                + + + + +
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
7                FUTURE PLANT DESIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE 8                                + + + + +
+ + + + +
9                                   MONDAY 10                            JULY 20, 2020 11                                + + + + +
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
12                  The       Subcommittee             met   via     Video 13 Teleconference,         at     9:30     a.m.       EDT, Dennis     Bley, 14 Chairman, presiding.
(ACRS) 5
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
+ + + + +
16            DENNIS BLEY, Chairman 17            RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 18            CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 19            VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 20            WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 21            JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 22            DAVID A. PETTI, Member 23            JOY L. REMPE, Member 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
6 FUTURE PLANT DESIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
+ + + + +
8 MONDAY 9
JULY 20, 2020 10
+ + + + +
11 The Subcommittee met via Video 12 Teleconference, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, Dennis Bley, 13 Chairman, presiding.
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
15 DENNIS BLEY, Chairman 16 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 17 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 18 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 19 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 20 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 21 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 22 JOY L. REMPE, Member 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


2 1 ACRS CONSULTANT:
2 ACRS CONSULTANT:
2            MICHAEL CORRADINI 3
1 MICHAEL CORRADINI 2
4 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
3 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
5            DEREK WIDMAYER 6            CHRISTOPHER BROWN 7
4 DEREK WIDMAYER 5
8 ALSO PRESENT:
CHRISTOPHER BROWN 6
9            RICHARD DENNING 10            ED LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists 11            SCOTT MOORE, NMSS 12            WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 13            JOHN SEGALA, NRR 14            MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7 ALSO PRESENT:
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 RICHARD DENNING 9
ED LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists 10 SCOTT MOORE, NMSS 11 WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 12 JOHN SEGALA, NRR 13 MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


3 1                    P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                          9:35 a.m.
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
3                CHAIR BLEY:         Good morning.     The meeting 4 will now come to order.               This is a meeting of the 5 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee 6 on Future Plant Designs. I'm Dennis Bley, chairman of 7 the Subcommittee.
9:35 a.m.
8                ACRS's members in attendance are Matt 9 Sunseri, Joy Rempe, Ron Ballinger, Charlie Brown, Walt 10 Kirchner, Dave Petti, Vesna Dimitrijevic and Jose 11 March-Leuba. Also in attendance is our consultant Mike 12 Corradini.     Derek Widmayer, of the ACRS staff is the 13 Designated Federal Official for this meeting.                       And 14 Christopher Brown of the ACRS staff is the backup 15 designated federal official.             This is a Skype meeting 16 and members are occasionally dropped off the web 17 connection or lose their sound, as just happened.                     If 18 that happens to me, Dr. Petti will seamlessly take 19 control of this meeting until I return.
2 CHAIR BLEY: Good morning. The meeting 3
20                The purpose       of   today's   meeting   is     to 21 discuss the staff white paper entitled, Questions 22 Supporting ACRS and Public Interactions on Developing 23 a     Risk-Informed,     Technology-Inclusive         Regulatory 24 Framework for Advanced Reactors. You may have noticed 25 that our meeting was announced as 10 CFR Part 53.
will now come to order. This is a meeting of the 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee 5
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
on Future Plant Designs. I'm Dennis Bley, chairman of 6
the Subcommittee.
7 ACRS's members in attendance are Matt 8
Sunseri, Joy Rempe, Ron Ballinger, Charlie Brown, Walt 9
Kirchner, Dave Petti, Vesna Dimitrijevic and Jose 10 March-Leuba. Also in attendance is our consultant Mike 11 Corradini. Derek Widmayer, of the ACRS staff is the 12 Designated Federal Official for this meeting. And 13 Christopher Brown of the ACRS staff is the backup 14 designated federal official. This is a Skype meeting 15 and members are occasionally dropped off the web 16 connection or lose their sound, as just happened. If 17 that happens to me, Dr. Petti will seamlessly take 18 control of this meeting until I return.
19 The purpose of today's meeting is to 20 discuss the staff white paper entitled, Questions 21 Supporting ACRS and Public Interactions on Developing 22 a
Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory 23 Framework for Advanced Reactors. You may have noticed 24 that our meeting was announced as 10 CFR Part 53.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


4 1 That remains true.           The rulemaking is required by the 2 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which 3 directs the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish 4 a     technology-inclusive           regulatory         framework       for 5 optional use, commercial, advanced, nuclear reactor 6 applicants.         Sorry, I lost my place.
4 That remains true. The rulemaking is required by the 1
7                    This rulemaking is expected to create 10 8 CFR     53.     In SECY     20-0032,     the       staff provided       a 9 rulemaking plan to the commission that included a 10 request       to   eliminate     the     usual       regulatory     basis 11 document.         In its stead they plan extensive public 12 outreach. The commission has not issued an SRM on the 13 rulemaking plan, so information about Commissioner 14 votes on the proposal are not yet public information.
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which 2
15                    This rulemaking is intimately related to 16 several technical issues that have come before our 17 committee in recent years, including NUREG-1860, which 18 was       originally     known       as     the     Technology-Neutral 19 Framework.           On that     one,     an     Advanced   Notice       of 20 Proposed Rulemaking was developed back in 2006, but 21 was abandoned when the expected test application for 22 a pebble bed reactor design failed to materialize.
directs the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish 3
23 Also, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant White Papers, 24 the staff vision and strategy for review of non-LWR 25 applications, including implementation plans such as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
a technology-inclusive regulatory framework for 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
optional use, commercial, advanced, nuclear reactor 5
applicants. Sorry, I lost my place.
6 This rulemaking is expected to create 10 7
CFR 53. In SECY 20-0032, the staff provided a 8
rulemaking plan to the commission that included a 9
request to eliminate the usual regulatory basis 10 document. In its stead they plan extensive public 11 outreach. The commission has not issued an SRM on the 12 rulemaking plan, so information about Commissioner 13 votes on the proposal are not yet public information.
14 This rulemaking is intimately related to 15 several technical issues that have come before our 16 committee in recent years, including NUREG-1860, which 17 was originally known as the Technology-Neutral 18 Framework. On that one, an Advanced Notice of 19 Proposed Rulemaking was developed back in 2006, but 20 was abandoned when the expected test application for 21 a pebble bed reactor design failed to materialize.
22 Also, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant White Papers, 23 the staff vision and strategy for review of non-LWR 24 applications, including implementation plans such as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


5 1 Reg Guide 1.233, which endorses NEI 18-04. Functional 2 containment       performance           criteria,       emergency 3 preparedness for SMRs and ONTs, population-related 4 considerations and advanced computer code evaluations.
5 Reg Guide 1.233, which endorses NEI 18-04. Functional 1
5                We have written letter reports on all of 6 these precursor programs.           The rulemaking will be the 7 culmination of all that previous work. It's come upon 8 us suddenly and I think many of us expected complete 9 trials of the OMP before there would be an actual 10 rulemaking.         Back     at     our     October   30,     2018, 11 subcommittee meeting, there was spirited discussion 12 about frequency consequence curves and their use, and 13 some indication that the use and final form might 14 evolve during trials.             There were other areas of 15 discussion as well, and I expect those to continue 16 today.
containment performance
17                One related issue for members, in several 18 of our reports we urged the staff to develop guidance 19 on mechanistic source terms. I am pleased to tell you 20 that the staff is providing the committee with two 21 documents.     Derek will be delivering them to the 22 subcommittee members later this week, and we expect to 23 have a meeting to review them at some time in the 24 future.       Today,     the     subcommittee       will   gather 25 information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
: criteria, emergency 2
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
preparedness for SMRs and ONTs, population-related 3
considerations and advanced computer code evaluations.
4 We have written letter reports on all of 5
these precursor programs. The rulemaking will be the 6
culmination of all that previous work. It's come upon 7
us suddenly and I think many of us expected complete 8
trials of the OMP before there would be an actual 9
rulemaking.
Back at our October 30,
: 2018, 10 subcommittee meeting, there was spirited discussion 11 about frequency consequence curves and their use, and 12 some indication that the use and final form might 13 evolve during trials. There were other areas of 14 discussion as well, and I expect those to continue 15 today.
16 One related issue for members, in several 17 of our reports we urged the staff to develop guidance 18 on mechanistic source terms. I am pleased to tell you 19 that the staff is providing the committee with two 20 documents. Derek will be delivering them to the 21 subcommittee members later this week, and we expect to 22 have a meeting to review them at some time in the 23 future.
: Today, the subcommittee will gather 24 information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


6 1 formulate         proposed       positions           and   actions         as 2 appropriate. This matter is scheduled to be presented 3 to the ACRS full committee at the October 2020 full 4 committee meeting.
6 formulate proposed positions and actions as 1
5                    The ACRS was established by statute and is 6 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
appropriate. This matter is scheduled to be presented 2
7 NRC implements FACA in accordance with its regulations 8 found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 9 Part VII.         The committee can only speak through its 10 published letter reports.               We hold meetings to gather 11 information and perform preparatory work that will 12 support our deliberations at full committee meetings.
to the ACRS full committee at the October 2020 full 3
13 The rules for participation in all ACRS meetings, 14 including       today's,     were     announced       in   the   federal 15 register on June 13, 2019.
committee meeting.
16                    The ACRS section of the US NRC public 17 website provides our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter 18 reports       and   full     transcripts         of   all   full       and 19 subcommittee meetings, including the slides presented 20 there. The meeting notice and agenda for this meeting 21 were posted. As stated in the federal register notice 22 and the public meeting notice posted to the website, 23 members of the public who desire to provide written or 24 oral input to the subcommittee may do so, and should 25 contact the designated federal official five days NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 The ACRS was established by statute and is 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701             (202) 234-4433
governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
6 NRC implements FACA in accordance with its regulations 7
found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 8
Part VII. The committee can only speak through its 9
published letter reports. We hold meetings to gather 10 information and perform preparatory work that will 11 support our deliberations at full committee meetings.
12 The rules for participation in all ACRS meetings, 13 including today's, were announced in the federal 14 register on June 13, 2019.
15 The ACRS section of the US NRC public 16 website provides our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter 17 reports and full transcripts of all full and 18 subcommittee meetings, including the slides presented 19 there. The meeting notice and agenda for this meeting 20 were posted. As stated in the federal register notice 21 and the public meeting notice posted to the website, 22 members of the public who desire to provide written or 23 oral input to the subcommittee may do so, and should 24 contact the designated federal official five days 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


7 1 prior to the meeting as practicable.
7 prior to the meeting as practicable.
2                  Today's meeting is open to the public 3 attendance and we have received no written statements 4 or requests to make an oral argument.                 We have also 5 set aside ten minutes in the agenda for spontaneous 6 comments from members of the public attending or 7 listening to our meetings.
1 Today's meeting is open to the public 2
8                  During the COVID pandemic today's meeting 9 is being held over Skype for ACRS and NRC staff 10 attendees.       There is also a telephone bridge line 11 allowing public participation over the phone.
attendance and we have received no written statements 3
12                  A transcript of today's meeting is being 13 kept, therefore, we request that meeting participants 14 on the bridge line identify themselves when they are 15 asked to speak, and to speak with sufficient clarity 16 and volume so that they can be readily heard. At this 17 time I ask attendees on Skype and on the bridge lines 18 to keep their devices on mute to minimize disruptions, 19 and unmute only when speaking.
or requests to make an oral argument. We have also 4
20                  We will now proceed with the meeting and 21 I call upon Joe Segala, Chief of the Advanced Reactor 22 Policy Branch of NRR, to make introductory remarks.
set aside ten minutes in the agenda for spontaneous 5
23 Joe.
comments from members of the public attending or 6
24                  MEMBER     SEGALA:         Thank   you, and     good 25 morning.       I think a lot of my opening remarks you had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
listening to our meetings.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
7 During the COVID pandemic today's meeting 8
is being held over Skype for ACRS and NRC staff 9
attendees. There is also a telephone bridge line 10 allowing public participation over the phone.
11 A transcript of today's meeting is being 12 kept, therefore, we request that meeting participants 13 on the bridge line identify themselves when they are 14 asked to speak, and to speak with sufficient clarity 15 and volume so that they can be readily heard. At this 16 time I ask attendees on Skype and on the bridge lines 17 to keep their devices on mute to minimize disruptions, 18 and unmute only when speaking.
19 We will now proceed with the meeting and 20 I call upon Joe Segala, Chief of the Advanced Reactor 21 Policy Branch of NRR, to make introductory remarks.
22 Joe.
23 MEMBER SEGALA: Thank you, and good 24 morning. I think a lot of my opening remarks you had 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


8 1 already gone over so I'll try to go quickly.                     We're 2 here today to brief the ACRS on our plans to develop 3 a new technology-inclusive, risk-informed performance-4 based regulation for advanced reactors, which we are 5 calling 10 CFR Part 53, and to obtain insights and 6 feedback from the ACRS subcommittee at the very early 7 stages of developing this new framework.                 Although we 8 are     expecting   to   leverage       our     ongoing readiness 9 activities for this new rule, we are starting with a 10 clean slate in looking for new and innovative ways to 11 regulate advanced reactors.
8 already gone over so I'll try to go quickly. We're 1
12                  As background, back in 2017, we developed 13 NRC's vision and strategy document and implementation 14 action plans or IAPs for enhancing our readiness to 15 effectively       and   efficiently         review     and regulate 16 advanced reactors.         The IAPs include near-term, mid-17 term and long-term activities.
here today to brief the ACRS on our plans to develop 2
18                  The near-term IAP activities are divided 19 into six strategies. Strategy one on training, two on 20 computer codes, three on developing guidance, four on 21 industry consensus codes and standards, five policy 22 issues, and six, communications. The ACRS recommended 23 at     that   time that     NRC   focus       its near-term     IAP 24 activities on strategies three and five, which we have 25 been doing. The mid and long-term IAPs included a new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
a new technology-inclusive, risk-informed performance-3 based regulation for advanced reactors, which we are 4
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
calling 10 CFR Part 53, and to obtain insights and 5
feedback from the ACRS subcommittee at the very early 6
stages of developing this new framework. Although we 7
are expecting to leverage our ongoing readiness 8
activities for this new rule, we are starting with a 9
clean slate in looking for new and innovative ways to 10 regulate advanced reactors.
11 As background, back in 2017, we developed 12 NRC's vision and strategy document and implementation 13 action plans or IAPs for enhancing our readiness to 14 effectively and efficiently review and regulate 15 advanced reactors. The IAPs include near-term, mid-16 term and long-term activities.
17 The near-term IAP activities are divided 18 into six strategies. Strategy one on training, two on 19 computer codes, three on developing guidance, four on 20 industry consensus codes and standards, five policy 21 issues, and six, communications. The ACRS recommended 22 at that time that NRC focus its near-term IAP 23 activities on strategies three and five, which we have 24 been doing. The mid and long-term IAPs included a new 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


9 1 activity to assess whether a new regulatory framework 2 should be developed for advanced reactors.                     However, 3 in January of 2019, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 4 Modernization Act, or NEIMA, was signed into law and 5 required the NRC complete a technology-inclusive, 6 risk-informed,         performance-based               regulation       for 7 advanced reactors by no later than the end of 2027.
9 activity to assess whether a new regulatory framework 1
8                  As Dennis indicated, on April 2020, we 9 issued the rulemaking plan in SECY 20-032, which is 10 currently with the Commission.                 On July 13, we issued 11 a draft white paper with questions to help facilitate 12 discussions today with the ACRS on Part 53.                       We are 13 planning for this meeting to be the first of many 14 interactions with the ACRS on Part 53. In addition to 15 discussing Part 53, we will also be briefing the ACRS 16 today on Regulatory Guide 1.233, which was issued in 17 June of 2020 and endorses the licensing modernization 18 project or LMP methodology described in NEI 18-04, as 19 one acceptable methodology for non-light water reactor 20 designers       to use   to   establish         key parts   of     the 21 licensing basis and content of applications.                           LMP 22 focuses       on   identifying       Licensing       Basis   Events, 23 classifying structure systems and components, and 24 ensuring adequate defense in depth.                     This briefing 25 will include a discussion on how we disposition the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
should be developed for advanced reactors. However, 2
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
in January of 2019, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 3
Modernization Act, or NEIMA, was signed into law and 4
required the NRC complete a technology-inclusive, 5
risk-informed, performance-based regulation for 6
advanced reactors by no later than the end of 2027.
7 As Dennis indicated, on April 2020, we 8
issued the rulemaking plan in SECY 20-032, which is 9
currently with the Commission. On July 13, we issued 10 a draft white paper with questions to help facilitate 11 discussions today with the ACRS on Part 53. We are 12 planning for this meeting to be the first of many 13 interactions with the ACRS on Part 53. In addition to 14 discussing Part 53, we will also be briefing the ACRS 15 today on Regulatory Guide 1.233, which was issued in 16 June of 2020 and endorses the licensing modernization 17 project or LMP methodology described in NEI 18-04, as 18 one acceptable methodology for non-light water reactor 19 designers to use to establish key parts of the 20 licensing basis and content of applications. LMP 21 focuses on identifying Licensing Basis Events, 22 classifying structure systems and components, and 23 ensuring adequate defense in depth. This briefing 24 will include a discussion on how we disposition the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


10 1 public comment received on the associated draft guide 2 1353.
10 public comment received on the associated draft guide 1
3                    As a follow-up to LMP we have started to 4 engage         during   several       public       meetings   with       the 5 southern led, NEI-coordinated and DOE-cost-shared, 6 Technology-Inclusive Content of Application Project or 7 TICAP.         The purpose of TICAP is to provide guidance 8 for developing the content of the specific portions of 9 an application that are within the scope of the 10 licensing modernization project.
1353.
11                    Similar to what was done for LMP, five 12 developers, General Electric, Hitachi, Westinghouse, 13 Kairos,         TerraPower       and     X-energy,       have expressed 14 interest in piloting TICAP starting in August of 2020.
2 As a follow-up to LMP we have started to 3
15 In addition, the NRC is leading the Advanced Reactor 16 Content of Application Project, or ARCAP, which will 17 provide         technology-inclusive,               risk-informed         and 18 performance-based application content guidance. ARCAP 19 is broader and encompasses the industry-led TICAP 20 project.           ARCAP     includes       those       portions   of     an 21 application         outside     the     scope       of   the licensing 22 modernization project.               We are planning to brief the 23 ACRS on TICAP and ARCAP in the future, and will be 24 working         with   the     ACRS     staff       to   schedule     these 25 meetings.
engage during several public meetings with the 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
southern led, NEI-coordinated and DOE-cost-shared, 5
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
Technology-Inclusive Content of Application Project or 6
TICAP. The purpose of TICAP is to provide guidance 7
for developing the content of the specific portions of 8
an application that are within the scope of the 9
licensing modernization project.
10 Similar to what was done for LMP, five 11 developers, General Electric, Hitachi, Westinghouse, 12 Kairos, TerraPower and X-energy, have expressed 13 interest in piloting TICAP starting in August of 2020.
14 In addition, the NRC is leading the Advanced Reactor 15 Content of Application Project, or ARCAP, which will 16 provide technology-inclusive, risk-informed and 17 performance-based application content guidance. ARCAP 18 is broader and encompasses the industry-led TICAP 19 project. ARCAP includes those portions of an 20 application outside the scope of the licensing 21 modernization project. We are planning to brief the 22 ACRS on TICAP and ARCAP in the future, and will be 23 working with the ACRS staff to schedule these 24 meetings.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


11 1                As Dennis also mentioned, we recently 2 published two mechanistic source term reports: One 3 from Sandia National Labs in January, and the other 4 from Idaho National Labs on June 30th on our public 5 website.       They   provide       guidance       for   determining 6 technology-inclusive         mechanistic           source   term     for 7 offsite dose assessments for advanced reactors. These 8 reports were developed in response to letters from the 9 ACRS sent to the commission in 2018 and 2019 on the 10 licensing modernization project and our emergency 11 preparedness     for   SMRs     and   other       new technologies 12 rulemaking where the ACRS expressed the importance of 13 the staff developing guidance on how source terms 14 should be developed.
11 As Dennis also mentioned, we recently 1
15                And so we are prepared to support future 16 briefings on these reports of the ACRS.                       We are 17 looking forward to hearing from the ACRS today on Part 18 53, and any insights and feedback you all may have.
published two mechanistic source term reports: One 2
19 We     expect that   these     activities         will   result       in 20 additional interactions with the subcommittee over the 21 next year or so.       This completes my opening remarks.
from Sandia National Labs in January, and the other 3
22 Thank you.
from Idaho National Labs on June 30th on our public 4
23                CHAIR BLEY:         Thanks, John.         I'm sorry I 24 misstated your name, to begin with. I guess we're now 25 going to Bill Reckley, is that right?
website. They provide guidance for determining 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
technology-inclusive mechanistic source term for 6
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
offsite dose assessments for advanced reactors. These 7
reports were developed in response to letters from the 8
ACRS sent to the commission in 2018 and 2019 on the 9
licensing modernization project and our emergency 10 preparedness for SMRs and other new technologies 11 rulemaking where the ACRS expressed the importance of 12 the staff developing guidance on how source terms 13 should be developed.
14 And so we are prepared to support future 15 briefings on these reports of the ACRS. We are 16 looking forward to hearing from the ACRS today on Part 17 53, and any insights and feedback you all may have.
18 We expect that these activities will result in 19 additional interactions with the subcommittee over the 20 next year or so. This completes my opening remarks.
21 Thank you.
22 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, John. I'm sorry I 23 misstated your name, to begin with. I guess we're now 24 going to Bill Reckley, is that right?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


12 1                  MR. RECKLEY:       Yes, Dennis. This is Bill.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, Dennis. This is Bill.
2                  CHAIR BLEY:       All right, go ahead.
1 CHAIR BLEY: All right, go ahead.
3                  MR. RECKLEY:         Okay, as Dr. Bley and John 4 mentioned, before we get into the discussions of our 5 development of Part 53, we wanted to provide an update 6 on our issuance of Reg Guide 1.233.                 Going to slide 7 two, as was mentioned, our first detailed interactions 8 with the ACRS, it actually started before September 9 2018, but in September 2018, we developed kind of the 10 complete       package   to   bring     before   the ACRS       and 11 subsequently the Commission and the public, with a 12 coordinated effort that involved issuance of what was 13 then draft revision N of NEI 18-04, the industry 14 guidance document.             The staff had prepared Draft 15 Regulatory Guide 1353 and we also presented to the 16 ACRS a draft commission paper because we thought some 17 of the matters that were involved in this methodology 18 warranted Commission consideration.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, as Dr. Bley and John 3
19                  Ultimately, we had a subcommittee meeting 20 in October and that was followed by the full committee 21 meeting in February 2019, and ACRS issued its letter 22 generally supportive of the methodology in March 2019.
mentioned, before we get into the discussions of our 4
23 Going on to slide three.
development of Part 53, we wanted to provide an update 5
24                  CHAIR BLEY:       Bill?
on our issuance of Reg Guide 1.233. Going to slide 6
25                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, sir.
two, as was mentioned, our first detailed interactions 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
with the ACRS, it actually started before September 8
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
2018, but in September 2018, we developed kind of the 9
complete package to bring before the ACRS and 10 subsequently the Commission and the public, with a 11 coordinated effort that involved issuance of what was 12 then draft revision N of NEI 18-04, the industry 13 guidance document. The staff had prepared Draft 14 Regulatory Guide 1353 and we also presented to the 15 ACRS a draft commission paper because we thought some 16 of the matters that were involved in this methodology 17 warranted Commission consideration.
18 Ultimately, we had a subcommittee meeting 19 in October and that was followed by the full committee 20 meeting in February 2019, and ACRS issued its letter 21 generally supportive of the methodology in March 2019.
22 Going on to slide three.
23 CHAIR BLEY: Bill?
24 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


13 1                    CHAIR BLEY:       Just a quick comment for you 2 guys.         As we move from testing an approach to an 3 actual rulemaking, I think we need to look for gaps, 4 and some areas have come up in our discussions about 5 recent         submittals     on   particular         projects,     that 6 reminded us that especially when you have new designs 7 and designs that might have multiple hazards and 8 things for which we don't have 50 years of history to 9 help us out, when one looks for initiating events in 10 the scenarios that follow them, you need something 11 very creative, and you have to start kind of from a 12 blank sheet of paper, and some kind of systematic ways 13 to look.
13 CHAIR BLEY: Just a quick comment for you 1
14                    That idea, isn't really laid out in your 15 SECYs or the Reg Guide, or in the NEI document.
guys. As we move from testing an approach to an 2
16 They're hinted at as the main PRA standard.                     I'm not 17 certain where the non-LWR standard actually stands 18 right now, or I don't remember the details there.                         So 19 I'm not sure that area is well covered and we're going 20 to be pushing on that a little bit as we go forward.
actual rulemaking, I think we need to look for gaps, 3
21 So go ahead.
and some areas have come up in our discussions about 4
22                    MR. RECKLEY:         Okay, thank you.           And I 23 think that would be fully appropriate.                     So with that 24 background,         moving     on   then     to     slide three,       and 25 catching up on what happened after our interactions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
recent submittals on particular projects, that 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
reminded us that especially when you have new designs 6
and designs that might have multiple hazards and 7
things for which we don't have 50 years of history to 8
help us out, when one looks for initiating events in 9
the scenarios that follow them, you need something 10 very creative, and you have to start kind of from a 11 blank sheet of paper, and some kind of systematic ways 12 to look.
13 That idea, isn't really laid out in your 14 SECYs or the Reg Guide, or in the NEI document.
15 They're hinted at as the main PRA standard. I'm not 16 certain where the non-LWR standard actually stands 17 right now, or I don't remember the details there. So 18 I'm not sure that area is well covered and we're going 19 to be pushing on that a little bit as we go forward.
20 So go ahead.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thank you. And I 22 think that would be fully appropriate. So with that 23 background, moving on then to slide three, and 24 catching up on what happened after our interactions 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


14 1 with the ACRS.           So the ACRS letter was in March of 2 2019.       We issued DG-1353 for public comment in April.
14 with the ACRS. So the ACRS letter was in March of 1
3 We did receive one public comment from Drs. Denning 4 and Mubayi, and we'll talk about that comment in the 5 next couple slides.
2019. We issued DG-1353 for public comment in April.
6                    For various reasons, NEI went ahead and 7 issued Revision 1 in August of 2019.                         After some 8 internal delays we ultimately issued SECY-19-0117 in 9 December       of 2019,     to   get     the     issues before       the 10 commission.           The   commission's           Staff Requirements 11 Memorandum was issued in May of 2020, and that, again, 12 was generally supportive of proceeding down the path 13 we had recommended.           And we issued Reg Guide 1.233 in 14 June       of   this   year,     June     2020.       Based   on     the 15 discussions that there were minimal changes to NEI 18-16 04 and minimal changes to Reg Guide 1.233 from the 17 drafts, we requested, and ACRS agreed not to do 18 further review.
2 We did receive one public comment from Drs. Denning 3
19                    Onto slide four, on the public comment, I 20 view the comment to kind of be in two different, but, 21 closely related issues.               The first is on the actual 22 frequency consequence curve, Dr. Denning observed that 23 the use of a complementary cumulative distribution 24 function would enable applicants, designers, and the 25 staff, to see the contributions of event sequences to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
and Mubayi, and we'll talk about that comment in the 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
next couple slides.
5 For various reasons, NEI went ahead and 6
issued Revision 1 in August of 2019. After some 7
internal delays we ultimately issued SECY-19-0117 in 8
December of 2019, to get the issues before the 9
commission. The commission's Staff Requirements 10 Memorandum was issued in May of 2020, and that, again, 11 was generally supportive of proceeding down the path 12 we had recommended. And we issued Reg Guide 1.233 in 13 June of this year, June 2020. Based on the 14 discussions that there were minimal changes to NEI 18-15 04 and minimal changes to Reg Guide 1.233 from the 16 drafts, we requested, and ACRS agreed not to do 17 further review.
18 Onto slide four, on the public comment, I 19 view the comment to kind of be in two different, but, 20 closely related issues. The first is on the actual 21 frequency consequence curve, Dr. Denning observed that 22 the use of a complementary cumulative distribution 23 function would enable applicants, designers, and the 24 staff, to see the contributions of event sequences to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


15 1 the integral risk since the CCDF, the complementary 2 cumulative distribution function is a way to look at 3 the integration of the risks.
15 the integral risk since the CCDF, the complementary 1
4                  The other     part     of     the concern,   again 5 somewhat       related,   is   that     looking       as licensing 6 modernization project does in the NEI-18-04 and Reg 7 Guide 1.233, at individual event sequences and making 8 judgments on individual event sequences, that process 9 might       introduce   variability           and   flexibility       to 10 analysts that would change where the event sequence 11 was plotted in terms of frequency, and that might 12 bring up an issue of, again, variability between 13 analysts, or even the ability to continually subdivide 14 event sequences in order to try to reduce the estimate 15 of the event frequency. So we looked at that comment.
cumulative distribution function is a way to look at 2
16                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:         I'm sorry, John.       Bill?
the integration of the risks.
17 I'm sorry, John, 18                  CHAIR BLEY:       Mr. Kirchner?
3 The other part of the concern, again 4
19                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, sorry, Dennis, this 20 is Walt Kirchner.         May I ask a question of Bill?
somewhat related, is that looking as licensing 5
21                  CHAIR BLEY:       Sure.
modernization project does in the NEI-18-04 and Reg 6
22                  MEMBER     KIRCHNER:           Bill, just for     the 23 record, would you - I think I get it, but would you 24 define what a complementary cumulative distribution 25 function is in this situation?
Guide 1.233, at individual event sequences and making 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
judgments on individual event sequences, that process 8
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
might introduce variability and flexibility to 9
analysts that would change where the event sequence 10 was plotted in terms of frequency, and that might 11 bring up an issue of, again, variability between 12 analysts, or even the ability to continually subdivide 13 event sequences in order to try to reduce the estimate 14 of the event frequency. So we looked at that comment.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm sorry, John. Bill?
16 I'm sorry, John, 17 CHAIR BLEY: Mr. Kirchner?
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, sorry, Dennis, this 19 is Walt Kirchner. May I ask a question of Bill?
20 CHAIR BLEY: Sure.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, just for the 22 record, would you - I think I get it, but would you 23 define what a complementary cumulative distribution 24 function is in this situation?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


16 1                  MR. RECKLEY:       I'll give it an attempt and 2 then Marty Stutzke, if you're on the line, please come 3 to my rescue through the phone-a-friend option here.
16 MR. RECKLEY: I'll give it an attempt and 1
4 But I think the public comment included this figure, 5 which I think is a good way to consider how that would 6 be used. Now this is plotting two different licensing 7 basis event plots.         One in red, and I'm on slide 11 as 8 a backup slide.         One in red for the first event, and 9 one in blue for the second event, and you can see the 10 contributions of the uncertainties as you plot that 11 over both frequency and consequence.                 The licensing 12 modernization project, NEI 18-04 methodology would 13 look - if those events were not part of the same 14 family, might look at those two events separately for 15 comparison to the frequency consequence target.
then Marty Stutzke, if you're on the line, please come 2
16                  The complementary cumulative distribution 17 function would also look at them individually, but 18 also integrate those two events and all of the other 19 licensing basis events to give you the black line 20 which would give you the integrated risk for all the 21 LBEs.       Marty, if you're on, can you maybe go a little 22 deeper?
to my rescue through the phone-a-friend option here.
23                  MR. STUTSKE:         Yeah, Bill, this is Marty.
3 But I think the public comment included this figure, 4
24 Can you hear me?
which I think is a good way to consider how that would 5
25                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, thank you.
be used. Now this is plotting two different licensing 6
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
basis event plots. One in red, and I'm on slide 11 as 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       (202) 234-4433
a backup slide. One in red for the first event, and 8
one in blue for the second event, and you can see the 9
contributions of the uncertainties as you plot that 10 over both frequency and consequence. The licensing 11 modernization project, NEI 18-04 methodology would 12 look - if those events were not part of the same 13 family, might look at those two events separately for 14 comparison to the frequency consequence target.
15 The complementary cumulative distribution 16 function would also look at them individually, but 17 also integrate those two events and all of the other 18 licensing basis events to give you the black line 19 which would give you the integrated risk for all the 20 LBEs. Marty, if you're on, can you maybe go a little 21 deeper?
22 MR. STUTSKE: Yeah, Bill, this is Marty.
23 Can you hear me?
24 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


17 1                MR. STUTSKE: Yeah, this is Marty Stutske, 2 I'm the senior technical advisor for PRA in NRR DANU.
17 MR. STUTSKE: Yeah, this is Marty Stutske, 1
3 The frequency consequence target used in the LMP is 4 nothing more than a scatterplot of PRA results where 5 the x-axis being the consequence, and the y-axis being 6 the     frequency.     So   it's     true,       you're comparing 7 individual sequences against the limit line up there.
I'm the senior technical advisor for PRA in NRR DANU.
8                In contrast, a complementary cumulative 9 distribution       function,         the     y-axis     becomes       an 10 exceedance frequency.           So what you do then, is you 11 pick a consequence and you say what is the frequency 12 of the sum of the frequencies of all of the sequences 13 that have a consequence greater than or equal to your 14 x-axis value.
2 The frequency consequence target used in the LMP is 3
15                MR. CORRADINI:         Marty? Marty?
nothing more than a scatterplot of PRA results where 4
16                MR. STUTSKE:         Yes.
the x-axis being the consequence, and the y-axis being 5
17                MR. CORRADINI:           So I guess, I think I 18 understood why the y-axis is different.                       This is 19 Corradini.       But I'm confused as to why there is a 20 series of points for any one LBE.                   I thought, unless 21 this is a uncertainty example for the red and the blue 22 line, but isn't there for a given LBE, an estimate of 23 a frequency and an estimate of a consequence?                   Or why 24 is it a family of points?
the frequency. So it's true, you're comparing 6
25                MR. STUTSKE: Okay, yeah, let me be clear.
individual sequences against the limit line up there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7 In contrast, a complementary cumulative 8
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
distribution
: function, the y-axis becomes an 9
exceedance frequency. So what you do then, is you 10 pick a consequence and you say what is the frequency 11 of the sum of the frequencies of all of the sequences 12 that have a consequence greater than or equal to your 13 x-axis value.
14 MR. CORRADINI: Marty? Marty?
15 MR. STUTSKE: Yes.
16 MR. CORRADINI: So I guess, I think I 17 understood why the y-axis is different. This is 18 Corradini. But I'm confused as to why there is a 19 series of points for any one LBE. I thought, unless 20 this is a uncertainty example for the red and the blue 21 line, but isn't there for a given LBE, an estimate of 22 a frequency and an estimate of a consequence? Or why 23 is it a family of points?
24 MR. STUTSKE: Okay, yeah, let me be clear.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


18 1 You're right.     There should be one dot for each event 2 sequence family.
18 You're right. There should be one dot for each event 1
3                MR. CORRADINI:         Okay.
sequence family.
4                MR. STUTSKE:         With a consequence and a 5 frequency.     So when you take the entire PRA results, 6 it's however many event sequence families you have is 7 the number of dots on the graph.
2 MR. CORRADINI: Okay.
8                MR. CORRADINI: So why are the red and the 9 blue showing six dots for every LBE?               That's what I 10 didn't understand with this.
3 MR. STUTSKE: With a consequence and a 4
11                MEMBER KIRCHNER:             I think, Mike, it's 12 multiple, within a family of events that are similar, 13 it's multiple events. That was my takeaway from this.
frequency. So when you take the entire PRA results, 5
14                MR. STUTSKE:       Oh, so this is not one LBE, 15 this is a family of sequences.
it's however many event sequence families you have is 6
16                MEMBER KIRCHNER:         That's what I think.       I 17 don't know what poly means on the graph, but that was 18 my sense.     You got one set of events that are similar 19 and you look at them and you get a curve from each 20 individual event.
the number of dots on the graph.
21                MR. CORRADINI:         Okay.
7 MR. CORRADINI: So why are the red and the 8
22                MEMBER REMPE:         So when we, like, this --
blue showing six dots for every LBE? That's what I 9
23                CHAIR BLEY:         Richard Denning is on the 24 line, he can clarify it.
didn't understand with this.
25                MR. DENNING:         Can I clarify that?       Is it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I think, Mike, it's 11 multiple, within a family of events that are similar, 12 it's multiple events. That was my takeaway from this.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       (202) 234-4433
13 MR. STUTSKE: Oh, so this is not one LBE, 14 this is a family of sequences.
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: That's what I think. I 16 don't know what poly means on the graph, but that was 17 my sense. You got one set of events that are similar 18 and you look at them and you get a curve from each 19 individual event.
20 MR. CORRADINI: Okay.
21 MEMBER REMPE: So when we, like, this --
22 CHAIR BLEY: Richard Denning is on the 23 line, he can clarify it.
24 MR. DENNING: Can I clarify that? Is it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


19 1 okay if I clarify?             So if you interpret the former 2 curve there as a limit on the complementary cumulative 3 distribution function, it limits risk.                     That is, if 4 you     integrate   the     curve     against       the y-axis,       it 5 identically tells you what the total risk is.                     In the 6 interpretation that is in NEI 18-04, you don't limit 7 risk.       You could, for example, have at one rem, you 8 could have a thousand sequences that each individually 9 satisfied the one rem, and would clearly have an 10 unacceptable risk.           Okay?
19 okay if I clarify? So if you interpret the former 1
11                  Whereas,     if   you   interpret       it   on     the 12 complementary cumulative distribution function, you 13 actually limit the risk.               Okay, you don't have this 14 ambiguity of where you could look at it, at a LOCA, 15 for example, and divide it if you wanted it to, into 16 five different kinds of LOCAs.                       If you've got to 17 consider a single point you also must consider, as is 18 done in NEI 18-04, you also have to consider some 19 uncertainty about that, right? Because we don't know, 20 in     any   event, you     have   to   consider     what's       the 21 variability or uncertainty, and we will get into that 22 in detail.
curve there as a limit on the complementary cumulative 2
23                  So what's done here with a complementary 24 cumulative distribution function is you consider an 25 uncertain distribution around a particular kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
distribution function, it limits risk. That is, if 3
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
you integrate the curve against the y-axis, it 4
identically tells you what the total risk is. In the 5
interpretation that is in NEI 18-04, you don't limit 6
risk. You could, for example, have at one rem, you 7
could have a thousand sequences that each individually 8
satisfied the one rem, and would clearly have an 9
unacceptable risk. Okay?
10 Whereas, if you interpret it on the 11 complementary cumulative distribution function, you 12 actually limit the risk. Okay, you don't have this 13 ambiguity of where you could look at it, at a LOCA, 14 for example, and divide it if you wanted it to, into 15 five different kinds of LOCAs. If you've got to 16 consider a single point you also must consider, as is 17 done in NEI 18-04, you also have to consider some 18 uncertainty about that, right? Because we don't know, 19 in any event, you have to consider what's the 20 variability or uncertainty, and we will get into that 21 in detail.
22 So what's done here with a complementary 23 cumulative distribution function is you consider an 24 uncertain distribution around a particular kind of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


20 1 event like LOCAs, okay, and then you also, in order to 2 satisfy       a level     of   risk,     you     then develop       the 3 complementary cumulative distribution functions for 4 the total. And that's what that dashed black line is.
20 event like LOCAs, okay, and then you also, in order to 1
5 So you know that you have limited the risk of all of 6 the LBEs by taking into account the complementary 7 cumulative distribution function.
satisfy a level of risk, you then develop the 2
8                    MR. MOORE: Excuse me, excuse me. I think 9 Member Rempe has been trying to say something.
complementary cumulative distribution functions for 3
10                    MEMBER REMPE:         Well, thank you, Scott.
the total. And that's what that dashed black line is.
11 When       we   discussed     this     with       Karl Fleming,       my 12 understanding is that if you had two sequences that 13 are 10 rem, or a 10 rem and a 12 rem in the group, the 14 analyst is obligated to pick the 12 rem, and then 15 multiply the frequency by two, so you eliminate the 16 gaming that could be performed by the analyst.
4 So you know that you have limited the risk of all of 5
17                    This has been discussed in some of our 18 prior meetings, and you are supposed to consider 19 uncertainty distributions in the consequences, as well 20 as the frequency, if you're going to accurately apply 21 this.       And Dennis, maybe you can speak up too, but we 22 have mentioned this concern about gaming in the prior 23 discussions.         Now, what I don't remember, and maybe 24 Bill Reckley or Marty Stutzke can tell me too is, did 25 that concern get put into the final documentation?
the LBEs by taking into account the complementary 6
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
cumulative distribution function.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 MR. MOORE: Excuse me, excuse me. I think 8
Member Rempe has been trying to say something.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Well, thank you, Scott.
10 When we discussed this with Karl Fleming, my 11 understanding is that if you had two sequences that 12 are 10 rem, or a 10 rem and a 12 rem in the group, the 13 analyst is obligated to pick the 12 rem, and then 14 multiply the frequency by two, so you eliminate the 15 gaming that could be performed by the analyst.
16 This has been discussed in some of our 17 prior meetings, and you are supposed to consider 18 uncertainty distributions in the consequences, as well 19 as the frequency, if you're going to accurately apply 20 this. And Dennis, maybe you can speak up too, but we 21 have mentioned this concern about gaming in the prior 22 discussions. Now, what I don't remember, and maybe 23 Bill Reckley or Marty Stutzke can tell me too is, did 24 that concern get put into the final documentation?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


21 1 Because this is not a new problem.
21 Because this is not a new problem.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:         There's       not a specific 3 mention except for referencing the ASME/ANS non-Light 4 Water       Reactor   PRA   standard       that     talks   about     the 5 processes to be used.               You're right in that this 6 particular issue has been talked about as part of 7 NGNP,         and even   before       that,       as   part   of     the 8 methodology.         The other thing that, going back to 9 slide six, no, slide five, in our disposition, is that 10 we don't want to come across the staking issue with 11 the proposal in the public comment.                         The use of 12 complementary cumulative distribution functions is a 13 good idea, it's actually mentioned in the non-Light 14 Water Reactor PRA standard as a methodology to look at 15 cumulative risks and to make sure that, as Dr. Denning 16 mentioned, you don't focus singly on specific event 17 sequences, but you're also looking at the aggregate or 18 total risk.       That's handled within NEI 18-04, and the 19 Reg       Guide   by   including         separate       aggregate       or 20 cumulative risk measures against the NRC safety goals.
1 MR. RECKLEY: There's not a specific 2
21 For example, that's the primary one.
mention except for referencing the ASME/ANS non-Light 3
22                  That's a way to do it to also make sure 23 that you don't forget about the total risk.                     So there 24 would be advantages to using the CCDF. We looked for, 25 going on to slide six, one has to consider what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
Water Reactor PRA standard that talks about the 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
processes to be used. You're right in that this 5
particular issue has been talked about as part of 6
NGNP, and even before that, as part of the 7
methodology. The other thing that, going back to 8
slide six, no, slide five, in our disposition, is that 9
we don't want to come across the staking issue with 10 the proposal in the public comment. The use of 11 complementary cumulative distribution functions is a 12 good idea, it's actually mentioned in the non-Light 13 Water Reactor PRA standard as a methodology to look at 14 cumulative risks and to make sure that, as Dr. Denning 15 mentioned, you don't focus singly on specific event 16 sequences, but you're also looking at the aggregate or 17 total risk. That's handled within NEI 18-04, and the 18 Reg Guide by including separate aggregate or 19 cumulative risk measures against the NRC safety goals.
20 For example, that's the primary one.
21 That's a way to do it to also make sure 22 that you don't forget about the total risk. So there 23 would be advantages to using the CCDF. We looked for, 24 going on to slide six, one has to consider what the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


22 1 methodology was actually developed to do.                     In the 2 context of the Reg Guide we try to make clear that, 3 actually,       even the     target     figure,   the frequency 4 consequence target doesn't correspond to regulatory 5 limits.       It is instead a tool that would help us do 6 the primary objectives of this methodology, which is 7 to identify the event sequences. This may go a little 8 bit to what you were mentioning earlier, Dr. Bley, of 9 whether there's enough guidance on how you identify, 10 and especially how you look at various, you know, 11 internal and external hazards.                   But we can have that 12 discussion as we go forward.
22 methodology was actually developed to do. In the 1
13                  The methodology also, by looking at the 14 margins, and the impact of assuming various failures, 15 supports looking at the safety classification and the 16 performance criteria that would be set up for both 17 safety-related and non-safety related with special 18 treatment structure systems and components.                 And then 19 it supports a general evaluation of defense in depth.
context of the Reg Guide we try to make clear that, 2
20                  Getting     to   Dr. Rempke's   issue   about 21 looking at event sequences and trying to make sure 22 that one would not game the system, if you will, we do 23 look, you have to look at the methodology and how it's 24 used. It has an emphasis on function and system level 25 evaluation.         So that provides a certain degree of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
actually, even the target figure, the frequency 3
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
consequence target doesn't correspond to regulatory 4
limits. It is instead a tool that would help us do 5
the primary objectives of this methodology, which is 6
to identify the event sequences. This may go a little 7
bit to what you were mentioning earlier, Dr. Bley, of 8
whether there's enough guidance on how you identify, 9
and especially how you look at various, you know, 10 internal and external hazards. But we can have that 11 discussion as we go forward.
12 The methodology also, by looking at the 13 margins, and the impact of assuming various failures, 14 supports looking at the safety classification and the 15 performance criteria that would be set up for both 16 safety-related and non-safety related with special 17 treatment structure systems and components. And then 18 it supports a general evaluation of defense in depth.
19 Getting to Dr. Rempke's issue about 20 looking at event sequences and trying to make sure 21 that one would not game the system, if you will, we do 22 look, you have to look at the methodology and how it's 23 used. It has an emphasis on function and system level 24 evaluation. So that provides a certain degree of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


23 1 comfort. You also have the various reviews that would 2 be done as part of the PRA standard.                   The reviews of 3 the applicant and the designers themselves and then 4 the reviews by the NRC.
23 comfort. You also have the various reviews that would 1
5                  For those reasons, the staff continues to 6 think that the methodology described in 1353 and 7 subsequently the Reg Guide, is one acceptable way.
be done as part of the PRA standard. The reviews of 2
8 Going to the back of --
the applicant and the designers themselves and then 3
9                  CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Bill? This is Dennis.
the reviews by the NRC.
10 Let me jump in a second.                 I'd like to summarize a 11 couple things if I can, and then have you go ahead.
4 For those reasons, the staff continues to 5
12 Kind of everybody who's spoken is right, and I want to 13 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 14 on     the     meeting today,       I   appreciate       it. And     I 15 mentioned that the coauthor of his comments, Vinod 16 Mubayi, was one of the primary authors of this area in 17 NUREG-1860, so well qualified.                       I think most PRA 18 practitioners, you know, they're generating a CCDF at 19 the       end   which   is,     as     Marty       well-described,       an 20 exceedance plot which summarizes the overall results, 21 and, of course, that's a good measure.
think that the methodology described in 1353 and 6
22                  I was reasonably comfortable with what was 23 proposed in the NEI document and that the staff has 24 supported because it does have this fallback of an 25 integrated risk measure included.                     So the idea is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
subsequently the Reg Guide, is one acceptable way.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
7 Going to the back of --
8 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Bill? This is Dennis.
9 Let me jump in a second. I'd like to summarize a 10 couple things if I can, and then have you go ahead.
11 Kind of everybody who's spoken is right, and I want to 12 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 13 on the meeting today, I appreciate it. And I 14 mentioned that the coauthor of his comments, Vinod 15 Mubayi, was one of the primary authors of this area in 16 NUREG-1860, so well qualified. I think most PRA 17 practitioners, you know, they're generating a CCDF at 18 the end which is, as Marty well-described, an 19 exceedance plot which summarizes the overall results, 20 and, of course, that's a good measure.
21 I was reasonably comfortable with what was 22 proposed in the NEI document and that the staff has 23 supported because it does have this fallback of an 24 integrated risk measure included. So the idea is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


24 1 covered, and back to Joy and her discussion of Karl 2 Fleming's area. I think this is an area where if this 3 is going to become a rule then the guidance probably 4 needs to be clarified a little better on this idea of 5 families to avoid the problem.                       That's a problem 6 that's kind of everywhere, and looking at PRA results, 7 one     has   to   be   careful       to   understand     how   those 8 scenarios have been broken down.                         But maybe the 9 guidance there could be cleaned up a little bit.                           I 10 think at this point, Bill, go ahead.                   You've got your 11 actual target curve up here.
24 covered, and back to Joy and her discussion of Karl 1
12                  MR. RECKLEY:       Well, and we can use it for 13 questions.       I was just going to make one last comment 14 on the concern about frequencies and being able to 15 potentially, continually try to subdivide in order to 16 lower       a frequency.           And     this       is a practical 17 observation. It's not really built in, necessarily to 18 the process as a counter to that but just for the 19 committee members to be aware, our expectation is that 20 most designers are going to adopt a design objective 21 of making sure that all the design basis events and 22 beyond design basis events, don't exceed one rem or 23 some other measure in order to take advantage of 24 things like the Emergency Planning Zone Rule or the 25 siting, the population-related siting paper that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
Fleming's area. I think this is an area where if this 2
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
is going to become a rule then the guidance probably 3
needs to be clarified a little better on this idea of 4
families to avoid the problem. That's a problem 5
that's kind of everywhere, and looking at PRA results, 6
one has to be careful to understand how those 7
scenarios have been broken down. But maybe the 8
guidance there could be cleaned up a little bit. I 9
think at this point, Bill, go ahead. You've got your 10 actual target curve up here.
11 MR. RECKLEY: Well, and we can use it for 12 questions. I was just going to make one last comment 13 on the concern about frequencies and being able to 14 potentially, continually try to subdivide in order to 15 lower a frequency. And this is a practical 16 observation. It's not really built in, necessarily to 17 the process as a counter to that but just for the 18 committee members to be aware, our expectation is that 19 most designers are going to adopt a design objective 20 of making sure that all the design basis events and 21 beyond design basis events, don't exceed one rem or 22 some other measure in order to take advantage of 23 things like the Emergency Planning Zone Rule or the 24 siting, the population-related siting paper that we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


25 1 brought to the committee a little while ago.
25 brought to the committee a little while ago.
2                  And so as you as make that line a straight 3 line at one rem, or again, some other measure if we 4 pick it up, but it also is kind of a guard against 5 just trying to lower the thresholds.                   Again, it's not 6 a perfect system, but it is just a practical limit 7 that       you don't   gain     very     much     by lowering     your 8 frequency of all of the frequencies from 10 to the 9 minus 2 all the way down to the lower threshold is 10 using the same consequence measure of one rem. I just 11 want to make that observation.
1 And so as you as make that line a straight 2
12                  So again, we did appreciate the comment 13 and       again,   from   the     staff's         viewpoint   we     were 14 presented with a methodology and asked to make a 15 determination of whether that methodology was good 16 enough.       It wasn't a decision as to whether there 17 could have been things that could be added.                       My own 18 observation is that if we were to pick up CCDF, again, 19 it     would   be   most     likely       in     addition   to     the 20 methodology, and as we said, it might be a very good 21 addition.       It's already mentioned in the PRA standard 22 as a way to look at the cumulative risk.
line at one rem, or again, some other measure if we 3
23                  But in order to do the other objectives of 24 identifying the events and safety classification, you 25 would probably also be looking at individual events NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
pick it up, but it also is kind of a guard against 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
just trying to lower the thresholds. Again, it's not 5
a perfect system, but it is just a practical limit 6
that you don't gain very much by lowering your 7
frequency of all of the frequencies from 10 to the 8
minus 2 all the way down to the lower threshold is 9
using the same consequence measure of one rem. I just 10 want to make that observation.
11 So again, we did appreciate the comment 12 and again, from the staff's viewpoint we were 13 presented with a methodology and asked to make a 14 determination of whether that methodology was good 15 enough. It wasn't a decision as to whether there 16 could have been things that could be added. My own 17 observation is that if we were to pick up CCDF, again, 18 it would be most likely in addition to the 19 methodology, and as we said, it might be a very good 20 addition. It's already mentioned in the PRA standard 21 as a way to look at the cumulative risk.
22 But in order to do the other objectives of 23 identifying the events and safety classification, you 24 would probably also be looking at individual events 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


26 1 using the same curve or a different curve. If we went 2 down this route we would have to make all of those 3 decisions, but the decision we were asked to make was 4 whether what was proposed in NEI 18-04 was a workable 5 methodology, and we think that it is, and that's what 6 we reflected in our disposition of the comment.
26 using the same curve or a different curve. If we went 1
7                    Just in terms of updating, the last slide 8 here is just the Commission SRM on SECY-19-0117.
down this route we would have to make all of those 2
9 We'll get into this discussion also a little bit in 10 the Part 53 topic we're about to pick up, but the 11 commission generally endorsed this, and then also 12 reminded us in that last paragraph that the safety 13 goals and other established commission policies and 14 regulations related to safety and risk metrics are 15 applicable to advanced reactor in general, and then 16 how we would build that into the framework.
decisions, but the decision we were asked to make was 3
17                    CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Bill. This is Dennis 18 again.         Two things, one I got knocked off the Skype 19 meeting for about a minute, which is okay, Dave 20 probably         didn't   even     notice       that   happened.         I 21 appreciate we've had a good discussion on this, and I 22 wanted to let that go as much as we could.                   At the end 23 of this meeting I'm going to ask the members to 24 consider whether we want to or need to have that 25 October full committee meeting.                   And I think the real NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
whether what was proposed in NEI 18-04 was a workable 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
methodology, and we think that it is, and that's what 5
we reflected in our disposition of the comment.
6 Just in terms of updating, the last slide 7
here is just the Commission SRM on SECY-19-0117.
8 We'll get into this discussion also a little bit in 9
the Part 53 topic we're about to pick up, but the 10 commission generally endorsed this, and then also 11 reminded us in that last paragraph that the safety 12 goals and other established commission policies and 13 regulations related to safety and risk metrics are 14 applicable to advanced reactor in general, and then 15 how we would build that into the framework.
16 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Bill. This is Dennis 17 again. Two things, one I got knocked off the Skype 18 meeting for about a minute, which is okay, Dave 19 probably didn't even notice that happened. I 20 appreciate we've had a good discussion on this, and I 21 wanted to let that go as much as we could. At the end 22 of this meeting I'm going to ask the members to 23 consider whether we want to or need to have that 24 October full committee meeting. And I think the real 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


27 1 key to that is if we want to write a letter since all 2 but one of us is attending today.                       So keep that in 3 your minds for the end of your meeting.                     There are a 4 few of these issues that we might want to give a 5 heads-up early on, and that would be the only point, 6 and to let the commission know we're following this.
27 key to that is if we want to write a letter since all 1
7 Please continue.           Thanks.
but one of us is attending today. So keep that in 2
8                    MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So kind of along that 9 path, and switching topics a little bit, using slide 10 eight,         just   to   talk     about     some     of the   future 11 interactions           and     getting       to     what Dennis       was 12 mentioning.         There's a fair number of topics on here, 13 so we will have to coordinate our interactions with 14 the ACRS and then when ACRS responds via letter, would 15 be appropriate. And when we get into Part 53, I think 16 we have some flexibility, but whatever would be the 17 most useful we can decide during that discussion.
your minds for the end of your meeting. There are a 3
18                    So just going quickly, you're aware there 19 are design-specific applications that the ACRS will 20 need to weigh in on, and some others that they'll be 21 given the option to weigh in on, things like topical 22 reports.         The remaining discussions today will be on 23 Part 53.         As Dr. Bley mentioned, we did commission a 24 couple reports on mechanistic source term, and once 25 you have an opportunity to read those we can decide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
few of these issues that we might want to give a 4
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
heads-up early on, and that would be the only point, 5
and to let the commission know we're following this.
6 Please continue. Thanks.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So kind of along that 8
path, and switching topics a little bit, using slide 9
eight, just to talk about some of the future 10 interactions and getting to what Dennis was 11 mentioning. There's a fair number of topics on here, 12 so we will have to coordinate our interactions with 13 the ACRS and then when ACRS responds via letter, would 14 be appropriate. And when we get into Part 53, I think 15 we have some flexibility, but whatever would be the 16 most useful we can decide during that discussion.
17 So just going quickly, you're aware there 18 are design-specific applications that the ACRS will 19 need to weigh in on, and some others that they'll be 20 given the option to weigh in on, things like topical 21 reports. The remaining discussions today will be on 22 Part 53. As Dr. Bley mentioned, we did commission a 23 couple reports on mechanistic source term, and once 24 you have an opportunity to read those we can decide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


28 1 what interactions would be requested.
28 what interactions would be requested.
2                    I'll give you a warning ahead of time, 3 these are fairly high level discussions.                         Although 4 they might include examples of technologies, the two 5 reports we provided were not aimed at how do you 6 develop       a   mechanistic       source       term   for a reactor 7 technology of x, y, or z.               It was a kind of high-level 8 process for what needs to go into developing source 9 terms.
1 I'll give you a warning ahead of time, 2
10                    CHAIR BLEY:       Bill?       Excuse me. The last 11 indication we had was that you are also developing a 12 Reg Guide related to this.                 Is that still true?
these are fairly high level discussions. Although 3
13                    MR. RECKLEY:       I'll let John weigh in.             At 14 this point we may as we go further down and see what 15 the reaction is to these reports and whether it 16 warrants going to the next step of issuing an actual 17 Regulatory Guide, or if we start to look at individual 18 technologies, whether it makes more sense to have a 19 Regulatory Guide that would follow up.
they might include examples of technologies, the two 4
20                    We also have           some technology-specific 21 reports.         Oak Ridge is doing some work, Molten Salts, 22 Argonne and Idaho on fast reactors and gas-cooled 23 reactors.         So one of the discussions maybe we could 24 have       during     a committee         meeting       is where   would 25 regulatory         guidance       in   the   form     of a Reg   Guide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
reports we provided were not aimed at how do you 5
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
develop a mechanistic source term for a reactor 6
technology of x, y, or z. It was a kind of high-level 7
process for what needs to go into developing source 8
terms.
9 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Excuse me. The last 10 indication we had was that you are also developing a 11 Reg Guide related to this. Is that still true?
12 MR. RECKLEY: I'll let John weigh in. At 13 this point we may as we go further down and see what 14 the reaction is to these reports and whether it 15 warrants going to the next step of issuing an actual 16 Regulatory Guide, or if we start to look at individual 17 technologies, whether it makes more sense to have a 18 Regulatory Guide that would follow up.
19 We also have some technology-specific 20 reports. Oak Ridge is doing some work, Molten Salts, 21 Argonne and Idaho on fast reactors and gas-cooled 22 reactors. So one of the discussions maybe we could 23 have during a committee meeting is where would 24 regulatory guidance in the form of a Reg Guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


29 1 actually be the most useful.
29 actually be the most useful.
2                    CHAIR BLEY:         Okay, thanks, yeah, we'll 3 look forward to pursuing that with you.                       Go ahead.
1 CHAIR BLEY: Okay, thanks, yeah, we'll 2
4 Well,       before   you   go   to   your       next   bullet,     John 5 introduced the next bullet, and if you can say a 6 little more about what you're talking about here with 7 this TICAP thing, I'd appreciate it.
look forward to pursuing that with you. Go ahead.
8                    MR. RECKLEY: Sure. Okay, so we mentioned 9 in Reg Guide 1.233, kind of as a predictor, that we 10 will need additional guidance.                 At this point we have 11 two Reg Guides specifically for advanced reactors, and 12 one of the ones that we thought would be useful is to 13 go into more detail on actually what goes into an 14 application.
3 Well, before you go to your next bullet, John 4
15                    So that is the content of applications 16 discussion.         We've broken that into two parts.                     The 17 first part is the unplanned event portion of an 18 application.         So if you think traditionally, this 19 would       be FSAR   Chapters       15,   the     safety analysis.
introduced the next bullet, and if you can say a 5
20 Chapter 19, the PRA assessments, as well as the 21 discussions of individual systems and their roles in 22 addressing those unplanned events.                     Also some of the 23 work in the early FSAR chapters on hazards, external 24 hazard assessments, for example.
little more about what you're talking about here with 6
25                    So the unplanned event portions of an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
this TICAP thing, I'd appreciate it.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 MR. RECKLEY: Sure. Okay, so we mentioned 8
in Reg Guide 1.233, kind of as a predictor, that we 9
will need additional guidance. At this point we have 10 two Reg Guides specifically for advanced reactors, and 11 one of the ones that we thought would be useful is to 12 go into more detail on actually what goes into an 13 application.
14 So that is the content of applications 15 discussion. We've broken that into two parts. The 16 first part is the unplanned event portion of an 17 application. So if you think traditionally, this 18 would be FSAR Chapters 15, the safety analysis.
19 Chapter 19, the PRA assessments, as well as the 20 discussions of individual systems and their roles in 21 addressing those unplanned events. Also some of the 22 work in the early FSAR chapters on hazards, external 23 hazard assessments, for example.
24 So the unplanned event portions of an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


30 1 application is what is included in TICAP, and it's a 2 significant part of a safety analysis report.                 We are 3 working with kind of a coordinated effort that's 4 similar to licensing modernization, as John mentioned.
30 application is what is included in TICAP, and it's a 1
5 There's a DOE-cost-shared initiative with industry, 6 and we expect to get a guidance document from NEI that 7 would take and build upon NEI 18-04 to say, from that 8 methodology, this is how you transfer it into a FSAR.
significant part of a safety analysis report. We are 2
9 One example would be a safety-related system would get 10 this amount of detail in a discussion.                 This is what 11 would need to be described for a non-safety-related 12 with special treatment kind of SSC.                 This is how the 13 performance     criteria       would       be     established       and 14 monitored, for example.         So that's the TICAP portion.
working with kind of a coordinated effort that's 3
15                MEMBER REMPE:         Bill, this is Joy.         Can I 16 interrupt you?
similar to licensing modernization, as John mentioned.
17                MR. RECKLEY:         Sure.
4 There's a DOE-cost-shared initiative with industry, 5
18                MEMBER REMPE:         I was planning to bring 19 this up in the next part of the discussion, but I 20 can't resist here.       When we first started doing this, 21 most of us, as I had envisioned, you'd have reactor 22 where you put fuel in it at the site, and then you 23 take the fuel out and you, at some day dispose of the 24 vessel or whatever.           Nowadays we're talking about 25 bringing a loaded core to the site, and maybe you do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
and we expect to get a guidance document from NEI that 6
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
would take and build upon NEI 18-04 to say, from that 7
methodology, this is how you transfer it into a FSAR.
8 One example would be a safety-related system would get 9
this amount of detail in a discussion. This is what 10 would need to be described for a non-safety-related 11 with special treatment kind of SSC. This is how the 12 performance criteria would be established and 13 monitored, for example. So that's the TICAP portion.
14 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, this is Joy. Can I 15 interrupt you?
16 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
17 MEMBER REMPE: I was planning to bring 18 this up in the next part of the discussion, but I 19 can't resist here. When we first started doing this, 20 most of us, as I had envisioned, you'd have reactor 21 where you put fuel in it at the site, and then you 22 take the fuel out and you, at some day dispose of the 23 vessel or whatever. Nowadays we're talking about 24 bringing a loaded core to the site, and maybe you do 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


31 1 a few things once you get there, but then after you 2 run the reactor you take the loaded core someplace 3 else.
31 a few things once you get there, but then after you 1
4                    Is your vision considering this not only 5 for how you're going to select the licensing basis 6 events, but also the content of the application?
run the reactor you take the loaded core someplace 2
7 Because         you   might     have     more       risk with     this 8 transportation issue than you do with the actual 9 operation of a small modular reactor.
else.
10                    MR. RECKLEY:       Yeah.     And the next-to-the-11 last bullet on microreactor issues, for example, one 12 of the things we'll have to do, and we'll have to work 13 with industry on what is the content of their guidance 14 under TICAP, and how far are they going to take it to 15 address the issues that you just mentioned. If that's 16 not picked up as part of that effort, we could pick it 17 up in the subsequent discussion, which is things that 18 we're       putting   under     advanced       reactor   content       to 19 application, or issues that are not picked up with the 20 unplanned event.
3 Is your vision considering this not only 4
21                    I don't believe that TICAP would probably 22 pick up transportation, for example. So maybe we need 23 to     pick     that   up   in   advance       reactor     constant       to 24 applications.         We may be able to take large advantage 25 of existing guidance on transportation containers and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
for how you're going to select the licensing basis 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
events, but also the content of the application?
6 Because you might have more risk with this 7
transportation issue than you do with the actual 8
operation of a small modular reactor.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. And the next-to-the-10 last bullet on microreactor issues, for example, one 11 of the things we'll have to do, and we'll have to work 12 with industry on what is the content of their guidance 13 under TICAP, and how far are they going to take it to 14 address the issues that you just mentioned. If that's 15 not picked up as part of that effort, we could pick it 16 up in the subsequent discussion, which is things that 17 we're putting under advanced reactor content to 18 application, or issues that are not picked up with the 19 unplanned event.
20 I don't believe that TICAP would probably 21 pick up transportation, for example. So maybe we need 22 to pick that up in advance reactor constant to 23 applications. We may be able to take large advantage 24 of existing guidance on transportation containers and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


32 1 guidance and requirements, but we will have to make 2 that assessment.
32 guidance and requirements, but we will have to make 1
3                So this has a lot of moving parts, as 4 you're hinting at, and exactly where any particular 5 issue lands, we are still kind of working out and 6 coordinating.     But we do have them all on the radar 7 screen.
that assessment.
8                MEMBER REMPE:         Yeah, because even, you 9 know, licensing basis event may not just be when the 10 reactor is sitting there running, and so yeah, I think 11 we need to broaden our perspective.               And I'm glad to 12 hear that the staff is thinking about it even if we 13 don't have an answer yet.
2 So this has a lot of moving parts, as 3
14                MR. RECKLEY:       Okay, thank you.     And Walt?
you're hinting at, and exactly where any particular 4
15 I think somebody?
issue lands, we are still kind of working out and 5
16                MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Bill, this is Walt.
coordinating. But we do have them all on the radar 6
17 It would seem to me, Bill, one area that would in your 18 guidance -- I'm seeking some clarity in the use of 19 terminology. Let's start with safety-related versus 20 non-safety-related or whatever, or not safety-related.
screen.
21 For example, often we are presented in presentations 22 from the staff, we have safety-related, not safety-23 related, and then important to safety, not important 24 to safety. So sometimes that framework is used, and 25 then sometimes what we hear is it's safety-related or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, because even, you 8
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
know, licensing basis event may not just be when the 9
reactor is sitting there running, and so yeah, I think 10 we need to broaden our perspective. And I'm glad to 11 hear that the staff is thinking about it even if we 12 don't have an answer yet.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thank you. And Walt?
14 I think somebody?
15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Bill, this is Walt.
16 It would seem to me, Bill, one area that would in your 17 guidance -- I'm seeking some clarity in the use of 18 terminology. Let's start with safety-related versus 19 non-safety-related or whatever, or not safety-related.
20 For example, often we are presented in presentations 21 from the staff, we have safety-related, not safety-22 related, and then important to safety, not important 23 to safety. So sometimes that framework is used, and 24 then sometimes what we hear is it's safety-related or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


33 1 not       safety-related,       risk-significant,         not     risk-2 significant, and so on.
33 not safety-related, risk-significant, not risk-1 significant, and so on.
3                  So given that this is more of a risk-4 informed approach, it seems to me some clarity is 5 needed in terminology and definition so that when it 6 comes time to break down, not the contents of the 7 application, but the contents of the reactor design 8 itself, and classify SSCs, I think this is going to be 9 a real challenge for you going forward.
2 So given that this is more of a risk-3 informed approach, it seems to me some clarity is 4
10                  MR. RECKLEY: We agree. Actually, when we 11 get into the Part 53 questions, one of them goes 12 exactly to terminology because as you mention, within 13 the existing Part 50 and 52, there are definitions.
needed in terminology and definition so that when it 5
14 And those were clarified in various papers regarding 15 important to safety, they were also then further 16 enhanced       under   the     passive       reactors,   and       the 17 introduction of RTNSS, Regulatory Treatment of Non-18 Safety Systems. And then 50.69 has its own categories 19 that       you   mentioned       that     are     based   on     risk 20 significance.       And you have all of that history under 21 Part 50, and then what we ultimately did under Reg 22 Guide       1.233 was     introduce       yet     another   set       of 23 terminology.
comes time to break down, not the contents of the 6
24                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:             I know.     That's my 25 concern.
application, but the contents of the reactor design 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
itself, and classify SSCs, I think this is going to be 8
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
a real challenge for you going forward.
9 MR. RECKLEY: We agree. Actually, when we 10 get into the Part 53 questions, one of them goes 11 exactly to terminology because as you mention, within 12 the existing Part 50 and 52, there are definitions.
13 And those were clarified in various papers regarding 14 important to safety, they were also then further 15 enhanced under the passive
: reactors, and the 16 introduction of RTNSS, Regulatory Treatment of Non-17 Safety Systems. And then 50.69 has its own categories 18 that you mentioned that are based on risk 19 significance. And you have all of that history under 20 Part 50, and then what we ultimately did under Reg 21 Guide 1.233 was introduce yet another set of 22 terminology.
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I know. That's my 24 concern.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


34 1                    MR. RECKLEY:         Yes.
34 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
2                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:         I think clarity here is 3 needed.
1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I think clarity here is 2
4                    MR. RECKLEY:         Right, and I think we've 5 talked about this in our past interactions, was that 6 that is a challenge.           We're expecting under Reg Guide 7 1.233 that anybody that uses the methodology adopts 8 the terminology out of NEI 18-04, but we do realize 9 that sets up a different definition and a different 10 discussion than maybe a similar design that would pick 11 it up under Part 50.             And we've tried, and I don't --
needed.
12 any suggestions would be appreciated.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and I think we've 4
13                    CHAIR   BLEY:         This       is Dennis   again.
talked about this in our past interactions, was that 5
14 Thinking about this TICAP and about Part 53 as well, 15 Mike Corradini often says, you know, work the problem 16 backwards.         What's, you know, kind of to the old 17 style, what's the worst thing that could happen to 18 this?       And you've got some documents that hinted that 19 it would seem that the content of applications and the 20 depth of applications ought to be linked to the worst 21 --     kind     of the   worst     things       that could   happen, 22 especially when we start thinking about some of the 23 microreactors, which I assume would be under this same 24 umbrella, so there needs to be some kind of scaling 25 that's built in based on the kind of maximum source NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that is a challenge. We're expecting under Reg Guide 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
1.233 that anybody that uses the methodology adopts 7
the terminology out of NEI 18-04, but we do realize 8
that sets up a different definition and a different 9
discussion than maybe a similar design that would pick 10 it up under Part 50. And we've tried, and I don't --
11 any suggestions would be appreciated.
12 CHAIR BLEY: This is Dennis again.
13 Thinking about this TICAP and about Part 53 as well, 14 Mike Corradini often says, you know, work the problem 15 backwards. What's, you know, kind of to the old 16 style, what's the worst thing that could happen to 17 this? And you've got some documents that hinted that 18 it would seem that the content of applications and the 19 depth of applications ought to be linked to the worst 20
-- kind of the worst things that could happen, 21 especially when we start thinking about some of the 22 microreactors, which I assume would be under this same 23 umbrella, so there needs to be some kind of scaling 24 that's built in based on the kind of maximum source 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


35 1 term one would be dealing with.                   Is that part of what 2 you're planning?
35 term one would be dealing with. Is that part of what 1
3                    MR. RECKLEY: Yes, in that Reg Guide 1.233 4 mentions that people might want to take an approach 5 like a maximum hypothetical accident approach.                             We 6 have had some discussions with individual designers 7 that are using or contemplating using that kind of 8 approach. One of the things, and it's all related, as 9 you       mention,     but     maybe     when     you   look   at     the 10 mechanistic source term documents that if an applicant 11 is able, or a designer is able to show that hazard 12 just is not able to put the radionuclides on a path 13 for release because they're retained within the fuel, 14 or maybe the first and second barriers, we've said 15 we're amenable to looking at those kind of approaches 16 if they can demonstrate them.                 It might be a big if, 17 but that's from a process-wise, we'd be open to it if 18 they can show it.           And that kind of approach is used, 19 for     example,     in   some     of   the     research   and     test 20 reactors.
you're planning?
21                    MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this Walt Kirchner 22 again.         On this topic, this is another area where I 23 find       some   clarity     is   needed.           Source   term     has 24 different meanings for different people or applicants, 25 I would guess as well.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, in that Reg Guide 1.233 3
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
mentions that people might want to take an approach 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
like a maximum hypothetical accident approach. We 5
have had some discussions with individual designers 6
that are using or contemplating using that kind of 7
approach. One of the things, and it's all related, as 8
you mention, but maybe when you look at the 9
mechanistic source term documents that if an applicant 10 is able, or a designer is able to show that hazard 11 just is not able to put the radionuclides on a path 12 for release because they're retained within the fuel, 13 or maybe the first and second barriers, we've said 14 we're amenable to looking at those kind of approaches 15 if they can demonstrate them. It might be a big if, 16 but that's from a process-wise, we'd be open to it if 17 they can show it. And that kind of approach is used, 18 for example, in some of the research and test 19 reactors.
20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this Walt Kirchner 21 again. On this topic, this is another area where I 22 find some clarity is needed. Source term has 23 different meanings for different people or applicants, 24 I would guess as well.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


36 1                    The traditional source term if you're 2 going through the 10 CFR 50 and 52 process, is to 3 hypothesize a maximum creditable accident no matter 4 what, and then use that as the quote-unquote "source 5 term."         Now any reactor that's operated by definition 6 is going to have fission product inventory buildup.
36 The traditional source term if you're 1
7 Depending on the fuel type used, that may be a hazard 8 in and of itself without operation, et cetera.
going through the 10 CFR 50 and 52 process, is to 2
9                    So there is always, with any advanced 10 reactor, or any micro-reactor, or any large reactor, 11 there always is a hazard.                 There seems to be -- I 12 think you're going to be presented with arguments that 13 we don't have a source term. And when people say that 14 they're thinking of 10 CFR 50 and 52.                       But clearly, 15 any       reactor   that's     operated,         builds   up fission 16 products and hence presents a hazard, and that's what 17 the NRC has to assure, the adequate protection of the 18 public.         So that it seems to me that you're going to 19 run into a lot of arguments about source term.
hypothesize a maximum creditable accident no matter 3
20                    MR. RECKLEY: Yes. And it's sometimes, as 21 you mentioned, a terminology issue.                       They have an 22 inventory, obviously, and I think maybe when you look 23 through mechanistic source term papers you can see 24 we're trying to get the discussion about where are the 25 inventories         and how     are     you     controlling   them       or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
what, and then use that as the quote-unquote "source 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
term." Now any reactor that's operated by definition 5
is going to have fission product inventory buildup.
6 Depending on the fuel type used, that may be a hazard 7
in and of itself without operation, et cetera.
8 So there is always, with any advanced 9
reactor, or any micro-reactor, or any large reactor, 10 there always is a hazard. There seems to be -- I 11 think you're going to be presented with arguments that 12 we don't have a source term. And when people say that 13 they're thinking of 10 CFR 50 and 52. But clearly, 14 any reactor that's operated, builds up fission 15 products and hence presents a hazard, and that's what 16 the NRC has to assure, the adequate protection of the 17 public. So that it seems to me that you're going to 18 run into a lot of arguments about source term.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. And it's sometimes, as 20 you mentioned, a terminology issue. They have an 21 inventory, obviously, and I think maybe when you look 22 through mechanistic source term papers you can see 23 we're trying to get the discussion about where are the 24 inventories and how are you controlling them or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


37 1 inhibiting         their     release     as   being   the topic,       as 2 opposed to, as we have for Light Water Reactor saying 3 the source term is what is put into the containment 4 and then model the containment for what is the public 5 dose.         So   I   think     we'll     continue     to have     some 6 terminology challenge as we go through.
37 inhibiting their release as being the topic, as 1
7                    In general, for non-Lights, the source 8 term as we're using it is actually what leaves the 9 last physical barrier.               In other words, if you're an 10 analyst, what would you input into your atmospheric 11 dispersion code?           But again, that's different because 12 we're now saying it's on the other side of the last 13 wall, if you will.
opposed to, as we have for Light Water Reactor saying 2
14                    MR. CORRADINI:             Bill,   is that       any 15 different than TID 18.444 and the original approach to 16 Part 100?         It's essentially the same thing.
the source term is what is put into the containment 3
17                    MR. RECKLEY:           Well, it's somewhat the 18 same.         It's just, again, it's largely in my view a 19 terminology issue.             The source term as it was defined 20 in TID and NUREG-1465 is the radionuclides that are 21 put into the containment, and that's what's called 22 source term.         And then you model it for what gets out 23 of containment, and then you model it for how it's 24 dispersed.
and then model the containment for what is the public 4
25                    Since the role of a physical containment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
dose. So I think we'll continue to have some 5
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
terminology challenge as we go through.
6 In general, for non-Lights, the source 7
term as we're using it is actually what leaves the 8
last physical barrier. In other words, if you're an 9
analyst, what would you input into your atmospheric 10 dispersion code? But again, that's different because 11 we're now saying it's on the other side of the last 12 wall, if you will.
13 MR. CORRADINI: Bill, is that any 14 different than TID 18.444 and the original approach to 15 Part 100? It's essentially the same thing.
16 MR. RECKLEY: Well, it's somewhat the 17 same. It's just, again, it's largely in my view a 18 terminology issue. The source term as it was defined 19 in TID and NUREG-1465 is the radionuclides that are 20 put into the containment, and that's what's called 21 source term. And then you model it for what gets out 22 of containment, and then you model it for how it's 23 dispersed.
24 Since the role of a physical containment 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


38 1 structure might vary and as the discussion went, as 2 Dr. Bley mentioned, one of the first papers we did was 3 the functional containment paper, the source term as 4 we use that term, is now the radionuclides that are 5 past the last physical barrier.
38 structure might vary and as the discussion went, as 1
6                  MR. CORRADINI:           Okay, good point.         I'm 7 sorry, you said it much more clearly.
Dr. Bley mentioned, one of the first papers we did was 2
8                  MEMBER PETTI:           So Bill, this is Dave 9 Petti.         It just seems that with all, even just the 10 discussion among the committee here, that some sort of 11 a     document     from   NRC,     some     sort     of guidance       is 12 necessary to help people understand what the rules of 13 the road are.       My view is there may be more than one 14 way to get to a source term, to lay out, sort of, some 15 options, but at least try to remove some of the 16 confusion that could exist, but out of such guidance.
the functional containment paper, the source term as 3
17 I think there will always be questions, but I think 18 without guidance you'll have even more and it will 19 just take longer to, you know, to get everybody 20 through the process.
we use that term, is now the radionuclides that are 4
21                  MR. RECKLEY:         Okay, thanks, Dave.           And 22 we'll finish this up and then move into Part 53, which 23 will be another opportunity for us to try to clarify 24 all of this.         The other thing, and this is just an 25 additional complication, is it will also matter what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
past the last physical barrier.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
5 MR. CORRADINI: Okay, good point. I'm 6
sorry, you said it much more clearly.
7 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, this is Dave 8
Petti. It just seems that with all, even just the 9
discussion among the committee here, that some sort of 10 a document from NRC, some sort of guidance is 11 necessary to help people understand what the rules of 12 the road are. My view is there may be more than one 13 way to get to a source term, to lay out, sort of, some 14 options, but at least try to remove some of the 15 confusion that could exist, but out of such guidance.
16 I think there will always be questions, but I think 17 without guidance you'll have even more and it will 18 just take longer to, you know, to get everybody 19 through the process.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thanks, Dave. And 21 we'll finish this up and then move into Part 53, which 22 will be another opportunity for us to try to clarify 23 all of this. The other thing, and this is just an 24 additional complication, is it will also matter what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


39 1 you're doing that assessment for. And we may approach 2 in the future where, from a licensing standpoint, you 3 can do as Dennis mentioned, and have some very - try 4 to avoid the term - but very conservative assumptions 5 that would go in and basically say for licensing 6 purposes we're taking a simplified approach because we 7 think we can maintain the inventory or prevent the 8 inventory from release, whereas if you're doing a more 9 best estimate, an actual analysis, you may have to go 10 into more detail.
39 you're doing that assessment for. And we may approach 1
11                  And a designer might need to do that for 12 other reasons, like occupational dose or economic 13 reasons, to do more detailed assessments of where the 14 radioactive material might end up or might present a 15 challenge, even if you can show with high confidence 16 that it's not going to get out of the facility.                       So 17 this is all, you know, it's all a complicated endeavor 18 on the part of both the designers and us to try to 19 navigate.
in the future where, from a licensing standpoint, you 2
20                  MEMBER     KIRCHNER:           Bill, this is     Walt 21 Kirchner.       Sorry for the frequent interruptions.               No, 22 I'm not sorry; I apologize. The one thing that was on 23 one of your earlier view graphs and also you had 24 presented in past meetings, I don't think on the 25 tabletop       exercises     conducted         today, people     went NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
can do as Dennis mentioned, and have some very - try 3
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
to avoid the term - but very conservative assumptions 4
that would go in and basically say for licensing 5
purposes we're taking a simplified approach because we 6
think we can maintain the inventory or prevent the 7
inventory from release, whereas if you're doing a more 8
best estimate, an actual analysis, you may have to go 9
into more detail.
10 And a designer might need to do that for 11 other reasons, like occupational dose or economic 12 reasons, to do more detailed assessments of where the 13 radioactive material might end up or might present a 14 challenge, even if you can show with high confidence 15 that it's not going to get out of the facility. So 16 this is all, you know, it's all a complicated endeavor 17 on the part of both the designers and us to try to 18 navigate.
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 20 Kirchner. Sorry for the frequent interruptions. No, 21 I'm not sorry; I apologize. The one thing that was on 22 one of your earlier view graphs and also you had 23 presented in past meetings, I don't think on the 24 tabletop exercises conducted today, people went 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


40 1 completely through the defense in depth part of the 2 exercise.         And I'm wondering what guidance you're 3 going to provide to get out of one person's judgement 4 versus another on what is sufficient defense and 5 depth.
40 completely through the defense in depth part of the 1
6                  How are you going to generally kind of 7 wrap that part of this up in terms of guidance?                   When 8 is enough, enough?             When is, for example, just no 9 matter what, you know, we had a former member who 10 would       say I just     want     an   essentially leak-tight 11 containment, period.             And that's, of course, also 12 subject to definition, but you get my point that, you 13 know, in the final analysis, you've done all this and 14 so on, but defense in depth, when is enough, enough, 15 and how do you decide that?
exercise. And I'm wondering what guidance you're 2
16                  MR. RECKLEY: Right, and other than trying 17 to follow through with the process that was laid out 18 in NEI 18-04 and the Reg Guide, that's currently where 19 we     are.     There   is,     as   you   mentioned,   a certain 20 subjective       element     to   that,     engineering   judgment 21 element to that, that will maintain.
going to provide to get out of one person's judgement 3
22                  How we decide when is enough, enough gets 23 complicated because going back to the backup slide on 24 slide ten, what we expect is that designers are going 25 to come in and try to utilize the margins that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
versus another on what is sufficient defense and 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       (202) 234-4433
depth.
5 How are you going to generally kind of 6
wrap that part of this up in terms of guidance? When 7
is enough, enough? When is, for example, just no 8
matter what, you know, we had a former member who 9
would say I just want an essentially leak-tight 10 containment, period. And that's, of course, also 11 subject to definition, but you get my point that, you 12 know, in the final analysis, you've done all this and 13 so on, but defense in depth, when is enough, enough, 14 and how do you decide that?
15 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and other than trying 16 to follow through with the process that was laid out 17 in NEI 18-04 and the Reg Guide, that's currently where 18 we are. There is, as you mentioned, a certain 19 subjective element to that, engineering judgment 20 element to that, that will maintain.
21 How we decide when is enough, enough gets 22 complicated because going back to the backup slide on 23 slide ten, what we expect is that designers are going 24 to come in and try to utilize the margins that are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


41 1 available to them through the designs in order to get 2 flexibility somewhere else, like emergency planning 3 zones is the common example, or population related 4 siting considerations we talked about a couple months 5 ago.       Or there will be something else.
41 available to them through the designs in order to get 1
6                    The last bullet on future interactions is 7 staffing.
flexibility somewhere else, like emergency planning 2
8                    CHAIR BLEY:         If I might interrupt yet 9 again. I think, Bill, the most challenging area where 10 a designer will want to use margin is cutting down on 11 the number of systems that are safety-related because 12 there's an economic cost associated with that.
zones is the common example, or population related 3
13                    MR. RECKLEY:         And we -- yes.
siting considerations we talked about a couple months 4
14                    CHAIR BLEY:       That's where I think you'll 15 run into the problem, yes, on emergency planning and 16 so     on,     but   that   one   probably         becomes   where     the 17 designer first tries to use the margin that he or she 18 believes they have versus the consequence curve, the 19 frequency consequence curve.
ago. Or there will be something else.
20                    MR. RECKLEY:         Right.       Yeah, and a lot of 21 that will be -- within this methodology I think it 22 provides         the   opportunity       to     hopefully   give     the 23 designer the ability to come in and say, We're gonna 24 add       this   system     for     defense       and   depth.         The 25 methodology as it stands would generally allow that to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
5 The last bullet on future interactions is 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
staffing.
7 CHAIR BLEY: If I might interrupt yet 8
again. I think, Bill, the most challenging area where 9
a designer will want to use margin is cutting down on 10 the number of systems that are safety-related because 11 there's an economic cost associated with that.
12 MR. RECKLEY: And we -- yes.
13 CHAIR BLEY: That's where I think you'll 14 run into the problem, yes, on emergency planning and 15 so on, but that one probably becomes where the 16 designer first tries to use the margin that he or she 17 believes they have versus the consequence curve, the 18 frequency consequence curve.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Yeah, and a lot of 20 that will be -- within this methodology I think it 21 provides the opportunity to hopefully give the 22 designer the ability to come in and say, We're gonna 23 add this system for defense and depth. The 24 methodology as it stands would generally allow that to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


42 1 be done without making it safety related.               Go ahead, 2 Dennis.
42 be done without making it safety related. Go ahead, 1
3                CHAIR BLEY:       This is for Walt and others.
Dennis.
4 This is a place where I felt NEI 18-04 made a good 5 step beyond what was in 1860 15 years ago.                       They 6 really laid out a structured approach for looking at 7 the defense in depth issue and considering various 8 different approaches to that. It's one area where, at 9 least the last time we talked, the tabletops hadn't 10 fully exercised this methodology, and I guess I'd sure 11 like to see that at some point.                 This is an area we 12 might dig into in a future meeting somehow.
2 CHAIR BLEY: This is for Walt and others.
13                MR. RECKLEY: Right, okay. The other part 14 of it is we will see as it gets exercised, and that 15 will be where we need to remain agile enough to see 16 that some of this work that's going on in parallel, if 17 you keep track of it and incorporate any lessons, both 18 from the application of this in designs like Kairos, 19 and you guys were looking at some of those topical 20 reports, or a different committee is, we're going to 21 be watching how it's applied to the versatile test 22 reactor.       They're     going     to     use this kind       of 23 methodology. So we will keep an eye on it.
3 This is a place where I felt NEI 18-04 made a good 4
24                Trying to finish this up, and all of this 25 is a great discussion, and it feeds right into Part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
step beyond what was in 1860 15 years ago. They 5
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
really laid out a structured approach for looking at 6
the defense in depth issue and considering various 7
different approaches to that. It's one area where, at 8
least the last time we talked, the tabletops hadn't 9
fully exercised this methodology, and I guess I'd sure 10 like to see that at some point. This is an area we 11 might dig into in a future meeting somehow.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Right, okay. The other part 13 of it is we will see as it gets exercised, and that 14 will be where we need to remain agile enough to see 15 that some of this work that's going on in parallel, if 16 you keep track of it and incorporate any lessons, both 17 from the application of this in designs like Kairos, 18 and you guys were looking at some of those topical 19 reports, or a different committee is, we're going to 20 be watching how it's applied to the versatile test 21 reactor. They're going to use this kind of 22 methodology. So we will keep an eye on it.
23 Trying to finish this up, and all of this 24 is a great discussion, and it feeds right into Part 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


43 1 53, that we're going to get into next so I don't think 2 that we're really getting behind because a lot of this 3 is the same discussion.
43 53, that we're going to get into next so I don't think 1
4                    So I tried to explain what TICAP was, 5 that's the unplanned events portions of a safety 6 analysis report.           There would be other guidance on 7 other things outside of the final safety analysis 8 report,       sections   on   unplanned         events,   the   normal 9 effluents, for example, technical specifications.
that we're really getting behind because a lot of this 2
10                    There's     some     interest       in   additional 11 guidance on what goes into a construction permit under 12 Part 50 because it's been a long time since we've 13 looked at a Part 50 construction permit, especially 14 for a reactor design that's significantly different 15 than large light waters.               The next to the last bullet 16 I mentioned.
is the same discussion.
17                    There     is   a     pending       SECY   paper       on 18 microreactor issues, and then out of that paper the 19 gist is an information paper that identifies various 20 issues,       including     the   fact     that     micros   might       be 21 deployed differently and might bring up issues like 22 transportation and manufacturing even more so than 23 what we've dealt with to date.
3 So I tried to explain what TICAP was, 4
24                    Out of that paper we expect other policy 25 papers,       and   one   that     we're       just   beginning       the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that's the unplanned events portions of a safety 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
analysis report. There would be other guidance on 6
other things outside of the final safety analysis 7
report, sections on unplanned events, the normal 8
effluents, for example, technical specifications.
9 There's some interest in additional 10 guidance on what goes into a construction permit under 11 Part 50 because it's been a long time since we've 12 looked at a Part 50 construction permit, especially 13 for a reactor design that's significantly different 14 than large light waters. The next to the last bullet 15 I mentioned.
16 There is a
pending SECY paper on 17 microreactor issues, and then out of that paper the 18 gist is an information paper that identifies various 19 issues, including the fact that micros might be 20 deployed differently and might bring up issues like 21 transportation and manufacturing even more so than 22 what we've dealt with to date.
23 Out of that paper we expect other policy 24 papers, and one that we're just beginning the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


44 1 discussions internally, is on staffing, and questions 2 like if a reactor can show inherent features, can 3 those features negate the need for licensed operators.
44 discussions internally, is on staffing, and questions 1
4 Would it be possible to go to autonomous operations 5 either through digital systems or inherent mechanical, 6 physical attributes, remote operations.
like if a reactor can show inherent features, can 2
7                  So all of these questions, we're just 8 beginning to discuss what would go into a future paper 9 on staffing, and it may be one or more of these 10 issues, depending on the timing and the applications 11 that we get in and the feedback we get from industry.
those features negate the need for licensed operators.
12 So I guess all of this --
3 Would it be possible to go to autonomous operations 4
13                  MEMBER REMPE:         Bill, this is Joy.
either through digital systems or inherent mechanical, 5
14                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yeah?
physical attributes, remote operations.
15                  MEMBER REMPE:         And I didn't interrupt you 16 when       I   wanted to     about     the     construction   permit 17 application, and what's required.                     You do have an 18 ongoing effort with the SHINE Medical Isotopes effort, 19 and there's a lot of coordination going on in the 20 staff because I think that's a good example that could 21 shed some light.
6 So all of these questions, we're just 7
22                  MR. RECKLEY:         There is, and I'm sorry I 23 should have mentioned that.               Yeah, we're looking very 24 closely at what was done to issue that construction 25 permit and then as they enter the next phase, how you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
beginning to discuss what would go into a future paper 8
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
on staffing, and it may be one or more of these 9
issues, depending on the timing and the applications 10 that we get in and the feedback we get from industry.
11 So I guess all of this --
12 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, this is Joy.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah?
14 MEMBER REMPE: And I didn't interrupt you 15 when I wanted to about the construction permit 16 application, and what's required. You do have an 17 ongoing effort with the SHINE Medical Isotopes effort, 18 and there's a lot of coordination going on in the 19 staff because I think that's a good example that could 20 shed some light.
21 MR. RECKLEY: There is, and I'm sorry I 22 should have mentioned that. Yeah, we're looking very 23 closely at what was done to issue that construction 24 permit and then as they enter the next phase, how you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


45 1 go from the construction permit review, over to the 2 operating license review.           So thank you.       Yes?
45 go from the construction permit review, over to the 1
3                MEMBER REMPE:         Thanks.
operating license review. So thank you. Yes?
4                MR. RECKLEY:         So the Part 53 discussions 5 in a different slide presentation, Dennis, are we 6 ready to jump into that one?
2 MEMBER REMPE: Thanks.
7                CHAIR BLEY:       It's not.         I'm going to call 8 a break at this point, and I think you're right.                       I 9 think we've made a lot of progress through some of 10 the, at least background material, and even some of 11 the questions in the Part 53 discussion.                 Maybe when 12 we start there you can go through the first few slides 13 pretty quickly because I think you already talked 14 about many of them.
3 MR. RECKLEY: So the Part 53 discussions 4
15                Let's take a break. It's ten 'til. Let's 16 come back at ten after.         What will that be back east?
in a different slide presentation, Dennis, are we 5
17 That will be ten after 9:00 here.                   Ten after 11:00 18 east coast time.       And we'll go right through, and if 19 we need it, we might take after an hour, we might take 20 a short five or ten minute break then before we finish 21 up.
ready to jump into that one?
22                So at this point we'll take a break. When 23 we come back we'll be on the next slide set.                     If we 24 can get those set up ahead of time.               I'll see you back 25 here at ten after.
6 CHAIR BLEY: It's not. I'm going to call 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
a break at this point, and I think you're right. I 8
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
think we've made a lot of progress through some of 9
the, at least background material, and even some of 10 the questions in the Part 53 discussion. Maybe when 11 we start there you can go through the first few slides 12 pretty quickly because I think you already talked 13 about many of them.
14 Let's take a break. It's ten 'til. Let's 15 come back at ten after. What will that be back east?
16 That will be ten after 9:00 here. Ten after 11:00 17 east coast time. And we'll go right through, and if 18 we need it, we might take after an hour, we might take 19 a short five or ten minute break then before we finish 20 up.
21 So at this point we'll take a break. When 22 we come back we'll be on the next slide set. If we 23 can get those set up ahead of time. I'll see you back 24 here at ten after.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


46 1                    (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 2 off the record at 10:49 a.m. and resumed at 11:10 3 a.m.)
46 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 1
4                    CHAIR BLEY: Okay. It's 10 minutes after, 5 we're ready to start again.                 Bill, will you be going 6 ahead or will it be by Bill?
off the record at 10:49 a.m. and resumed at 11:10 2
7                    MR. RECKLEY:       This is Bill Reckley.           I'll 8 continue.
a.m.)
9                    CHAIR BLEY:       Okay.       You're up.
3 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. It's 10 minutes after, 4
10                    MR. RECKLEY:       Okay.       Thank you. So as we 11 mentioned, some of this I can go through relatively 12 quickly because we talked about it in the last part, 13 including       the   background.             We   have   considered 14 rulemakings in the past as has been mentioned, the 15 Nuclear       Energy   Innovation         and     Modernization       Act 16 directed       us   to do     a rulemaking         and to have       it 17 completed no later than December 2027.
we're ready to start again. Bill, will you be going 5
18                    To schedule, as Dennis mentioned in the 19 introduction,         we   don't     have   a     Staff   Requirements 20 Memorandum yet.           We are aware, and the interaction 21 with Senator Barrasso is a public record that at least 22 a number of senators expressed a desire for us to 23 speed it up.         And the Commission in the response said 24 they would give direction to the NRC staff on a 25 schedule. So 2027 is the latest schedule. One should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
ahead or will it be by Bill?
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
6 MR. RECKLEY: This is Bill Reckley. I'll 7
continue.
8 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. You're up.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thank you. So as we 10 mentioned, some of this I can go through relatively 11 quickly because we talked about it in the last part, 12 including the background. We have considered 13 rulemakings in the past as has been mentioned, the 14 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act 15 directed us to do a rulemaking and to have it 16 completed no later than December 2027.
17 To schedule, as Dennis mentioned in the 18 introduction, we don't have a Staff Requirements 19 Memorandum yet. We are aware, and the interaction 20 with Senator Barrasso is a public record that at least 21 a number of senators expressed a desire for us to 22 speed it up. And the Commission in the response said 23 they would give direction to the NRC staff on a 24 schedule. So 2027 is the latest schedule. One should 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


47 1 not be surprised if we get some encouragement to go 2 quicker.
47 not be surprised if we get some encouragement to go 1
3                I'll go into that, as Dennis mentioned, 4 maybe with ACRS interactions in a couple slides.                     One 5 of the things we maybe didn't talk about under NEIMA 6 is their definitions, so on Slide 3, these have come 7 out of the act.         Advanced reactors means a nuclear 8 vision or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant 9 that has significant improvements.                 And then the act 10 lists those in terms of proliferation-resistance, 11 risk, economics, fuel, and a number of attributes that 12 would be an improvement over existing plants, or 13 plants that were under construction.
quicker.
14                So our working scope with this then is 15 light water small modular reactors, non light water 16 reactors, and fusion reactors.
2 I'll go into that, as Dennis mentioned, 3
17                MEMBER PETTI:         So Bill, can I ask you a 18 question?     What are you going to do about fusion?
maybe with ACRS interactions in a couple slides. One 4
19                MR. RECKLEY:           There's     two thoughts 20 currently.     And it's as good a place as any to talk 21 about it because I don't talk about fusion too much 22 throughout the presentation.             The first thought would 23 be if you have a risk framework, can fusion actually 24 just be treated like any other reactor?
of the things we maybe didn't talk about under NEIMA 5
25                Our initial thoughts are that because the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
is their definitions, so on Slide 3, these have come 6
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
out of the act. Advanced reactors means a nuclear 7
vision or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant 8
that has significant improvements. And then the act 9
lists those in terms of proliferation-resistance, 10 risk, economics, fuel, and a number of attributes that 11 would be an improvement over existing plants, or 12 plants that were under construction.
13 So our working scope with this then is 14 light water small modular reactors, non light water 15 reactors, and fusion reactors.
16 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, can I ask you a 17 question? What are you going to do about fusion?
18 MR. RECKLEY: There's two thoughts 19 currently. And it's as good a place as any to talk 20 about it because I don't talk about fusion too much 21 throughout the presentation. The first thought would 22 be if you have a risk framework, can fusion actually 23 just be treated like any other reactor?
24 Our initial thoughts are that because the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


48 1 Atomic         Energy   Act     spells     out     for production       and 2 utilization         facilities       and     their     use   of special 3 nuclear material, the Atomic Energy Act itself sets 4 out a number of requirements that we would have to 5 fulfill for fusion.             And they may not all be needed.
48 Atomic Energy Act spells out for production and 1
6 We're still assessing, but it may be that although 7 fusion would be addressed through this rulemaking, 8 that       there   is   a   distinction         made   between   fusion 9 reactors and those using special nuclear material with 10 a thought that the fusion reactors, if it pans out, 11 might be handled more like -- I won't say exactly 12 like, but more like a materials licensee facilities 13 like accelerators.
utilization facilities and their use of special 2
14                    So we're still just thinking about that.
nuclear material, the Atomic Energy Act itself sets 3
15 We had planned a workshop with the Office of Science, 16 Fusion Energy Sciences within DOE in March.                               And 17 unfortunately, that was delayed because of the COVID.
out a number of requirements that we would have to 4
18 We're looking now to have a workshop or a public forum 19 again with the Fusion Industry Association, DOE, other 20 stakeholders in the September, October timeframe.
fulfill for fusion. And they may not all be needed.
21 We'll       be   talking   about     specifically       developing       a 22 regulatory framework for fusion within this activity.
5 We're still assessing, but it may be that although 6
23                    MEMBER PETTI:         So Bill, back in the 90s I 24 authored a DOE safety standard on fusion, and that DOE 25 standard got -- you have to Google it, Safety of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
fusion would be addressed through this rulemaking, 7
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
that there is a distinction made between fusion 8
reactors and those using special nuclear material with 9
a thought that the fusion reactors, if it pans out, 10 might be handled more like -- I won't say exactly 11 like, but more like a materials licensee facilities 12 like accelerators.
13 So we're still just thinking about that.
14 We had planned a workshop with the Office of Science, 15 Fusion Energy Sciences within DOE in March. And 16 unfortunately, that was delayed because of the COVID.
17 We're looking now to have a workshop or a public forum 18 again with the Fusion Industry Association, DOE, other 19 stakeholders in the September, October timeframe.
20 We'll be talking about specifically developing a 21 regulatory framework for fusion within this activity.
22 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, back in the 90s I 23 authored a DOE safety standard on fusion, and that DOE 24 standard got -- you have to Google it, Safety of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


49 1 Magnetic Fusion and Facilities or something.
49 Magnetic Fusion and Facilities or something.
2                MR. RECKLEY:         Yeah.
1 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah.
3                MEMBER PETTI:         I want to say DOE 6005.
2 MEMBER PETTI: I want to say DOE 6005.
4                MR. RECKLEY:         Right.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
5                MEMBER     PETTI:       The     framework   is     very 6 similar to LMP.       We borrow it heavily from, at the 7 time, it was through GA framework.                 The difference is 8 in the details, right?         The nature of the radioactive 9 materials. It's a much more distributed system in 10 terms of hazards because you're pumping tritium all 11 over the place. So there are differences in terms of 12 the details, but I think you probably can fit it in at 13 the high level.         You know, they had a frequency-14 consequence curve.
4 MEMBER PETTI: The framework is very 5
15                MR. RECKLEY:         Right.
similar to LMP. We borrow it heavily from, at the 6
16                MEMBER PETTI:         All of that sort of stuff.
time, it was through GA framework. The difference is 7
17 So it's just that when you, you know, the devil's in 18 the details. It has to look at it in a different way.
in the details, right? The nature of the radioactive 8
19 But I think there could be a lot of overlap in --
materials. It's a much more distributed system in 9
20                MR. RECKLEY:         Yeah, I've looked at those 21 and I think you're right.                 And the part of the 22 discussion might be whether, again going back to the 23 Atomic Energy Act and all it requires for facilities 24 using special nuclear material, whether we would want 25 to encumber fusion with all of those.                 It may be that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
terms of hazards because you're pumping tritium all 10 over the place. So there are differences in terms of 11 the details, but I think you probably can fit it in at 12 the high level. You know, they had a frequency-13 consequence curve.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
14 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
15 MEMBER PETTI: All of that sort of stuff.
16 So it's just that when you, you know, the devil's in 17 the details. It has to look at it in a different way.
18 But I think there could be a lot of overlap in --
19 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, I've looked at those 20 and I think you're right. And the part of the 21 discussion might be whether, again going back to the 22 Atomic Energy Act and all it requires for facilities 23 using special nuclear material, whether we would want 24 to encumber fusion with all of those. It may be that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


50 1 that's the easiest way to go. We haven't decided yet.
50 that's the easiest way to go. We haven't decided yet.
2                  And then the other thing within fusion, I 3 think most people are familiar with facilities like 4 ITER, the big facility under construction in France, 5 but     we'll   have   to   decide.         Fusion   has as     many 6 approaches because of the isotopes you're able to work 7 with, and the size of the reactor that you might be 8 working with.       They are just as varied or maybe even 9 more varied than fission reactors.                     And so if we're 10 going to try to address all of those, it would be 11 amenable to a risk informed approach like you're 12 mentioning.
1 And then the other thing within fusion, I 2
13                  Then the other definition within NEIMA is 14 for     the   regulatory     framework       and   the   technology-15 inclusive framework.           Going down specifically to the 16 rulemaking plan that we submitted to the commission in 17 April, SECY-20-0032.           And Dennis mentioned, our first 18 proposal is to develop a new part.                   That provides us 19 kind of an opportunity we think to as much as we can 20 start       with a   clean     slate     and     try to   construct 21 something that would be the best for a range of 22 technologies.
think most people are familiar with facilities like 3
23                  The next slide, I'll just go to the --
ITER, the big facility under construction in France, 4
24 well the last bullet on this slide is we're expecting 25 extensive interactions with external stakeholders and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
but we'll have to decide. Fusion has as many 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
approaches because of the isotopes you're able to work 6
with, and the size of the reactor that you might be 7
working with. They are just as varied or maybe even 8
more varied than fission reactors. And so if we're 9
going to try to address all of those, it would be 10 amenable to a risk informed approach like you're 11 mentioning.
12 Then the other definition within NEIMA is 13 for the regulatory framework and the technology-14 inclusive framework. Going down specifically to the 15 rulemaking plan that we submitted to the commission in 16 April, SECY-20-0032. And Dennis mentioned, our first 17 proposal is to develop a new part. That provides us 18 kind of an opportunity we think to as much as we can 19 start with a clean slate and try to construct 20 something that would be the best for a range of 21 technologies.
22 The next slide, I'll just go to the --
23 well the last bullet on this slide is we're expecting 24 extensive interactions with external stakeholders and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


51 1 the advisory committee.               And so as we get into this, 2 and then hopefully at the end I'll try to go through 3 this       all   relatively       quickly.             Most   of     this 4 presentation is a list of 14 questions.                     I don't plan 5 to spend a lot of time on each question.
51 the advisory committee. And so as we get into this, 1
6                    We can go through them and maybe pick 7 which ones might be of most interest. But I think the 8 biggest thing to keep in mind is that this is one of 9 those         rare   opportunities         where       we're   starting 10 relatively with a clean slate, and we're at the 11 beginning of the process. So how we interact would be 12 important.
and then hopefully at the end I'll try to go through 2
13                    When the ACRS would decide to send us 14 recommendations, again, we can work that out. I would 15 imagine you would especially want to do that if you 16 thought       we were   going     down     the     wrong   path.         So 17 although the 14 questions read as if we are totally 18 from a blank slate, we have given it a little thought.
this all relatively quickly.
19 And we use this slide in public meetings to talk about 20 how we thought part 53 might look. And the first part 21 was kind of a decision, and we talk about this within 22 the rulemaking plan.
Most of this 3
23                    NEIMA does define the framework primarily 24 in terms of licensing.             But our assessment was if we 25 overly focused on the first step in the process, we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
presentation is a list of 14 questions. I don't plan 4
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701             (202) 234-4433
to spend a lot of time on each question.
5 We can go through them and maybe pick 6
which ones might be of most interest. But I think the 7
biggest thing to keep in mind is that this is one of 8
those rare opportunities where we're starting 9
relatively with a clean slate, and we're at the 10 beginning of the process. So how we interact would be 11 important.
12 When the ACRS would decide to send us 13 recommendations, again, we can work that out. I would 14 imagine you would especially want to do that if you 15 thought we were going down the wrong path. So 16 although the 14 questions read as if we are totally 17 from a blank slate, we have given it a little thought.
18 And we use this slide in public meetings to talk about 19 how we thought part 53 might look. And the first part 20 was kind of a decision, and we talk about this within 21 the rulemaking plan.
22 NEIMA does define the framework primarily 23 in terms of licensing. But our assessment was if we 24 overly focused on the first step in the process, we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


52 1 both going to miss an opportunity. And two, it's just 2 very difficult to talk about those first steps without 3 having a good understanding of how the whole project 4 life cycle fits together.             And so the proposal in the 5 rulemaking plan is that we go beyond licensing and we 6 build       a whole   regulatory       framework,       not   just     a 7 licensing framework, but a regulatory framework.
52 both going to miss an opportunity. And two, it's just 1
8                  So how would that work?               One of the key 9 things would be to clearly define what are the highest 10 level       safety or   risk   metrics.           So what are     the 11 fundamental safety functions, what are the metrics 12 like the 5034 criteria of 25 rem over the course of 13 the event at the low population zone.                     Like the NRC 14 safety goals. How they get worked in in terms of risk 15 metrics, the use of something similar to the frequency 16 consequence targets. And this might be an opportunity 17 to go to something more that would be like a limits 18 exceedance factor.
very difficult to talk about those first steps without 2
19                  With the emphasis we put before, remember 20 that the frequency consequence targets, NEI 18-04, we 21 have specifically said we are not able to correlate 22 those       to existing     requirements           because   existing 23 requirements weren't defined in those terms. And that 24 turned out to be problematic throughout the Next 25 Generation Nuclear Plant project. And so early on, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
having a good understanding of how the whole project 3
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
life cycle fits together. And so the proposal in the 4
rulemaking plan is that we go beyond licensing and we 5
build a whole regulatory framework, not just a 6
licensing framework, but a regulatory framework.
7 So how would that work? One of the key 8
things would be to clearly define what are the highest 9
level safety or risk metrics. So what are the 10 fundamental safety functions, what are the metrics 11 like the 5034 criteria of 25 rem over the course of 12 the event at the low population zone. Like the NRC 13 safety goals. How they get worked in in terms of risk 14 metrics, the use of something similar to the frequency 15 consequence targets. And this might be an opportunity 16 to go to something more that would be like a limits 17 exceedance factor.
18 With the emphasis we put before, remember 19 that the frequency consequence targets, NEI 18-04, we 20 have specifically said we are not able to correlate 21 those to existing requirements because existing 22 requirements weren't defined in those terms. And that 23 turned out to be problematic throughout the Next 24 Generation Nuclear Plant project. And so early on, we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


53 1 decided in NEI 18-04 that we would ask, and the 2 industry guidance document changed those from top 3 level regulatory requirements to FC targets.
53 decided in NEI 18-04 that we would ask, and the 1
4                  Well     we're     now     going       to be doing       a 5 rulemaking.       If we were to decide to put a frequency-6 consequence figure in the rule, that could now then be 7 a regulatory requirement, and you could use something 8 like limit exceedance factors against that curve if we 9 wanted to do that.
industry guidance document changed those from top 2
10                  Then     you     would     also       have   regulatory 11 requirements         just     like     we   do     now   on normal       l 12 effluents.       Those things that are in Part 20 and also 13 for light water reactors in Appendix I to Part 50 on 14 normal effluents.           And then there'll be other factors 15 that we have to define within the rules, or make sure 16 other rules are there to identify.
level regulatory requirements to FC targets.
17                  So once you're able to define those actual 18 risk metrics, safety metrics, the idea was that the 19 rule would then look and say, "What is the role of the 20 various       parts   of   the   lifecycle         in meeting     those 21 requirements?"             So     at     the     highest     level,       the 22 functional       design,     how   are   you       looking at     those 23 performance metrics?
3 Well we're now going to be doing a 4
24                  Then down to the system level, how are you 25 making sure that individual systems are fulfilling the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
rulemaking. If we were to decide to put a frequency-5 consequence figure in the rule, that could now then be 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701             (202) 234-4433
a regulatory requirement, and you could use something 7
like limit exceedance factors against that curve if we 8
wanted to do that.
9 Then you would also have regulatory 10 requirements just like we do now on normal l 11 effluents. Those things that are in Part 20 and also 12 for light water reactors in Appendix I to Part 50 on 13 normal effluents. And then there'll be other factors 14 that we have to define within the rules, or make sure 15 other rules are there to identify.
16 So once you're able to define those actual 17 risk metrics, safety metrics, the idea was that the 18 rule would then look and say, "What is the role of the 19 various parts of the lifecycle in meeting those 20 requirements?" So at the highest level, the 21 functional design, how are you looking at those 22 performance metrics?
23 Then down to the system level, how are you 24 making sure that individual systems are fulfilling the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


54 1 metrics?         How     do     you     maintain     that     during 2 construction?       For example, what testing you do to 3 make       sure that   the   equipment         actually has       the 4 capabilities that were intended to be built in at the 5 functional or system level.
54 metrics?
6                Then during operations, how are you doing 7 configuration control, how are you doing surveillance 8 and     maintenance,   how   are     you     controlling   design 9 changes. And then ultimately, what needs to be done 10 during retirement or decommissioning phase to maintain 11 those requirements?
How do you maintain that during 1
12                So all of this is currently within our 13 framework for the operating fleet. It's just a matter 14 of again starting with a clean slate.                   This is an 15 opportunity to try to define the role of each one of 16 these project lifecycle parts. And maybe importantly, 17 the relationship of one part to another.
construction? For example, what testing you do to 2
18                And those that have been around for a long 19 time, including myself, much of Part 50 was really 20 aimed at the, at least initially, at that functional 21 and system level design requirements.                 TMI came back 22 and reinforced some of the importance of operating, of 23 those things that you do during planned operations.
make sure that the equipment actually has the 3
24 And then we did things like the maintenance rule and 25 other things to better define the requirements during NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
capabilities that were intended to be built in at the 4
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
functional or system level.
5 Then during operations, how are you doing 6
configuration control, how are you doing surveillance 7
and maintenance, how are you controlling design 8
changes. And then ultimately, what needs to be done 9
during retirement or decommissioning phase to maintain 10 those requirements?
11 So all of this is currently within our 12 framework for the operating fleet. It's just a matter 13 of again starting with a clean slate. This is an 14 opportunity to try to define the role of each one of 15 these project lifecycle parts. And maybe importantly, 16 the relationship of one part to another.
17 And those that have been around for a long 18 time, including myself, much of Part 50 was really 19 aimed at the, at least initially, at that functional 20 and system level design requirements. TMI came back 21 and reinforced some of the importance of operating, of 22 those things that you do during planned operations.
23 And then we did things like the maintenance rule and 24 other things to better define the requirements during 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


55 1 operation.
55 operation.
2                  But the thought is this is an opportunity 3 to look at this as an integrated system.                   And in some 4 cases, you may be able to benefit by knowing what is 5 going to be required during operations in order for a 6 designer, and just as importantly for us as the staff 7 to say, "In terms of how deeply I look at a design, I 8 can build into that logic what I know will be done 9 during operations to maintain configuration to do 10 surveillance and maintenance."                   So again, I'm not --
1 But the thought is this is an opportunity 2
11 this is done now.         We're just trying to lay it out a 12 little bit from the very beginning.
to look at this as an integrated system. And in some 3
13                  CHAIR BLEY:       Bill?
cases, you may be able to benefit by knowing what is 4
14                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, go ahead.
going to be required during operations in order for a 5
15                  CHAIR BLEY:       Two related questions.             This 16 is Dennis Bley.       One, your discussion sounds like you 17 already started a white paper on this.                         So first 18 question       is   is that     true,     are       we going   to     see 19 something like that?           And then the second question is 20 if you decide to make Part 53 whole and not relay on 21 Part 50 and Part 52, does your thinking lean toward 22 having all of the approaches in 50 and 52?                         And by 23 that I mean construction permits, early site permit, 24 either a design cert and Combined License or an 25 operating license.           Are you thinking about including NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
designer, and just as importantly for us as the staff 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
to say, "In terms of how deeply I look at a design, I 7
can build into that logic what I know will be done 8
during operations to maintain configuration to do 9
surveillance and maintenance." So again, I'm not --
10 this is done now. We're just trying to lay it out a 11 little bit from the very beginning.
12 CHAIR BLEY: Bill?
13 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, go ahead.
14 CHAIR BLEY: Two related questions. This 15 is Dennis Bley. One, your discussion sounds like you 16 already started a white paper on this. So first 17 question is is that true, are we going to see 18 something like that? And then the second question is 19 if you decide to make Part 53 whole and not relay on 20 Part 50 and Part 52, does your thinking lean toward 21 having all of the approaches in 50 and 52? And by 22 that I mean construction permits, early site permit, 23 either a design cert and Combined License or an 24 operating license. Are you thinking about including 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


56 1 all of those, or have you given all of that much 2 thought yet?
56 all of those, or have you given all of that much 1
3                    MR. RECKLEY:         Our working assumption is 4 that we'll address all of those.                     And then it's just 5 a sentence or two within the rulemaking plan.                           And 6 then also see if there is something in addition that 7 we might add.
thought yet?
8                    In other words, we would plan at this 9 point to support under Part 53 either the traditional 10 two-step CP, construction permit operating license, or 11 any of the combinations that are allowed under Part 12 52.       And then we're also looking to see if there's 13 anything in addition that we might be able to do 14 beyond that.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Our working assumption is 3
15                    MEMBER     BROWN:       Bill,     this is Charlie 16 Brown. Can you hear me?
that we'll address all of those. And then it's just 4
17                    MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, sir.
a sentence or two within the rulemaking plan. And 5
18                    MEMBER       BROWN:             Okay.     Just       an 19 amplification of Dennis's question, or a backtrack 20 maybe, under requirements definitions -- you open with 21 that.         That's how you kind of lead into this whole 22 picture. Does that mean an examination of like all the 23 general design criteria?
then also see if there is something in addition that 6
24                    Just for information, since I'm a meaty 25 guy as opposed to commercial guy, went through and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
we might add.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
7 In other words, we would plan at this 8
point to support under Part 53 either the traditional 9
two-step CP, construction permit operating license, or 10 any of the combinations that are allowed under Part 11
: 52. And then we're also looking to see if there's 12 anything in addition that we might be able to do 13 beyond that.
14 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, this is Charlie 15 Brown. Can you hear me?
16 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.
17 MEMBER BROWN:
Okay.
Just an 18 amplification of Dennis's question, or a backtrack 19 maybe, under requirements definitions -- you open with 20 that. That's how you kind of lead into this whole 21 picture. Does that mean an examination of like all the 22 general design criteria?
23 Just for information, since I'm a meaty 24 guy as opposed to commercial guy, went through and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


57 1 looked at all the GDCs yesterday.                   And a good bit of 2 those are very, very generic.                 Does that mean a re-3 examination or a generation of a whole new class of 4 general design criteria?
57 looked at all the GDCs yesterday. And a good bit of 1
5                  MR. RECKLEY:         Excuse me.         the general 6 design criteria and then the advanced-reactor design 7 criteria, developed under regulatory guide 1.232, are 8 generally organized around the same fundamental safety 9 functions that we talk about elsewhere. We talk about 10 it in NEI 18-04.         It's talked about in various NRC 11 documents, even IAEA documents, talk about basically 12 the       fundamental   safety       functions         as being       the 13 retention of the radionuclides.                   That's the ultimate 14 goal.
those are very, very generic. Does that mean a re-2 examination or a generation of a whole new class of 3
15                  And then the related safety functions such 16 as     controlling   power       level       or     reactivity,       and 17 controlling heat removal, sometimes also introduced as 18 things like controlling chemical attack.                   That might 19 be important for some design.               So I think the notion 20 would be there that we would define within these 21 highest level requirements something analogous to the 22 general design criteria.
general design criteria?
23                  It may be at that higher level because 24 it's required to be technology-inclusive. So it might 25 talk about the various sections that are now included NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 MR. RECKLEY: Excuse me. the general 5
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
design criteria and then the advanced-reactor design 6
criteria, developed under regulatory guide 1.232, are 7
generally organized around the same fundamental safety 8
functions that we talk about elsewhere. We talk about 9
it in NEI 18-04. It's talked about in various NRC 10 documents, even IAEA documents, talk about basically 11 the fundamental safety functions as being the 12 retention of the radionuclides. That's the ultimate 13 goal.
14 And then the related safety functions such 15 as controlling power level or reactivity, and 16 controlling heat removal, sometimes also introduced as 17 things like controlling chemical attack. That might 18 be important for some design. So I think the notion 19 would be there that we would define within these 20 highest level requirements something analogous to the 21 general design criteria.
22 It may be at that higher level because 23 it's required to be technology-inclusive. So it might 24 talk about the various sections that are now included 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


58 1 in the GDC.         Which again, align generally with those 2 three fundamental safety functions.                     But yes, there 3 would be something there along those lines.
58 in the GDC. Which again, align generally with those 1
4                    MEMBER REMPE:         Bill?       Charlie, are you 5 done?
three fundamental safety functions. But yes, there 2
6                    MEMBER BROWN:           No.       Can I finish the 7 question?
would be something there along those lines.
8                    MEMBER REMPE:         Oh yeah, go ahead.             I'm 9 sorry.         I didn't mean to interrupt.
3 MEMBER REMPE: Bill? Charlie, are you 4
10                    MEMBER BROWN:         No, that's okay.           Thank 11 you, Joy. You talked about them being a technology --
done?
12 how did you phrase that when you answered me?
5 MEMBER BROWN: No. Can I finish the 6
13                    MR. RECKLEY:           Well we use the phrase 14 technology-inclusive.
question?
15                    MEMBER BROWN:         Yeah.       I looked at them 16 from that standpoint and most of them fundamentally 17 address the things you talk about, heat removal, 18 boundaries, radiation requirements, et cetera.                             So 19 they're pretty technology-inclusive as they are.                         And 20 it sounds like what you're telling me is that Appendix 21 A would be something all total new if you have an 22 Appendix A.
7 MEMBER REMPE: Oh yeah, go ahead. I'm 8
23                    I mean, that's what Appendix A is, is the 24 GDCs fundamentally. So it sounds like you're thinking 25 about generating a new Appendix A with however you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
9 MEMBER BROWN: No, that's okay. Thank 10 you, Joy. You talked about them being a technology --
11 how did you phrase that when you answered me?
12 MR. RECKLEY: Well we use the phrase 13 technology-inclusive.
14 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah. I looked at them 15 from that standpoint and most of them fundamentally 16 address the things you talk about, heat removal, 17 boundaries, radiation requirements, et cetera. So 18 they're pretty technology-inclusive as they are. And 19 it sounds like what you're telling me is that Appendix 20 A would be something all total new if you have an 21 Appendix A.
22 I mean, that's what Appendix A is, is the 23 GDCs fundamentally. So it sounds like you're thinking 24 about generating a new Appendix A with however you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


59 1 want to phrase it, with one through whatever they turn 2 out to be.         That's the way I got your answer.               Is that 3 right or wrong?
59 want to phrase it, with one through whatever they turn 1
4                    MR. RECKLEY:       I'd say it's kind of early.
out to be. That's the way I got your answer. Is that 2
5 But I'll just give you my thinking, was that we 6 wouldn't have Appendix A.                 But this would be within 7 the main body of the regulations.                       But again, that's 8 largely format to me.                 Obviously Appendix A is an 9 appendix, but it's one of the most important parts of 10 Part 50.
right or wrong?
11                    So if you had rolled the GDC into, you 12 know, and gave it a number instead of an appendix, it 13 would be largely the same.                 But the level of detail 14 and     how     far you     go   down     in     those     system   level 15 requirements will be one of the things that we talk 16 about.         And again, we're just -- we're pretty much at 17 the outlying stage at this point.
3 MR. RECKLEY: I'd say it's kind of early.
18                    And I don't even want people to over think 19 where we are right now because we're still open.
4 But I'll just give you my thinking, was that we 5
20 We've been giving it a little thought because we had 21 the time to do so.                 But as we'll get into the 22 questions,         we're     really       amenable       to   receiving 23 suggestions that would propose something different to 24 us.
wouldn't have Appendix A. But this would be within 6
25                    CHAIR BLEY:       I'd remind you of something NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the main body of the regulations. But again, that's 7
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
largely format to me. Obviously Appendix A is an 8
appendix, but it's one of the most important parts of 9
Part 50.
10 So if you had rolled the GDC into, you 11 know, and gave it a number instead of an appendix, it 12 would be largely the same. But the level of detail 13 and how far you go down in those system level 14 requirements will be one of the things that we talk 15 about. And again, we're just -- we're pretty much at 16 the outlying stage at this point.
17 And I don't even want people to over think 18 where we are right now because we're still open.
19 We've been giving it a little thought because we had 20 the time to do so. But as we'll get into the 21 questions, we're really amenable to receiving 22 suggestions that would propose something different to 23 us.
24 CHAIR BLEY: I'd remind you of something 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


60 1 Bill sort of reminded you of.               A couple years ago, or 2 three, we went through the advanced-reactor design 3 criteria and went through those same discussions. And 4 that's probably where they're starting.                   I'd take one 5 second to, you know, a couple seconds to fill in a 6 little history. Because we thinking of tech specs and 7 design criteria as always being there.
60 Bill sort of reminded you of. A couple years ago, or 1
8                  Originally, there were no such things and 9 because people started getting construction permits 10 and then coming in with designs that didn't quite meet 11 the staff's expectations, these things developed to 12 kind of warn people where they needed to go after the 13 construction permit.
three, we went through the advanced-reactor design 2
14                  And then I think Joy had something she was 15 trying to get in.
criteria and went through those same discussions. And 3
16                  MEMBER REMPE:         Yes. I actually like this 17 figure         as a layout.         And   I'm     hoping that     it's 18 preliminary, but when I looked at it, this is where I 19 wanted to bring up scope.                 I had already mentioned 20 about transportation to and from the site.                     It seems 21 like embedded in this figure is that you're only at 22 the site.
that's probably where they're starting. I'd take one 4
23                  So maybe you can think of a way to adjust 24 it to consider that. The other thing is since you got 25 the issue of retirement, waste generation comes in.
second to, you know, a couple seconds to fill in a 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
little history. Because we thinking of tech specs and 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
design criteria as always being there.
7 Originally, there were no such things and 8
because people started getting construction permits 9
and then coming in with designs that didn't quite meet 10 the staff's expectations, these things developed to 11 kind of warn people where they needed to go after the 12 construction permit.
13 And then I think Joy had something she was 14 trying to get in.
15 MEMBER REMPE: Yes. I actually like this 16 figure as a layout. And I'm hoping that it's 17 preliminary, but when I looked at it, this is where I 18 wanted to bring up scope. I had already mentioned 19 about transportation to and from the site. It seems 20 like embedded in this figure is that you're only at 21 the site.
22 So maybe you can think of a way to adjust 23 it to consider that. The other thing is since you got 24 the issue of retirement, waste generation comes in.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


61 1 Dave mentioned fusion earlier today. My understanding 2 is you get a lot more activated materials.                   Even the 3 gas reactor, because of its low power density, has a 4 lot more low level waste. But maybe we ought to start 5 thinking of the whole lifecycle and what -- we might 6 end up with some different thoughts about what might 7 be of more concern with some of these designs.
61 Dave mentioned fusion earlier today. My understanding 1
8                  And   so   have     you     thought     about     maybe 9 modifying this figure, or are you open to maybe 10 thinking       about   modifying       it     to   more   explicitly 11 indicate to the public that you are considering some 12 broader scope than what we have with the existing 13 fleet?
is you get a lot more activated materials. Even the 2
14                  MR. RECKLEY:       Yeah, we would be amenable.
gas reactor, because of its low power density, has a 3
15 And some of what you said -- again, we're kind of 16 early in the process, but some of the things like the 17 waste and the decommissioning, we currently have a 18 rule       -- and I'm going to, I forget the number --
lot more low level waste. But maybe we ought to start 4
19 under Part 20, that even as you do the initial design, 20 you think through minimizing contamination to support 21 decommissioning.
thinking of the whole lifecycle and what -- we might 5
22                  So that would be under normal ops and 23 performance criteria or other over there in the purple 24 box that we would need to put that in as the attention 25 continues to increase on micro reactors.                     How this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
end up with some different thoughts about what might 6
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
be of more concern with some of these designs.
7 And so have you thought about maybe 8
modifying this figure, or are you open to maybe 9
thinking about modifying it to more explicitly 10 indicate to the public that you are considering some 11 broader scope than what we have with the existing 12 fleet?
13 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, we would be amenable.
14 And some of what you said -- again, we're kind of 15 early in the process, but some of the things like the 16 waste and the decommissioning, we currently have a 17 rule -- and I'm going to, I forget the number --
18 under Part 20, that even as you do the initial design, 19 you think through minimizing contamination to support 20 decommissioning.
21 So that would be under normal ops and 22 performance criteria or other over there in the purple 23 box that we would need to put that in as the attention 24 continues to increase on micro reactors. How this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


62 1 fits in and either we incorporate things into this to 2 support things like transportation or we at least have 3 a good connection between the requirements here and 4 then the requirements on the transportation side of 5 our regulations.
62 fits in and either we incorporate things into this to 1
6                And they would be different. Obviously 7 when you roll a new micro reactor out of the factory, 8 your concerns on the transportation will be different 9 than when you retire it and need to transport it 10 somewhere else.       So yeah, we're amenable to any of 11 these discussions.       And really what we'll be looking 12 for as we go through this is, in large part, make sure 13 we don't miss anything within this framework.
support things like transportation or we at least have 2
14                MEMBER     KIRCHNER:           Bill, this is     Walt 15 Kirchner.       I'd   like     to   go     back to   Charlie's 16 observation and concur.           And to just point out that 17 rather than relegate it to an appendix if it, like you 18 said, a part of it's just format.                   But if it's a 19 number's part of 53, probably better.               But capturing 20 at least at a high level those principles, categories 21 and principles in the actual regulation I think is 22 important.
a good connection between the requirements here and 3
23                One of the things that the GDCs do is that 24 they -- this is going to sound a little strange, but 25 it makes the regulatory process much more predictable.
then the requirements on the transportation side of 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
our regulations.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
5 And they would be different. Obviously 6
when you roll a new micro reactor out of the factory, 7
your concerns on the transportation will be different 8
than when you retire it and need to transport it 9
somewhere else. So yeah, we're amenable to any of 10 these discussions. And really what we'll be looking 11 for as we go through this is, in large part, make sure 12 we don't miss anything within this framework.
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 14 Kirchner. I'd like to go back to Charlie's 15 observation and concur. And to just point out that 16 rather than relegate it to an appendix if it, like you 17 said, a part of it's just format. But if it's a 18 number's part of 53, probably better. But capturing 19 at least at a high level those principles, categories 20 and principles in the actual regulation I think is 21 important.
22 One of the things that the GDCs do is that 23 they -- this is going to sound a little strange, but 24 it makes the regulatory process much more predictable.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


63 1 By which I mean the staff uses the GDCs for their 2 determination of the performance of a system, the 3 performance of the reactor as a whole.                     And this 4 provides       predictability       in   the     regulatory   review 5 process.
63 By which I mean the staff uses the GDCs for their 1
6                  The expectations are clear up front and 7 the framework of the GDCs provides a structure for the 8 staff to conduct its reviews as reflected in 0800, the 9 Standard Review Plan, in great, great detail. I'm not 10 proposing 0800, but it allows them to -- you want to 11 be technology-inclusive and at the same time flexible 12 because there are such differences in the designs that 13 we expect that you will be reviewing in terms of 14 technology choices and specific issues with each of 15 those technologies.         But it avoids what I'll call the 16 arbitrary and capriciousness of other reviews, like in 17 the DOE world.
determination of the performance of a system, the 2
18                  And I won't go any further with that 19 comment on the public record than --
performance of the reactor as a whole. And this 3
20                  MR. RECKLEY:         Okay.
provides predictability in the regulatory review 4
21                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:           -- to say it provides 22 structure and expectation.                 So I think it's very 23 important to capture that GDC framework in the actual 24 regulation not relegated to a reg guide, although the 25 reg guide that's been developed is very nice about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
process.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
5 The expectations are clear up front and 6
the framework of the GDCs provides a structure for the 7
staff to conduct its reviews as reflected in 0800, the 8
Standard Review Plan, in great, great detail. I'm not 9
proposing 0800, but it allows them to -- you want to 10 be technology-inclusive and at the same time flexible 11 because there are such differences in the designs that 12 we expect that you will be reviewing in terms of 13 technology choices and specific issues with each of 14 those technologies. But it avoids what I'll call the 15 arbitrary and capriciousness of other reviews, like in 16 the DOE world.
17 And I won't go any further with that 18 comment on the public record than --
19 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- to say it provides 21 structure and expectation. So I think it's very 22 important to capture that GDC framework in the actual 23 regulation not relegated to a reg guide, although the 24 reg guide that's been developed is very nice about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


64 1 adapting for specific reactor technologies.                     But I do 2 believe you do need something like the GDCs as a part 3 of the framework.
64 adapting for specific reactor technologies. But I do 1
4                  MR. RECKLEY:         Okay.
believe you do need something like the GDCs as a part 2
5                  CHAIR BLEY:         Some words from the joint 6 committee and the AEC back in about 1960 --
of the framework.
7                  MR. RECKLEY:         Did Dennis drop off?
3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.
8                  CHAIR BLEY: No. Did you hear me? I just 9 made a comment.
4 CHAIR BLEY: Some words from the joint 5
10                  MR. RECKLEY:       Oh, okay.       As we go through 11 the interactions with you guys and stakeholders in 12 general,       trying   to   strike       that     balance   between 13 predictability       and     clarity       that     you get   through 14 something like the GDC versus the flexibility that you 15 get through performance based approaches more like 16 that presented in NEI 18-04, trying to get the best of 17 both worlds and where that balance is, that'll be part 18 of what we're trying to do in this rule.                     And it goes 19 back.
committee and the AEC back in about 1960 --
20                  I guess Dennis is -- well a number of 21 members might remember. But this is in some part kind 22 of related to the structuralist rationalist approach 23 that was the number of a whole bunch of ACRS meetings 24 and       interactions     and     papers       back   during       the 25 development of, I guess is that reg guide 1.174. Back NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Did Dennis drop off?
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 CHAIR BLEY: No. Did you hear me? I just 8
made a comment.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, okay. As we go through 10 the interactions with you guys and stakeholders in 11 general, trying to strike that balance between 12 predictability and clarity that you get through 13 something like the GDC versus the flexibility that you 14 get through performance based approaches more like 15 that presented in NEI 18-04, trying to get the best of 16 both worlds and where that balance is, that'll be part 17 of what we're trying to do in this rule. And it goes 18 back.
19 I guess Dennis is -- well a number of 20 members might remember. But this is in some part kind 21 of related to the structuralist rationalist approach 22 that was the number of a whole bunch of ACRS meetings 23 and interactions and papers back during the 24 development of, I guess is that reg guide 1.174. Back 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


65 1 in that timeframe.           So many of those questions remain 2 what's the right balance.                 You have to do both, I 3 think.         You can't have it all one way or the other.
65 in that timeframe. So many of those questions remain 1
4 But trying to strike the balance is what we'll be 5 trying to do.         So --
what's the right balance. You have to do both, I 2
6                    MEMBER BROWN:         Bill?     I just had -- I'm a 7 little bit parochial, I mean a little bit with this 8 particular comment.           Since I do I&C stuff, protection 9 reactivity control systems, when I go back and look at 10 what it's like, GDC 20 through -- I don't know, 29 or 11 30 or something like that.                       Those are basically 12 performance based.             I mean is the idea that I don't 13 need independence if something's performance based?
think. You can't have it all one way or the other.
14 Or that I don't need reliability and testability?
3 But trying to strike the balance is what we'll be 4
15                    MR. RECKLEY:         No, no, no.       Again, I --
trying to do. So --
16                    MEMBER BROWN: Bill, I'm losing the bubble 17 a little.           I keep hearing this performance based 18 stuff.         In my mind, I know what performance based 19 means.         I'm not so sure it's well defined even in the 20 way     I     think about     it.       Like     protection   system 21 functions to shut down the reactor.                     What it needs to 22 be is that's a performance based function.                     Like Walt 23 says, throwing the baby out with the bathwater gets a 24 little bit difficult for me --
5 MEMBER BROWN: Bill? I just had -- I'm a 6
25                    MR. RECKLEY:         No, no.       Yeah, not --
little bit parochial, I mean a little bit with this 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
particular comment. Since I do I&C stuff, protection 8
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
reactivity control systems, when I go back and look at 9
what it's like, GDC 20 through -- I don't know, 29 or 10 30 or something like that. Those are basically 11 performance based. I mean is the idea that I don't 12 need independence if something's performance based?
13 Or that I don't need reliability and testability?
14 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, no. Again, I --
15 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, I'm losing the bubble 16 a little. I keep hearing this performance based 17 stuff. In my mind, I know what performance based 18 means. I'm not so sure it's well defined even in the 19 way I think about it. Like protection system 20 functions to shut down the reactor. What it needs to 21 be is that's a performance based function. Like Walt 22 says, throwing the baby out with the bathwater gets a 23 little bit difficult for me --
24 MR. RECKLEY: No, no. Yeah, not --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


66 1                  MEMBER BROWN:         -- in a longer term view.
66 MEMBER BROWN: -- in a longer term view.
2                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yeah, okay.       And I didn't 3 mean to imply that many of the GDC are relatively 4 flexible and performance based in terms of giving you 5 options as to how you might incorporate those things 6 into the design.         So no, I didn't mean to make that 7 implication.
1 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, okay. And I didn't 2
8                  MEMBER BROWN: No, I'm not accusing you of 9 anything.       That was not my intent, I'm sorry.                     That 10 was not my intent.             It's just I get a little bit 11 concerned       when   people     lose     sight     and   they     start 12 thinking everything in these GDCs is prescriptive, but 13 it's not.       Even the coolability issues.               Forget the 14 instrumentation type stuff, you go back to reactor 15 cooling.       All reactors has to be cooled in some way.
mean to imply that many of the GDC are relatively 3
16 And that particular GDC just fundamentally said you 17 got to be able to cool them under various conductions.
flexible and performance based in terms of giving you 4
18                  MR. RECKLEY:         Right.
options as to how you might incorporate those things 5
19                  MEMBER BROWN:         So I think we just have to 20 be very, very careful about thinking about doing 21 everything brand brand new, and then we lose what's 22 been learned.       Like Dennis says, many of these things 23 evolved after -- the first plant shipping port didn't 24 have any of these.
into the design. So no, I didn't mean to make that 6
25                  I mean they were kind of modeled after the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
implication.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 MEMBER BROWN: No, I'm not accusing you of 8
anything. That was not my intent, I'm sorry. That 9
was not my intent. It's just I get a little bit 10 concerned when people lose sight and they start 11 thinking everything in these GDCs is prescriptive, but 12 it's not. Even the coolability issues. Forget the 13 instrumentation type stuff, you go back to reactor 14 cooling. All reactors has to be cooled in some way.
15 And that particular GDC just fundamentally said you 16 got to be able to cool them under various conductions.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
18 MEMBER BROWN: So I think we just have to 19 be very, very careful about thinking about doing 20 everything brand brand new, and then we lose what's 21 been learned. Like Dennis says, many of these things 22 evolved after -- the first plant shipping port didn't 23 have any of these.
24 I mean they were kind of modeled after the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


67 1 way we did the Navy plants in terms of principles. So 2 I mean I just get concerned that we lose what we've 3 learned over 60 years, which has been very valuable, 4 in the process of trying to get something that's more 5 reasonably approached from a licensing and a review 6 basis.
67 way we did the Navy plants in terms of principles. So 1
7                    MR. RECKLEY:         All right.
I mean I just get concerned that we lose what we've 2
8                    MEMBER BROWN:         I'll quit right there.
learned over 60 years, which has been very valuable, 3
9                    MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And again, we'll test 10 all of this out as we go forward.                   The only thing I'll 11 mention, as we go forward and look and different 12 technologies, the role and the importance and the 13 timing of some of these changes, and the general 14 design         criteria   for     light     water     reactors     were 15 developed.
in the process of trying to get something that's more 4
16                    And   I     agree       with       you,   they       are 17 performance-based           and   they     generally     at the     high 18 level.         But they were developed with the notion in 19 mind that reactivity was something you had to address 20 very quickly because a mismatch between power and heat 21 removal and a light water reactor is something that is 22 a fast-acting transient.
reasonably approached from a licensing and a review 5
23                    When you get over into some of the other 24 non light water reactors that might have more thermal 25 margins or thermal capacities, some of the specifics NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
basis.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
6 MR. RECKLEY: All right.
7 MEMBER BROWN: I'll quit right there.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And again, we'll test 9
all of this out as we go forward. The only thing I'll 10 mention, as we go forward and look and different 11 technologies, the role and the importance and the 12 timing of some of these changes, and the general 13 design criteria for light water reactors were 14 developed.
15 And I
agree with
: you, they are 16 performance-based and they generally at the high 17 level. But they were developed with the notion in 18 mind that reactivity was something you had to address 19 very quickly because a mismatch between power and heat 20 removal and a light water reactor is something that is 21 a fast-acting transient.
22 When you get over into some of the other 23 non light water reactors that might have more thermal 24 margins or thermal capacities, some of the specifics 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


68 1 may change.         And we just need to be able to look at 2 that       and   see   where     --   what     would be the     most 3 appropriate criterion.             I mean this is getting down 4 into the details, and we're still working on the 5 framework.       So going over just converting that figure 6 into what Part 53 might look like, we would think it 7 might       look like   this.       You     would have general 8 provisions.
68 may change. And we just need to be able to look at 1
9                  All the regulations have to start off with 10 a     certain     amount   of   those     provisions   that     tell 11 applicants and licensees and the NRC staff how the 12 process works. But then going back to the figure that 13 you would have -- for example, I'll describe these in 14 terms of subparts, just like Part 52 is divided into 15 subparts.       But maybe you have subpart B, and it would 16 talk about those safety objectives.
that and see where -- what would be the most 2
17                  What are the regulatory limits?               How do 18 the safety goals figure in?                 And that sets out how 19 safety the facility has to be.                 And then you would go 20 into, again as I mentioned, what's the role of the 21 design requirements, what's the role of siting, what's 22 the role of construction and manufacturing in meeting 23 those safety goals.
appropriate criterion. I mean this is getting down 3
24                  The requirements for operation in terms of 25 programmatic         controls       that       we   talked   about.
into the details, and we're still working on the 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
framework. So going over just converting that figure 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
into what Part 53 might look like, we would think it 6
might look like this. You would have general 7
provisions.
8 All the regulations have to start off with 9
a certain amount of those provisions that tell 10 applicants and licensees and the NRC staff how the 11 process works. But then going back to the figure that 12 you would have -- for example, I'll describe these in 13 terms of subparts, just like Part 52 is divided into 14 subparts. But maybe you have subpart B, and it would 15 talk about those safety objectives.
16 What are the regulatory limits? How do 17 the safety goals figure in? And that sets out how 18 safety the facility has to be. And then you would go 19 into, again as I mentioned, what's the role of the 20 design requirements, what's the role of siting, what's 21 the role of construction and manufacturing in meeting 22 those safety goals.
23 The requirements for operation in terms of 24 programmatic controls that we talked about.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


69 1 Configuration control, maintenance and surveillance.
69 Configuration control, maintenance and surveillance.
2 And then what would be the role during decommissioning 3 or retirement? And then you would have those parts of 4 Part 53, or those subparts related to licensing and 5 maintaining the licensing basis information.                 So this 6 is all of the -- this is basically -- Part 52 is 7 largely oriented towards the applications.                 Then the 8 things like 50.59 for controlling your licensing basis 9 information, 50.74 on providing updates to the FSAR 10 and then administrative requirements.
1 And then what would be the role during decommissioning 2
11                So this is just a general possible layout.
or retirement? And then you would have those parts of 3
12 And then getting to Dennis's question on how we might 13 interact, if we were to develop a framework like is on 14 Slide 5.       If we have some early discussions and 15 thinking that something like this would be the way to 16 go, then the most important thing, because everything 17 is built off of it, would be the purple box.
Part 53, or those subparts related to licensing and 4
18                And   we     would     want       to start   having 19 discussions on that, you know, as early as later this 20 year or very early next year because whatever schedule 21 gets defined for us by the Commission when we get our 22 instructions, if we keep this framework, it all builds 23 off of how do we define the purple box on Slide 5.
maintaining the licensing basis information. So this 5
24                Again, in terms of timeframe, I could see 25 those interactions and discussions going or starting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
is all of the -- this is basically -- Part 52 is 6
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
largely oriented towards the applications. Then the 7
things like 50.59 for controlling your licensing basis 8
information, 50.74 on providing updates to the FSAR 9
and then administrative requirements.
10 So this is just a general possible layout.
11 And then getting to Dennis's question on how we might 12 interact, if we were to develop a framework like is on 13 Slide 5. If we have some early discussions and 14 thinking that something like this would be the way to 15 go, then the most important thing, because everything 16 is built off of it, would be the purple box.
17 And we would want to start having 18 discussions on that, you know, as early as later this 19 year or very early next year because whatever schedule 20 gets defined for us by the Commission when we get our 21 instructions, if we keep this framework, it all builds 22 off of how do we define the purple box on Slide 5.
23 Again, in terms of timeframe, I could see 24 those interactions and discussions going or starting 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


70 1 as early as later this year or very early in 2021.
70 as early as later this year or very early in 2021.
2 The ultimate schedule of when we would have to finish 3 those discussions, the Commission will tell us.
1 The ultimate schedule of when we would have to finish 2
4                  So within the whitepaper, and I heard it 5 mentioned earlier, the whitepaper by and large -- we 6 started       writing   an   Advanced         Notice   of Proposed 7 Rulemaking because that's what we proposed to do in 8 the rulemaking plan.           It was just a vehicle to start 9 us to engage stakeholders. What you're seeing in this 10 whitepaper is what we started as the ANPR, whether we 11 end up doing that or not.
those discussions, the Commission will tell us.
12                  The most important thing is that we start 13 to engage stakeholders, whatever vehicle that might 14 be.     So one of the things that we would be looking for 15 both from the ACRS, since that's today's discussion.
3 So within the whitepaper, and I heard it 4
16 And then we'll be having this same discussion with 17 public stakeholders. What is the interest, what do we 18 see as the major issues and challenges so we can set 19 out a schedule and a kind of a plan as to how we're 20 going to talk about the various issues.
mentioned earlier, the whitepaper by and large -- we 5
21                  MEMBER BROWN:         Bill?
started writing an Advanced Notice of Proposed 6
22                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yes?
Rulemaking because that's what we proposed to do in 7
23                  MEMBER     BROWN:         When     you talk   about 24 stakeholder interest, didn't the -- what is it, the 25 NEI whatever it is, didn't that say do it as opposed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the rulemaking plan. It was just a vehicle to start 8
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
us to engage stakeholders. What you're seeing in this 9
whitepaper is what we started as the ANPR, whether we 10 end up doing that or not.
11 The most important thing is that we start 12 to engage stakeholders, whatever vehicle that might 13 be. So one of the things that we would be looking for 14 both from the ACRS, since that's today's discussion.
15 And then we'll be having this same discussion with 16 public stakeholders. What is the interest, what do we 17 see as the major issues and challenges so we can set 18 out a schedule and a kind of a plan as to how we're 19 going to talk about the various issues.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Bill?
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes?
22 MEMBER BROWN: When you talk about 23 stakeholder interest, didn't the -- what is it, the 24 NEI whatever it is, didn't that say do it as opposed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


71 1 to     asking   people     if   they     have     interest in     that 2 rulemaking?       Don't you have to do the rule now based 3 on the rule?
71 to asking people if they have interest in that 1
4                  MR. RECKLEY:       Yeah, yeah.       I'm sorry.       We 5 have to do the rule.           The question would be what are 6 the stakeholder's interests in working with us to do 7 the rule, not whether we do the rule.                   Do they want to 8 play, or do they just want to tell us go do it and 9 we'll see what you propose at the proposed rulemaking 10 stage, and then we'll comment.
rulemaking? Don't you have to do the rule now based 2
11                  We hope that's not the point.             I mean the 12 outcome.       We hope stakeholders agree to work with us 13 all throughout the development of the proposed rule so 14 that we don't spend however much time coming up with 15 a finished product, and then people telling us they 16 don't like it.         So that's what I mean by stakeholder 17 interest.
on the rule?
18                  MEMBER BROWN: It sounds like you would be 19 then in the mode of offering them at each stage, which 20 you have something to propose, you reach out to them.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. We 4
21                  MR. RECKLEY:         Right.       Right.
have to do the rule. The question would be what are 5
22                  MEMBER BROWN: Is that what you're talking 23 about?
the stakeholder's interests in working with us to do 6
24                  MR. RECKLEY:         Yes.
the rule, not whether we do the rule. Do they want to 7
25                  MEMBER BROWN:         Okay.       All right.
play, or do they just want to tell us go do it and 8
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
we'll see what you propose at the proposed rulemaking 9
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
stage, and then we'll comment.
10 We hope that's not the point. I mean the 11 outcome. We hope stakeholders agree to work with us 12 all throughout the development of the proposed rule so 13 that we don't spend however much time coming up with 14 a finished product, and then people telling us they 15 don't like it. So that's what I mean by stakeholder 16 interest.
17 MEMBER BROWN: It sounds like you would be 18 then in the mode of offering them at each stage, which 19 you have something to propose, you reach out to them.
20 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Right.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Is that what you're talking 22 about?
23 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.
24 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


72 1                MR. RECKLEY:         I think that's how it will 2 work by the time we're instructed. And then the other 3 part is the last bullet, preparing both the proposed 4 rule       and seeing   what   related         guidance   might       be 5 appropriate, and we're receptive to any aspect.                       The 6 next few slides we're going to start going through 7 some of the questions.
72 MR. RECKLEY: I think that's how it will 1
8                MEMBER BROWN:         Can I interrupt you one 9 more while you're on Slide 7?                 When you go out for 10 comments or stakeholder interest, I went back and 11 pulled up the 2006 ANPR, whatever it is, which was 12 multiple pages and was so broad, I mean it sounded 13 like you had so much stuff, nobody would ever get 14 anything defined.       Are you going to try to narrow it 15 somewhat more?
work by the time we're instructed. And then the other 2
16                MR. RECKLEY:       Well yes, and as an example 17 --
part is the last bullet, preparing both the proposed 3
18                MEMBER BROWN:         That was a disaster in my 19 own mind.
rule and seeing what related guidance might be 4
20                MR. RECKLEY:         Just as one example, that 21 particular ANPR had I think 60 questions. We did look 22 through it and we tried to narrow it down to start the 23 interactions     I think.         I   mean       they did   have     a 24 companion document in 2006 that kind of went over the 25 framework.
appropriate, and we're receptive to any aspect. The 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
next few slides we're going to start going through 6
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
some of the questions.
7 MEMBER BROWN: Can I interrupt you one 8
more while you're on Slide 7? When you go out for 9
comments or stakeholder interest, I went back and 10 pulled up the 2006 ANPR, whatever it is, which was 11 multiple pages and was so broad, I mean it sounded 12 like you had so much stuff, nobody would ever get 13 anything defined. Are you going to try to narrow it 14 somewhat more?
15 MR. RECKLEY: Well yes, and as an example 16 17 MEMBER BROWN: That was a disaster in my 18 own mind.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Just as one example, that 20 particular ANPR had I think 60 questions. We did look 21 through it and we tried to narrow it down to start the 22 interactions I think. I mean they did have a 23 companion document in 2006 that kind of went over the 24 framework.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


73 1                    I think because we've been directed to do 2 a rule, we have somewhat of an advantage in -- well in 3 that we will be past the question of whether to do it, 4 and     people   should     be providing           feedback on     more 5 specific things about what should be in it and how it 6 should look.         But yes, we are going to try to narrow 7 it down.       And it's a good teeing up, I guess, to go in 8 the next couple slides.               One of the, on Slide 8 is 9 just the rulemaking objectives. I don't think this'll 10 be surprising, number one.
73 I think because we've been directed to do 1
11                    And two, it's basically to maintain the 12 same level of protections as exists for the operating 13 fleet. And then the third one is going to, again what 14 the Commission told us most recently in the Staff 15 Requirements Memorandum for SECY-19-0117. And then in 16 more description in an older SECY that goes back to 17 SECY paper 10-0121.
a rule, we have somewhat of an advantage in -- well in 2
18                    And this is where the third objective of 19 the rulemaking comes from, which is to ensure that to 20 the degree advanced reactor designers are able to 21 provide       attributes     that     are   talked     about   in     the 22 Advanced         Reactor       Policy       Statement,       that       the 23 expectations in that Advanced Reactor Policy Statement 24 is       that     those     attributes,           things     like     less 25 vulnerabilities         to     accidents,         increased   thermal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that we will be past the question of whether to do it, 3
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
and people should be providing feedback on more 4
specific things about what should be in it and how it 5
should look. But yes, we are going to try to narrow 6
it down. And it's a good teeing up, I guess, to go in 7
the next couple slides. One of the, on Slide 8 is 8
just the rulemaking objectives. I don't think this'll 9
be surprising, number one.
10 And two, it's basically to maintain the 11 same level of protections as exists for the operating 12 fleet. And then the third one is going to, again what 13 the Commission told us most recently in the Staff 14 Requirements Memorandum for SECY-19-0117. And then in 15 more description in an older SECY that goes back to 16 SECY paper 10-0121.
17 And this is where the third objective of 18 the rulemaking comes from, which is to ensure that to 19 the degree advanced reactor designers are able to 20 provide attributes that are talked about in the 21 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, that the 22 expectations in that Advanced Reactor Policy Statement 23 is that those attributes, things like less 24 vulnerabilities to accidents, increased thermal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


74 1 margins, slower responses leading to releases, those 2 kind of attributes in the Advanced Reactor Policy 3 Statement         gets       translated           into     operational 4 flexibilities.
74 margins, slower responses leading to releases, those 1
5                  And one example we've used in the past is 6 the tradeoff between those attributes and reduced 7 consequences that then enable you to do things like 8 reduce emergency planning zones, or come up with 9 different       criteria     for     population         related   siting 10 considerations.         And then number four and five are 11 just       trying   to   make     sure     the     proposed   rule       is 12 developed such that it's clear.
kind of attributes in the Advanced Reactor Policy 2
13                  And this would also be an opportunity 14 during which we might have to identify and resolve 15 areas like staffing. And the time period that we have 16 to resolve issues like that might get determined by 17 the rulemaking schedule if it's not needed to be 18 resolved       for   some     other     reason,       like an   actual 19 application.
Statement gets translated into operational 3
20                  CHAIR BLEY:         Bill?       Two things, this is 21 Dennis. This number five is a little rule-y, I think.
flexibilities.
22 One problem I envision is that some of these issues 23 won't be clear.         Turn it around.               When you see some 24 new unique facility design that mixes chemical hazards 25 and nuclear hazards in odd ways, new problems will be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 And one example we've used in the past is 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701             (202) 234-4433
the tradeoff between those attributes and reduced 6
consequences that then enable you to do things like 7
reduce emergency planning zones, or come up with 8
different criteria for population related siting 9
considerations. And then number four and five are 10 just trying to make sure the proposed rule is 11 developed such that it's clear.
12 And this would also be an opportunity 13 during which we might have to identify and resolve 14 areas like staffing. And the time period that we have 15 to resolve issues like that might get determined by 16 the rulemaking schedule if it's not needed to be 17 resolved for some other reason, like an actual 18 application.
19 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Two things, this is 20 Dennis. This number five is a little rule-y, I think.
21 One problem I envision is that some of these issues 22 won't be clear. Turn it around. When you see some 23 new unique facility design that mixes chemical hazards 24 and nuclear hazards in odd ways, new problems will be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


75 1 identified.
75 identified.
2                    I think somehow we need to leave a -- by 3 the time we're done, we need to leave something like 4 your number five that has to be resolved on each new 5 unique design. I don't think you can resolve all, you 6 know, identify these up at the level you'd be working 7 at for a technology-inclusive rule.
1 I think somehow we need to leave a -- by 2
8                    And the other thing is we've got an hour 9 left, so as you can comb through the questions, we can 10 go through those in about 45 minutes.                     That'll leave 11 us a little time at the end to get comments from the 12 public and from the members of the subcommittee.
the time we're done, we need to leave something like 3
13                    MR. RECKLEY:         Okay.       Again, I was just 14 planning to step through the questions at the highest 15 level.         Most of them, or many of them, we've talked 16 about before. This first one just have we defined the 17 right objectives.             Second one, we are taking the 18 definition out of NEIMA in terms of what reactors were 19 under         construction,       given       AP-1000     was     under 20 construction at the time. Our general thought is that 21 that captures generation three and three-plus type 22 reactors as not needing to be.
your number five that has to be resolved on each new 4
23                    It's not excluded, but they don't need to 24 be in the scope. And so just a general question about 25 what should be within the scope.                     You can tell we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
unique design. I don't think you can resolve all, you 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
know, identify these up at the level you'd be working 6
at for a technology-inclusive rule.
7 And the other thing is we've got an hour 8
left, so as you can comb through the questions, we can 9
go through those in about 45 minutes. That'll leave 10 us a little time at the end to get comments from the 11 public and from the members of the subcommittee.
12 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Again, I was just 13 planning to step through the questions at the highest 14 level. Most of them, or many of them, we've talked 15 about before. This first one just have we defined the 16 right objectives. Second one, we are taking the 17 definition out of NEIMA in terms of what reactors were 18 under construction, given AP-1000 was under 19 construction at the time. Our general thought is that 20 that captures generation three and three-plus type 21 reactors as not needing to be.
22 It's not excluded, but they don't need to 23 be in the scope. And so just a general question about 24 what should be within the scope. You can tell we've 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


76 1 given some thought, I think, to where we envision this 2 going.         But one of the simplest questions remains for 3 Part 53, do we incorporate in, as Dennis I think you 4 mentioned earlier, do you try to incorporate within it 5 the licensing processes, so they'll be sections on 6 licensing, or do you just try to define technical 7 requirements and then refer back to Parts 50 and 52 8 for the licensing part?
76 given some thought, I think, to where we envision this 1
9                    Again, there's no right or wrong to any of 10 these       things.       Some     of   it     is   just   ease       and 11 understanding and clarity as to where the rules are.
going. But one of the simplest questions remains for 2
12 But a question that we have is what do stakeholders 13 think about what Part 53 should look like, whether 14 it's like we describe it or whether it's more narrow 15 to be just technical requirements.
Part 53, do we incorporate in, as Dennis I think you 3
16                    A big one, again, this is within the 17 previous figure. The way we're currently thinking the 18 rule       might     look,   this     becomes       kind of like       the 19 foundation or the cornerstones on how the whole part 20 would work is how do you define the performance 21 criteria.         And is it possible to define a single set 22 that's possible for all technologies?
mentioned earlier, do you try to incorporate within it 4
23                    That would look, again, at the NRC safety 24 goals       at   the   highest     level,       not   necessarily       the 25 surrogates that were developed later for light water NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the licensing processes, so they'll be sections on 5
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
licensing, or do you just try to define technical 6
requirements and then refer back to Parts 50 and 52 7
for the licensing part?
8 Again, there's no right or wrong to any of 9
these things. Some of it is just ease and 10 understanding and clarity as to where the rules are.
11 But a question that we have is what do stakeholders 12 think about what Part 53 should look like, whether 13 it's like we describe it or whether it's more narrow 14 to be just technical requirements.
15 A big one, again, this is within the 16 previous figure. The way we're currently thinking the 17 rule might look, this becomes kind of like the 18 foundation or the cornerstones on how the whole part 19 would work is how do you define the performance 20 criteria. And is it possible to define a single set 21 that's possible for all technologies?
22 That would look, again, at the NRC safety 23 goals at the highest level, not necessarily the 24 surrogates that were developed later for light water 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


77 1 reactors in specific, but going up to the higher level 2 safety goals looking at consequences in terms of off-3 site doses.
77 reactors in specific, but going up to the higher level 1
4                  MEMBER     KIRCHNER:           Bill,   this   is     Walt 5 Kirchner.       I'm assuming, since you -- based on what 6 you just said and also the previous idea, I'm assuming 7 that you would take the same approach as 50 and 52 8 with       regard   to   dose     limits,         which gets       into 9 consequences of course.               That you wouldn't try -- I 10 mean 10 CFR 100 is 10 CFR 100.
safety goals looking at consequences in terms of off-2 site doses.
11                  You're not going to try and change the 12 outside to 10 CFR 50, 52 part of 10 CFR.                       In other 13 words, I'm not saying this very well, you would take 14 things like -- and forgive me if I don't remember the 15 exact number.         It's 10 CFR 52.34 which talks about 16 contents of applications and demonstrating that the 17 dose at the exclusionary or boundary is less than 18 what, 25 rem per two hours.                 And at the LPZ, 25 rem 19 for the entire course of the event, et cetera.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 4
20                  MR. RECKLEY:         Right.
Kirchner. I'm assuming, since you -- based on what 5
21                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:           I'm assuming we would 22 still use those and put them in 53.
you just said and also the previous idea, I'm assuming 6
23                  MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Our interpretation of 24 past       commission   decisions,         including     the   ones     I 25 mentioned, SECY-10-0121, and then even more recently NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that you would take the same approach as 50 and 52 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
with regard to dose limits, which gets into 8
consequences of course. That you wouldn't try -- I 9
mean 10 CFR 100 is 10 CFR 100.
10 You're not going to try and change the 11 outside to 10 CFR 50, 52 part of 10 CFR. In other 12 words, I'm not saying this very well, you would take 13 things like -- and forgive me if I don't remember the 14 exact number. It's 10 CFR 52.34 which talks about 15 contents of applications and demonstrating that the 16 dose at the exclusionary or boundary is less than 17 what, 25 rem per two hours. And at the LPZ, 25 rem 18 for the entire course of the event, et cetera.
19 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm assuming we would 21 still use those and put them in 53.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Our interpretation of 23 past commission decisions, including the ones I 24 mentioned, SECY-10-0121, and then even more recently 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


78 1 SECY-19-0117, is the Commission is telling us those 2 metrics are good enough and are to be used.
78 SECY-19-0117, is the Commission is telling us those 1
3                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:         Good, good. That makes 4 your job a lot simpler actually if you --
metrics are good enough and are to be used.
5                  MR. RECKLEY:         Well it does.     Yes.
2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Good, good. That makes 3
6                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:         Yeah. And it provides 7 some agreed upon basis to -- as measures for what's 8 acceptable in terms of --
your job a lot simpler actually if you --
9                  MR. RECKLEY:         Right.
4 MR. RECKLEY: Well it does. Yes.
10                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:           -- consequence to the 11 public.       Okay.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yeah. And it provides 6
12                  MR. RECKLEY:         And then just as we were 13 having discussions early on, on reg guide 1.233, part 14 of the what we'll need in my view to construct within 15 Part 53 though is that advanced reactors have said 16 that when they incorporate the attributes from the 17 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, that they are able 18 to meet those criteria and then have margins that are 19 greater than what we've seen historically.
some agreed upon basis to -- as measures for what's 7
20                  And then they want to use those margins to 21 do things like incorporate smaller emergency planning 22 zones, reduce staffing, or other things.                   And so to 23 me, the trick within Part 53 will be to have -- to use 24 those potential advanced reactor attributes and build 25 within the rule how it interplays with those other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
acceptable in terms of --
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
8 MR. RECKLEY: Right.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- consequence to the 10 public. Okay.
11 MR. RECKLEY: And then just as we were 12 having discussions early on, on reg guide 1.233, part 13 of the what we'll need in my view to construct within 14 Part 53 though is that advanced reactors have said 15 that when they incorporate the attributes from the 16 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, that they are able 17 to meet those criteria and then have margins that are 18 greater than what we've seen historically.
19 And then they want to use those margins to 20 do things like incorporate smaller emergency planning 21 zones, reduce staffing, or other things. And so to 22 me, the trick within Part 53 will be to have -- to use 23 those potential advanced reactor attributes and build 24 within the rule how it interplays with those other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


79 1 areas to give them the operational flexibility.                         And 2 that's one of the reasons we built it in as an 3 objective so that we could get some comment and 4 suggestions on that.
79 areas to give them the operational flexibility. And 1
5                  CHAIR BLEY:       I'd remind the members that 6 we wrote a letter not too long ago on the staff's 7 implementation         action     plan     on     population-related 8 siting considerations.             And then in paper, the staff 9 was not recommending any change in the current rule 10 where Walt was, but it was recommending a change in 11 the guidance for implementing that rule, especially 12 the       guidance   dealing       with       population     density 13 requirements.         And probably, you'll be using these 14 implementation action plans as part of your thinking 15 going forward. I assume that's why they're there.
that's one of the reasons we built it in as an 2
16                  MR. RECKLEY:         That's right.       And we're 17 trying to tie these things together and make sure we 18 get maximum use out of things like what we just talked 19 about, the reviews that were done of NEI 18-04, and 20 the ongoing reviews of things like TICAP.                       We want 21 them, if at all possible, to be supportive of what 22 we're doing under Part 53.
objective so that we could get some comment and 3
23                  Risk metrics, more specifically I guess a 24 question.       It's related to the previous question on 25 setting up the performance criteria.                     But to what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
suggestions on that.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
4 CHAIR BLEY: I'd remind the members that 5
we wrote a letter not too long ago on the staff's 6
implementation action plan on population-related 7
siting considerations. And then in paper, the staff 8
was not recommending any change in the current rule 9
where Walt was, but it was recommending a change in 10 the guidance for implementing that rule, especially 11 the guidance dealing with population density 12 requirements. And probably, you'll be using these 13 implementation action plans as part of your thinking 14 going forward. I assume that's why they're there.
15 MR. RECKLEY: That's right. And we're 16 trying to tie these things together and make sure we 17 get maximum use out of things like what we just talked 18 about, the reviews that were done of NEI 18-04, and 19 the ongoing reviews of things like TICAP. We want 20 them, if at all possible, to be supportive of what 21 we're doing under Part 53.
22 Risk metrics, more specifically I guess a 23 question. It's related to the previous question on 24 setting up the performance criteria. But to what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


80 1 degree do we incorporate the safety goals into the 2 regulations?       That would be a change in how we've 3 historically treated that particular policy statement, 4 and the consideration of risk insights.
80 degree do we incorporate the safety goals into the 1
5                  So we have a question in that regard:
regulations? That would be a change in how we've 2
6 would people expect to see something like a frequency-7 consequence curve in Part 53, or would it be at a 8 higher level and simply talk about managing the risks 9 using appropriate consideration, some higher level 10 language.     And then things like frequency-consequence 11 curves, or the target figure would be in guidances.
historically treated that particular policy statement, 3
12                  All of these things we'll kind of have to 13 work out and decide as we prepare the rule.                   And then 14 to the degree that we are already thinking that things 15 will need to go in guidance, we'll have to consider 16 whether the existing guidance is at the right level or 17 whether we need additional guidance.
and the consideration of risk insights.
18                  Again,     we   gave     some     thought   in     the 19 rulemaking plan and we talked that we think it should 20 be addressing the whole lifecycle of the facility, not 21 just a licensing framework.                   But that's what our 22 thinking is.       We're looking for feedback.
4 So we have a question in that regard:
23                  Going to what Walt was mentioning earlier, 24 there's a whole range of terminology. And we realized 25 even       in SECY-19-0117,         we   were     using   different NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
5 would people expect to see something like a frequency-6 consequence curve in Part 53, or would it be at a 7
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
higher level and simply talk about managing the risks 8
using appropriate consideration, some higher level 9
language. And then things like frequency-consequence 10 curves, or the target figure would be in guidances.
11 All of these things we'll kind of have to 12 work out and decide as we prepare the rule. And then 13 to the degree that we are already thinking that things 14 will need to go in guidance, we'll have to consider 15 whether the existing guidance is at the right level or 16 whether we need additional guidance.
17 Again, we gave some thought in the 18 rulemaking plan and we talked that we think it should 19 be addressing the whole lifecycle of the facility, not 20 just a licensing framework. But that's what our 21 thinking is. We're looking for feedback.
22 Going to what Walt was mentioning earlier, 23 there's a whole range of terminology. And we realized 24 even in SECY-19-0117, we were using different 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


81 1 definitions than were in Part 50 and 52.                       So one 2 question is just on definitions:               is it okay for Part 3 53 to define a term different than it's defined in 4 Part 50, or do we need to try to make sure we avoid 5 that kind of confusion within the whole Title 10, if 6 you will?
81 definitions than were in Part 50 and 52. So one 1
7                Just a general question on performance-8 based regulation.       The Commission, since 1990s, has 9 had a general policy of encouraging risk-informed and 10 performance-based approaches. Just a general question 11 on how we might incorporate performance-based concepts 12 such as the guidance document that was produced back 13 in that timeframe in the early 2000s, NUREG/BR-0303.
question is just on definitions: is it okay for Part 2
14                CHAIR BLEY: Hey, Bill? Can I back you up 15 one? On the definitions, it's not something I usually 16 get too concerned about.           But I think it does create 17 difficulties with changing definitions.                   And I know 18 the staff has put together a glossary of definitions 19 trying to avoid this problem.
53 to define a term different than it's defined in 3
20                And,   boy,     it   seems       like it   would       be 21 worthwhile to try to clear that up.                 I know you got 22 some difficulties now with the NEI document.                         But 23 being consistent within the regulator offers some real 24 help to people who are trying to use it, although that 25 would require bringing other documents into agreement.
Part 50, or do we need to try to make sure we avoid 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that kind of confusion within the whole Title 10, if 5
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
you will?
6 Just a general question on performance-7 based regulation. The Commission, since 1990s, has 8
had a general policy of encouraging risk-informed and 9
performance-based approaches. Just a general question 10 on how we might incorporate performance-based concepts 11 such as the guidance document that was produced back 12 in that timeframe in the early 2000s, NUREG/BR-0303.
13 CHAIR BLEY: Hey, Bill? Can I back you up 14 one? On the definitions, it's not something I usually 15 get too concerned about. But I think it does create 16 difficulties with changing definitions. And I know 17 the staff has put together a glossary of definitions 18 trying to avoid this problem.
19 And, boy, it seems like it would be 20 worthwhile to try to clear that up. I know you got 21 some difficulties now with the NEI document. But 22 being consistent within the regulator offers some real 23 help to people who are trying to use it, although that 24 would require bringing other documents into agreement.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


82 1                    MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. I don't disagree, but 2 it's a challenge.           Only because --
82 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. I don't disagree, but 1
3                    CHAIR BLEY:       I get it.
it's a challenge. Only because --
4                    MR. RECKLEY:         Yeah.       Talked about this 5 one. One of the questions that we're raising is that, 6 this goes really back to the objectives, and we had 7 two levels of safety defined under the objectives.
2 CHAIR BLEY: I get it.
8 One, the traditional reasonable assurance of adequate 9 protection.
3 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Talked about this 4
10                    And then the second one was the provision 11 that       we   typically     use   when     we     are   looking     at   a 12 substantial increase in the overall protection, and we 13 consider costs.           So in initial licensing, we don't 14 provide as much clarity on distinguishing between 15 those two criteria.
one. One of the questions that we're raising is that, 5
16                    And so this question is just going to 17 stakeholders and say, as we develop this new part, 18 should         we be   looking       at   those       two things       and 19 distinguishing between the two.                     And even at initial 20 licensing, should we be looking at cost-effectiveness 21 when we're making licensing decisions.
this goes really back to the objectives, and we had 6
22                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:             Bill, pragmatically, 23 since you brought that one up as a question -- this is 24 Walt Kirchner. Boy, at the initial licensing when you 25 have -- and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
two levels of safety defined under the objectives.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 One, the traditional reasonable assurance of adequate 8
protection.
9 And then the second one was the provision 10 that we typically use when we are looking at a 11 substantial increase in the overall protection, and we 12 consider costs. So in initial licensing, we don't 13 provide as much clarity on distinguishing between 14 those two criteria.
15 And so this question is just going to 16 stakeholders and say, as we develop this new part, 17 should we be looking at those two things and 18 distinguishing between the two. And even at initial 19 licensing, should we be looking at cost-effectiveness 20 when we're making licensing decisions.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, pragmatically, 22 since you brought that one up as a question -- this is 23 Walt Kirchner. Boy, at the initial licensing when you 24 have -- and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


83 1 for some of these advanced reactors, a paper design.
83 for some of these advanced reactors, a paper design.
2 3                    You're really not going to have specs or 4 good cost information until you go out in the next 5 step and do the, you know, prepare procurement specs 6 and so on.         So it would just pragmatically I think be 7 very difficult to -- it could be open-ended arguments 8 about cost at that phase.
1 2
9                    I mean,     they     would       be heuristic       or 10 estimates maybe falling back on LWR experience and 11 pricing of equipment and such.                 But I just think that 12 would prove very difficult at the initial stage of a 13 specific license review.
You're really not going to have specs or 3
14                    MR. RECKLEY:       I agree.       None of these are 15 easy, and they come with challenges to implement.                           As 16 you just mentioned, this one would be somewhat hard to 17 say at an early stage we're already deciding there's 18 not a cost-effective -- that there is or isn't a cost-19 effective way if you try to make that decision too 20 early on.
good cost information until you go out in the next 4
21                    The other observation though is that, as 22 we've looked at how we've done backfits on operating 23 plants         and   even     considered           putting   in     place 24 requirements that somebody would need -- would pick up 25 at a future time, a forward-fit requirement, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
step and do the, you know, prepare procurement specs 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
and so on. So it would just pragmatically I think be 6
very difficult to -- it could be open-ended arguments 7
about cost at that phase.
8 I mean, they would be heuristic or 9
estimates maybe falling back on LWR experience and 10 pricing of equipment and such. But I just think that 11 would prove very difficult at the initial stage of a 12 specific license review.
13 MR. RECKLEY: I agree. None of these are 14 easy, and they come with challenges to implement. As 15 you just mentioned, this one would be somewhat hard to 16 say at an early stage we're already deciding there's 17 not a cost-effective -- that there is or isn't a cost-18 effective way if you try to make that decision too 19 early on.
20 The other observation though is that, as 21 we've looked at how we've done backfits on operating 22 plants and even considered putting in place 23 requirements that somebody would need -- would pick up 24 at a future time, a forward-fit requirement, that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


84 1 initial         licensing     wasn't     talked       about   in   those 2 guidance documents, in the Management Directive 8.4, 3 that provided additional clarity on how we use those 4 provisions for initial license.                     So the question is 5 should         we. You're     exactly         right,   there'll       be 6 challenges in trying to do it.
84 initial licensing wasn't talked about in those 1
7                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:         If I'm the designer and 8 I'm       submitting     my     advanced       reactor     design,       you 9 basically if you think about you've got -- you're 10 looking as a designer for a sweet spot.                           You're 11 balancing cost, reliability, and safety.                     And they're 12 all interrelated.
guidance documents, in the Management Directive 8.4, 2
13                    I would presume that your applicants will 14 come in with their most cost-effective proposal, in 15 their estimation, as their opening gambit.                     So I just 16 would be concerned that it would be very difficult to 17 get into -- you mentioned backfitting where you have 18 actually a much better basis for making an estimate of 19 the actual cost of the backfit versus the increased --
that provided additional clarity on how we use those 3
20 the gain in terms of whatever the metric is, rem 21 avoided or whatever.
provisions for initial license. So the question is 4
22                    So my sense is that they will come in to 23 you with their best most cost-effective proposal, and 24 it probably will go in the other direction.                     I mean, 25 the arguments that will ensue I predict will be, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
should we. You're exactly right, there'll be 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
challenges in trying to do it.
6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: If I'm the designer and 7
I'm submitting my advanced reactor design, you 8
basically if you think about you've got -- you're 9
looking as a designer for a sweet spot. You're 10 balancing cost, reliability, and safety. And they're 11 all interrelated.
12 I would presume that your applicants will 13 come in with their most cost-effective proposal, in 14 their estimation, as their opening gambit. So I just 15 would be concerned that it would be very difficult to 16 get into -- you mentioned backfitting where you have 17 actually a much better basis for making an estimate of 18 the actual cost of the backfit versus the increased --
19 the gain in terms of whatever the metric is, rem 20 avoided or whatever.
21 So my sense is that they will come in to 22 you with their best most cost-effective proposal, and 23 it probably will go in the other direction. I mean, 24 the arguments that will ensue I predict will be, is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


85 1 this system safety-related or is it not?
85 this system safety-related or is it not?
2                    And if it wasn't safety-related and you 3 insist and they have to change it to be safety-4 related, then it likely would cost more to first 5 order.         But, you know, but I think it would be very 6 difficult to make that in the cost an initial factor 7 in your review.
1 And if it wasn't safety-related and you 2
8                    MR. RECKLEY:         Again, I agree with you to 9 it would be a challenge.                 You or someone else was 10 asking earlier, how do you make decisions on defense 11 in depth, and when is enough enough?
insist and they have to change it to be safety-3 related, then it likely would cost more to first 4
12                    This question is somewhat related to that 13 which is at what point when you're deciding how much 14 additional margin to add, not only do you change the 15 classification of a system maybe from non-safety with 16 special treatment up to safety-related, but when do 17 you even need to have a backup that would even be non-18 safety-related special treatment?
order. But, you know, but I think it would be very 5
19                    Again, I don't have answers.       One of the 20 questions is to what degree do we bring in this same 21 logic that we use in the operating fleet to try to 22 make decisions on when is enough enough?
difficult to make that in the cost an initial factor 6
23                    This is question 10 on slide 16.             Just 24 again, a more general question of how do you take an 25 integrated look and ensure that what you're doing in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
in your review.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701     (202) 234-4433
7 MR. RECKLEY: Again, I agree with you to 8
it would be a challenge. You or someone else was 9
asking earlier, how do you make decisions on defense 10 in depth, and when is enough enough?
11 This question is somewhat related to that 12 which is at what point when you're deciding how much 13 additional margin to add, not only do you change the 14 classification of a system maybe from non-safety with 15 special treatment up to safety-related, but when do 16 you even need to have a backup that would even be non-17 safety-related special treatment?
18 Again, I don't have answers. One of the 19 questions is to what degree do we bring in this same 20 logic that we use in the operating fleet to try to 21 make decisions on when is enough enough?
22 This is question 10 on slide 16. Just 23 again, a more general question of how do you take an 24 integrated look and ensure that what you're doing in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


86 1 terms of safety, security, how emergency preparedness 2 fits in, how do you take this integrated look and make 3 sure that Part 53 has enough?                 But it also provides 4 the       potential   for     flexibility         where the     safety 5 features of the reactor might warrant it.
86 terms of safety, security, how emergency preparedness 1
6                  This is just a similar question to what we 7 talked about before.           We are using, or we could use 8 within the rulemaking, things like NRC Safety Goal 9 Police Statement from 1986.               We think the Commission 10 has told us to use that.                   But as a question to 11 stakeholders,       is   this     an   opportunity       for   us     to 12 revisit?
fits in, how do you take this integrated look and make 2
13                  One   of     the     questions       we   put       to 14 stakeholders in a public meeting is to what degree is 15 this an opportunity to align ourselves with other 16 international standards?             And should the rulemaking 17 try to do that, or just recognize that as you go from 18 country to country, the methodology is generally the 19 same, but recognize that any particular point on a 20 frequency-consequence target figure or any particular 21 offsite dose criteria might change from country to 22 country.
sure that Part 53 has enough? But it also provides 3
23                  Again, the methodology will generally fit, 24 but as you do your assessment, you still might need to 25 make either different arguments or even potentially NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the potential for flexibility where the safety 4
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
features of the reactor might warrant it.
5 This is just a similar question to what we 6
talked about before. We are using, or we could use 7
within the rulemaking, things like NRC Safety Goal 8
Police Statement from 1986. We think the Commission 9
has told us to use that. But as a question to 10 stakeholders, is this an opportunity for us to 11 revisit?
12 One of the questions we put to 13 stakeholders in a public meeting is to what degree is 14 this an opportunity to align ourselves with other 15 international standards? And should the rulemaking 16 try to do that, or just recognize that as you go from 17 country to country, the methodology is generally the 18 same, but recognize that any particular point on a 19 frequency-consequence target figure or any particular 20 offsite dose criteria might change from country to 21 country.
22 Again, the methodology will generally fit, 23 but as you do your assessment, you still might need to 24 make either different arguments or even potentially 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


87 1 make modifications to address the differences between 2 standards. Again, it's a generally broad question of 3 whether we should maintain what we have, or use this 4 as an opportunity to look elsewhere, or look for 5 tweaking the guidance, or tweaking the requirements in 6 this case by changing what will go into Part 53.
87 make modifications to address the differences between 1
7                Quality     assurance,         this was an   issue 8 people mentioned back in 2006, is some of these 9 questions are basically the same questioned we asked 10 back in 2006 in that ANPR.               And whether there's an 11 alternative     to how     we're     currently     doing quality 12 assurance. Not that quality assurance doesn't remain 13 fundamentally important, but is there time now that we 14 might look for different ways to do it?
standards. Again, it's a generally broad question of 2
15                And now that you have QA organizations 16 surrounding NQA-1.       You   have additional standards on 17 the international arena. You have a whole set of ISO 18 standards. So just a general question of whether we 19 could revisit how that's done.               This one goes to the 20 guidance and standards area.                   If we're going to 21 develop a Part 53, it'll have a large -- it could 22 potentially have the need for a large number of 23 standards and guidance documents.
whether we should maintain what we have, or use this 3
24                So this question is to stakeholders, are 25 we       going to   have     either         standard-development NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
as an opportunity to look elsewhere, or look for 4
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
tweaking the guidance, or tweaking the requirements in 5
this case by changing what will go into Part 53.
6 Quality assurance, this was an issue 7
people mentioned back in 2006, is some of these 8
questions are basically the same questioned we asked 9
back in 2006 in that ANPR. And whether there's an 10 alternative to how we're currently doing quality 11 assurance. Not that quality assurance doesn't remain 12 fundamentally important, but is there time now that we 13 might look for different ways to do it?
14 And now that you have QA organizations 15 surrounding NQA-1. You have additional standards on 16 the international arena. You have a whole set of ISO 17 standards. So just a general question of whether we 18 could revisit how that's done. This one goes to the 19 guidance and standards area. If we're going to 20 develop a Part 53, it'll have a large -- it could 21 potentially have the need for a large number of 22 standards and guidance documents.
23 So this question is to stakeholders, are 24 we going to have either standard-development 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


88 1 organizations or NEI or Nuclear Industry Council or 2 some other group identify potential guidance documents 3 that we could endorse.               Or to the degree there are 4 needed guidance documents will it fall on the staff to 5 try to develop those as we're doing the proposed rule?
88 organizations or NEI or Nuclear Industry Council or 1
6                    And then the catch-all question 14 which 7 is just, you know, these were just some initial 8 questions. We boil down the strong events and then we 9 boil down the 60 or so that was offered in 2006 to 14 10 questions. But are there other matters that we didn't 11 identify that people want to bring up?
some other group identify potential guidance documents 2
12                    So with that, Dennis, we're open to the 13 broader         discussion     and   then     also   maybe the     path 14 forward in terms of starting to talk about when we 15 might come back.
that we could endorse. Or to the degree there are 3
16                    CHAIR BLEY:       Yeah.       I think that's good.
needed guidance documents will it fall on the staff to 4
17 But first, let's go to the members and see if any have 18 more questions or want to say anything about the 19 questions you folks have posed.
try to develop those as we're doing the proposed rule?
20                    MEMBER PETTI:           So, Bill, this is Dave 21 Petti.         I didn't hear a lot about certification about 22 the overall approach, which is something I hear in the 23 advanced reactor community a lot. In terms of how you 24 weigh all these questions, it just seems to me that 25 simplification and the schedule is being imposed from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
5 And then the catch-all question 14 which 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
is just, you know, these were just some initial 7
questions. We boil down the strong events and then we 8
boil down the 60 or so that was offered in 2006 to 14 9
questions. But are there other matters that we didn't 10 identify that people want to bring up?
11 So with that, Dennis, we're open to the 12 broader discussion and then also maybe the path 13 forward in terms of starting to talk about when we 14 might come back.
15 CHAIR BLEY: Yeah. I think that's good.
16 But first, let's go to the members and see if any have 17 more questions or want to say anything about the 18 questions you folks have posed.
19 MEMBER PETTI: So, Bill, this is Dave 20 Petti. I didn't hear a lot about certification about 21 the overall approach, which is something I hear in the 22 advanced reactor community a lot. In terms of how you 23 weigh all these questions, it just seems to me that 24 simplification and the schedule is being imposed from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


89 1 the     outside, they     answer     your     questions   for     you 2 instead of, say, the more thoughtful approach.
89 the outside, they answer your questions for you 1
3                MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, I can't really hear 4 you.
instead of, say, the more thoughtful approach.
5                CHAIR BLEY:       That was Dave Petti.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, I can't really hear 3
6                MEMBER BROWN:         Oh, Dave?       He's speaking 7 very softly.     I couldn't hear him.             I didn't know if 8 it was your connection or what but I just --
you.
9                MR. CORRADINI:         I think, Charlie -- this 10 is same as Corradini.               I barely hear you, Dave.
4 CHAIR BLEY: That was Dave Petti.
11 You're very muffled.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, Dave? He's speaking 6
12                CHAIR     BLEY:         Well,     he   asked     some 13 questions. If Bill heard him, maybe he can respond.
very softly. I couldn't hear him. I didn't know if 7
14 If not, maybe Dave can say them again.
it was your connection or what but I just --
15                MR. RECKLEY:       Well, I'll summarize, Dave, 16 and push back if I mischaracterize it.                   But Dave's 17 primary point was simplification in both design and I 18 think expectations for what would be in Part 53.                     And 19 we hear those.       The other thing I would point to in 20 Part 53 in addition to trying to make sure we're able 21 to address simpler designs, ones that are using more 22 inherent and passive features, is when you try to make 23 this rulemaking technology-inclusive, our preliminary 24 thinking is that pushes you up higher to be more 25 general, to be simpler in what the rule requires.
8 MR. CORRADINI: I think, Charlie -- this 9
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
is same as Corradini. I barely hear you, Dave.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
10 You're very muffled.
11 CHAIR BLEY:
: Well, he asked some 12 questions. If Bill heard him, maybe he can respond.
13 If not, maybe Dave can say them again.
14 MR. RECKLEY: Well, I'll summarize, Dave, 15 and push back if I mischaracterize it. But Dave's 16 primary point was simplification in both design and I 17 think expectations for what would be in Part 53. And 18 we hear those. The other thing I would point to in 19 Part 53 in addition to trying to make sure we're able 20 to address simpler designs, ones that are using more 21 inherent and passive features, is when you try to make 22 this rulemaking technology-inclusive, our preliminary 23 thinking is that pushes you up higher to be more 24 general, to be simpler in what the rule requires.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


90 1                    The counter to that, as some other people 2 have raised, is you are now perhaps less clear because 3 you're now saying you're up at a functional level in 4 terms of what you're imposing in asking applicants and 5 designers to provide.               So that'll be I think one of 6 the primary challenges, is to try to balance the --
90 The counter to that, as some other people 1
7 what I'm looking at now, the Part 53 rulemaking, the 8 simplicity that we want to maintain and keeping it up 9 at a high level, and then the tradeoff with clarity 10 because the higher you get, most likely, the less 11 clear you are.
have raised, is you are now perhaps less clear because 2
12                    MEMBER     KIRCHNER:           Bill,   this is     Walt 13 Kirchner. If I might make a specific observation, and 14 also given the schedule that you're likely going to 15 have to work against, it seems to me that one would --
you're now saying you're up at a functional level in 3
16 borrow         is not   the   right     word,       but   use what     are 17 accepted metrics that are well-defined or actually, 18 how should I say it, that can be calculated by the 19 applicants.
terms of what you're imposing in asking applicants and 4
20                    And I'm referring again specifically to 21 the dose at the exclusionary boundary and the LPZ, and 22 rather than the safety goals themselves.                       I have the 23 safety         goals   right     in   front     of     me, as you     were 24 speaking, and I just quickly looked at them again.
designers to provide. So that'll be I think one of 5
25 And I think that if you were -- just what you were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the primary challenges, is to try to balance the --
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
6 what I'm looking at now, the Part 53 rulemaking, the 7
simplicity that we want to maintain and keeping it up 8
at a high level, and then the tradeoff with clarity 9
because the higher you get, most likely, the less 10 clear you are.
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 12 Kirchner. If I might make a specific observation, and 13 also given the schedule that you're likely going to 14 have to work against, it seems to me that one would --
15 borrow is not the right word, but use what are 16 accepted metrics that are well-defined or actually, 17 how should I say it, that can be calculated by the 18 applicants.
19 And I'm referring again specifically to 20 the dose at the exclusionary boundary and the LPZ, and 21 rather than the safety goals themselves. I have the 22 safety goals right in front of me, as you were 23 speaking, and I just quickly looked at them again.
24 And I think that if you were -- just what you were 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


91 1 saying, if you go that high a level, you open the door 2 for endless arguments.
91 saying, if you go that high a level, you open the door 1
3                And even the safety goal statement, which 4 I have in front of me, points out that there are 5 sizeable uncertainties still present.                   Now this was 6 written -- and I'm talking about the quantitative 7 parts of the safety goals. When was this written? In 8 '86. I would submit there's still large uncertainties 9 in terms of the relative measures versus, you know, 10 the more qualitative goals.
for endless arguments.
11                So if you use that, I just don't see how 12 you get to closure. It seems to be a much better path 13 as to use what is accepted as a surrogate for the 14 safety goals in the case of dose there at the EAB and 15 the LPZ, and then do things like the paper Dennis 16 reminded us of your proposal on how to then take the 17 existing regulations and provide guidance in terms of 18 determining, like, LPZ.
2 And even the safety goal statement, which 3
19                And that to me would pragmatically let you 20 get to closure in a reasonable timeframe.                   If it gets 21 too high-level, I just don't know that you can get to 22 closure.       Or you     don't     get   to     closure with     the 23 applicants because of the large uncertainties in the 24 actual licensing process, if indeed they're going to 25 compare against the safety goals.                   You see what I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
I have in front of me, points out that there are 4
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
sizeable uncertainties still present. Now this was 5
written -- and I'm talking about the quantitative 6
parts of the safety goals. When was this written? In 7
'86. I would submit there's still large uncertainties 8
in terms of the relative measures versus, you know, 9
the more qualitative goals.
10 So if you use that, I just don't see how 11 you get to closure. It seems to be a much better path 12 as to use what is accepted as a surrogate for the 13 safety goals in the case of dose there at the EAB and 14 the LPZ, and then do things like the paper Dennis 15 reminded us of your proposal on how to then take the 16 existing regulations and provide guidance in terms of 17 determining, like, LPZ.
18 And that to me would pragmatically let you 19 get to closure in a reasonable timeframe. If it gets 20 too high-level, I just don't know that you can get to 21 closure. Or you don't get to closure with the 22 applicants because of the large uncertainties in the 23 actual licensing process, if indeed they're going to 24 compare against the safety goals. You see what I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


92 1 saying?
92 saying?
2                    MR. RECKLEY:           Yes, I do.         Again, and 3 that'll       be the   challenge.           I   think our   initial 4 thinking is that we would probably end up using both.
1 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I do. Again, and 2
5 But both the traditional 25 rem at the low population 6 zone, or EAB.           And in addition, somehow using the 7 safety goals.         But how we do that, that'll be part of 8 the       discussion     as     we   try   to     set up what       the 9 performance requirements would be.
that'll be the challenge. I think our initial 3
10                    MEMBER BROWN:         I would just echo Walt's 11 thoughts a little bit because the lack of specificity 12 or what people term as prescriptive requirements just 13 increases uncertainty and an increase number of RAIs 14 and back-and-forths on why you're doing it this way 15 vice the other, and it becomes very difficult to close 16 those out.       That's a real worry to me as well. I'm not 17 trying to argue one way or the other, I'm just saying 18 that is a problem.
thinking is that we would probably end up using both.
19                    MR. RECKLEY:         And we'll be looking for 20 real smart people to help us with that, like you guys.
4 But both the traditional 25 rem at the low population 5
21                    MEMBER BROWN: I'm not so sure anybody, or 22 there's enough smart people in the world to do that.
zone, or EAB. And in addition, somehow using the 6
23 There's always a -- I mean, a typical example in my 24 area is control of access that we keep fighting over 25 on every design in terms of do you give people a door NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
safety goals. But how we do that, that'll be part of 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
the discussion as we try to set up what the 8
performance requirements would be.
9 MEMBER BROWN: I would just echo Walt's 10 thoughts a little bit because the lack of specificity 11 or what people term as prescriptive requirements just 12 increases uncertainty and an increase number of RAIs 13 and back-and-forths on why you're doing it this way 14 vice the other, and it becomes very difficult to close 15 those out. That's a real worry to me as well. I'm not 16 trying to argue one way or the other, I'm just saying 17 that is a problem.
18 MR. RECKLEY: And we'll be looking for 19 real smart people to help us with that, like you guys.
20 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not so sure anybody, or 21 there's enough smart people in the world to do that.
22 There's always a -- I mean, a typical example in my 23 area is control of access that we keep fighting over 24 on every design in terms of do you give people a door 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


93 1 that's software-controlled out to the outside world, 2 that they can come in if they want to, or do you just 3 close the door based on hardware?                     That's a specific 4 thing.
93 that's software-controlled out to the outside world, 1
5                    That's just my own parochial area that I 6 have to deal with.           I just think you can fight about 7 that forever and say, well, gee, I can do it whatever 8 way I want.         Well, no.       We don't want the door open.
that they can come in if they want to, or do you just 2
9 somewhere, you're the regulator and you're responsible 10 for safety.         Your ultimate issue is safety.             Sometime 11 you have to say, no, do it this way.                     I can see that 12 being         we're   falling       away     from       that   in     some 13 circumstances.         That's always the other argument that 14 seems to want to prevail.               That's my thought process 15 relative to Walt's comment.
close the door based on hardware? That's a specific 3
16                    MR. CORRADINI:           So,     Bill?     This       is 17 Corradini.
thing.
18                    MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, sir.
4 That's just my own parochial area that I 5
19                    MR. CORRADINI:         Can you hear me?
have to deal with. I just think you can fight about 6
20                    MR. RECKLEY:         Yes, sir.       I can.
that forever and say, well, gee, I can do it whatever 7
21                    MR. CORRADINI:         Okay.       So let me ask you 22 a couple of pointed questions, and you tell me that 23 that's to be determined.               So I'm thinking about this 24 relative to a research reactor as an alternative.                           In 25 a research reactor, whether it be one megawatt, or a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
way I want. Well, no. We don't want the door open.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
8 somewhere, you're the regulator and you're responsible 9
for safety. Your ultimate issue is safety. Sometime 10 you have to say, no, do it this way. I can see that 11 being we're falling away from that in some 12 circumstances. That's always the other argument that 13 seems to want to prevail. That's my thought process 14 relative to Walt's comment.
15 MR. CORRADINI: So, Bill? This is 16 Corradini.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.
18 MR. CORRADINI: Can you hear me?
19 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir. I can.
20 MR. CORRADINI: Okay. So let me ask you 21 a couple of pointed questions, and you tell me that 22 that's to be determined. So I'm thinking about this 23 relative to a research reactor as an alternative. In 24 a research reactor, whether it be one megawatt, or a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


94 1 few megawatts, or a sub-megawatt in size, I don't have 2 to worry about external manmade hazards.
94 few megawatts, or a sub-megawatt in size, I don't have 1
3                Is there a power size here that's going to 4 say that if I'm below a certain power size, I don't 5 have to worry about external manmade hazards, or must 6 I consider it regardless?             And then I add to that 7 concern about multiple modules.
to worry about external manmade hazards.
8                If I decide that I have a small machine 9 and meets all the new criteria of the new 10 CFR 53, 10 does that mean it's on a per-module basis, or is it a 11 population of modules on a site?                   Are those things 12 going to be identified in 53, or did I miss a question 13 in that area?
2 Is there a power size here that's going to 3
14                MR. RECKLEY:         Well, they'll need to be 15 addressed in Part 53 in terms of the natural -- I 16 mean, manmade hazards, and to some degree even natural 17 hazards. It, on approach can be as you identify those 18 top-level criteria that I mention back in the figure, 19 the purple box, what are the dose criteria, what are 20 the risk metrics.
say that if I'm below a certain power size, I don't 4
21                Then you can look and see in terms of 22 hazards, manmade or natural, is there a way -- I guess 23 my response would be you have to address it.                 But one 24 way to address it might be there's no way for a 25 manmade hazard or some other hazard to challenge those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
have to worry about external manmade hazards, or must 5
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
I consider it regardless? And then I add to that 6
concern about multiple modules.
7 If I decide that I have a small machine 8
and meets all the new criteria of the new 10 CFR 53, 9
does that mean it's on a per-module basis, or is it a 10 population of modules on a site? Are those things 11 going to be identified in 53, or did I miss a question 12 in that area?
13 MR. RECKLEY: Well, they'll need to be 14 addressed in Part 53 in terms of the natural -- I 15 mean, manmade hazards, and to some degree even natural 16 hazards. It, on approach can be as you identify those 17 top-level criteria that I mention back in the figure, 18 the purple box, what are the dose criteria, what are 19 the risk metrics.
20 Then you can look and see in terms of 21 hazards, manmade or natural, is there a way -- I guess 22 my response would be you have to address it. But one 23 way to address it might be there's no way for a 24 manmade hazard or some other hazard to challenge those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


95 1 performance metrics.             And so if I look at a manmade 2 hazard related to, let's say, toxic gases, if I have 3 a plant that doesn't require people -- so I'm building 4 a house of cards here, but if I have a plant that 5 doesn't require people, then maybe my concern about 6 toxic gases is less.
95 performance metrics. And so if I look at a manmade 1
7                    A design feature, like putting a plant 8 underground, might be able to address something like 9 explosions from a nearby railroad line, or an aircraft 10 crash.         So they will need to address all of those 11 things, but they might be able to address them by 12 having design features that show that those hazards 13 can't         challenge     the     safety         metrics that       are 14 established within the part.                 In terms of multiplant 15 versus -- or multiunit, you know, NEI --
hazard related to, let's say, toxic gases, if I have 2
16                    MR. CORRADINI: Bill, whatever you want to 17 call it.
a plant that doesn't require people -- so I'm building 3
18                    MR. RECKLEY: Right. NEI 18-04 was set up 19 on per plant basis, which is different than Part 50.
a house of cards here, but if I have a plant that 4
20 One of the questions, maybe we should have added it, 21 is a question would be, should Part 53 be set up that 22 way.       When we said throughout the development of the 23 Part 53 that we would build off of things like Reg 24 Guide 1.233, it does provide us a vehicle to go to 25 multimodule, and address it perhaps more clearly than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
doesn't require people, then maybe my concern about 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
toxic gases is less.
6 A design feature, like putting a plant 7
underground, might be able to address something like 8
explosions from a nearby railroad line, or an aircraft 9
crash. So they will need to address all of those 10 things, but they might be able to address them by 11 having design features that show that those hazards 12 can't challenge the safety metrics that are 13 established within the part. In terms of multiplant 14 versus -- or multiunit, you know, NEI --
15 MR. CORRADINI: Bill, whatever you want to 16 call it.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Right. NEI 18-04 was set up 18 on per plant basis, which is different than Part 50.
19 One of the questions, maybe we should have added it, 20 is a question would be, should Part 53 be set up that 21 way. When we said throughout the development of the 22 Part 53 that we would build off of things like Reg 23 Guide 1.233, it does provide us a vehicle to go to 24 multimodule, and address it perhaps more clearly than 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


96 1 Part 50 has.
96 Part 50 has.
2                  CHAIR BLEY:       Okay.       Thanks, Bill.       We're 3 nearing the end, but I'm going to -- I'm sorry, we'll 4 get a chance to go around and have members make 5 comments.       While Bill's still up, let's only address 6 questions to him and save comments for a couple of 7 minutes       from now.       Go   ahead,       Vesna. You       had 8 something?
1 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. Thanks, Bill. We're 2
9                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:             Well, I'm going to 10 save comments when we go around.
nearing the end, but I'm going to -- I'm sorry, we'll 3
11                  CHAIR BLEY:       Perfect.
get a chance to go around and have members make 4
12                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:               I don't have any 13 question, I just have a comment.
comments. While Bill's still up, let's only address 5
14                  CHAIR BLEY:       Perfect.         Anybody else have 15 a question?         Then at this point, I'm going to thank 16 Bill very much, and all of his staff who helped out on 17 this for giving us the status of where they are. When 18 we go around to members, I'm also going to ask you 19 about October.         If we would have an October meeting, 20 I     would     ask   the     staff     to     have     a very     short 21 presentation just on Part 53.
questions to him and save comments for a couple of 6
22                  And the reason we'd do that is if we want 23 to write a letter.           I'm inclined that it'd be a good 24 time to send a letter to the Commission, just a short 25 one, saying we're on board, we're following this. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
minutes from now. Go ahead, Vesna. You had 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
something?
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, I'm going to 9
save comments when we go around.
10 CHAIR BLEY: Perfect.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I don't have any 12 question, I just have a comment.
13 CHAIR BLEY: Perfect. Anybody else have 14 a question? Then at this point, I'm going to thank 15 Bill very much, and all of his staff who helped out on 16 this for giving us the status of where they are. When 17 we go around to members, I'm also going to ask you 18 about October. If we would have an October meeting, 19 I would ask the staff to have a very short 20 presentation just on Part 53.
21 And the reason we'd do that is if we want 22 to write a letter. I'm inclined that it'd be a good 23 time to send a letter to the Commission, just a short 24 one, saying we're on board, we're following this. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


97 1 we have a couple of issues, if we do, that we want to 2 make sure the staff pursues. But we'll get to that in 3 the minute.
97 we have a couple of issues, if we do, that we want to 1
4                Are there any members of the public either 5 on the web broadcast or on the outside line who would 6 like to make a comment?         Please make sure the outside 7 line is open for us, our staff.
make sure the staff pursues. But we'll get to that in 2
8                OPERATOR:     The line is open for comments.
the minute.
9                CHAIR BLEY:       Okay.       Is there anyone from 10 the public who would like to make a comment?                   If so, 11 give us your name and your comment.
3 Are there any members of the public either 4
12                MR. LYMAN:     Hello.       This is Ed Lyman from 13 the Union of Concerned Scientists.                   Can you hear me?
on the web broadcast or on the outside line who would 5
14                CHAIR BLEY:       Yes, Ed.         We can. Please go 15 ahead.
like to make a comment? Please make sure the outside 6
16                MR. LYMAN:         Yeah,     hi. Yeah,   so     I 17 appreciate this meeting.             I'd just like to say that 18 UCS did not oppose the passage of NEIMA, and we 19 testified twice that we have a neutral position.                     The 20 reason why we didn't oppose it is because we believe 21 that it gave the Commission enough discretion and did 22 not     micro-manage   what     to   do     vis-a-vis   licensing 23 advanced reactors.
line is open for us, our staff.
24                And so we didn't oppose it because we 25 thought the Commission, you know, with that discretion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7 OPERATOR: The line is open for comments.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
8 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. Is there anyone from 9
the public who would like to make a comment? If so, 10 give us your name and your comment.
11 MR. LYMAN: Hello. This is Ed Lyman from 12 the Union of Concerned Scientists. Can you hear me?
13 CHAIR BLEY: Yes, Ed. We can. Please go 14 ahead.
15 MR. LYMAN: Yeah, hi. Yeah, so I 16 appreciate this meeting. I'd just like to say that 17 UCS did not oppose the passage of NEIMA, and we 18 testified twice that we have a neutral position. The 19 reason why we didn't oppose it is because we believe 20 that it gave the Commission enough discretion and did 21 not micro-manage what to do vis-a-vis licensing 22 advanced reactors.
23 And so we didn't oppose it because we 24 thought the Commission, you know, with that discretion 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


98 1 and with the competence of the technical staff that it 2 would do the right thing.             But I'm starting to regret 3 that decision.         And that is because I don't believe 4 this is going in the right direction.                       And I do 5 appreciate some of the concerns I heard raised by 6 members about the ambiguous and the amorphous nature 7 of what's taking place here.
98 and with the competence of the technical staff that it 1
8                  The   potential         for     not only   having 9 discretion on how standards are met, but also what the 10 standards actually are.                 And that seems like an 11 invitation to chaos.           And I don't think the vendors, 12 if that's what they thing is going to help make their 13 lives easier in trying to license these reactors, I 14 think they have surprises ahead because I don't see 15 how this -- how weakening or making standards more 16 ambiguous is going to actually help in resolving these 17 issues, many of the difficult issues that we heard 18 with how do you license paper designs with very 19 limited       operating       experience,         or no operating 20 experience with a very weak or sparse experimental 21 database with regard to only important factors that 22 would need to go into these determinations such as 23 mechanistic source term.
would do the right thing. But I'm starting to regret 2
24                  So I'm very concerned about this, and I do 25 hope that the committee will express it's concerns, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that decision. And that is because I don't believe 3
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
this is going in the right direction. And I do 4
appreciate some of the concerns I heard raised by 5
members about the ambiguous and the amorphous nature 6
of what's taking place here.
7 The potential for not only having 8
discretion on how standards are met, but also what the 9
standards actually are. And that seems like an 10 invitation to chaos. And I don't think the vendors, 11 if that's what they thing is going to help make their 12 lives easier in trying to license these reactors, I 13 think they have surprises ahead because I don't see 14 how this -- how weakening or making standards more 15 ambiguous is going to actually help in resolving these 16 issues, many of the difficult issues that we heard 17 with how do you license paper designs with very 18 limited operating experience, or no operating 19 experience with a very weak or sparse experimental 20 database with regard to only important factors that 21 would need to go into these determinations such as 22 mechanistic source term.
23 So I'm very concerned about this, and I do 24 hope that the committee will express it's concerns, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


99 1 and hold the feet to the fire because I don't think 2 that the Commission's political leadership is actually 3 safeguarding public health and safety in this respect.
99 and hold the feet to the fire because I don't think 1
4 On that note, I can't think of any other regulator 5 that is so content with not imposing stricter safety 6 standards on future facilities.
that the Commission's political leadership is actually 2
7                  So we have this whole enterprise is based 8 on this artifice that the Commission expects advanced 9 reactors to be safer, and it's building a regulatory 10 infrastructure based on that expectation.                   But as we 11 heard       Bill Reckley     say   multiple       times, even     for 12 designs that have some inherent safety features, that 13 the vendors are going to look for ways to use that 14 margin in other ways.
safeguarding public health and safety in this respect.
15                  And so without a strict or a compelling 16 mandate from the Commission that you have at the end 17 is going to be in return fleet, you're going to end up 18 with reactors, you know, possibly locking for decades 19 to come with using the additional margin up in getting 20 relief for things like EPZ security and safety already 21 in the system.       So that just doesn't make sense to me 22 for a forward-thinking agency.
3 On that note, I can't think of any other regulator 4
23                  And so I would encourage everyone to think 24 about how to make plants safer in the future rather 25 than just embrace the status quo.                   For instance, rely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
that is so content with not imposing stricter safety 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
standards on future facilities.
6 So we have this whole enterprise is based 7
on this artifice that the Commission expects advanced 8
reactors to be safer, and it's building a regulatory 9
infrastructure based on that expectation. But as we 10 heard Bill Reckley say multiple times, even for 11 designs that have some inherent safety features, that 12 the vendors are going to look for ways to use that 13 margin in other ways.
14 And so without a strict or a compelling 15 mandate from the Commission that you have at the end 16 is going to be in return fleet, you're going to end up 17 with reactors, you know, possibly locking for decades 18 to come with using the additional margin up in getting 19 relief for things like EPZ security and safety already 20 in the system. So that just doesn't make sense to me 21 for a forward-thinking agency.
22 And so I would encourage everyone to think 23 about how to make plants safer in the future rather 24 than just embrace the status quo. For instance, rely 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


100 1 on the safety goals, which were developed decades ago 2 specifically so the parent fleet would meet them is 3 not an appropriate parameter to use if you're going to 4 use a new criteria.               So that's my comment, and I 5 appreciate your time.             Thank you.
100 on the safety goals, which were developed decades ago 1
6                  CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Ed. And we 7 have your comments on the transcript.                   We appreciate 8 them.       Anyone --
specifically so the parent fleet would meet them is 2
9                  MEMBER BROWN:       Someone was just speaking.
not an appropriate parameter to use if you're going to 3
10 Dennis, who was just speaking?                   It got garbled on my 11 end.
use a new criteria. So that's my comment, and I 4
12                  CHAIR BLEY:         That was Ed Lyman from the 13 Union of Concerned Scientists.
appreciate your time. Thank you.
14                  MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. I just wanted to 15 comment I actually agree with him, a good bit of what 16 he said.       So thank you, Ed.
5 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Ed. And we 6
17                  CHAIR BLEY:         Anyone else have a comment 18 from the public line?           Okay, we're going to close the 19 public line and come back to --
have your comments on the transcript. We appreciate 7
20                  OPERATOR:       Public line is closed.
them. Anyone --
21                  CHAIR BLEY:       I'm sorry, who?
8 MEMBER BROWN: Someone was just speaking.
22                  OPERATOR:       Public line is now closed.
9 Dennis, who was just speaking? It got garbled on my 10 end.
23                  CHAIR BLEY:         Thanks, I'm sorry.           Hear 24 while I was talking.             I'm now going to go around to 25 the committee members.               And I think this time, I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
11 CHAIR BLEY: That was Ed Lyman from the 12 Union of Concerned Scientists.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
13 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. I just wanted to 14 comment I actually agree with him, a good bit of what 15 he said. So thank you, Ed.
16 CHAIR BLEY: Anyone else have a comment 17 from the public line? Okay, we're going to close the 18 public line and come back to --
19 OPERATOR: Public line is closed.
20 CHAIR BLEY: I'm sorry, who?
21 OPERATOR: Public line is now closed.
22 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, I'm sorry. Hear 23 while I was talking. I'm now going to go around to 24 the committee members. And I think this time, I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


101 1 going to call people by name, because I'm looking for 2 general comments and also specific thoughts if we 3 should write a letter in October to at least lay out 4 a few things that we want to bring to the staff's 5 attention, and to let the Commission know that we're 6 tracking this at this point in time.                   So let's go to 7 Ron Ballinger.
101 going to call people by name, because I'm looking for 1
8                  MEMBER BALLINGER:             Yeah.     I agree with 9 your comment related to we should meet and have a 10 letter.       I'm   talking       as     a     metallurgist       now.
general comments and also specific thoughts if we 2
11 Historically, we have had painful experience with 12 respect to things that pop up in a design as we build 13 it and over history.         And they're largely related to, 14 at least on the materials side, degradation that 15 occurs that we didn't anticipate.
should write a letter in October to at least lay out 3
16                  So I'm     curious     as     to   whether   or     not 17 consideration, since Bill says we have an option, we 18 actually       have   a   clean       sheet       of   paper,   whether 19 something could be incorporated in the requirements to 20 take a look at what some famous government official 21 has termed unknown unknowns. And I don't know how you 22 do     that,   but   it   seems     to   me     that there's       an 23 opportunity here.
a few things that we want to bring to the staff's 4
24                  We have an example of an unknown unknown 25 that we're dealing with, with another plant design NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
attention, and to let the Commission know that we're 5
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
tracking this at this point in time. So let's go to 6
Ron Ballinger.
7 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yeah. I agree with 8
your comment related to we should meet and have a 9
letter.
I'm talking as a
metallurgist now.
10 Historically, we have had painful experience with 11 respect to things that pop up in a design as we build 12 it and over history. And they're largely related to, 13 at least on the materials side, degradation that 14 occurs that we didn't anticipate.
15 So I'm curious as to whether or not 16 consideration, since Bill says we have an option, we 17 actually have a clean sheet of paper, whether 18 something could be incorporated in the requirements to 19 take a look at what some famous government official 20 has termed unknown unknowns. And I don't know how you 21 do that, but it seems to me that there's an 22 opportunity here.
23 We have an example of an unknown unknown 24 that we're dealing with, with another plant design 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


102 1 right now. And so I'm just curious as to whether that 2 some consideration should be given to that.                     Thank 3 you.
102 right now. And so I'm just curious as to whether that 1
4                CHAIR BLEY:       Thanks, Ron.         And maybe make 5 some notes on that to have around come October.
some consideration should be given to that. Thank 2
6 That'd be useful.       Charlie?
you.
7                MEMBER BROWN:         Well, I've made most of my 8 comments.
3 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Ron. And maybe make 4
9                CHAIR BLEY: Back to your earlier comment.
some notes on that to have around come October.
10                MEMBER     BROWN:       I've       made most   of     my 11 comments earlier.       But one of my general concerns I 12 would echo Lyman's comment relative to everybody's 13 assuming these advanced reactors are going to be safer 14 and have more margin, but margin tends to get used to 15 generate more power.
5 That'd be useful. Charlie?
16                And based on the few designs, very few, 17 there's a lot of other aspects to some of these 18 designs that add other non-safe factors to how they 19 operate and their waste products. So I'm not quite as 20 confident that these new advanced reactors are all 21 safer than the pressurized waters, which had a very 22 definitive nature of unsafeness that we have to deal 23 with, and we know what it is.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I've made most of my 7
24                I'm worried about so much generality in 25 the high level we'll be fighting about it, and we'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
comments.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
8 CHAIR BLEY: Back to your earlier comment.
9 MEMBER BROWN: I've made most of my 10 comments earlier. But one of my general concerns I 11 would echo Lyman's comment relative to everybody's 12 assuming these advanced reactors are going to be safer 13 and have more margin, but margin tends to get used to 14 generate more power.
15 And based on the few designs, very few, 16 there's a lot of other aspects to some of these 17 designs that add other non-safe factors to how they 18 operate and their waste products. So I'm not quite as 19 confident that these new advanced reactors are all 20 safer than the pressurized waters, which had a very 21 definitive nature of unsafeness that we have to deal 22 with, and we know what it is.
23 I'm worried about so much generality in 24 the high level we'll be fighting about it, and we'll 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


103 1 end up not being able to get a plant defined very 2 well.           And so that's     my   general       concern,   is     an 3 overarching concern.               So I'll be quiet now and let 4 somebody else go on.
103 end up not being able to get a plant defined very 1
5                    CHAIR BLEY:         Thank you, Charlie.             Now 6 Vesna?
well. And so that's my general concern, is an 2
7                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:             Okay. I found the 8 button to activate my microphone.                         Okay. I can 9 actually -- I mean, I have too many notes actually to 10 talk about that, so I will just keep this on high 11 level.         I think we definitely should write the letter 12 about that.         One is to address the questions.
overarching concern. So I'll be quiet now and let 3
13                    I mean, which we couldn't do in all of 14 those, my notes, if I, you know, go through them now 15 where I can talk for half-hour.                         So I think that 16 writing letter to address some of the questions from 17 this presentation, and maybe to talk about licenses 18 through our review of the advanced plants and some 19 things like that, how would that help in the new 20 regulation.
somebody else go on.
21                    I mean, what issues did we notice that the 22 regulation has an issue with it needs some, you know, 23 exemptions and things like this.                     I think that can be 24 very helpful.         On the high level, I just want to say 25 the following, that's it's no -- I mean, I don't think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Charlie. Now 5
(202) 234-4433             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
Vesna?
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. I found the 7
button to activate my microphone. Okay. I can 8
actually -- I mean, I have too many notes actually to 9
talk about that, so I will just keep this on high 10 level. I think we definitely should write the letter 11 about that. One is to address the questions.
12 I mean, which we couldn't do in all of 13 those, my notes, if I, you know, go through them now 14 where I can talk for half-hour. So I think that 15 writing letter to address some of the questions from 16 this presentation, and maybe to talk about licenses 17 through our review of the advanced plants and some 18 things like that, how would that help in the new 19 regulation.
20 I mean, what issues did we notice that the 21 regulation has an issue with it needs some, you know, 22 exemptions and things like this. I think that can be 23 very helpful. On the high level, I just want to say 24 the following, that's it's no -- I mean, I don't think 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


104 1 the human race will progress if we always try to 2 address all the risk associated with different things.
104 the human race will progress if we always try to 1
3                  And obviously when we are meeting with 4 some totally new designs, we will not be able to do 5 that.       So we can make an honest attempt to, you know, 6 keep this as safe as our understanding in this moment, 7 but we will have to learn, you know, with every new 8 technology, new lessons.
address all the risk associated with different things.
9                  So in my opinion, I think it's very good 10 to keep this as simple as possible on this level.                   We 11 were talking about cost-effective designs, but we also 12 should talk about cost-effective regulation because we 13 should really make this the practice going through 14 approval not to be too complex, because the complexity 15 doesn't really help in identifying important issues.
2 And obviously when we are meeting with 3
16 It often, actually buries them.
some totally new designs, we will not be able to do 4
17                  So in order to keep this simple enough, I 18 think it's also the selection of what is going to be 19 criteria or risk matrix or criteria to -- what to base 20 regulation       on, that's     very     important to see     how 21 complex this regulation will become, you know. So for 22 example, I'm not big fan as you know of the F-C curve.
that. So we can make an honest attempt to, you know, 5
23 And because I think it's already complex and could 24 lead to the many, you know, different combinations and 25 different answers requires the source terms for so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
keep this as safe as our understanding in this moment, 6
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701     (202) 234-4433
but we will have to learn, you know, with every new 7
technology, new lessons.
8 So in my opinion, I think it's very good 9
to keep this as simple as possible on this level. We 10 were talking about cost-effective designs, but we also 11 should talk about cost-effective regulation because we 12 should really make this the practice going through 13 approval not to be too complex, because the complexity 14 doesn't really help in identifying important issues.
15 It often, actually buries them.
16 So in order to keep this simple enough, I 17 think it's also the selection of what is going to be 18 criteria or risk matrix or criteria to -- what to base 19 regulation on, that's very important to see how 20 complex this regulation will become, you know. So for 21 example, I'm not big fan as you know of the F-C curve.
22 And because I think it's already complex and could 23 lead to the many, you know, different combinations and 24 different answers requires the source terms for so 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


105 1 many, you know, sequences, groups and things like 2 that.
105 many, you know, sequences, groups and things like 1
3                  And that can be also as an option, but it 4 should be open to other approaches to the measures of 5 risk.       And one other thing, which I always also think 6 is extremely important, it will be very good to run 7 some example how would that actually look in actual 8 application.
that.
9                  And since we only have example of the 10 existing plants or the advanced plants, which have the 11 PRAs which are extremely complex, and example can be 12 very complex.         We can actually run it just on one 13 attendant group.         So simplify just to see example how 14 would this all go through the process.                 That's it.
2 And that can be also as an option, but it 3
15                  CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Vesna. And 16 for all members, if you get a chance to summarize your 17 thoughts, then send them to me sometime over the next 18 few months, that would be very helpful. I'll probably 19 send out a reminder.           Walt, let's go to you. We have 20 your comment from a few minutes ago.
should be open to other approaches to the measures of 4
21                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:         Yes.
risk. And one other thing, which I always also think 5
22                  CHAIR BLEY:       Any other comments?
is extremely important, it will be very good to run 6
23                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:             I've made a lot of 24 comments already so I should be brief.                   Just yes to 25 the letter.       And what was not clear to me, it doesn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
some example how would that actually look in actual 7
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
application.
8 And since we only have example of the 9
existing plants or the advanced plants, which have the 10 PRAs which are extremely complex, and example can be 11 very complex. We can actually run it just on one 12 attendant group. So simplify just to see example how 13 would this all go through the process. That's it.
14 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Vesna. And 15 for all members, if you get a chance to summarize your 16 thoughts, then send them to me sometime over the next 17 few months, that would be very helpful. I'll probably 18 send out a reminder. Walt, let's go to you. We have 19 your comment from a few minutes ago.
20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
21 CHAIR BLEY: Any other comments?
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I've made a lot of 23 comments already so I should be brief. Just yes to 24 the letter. And what was not clear to me, it doesn't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


106 1 have to be answered here, but whether 10 CFR 53 would 2 be a one- or two-step process, or some hybrid.                         And 3 address some of what I see problems in 10 CFR 52.                       And 4 I'll just stop there.
106 have to be answered here, but whether 10 CFR 53 would 1
5                  CHAIR BLEY:         Thank you.         Yeah, I guess 6 that comes under a kind of a lessons learned Vesna was 7 talking about.         After Walt, Jose.
be a one-or two-step process, or some hybrid. And 2
8                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hello. Yeah, this is 9 Jose.       I'll also be short.         I think we should have a 10 letter, and I would like to schedule sometime to make 11 like the advertisers do with focus groups.                   Just have 12 a letter and go line-by-line changing the grammar, but 13 try to reach a consensus of the group.
address some of what I see problems in 10 CFR 52. And 3
14                  On   the     advice,       I'm     going with       the 15 following same advice that many of the members have 16 already said, but attack it from a different point.
I'll just stop there.
17 My concern has always been, right, recently is the 18 NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, is an excellent 19 document.
4 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you. Yeah, I guess 5
20                  I mean, it's the best invention since 21 sliced bread for locating reactors because it accepts 22 all of the built-up experience, the crowd-sourcing of 23 everything that can happen to one of these reactors.
that comes under a kind of a lessons learned Vesna was 6
24 The tendency on new reactors is to start with that, 25 and remove the items that don't apply, instead of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
talking about. After Walt, Jose.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hello. Yeah, this is 8
Jose. I'll also be short. I think we should have a 9
letter, and I would like to schedule sometime to make 10 like the advertisers do with focus groups. Just have 11 a letter and go line-by-line changing the grammar, but 12 try to reach a consensus of the group.
13 On the advice, I'm going with the 14 following same advice that many of the members have 15 already said, but attack it from a different point.
16 My concern has always been, right, recently is the 17 NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, is an excellent 18 document.
19 I mean, it's the best invention since 20 sliced bread for locating reactors because it accepts 21 all of the built-up experience, the crowd-sourcing of 22 everything that can happen to one of these reactors.
23 The tendency on new reactors is to start with that, 24 and remove the items that don't apply, instead of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


107 1 trying to seek outside the box and say what is my 2 reactor applying -- that is not covered by the SRP.
107 trying to seek outside the box and say what is my 1
3 So when one identifies the DBEs, maybe I don't think 4 it's a rule, but we need to make sure to say that the 5 SRP is not the beginning -- it's not the endpoint, 6 it's only the beginning.             Look outside of it for your 7 reactor particular things.               Okay.       And that's it.
reactor applying -- that is not covered by the SRP.
8                  CHAIR BLEY:         Thank you very much, Jose.
2 So when one identifies the DBEs, maybe I don't think 3
9 Dave Petti?
it's a rule, but we need to make sure to say that the 4
10                  MEMBER PETTI:         So my greatest concern is 11 how complex this could potentially be for designs that 12 will be much less mature than what historically has 13 come to the Commission.               And I'm just wondering if 14 there's a way to have some pilot projects that could 15 be done that even the ACRS could participate in to 16 help us all just get a better understanding of what we 17 think the issues are or could be to help, you know, 18 get this over the finish line.                   That's it.
SRP is not the beginning -- it's not the endpoint, 5
19                  CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Dave. Joy?
it's only the beginning. Look outside of it for your 6
20                  MEMBER REMPE:         This time I'm slow on the 21 button.       Yeah, I would like to see us do a letter.                   I 22 guess I have to quickly point out that when I became 23 a parent, I realized that I had not thought of things 24 that my kids could do to say, no, that's now what you 25 should.       A new rule was imposed.
reactor particular things. Okay. And that's it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you very much, Jose.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
8 Dave Petti?
9 MEMBER PETTI: So my greatest concern is 10 how complex this could potentially be for designs that 11 will be much less mature than what historically has 12 come to the Commission. And I'm just wondering if 13 there's a way to have some pilot projects that could 14 be done that even the ACRS could participate in to 15 help us all just get a better understanding of what we 16 think the issues are or could be to help, you know, 17 get this over the finish line. That's it.
18 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Dave. Joy?
19 MEMBER REMPE: This time I'm slow on the 20 button. Yeah, I would like to see us do a letter. I 21 guess I have to quickly point out that when I became 22 a parent, I realized that I had not thought of things 23 that my kids could do to say, no, that's now what you 24 should. A new rule was imposed.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


108 1                  And I'm looking at this figure on slide 2 five thinking about the scope, as I've mentioned 3 earlier.       So I hope in our letter that we talk about 4 the need to, as other members have said, to think 5 outside the box because of new chemical issues and 6 hazards, transportation hazards.                   And if we're going 7 to do the whole lifecycle, we've never really thought 8 a whole lot about the waste maybe, and the way we 9 should, because we haven't as a country been able to 10 address it.
108 And I'm looking at this figure on slide 1
11                  And maybe we should think about that too 12 in the lifecycle diagram. And so anyway, I would like 13 to see us discuss that in our own letter.                 And I liked 14 Jose's idea about having discussion times for the 15 points, although I know you'll probably have a draft 16 you circulate. But it might make it more effective on 17 how we generate the letter.               Thank you.
five thinking about the scope, as I've mentioned 2
18                  CHAIR BLEY:       Thanks, Joy.       Matt?
earlier. So I hope in our letter that we talk about 3
19                  MEMBER SENSERI:         Thank you, Dennis.           The 20 members have raised some very important points here in 21 my judgment, and I don't have anything that I'll add 22 on top of that.       So I would think that the points are 23 value-added, and that we should come together as a 24 committee,       get consensus,       and     provide our   formal 25 thoughts in the form of a letter, and that's all I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
the need to, as other members have said, to think 4
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
outside the box because of new chemical issues and 5
hazards, transportation hazards. And if we're going 6
to do the whole lifecycle, we've never really thought 7
a whole lot about the waste maybe, and the way we 8
should, because we haven't as a country been able to 9
address it.
10 And maybe we should think about that too 11 in the lifecycle diagram. And so anyway, I would like 12 to see us discuss that in our own letter. And I liked 13 Jose's idea about having discussion times for the 14 points, although I know you'll probably have a draft 15 you circulate. But it might make it more effective on 16 how we generate the letter. Thank you.
17 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Joy. Matt?
18 MEMBER SENSERI: Thank you, Dennis. The 19 members have raised some very important points here in 20 my judgment, and I don't have anything that I'll add 21 on top of that. So I would think that the points are 22 value-added, and that we should come together as a 23 committee, get consensus, and provide our formal 24 thoughts in the form of a letter, and that's all I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


109 1 have.           Thank   you     to   the     staff   for   the     good 2 presentations today.
109 have. Thank you to the staff for the good 1
3                  CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Matt. Now I think 4 I'll turn to our consultant, Mike Corradini.                   Are you 5 still there, Mike?
presentations today.
6                  MR. CORRADINI:         Yes, sir.     I am. Can you 7 hear me?
2 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Matt. Now I think 3
8                  CHAIR BLEY:       Clear as a bell.
I'll turn to our consultant, Mike Corradini. Are you 4
9                  MR. CORRADINI: Okay. So in going through 10 all the members' comments, I think the one that I want 11 to come back to, Vesna went through a series of what 12 I'll call bullet points to kind of match exactly what 13 concerns me.
still there, Mike?
14                  And I think Dave said it best, which is we 15 have to find at least a pathway through this because 16 however much we say these are new advanced reactors, 17 none of these things haven't been thought of in the 18 1950s.         We might have new technologies that can be 19 applied to them, whether it be to instrumentation or 20 monitoring or materials, but these reactor concepts 21 have been around.
5 MR. CORRADINI: Yes, sir. I am. Can you 6
22                  So it's not that the concepts are new, 23 it's a matter of how you essentially work with them 24 relative to a licensing framework.                   And since staff 25 wants to do a licensing framework that goes beyond NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
hear me?
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
7 CHAIR BLEY: Clear as a bell.
8 MR. CORRADINI: Okay. So in going through 9
all the members' comments, I think the one that I want 10 to come back to, Vesna went through a series of what 11 I'll call bullet points to kind of match exactly what 12 concerns me.
13 And I think Dave said it best, which is we 14 have to find at least a pathway through this because 15 however much we say these are new advanced reactors, 16 none of these things haven't been thought of in the 17 1950s. We might have new technologies that can be 18 applied to them, whether it be to instrumentation or 19 monitoring or materials, but these reactor concepts 20 have been around.
21 So it's not that the concepts are new, 22 it's a matter of how you essentially work with them 23 relative to a licensing framework. And since staff 24 wants to do a licensing framework that goes beyond 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


110 1 just licensing of a particular reactor type, I really 2 do think we've got to keep it as simple as possible.
110 just licensing of a particular reactor type, I really 1
3 Just because it's simple doesn't mean that the process 4 is going to be non-conservative.
do think we've got to keep it as simple as possible.
5                Just the opposite. You can think of it by 6 keeping the same safety goals, whether it be the 7 qualitative safety goals or the quantitative safety 8 goals of CDF and large release frequency, or large 9 release, radioactivity release.                   And still be more 10 conservative     in terms     of   how     you estimate   these 11 advanced designs and how they perform, and still do a 12 good job of it.
2 Just because it's simple doesn't mean that the process 3
13                So my thought is to keep it as simple as 14 possible.     And I would just simply go back to what 15 Vesna said, is she had three or four points relative 16 to that, and try to at least do this.                         Now my 17 recommendation would be that the ACRS get involved in 18 this early and often.
is going to be non-conservative.
19                Without that, we're going to come back to 20 this and eventually and have all the same questions.
4 Just the opposite. You can think of it by 5
21 And I think this possibly may be the one good example 22 that       the Commission     wants     ACRS     input from     the 23 beginning.     And so to the extent that, Dennis, you 24 feel comfortable with it, I think you want to do this 25 as much as possible.         That's it, thank you.
keeping the same safety goals, whether it be the 6
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
qualitative safety goals or the quantitative safety 7
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
goals of CDF and large release frequency, or large 8
release, radioactivity release. And still be more 9
conservative in terms of how you estimate these 10 advanced designs and how they perform, and still do a 11 good job of it.
12 So my thought is to keep it as simple as 13 possible. And I would just simply go back to what 14 Vesna said, is she had three or four points relative 15 to that, and try to at least do this. Now my 16 recommendation would be that the ACRS get involved in 17 this early and often.
18 Without that, we're going to come back to 19 this and eventually and have all the same questions.
20 And I think this possibly may be the one good example 21 that the Commission wants ACRS input from the 22 beginning. And so to the extent that, Dennis, you 23 feel comfortable with it, I think you want to do this 24 as much as possible. That's it, thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


111 1                  CHAIR BLEY:       Thanks so much, Mike.           Gee, 2 I'm happily surprised by all the comments from the 3 members.       I had a whole list of things I wanted to 4 talk about, and I don't think --
111 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks so much, Mike. Gee, 1
5                  MEMBER BROWN:         Dennis, Dennis?
I'm happily surprised by all the comments from the 2
6                  CHAIR BLEY:       Yeah, Charlie.         Go ahead.
members. I had a whole list of things I wanted to 3
7                  MEMBER BROWN:         I forgot one point when I 8 was making mine, and it goes along with Mike's comment 9 about the -- I forgot how he phrased it, simplicity or 10 not getting too complicated. Bill's comments on their 11 slide       three relative       to   separating       the   design 12 operational       programmatic         from       existing   licensing 13 processes relative to permits, Part 50 and 52.
talk about, and I don't think --
14                  And   that     was     an     interesting   comment 15 because if we're going down this path, it seems to me 16 you could simply this process if you did separate 17 them.       In other words, use what's out there for what 18 I call the hammer-and-tongs part of the business as 19 opposed to the more advanced thinking and advanced 20 reactor concept part, which is the first part in terms 21 of the regulations and technical standards.                     I meant 22 to say that in my ending comments, and I'm sorry for 23 interrupting you, so.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, Dennis?
24                  CHAIR BLEY:       Thank you, Charlie.         I kind 25 of got it, but we'll have it in the transcript.                         And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
5 CHAIR BLEY: Yeah, Charlie. Go ahead.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
6 MEMBER BROWN: I forgot one point when I 7
was making mine, and it goes along with Mike's comment 8
about the -- I forgot how he phrased it, simplicity or 9
not getting too complicated. Bill's comments on their 10 slide three relative to separating the design 11 operational programmatic from existing licensing 12 processes relative to permits, Part 50 and 52.
13 And that was an interesting comment 14 because if we're going down this path, it seems to me 15 you could simply this process if you did separate 16 them. In other words, use what's out there for what 17 I call the hammer-and-tongs part of the business as 18 opposed to the more advanced thinking and advanced 19 reactor concept part, which is the first part in terms 20 of the regulations and technical standards. I meant 21 to say that in my ending comments, and I'm sorry for 22 interrupting you, so.
23 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Charlie. I kind 24 of got it, but we'll have it in the transcript. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


112 1 for everyone, if you made some notes and you would be 2 happy to send them to me, and I would appreciate that.
112 for everyone, if you made some notes and you would be 1
3 I do have a couple of quick things.                     I agree with 4 almost everything all of my colleagues have said.
happy to send them to me, and I would appreciate that.
5                  I would like to talk some time in the next 6 couple weeks with Derek, and maybe you can set this up 7 Derek, but also Larry and Scott, for how we can 8 legitimately do something like the focus group that 9 was     suggested   by   Jose.         We     talked   about   doing 10 something like this in the past, and we've never 11 really implemented it.
2 I do have a couple of quick things. I agree with 3
12                  But given this is going to take a few 13 years, and it's of lasting importance, I think it 14 would       be good   for     us   to   really     hash out   among 15 ourselves our thoughts before we engage further with 16 everyone.       Bill, you're probably surprised that we 17 need a letter, but we leaned so far that way that I 18 think we should count on having a meeting in October, 19 and a letter.
almost everything all of my colleagues have said.
20                  And I will ask, and we'll work through 21 Derek on this, but we just have a presentation on Part 22 53.       Somebody turn off their microphone.               On Part 53 23 and fairly short because all but one of us was here at 24 this meeting. I got involved in something, it took me 25 back through the history a lot in recent months.                       And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 I would like to talk some time in the next 5
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         (202) 234-4433
couple weeks with Derek, and maybe you can set this up 6
Derek, but also Larry and Scott, for how we can 7
legitimately do something like the focus group that 8
was suggested by Jose. We talked about doing 9
something like this in the past, and we've never 10 really implemented it.
11 But given this is going to take a few 12 years, and it's of lasting importance, I think it 13 would be good for us to really hash out among 14 ourselves our thoughts before we engage further with 15 everyone. Bill, you're probably surprised that we 16 need a letter, but we leaned so far that way that I 17 think we should count on having a meeting in October, 18 and a letter.
19 And I will ask, and we'll work through 20 Derek on this, but we just have a presentation on Part 21
: 53. Somebody turn off their microphone. On Part 53 22 and fairly short because all but one of us was here at 23 this meeting. I got involved in something, it took me 24 back through the history a lot in recent months. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


113 1 there's an interesting history on the tech specs and 2 the design criteria and how they came about.
113 there's an interesting history on the tech specs and 1
3                But also our committee was pretty much 4 opposed to the design criteria as being nothing more 5 than sort of mom and apple pie.                   But after several 6 years, both the Commission and the vendors and the 7 staff convinced the committee that the value of all 8 these things were all clear to the folks at the time 9 they needed to be considered.
the design criteria and how they came about.
10                The value was it made it clear to people 11 submitting applications what they need to consider.
2 But also our committee was pretty much 3
12 And that issue of taking out some of the variability 13 in the licensing process was a key part of that.                       At 14 this point, we'll be going forward.                 I don't think we 15 have any more time.
opposed to the design criteria as being nothing more 4
16                And I guess there's another meeting coming 17 up in about an hour.       Thanks to everyone to today and 18 especially further discussions from the staff.                   And I 19 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 20 to explain his comments.           At this point, the meeting 21 is adjourned.
than sort of mom and apple pie. But after several 5
22                (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 23 went off the record at 1:02 p.m.)
years, both the Commission and the vendors and the 6
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
staff convinced the committee that the value of all 7
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701           (202) 234-4433
these things were all clear to the folks at the time 8
they needed to be considered.
9 The value was it made it clear to people 10 submitting applications what they need to consider.
11 And that issue of taking out some of the variability 12 in the licensing process was a key part of that. At 13 this point, we'll be going forward. I don't think we 14 have any more time.
15 And I guess there's another meeting coming 16 up in about an hour. Thanks to everyone to today and 17 especially further discussions from the staff. And I 18 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 19 to explain his comments. At this point, the meeting 20 is adjourned.
21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 22 went off the record at 1:02 p.m.)
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433


ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee Regulatory Guide 1.233 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors July 20, 2020 1
July 20, 2020 1
ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee Regulatory Guide 1.233 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors


ACRS Interactions
2 NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development (Draft Revision N, September 2018)
* NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development (Draft Revision N, September 2018)
Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) -1353 (September 2018)
* Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) -1353 (September 2018)
Draft SECY Paper (September 2018)
* Draft SECY Paper (September 2018)
ACRS Subcommittee and Full Committee (February 2019)
* ACRS Subcommittee and Full Committee (February 2019)
Meetings ACRS Letter Dated March 19, 2019 ACRS Interactions
Meetings
* ACRS Letter Dated March 19, 2019 2


Post-ACRS Activities
3 Post-ACRS Activities Issuance of DG-1353 for public comment (April 2019)
* Issuance of DG-1353 for public comment (April 2019)
- One public comment received (R. Denning & V. Mubayi)
    - One public comment received (R. Denning & V. Mubayi)
NEI 18-04, Revision 1 (August 2019)
* NEI 18-04, Revision 1 (August 2019)
(no significant changes from Draft Revision N)
(no significant changes from Draft Revision N)
* Issuance of SECY-19-0117 (December 2019)
Issuance of SECY-19-0117 (December 2019)
* Commissions Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) related to SECY-19-0117 (May 26, 2020)
Commissions Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) related to SECY-19-0117 (May 26, 2020)
* Issuance of RG-1.233 (June 2020)
Issuance of RG-1.233 (June 2020)
(minimal changes from DG-1353) 3
(minimal changes from DG-1353)


4 The development and interpretation of the frequency-consequence curve proposed to be endorsed in DG-1353 does not have a strong technical basis. An underlying weakness of the proposed logic of assessing each candidate licensing basis event is that results could be influenced by the way an analyst chooses to define and group event scenarios. A better approach would be to consider a frequency-consequence curve as not only a tool for assessing individual licensing basis events but also as a bound on the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of accident sequences.
(ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457)
Public Comment
Public Comment
* The development and interpretation of the frequency-consequence curve proposed to be endorsed in DG-1353 does not have a strong technical basis. An underlying weakness of the proposed logic of assessing each candidate licensing basis event is that results could be influenced by the way an analyst chooses to define and group event scenarios. A better approach would be to consider a frequency-consequence curve as not only a tool for assessing individual licensing basis events but also as a bound on the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of accident sequences.
(ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457) 4


Disposition of Public Comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML20091L696)
5 Disposition of Public Comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML20091L696)
* The staff agrees that the approach described by the commenters may be a viable alternative to the methodology described in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04.
The staff agrees that the approach described by the commenters may be a viable alternative to the methodology described in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04.
* Suggested approach (complementary cumulative distribution function) offers some advantages in terms of supporting the assessment of cumulative risk and the contributions from various licensing basis events.
Suggested approach (complementary cumulative distribution function) offers some advantages in terms of supporting the assessment of cumulative risk and the contributions from various licensing basis events.
* The methodology in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04 includes assessments of cumulative risks (e.g., a comparison to the NRCs safety goals) 5
The methodology in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04 includes assessments of cumulative risks (e.g., a comparison to the NRCs safety goals)  


Disposition of Public Comment
6 Disposition of Public Comment NEI 18-04 methodology supports the established objectives o
* NEI 18-04 methodology supports the established objectives o Identification and assessment of licensing basis events; o Establishing safety classifications and performance criteria for plant features; and o supporting evaluations of defense in depth
Identification and assessment of licensing basis events; o
Establishing safety classifications and performance criteria for plant features; and o
supporting evaluations of defense in depth
* Issues related to defining event sequences are expected to be addressed by the implementation of consensus standards, integrated decisionmaking processes, peer reviews of probabilistic risk assessments, and the reviews performed by the NRC staff.
* Issues related to defining event sequences are expected to be addressed by the implementation of consensus standards, integrated decisionmaking processes, peer reviews of probabilistic risk assessments, and the reviews performed by the NRC staff.
* For these reasons, the staff has determined that the methodology described in DG-1353 remains one acceptable approach for informing the licensing basis for advanced reactors and decided not to alter the guidance documents as requested.
* For these reasons, the staff has determined that the methodology described in DG-1353 remains one acceptable approach for informing the licensing basis for advanced reactors and decided not to alter the guidance documents as requested.  
6


SRM dated May 26, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20147A504)
7 SRM dated May 26, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20147A504)
The Commission has approved the use of the technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based methodology described in this paper as a reasonable approach for establishing key parts of the licensing basis and content of applications for licenses, certifications, and approvals for non-light-water reactors.
The Commission has approved the use of the technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based methodology described in this paper as a reasonable approach for establishing key parts of the licensing basis and content of applications for licenses, certifications, and approvals for non-light-water reactors.
The staff should remain open to continuous, critical examination of its thinking regarding approaches and metrics for the licensing of this coming class of advanced reactors.
The staff should remain open to continuous, critical examination of its thinking regarding approaches and metrics for the licensing of this coming class of advanced reactors.
In its work on the regulatory framework for advanced reactors, the staff should continue to recognize that the Commissions established policy on the application of the safety goals and safety performance expectations provides an acceptable minimum safety standard for new reactors while taking into account the need to adapt the aspects of our current regulatory framework for reactors that provide operational flexibility based on risk assessment, such as the more than minimal increases in risk test in Section 50.59, the Maintenance Rule of Section 50.65, and the quality assurance criteria of Appendix B to reflect the significantly lower risks inherent in the design of advanced reactors.
In its work on the regulatory framework for advanced reactors, the staff should continue to recognize that the Commissions established policy on the application of the safety goals and safety performance expectations provides an acceptable minimum safety standard for new reactors while taking into account the need to adapt the aspects of our current regulatory framework for reactors that provide operational flexibility based on risk assessment, such as the more than minimal increases in risk test in Section 50.59, the Maintenance Rule of Section 50.65, and the quality assurance criteria of Appendix B to reflect the significantly lower risks inherent in the design of advanced reactors.  
7


Possible Future Interactions
8 Possible Future Interactions Design-specific applications 10 CFR Part 53, Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Mechanistic Source Term INL/EXT-20-58717, Revision 0, Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities, June 2020 Draft Regulatory Guide - Technology-Inclusive Content of Applications (TICAP)
* Design-specific applications
Regulatory Guidance - Advanced Reactor Content of Applications (ARCAP)
* 10 CFR Part 53, Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors
Content beyond TICAP/Licensing Modernization Project Construction Permit Applications Microreactor issues (pending information SECY paper)
* Mechanistic Source Term
SECY Paper - Staffing Issues (Licensed Operators, Autonomous Operations, Remote Operations)
* INL/EXT-20-58717, Revision 0, Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities, June 2020
* Draft Regulatory Guide - Technology-Inclusive Content of Applications (TICAP)
* Regulatory Guidance - Advanced Reactor Content of Applications (ARCAP)
* Content beyond TICAP/Licensing Modernization Project
* Construction Permit Applications
* Microreactor issues (pending information SECY paper)
* SECY Paper - Staffing Issues (Licensed Operators, Autonomous Operations, Remote Operations) 8


Questions/Discussion 9
9 Questions/Discussion


Backup: Event Selection & Analysis 10
10 Backup: Event Selection & Analysis


Backup: Public Comment Example - complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF)
11 Backup: Public Comment Example - complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF)
See public comment, ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457 11
See public comment, ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457


Backup: Risk-Significant SSCs
12 Backup: Risk-Significant SSCs A prevention or mitigation function of the SSC is necessary to meet the design objective of keeping all LBEs within the F-C target.
* A prevention or mitigation function of the SSC is necessary to meet the design objective of keeping all LBEs within the F-C target.
The LBE is considered within the F-C target when a point defined by the upper 95%-tile uncertainty of the LBE frequency and dose estimates are within the F-C target.
    - The LBE is considered within the F-C target when a point defined by the upper 95%-tile uncertainty of the LBE frequency and dose estimates are within the F-C target.
The SSC makes a significant contribution to one of the cumulative risk metrics used for evaluating the risk significance of LBEs.
* The SSC makes a significant contribution to one of the cumulative risk metrics used for evaluating the risk significance of LBEs.
A significant contribution to each cumulative risk metric limit is satisfied when total frequency of all LBEs with failure of the SSC exceeds 1% of the cumulative risk metric limit. The cumulative risk metrics and limits include:
    - A significant contribution to each cumulative risk metric limit is satisfied when total frequency of all LBEs with failure of the SSC exceeds 1% of the cumulative risk metric limit. The cumulative risk metrics and limits include:
* The total frequency of exceeding of a site boundary dose of 100 mrem <1/plant-year (10 CFR 20)
* The total frequency of exceeding of a site boundary dose of 100 mrem <1/plant-year (10 CFR 20)
* The average individual risk of early fatality within 1 mile of the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) < 5x10 -7/ plant-year (QHO)
* The average individual risk of early fatality within 1 mile of the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) < 5x10 -7/ plant-year (QHO)
* The average individual risk of latent cancer fatalities within 10 miles of the EAB shall not exceed 2x10-6/plant-year (QHO) 12
* The average individual risk of latent cancer fatalities within 10 miles of the EAB shall not exceed 2x10-6/plant-year (QHO)


Backup: Safety-Significant SSCs
13 Backup: Safety-Significant SSCs All Plant SSCs PRA Modeled SSCs Safety-Significant SSCs Risk-Significant SSCs Safety-Related SSCs An SSC that performs a function whose performance is necessary to achieve adequate defense-in-depth or is classified as Risk-Significant (see Risk-Significant SSC).
* An SSC that performs a function whose performance is necessary to achieve adequate defense-in-depth or is classified as Risk-Significant (see Risk-Significant SSC).
Summary
Summary Risk-      Safety-Safety-  Significant Significant PRA Modeled Related SSCs    SSCs        SSCs        SSCs All Plant SSCs 13


ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors July 20, 2020 1
July 20, 2020 1
ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors


===Background===
===2 Background===
* Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Approaches to Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors, dated May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267)
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Approaches to Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors, dated May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267)
* NRCs Vision and Strategy report (12/16) for non-light-water reactors and related implementation action plans identified a potential rulemaking to establish a regulatory framework
NRCs Vision and Strategy report (12/16) for non-light-water reactors and related implementation action plans identified a potential rulemaking to establish a regulatory framework Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA; Public Law 115-439) signed into law in January 2019 requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use for commercial advanced nuclear reactors no later than December 2027
* Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA; Public Law 115-439) signed into law in January 2019 requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use for commercial advanced nuclear reactors no later than December 2027 2


Background - NEIMA (1) ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORThe term advanced nuclear reactor means a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant with significant improvements compared to commercial nuclear reactors under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act, (9) REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term regulatory framework means the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear reactors.
3 Background - NEIMA (1) ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORThe term advanced nuclear reactor means a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant with significant improvements compared to commercial nuclear reactors under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act, (9) REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term regulatory framework means the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear reactors.
(14) TECHNOLOGY-INCLUSIVE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term technology-inclusive regulatory framework means a regulatory framework developed using methods of evaluation that are flexible and practicable for application to a variety of reactor technologies, including, where appropriate, the use of risk-informed and performance-based techniques and other tools and methods.
(14) TECHNOLOGY-INCLUSIVE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term technology-inclusive regulatory framework means a regulatory framework developed using methods of evaluation that are flexible and practicable for application to a variety of reactor technologies, including, where appropriate, the use of risk-informed and performance-based techniques and other tools and methods.
3


SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan
4 SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan on Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors, dated April 13, 2020 Proposing a new 10 CFR part that could address performance requirements, design features, and programmatic controls for a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactors throughout the life of a facility.
* SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan on Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors, dated April 13, 2020
Focus the rulemaking on risk-informed functional requirements, building on existing NRC requirements, Commission policy statements, and recent activities (e.g.,
* Proposing a new 10 CFR part that could address performance requirements, design features, and programmatic controls for a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactors throughout the life of a facility.
* Focus the rulemaking on risk-informed functional requirements, building on existing NRC requirements, Commission policy statements, and recent activities (e.g.,
SECY-19-0117)
SECY-19-0117)
* Expect extensive interactions with external stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on the content of the rule.
Expect extensive interactions with external stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on the content of the rule.
4


Technology Inclusive Regulatory Framework Project Life Cycle Requirements              Functional          System          Construction  Operation    Retirement Definition              Design             Design
5 Retirement Design Changes Configuration Control Surveillance Maintenance Operation Testing Construction System Design Functional Design Analyses (Prevention, Mitigation, Compare to Criteria)
* Fundamental Safety Functions
* Prevention, Mitigation,                                            Testing    Surveillance Performance Criteria                                                          Maintenance (e.g., F-C Targets)
* Normal Operations                                                            Configuration (e.g., effluents)                                                              Control
* Other Design Changes Plant/Site (Design, Construction, Configuration Control)
Clarify Controls      Analyses (Prevention, Mitigation, Compare to Criteria) and Distinctions Between Plant Documents (Systems, Procedures, etc.)
LB Documents (Applications, SAR, TS, etc.)
LB Documents (Applications, SAR, TS, etc.)
5
Plant/Site (Design, Construction, Configuration Control)
Requirements Definition Fundamental Safety Functions Prevention, Mitigation, Performance Criteria (e.g., F-C Targets)
Normal Operations (e.g., effluents)
Other Technology Inclusive Regulatory Framework Project Life Cycle Clarify Controls and Distinctions Between Plant Documents (Systems, Procedures, etc.)


Example - Possible Layout
6 Example - Possible Layout General Provisions Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives o Regulatory limits, safety goals Design Requirements Siting Construction and Manufacturing Requirements Requirements for Operation Decommissioning Requirements Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information Reporting and Administrative Requirements
* General Provisions
* Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives o Regulatory limits, safety goals
* Design Requirements
* Siting
* Construction and Manufacturing Requirements
* Requirements for Operation
* Decommissioning Requirements
* Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals
* Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information
* Reporting and Administrative Requirements 6


NRC Staff White Paper
7 NRC Staff White Paper The NRC staff developed a white paper (ADAMS ML20195A270) to support discussions with ACRS and other stakeholders Soliciting information that:
* The NRC staff developed a white paper (ADAMS ML20195A270) to support discussions with ACRS and other stakeholders
1)
* Soliciting information that:
Defines the scope of stakeholder interest in a rulemaking to develop a technology inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors, 2)
: 1) Defines the scope of stakeholder interest in a rulemaking to develop a technology inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors,
Identifies major issues and challenges related to technology-inclusive approaches to licensing and regulating a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs, 3)
: 2) Identifies major issues and challenges related to technology-inclusive approaches to licensing and regulating a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs,
Supports prioritizing and developing plans to resolve identified issues within the rulemaking for the wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs, and 4)
: 3) Supports prioritizing and developing plans to resolve identified issues within the rulemaking for the wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs, and
Supports the development of the proposed rule and related guidance.
: 4) Supports the development of the proposed rule and related guidance.
Staff receptive to feedback on any aspect of developing a technology-inclusive regulatory framework to support the regulatory objective, whether or not in response to a question listed in this white paper or future solicitations.
* Staff receptive to feedback on any aspect of developing a technology-inclusive regulatory framework to support the regulatory objective, whether or not in response to a question listed in this white paper or future solicitations.
7


Part 53 Rulemaking Objectives
8 Part 53 Rulemaking Objectives 1)
: 1) Provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security at reactor sites at which advanced nuclear reactor designs are deployed, to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors;
Provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security at reactor sites at which advanced nuclear reactor designs are deployed, to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors; 2)
: 2) Protect health and minimize danger to life or property to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors;
Protect health and minimize danger to life or property to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors; 3)
: 3) Provide greater operational flexibilities where supported by enhanced margins of safety that may be provided in advanced nuclear reactor designs;
Provide greater operational flexibilities where supported by enhanced margins of safety that may be provided in advanced nuclear reactor designs; 4)
: 4) Ensure that the requirements for licensing and regulating advanced nuclear reactors are clear and appropriate; and
Ensure that the requirements for licensing and regulating advanced nuclear reactors are clear and appropriate; and 5)
: 5) Identify, define, and resolve additional areas of concern related to the licensing and regulation of advanced nuclear reactors.
Identify, define, and resolve additional areas of concern related to the licensing and regulation of advanced nuclear reactors.
8


Questions for Public Feedback
9 Questions for Public Feedback 1.
: 1. Regulatory Objectives: Are the regulatory objectives, as articulated above, understandable and achievable? If not, why not? Should there be additional objectives? If so, please describe the additional objectives and explain the reasons for including them.
Regulatory Objectives: Are the regulatory objectives, as articulated above, understandable and achievable? If not, why not? Should there be additional objectives? If so, please describe the additional objectives and explain the reasons for including them.
: 2. Scope and Types of Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Should the scope of the rulemaking be limited to advanced nuclear reactors as defined in NEIMA or should the scope include all future applications for licenses, certifications, or approvals for commercial nuclear reactors regardless of design?
2.
9
Scope and Types of Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Should the scope of the rulemaking be limited to advanced nuclear reactors as defined in NEIMA or should the scope include all future applications for licenses, certifications, or approvals for commercial nuclear reactors regardless of design?  


Questions for Public Feedback
10 Questions for Public Feedback 3.
: 3. Technical Requirements versus Licensing Process: Should the framework focus only on those regulations related to technical standards (i.e., design, operational and programmatic requirements) and rely on the existing licensing processes in Parts 50 (e.g., construction permit and operating license) and 52 (e.g., early site permit, combined license, etc.) or should the framework develop a new alternative licensing process that looks different than the existing processes? If the latter, what should this new licensing process look like? Should this new process be self-contained, such that it would provide its own licensing, procedural, administrative, and reporting requirements?
Technical Requirements versus Licensing Process: Should the framework focus only on those regulations related to technical standards (i.e., design, operational and programmatic requirements) and rely on the existing licensing processes in Parts 50 (e.g., construction permit and operating license) and 52 (e.g., early site permit, combined license, etc.) or should the framework develop a new alternative licensing process that looks different than the existing processes? If the latter, what should this new licensing process look like? Should this new process be self-contained, such that it would provide its own licensing, procedural, administrative, and reporting requirements?
10


Questions for Public Feedback
11 Questions for Public Feedback 4.
: 4. Performance Criteria: NEIMA calls for a technology-inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors, which encompasses a wide range of reactor technologies and power levels. To what extent should the NRC try to define a single set of performance criteria for all technologies and sizes (e.g., estimated offsite doses from postulated events),
Performance Criteria: NEIMA calls for a technology-inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors, which encompasses a wide range of reactor technologies and power levels. To what extent should the NRC try to define a single set of performance criteria for all technologies and sizes (e.g., estimated offsite doses from postulated events),
versus developing specific regulatory approaches for different categories of advanced nuclear reactors such as microreactors and fusion reactors?
versus developing specific regulatory approaches for different categories of advanced nuclear reactors such as microreactors and fusion reactors?  
11


Questions for Public Feedback
12 Questions for Public Feedback 5.
: 5. Risk Metrics: In a risk-informed performance-based regulatory regime, should risk metrics be included in the regulations? Possible examples of risk metrics include the quantitative health objectives described in the NRCs Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants Policy Statement (51 FR 28004, Aug. 4, 1986, as corrected and republished, 51 FR 30028, Aug. 21, 1986) and the frequency-consequence targets described in SECY   0117, Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors.
Risk Metrics: In a risk-informed performance-based regulatory regime, should risk metrics be included in the regulations? Possible examples of risk metrics include the quantitative health objectives described in the NRCs Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants Policy Statement (51 FR 28004, Aug. 4, 1986, as corrected and republished, 51 FR 30028, Aug. 21, 1986) and the frequency-consequence targets described in SECY 0117, Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors.  
12


Questions for Public Feedback
13 Questions for Public Feedback 6.
: 6. Facility Life Cycle: How could the new Part 53 licensing and regulatory framework align with the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of an advanced nuclear reactor facilitys life cycle?
Facility Life Cycle: How could the new Part 53 licensing and regulatory framework align with the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of an advanced nuclear reactor facilitys life cycle?
: 7. Definitions: Should terms in the new Part 53 have identical definitions to terms in Parts 50 and 52? For example, SECY-19-0117 proposes to accept definitions for terms such as safety related and design basis event for non-light water reactors applications that differ from the definitions provided in 10 CFR Part 50. If possible, please provide alternative terminology for non LWR technologies.
7.
13
Definitions: Should terms in the new Part 53 have identical definitions to terms in Parts 50 and 52? For example, SECY-19-0117 proposes to accept definitions for terms such as safety related and design basis event for non-light water reactors applications that differ from the definitions provided in 10 CFR Part 50. If possible, please provide alternative terminology for non LWR technologies.  


Questions for Public Feedback
14 Questions for Public Feedback 8.
: 8. Performance-Based Regulation: How should the requirements developed for this alternative regulatory framework incorporate performance-based concepts such as those described in NUREG/BR-0303, Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation?
Performance-Based Regulation: How should the requirements developed for this alternative regulatory framework incorporate performance-based concepts such as those described in NUREG/BR-0303, Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation?
14


Questions for Public Feedback
15 Questions for Public Feedback 9.
: 9. Identifying Levels of Protection: Regulatory requirements in Parts 50 and 52 have been imposed as either needed to:
Identifying Levels of Protection: Regulatory requirements in Parts 50 and 52 have been imposed as either needed to:
: 1) ensure a facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and security; or 2) provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense in security when the costs of implementation are justified in view of the increased protection. Should specific requirements developed in this Part 53 rulemaking be identified as either needed to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection or justified as cost-effective safety improvements?
: 1) ensure a facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and security; or 2) provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense in security when the costs of implementation are justified in view of the increased protection. Should specific requirements developed in this Part 53 rulemaking be identified as either needed to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection or justified as cost-effective safety improvements?
15


Questions for Public Feedback
16 Questions for Public Feedback
: 10. Integrated Approach to Rulemaking: In developing the requirements for this alternative regulatory framework, how can an integrated approach be developed to address areas such as safety, security, emergency preparedness, and other means to prevent or mitigate the potential release of radionuclides from an advanced nuclear reactor?
: 10. Integrated Approach to Rulemaking: In developing the requirements for this alternative regulatory framework, how can an integrated approach be developed to address areas such as safety, security, emergency preparedness, and other means to prevent or mitigate the potential release of radionuclides from an advanced nuclear reactor?  
16


Questions for Public Feedback
17 Questions for Public Feedback
: 11. Consistency with Historical Standards: SECY-19-0117 describes a methodology that is meant to support the licensing process through identifying key safety functions, events that might challenge those functions, performance criteria for equipment and related programmatic controls, and defense in depth. The methodology uses risk-informed and performance-based criteria that are derived from existing regulations related to potential offsite doses and from the NRCs Safety Goal Policy Statement (51 FR 30028; dated August 21, 1986). Should this rulemaking use these existing criteria or should this opportunity be used to adopt or develop alternative criteria? If so, please describe possible alternatives and explain the reasons for using them within the regulatory framework being developed for advanced nuclear reactors.
: 11. Consistency with Historical Standards: SECY-19-0117 describes a methodology that is meant to support the licensing process through identifying key safety functions, events that might challenge those functions, performance criteria for equipment and related programmatic controls, and defense in depth. The methodology uses risk-informed and performance-based criteria that are derived from existing regulations related to potential offsite doses and from the NRCs Safety Goal Policy Statement (51 FR 30028; dated August 21, 1986). Should this rulemaking use these existing criteria or should this opportunity be used to adopt or develop alternative criteria? If so, please describe possible alternatives and explain the reasons for using them within the regulatory framework being developed for advanced nuclear reactors.
17


Questions for Public Feedback
18 Questions for Public Feedback
: 12. Quality Assurance: Should quality assurance, as it is currently defined in Appendix B to Part 50, be a requirement in the new risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework?
: 12. Quality Assurance: Should quality assurance, as it is currently defined in Appendix B to Part 50, be a requirement in the new risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework?
Alternatively, should NRC regulations defer to internationally recognized, independent certification schemes for assessing quality processes at commercial nuclear facilities and at suppliers of equipment and services?
Alternatively, should NRC regulations defer to internationally recognized, independent certification schemes for assessing quality processes at commercial nuclear facilities and at suppliers of equipment and services?  
18


Questions for Public Feedback
19 Questions for Public Feedback
: 13. Stakeholder Documents, Standards, Guidance: The NRC encourages active stakeholder participation through development of proposed supporting documents, standards, and guidance. In such a process, the proposed documents, standards, and guidance would be submitted to and reviewed by NRC staff, and the NRC staff could endorse them, if appropriate. Is there any interest by stakeholders to develop proposed supporting documents, standards, or guidance?
: 13. Stakeholder Documents, Standards, Guidance: The NRC encourages active stakeholder participation through development of proposed supporting documents, standards, and guidance. In such a process, the proposed documents, standards, and guidance would be submitted to and reviewed by NRC staff, and the NRC staff could endorse them, if appropriate. Is there any interest by stakeholders to develop proposed supporting documents, standards, or guidance?  
19


Questions for Public Feedback
20 Questions for Public Feedback
: 14. Other Issues: Are there significant issues, possible approaches, or other topics related to the initial crafting of a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors that are not addressed in the above questions? If so, please identify the subject areas and, if possible, provide a suggestion on how the new framework could resolve the issue or incorporate a proposed approach.
: 14. Other Issues: Are there significant issues, possible approaches, or other topics related to the initial crafting of a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors that are not addressed in the above questions? If so, please identify the subject areas and, if possible, provide a suggestion on how the new framework could resolve the issue or incorporate a proposed approach.  
20


Part 53 Rulemaking 21
21 Part 53 Rulemaking


Backup Slide - Integrated Approach Siting near densely Functional  populated areas Containment                      EP for SMRs (SECY-18-0096)                       and ONTs Licensing Modernization                                              (SECY-18-0103)
22 Consequence Based Security (SECY-18-0076)
Project Insurance and Liability Environmental Reviews Consequence Based Security (SECY-18-0076) 22}}
EP for SMRs and ONTs (SECY-18-0103)
Functional Containment (SECY-18-0096)
Insurance and Liability Siting near densely populated areas Environmental Reviews Licensing Modernization Project Backup Slide - Integrated Approach}}

Latest revision as of 03:22, 23 May 2025

Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs Subcommittee Meeting, July 20, 2020 (Open), Pages 1-150
ML20218A576
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/20/2020
From: Derek Widmayer
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Widmayer, D, ACRS
References
Download: ML20218A576 (150)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs Subcommittee Docket Number:

(n/a)

Location:

teleconference Date:

Monday, July 20, 2020 Work Order No.:

NRC-0992 Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

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 2

3 DISCLAIMER 4

5 6

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8

9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.

15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.

19 20 21 22 23

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + + + +

3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4

(ACRS) 5

+ + + + +

6 FUTURE PLANT DESIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE 7

+ + + + +

8 MONDAY 9

JULY 20, 2020 10

+ + + + +

11 The Subcommittee met via Video 12 Teleconference, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, Dennis Bley, 13 Chairman, presiding.

14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

15 DENNIS BLEY, Chairman 16 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 17 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 18 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 19 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 20 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 21 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 22 JOY L. REMPE, Member 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

2 ACRS CONSULTANT:

1 MICHAEL CORRADINI 2

3 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

4 DEREK WIDMAYER 5

CHRISTOPHER BROWN 6

7 ALSO PRESENT:

8 RICHARD DENNING 9

ED LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists 10 SCOTT MOORE, NMSS 11 WILLIAM RECKLEY, NRR 12 JOHN SEGALA, NRR 13 MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

9:35 a.m.

2 CHAIR BLEY: Good morning. The meeting 3

will now come to order. This is a meeting of the 4

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee 5

on Future Plant Designs. I'm Dennis Bley, chairman of 6

the Subcommittee.

7 ACRS's members in attendance are Matt 8

Sunseri, Joy Rempe, Ron Ballinger, Charlie Brown, Walt 9

Kirchner, Dave Petti, Vesna Dimitrijevic and Jose 10 March-Leuba. Also in attendance is our consultant Mike 11 Corradini. Derek Widmayer, of the ACRS staff is the 12 Designated Federal Official for this meeting. And 13 Christopher Brown of the ACRS staff is the backup 14 designated federal official. This is a Skype meeting 15 and members are occasionally dropped off the web 16 connection or lose their sound, as just happened. If 17 that happens to me, Dr. Petti will seamlessly take 18 control of this meeting until I return.

19 The purpose of today's meeting is to 20 discuss the staff white paper entitled, Questions 21 Supporting ACRS and Public Interactions on Developing 22 a

Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory 23 Framework for Advanced Reactors. You may have noticed 24 that our meeting was announced as 10 CFR Part 53.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

4 That remains true. The rulemaking is required by the 1

Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which 2

directs the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish 3

a technology-inclusive regulatory framework for 4

optional use, commercial, advanced, nuclear reactor 5

applicants. Sorry, I lost my place.

6 This rulemaking is expected to create 10 7

CFR 53. In SECY 20-0032, the staff provided a 8

rulemaking plan to the commission that included a 9

request to eliminate the usual regulatory basis 10 document. In its stead they plan extensive public 11 outreach. The commission has not issued an SRM on the 12 rulemaking plan, so information about Commissioner 13 votes on the proposal are not yet public information.

14 This rulemaking is intimately related to 15 several technical issues that have come before our 16 committee in recent years, including NUREG-1860, which 17 was originally known as the Technology-Neutral 18 Framework. On that one, an Advanced Notice of 19 Proposed Rulemaking was developed back in 2006, but 20 was abandoned when the expected test application for 21 a pebble bed reactor design failed to materialize.

22 Also, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant White Papers, 23 the staff vision and strategy for review of non-LWR 24 applications, including implementation plans such as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

5 Reg Guide 1.233, which endorses NEI 18-04. Functional 1

containment performance

criteria, emergency 2

preparedness for SMRs and ONTs, population-related 3

considerations and advanced computer code evaluations.

4 We have written letter reports on all of 5

these precursor programs. The rulemaking will be the 6

culmination of all that previous work. It's come upon 7

us suddenly and I think many of us expected complete 8

trials of the OMP before there would be an actual 9

rulemaking.

Back at our October 30,

2018, 10 subcommittee meeting, there was spirited discussion 11 about frequency consequence curves and their use, and 12 some indication that the use and final form might 13 evolve during trials. There were other areas of 14 discussion as well, and I expect those to continue 15 today.

16 One related issue for members, in several 17 of our reports we urged the staff to develop guidance 18 on mechanistic source terms. I am pleased to tell you 19 that the staff is providing the committee with two 20 documents. Derek will be delivering them to the 21 subcommittee members later this week, and we expect to 22 have a meeting to review them at some time in the 23 future.

Today, the subcommittee will gather 24 information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

6 formulate proposed positions and actions as 1

appropriate. This matter is scheduled to be presented 2

to the ACRS full committee at the October 2020 full 3

committee meeting.

4 The ACRS was established by statute and is 5

governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.

6 NRC implements FACA in accordance with its regulations 7

found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 8

Part VII. The committee can only speak through its 9

published letter reports. We hold meetings to gather 10 information and perform preparatory work that will 11 support our deliberations at full committee meetings.

12 The rules for participation in all ACRS meetings, 13 including today's, were announced in the federal 14 register on June 13, 2019.

15 The ACRS section of the US NRC public 16 website provides our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter 17 reports and full transcripts of all full and 18 subcommittee meetings, including the slides presented 19 there. The meeting notice and agenda for this meeting 20 were posted. As stated in the federal register notice 21 and the public meeting notice posted to the website, 22 members of the public who desire to provide written or 23 oral input to the subcommittee may do so, and should 24 contact the designated federal official five days 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

7 prior to the meeting as practicable.

1 Today's meeting is open to the public 2

attendance and we have received no written statements 3

or requests to make an oral argument. We have also 4

set aside ten minutes in the agenda for spontaneous 5

comments from members of the public attending or 6

listening to our meetings.

7 During the COVID pandemic today's meeting 8

is being held over Skype for ACRS and NRC staff 9

attendees. There is also a telephone bridge line 10 allowing public participation over the phone.

11 A transcript of today's meeting is being 12 kept, therefore, we request that meeting participants 13 on the bridge line identify themselves when they are 14 asked to speak, and to speak with sufficient clarity 15 and volume so that they can be readily heard. At this 16 time I ask attendees on Skype and on the bridge lines 17 to keep their devices on mute to minimize disruptions, 18 and unmute only when speaking.

19 We will now proceed with the meeting and 20 I call upon Joe Segala, Chief of the Advanced Reactor 21 Policy Branch of NRR, to make introductory remarks.

22 Joe.

23 MEMBER SEGALA: Thank you, and good 24 morning. I think a lot of my opening remarks you had 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

8 already gone over so I'll try to go quickly. We're 1

here today to brief the ACRS on our plans to develop 2

a new technology-inclusive, risk-informed performance-3 based regulation for advanced reactors, which we are 4

calling 10 CFR Part 53, and to obtain insights and 5

feedback from the ACRS subcommittee at the very early 6

stages of developing this new framework. Although we 7

are expecting to leverage our ongoing readiness 8

activities for this new rule, we are starting with a 9

clean slate in looking for new and innovative ways to 10 regulate advanced reactors.

11 As background, back in 2017, we developed 12 NRC's vision and strategy document and implementation 13 action plans or IAPs for enhancing our readiness to 14 effectively and efficiently review and regulate 15 advanced reactors. The IAPs include near-term, mid-16 term and long-term activities.

17 The near-term IAP activities are divided 18 into six strategies. Strategy one on training, two on 19 computer codes, three on developing guidance, four on 20 industry consensus codes and standards, five policy 21 issues, and six, communications. The ACRS recommended 22 at that time that NRC focus its near-term IAP 23 activities on strategies three and five, which we have 24 been doing. The mid and long-term IAPs included a new 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

9 activity to assess whether a new regulatory framework 1

should be developed for advanced reactors. However, 2

in January of 2019, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 3

Modernization Act, or NEIMA, was signed into law and 4

required the NRC complete a technology-inclusive, 5

risk-informed, performance-based regulation for 6

advanced reactors by no later than the end of 2027.

7 As Dennis indicated, on April 2020, we 8

issued the rulemaking plan in SECY 20-032, which is 9

currently with the Commission. On July 13, we issued 10 a draft white paper with questions to help facilitate 11 discussions today with the ACRS on Part 53. We are 12 planning for this meeting to be the first of many 13 interactions with the ACRS on Part 53. In addition to 14 discussing Part 53, we will also be briefing the ACRS 15 today on Regulatory Guide 1.233, which was issued in 16 June of 2020 and endorses the licensing modernization 17 project or LMP methodology described in NEI 18-04, as 18 one acceptable methodology for non-light water reactor 19 designers to use to establish key parts of the 20 licensing basis and content of applications. LMP 21 focuses on identifying Licensing Basis Events, 22 classifying structure systems and components, and 23 ensuring adequate defense in depth. This briefing 24 will include a discussion on how we disposition the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

10 public comment received on the associated draft guide 1

1353.

2 As a follow-up to LMP we have started to 3

engage during several public meetings with the 4

southern led, NEI-coordinated and DOE-cost-shared, 5

Technology-Inclusive Content of Application Project or 6

TICAP. The purpose of TICAP is to provide guidance 7

for developing the content of the specific portions of 8

an application that are within the scope of the 9

licensing modernization project.

10 Similar to what was done for LMP, five 11 developers, General Electric, Hitachi, Westinghouse, 12 Kairos, TerraPower and X-energy, have expressed 13 interest in piloting TICAP starting in August of 2020.

14 In addition, the NRC is leading the Advanced Reactor 15 Content of Application Project, or ARCAP, which will 16 provide technology-inclusive, risk-informed and 17 performance-based application content guidance. ARCAP 18 is broader and encompasses the industry-led TICAP 19 project. ARCAP includes those portions of an 20 application outside the scope of the licensing 21 modernization project. We are planning to brief the 22 ACRS on TICAP and ARCAP in the future, and will be 23 working with the ACRS staff to schedule these 24 meetings.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

11 As Dennis also mentioned, we recently 1

published two mechanistic source term reports: One 2

from Sandia National Labs in January, and the other 3

from Idaho National Labs on June 30th on our public 4

website. They provide guidance for determining 5

technology-inclusive mechanistic source term for 6

offsite dose assessments for advanced reactors. These 7

reports were developed in response to letters from the 8

ACRS sent to the commission in 2018 and 2019 on the 9

licensing modernization project and our emergency 10 preparedness for SMRs and other new technologies 11 rulemaking where the ACRS expressed the importance of 12 the staff developing guidance on how source terms 13 should be developed.

14 And so we are prepared to support future 15 briefings on these reports of the ACRS. We are 16 looking forward to hearing from the ACRS today on Part 17 53, and any insights and feedback you all may have.

18 We expect that these activities will result in 19 additional interactions with the subcommittee over the 20 next year or so. This completes my opening remarks.

21 Thank you.

22 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, John. I'm sorry I 23 misstated your name, to begin with. I guess we're now 24 going to Bill Reckley, is that right?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

12 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, Dennis. This is Bill.

1 CHAIR BLEY: All right, go ahead.

2 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, as Dr. Bley and John 3

mentioned, before we get into the discussions of our 4

development of Part 53, we wanted to provide an update 5

on our issuance of Reg Guide 1.233. Going to slide 6

two, as was mentioned, our first detailed interactions 7

with the ACRS, it actually started before September 8

2018, but in September 2018, we developed kind of the 9

complete package to bring before the ACRS and 10 subsequently the Commission and the public, with a 11 coordinated effort that involved issuance of what was 12 then draft revision N of NEI 18-04, the industry 13 guidance document. The staff had prepared Draft 14 Regulatory Guide 1353 and we also presented to the 15 ACRS a draft commission paper because we thought some 16 of the matters that were involved in this methodology 17 warranted Commission consideration.

18 Ultimately, we had a subcommittee meeting 19 in October and that was followed by the full committee 20 meeting in February 2019, and ACRS issued its letter 21 generally supportive of the methodology in March 2019.

22 Going on to slide three.

23 CHAIR BLEY: Bill?

24 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

13 CHAIR BLEY: Just a quick comment for you 1

guys. As we move from testing an approach to an 2

actual rulemaking, I think we need to look for gaps, 3

and some areas have come up in our discussions about 4

recent submittals on particular projects, that 5

reminded us that especially when you have new designs 6

and designs that might have multiple hazards and 7

things for which we don't have 50 years of history to 8

help us out, when one looks for initiating events in 9

the scenarios that follow them, you need something 10 very creative, and you have to start kind of from a 11 blank sheet of paper, and some kind of systematic ways 12 to look.

13 That idea, isn't really laid out in your 14 SECYs or the Reg Guide, or in the NEI document.

15 They're hinted at as the main PRA standard. I'm not 16 certain where the non-LWR standard actually stands 17 right now, or I don't remember the details there. So 18 I'm not sure that area is well covered and we're going 19 to be pushing on that a little bit as we go forward.

20 So go ahead.

21 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thank you. And I 22 think that would be fully appropriate. So with that 23 background, moving on then to slide three, and 24 catching up on what happened after our interactions 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

14 with the ACRS. So the ACRS letter was in March of 1

2019. We issued DG-1353 for public comment in April.

2 We did receive one public comment from Drs. Denning 3

and Mubayi, and we'll talk about that comment in the 4

next couple slides.

5 For various reasons, NEI went ahead and 6

issued Revision 1 in August of 2019. After some 7

internal delays we ultimately issued SECY-19-0117 in 8

December of 2019, to get the issues before the 9

commission. The commission's Staff Requirements 10 Memorandum was issued in May of 2020, and that, again, 11 was generally supportive of proceeding down the path 12 we had recommended. And we issued Reg Guide 1.233 in 13 June of this year, June 2020. Based on the 14 discussions that there were minimal changes to NEI 18-15 04 and minimal changes to Reg Guide 1.233 from the 16 drafts, we requested, and ACRS agreed not to do 17 further review.

18 Onto slide four, on the public comment, I 19 view the comment to kind of be in two different, but, 20 closely related issues. The first is on the actual 21 frequency consequence curve, Dr. Denning observed that 22 the use of a complementary cumulative distribution 23 function would enable applicants, designers, and the 24 staff, to see the contributions of event sequences to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

15 the integral risk since the CCDF, the complementary 1

cumulative distribution function is a way to look at 2

the integration of the risks.

3 The other part of the concern, again 4

somewhat related, is that looking as licensing 5

modernization project does in the NEI-18-04 and Reg 6

Guide 1.233, at individual event sequences and making 7

judgments on individual event sequences, that process 8

might introduce variability and flexibility to 9

analysts that would change where the event sequence 10 was plotted in terms of frequency, and that might 11 bring up an issue of, again, variability between 12 analysts, or even the ability to continually subdivide 13 event sequences in order to try to reduce the estimate 14 of the event frequency. So we looked at that comment.

15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm sorry, John. Bill?

16 I'm sorry, John, 17 CHAIR BLEY: Mr. Kirchner?

18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, sorry, Dennis, this 19 is Walt Kirchner. May I ask a question of Bill?

20 CHAIR BLEY: Sure.

21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, just for the 22 record, would you - I think I get it, but would you 23 define what a complementary cumulative distribution 24 function is in this situation?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

16 MR. RECKLEY: I'll give it an attempt and 1

then Marty Stutzke, if you're on the line, please come 2

to my rescue through the phone-a-friend option here.

3 But I think the public comment included this figure, 4

which I think is a good way to consider how that would 5

be used. Now this is plotting two different licensing 6

basis event plots. One in red, and I'm on slide 11 as 7

a backup slide. One in red for the first event, and 8

one in blue for the second event, and you can see the 9

contributions of the uncertainties as you plot that 10 over both frequency and consequence. The licensing 11 modernization project, NEI 18-04 methodology would 12 look - if those events were not part of the same 13 family, might look at those two events separately for 14 comparison to the frequency consequence target.

15 The complementary cumulative distribution 16 function would also look at them individually, but 17 also integrate those two events and all of the other 18 licensing basis events to give you the black line 19 which would give you the integrated risk for all the 20 LBEs. Marty, if you're on, can you maybe go a little 21 deeper?

22 MR. STUTSKE: Yeah, Bill, this is Marty.

23 Can you hear me?

24 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, thank you.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

17 MR. STUTSKE: Yeah, this is Marty Stutske, 1

I'm the senior technical advisor for PRA in NRR DANU.

2 The frequency consequence target used in the LMP is 3

nothing more than a scatterplot of PRA results where 4

the x-axis being the consequence, and the y-axis being 5

the frequency. So it's true, you're comparing 6

individual sequences against the limit line up there.

7 In contrast, a complementary cumulative 8

distribution

function, the y-axis becomes an 9

exceedance frequency. So what you do then, is you 10 pick a consequence and you say what is the frequency 11 of the sum of the frequencies of all of the sequences 12 that have a consequence greater than or equal to your 13 x-axis value.

14 MR. CORRADINI: Marty? Marty?

15 MR. STUTSKE: Yes.

16 MR. CORRADINI: So I guess, I think I 17 understood why the y-axis is different. This is 18 Corradini. But I'm confused as to why there is a 19 series of points for any one LBE. I thought, unless 20 this is a uncertainty example for the red and the blue 21 line, but isn't there for a given LBE, an estimate of 22 a frequency and an estimate of a consequence? Or why 23 is it a family of points?

24 MR. STUTSKE: Okay, yeah, let me be clear.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

18 You're right. There should be one dot for each event 1

sequence family.

2 MR. CORRADINI: Okay.

3 MR. STUTSKE: With a consequence and a 4

frequency. So when you take the entire PRA results, 5

it's however many event sequence families you have is 6

the number of dots on the graph.

7 MR. CORRADINI: So why are the red and the 8

blue showing six dots for every LBE? That's what I 9

didn't understand with this.

10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I think, Mike, it's 11 multiple, within a family of events that are similar, 12 it's multiple events. That was my takeaway from this.

13 MR. STUTSKE: Oh, so this is not one LBE, 14 this is a family of sequences.

15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: That's what I think. I 16 don't know what poly means on the graph, but that was 17 my sense. You got one set of events that are similar 18 and you look at them and you get a curve from each 19 individual event.

20 MR. CORRADINI: Okay.

21 MEMBER REMPE: So when we, like, this --

22 CHAIR BLEY: Richard Denning is on the 23 line, he can clarify it.

24 MR. DENNING: Can I clarify that? Is it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

19 okay if I clarify? So if you interpret the former 1

curve there as a limit on the complementary cumulative 2

distribution function, it limits risk. That is, if 3

you integrate the curve against the y-axis, it 4

identically tells you what the total risk is. In the 5

interpretation that is in NEI 18-04, you don't limit 6

risk. You could, for example, have at one rem, you 7

could have a thousand sequences that each individually 8

satisfied the one rem, and would clearly have an 9

unacceptable risk. Okay?

10 Whereas, if you interpret it on the 11 complementary cumulative distribution function, you 12 actually limit the risk. Okay, you don't have this 13 ambiguity of where you could look at it, at a LOCA, 14 for example, and divide it if you wanted it to, into 15 five different kinds of LOCAs. If you've got to 16 consider a single point you also must consider, as is 17 done in NEI 18-04, you also have to consider some 18 uncertainty about that, right? Because we don't know, 19 in any event, you have to consider what's the 20 variability or uncertainty, and we will get into that 21 in detail.

22 So what's done here with a complementary 23 cumulative distribution function is you consider an 24 uncertain distribution around a particular kind of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

20 event like LOCAs, okay, and then you also, in order to 1

satisfy a level of risk, you then develop the 2

complementary cumulative distribution functions for 3

the total. And that's what that dashed black line is.

4 So you know that you have limited the risk of all of 5

the LBEs by taking into account the complementary 6

cumulative distribution function.

7 MR. MOORE: Excuse me, excuse me. I think 8

Member Rempe has been trying to say something.

9 MEMBER REMPE: Well, thank you, Scott.

10 When we discussed this with Karl Fleming, my 11 understanding is that if you had two sequences that 12 are 10 rem, or a 10 rem and a 12 rem in the group, the 13 analyst is obligated to pick the 12 rem, and then 14 multiply the frequency by two, so you eliminate the 15 gaming that could be performed by the analyst.

16 This has been discussed in some of our 17 prior meetings, and you are supposed to consider 18 uncertainty distributions in the consequences, as well 19 as the frequency, if you're going to accurately apply 20 this. And Dennis, maybe you can speak up too, but we 21 have mentioned this concern about gaming in the prior 22 discussions. Now, what I don't remember, and maybe 23 Bill Reckley or Marty Stutzke can tell me too is, did 24 that concern get put into the final documentation?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

21 Because this is not a new problem.

1 MR. RECKLEY: There's not a specific 2

mention except for referencing the ASME/ANS non-Light 3

Water Reactor PRA standard that talks about the 4

processes to be used. You're right in that this 5

particular issue has been talked about as part of 6

NGNP, and even before that, as part of the 7

methodology. The other thing that, going back to 8

slide six, no, slide five, in our disposition, is that 9

we don't want to come across the staking issue with 10 the proposal in the public comment. The use of 11 complementary cumulative distribution functions is a 12 good idea, it's actually mentioned in the non-Light 13 Water Reactor PRA standard as a methodology to look at 14 cumulative risks and to make sure that, as Dr. Denning 15 mentioned, you don't focus singly on specific event 16 sequences, but you're also looking at the aggregate or 17 total risk. That's handled within NEI 18-04, and the 18 Reg Guide by including separate aggregate or 19 cumulative risk measures against the NRC safety goals.

20 For example, that's the primary one.

21 That's a way to do it to also make sure 22 that you don't forget about the total risk. So there 23 would be advantages to using the CCDF. We looked for, 24 going on to slide six, one has to consider what the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

22 methodology was actually developed to do. In the 1

context of the Reg Guide we try to make clear that, 2

actually, even the target figure, the frequency 3

consequence target doesn't correspond to regulatory 4

limits. It is instead a tool that would help us do 5

the primary objectives of this methodology, which is 6

to identify the event sequences. This may go a little 7

bit to what you were mentioning earlier, Dr. Bley, of 8

whether there's enough guidance on how you identify, 9

and especially how you look at various, you know, 10 internal and external hazards. But we can have that 11 discussion as we go forward.

12 The methodology also, by looking at the 13 margins, and the impact of assuming various failures, 14 supports looking at the safety classification and the 15 performance criteria that would be set up for both 16 safety-related and non-safety related with special 17 treatment structure systems and components. And then 18 it supports a general evaluation of defense in depth.

19 Getting to Dr. Rempke's issue about 20 looking at event sequences and trying to make sure 21 that one would not game the system, if you will, we do 22 look, you have to look at the methodology and how it's 23 used. It has an emphasis on function and system level 24 evaluation. So that provides a certain degree of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

23 comfort. You also have the various reviews that would 1

be done as part of the PRA standard. The reviews of 2

the applicant and the designers themselves and then 3

the reviews by the NRC.

4 For those reasons, the staff continues to 5

think that the methodology described in 1353 and 6

subsequently the Reg Guide, is one acceptable way.

7 Going to the back of --

8 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Bill? This is Dennis.

9 Let me jump in a second. I'd like to summarize a 10 couple things if I can, and then have you go ahead.

11 Kind of everybody who's spoken is right, and I want to 12 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 13 on the meeting today, I appreciate it. And I 14 mentioned that the coauthor of his comments, Vinod 15 Mubayi, was one of the primary authors of this area in 16 NUREG-1860, so well qualified. I think most PRA 17 practitioners, you know, they're generating a CCDF at 18 the end which is, as Marty well-described, an 19 exceedance plot which summarizes the overall results, 20 and, of course, that's a good measure.

21 I was reasonably comfortable with what was 22 proposed in the NEI document and that the staff has 23 supported because it does have this fallback of an 24 integrated risk measure included. So the idea is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

24 covered, and back to Joy and her discussion of Karl 1

Fleming's area. I think this is an area where if this 2

is going to become a rule then the guidance probably 3

needs to be clarified a little better on this idea of 4

families to avoid the problem. That's a problem 5

that's kind of everywhere, and looking at PRA results, 6

one has to be careful to understand how those 7

scenarios have been broken down. But maybe the 8

guidance there could be cleaned up a little bit. I 9

think at this point, Bill, go ahead. You've got your 10 actual target curve up here.

11 MR. RECKLEY: Well, and we can use it for 12 questions. I was just going to make one last comment 13 on the concern about frequencies and being able to 14 potentially, continually try to subdivide in order to 15 lower a frequency. And this is a practical 16 observation. It's not really built in, necessarily to 17 the process as a counter to that but just for the 18 committee members to be aware, our expectation is that 19 most designers are going to adopt a design objective 20 of making sure that all the design basis events and 21 beyond design basis events, don't exceed one rem or 22 some other measure in order to take advantage of 23 things like the Emergency Planning Zone Rule or the 24 siting, the population-related siting paper that we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

25 brought to the committee a little while ago.

1 And so as you as make that line a straight 2

line at one rem, or again, some other measure if we 3

pick it up, but it also is kind of a guard against 4

just trying to lower the thresholds. Again, it's not 5

a perfect system, but it is just a practical limit 6

that you don't gain very much by lowering your 7

frequency of all of the frequencies from 10 to the 8

minus 2 all the way down to the lower threshold is 9

using the same consequence measure of one rem. I just 10 want to make that observation.

11 So again, we did appreciate the comment 12 and again, from the staff's viewpoint we were 13 presented with a methodology and asked to make a 14 determination of whether that methodology was good 15 enough. It wasn't a decision as to whether there 16 could have been things that could be added. My own 17 observation is that if we were to pick up CCDF, again, 18 it would be most likely in addition to the 19 methodology, and as we said, it might be a very good 20 addition. It's already mentioned in the PRA standard 21 as a way to look at the cumulative risk.

22 But in order to do the other objectives of 23 identifying the events and safety classification, you 24 would probably also be looking at individual events 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

26 using the same curve or a different curve. If we went 1

down this route we would have to make all of those 2

decisions, but the decision we were asked to make was 3

whether what was proposed in NEI 18-04 was a workable 4

methodology, and we think that it is, and that's what 5

we reflected in our disposition of the comment.

6 Just in terms of updating, the last slide 7

here is just the Commission SRM on SECY-19-0117.

8 We'll get into this discussion also a little bit in 9

the Part 53 topic we're about to pick up, but the 10 commission generally endorsed this, and then also 11 reminded us in that last paragraph that the safety 12 goals and other established commission policies and 13 regulations related to safety and risk metrics are 14 applicable to advanced reactor in general, and then 15 how we would build that into the framework.

16 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Bill. This is Dennis 17 again. Two things, one I got knocked off the Skype 18 meeting for about a minute, which is okay, Dave 19 probably didn't even notice that happened. I 20 appreciate we've had a good discussion on this, and I 21 wanted to let that go as much as we could. At the end 22 of this meeting I'm going to ask the members to 23 consider whether we want to or need to have that 24 October full committee meeting. And I think the real 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

27 key to that is if we want to write a letter since all 1

but one of us is attending today. So keep that in 2

your minds for the end of your meeting. There are a 3

few of these issues that we might want to give a 4

heads-up early on, and that would be the only point, 5

and to let the commission know we're following this.

6 Please continue. Thanks.

7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So kind of along that 8

path, and switching topics a little bit, using slide 9

eight, just to talk about some of the future 10 interactions and getting to what Dennis was 11 mentioning. There's a fair number of topics on here, 12 so we will have to coordinate our interactions with 13 the ACRS and then when ACRS responds via letter, would 14 be appropriate. And when we get into Part 53, I think 15 we have some flexibility, but whatever would be the 16 most useful we can decide during that discussion.

17 So just going quickly, you're aware there 18 are design-specific applications that the ACRS will 19 need to weigh in on, and some others that they'll be 20 given the option to weigh in on, things like topical 21 reports. The remaining discussions today will be on 22 Part 53. As Dr. Bley mentioned, we did commission a 23 couple reports on mechanistic source term, and once 24 you have an opportunity to read those we can decide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

28 what interactions would be requested.

1 I'll give you a warning ahead of time, 2

these are fairly high level discussions. Although 3

they might include examples of technologies, the two 4

reports we provided were not aimed at how do you 5

develop a mechanistic source term for a reactor 6

technology of x, y, or z. It was a kind of high-level 7

process for what needs to go into developing source 8

terms.

9 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Excuse me. The last 10 indication we had was that you are also developing a 11 Reg Guide related to this. Is that still true?

12 MR. RECKLEY: I'll let John weigh in. At 13 this point we may as we go further down and see what 14 the reaction is to these reports and whether it 15 warrants going to the next step of issuing an actual 16 Regulatory Guide, or if we start to look at individual 17 technologies, whether it makes more sense to have a 18 Regulatory Guide that would follow up.

19 We also have some technology-specific 20 reports. Oak Ridge is doing some work, Molten Salts, 21 Argonne and Idaho on fast reactors and gas-cooled 22 reactors. So one of the discussions maybe we could 23 have during a committee meeting is where would 24 regulatory guidance in the form of a Reg Guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

29 actually be the most useful.

1 CHAIR BLEY: Okay, thanks, yeah, we'll 2

look forward to pursuing that with you. Go ahead.

3 Well, before you go to your next bullet, John 4

introduced the next bullet, and if you can say a 5

little more about what you're talking about here with 6

this TICAP thing, I'd appreciate it.

7 MR. RECKLEY: Sure. Okay, so we mentioned 8

in Reg Guide 1.233, kind of as a predictor, that we 9

will need additional guidance. At this point we have 10 two Reg Guides specifically for advanced reactors, and 11 one of the ones that we thought would be useful is to 12 go into more detail on actually what goes into an 13 application.

14 So that is the content of applications 15 discussion. We've broken that into two parts. The 16 first part is the unplanned event portion of an 17 application. So if you think traditionally, this 18 would be FSAR Chapters 15, the safety analysis.

19 Chapter 19, the PRA assessments, as well as the 20 discussions of individual systems and their roles in 21 addressing those unplanned events. Also some of the 22 work in the early FSAR chapters on hazards, external 23 hazard assessments, for example.

24 So the unplanned event portions of an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

30 application is what is included in TICAP, and it's a 1

significant part of a safety analysis report. We are 2

working with kind of a coordinated effort that's 3

similar to licensing modernization, as John mentioned.

4 There's a DOE-cost-shared initiative with industry, 5

and we expect to get a guidance document from NEI that 6

would take and build upon NEI 18-04 to say, from that 7

methodology, this is how you transfer it into a FSAR.

8 One example would be a safety-related system would get 9

this amount of detail in a discussion. This is what 10 would need to be described for a non-safety-related 11 with special treatment kind of SSC. This is how the 12 performance criteria would be established and 13 monitored, for example. So that's the TICAP portion.

14 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, this is Joy. Can I 15 interrupt you?

16 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.

17 MEMBER REMPE: I was planning to bring 18 this up in the next part of the discussion, but I 19 can't resist here. When we first started doing this, 20 most of us, as I had envisioned, you'd have reactor 21 where you put fuel in it at the site, and then you 22 take the fuel out and you, at some day dispose of the 23 vessel or whatever. Nowadays we're talking about 24 bringing a loaded core to the site, and maybe you do 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

31 a few things once you get there, but then after you 1

run the reactor you take the loaded core someplace 2

else.

3 Is your vision considering this not only 4

for how you're going to select the licensing basis 5

events, but also the content of the application?

6 Because you might have more risk with this 7

transportation issue than you do with the actual 8

operation of a small modular reactor.

9 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. And the next-to-the-10 last bullet on microreactor issues, for example, one 11 of the things we'll have to do, and we'll have to work 12 with industry on what is the content of their guidance 13 under TICAP, and how far are they going to take it to 14 address the issues that you just mentioned. If that's 15 not picked up as part of that effort, we could pick it 16 up in the subsequent discussion, which is things that 17 we're putting under advanced reactor content to 18 application, or issues that are not picked up with the 19 unplanned event.

20 I don't believe that TICAP would probably 21 pick up transportation, for example. So maybe we need 22 to pick that up in advance reactor constant to 23 applications. We may be able to take large advantage 24 of existing guidance on transportation containers and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

32 guidance and requirements, but we will have to make 1

that assessment.

2 So this has a lot of moving parts, as 3

you're hinting at, and exactly where any particular 4

issue lands, we are still kind of working out and 5

coordinating. But we do have them all on the radar 6

screen.

7 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah, because even, you 8

know, licensing basis event may not just be when the 9

reactor is sitting there running, and so yeah, I think 10 we need to broaden our perspective. And I'm glad to 11 hear that the staff is thinking about it even if we 12 don't have an answer yet.

13 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thank you. And Walt?

14 I think somebody?

15 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, Bill, this is Walt.

16 It would seem to me, Bill, one area that would in your 17 guidance -- I'm seeking some clarity in the use of 18 terminology. Let's start with safety-related versus 19 non-safety-related or whatever, or not safety-related.

20 For example, often we are presented in presentations 21 from the staff, we have safety-related, not safety-22 related, and then important to safety, not important 23 to safety. So sometimes that framework is used, and 24 then sometimes what we hear is it's safety-related or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

33 not safety-related, risk-significant, not risk-1 significant, and so on.

2 So given that this is more of a risk-3 informed approach, it seems to me some clarity is 4

needed in terminology and definition so that when it 5

comes time to break down, not the contents of the 6

application, but the contents of the reactor design 7

itself, and classify SSCs, I think this is going to be 8

a real challenge for you going forward.

9 MR. RECKLEY: We agree. Actually, when we 10 get into the Part 53 questions, one of them goes 11 exactly to terminology because as you mention, within 12 the existing Part 50 and 52, there are definitions.

13 And those were clarified in various papers regarding 14 important to safety, they were also then further 15 enhanced under the passive

reactors, and the 16 introduction of RTNSS, Regulatory Treatment of Non-17 Safety Systems. And then 50.69 has its own categories 18 that you mentioned that are based on risk 19 significance. And you have all of that history under 20 Part 50, and then what we ultimately did under Reg 21 Guide 1.233 was introduce yet another set of 22 terminology.

23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I know. That's my 24 concern.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

34 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.

1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I think clarity here is 2

needed.

3 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and I think we've 4

talked about this in our past interactions, was that 5

that is a challenge. We're expecting under Reg Guide 6

1.233 that anybody that uses the methodology adopts 7

the terminology out of NEI 18-04, but we do realize 8

that sets up a different definition and a different 9

discussion than maybe a similar design that would pick 10 it up under Part 50. And we've tried, and I don't --

11 any suggestions would be appreciated.

12 CHAIR BLEY: This is Dennis again.

13 Thinking about this TICAP and about Part 53 as well, 14 Mike Corradini often says, you know, work the problem 15 backwards. What's, you know, kind of to the old 16 style, what's the worst thing that could happen to 17 this? And you've got some documents that hinted that 18 it would seem that the content of applications and the 19 depth of applications ought to be linked to the worst 20

-- kind of the worst things that could happen, 21 especially when we start thinking about some of the 22 microreactors, which I assume would be under this same 23 umbrella, so there needs to be some kind of scaling 24 that's built in based on the kind of maximum source 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

35 term one would be dealing with. Is that part of what 1

you're planning?

2 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, in that Reg Guide 1.233 3

mentions that people might want to take an approach 4

like a maximum hypothetical accident approach. We 5

have had some discussions with individual designers 6

that are using or contemplating using that kind of 7

approach. One of the things, and it's all related, as 8

you mention, but maybe when you look at the 9

mechanistic source term documents that if an applicant 10 is able, or a designer is able to show that hazard 11 just is not able to put the radionuclides on a path 12 for release because they're retained within the fuel, 13 or maybe the first and second barriers, we've said 14 we're amenable to looking at those kind of approaches 15 if they can demonstrate them. It might be a big if, 16 but that's from a process-wise, we'd be open to it if 17 they can show it. And that kind of approach is used, 18 for example, in some of the research and test 19 reactors.

20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this Walt Kirchner 21 again. On this topic, this is another area where I 22 find some clarity is needed. Source term has 23 different meanings for different people or applicants, 24 I would guess as well.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

36 The traditional source term if you're 1

going through the 10 CFR 50 and 52 process, is to 2

hypothesize a maximum creditable accident no matter 3

what, and then use that as the quote-unquote "source 4

term." Now any reactor that's operated by definition 5

is going to have fission product inventory buildup.

6 Depending on the fuel type used, that may be a hazard 7

in and of itself without operation, et cetera.

8 So there is always, with any advanced 9

reactor, or any micro-reactor, or any large reactor, 10 there always is a hazard. There seems to be -- I 11 think you're going to be presented with arguments that 12 we don't have a source term. And when people say that 13 they're thinking of 10 CFR 50 and 52. But clearly, 14 any reactor that's operated, builds up fission 15 products and hence presents a hazard, and that's what 16 the NRC has to assure, the adequate protection of the 17 public. So that it seems to me that you're going to 18 run into a lot of arguments about source term.

19 MR. RECKLEY: Yes. And it's sometimes, as 20 you mentioned, a terminology issue. They have an 21 inventory, obviously, and I think maybe when you look 22 through mechanistic source term papers you can see 23 we're trying to get the discussion about where are the 24 inventories and how are you controlling them or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

37 inhibiting their release as being the topic, as 1

opposed to, as we have for Light Water Reactor saying 2

the source term is what is put into the containment 3

and then model the containment for what is the public 4

dose. So I think we'll continue to have some 5

terminology challenge as we go through.

6 In general, for non-Lights, the source 7

term as we're using it is actually what leaves the 8

last physical barrier. In other words, if you're an 9

analyst, what would you input into your atmospheric 10 dispersion code? But again, that's different because 11 we're now saying it's on the other side of the last 12 wall, if you will.

13 MR. CORRADINI: Bill, is that any 14 different than TID 18.444 and the original approach to 15 Part 100? It's essentially the same thing.

16 MR. RECKLEY: Well, it's somewhat the 17 same. It's just, again, it's largely in my view a 18 terminology issue. The source term as it was defined 19 in TID and NUREG-1465 is the radionuclides that are 20 put into the containment, and that's what's called 21 source term. And then you model it for what gets out 22 of containment, and then you model it for how it's 23 dispersed.

24 Since the role of a physical containment 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

38 structure might vary and as the discussion went, as 1

Dr. Bley mentioned, one of the first papers we did was 2

the functional containment paper, the source term as 3

we use that term, is now the radionuclides that are 4

past the last physical barrier.

5 MR. CORRADINI: Okay, good point. I'm 6

sorry, you said it much more clearly.

7 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, this is Dave 8

Petti. It just seems that with all, even just the 9

discussion among the committee here, that some sort of 10 a document from NRC, some sort of guidance is 11 necessary to help people understand what the rules of 12 the road are. My view is there may be more than one 13 way to get to a source term, to lay out, sort of, some 14 options, but at least try to remove some of the 15 confusion that could exist, but out of such guidance.

16 I think there will always be questions, but I think 17 without guidance you'll have even more and it will 18 just take longer to, you know, to get everybody 19 through the process.

20 MR. RECKLEY: Okay, thanks, Dave. And 21 we'll finish this up and then move into Part 53, which 22 will be another opportunity for us to try to clarify 23 all of this. The other thing, and this is just an 24 additional complication, is it will also matter what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

39 you're doing that assessment for. And we may approach 1

in the future where, from a licensing standpoint, you 2

can do as Dennis mentioned, and have some very - try 3

to avoid the term - but very conservative assumptions 4

that would go in and basically say for licensing 5

purposes we're taking a simplified approach because we 6

think we can maintain the inventory or prevent the 7

inventory from release, whereas if you're doing a more 8

best estimate, an actual analysis, you may have to go 9

into more detail.

10 And a designer might need to do that for 11 other reasons, like occupational dose or economic 12 reasons, to do more detailed assessments of where the 13 radioactive material might end up or might present a 14 challenge, even if you can show with high confidence 15 that it's not going to get out of the facility. So 16 this is all, you know, it's all a complicated endeavor 17 on the part of both the designers and us to try to 18 navigate.

19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 20 Kirchner. Sorry for the frequent interruptions. No, 21 I'm not sorry; I apologize. The one thing that was on 22 one of your earlier view graphs and also you had 23 presented in past meetings, I don't think on the 24 tabletop exercises conducted today, people went 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

40 completely through the defense in depth part of the 1

exercise. And I'm wondering what guidance you're 2

going to provide to get out of one person's judgement 3

versus another on what is sufficient defense and 4

depth.

5 How are you going to generally kind of 6

wrap that part of this up in terms of guidance? When 7

is enough, enough? When is, for example, just no 8

matter what, you know, we had a former member who 9

would say I just want an essentially leak-tight 10 containment, period. And that's, of course, also 11 subject to definition, but you get my point that, you 12 know, in the final analysis, you've done all this and 13 so on, but defense in depth, when is enough, enough, 14 and how do you decide that?

15 MR. RECKLEY: Right, and other than trying 16 to follow through with the process that was laid out 17 in NEI 18-04 and the Reg Guide, that's currently where 18 we are. There is, as you mentioned, a certain 19 subjective element to that, engineering judgment 20 element to that, that will maintain.

21 How we decide when is enough, enough gets 22 complicated because going back to the backup slide on 23 slide ten, what we expect is that designers are going 24 to come in and try to utilize the margins that are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

41 available to them through the designs in order to get 1

flexibility somewhere else, like emergency planning 2

zones is the common example, or population related 3

siting considerations we talked about a couple months 4

ago. Or there will be something else.

5 The last bullet on future interactions is 6

staffing.

7 CHAIR BLEY: If I might interrupt yet 8

again. I think, Bill, the most challenging area where 9

a designer will want to use margin is cutting down on 10 the number of systems that are safety-related because 11 there's an economic cost associated with that.

12 MR. RECKLEY: And we -- yes.

13 CHAIR BLEY: That's where I think you'll 14 run into the problem, yes, on emergency planning and 15 so on, but that one probably becomes where the 16 designer first tries to use the margin that he or she 17 believes they have versus the consequence curve, the 18 frequency consequence curve.

19 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Yeah, and a lot of 20 that will be -- within this methodology I think it 21 provides the opportunity to hopefully give the 22 designer the ability to come in and say, We're gonna 23 add this system for defense and depth. The 24 methodology as it stands would generally allow that to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

42 be done without making it safety related. Go ahead, 1

Dennis.

2 CHAIR BLEY: This is for Walt and others.

3 This is a place where I felt NEI 18-04 made a good 4

step beyond what was in 1860 15 years ago. They 5

really laid out a structured approach for looking at 6

the defense in depth issue and considering various 7

different approaches to that. It's one area where, at 8

least the last time we talked, the tabletops hadn't 9

fully exercised this methodology, and I guess I'd sure 10 like to see that at some point. This is an area we 11 might dig into in a future meeting somehow.

12 MR. RECKLEY: Right, okay. The other part 13 of it is we will see as it gets exercised, and that 14 will be where we need to remain agile enough to see 15 that some of this work that's going on in parallel, if 16 you keep track of it and incorporate any lessons, both 17 from the application of this in designs like Kairos, 18 and you guys were looking at some of those topical 19 reports, or a different committee is, we're going to 20 be watching how it's applied to the versatile test 21 reactor. They're going to use this kind of 22 methodology. So we will keep an eye on it.

23 Trying to finish this up, and all of this 24 is a great discussion, and it feeds right into Part 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

43 53, that we're going to get into next so I don't think 1

that we're really getting behind because a lot of this 2

is the same discussion.

3 So I tried to explain what TICAP was, 4

that's the unplanned events portions of a safety 5

analysis report. There would be other guidance on 6

other things outside of the final safety analysis 7

report, sections on unplanned events, the normal 8

effluents, for example, technical specifications.

9 There's some interest in additional 10 guidance on what goes into a construction permit under 11 Part 50 because it's been a long time since we've 12 looked at a Part 50 construction permit, especially 13 for a reactor design that's significantly different 14 than large light waters. The next to the last bullet 15 I mentioned.

16 There is a

pending SECY paper on 17 microreactor issues, and then out of that paper the 18 gist is an information paper that identifies various 19 issues, including the fact that micros might be 20 deployed differently and might bring up issues like 21 transportation and manufacturing even more so than 22 what we've dealt with to date.

23 Out of that paper we expect other policy 24 papers, and one that we're just beginning the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

44 discussions internally, is on staffing, and questions 1

like if a reactor can show inherent features, can 2

those features negate the need for licensed operators.

3 Would it be possible to go to autonomous operations 4

either through digital systems or inherent mechanical, 5

physical attributes, remote operations.

6 So all of these questions, we're just 7

beginning to discuss what would go into a future paper 8

on staffing, and it may be one or more of these 9

issues, depending on the timing and the applications 10 that we get in and the feedback we get from industry.

11 So I guess all of this --

12 MEMBER REMPE: Bill, this is Joy.

13 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah?

14 MEMBER REMPE: And I didn't interrupt you 15 when I wanted to about the construction permit 16 application, and what's required. You do have an 17 ongoing effort with the SHINE Medical Isotopes effort, 18 and there's a lot of coordination going on in the 19 staff because I think that's a good example that could 20 shed some light.

21 MR. RECKLEY: There is, and I'm sorry I 22 should have mentioned that. Yeah, we're looking very 23 closely at what was done to issue that construction 24 permit and then as they enter the next phase, how you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

45 go from the construction permit review, over to the 1

operating license review. So thank you. Yes?

2 MEMBER REMPE: Thanks.

3 MR. RECKLEY: So the Part 53 discussions 4

in a different slide presentation, Dennis, are we 5

ready to jump into that one?

6 CHAIR BLEY: It's not. I'm going to call 7

a break at this point, and I think you're right. I 8

think we've made a lot of progress through some of 9

the, at least background material, and even some of 10 the questions in the Part 53 discussion. Maybe when 11 we start there you can go through the first few slides 12 pretty quickly because I think you already talked 13 about many of them.

14 Let's take a break. It's ten 'til. Let's 15 come back at ten after. What will that be back east?

16 That will be ten after 9:00 here. Ten after 11:00 17 east coast time. And we'll go right through, and if 18 we need it, we might take after an hour, we might take 19 a short five or ten minute break then before we finish 20 up.

21 So at this point we'll take a break. When 22 we come back we'll be on the next slide set. If we 23 can get those set up ahead of time. I'll see you back 24 here at ten after.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

46 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 1

off the record at 10:49 a.m. and resumed at 11:10 2

a.m.)

3 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. It's 10 minutes after, 4

we're ready to start again. Bill, will you be going 5

ahead or will it be by Bill?

6 MR. RECKLEY: This is Bill Reckley. I'll 7

continue.

8 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. You're up.

9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thank you. So as we 10 mentioned, some of this I can go through relatively 11 quickly because we talked about it in the last part, 12 including the background. We have considered 13 rulemakings in the past as has been mentioned, the 14 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act 15 directed us to do a rulemaking and to have it 16 completed no later than December 2027.

17 To schedule, as Dennis mentioned in the 18 introduction, we don't have a Staff Requirements 19 Memorandum yet. We are aware, and the interaction 20 with Senator Barrasso is a public record that at least 21 a number of senators expressed a desire for us to 22 speed it up. And the Commission in the response said 23 they would give direction to the NRC staff on a 24 schedule. So 2027 is the latest schedule. One should 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

47 not be surprised if we get some encouragement to go 1

quicker.

2 I'll go into that, as Dennis mentioned, 3

maybe with ACRS interactions in a couple slides. One 4

of the things we maybe didn't talk about under NEIMA 5

is their definitions, so on Slide 3, these have come 6

out of the act. Advanced reactors means a nuclear 7

vision or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant 8

that has significant improvements. And then the act 9

lists those in terms of proliferation-resistance, 10 risk, economics, fuel, and a number of attributes that 11 would be an improvement over existing plants, or 12 plants that were under construction.

13 So our working scope with this then is 14 light water small modular reactors, non light water 15 reactors, and fusion reactors.

16 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, can I ask you a 17 question? What are you going to do about fusion?

18 MR. RECKLEY: There's two thoughts 19 currently. And it's as good a place as any to talk 20 about it because I don't talk about fusion too much 21 throughout the presentation. The first thought would 22 be if you have a risk framework, can fusion actually 23 just be treated like any other reactor?

24 Our initial thoughts are that because the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

48 Atomic Energy Act spells out for production and 1

utilization facilities and their use of special 2

nuclear material, the Atomic Energy Act itself sets 3

out a number of requirements that we would have to 4

fulfill for fusion. And they may not all be needed.

5 We're still assessing, but it may be that although 6

fusion would be addressed through this rulemaking, 7

that there is a distinction made between fusion 8

reactors and those using special nuclear material with 9

a thought that the fusion reactors, if it pans out, 10 might be handled more like -- I won't say exactly 11 like, but more like a materials licensee facilities 12 like accelerators.

13 So we're still just thinking about that.

14 We had planned a workshop with the Office of Science, 15 Fusion Energy Sciences within DOE in March. And 16 unfortunately, that was delayed because of the COVID.

17 We're looking now to have a workshop or a public forum 18 again with the Fusion Industry Association, DOE, other 19 stakeholders in the September, October timeframe.

20 We'll be talking about specifically developing a 21 regulatory framework for fusion within this activity.

22 MEMBER PETTI: So Bill, back in the 90s I 23 authored a DOE safety standard on fusion, and that DOE 24 standard got -- you have to Google it, Safety of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

49 Magnetic Fusion and Facilities or something.

1 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah.

2 MEMBER PETTI: I want to say DOE 6005.

3 MR. RECKLEY: Right.

4 MEMBER PETTI: The framework is very 5

similar to LMP. We borrow it heavily from, at the 6

time, it was through GA framework. The difference is 7

in the details, right? The nature of the radioactive 8

materials. It's a much more distributed system in 9

terms of hazards because you're pumping tritium all 10 over the place. So there are differences in terms of 11 the details, but I think you probably can fit it in at 12 the high level. You know, they had a frequency-13 consequence curve.

14 MR. RECKLEY: Right.

15 MEMBER PETTI: All of that sort of stuff.

16 So it's just that when you, you know, the devil's in 17 the details. It has to look at it in a different way.

18 But I think there could be a lot of overlap in --

19 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, I've looked at those 20 and I think you're right. And the part of the 21 discussion might be whether, again going back to the 22 Atomic Energy Act and all it requires for facilities 23 using special nuclear material, whether we would want 24 to encumber fusion with all of those. It may be that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

50 that's the easiest way to go. We haven't decided yet.

1 And then the other thing within fusion, I 2

think most people are familiar with facilities like 3

ITER, the big facility under construction in France, 4

but we'll have to decide. Fusion has as many 5

approaches because of the isotopes you're able to work 6

with, and the size of the reactor that you might be 7

working with. They are just as varied or maybe even 8

more varied than fission reactors. And so if we're 9

going to try to address all of those, it would be 10 amenable to a risk informed approach like you're 11 mentioning.

12 Then the other definition within NEIMA is 13 for the regulatory framework and the technology-14 inclusive framework. Going down specifically to the 15 rulemaking plan that we submitted to the commission in 16 April, SECY-20-0032. And Dennis mentioned, our first 17 proposal is to develop a new part. That provides us 18 kind of an opportunity we think to as much as we can 19 start with a clean slate and try to construct 20 something that would be the best for a range of 21 technologies.

22 The next slide, I'll just go to the --

23 well the last bullet on this slide is we're expecting 24 extensive interactions with external stakeholders and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

51 the advisory committee. And so as we get into this, 1

and then hopefully at the end I'll try to go through 2

this all relatively quickly.

Most of this 3

presentation is a list of 14 questions. I don't plan 4

to spend a lot of time on each question.

5 We can go through them and maybe pick 6

which ones might be of most interest. But I think the 7

biggest thing to keep in mind is that this is one of 8

those rare opportunities where we're starting 9

relatively with a clean slate, and we're at the 10 beginning of the process. So how we interact would be 11 important.

12 When the ACRS would decide to send us 13 recommendations, again, we can work that out. I would 14 imagine you would especially want to do that if you 15 thought we were going down the wrong path. So 16 although the 14 questions read as if we are totally 17 from a blank slate, we have given it a little thought.

18 And we use this slide in public meetings to talk about 19 how we thought part 53 might look. And the first part 20 was kind of a decision, and we talk about this within 21 the rulemaking plan.

22 NEIMA does define the framework primarily 23 in terms of licensing. But our assessment was if we 24 overly focused on the first step in the process, we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

52 both going to miss an opportunity. And two, it's just 1

very difficult to talk about those first steps without 2

having a good understanding of how the whole project 3

life cycle fits together. And so the proposal in the 4

rulemaking plan is that we go beyond licensing and we 5

build a whole regulatory framework, not just a 6

licensing framework, but a regulatory framework.

7 So how would that work? One of the key 8

things would be to clearly define what are the highest 9

level safety or risk metrics. So what are the 10 fundamental safety functions, what are the metrics 11 like the 5034 criteria of 25 rem over the course of 12 the event at the low population zone. Like the NRC 13 safety goals. How they get worked in in terms of risk 14 metrics, the use of something similar to the frequency 15 consequence targets. And this might be an opportunity 16 to go to something more that would be like a limits 17 exceedance factor.

18 With the emphasis we put before, remember 19 that the frequency consequence targets, NEI 18-04, we 20 have specifically said we are not able to correlate 21 those to existing requirements because existing 22 requirements weren't defined in those terms. And that 23 turned out to be problematic throughout the Next 24 Generation Nuclear Plant project. And so early on, we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

53 decided in NEI 18-04 that we would ask, and the 1

industry guidance document changed those from top 2

level regulatory requirements to FC targets.

3 Well we're now going to be doing a 4

rulemaking. If we were to decide to put a frequency-5 consequence figure in the rule, that could now then be 6

a regulatory requirement, and you could use something 7

like limit exceedance factors against that curve if we 8

wanted to do that.

9 Then you would also have regulatory 10 requirements just like we do now on normal l 11 effluents. Those things that are in Part 20 and also 12 for light water reactors in Appendix I to Part 50 on 13 normal effluents. And then there'll be other factors 14 that we have to define within the rules, or make sure 15 other rules are there to identify.

16 So once you're able to define those actual 17 risk metrics, safety metrics, the idea was that the 18 rule would then look and say, "What is the role of the 19 various parts of the lifecycle in meeting those 20 requirements?" So at the highest level, the 21 functional design, how are you looking at those 22 performance metrics?

23 Then down to the system level, how are you 24 making sure that individual systems are fulfilling the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

54 metrics?

How do you maintain that during 1

construction? For example, what testing you do to 2

make sure that the equipment actually has the 3

capabilities that were intended to be built in at the 4

functional or system level.

5 Then during operations, how are you doing 6

configuration control, how are you doing surveillance 7

and maintenance, how are you controlling design 8

changes. And then ultimately, what needs to be done 9

during retirement or decommissioning phase to maintain 10 those requirements?

11 So all of this is currently within our 12 framework for the operating fleet. It's just a matter 13 of again starting with a clean slate. This is an 14 opportunity to try to define the role of each one of 15 these project lifecycle parts. And maybe importantly, 16 the relationship of one part to another.

17 And those that have been around for a long 18 time, including myself, much of Part 50 was really 19 aimed at the, at least initially, at that functional 20 and system level design requirements. TMI came back 21 and reinforced some of the importance of operating, of 22 those things that you do during planned operations.

23 And then we did things like the maintenance rule and 24 other things to better define the requirements during 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

55 operation.

1 But the thought is this is an opportunity 2

to look at this as an integrated system. And in some 3

cases, you may be able to benefit by knowing what is 4

going to be required during operations in order for a 5

designer, and just as importantly for us as the staff 6

to say, "In terms of how deeply I look at a design, I 7

can build into that logic what I know will be done 8

during operations to maintain configuration to do 9

surveillance and maintenance." So again, I'm not --

10 this is done now. We're just trying to lay it out a 11 little bit from the very beginning.

12 CHAIR BLEY: Bill?

13 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, go ahead.

14 CHAIR BLEY: Two related questions. This 15 is Dennis Bley. One, your discussion sounds like you 16 already started a white paper on this. So first 17 question is is that true, are we going to see 18 something like that? And then the second question is 19 if you decide to make Part 53 whole and not relay on 20 Part 50 and Part 52, does your thinking lean toward 21 having all of the approaches in 50 and 52? And by 22 that I mean construction permits, early site permit, 23 either a design cert and Combined License or an 24 operating license. Are you thinking about including 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

56 all of those, or have you given all of that much 1

thought yet?

2 MR. RECKLEY: Our working assumption is 3

that we'll address all of those. And then it's just 4

a sentence or two within the rulemaking plan. And 5

then also see if there is something in addition that 6

we might add.

7 In other words, we would plan at this 8

point to support under Part 53 either the traditional 9

two-step CP, construction permit operating license, or 10 any of the combinations that are allowed under Part 11

52. And then we're also looking to see if there's 12 anything in addition that we might be able to do 13 beyond that.

14 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, this is Charlie 15 Brown. Can you hear me?

16 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.

17 MEMBER BROWN:

Okay.

Just an 18 amplification of Dennis's question, or a backtrack 19 maybe, under requirements definitions -- you open with 20 that. That's how you kind of lead into this whole 21 picture. Does that mean an examination of like all the 22 general design criteria?

23 Just for information, since I'm a meaty 24 guy as opposed to commercial guy, went through and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

57 looked at all the GDCs yesterday. And a good bit of 1

those are very, very generic. Does that mean a re-2 examination or a generation of a whole new class of 3

general design criteria?

4 MR. RECKLEY: Excuse me. the general 5

design criteria and then the advanced-reactor design 6

criteria, developed under regulatory guide 1.232, are 7

generally organized around the same fundamental safety 8

functions that we talk about elsewhere. We talk about 9

it in NEI 18-04. It's talked about in various NRC 10 documents, even IAEA documents, talk about basically 11 the fundamental safety functions as being the 12 retention of the radionuclides. That's the ultimate 13 goal.

14 And then the related safety functions such 15 as controlling power level or reactivity, and 16 controlling heat removal, sometimes also introduced as 17 things like controlling chemical attack. That might 18 be important for some design. So I think the notion 19 would be there that we would define within these 20 highest level requirements something analogous to the 21 general design criteria.

22 It may be at that higher level because 23 it's required to be technology-inclusive. So it might 24 talk about the various sections that are now included 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

58 in the GDC. Which again, align generally with those 1

three fundamental safety functions. But yes, there 2

would be something there along those lines.

3 MEMBER REMPE: Bill? Charlie, are you 4

done?

5 MEMBER BROWN: No. Can I finish the 6

question?

7 MEMBER REMPE: Oh yeah, go ahead. I'm 8

sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

9 MEMBER BROWN: No, that's okay. Thank 10 you, Joy. You talked about them being a technology --

11 how did you phrase that when you answered me?

12 MR. RECKLEY: Well we use the phrase 13 technology-inclusive.

14 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah. I looked at them 15 from that standpoint and most of them fundamentally 16 address the things you talk about, heat removal, 17 boundaries, radiation requirements, et cetera. So 18 they're pretty technology-inclusive as they are. And 19 it sounds like what you're telling me is that Appendix 20 A would be something all total new if you have an 21 Appendix A.

22 I mean, that's what Appendix A is, is the 23 GDCs fundamentally. So it sounds like you're thinking 24 about generating a new Appendix A with however you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

59 want to phrase it, with one through whatever they turn 1

out to be. That's the way I got your answer. Is that 2

right or wrong?

3 MR. RECKLEY: I'd say it's kind of early.

4 But I'll just give you my thinking, was that we 5

wouldn't have Appendix A. But this would be within 6

the main body of the regulations. But again, that's 7

largely format to me. Obviously Appendix A is an 8

appendix, but it's one of the most important parts of 9

Part 50.

10 So if you had rolled the GDC into, you 11 know, and gave it a number instead of an appendix, it 12 would be largely the same. But the level of detail 13 and how far you go down in those system level 14 requirements will be one of the things that we talk 15 about. And again, we're just -- we're pretty much at 16 the outlying stage at this point.

17 And I don't even want people to over think 18 where we are right now because we're still open.

19 We've been giving it a little thought because we had 20 the time to do so. But as we'll get into the 21 questions, we're really amenable to receiving 22 suggestions that would propose something different to 23 us.

24 CHAIR BLEY: I'd remind you of something 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

60 Bill sort of reminded you of. A couple years ago, or 1

three, we went through the advanced-reactor design 2

criteria and went through those same discussions. And 3

that's probably where they're starting. I'd take one 4

second to, you know, a couple seconds to fill in a 5

little history. Because we thinking of tech specs and 6

design criteria as always being there.

7 Originally, there were no such things and 8

because people started getting construction permits 9

and then coming in with designs that didn't quite meet 10 the staff's expectations, these things developed to 11 kind of warn people where they needed to go after the 12 construction permit.

13 And then I think Joy had something she was 14 trying to get in.

15 MEMBER REMPE: Yes. I actually like this 16 figure as a layout. And I'm hoping that it's 17 preliminary, but when I looked at it, this is where I 18 wanted to bring up scope. I had already mentioned 19 about transportation to and from the site. It seems 20 like embedded in this figure is that you're only at 21 the site.

22 So maybe you can think of a way to adjust 23 it to consider that. The other thing is since you got 24 the issue of retirement, waste generation comes in.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

61 Dave mentioned fusion earlier today. My understanding 1

is you get a lot more activated materials. Even the 2

gas reactor, because of its low power density, has a 3

lot more low level waste. But maybe we ought to start 4

thinking of the whole lifecycle and what -- we might 5

end up with some different thoughts about what might 6

be of more concern with some of these designs.

7 And so have you thought about maybe 8

modifying this figure, or are you open to maybe 9

thinking about modifying it to more explicitly 10 indicate to the public that you are considering some 11 broader scope than what we have with the existing 12 fleet?

13 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, we would be amenable.

14 And some of what you said -- again, we're kind of 15 early in the process, but some of the things like the 16 waste and the decommissioning, we currently have a 17 rule -- and I'm going to, I forget the number --

18 under Part 20, that even as you do the initial design, 19 you think through minimizing contamination to support 20 decommissioning.

21 So that would be under normal ops and 22 performance criteria or other over there in the purple 23 box that we would need to put that in as the attention 24 continues to increase on micro reactors. How this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

62 fits in and either we incorporate things into this to 1

support things like transportation or we at least have 2

a good connection between the requirements here and 3

then the requirements on the transportation side of 4

our regulations.

5 And they would be different. Obviously 6

when you roll a new micro reactor out of the factory, 7

your concerns on the transportation will be different 8

than when you retire it and need to transport it 9

somewhere else. So yeah, we're amenable to any of 10 these discussions. And really what we'll be looking 11 for as we go through this is, in large part, make sure 12 we don't miss anything within this framework.

13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 14 Kirchner. I'd like to go back to Charlie's 15 observation and concur. And to just point out that 16 rather than relegate it to an appendix if it, like you 17 said, a part of it's just format. But if it's a 18 number's part of 53, probably better. But capturing 19 at least at a high level those principles, categories 20 and principles in the actual regulation I think is 21 important.

22 One of the things that the GDCs do is that 23 they -- this is going to sound a little strange, but 24 it makes the regulatory process much more predictable.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

63 By which I mean the staff uses the GDCs for their 1

determination of the performance of a system, the 2

performance of the reactor as a whole. And this 3

provides predictability in the regulatory review 4

process.

5 The expectations are clear up front and 6

the framework of the GDCs provides a structure for the 7

staff to conduct its reviews as reflected in 0800, the 8

Standard Review Plan, in great, great detail. I'm not 9

proposing 0800, but it allows them to -- you want to 10 be technology-inclusive and at the same time flexible 11 because there are such differences in the designs that 12 we expect that you will be reviewing in terms of 13 technology choices and specific issues with each of 14 those technologies. But it avoids what I'll call the 15 arbitrary and capriciousness of other reviews, like in 16 the DOE world.

17 And I won't go any further with that 18 comment on the public record than --

19 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.

20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- to say it provides 21 structure and expectation. So I think it's very 22 important to capture that GDC framework in the actual 23 regulation not relegated to a reg guide, although the 24 reg guide that's been developed is very nice about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

64 adapting for specific reactor technologies. But I do 1

believe you do need something like the GDCs as a part 2

of the framework.

3 MR. RECKLEY: Okay.

4 CHAIR BLEY: Some words from the joint 5

committee and the AEC back in about 1960 --

6 MR. RECKLEY: Did Dennis drop off?

7 CHAIR BLEY: No. Did you hear me? I just 8

made a comment.

9 MR. RECKLEY: Oh, okay. As we go through 10 the interactions with you guys and stakeholders in 11 general, trying to strike that balance between 12 predictability and clarity that you get through 13 something like the GDC versus the flexibility that you 14 get through performance based approaches more like 15 that presented in NEI 18-04, trying to get the best of 16 both worlds and where that balance is, that'll be part 17 of what we're trying to do in this rule. And it goes 18 back.

19 I guess Dennis is -- well a number of 20 members might remember. But this is in some part kind 21 of related to the structuralist rationalist approach 22 that was the number of a whole bunch of ACRS meetings 23 and interactions and papers back during the 24 development of, I guess is that reg guide 1.174. Back 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

65 in that timeframe. So many of those questions remain 1

what's the right balance. You have to do both, I 2

think. You can't have it all one way or the other.

3 But trying to strike the balance is what we'll be 4

trying to do. So --

5 MEMBER BROWN: Bill? I just had -- I'm a 6

little bit parochial, I mean a little bit with this 7

particular comment. Since I do I&C stuff, protection 8

reactivity control systems, when I go back and look at 9

what it's like, GDC 20 through -- I don't know, 29 or 10 30 or something like that. Those are basically 11 performance based. I mean is the idea that I don't 12 need independence if something's performance based?

13 Or that I don't need reliability and testability?

14 MR. RECKLEY: No, no, no. Again, I --

15 MEMBER BROWN: Bill, I'm losing the bubble 16 a little. I keep hearing this performance based 17 stuff. In my mind, I know what performance based 18 means. I'm not so sure it's well defined even in the 19 way I think about it. Like protection system 20 functions to shut down the reactor. What it needs to 21 be is that's a performance based function. Like Walt 22 says, throwing the baby out with the bathwater gets a 23 little bit difficult for me --

24 MR. RECKLEY: No, no. Yeah, not --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

66 MEMBER BROWN: -- in a longer term view.

1 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, okay. And I didn't 2

mean to imply that many of the GDC are relatively 3

flexible and performance based in terms of giving you 4

options as to how you might incorporate those things 5

into the design. So no, I didn't mean to make that 6

implication.

7 MEMBER BROWN: No, I'm not accusing you of 8

anything. That was not my intent, I'm sorry. That 9

was not my intent. It's just I get a little bit 10 concerned when people lose sight and they start 11 thinking everything in these GDCs is prescriptive, but 12 it's not. Even the coolability issues. Forget the 13 instrumentation type stuff, you go back to reactor 14 cooling. All reactors has to be cooled in some way.

15 And that particular GDC just fundamentally said you 16 got to be able to cool them under various conductions.

17 MR. RECKLEY: Right.

18 MEMBER BROWN: So I think we just have to 19 be very, very careful about thinking about doing 20 everything brand brand new, and then we lose what's 21 been learned. Like Dennis says, many of these things 22 evolved after -- the first plant shipping port didn't 23 have any of these.

24 I mean they were kind of modeled after the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

67 way we did the Navy plants in terms of principles. So 1

I mean I just get concerned that we lose what we've 2

learned over 60 years, which has been very valuable, 3

in the process of trying to get something that's more 4

reasonably approached from a licensing and a review 5

basis.

6 MR. RECKLEY: All right.

7 MEMBER BROWN: I'll quit right there.

8 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. And again, we'll test 9

all of this out as we go forward. The only thing I'll 10 mention, as we go forward and look and different 11 technologies, the role and the importance and the 12 timing of some of these changes, and the general 13 design criteria for light water reactors were 14 developed.

15 And I

agree with

you, they are 16 performance-based and they generally at the high 17 level. But they were developed with the notion in 18 mind that reactivity was something you had to address 19 very quickly because a mismatch between power and heat 20 removal and a light water reactor is something that is 21 a fast-acting transient.

22 When you get over into some of the other 23 non light water reactors that might have more thermal 24 margins or thermal capacities, some of the specifics 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

68 may change. And we just need to be able to look at 1

that and see where -- what would be the most 2

appropriate criterion. I mean this is getting down 3

into the details, and we're still working on the 4

framework. So going over just converting that figure 5

into what Part 53 might look like, we would think it 6

might look like this. You would have general 7

provisions.

8 All the regulations have to start off with 9

a certain amount of those provisions that tell 10 applicants and licensees and the NRC staff how the 11 process works. But then going back to the figure that 12 you would have -- for example, I'll describe these in 13 terms of subparts, just like Part 52 is divided into 14 subparts. But maybe you have subpart B, and it would 15 talk about those safety objectives.

16 What are the regulatory limits? How do 17 the safety goals figure in? And that sets out how 18 safety the facility has to be. And then you would go 19 into, again as I mentioned, what's the role of the 20 design requirements, what's the role of siting, what's 21 the role of construction and manufacturing in meeting 22 those safety goals.

23 The requirements for operation in terms of 24 programmatic controls that we talked about.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

69 Configuration control, maintenance and surveillance.

1 And then what would be the role during decommissioning 2

or retirement? And then you would have those parts of 3

Part 53, or those subparts related to licensing and 4

maintaining the licensing basis information. So this 5

is all of the -- this is basically -- Part 52 is 6

largely oriented towards the applications. Then the 7

things like 50.59 for controlling your licensing basis 8

information, 50.74 on providing updates to the FSAR 9

and then administrative requirements.

10 So this is just a general possible layout.

11 And then getting to Dennis's question on how we might 12 interact, if we were to develop a framework like is on 13 Slide 5. If we have some early discussions and 14 thinking that something like this would be the way to 15 go, then the most important thing, because everything 16 is built off of it, would be the purple box.

17 And we would want to start having 18 discussions on that, you know, as early as later this 19 year or very early next year because whatever schedule 20 gets defined for us by the Commission when we get our 21 instructions, if we keep this framework, it all builds 22 off of how do we define the purple box on Slide 5.

23 Again, in terms of timeframe, I could see 24 those interactions and discussions going or starting 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

70 as early as later this year or very early in 2021.

1 The ultimate schedule of when we would have to finish 2

those discussions, the Commission will tell us.

3 So within the whitepaper, and I heard it 4

mentioned earlier, the whitepaper by and large -- we 5

started writing an Advanced Notice of Proposed 6

Rulemaking because that's what we proposed to do in 7

the rulemaking plan. It was just a vehicle to start 8

us to engage stakeholders. What you're seeing in this 9

whitepaper is what we started as the ANPR, whether we 10 end up doing that or not.

11 The most important thing is that we start 12 to engage stakeholders, whatever vehicle that might 13 be. So one of the things that we would be looking for 14 both from the ACRS, since that's today's discussion.

15 And then we'll be having this same discussion with 16 public stakeholders. What is the interest, what do we 17 see as the major issues and challenges so we can set 18 out a schedule and a kind of a plan as to how we're 19 going to talk about the various issues.

20 MEMBER BROWN: Bill?

21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes?

22 MEMBER BROWN: When you talk about 23 stakeholder interest, didn't the -- what is it, the 24 NEI whatever it is, didn't that say do it as opposed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

71 to asking people if they have interest in that 1

rulemaking? Don't you have to do the rule now based 2

on the rule?

3 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. We 4

have to do the rule. The question would be what are 5

the stakeholder's interests in working with us to do 6

the rule, not whether we do the rule. Do they want to 7

play, or do they just want to tell us go do it and 8

we'll see what you propose at the proposed rulemaking 9

stage, and then we'll comment.

10 We hope that's not the point. I mean the 11 outcome. We hope stakeholders agree to work with us 12 all throughout the development of the proposed rule so 13 that we don't spend however much time coming up with 14 a finished product, and then people telling us they 15 don't like it. So that's what I mean by stakeholder 16 interest.

17 MEMBER BROWN: It sounds like you would be 18 then in the mode of offering them at each stage, which 19 you have something to propose, you reach out to them.

20 MR. RECKLEY: Right. Right.

21 MEMBER BROWN: Is that what you're talking 22 about?

23 MR. RECKLEY: Yes.

24 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

72 MR. RECKLEY: I think that's how it will 1

work by the time we're instructed. And then the other 2

part is the last bullet, preparing both the proposed 3

rule and seeing what related guidance might be 4

appropriate, and we're receptive to any aspect. The 5

next few slides we're going to start going through 6

some of the questions.

7 MEMBER BROWN: Can I interrupt you one 8

more while you're on Slide 7? When you go out for 9

comments or stakeholder interest, I went back and 10 pulled up the 2006 ANPR, whatever it is, which was 11 multiple pages and was so broad, I mean it sounded 12 like you had so much stuff, nobody would ever get 13 anything defined. Are you going to try to narrow it 14 somewhat more?

15 MR. RECKLEY: Well yes, and as an example 16 17 MEMBER BROWN: That was a disaster in my 18 own mind.

19 MR. RECKLEY: Just as one example, that 20 particular ANPR had I think 60 questions. We did look 21 through it and we tried to narrow it down to start the 22 interactions I think. I mean they did have a 23 companion document in 2006 that kind of went over the 24 framework.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

73 I think because we've been directed to do 1

a rule, we have somewhat of an advantage in -- well in 2

that we will be past the question of whether to do it, 3

and people should be providing feedback on more 4

specific things about what should be in it and how it 5

should look. But yes, we are going to try to narrow 6

it down. And it's a good teeing up, I guess, to go in 7

the next couple slides. One of the, on Slide 8 is 8

just the rulemaking objectives. I don't think this'll 9

be surprising, number one.

10 And two, it's basically to maintain the 11 same level of protections as exists for the operating 12 fleet. And then the third one is going to, again what 13 the Commission told us most recently in the Staff 14 Requirements Memorandum for SECY-19-0117. And then in 15 more description in an older SECY that goes back to 16 SECY paper 10-0121.

17 And this is where the third objective of 18 the rulemaking comes from, which is to ensure that to 19 the degree advanced reactor designers are able to 20 provide attributes that are talked about in the 21 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, that the 22 expectations in that Advanced Reactor Policy Statement 23 is that those attributes, things like less 24 vulnerabilities to accidents, increased thermal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

74 margins, slower responses leading to releases, those 1

kind of attributes in the Advanced Reactor Policy 2

Statement gets translated into operational 3

flexibilities.

4 And one example we've used in the past is 5

the tradeoff between those attributes and reduced 6

consequences that then enable you to do things like 7

reduce emergency planning zones, or come up with 8

different criteria for population related siting 9

considerations. And then number four and five are 10 just trying to make sure the proposed rule is 11 developed such that it's clear.

12 And this would also be an opportunity 13 during which we might have to identify and resolve 14 areas like staffing. And the time period that we have 15 to resolve issues like that might get determined by 16 the rulemaking schedule if it's not needed to be 17 resolved for some other reason, like an actual 18 application.

19 CHAIR BLEY: Bill? Two things, this is 20 Dennis. This number five is a little rule-y, I think.

21 One problem I envision is that some of these issues 22 won't be clear. Turn it around. When you see some 23 new unique facility design that mixes chemical hazards 24 and nuclear hazards in odd ways, new problems will be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

75 identified.

1 I think somehow we need to leave a -- by 2

the time we're done, we need to leave something like 3

your number five that has to be resolved on each new 4

unique design. I don't think you can resolve all, you 5

know, identify these up at the level you'd be working 6

at for a technology-inclusive rule.

7 And the other thing is we've got an hour 8

left, so as you can comb through the questions, we can 9

go through those in about 45 minutes. That'll leave 10 us a little time at the end to get comments from the 11 public and from the members of the subcommittee.

12 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Again, I was just 13 planning to step through the questions at the highest 14 level. Most of them, or many of them, we've talked 15 about before. This first one just have we defined the 16 right objectives. Second one, we are taking the 17 definition out of NEIMA in terms of what reactors were 18 under construction, given AP-1000 was under 19 construction at the time. Our general thought is that 20 that captures generation three and three-plus type 21 reactors as not needing to be.

22 It's not excluded, but they don't need to 23 be in the scope. And so just a general question about 24 what should be within the scope. You can tell we've 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

76 given some thought, I think, to where we envision this 1

going. But one of the simplest questions remains for 2

Part 53, do we incorporate in, as Dennis I think you 3

mentioned earlier, do you try to incorporate within it 4

the licensing processes, so they'll be sections on 5

licensing, or do you just try to define technical 6

requirements and then refer back to Parts 50 and 52 7

for the licensing part?

8 Again, there's no right or wrong to any of 9

these things. Some of it is just ease and 10 understanding and clarity as to where the rules are.

11 But a question that we have is what do stakeholders 12 think about what Part 53 should look like, whether 13 it's like we describe it or whether it's more narrow 14 to be just technical requirements.

15 A big one, again, this is within the 16 previous figure. The way we're currently thinking the 17 rule might look, this becomes kind of like the 18 foundation or the cornerstones on how the whole part 19 would work is how do you define the performance 20 criteria. And is it possible to define a single set 21 that's possible for all technologies?

22 That would look, again, at the NRC safety 23 goals at the highest level, not necessarily the 24 surrogates that were developed later for light water 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

77 reactors in specific, but going up to the higher level 1

safety goals looking at consequences in terms of off-2 site doses.

3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 4

Kirchner. I'm assuming, since you -- based on what 5

you just said and also the previous idea, I'm assuming 6

that you would take the same approach as 50 and 52 7

with regard to dose limits, which gets into 8

consequences of course. That you wouldn't try -- I 9

mean 10 CFR 100 is 10 CFR 100.

10 You're not going to try and change the 11 outside to 10 CFR 50, 52 part of 10 CFR. In other 12 words, I'm not saying this very well, you would take 13 things like -- and forgive me if I don't remember the 14 exact number. It's 10 CFR 52.34 which talks about 15 contents of applications and demonstrating that the 16 dose at the exclusionary or boundary is less than 17 what, 25 rem per two hours. And at the LPZ, 25 rem 18 for the entire course of the event, et cetera.

19 MR. RECKLEY: Right.

20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I'm assuming we would 21 still use those and put them in 53.

22 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Our interpretation of 23 past commission decisions, including the ones I 24 mentioned, SECY-10-0121, and then even more recently 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

78 SECY-19-0117, is the Commission is telling us those 1

metrics are good enough and are to be used.

2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Good, good. That makes 3

your job a lot simpler actually if you --

4 MR. RECKLEY: Well it does. Yes.

5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yeah. And it provides 6

some agreed upon basis to -- as measures for what's 7

acceptable in terms of --

8 MR. RECKLEY: Right.

9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- consequence to the 10 public. Okay.

11 MR. RECKLEY: And then just as we were 12 having discussions early on, on reg guide 1.233, part 13 of the what we'll need in my view to construct within 14 Part 53 though is that advanced reactors have said 15 that when they incorporate the attributes from the 16 Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, that they are able 17 to meet those criteria and then have margins that are 18 greater than what we've seen historically.

19 And then they want to use those margins to 20 do things like incorporate smaller emergency planning 21 zones, reduce staffing, or other things. And so to 22 me, the trick within Part 53 will be to have -- to use 23 those potential advanced reactor attributes and build 24 within the rule how it interplays with those other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

79 areas to give them the operational flexibility. And 1

that's one of the reasons we built it in as an 2

objective so that we could get some comment and 3

suggestions on that.

4 CHAIR BLEY: I'd remind the members that 5

we wrote a letter not too long ago on the staff's 6

implementation action plan on population-related 7

siting considerations. And then in paper, the staff 8

was not recommending any change in the current rule 9

where Walt was, but it was recommending a change in 10 the guidance for implementing that rule, especially 11 the guidance dealing with population density 12 requirements. And probably, you'll be using these 13 implementation action plans as part of your thinking 14 going forward. I assume that's why they're there.

15 MR. RECKLEY: That's right. And we're 16 trying to tie these things together and make sure we 17 get maximum use out of things like what we just talked 18 about, the reviews that were done of NEI 18-04, and 19 the ongoing reviews of things like TICAP. We want 20 them, if at all possible, to be supportive of what 21 we're doing under Part 53.

22 Risk metrics, more specifically I guess a 23 question. It's related to the previous question on 24 setting up the performance criteria. But to what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

80 degree do we incorporate the safety goals into the 1

regulations? That would be a change in how we've 2

historically treated that particular policy statement, 3

and the consideration of risk insights.

4 So we have a question in that regard:

5 would people expect to see something like a frequency-6 consequence curve in Part 53, or would it be at a 7

higher level and simply talk about managing the risks 8

using appropriate consideration, some higher level 9

language. And then things like frequency-consequence 10 curves, or the target figure would be in guidances.

11 All of these things we'll kind of have to 12 work out and decide as we prepare the rule. And then 13 to the degree that we are already thinking that things 14 will need to go in guidance, we'll have to consider 15 whether the existing guidance is at the right level or 16 whether we need additional guidance.

17 Again, we gave some thought in the 18 rulemaking plan and we talked that we think it should 19 be addressing the whole lifecycle of the facility, not 20 just a licensing framework. But that's what our 21 thinking is. We're looking for feedback.

22 Going to what Walt was mentioning earlier, 23 there's a whole range of terminology. And we realized 24 even in SECY-19-0117, we were using different 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

81 definitions than were in Part 50 and 52. So one 1

question is just on definitions: is it okay for Part 2

53 to define a term different than it's defined in 3

Part 50, or do we need to try to make sure we avoid 4

that kind of confusion within the whole Title 10, if 5

you will?

6 Just a general question on performance-7 based regulation. The Commission, since 1990s, has 8

had a general policy of encouraging risk-informed and 9

performance-based approaches. Just a general question 10 on how we might incorporate performance-based concepts 11 such as the guidance document that was produced back 12 in that timeframe in the early 2000s, NUREG/BR-0303.

13 CHAIR BLEY: Hey, Bill? Can I back you up 14 one? On the definitions, it's not something I usually 15 get too concerned about. But I think it does create 16 difficulties with changing definitions. And I know 17 the staff has put together a glossary of definitions 18 trying to avoid this problem.

19 And, boy, it seems like it would be 20 worthwhile to try to clear that up. I know you got 21 some difficulties now with the NEI document. But 22 being consistent within the regulator offers some real 23 help to people who are trying to use it, although that 24 would require bringing other documents into agreement.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

82 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. I don't disagree, but 1

it's a challenge. Only because --

2 CHAIR BLEY: I get it.

3 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah. Talked about this 4

one. One of the questions that we're raising is that, 5

this goes really back to the objectives, and we had 6

two levels of safety defined under the objectives.

7 One, the traditional reasonable assurance of adequate 8

protection.

9 And then the second one was the provision 10 that we typically use when we are looking at a 11 substantial increase in the overall protection, and we 12 consider costs. So in initial licensing, we don't 13 provide as much clarity on distinguishing between 14 those two criteria.

15 And so this question is just going to 16 stakeholders and say, as we develop this new part, 17 should we be looking at those two things and 18 distinguishing between the two. And even at initial 19 licensing, should we be looking at cost-effectiveness 20 when we're making licensing decisions.

21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, pragmatically, 22 since you brought that one up as a question -- this is 23 Walt Kirchner. Boy, at the initial licensing when you 24 have -- and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

83 for some of these advanced reactors, a paper design.

1 2

You're really not going to have specs or 3

good cost information until you go out in the next 4

step and do the, you know, prepare procurement specs 5

and so on. So it would just pragmatically I think be 6

very difficult to -- it could be open-ended arguments 7

about cost at that phase.

8 I mean, they would be heuristic or 9

estimates maybe falling back on LWR experience and 10 pricing of equipment and such. But I just think that 11 would prove very difficult at the initial stage of a 12 specific license review.

13 MR. RECKLEY: I agree. None of these are 14 easy, and they come with challenges to implement. As 15 you just mentioned, this one would be somewhat hard to 16 say at an early stage we're already deciding there's 17 not a cost-effective -- that there is or isn't a cost-18 effective way if you try to make that decision too 19 early on.

20 The other observation though is that, as 21 we've looked at how we've done backfits on operating 22 plants and even considered putting in place 23 requirements that somebody would need -- would pick up 24 at a future time, a forward-fit requirement, that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

84 initial licensing wasn't talked about in those 1

guidance documents, in the Management Directive 8.4, 2

that provided additional clarity on how we use those 3

provisions for initial license. So the question is 4

should we. You're exactly right, there'll be 5

challenges in trying to do it.

6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: If I'm the designer and 7

I'm submitting my advanced reactor design, you 8

basically if you think about you've got -- you're 9

looking as a designer for a sweet spot. You're 10 balancing cost, reliability, and safety. And they're 11 all interrelated.

12 I would presume that your applicants will 13 come in with their most cost-effective proposal, in 14 their estimation, as their opening gambit. So I just 15 would be concerned that it would be very difficult to 16 get into -- you mentioned backfitting where you have 17 actually a much better basis for making an estimate of 18 the actual cost of the backfit versus the increased --

19 the gain in terms of whatever the metric is, rem 20 avoided or whatever.

21 So my sense is that they will come in to 22 you with their best most cost-effective proposal, and 23 it probably will go in the other direction. I mean, 24 the arguments that will ensue I predict will be, is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

85 this system safety-related or is it not?

1 And if it wasn't safety-related and you 2

insist and they have to change it to be safety-3 related, then it likely would cost more to first 4

order. But, you know, but I think it would be very 5

difficult to make that in the cost an initial factor 6

in your review.

7 MR. RECKLEY: Again, I agree with you to 8

it would be a challenge. You or someone else was 9

asking earlier, how do you make decisions on defense 10 in depth, and when is enough enough?

11 This question is somewhat related to that 12 which is at what point when you're deciding how much 13 additional margin to add, not only do you change the 14 classification of a system maybe from non-safety with 15 special treatment up to safety-related, but when do 16 you even need to have a backup that would even be non-17 safety-related special treatment?

18 Again, I don't have answers. One of the 19 questions is to what degree do we bring in this same 20 logic that we use in the operating fleet to try to 21 make decisions on when is enough enough?

22 This is question 10 on slide 16. Just 23 again, a more general question of how do you take an 24 integrated look and ensure that what you're doing in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

86 terms of safety, security, how emergency preparedness 1

fits in, how do you take this integrated look and make 2

sure that Part 53 has enough? But it also provides 3

the potential for flexibility where the safety 4

features of the reactor might warrant it.

5 This is just a similar question to what we 6

talked about before. We are using, or we could use 7

within the rulemaking, things like NRC Safety Goal 8

Police Statement from 1986. We think the Commission 9

has told us to use that. But as a question to 10 stakeholders, is this an opportunity for us to 11 revisit?

12 One of the questions we put to 13 stakeholders in a public meeting is to what degree is 14 this an opportunity to align ourselves with other 15 international standards? And should the rulemaking 16 try to do that, or just recognize that as you go from 17 country to country, the methodology is generally the 18 same, but recognize that any particular point on a 19 frequency-consequence target figure or any particular 20 offsite dose criteria might change from country to 21 country.

22 Again, the methodology will generally fit, 23 but as you do your assessment, you still might need to 24 make either different arguments or even potentially 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

87 make modifications to address the differences between 1

standards. Again, it's a generally broad question of 2

whether we should maintain what we have, or use this 3

as an opportunity to look elsewhere, or look for 4

tweaking the guidance, or tweaking the requirements in 5

this case by changing what will go into Part 53.

6 Quality assurance, this was an issue 7

people mentioned back in 2006, is some of these 8

questions are basically the same questioned we asked 9

back in 2006 in that ANPR. And whether there's an 10 alternative to how we're currently doing quality 11 assurance. Not that quality assurance doesn't remain 12 fundamentally important, but is there time now that we 13 might look for different ways to do it?

14 And now that you have QA organizations 15 surrounding NQA-1. You have additional standards on 16 the international arena. You have a whole set of ISO 17 standards. So just a general question of whether we 18 could revisit how that's done. This one goes to the 19 guidance and standards area. If we're going to 20 develop a Part 53, it'll have a large -- it could 21 potentially have the need for a large number of 22 standards and guidance documents.

23 So this question is to stakeholders, are 24 we going to have either standard-development 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

88 organizations or NEI or Nuclear Industry Council or 1

some other group identify potential guidance documents 2

that we could endorse. Or to the degree there are 3

needed guidance documents will it fall on the staff to 4

try to develop those as we're doing the proposed rule?

5 And then the catch-all question 14 which 6

is just, you know, these were just some initial 7

questions. We boil down the strong events and then we 8

boil down the 60 or so that was offered in 2006 to 14 9

questions. But are there other matters that we didn't 10 identify that people want to bring up?

11 So with that, Dennis, we're open to the 12 broader discussion and then also maybe the path 13 forward in terms of starting to talk about when we 14 might come back.

15 CHAIR BLEY: Yeah. I think that's good.

16 But first, let's go to the members and see if any have 17 more questions or want to say anything about the 18 questions you folks have posed.

19 MEMBER PETTI: So, Bill, this is Dave 20 Petti. I didn't hear a lot about certification about 21 the overall approach, which is something I hear in the 22 advanced reactor community a lot. In terms of how you 23 weigh all these questions, it just seems to me that 24 simplification and the schedule is being imposed from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

89 the outside, they answer your questions for you 1

instead of, say, the more thoughtful approach.

2 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, I can't really hear 3

you.

4 CHAIR BLEY: That was Dave Petti.

5 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, Dave? He's speaking 6

very softly. I couldn't hear him. I didn't know if 7

it was your connection or what but I just --

8 MR. CORRADINI: I think, Charlie -- this 9

is same as Corradini. I barely hear you, Dave.

10 You're very muffled.

11 CHAIR BLEY:

Well, he asked some 12 questions. If Bill heard him, maybe he can respond.

13 If not, maybe Dave can say them again.

14 MR. RECKLEY: Well, I'll summarize, Dave, 15 and push back if I mischaracterize it. But Dave's 16 primary point was simplification in both design and I 17 think expectations for what would be in Part 53. And 18 we hear those. The other thing I would point to in 19 Part 53 in addition to trying to make sure we're able 20 to address simpler designs, ones that are using more 21 inherent and passive features, is when you try to make 22 this rulemaking technology-inclusive, our preliminary 23 thinking is that pushes you up higher to be more 24 general, to be simpler in what the rule requires.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

90 The counter to that, as some other people 1

have raised, is you are now perhaps less clear because 2

you're now saying you're up at a functional level in 3

terms of what you're imposing in asking applicants and 4

designers to provide. So that'll be I think one of 5

the primary challenges, is to try to balance the --

6 what I'm looking at now, the Part 53 rulemaking, the 7

simplicity that we want to maintain and keeping it up 8

at a high level, and then the tradeoff with clarity 9

because the higher you get, most likely, the less 10 clear you are.

11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Bill, this is Walt 12 Kirchner. If I might make a specific observation, and 13 also given the schedule that you're likely going to 14 have to work against, it seems to me that one would --

15 borrow is not the right word, but use what are 16 accepted metrics that are well-defined or actually, 17 how should I say it, that can be calculated by the 18 applicants.

19 And I'm referring again specifically to 20 the dose at the exclusionary boundary and the LPZ, and 21 rather than the safety goals themselves. I have the 22 safety goals right in front of me, as you were 23 speaking, and I just quickly looked at them again.

24 And I think that if you were -- just what you were 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

91 saying, if you go that high a level, you open the door 1

for endless arguments.

2 And even the safety goal statement, which 3

I have in front of me, points out that there are 4

sizeable uncertainties still present. Now this was 5

written -- and I'm talking about the quantitative 6

parts of the safety goals. When was this written? In 7

'86. I would submit there's still large uncertainties 8

in terms of the relative measures versus, you know, 9

the more qualitative goals.

10 So if you use that, I just don't see how 11 you get to closure. It seems to be a much better path 12 as to use what is accepted as a surrogate for the 13 safety goals in the case of dose there at the EAB and 14 the LPZ, and then do things like the paper Dennis 15 reminded us of your proposal on how to then take the 16 existing regulations and provide guidance in terms of 17 determining, like, LPZ.

18 And that to me would pragmatically let you 19 get to closure in a reasonable timeframe. If it gets 20 too high-level, I just don't know that you can get to 21 closure. Or you don't get to closure with the 22 applicants because of the large uncertainties in the 23 actual licensing process, if indeed they're going to 24 compare against the safety goals. You see what I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

92 saying?

1 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I do. Again, and 2

that'll be the challenge. I think our initial 3

thinking is that we would probably end up using both.

4 But both the traditional 25 rem at the low population 5

zone, or EAB. And in addition, somehow using the 6

safety goals. But how we do that, that'll be part of 7

the discussion as we try to set up what the 8

performance requirements would be.

9 MEMBER BROWN: I would just echo Walt's 10 thoughts a little bit because the lack of specificity 11 or what people term as prescriptive requirements just 12 increases uncertainty and an increase number of RAIs 13 and back-and-forths on why you're doing it this way 14 vice the other, and it becomes very difficult to close 15 those out. That's a real worry to me as well. I'm not 16 trying to argue one way or the other, I'm just saying 17 that is a problem.

18 MR. RECKLEY: And we'll be looking for 19 real smart people to help us with that, like you guys.

20 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not so sure anybody, or 21 there's enough smart people in the world to do that.

22 There's always a -- I mean, a typical example in my 23 area is control of access that we keep fighting over 24 on every design in terms of do you give people a door 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

93 that's software-controlled out to the outside world, 1

that they can come in if they want to, or do you just 2

close the door based on hardware? That's a specific 3

thing.

4 That's just my own parochial area that I 5

have to deal with. I just think you can fight about 6

that forever and say, well, gee, I can do it whatever 7

way I want. Well, no. We don't want the door open.

8 somewhere, you're the regulator and you're responsible 9

for safety. Your ultimate issue is safety. Sometime 10 you have to say, no, do it this way. I can see that 11 being we're falling away from that in some 12 circumstances. That's always the other argument that 13 seems to want to prevail. That's my thought process 14 relative to Walt's comment.

15 MR. CORRADINI: So, Bill? This is 16 Corradini.

17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir.

18 MR. CORRADINI: Can you hear me?

19 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, sir. I can.

20 MR. CORRADINI: Okay. So let me ask you 21 a couple of pointed questions, and you tell me that 22 that's to be determined. So I'm thinking about this 23 relative to a research reactor as an alternative. In 24 a research reactor, whether it be one megawatt, or a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

94 few megawatts, or a sub-megawatt in size, I don't have 1

to worry about external manmade hazards.

2 Is there a power size here that's going to 3

say that if I'm below a certain power size, I don't 4

have to worry about external manmade hazards, or must 5

I consider it regardless? And then I add to that 6

concern about multiple modules.

7 If I decide that I have a small machine 8

and meets all the new criteria of the new 10 CFR 53, 9

does that mean it's on a per-module basis, or is it a 10 population of modules on a site? Are those things 11 going to be identified in 53, or did I miss a question 12 in that area?

13 MR. RECKLEY: Well, they'll need to be 14 addressed in Part 53 in terms of the natural -- I 15 mean, manmade hazards, and to some degree even natural 16 hazards. It, on approach can be as you identify those 17 top-level criteria that I mention back in the figure, 18 the purple box, what are the dose criteria, what are 19 the risk metrics.

20 Then you can look and see in terms of 21 hazards, manmade or natural, is there a way -- I guess 22 my response would be you have to address it. But one 23 way to address it might be there's no way for a 24 manmade hazard or some other hazard to challenge those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

95 performance metrics. And so if I look at a manmade 1

hazard related to, let's say, toxic gases, if I have 2

a plant that doesn't require people -- so I'm building 3

a house of cards here, but if I have a plant that 4

doesn't require people, then maybe my concern about 5

toxic gases is less.

6 A design feature, like putting a plant 7

underground, might be able to address something like 8

explosions from a nearby railroad line, or an aircraft 9

crash. So they will need to address all of those 10 things, but they might be able to address them by 11 having design features that show that those hazards 12 can't challenge the safety metrics that are 13 established within the part. In terms of multiplant 14 versus -- or multiunit, you know, NEI --

15 MR. CORRADINI: Bill, whatever you want to 16 call it.

17 MR. RECKLEY: Right. NEI 18-04 was set up 18 on per plant basis, which is different than Part 50.

19 One of the questions, maybe we should have added it, 20 is a question would be, should Part 53 be set up that 21 way. When we said throughout the development of the 22 Part 53 that we would build off of things like Reg 23 Guide 1.233, it does provide us a vehicle to go to 24 multimodule, and address it perhaps more clearly than 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

96 Part 50 has.

1 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. Thanks, Bill. We're 2

nearing the end, but I'm going to -- I'm sorry, we'll 3

get a chance to go around and have members make 4

comments. While Bill's still up, let's only address 5

questions to him and save comments for a couple of 6

minutes from now. Go ahead, Vesna. You had 7

something?

8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, I'm going to 9

save comments when we go around.

10 CHAIR BLEY: Perfect.

11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I don't have any 12 question, I just have a comment.

13 CHAIR BLEY: Perfect. Anybody else have 14 a question? Then at this point, I'm going to thank 15 Bill very much, and all of his staff who helped out on 16 this for giving us the status of where they are. When 17 we go around to members, I'm also going to ask you 18 about October. If we would have an October meeting, 19 I would ask the staff to have a very short 20 presentation just on Part 53.

21 And the reason we'd do that is if we want 22 to write a letter. I'm inclined that it'd be a good 23 time to send a letter to the Commission, just a short 24 one, saying we're on board, we're following this. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

97 we have a couple of issues, if we do, that we want to 1

make sure the staff pursues. But we'll get to that in 2

the minute.

3 Are there any members of the public either 4

on the web broadcast or on the outside line who would 5

like to make a comment? Please make sure the outside 6

line is open for us, our staff.

7 OPERATOR: The line is open for comments.

8 CHAIR BLEY: Okay. Is there anyone from 9

the public who would like to make a comment? If so, 10 give us your name and your comment.

11 MR. LYMAN: Hello. This is Ed Lyman from 12 the Union of Concerned Scientists. Can you hear me?

13 CHAIR BLEY: Yes, Ed. We can. Please go 14 ahead.

15 MR. LYMAN: Yeah, hi. Yeah, so I 16 appreciate this meeting. I'd just like to say that 17 UCS did not oppose the passage of NEIMA, and we 18 testified twice that we have a neutral position. The 19 reason why we didn't oppose it is because we believe 20 that it gave the Commission enough discretion and did 21 not micro-manage what to do vis-a-vis licensing 22 advanced reactors.

23 And so we didn't oppose it because we 24 thought the Commission, you know, with that discretion 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

98 and with the competence of the technical staff that it 1

would do the right thing. But I'm starting to regret 2

that decision. And that is because I don't believe 3

this is going in the right direction. And I do 4

appreciate some of the concerns I heard raised by 5

members about the ambiguous and the amorphous nature 6

of what's taking place here.

7 The potential for not only having 8

discretion on how standards are met, but also what the 9

standards actually are. And that seems like an 10 invitation to chaos. And I don't think the vendors, 11 if that's what they thing is going to help make their 12 lives easier in trying to license these reactors, I 13 think they have surprises ahead because I don't see 14 how this -- how weakening or making standards more 15 ambiguous is going to actually help in resolving these 16 issues, many of the difficult issues that we heard 17 with how do you license paper designs with very 18 limited operating experience, or no operating 19 experience with a very weak or sparse experimental 20 database with regard to only important factors that 21 would need to go into these determinations such as 22 mechanistic source term.

23 So I'm very concerned about this, and I do 24 hope that the committee will express it's concerns, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

99 and hold the feet to the fire because I don't think 1

that the Commission's political leadership is actually 2

safeguarding public health and safety in this respect.

3 On that note, I can't think of any other regulator 4

that is so content with not imposing stricter safety 5

standards on future facilities.

6 So we have this whole enterprise is based 7

on this artifice that the Commission expects advanced 8

reactors to be safer, and it's building a regulatory 9

infrastructure based on that expectation. But as we 10 heard Bill Reckley say multiple times, even for 11 designs that have some inherent safety features, that 12 the vendors are going to look for ways to use that 13 margin in other ways.

14 And so without a strict or a compelling 15 mandate from the Commission that you have at the end 16 is going to be in return fleet, you're going to end up 17 with reactors, you know, possibly locking for decades 18 to come with using the additional margin up in getting 19 relief for things like EPZ security and safety already 20 in the system. So that just doesn't make sense to me 21 for a forward-thinking agency.

22 And so I would encourage everyone to think 23 about how to make plants safer in the future rather 24 than just embrace the status quo. For instance, rely 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

100 on the safety goals, which were developed decades ago 1

specifically so the parent fleet would meet them is 2

not an appropriate parameter to use if you're going to 3

use a new criteria. So that's my comment, and I 4

appreciate your time. Thank you.

5 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Ed. And we 6

have your comments on the transcript. We appreciate 7

them. Anyone --

8 MEMBER BROWN: Someone was just speaking.

9 Dennis, who was just speaking? It got garbled on my 10 end.

11 CHAIR BLEY: That was Ed Lyman from the 12 Union of Concerned Scientists.

13 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. I just wanted to 14 comment I actually agree with him, a good bit of what 15 he said. So thank you, Ed.

16 CHAIR BLEY: Anyone else have a comment 17 from the public line? Okay, we're going to close the 18 public line and come back to --

19 OPERATOR: Public line is closed.

20 CHAIR BLEY: I'm sorry, who?

21 OPERATOR: Public line is now closed.

22 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, I'm sorry. Hear 23 while I was talking. I'm now going to go around to 24 the committee members. And I think this time, I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

101 going to call people by name, because I'm looking for 1

general comments and also specific thoughts if we 2

should write a letter in October to at least lay out 3

a few things that we want to bring to the staff's 4

attention, and to let the Commission know that we're 5

tracking this at this point in time. So let's go to 6

Ron Ballinger.

7 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yeah. I agree with 8

your comment related to we should meet and have a 9

letter.

I'm talking as a

metallurgist now.

10 Historically, we have had painful experience with 11 respect to things that pop up in a design as we build 12 it and over history. And they're largely related to, 13 at least on the materials side, degradation that 14 occurs that we didn't anticipate.

15 So I'm curious as to whether or not 16 consideration, since Bill says we have an option, we 17 actually have a clean sheet of paper, whether 18 something could be incorporated in the requirements to 19 take a look at what some famous government official 20 has termed unknown unknowns. And I don't know how you 21 do that, but it seems to me that there's an 22 opportunity here.

23 We have an example of an unknown unknown 24 that we're dealing with, with another plant design 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

102 right now. And so I'm just curious as to whether that 1

some consideration should be given to that. Thank 2

you.

3 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Ron. And maybe make 4

some notes on that to have around come October.

5 That'd be useful. Charlie?

6 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I've made most of my 7

comments.

8 CHAIR BLEY: Back to your earlier comment.

9 MEMBER BROWN: I've made most of my 10 comments earlier. But one of my general concerns I 11 would echo Lyman's comment relative to everybody's 12 assuming these advanced reactors are going to be safer 13 and have more margin, but margin tends to get used to 14 generate more power.

15 And based on the few designs, very few, 16 there's a lot of other aspects to some of these 17 designs that add other non-safe factors to how they 18 operate and their waste products. So I'm not quite as 19 confident that these new advanced reactors are all 20 safer than the pressurized waters, which had a very 21 definitive nature of unsafeness that we have to deal 22 with, and we know what it is.

23 I'm worried about so much generality in 24 the high level we'll be fighting about it, and we'll 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

103 end up not being able to get a plant defined very 1

well. And so that's my general concern, is an 2

overarching concern. So I'll be quiet now and let 3

somebody else go on.

4 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Charlie. Now 5

Vesna?

6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. I found the 7

button to activate my microphone. Okay. I can 8

actually -- I mean, I have too many notes actually to 9

talk about that, so I will just keep this on high 10 level. I think we definitely should write the letter 11 about that. One is to address the questions.

12 I mean, which we couldn't do in all of 13 those, my notes, if I, you know, go through them now 14 where I can talk for half-hour. So I think that 15 writing letter to address some of the questions from 16 this presentation, and maybe to talk about licenses 17 through our review of the advanced plants and some 18 things like that, how would that help in the new 19 regulation.

20 I mean, what issues did we notice that the 21 regulation has an issue with it needs some, you know, 22 exemptions and things like this. I think that can be 23 very helpful. On the high level, I just want to say 24 the following, that's it's no -- I mean, I don't think 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

104 the human race will progress if we always try to 1

address all the risk associated with different things.

2 And obviously when we are meeting with 3

some totally new designs, we will not be able to do 4

that. So we can make an honest attempt to, you know, 5

keep this as safe as our understanding in this moment, 6

but we will have to learn, you know, with every new 7

technology, new lessons.

8 So in my opinion, I think it's very good 9

to keep this as simple as possible on this level. We 10 were talking about cost-effective designs, but we also 11 should talk about cost-effective regulation because we 12 should really make this the practice going through 13 approval not to be too complex, because the complexity 14 doesn't really help in identifying important issues.

15 It often, actually buries them.

16 So in order to keep this simple enough, I 17 think it's also the selection of what is going to be 18 criteria or risk matrix or criteria to -- what to base 19 regulation on, that's very important to see how 20 complex this regulation will become, you know. So for 21 example, I'm not big fan as you know of the F-C curve.

22 And because I think it's already complex and could 23 lead to the many, you know, different combinations and 24 different answers requires the source terms for so 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

105 many, you know, sequences, groups and things like 1

that.

2 And that can be also as an option, but it 3

should be open to other approaches to the measures of 4

risk. And one other thing, which I always also think 5

is extremely important, it will be very good to run 6

some example how would that actually look in actual 7

application.

8 And since we only have example of the 9

existing plants or the advanced plants, which have the 10 PRAs which are extremely complex, and example can be 11 very complex. We can actually run it just on one 12 attendant group. So simplify just to see example how 13 would this all go through the process. That's it.

14 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Vesna. And 15 for all members, if you get a chance to summarize your 16 thoughts, then send them to me sometime over the next 17 few months, that would be very helpful. I'll probably 18 send out a reminder. Walt, let's go to you. We have 19 your comment from a few minutes ago.

20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.

21 CHAIR BLEY: Any other comments?

22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I've made a lot of 23 comments already so I should be brief. Just yes to 24 the letter. And what was not clear to me, it doesn't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

106 have to be answered here, but whether 10 CFR 53 would 1

be a one-or two-step process, or some hybrid. And 2

address some of what I see problems in 10 CFR 52. And 3

I'll just stop there.

4 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you. Yeah, I guess 5

that comes under a kind of a lessons learned Vesna was 6

talking about. After Walt, Jose.

7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Hello. Yeah, this is 8

Jose. I'll also be short. I think we should have a 9

letter, and I would like to schedule sometime to make 10 like the advertisers do with focus groups. Just have 11 a letter and go line-by-line changing the grammar, but 12 try to reach a consensus of the group.

13 On the advice, I'm going with the 14 following same advice that many of the members have 15 already said, but attack it from a different point.

16 My concern has always been, right, recently is the 17 NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, is an excellent 18 document.

19 I mean, it's the best invention since 20 sliced bread for locating reactors because it accepts 21 all of the built-up experience, the crowd-sourcing of 22 everything that can happen to one of these reactors.

23 The tendency on new reactors is to start with that, 24 and remove the items that don't apply, instead of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

107 trying to seek outside the box and say what is my 1

reactor applying -- that is not covered by the SRP.

2 So when one identifies the DBEs, maybe I don't think 3

it's a rule, but we need to make sure to say that the 4

SRP is not the beginning -- it's not the endpoint, 5

it's only the beginning. Look outside of it for your 6

reactor particular things. Okay. And that's it.

7 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you very much, Jose.

8 Dave Petti?

9 MEMBER PETTI: So my greatest concern is 10 how complex this could potentially be for designs that 11 will be much less mature than what historically has 12 come to the Commission. And I'm just wondering if 13 there's a way to have some pilot projects that could 14 be done that even the ACRS could participate in to 15 help us all just get a better understanding of what we 16 think the issues are or could be to help, you know, 17 get this over the finish line. That's it.

18 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks very much, Dave. Joy?

19 MEMBER REMPE: This time I'm slow on the 20 button. Yeah, I would like to see us do a letter. I 21 guess I have to quickly point out that when I became 22 a parent, I realized that I had not thought of things 23 that my kids could do to say, no, that's now what you 24 should. A new rule was imposed.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

108 And I'm looking at this figure on slide 1

five thinking about the scope, as I've mentioned 2

earlier. So I hope in our letter that we talk about 3

the need to, as other members have said, to think 4

outside the box because of new chemical issues and 5

hazards, transportation hazards. And if we're going 6

to do the whole lifecycle, we've never really thought 7

a whole lot about the waste maybe, and the way we 8

should, because we haven't as a country been able to 9

address it.

10 And maybe we should think about that too 11 in the lifecycle diagram. And so anyway, I would like 12 to see us discuss that in our own letter. And I liked 13 Jose's idea about having discussion times for the 14 points, although I know you'll probably have a draft 15 you circulate. But it might make it more effective on 16 how we generate the letter. Thank you.

17 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks, Joy. Matt?

18 MEMBER SENSERI: Thank you, Dennis. The 19 members have raised some very important points here in 20 my judgment, and I don't have anything that I'll add 21 on top of that. So I would think that the points are 22 value-added, and that we should come together as a 23 committee, get consensus, and provide our formal 24 thoughts in the form of a letter, and that's all I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

109 have. Thank you to the staff for the good 1

presentations today.

2 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Matt. Now I think 3

I'll turn to our consultant, Mike Corradini. Are you 4

still there, Mike?

5 MR. CORRADINI: Yes, sir. I am. Can you 6

hear me?

7 CHAIR BLEY: Clear as a bell.

8 MR. CORRADINI: Okay. So in going through 9

all the members' comments, I think the one that I want 10 to come back to, Vesna went through a series of what 11 I'll call bullet points to kind of match exactly what 12 concerns me.

13 And I think Dave said it best, which is we 14 have to find at least a pathway through this because 15 however much we say these are new advanced reactors, 16 none of these things haven't been thought of in the 17 1950s. We might have new technologies that can be 18 applied to them, whether it be to instrumentation or 19 monitoring or materials, but these reactor concepts 20 have been around.

21 So it's not that the concepts are new, 22 it's a matter of how you essentially work with them 23 relative to a licensing framework. And since staff 24 wants to do a licensing framework that goes beyond 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

110 just licensing of a particular reactor type, I really 1

do think we've got to keep it as simple as possible.

2 Just because it's simple doesn't mean that the process 3

is going to be non-conservative.

4 Just the opposite. You can think of it by 5

keeping the same safety goals, whether it be the 6

qualitative safety goals or the quantitative safety 7

goals of CDF and large release frequency, or large 8

release, radioactivity release. And still be more 9

conservative in terms of how you estimate these 10 advanced designs and how they perform, and still do a 11 good job of it.

12 So my thought is to keep it as simple as 13 possible. And I would just simply go back to what 14 Vesna said, is she had three or four points relative 15 to that, and try to at least do this. Now my 16 recommendation would be that the ACRS get involved in 17 this early and often.

18 Without that, we're going to come back to 19 this and eventually and have all the same questions.

20 And I think this possibly may be the one good example 21 that the Commission wants ACRS input from the 22 beginning. And so to the extent that, Dennis, you 23 feel comfortable with it, I think you want to do this 24 as much as possible. That's it, thank you.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

111 CHAIR BLEY: Thanks so much, Mike. Gee, 1

I'm happily surprised by all the comments from the 2

members. I had a whole list of things I wanted to 3

talk about, and I don't think --

4 MEMBER BROWN: Dennis, Dennis?

5 CHAIR BLEY: Yeah, Charlie. Go ahead.

6 MEMBER BROWN: I forgot one point when I 7

was making mine, and it goes along with Mike's comment 8

about the -- I forgot how he phrased it, simplicity or 9

not getting too complicated. Bill's comments on their 10 slide three relative to separating the design 11 operational programmatic from existing licensing 12 processes relative to permits, Part 50 and 52.

13 And that was an interesting comment 14 because if we're going down this path, it seems to me 15 you could simply this process if you did separate 16 them. In other words, use what's out there for what 17 I call the hammer-and-tongs part of the business as 18 opposed to the more advanced thinking and advanced 19 reactor concept part, which is the first part in terms 20 of the regulations and technical standards. I meant 21 to say that in my ending comments, and I'm sorry for 22 interrupting you, so.

23 CHAIR BLEY: Thank you, Charlie. I kind 24 of got it, but we'll have it in the transcript. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

112 for everyone, if you made some notes and you would be 1

happy to send them to me, and I would appreciate that.

2 I do have a couple of quick things. I agree with 3

almost everything all of my colleagues have said.

4 I would like to talk some time in the next 5

couple weeks with Derek, and maybe you can set this up 6

Derek, but also Larry and Scott, for how we can 7

legitimately do something like the focus group that 8

was suggested by Jose. We talked about doing 9

something like this in the past, and we've never 10 really implemented it.

11 But given this is going to take a few 12 years, and it's of lasting importance, I think it 13 would be good for us to really hash out among 14 ourselves our thoughts before we engage further with 15 everyone. Bill, you're probably surprised that we 16 need a letter, but we leaned so far that way that I 17 think we should count on having a meeting in October, 18 and a letter.

19 And I will ask, and we'll work through 20 Derek on this, but we just have a presentation on Part 21

53. Somebody turn off their microphone. On Part 53 22 and fairly short because all but one of us was here at 23 this meeting. I got involved in something, it took me 24 back through the history a lot in recent months. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

113 there's an interesting history on the tech specs and 1

the design criteria and how they came about.

2 But also our committee was pretty much 3

opposed to the design criteria as being nothing more 4

than sort of mom and apple pie. But after several 5

years, both the Commission and the vendors and the 6

staff convinced the committee that the value of all 7

these things were all clear to the folks at the time 8

they needed to be considered.

9 The value was it made it clear to people 10 submitting applications what they need to consider.

11 And that issue of taking out some of the variability 12 in the licensing process was a key part of that. At 13 this point, we'll be going forward. I don't think we 14 have any more time.

15 And I guess there's another meeting coming 16 up in about an hour. Thanks to everyone to today and 17 especially further discussions from the staff. And I 18 thank our former member, Rich Denning, for coming in 19 to explain his comments. At this point, the meeting 20 is adjourned.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 22 went off the record at 1:02 p.m.)

23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

July 20, 2020 1

ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee Regulatory Guide 1.233 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors

2 NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development (Draft Revision N, September 2018)

Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) -1353 (September 2018)

Draft SECY Paper (September 2018)

ACRS Subcommittee and Full Committee (February 2019)

Meetings ACRS Letter Dated March 19, 2019 ACRS Interactions

3 Post-ACRS Activities Issuance of DG-1353 for public comment (April 2019)

- One public comment received (R. Denning & V. Mubayi)

NEI 18-04, Revision 1 (August 2019)

(no significant changes from Draft Revision N)

Issuance of SECY-19-0117 (December 2019)

Commissions Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) related to SECY-19-0117 (May 26, 2020)

Issuance of RG-1.233 (June 2020)

(minimal changes from DG-1353)

4 The development and interpretation of the frequency-consequence curve proposed to be endorsed in DG-1353 does not have a strong technical basis. An underlying weakness of the proposed logic of assessing each candidate licensing basis event is that results could be influenced by the way an analyst chooses to define and group event scenarios. A better approach would be to consider a frequency-consequence curve as not only a tool for assessing individual licensing basis events but also as a bound on the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of accident sequences.

(ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457)

Public Comment

5 Disposition of Public Comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML20091L696)

The staff agrees that the approach described by the commenters may be a viable alternative to the methodology described in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04.

Suggested approach (complementary cumulative distribution function) offers some advantages in terms of supporting the assessment of cumulative risk and the contributions from various licensing basis events.

The methodology in DG-1353 and NEI 18-04 includes assessments of cumulative risks (e.g., a comparison to the NRCs safety goals)

6 Disposition of Public Comment NEI 18-04 methodology supports the established objectives o

Identification and assessment of licensing basis events; o

Establishing safety classifications and performance criteria for plant features; and o

supporting evaluations of defense in depth

  • Issues related to defining event sequences are expected to be addressed by the implementation of consensus standards, integrated decisionmaking processes, peer reviews of probabilistic risk assessments, and the reviews performed by the NRC staff.
  • For these reasons, the staff has determined that the methodology described in DG-1353 remains one acceptable approach for informing the licensing basis for advanced reactors and decided not to alter the guidance documents as requested.

7 SRM dated May 26, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20147A504)

The Commission has approved the use of the technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based methodology described in this paper as a reasonable approach for establishing key parts of the licensing basis and content of applications for licenses, certifications, and approvals for non-light-water reactors.

The staff should remain open to continuous, critical examination of its thinking regarding approaches and metrics for the licensing of this coming class of advanced reactors.

In its work on the regulatory framework for advanced reactors, the staff should continue to recognize that the Commissions established policy on the application of the safety goals and safety performance expectations provides an acceptable minimum safety standard for new reactors while taking into account the need to adapt the aspects of our current regulatory framework for reactors that provide operational flexibility based on risk assessment, such as the more than minimal increases in risk test in Section 50.59, the Maintenance Rule of Section 50.65, and the quality assurance criteria of Appendix B to reflect the significantly lower risks inherent in the design of advanced reactors.

8 Possible Future Interactions Design-specific applications 10 CFR Part 53, Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Mechanistic Source Term INL/EXT-20-58717, Revision 0, Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities, June 2020 Draft Regulatory Guide - Technology-Inclusive Content of Applications (TICAP)

Regulatory Guidance - Advanced Reactor Content of Applications (ARCAP)

Content beyond TICAP/Licensing Modernization Project Construction Permit Applications Microreactor issues (pending information SECY paper)

SECY Paper - Staffing Issues (Licensed Operators, Autonomous Operations, Remote Operations)

9 Questions/Discussion

10 Backup: Event Selection & Analysis

11 Backup: Public Comment Example - complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF)

See public comment, ADAMS Accession No. ML19158A457

12 Backup: Risk-Significant SSCs A prevention or mitigation function of the SSC is necessary to meet the design objective of keeping all LBEs within the F-C target.

The LBE is considered within the F-C target when a point defined by the upper 95%-tile uncertainty of the LBE frequency and dose estimates are within the F-C target.

The SSC makes a significant contribution to one of the cumulative risk metrics used for evaluating the risk significance of LBEs.

A significant contribution to each cumulative risk metric limit is satisfied when total frequency of all LBEs with failure of the SSC exceeds 1% of the cumulative risk metric limit. The cumulative risk metrics and limits include:

  • The total frequency of exceeding of a site boundary dose of 100 mrem <1/plant-year (10 CFR 20)
  • The average individual risk of early fatality within 1 mile of the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) < 5x10 -7/ plant-year (QHO)
  • The average individual risk of latent cancer fatalities within 10 miles of the EAB shall not exceed 2x10-6/plant-year (QHO)

13 Backup: Safety-Significant SSCs All Plant SSCs PRA Modeled SSCs Safety-Significant SSCs Risk-Significant SSCs Safety-Related SSCs An SSC that performs a function whose performance is necessary to achieve adequate defense-in-depth or is classified as Risk-Significant (see Risk-Significant SSC).

Summary

July 20, 2020 1

ACRS Future Plants Subcommittee 10 CFR Part 53 Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors

2 Background

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Approaches to Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors, dated May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267)

NRCs Vision and Strategy report (12/16) for non-light-water reactors and related implementation action plans identified a potential rulemaking to establish a regulatory framework Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA; Public Law 115-439) signed into law in January 2019 requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use for commercial advanced nuclear reactors no later than December 2027

3 Background - NEIMA (1) ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORThe term advanced nuclear reactor means a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant with significant improvements compared to commercial nuclear reactors under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act, (9) REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term regulatory framework means the framework for reviewing requests for certifications, permits, approvals, and licenses for nuclear reactors.

(14) TECHNOLOGY-INCLUSIVE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe term technology-inclusive regulatory framework means a regulatory framework developed using methods of evaluation that are flexible and practicable for application to a variety of reactor technologies, including, where appropriate, the use of risk-informed and performance-based techniques and other tools and methods.

4 SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan SECY-20-0032, Rulemaking Plan on Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors, dated April 13, 2020 Proposing a new 10 CFR part that could address performance requirements, design features, and programmatic controls for a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactors throughout the life of a facility.

Focus the rulemaking on risk-informed functional requirements, building on existing NRC requirements, Commission policy statements, and recent activities (e.g.,

SECY-19-0117)

Expect extensive interactions with external stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on the content of the rule.

5 Retirement Design Changes Configuration Control Surveillance Maintenance Operation Testing Construction System Design Functional Design Analyses (Prevention, Mitigation, Compare to Criteria)

LB Documents (Applications, SAR, TS, etc.)

Plant/Site (Design, Construction, Configuration Control)

Requirements Definition Fundamental Safety Functions Prevention, Mitigation, Performance Criteria (e.g., F-C Targets)

Normal Operations (e.g., effluents)

Other Technology Inclusive Regulatory Framework Project Life Cycle Clarify Controls and Distinctions Between Plant Documents (Systems, Procedures, etc.)

6 Example - Possible Layout General Provisions Technology-Inclusive Safety Objectives o Regulatory limits, safety goals Design Requirements Siting Construction and Manufacturing Requirements Requirements for Operation Decommissioning Requirements Applications for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals Maintaining and Revising Licensing Basis Information Reporting and Administrative Requirements

7 NRC Staff White Paper The NRC staff developed a white paper (ADAMS ML20195A270) to support discussions with ACRS and other stakeholders Soliciting information that:

1)

Defines the scope of stakeholder interest in a rulemaking to develop a technology inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors, 2)

Identifies major issues and challenges related to technology-inclusive approaches to licensing and regulating a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs, 3)

Supports prioritizing and developing plans to resolve identified issues within the rulemaking for the wide variety of advanced nuclear reactor designs, and 4)

Supports the development of the proposed rule and related guidance.

Staff receptive to feedback on any aspect of developing a technology-inclusive regulatory framework to support the regulatory objective, whether or not in response to a question listed in this white paper or future solicitations.

8 Part 53 Rulemaking Objectives 1)

Provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security at reactor sites at which advanced nuclear reactor designs are deployed, to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors; 2)

Protect health and minimize danger to life or property to at least the same degree of protection as required for current-generation light water reactors; 3)

Provide greater operational flexibilities where supported by enhanced margins of safety that may be provided in advanced nuclear reactor designs; 4)

Ensure that the requirements for licensing and regulating advanced nuclear reactors are clear and appropriate; and 5)

Identify, define, and resolve additional areas of concern related to the licensing and regulation of advanced nuclear reactors.

9 Questions for Public Feedback 1.

Regulatory Objectives: Are the regulatory objectives, as articulated above, understandable and achievable? If not, why not? Should there be additional objectives? If so, please describe the additional objectives and explain the reasons for including them.

2.

Scope and Types of Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Should the scope of the rulemaking be limited to advanced nuclear reactors as defined in NEIMA or should the scope include all future applications for licenses, certifications, or approvals for commercial nuclear reactors regardless of design?

10 Questions for Public Feedback 3.

Technical Requirements versus Licensing Process: Should the framework focus only on those regulations related to technical standards (i.e., design, operational and programmatic requirements) and rely on the existing licensing processes in Parts 50 (e.g., construction permit and operating license) and 52 (e.g., early site permit, combined license, etc.) or should the framework develop a new alternative licensing process that looks different than the existing processes? If the latter, what should this new licensing process look like? Should this new process be self-contained, such that it would provide its own licensing, procedural, administrative, and reporting requirements?

11 Questions for Public Feedback 4.

Performance Criteria: NEIMA calls for a technology-inclusive framework for advanced nuclear reactors, which encompasses a wide range of reactor technologies and power levels. To what extent should the NRC try to define a single set of performance criteria for all technologies and sizes (e.g., estimated offsite doses from postulated events),

versus developing specific regulatory approaches for different categories of advanced nuclear reactors such as microreactors and fusion reactors?

12 Questions for Public Feedback 5.

Risk Metrics: In a risk-informed performance-based regulatory regime, should risk metrics be included in the regulations? Possible examples of risk metrics include the quantitative health objectives described in the NRCs Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants Policy Statement (51 FR 28004, Aug. 4, 1986, as corrected and republished, 51 FR 30028, Aug. 21, 1986) and the frequency-consequence targets described in SECY 0117, Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors.

13 Questions for Public Feedback 6.

Facility Life Cycle: How could the new Part 53 licensing and regulatory framework align with the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of an advanced nuclear reactor facilitys life cycle?

7.

Definitions: Should terms in the new Part 53 have identical definitions to terms in Parts 50 and 52? For example, SECY-19-0117 proposes to accept definitions for terms such as safety related and design basis event for non-light water reactors applications that differ from the definitions provided in 10 CFR Part 50. If possible, please provide alternative terminology for non LWR technologies.

14 Questions for Public Feedback 8.

Performance-Based Regulation: How should the requirements developed for this alternative regulatory framework incorporate performance-based concepts such as those described in NUREG/BR-0303, Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation?

15 Questions for Public Feedback 9.

Identifying Levels of Protection: Regulatory requirements in Parts 50 and 52 have been imposed as either needed to:

1) ensure a facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and security; or 2) provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense in security when the costs of implementation are justified in view of the increased protection. Should specific requirements developed in this Part 53 rulemaking be identified as either needed to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection or justified as cost-effective safety improvements?

16 Questions for Public Feedback

10. Integrated Approach to Rulemaking: In developing the requirements for this alternative regulatory framework, how can an integrated approach be developed to address areas such as safety, security, emergency preparedness, and other means to prevent or mitigate the potential release of radionuclides from an advanced nuclear reactor?

17 Questions for Public Feedback

11. Consistency with Historical Standards: SECY-19-0117 describes a methodology that is meant to support the licensing process through identifying key safety functions, events that might challenge those functions, performance criteria for equipment and related programmatic controls, and defense in depth. The methodology uses risk-informed and performance-based criteria that are derived from existing regulations related to potential offsite doses and from the NRCs Safety Goal Policy Statement (51 FR 30028; dated August 21, 1986). Should this rulemaking use these existing criteria or should this opportunity be used to adopt or develop alternative criteria? If so, please describe possible alternatives and explain the reasons for using them within the regulatory framework being developed for advanced nuclear reactors.

18 Questions for Public Feedback

12. Quality Assurance: Should quality assurance, as it is currently defined in Appendix B to Part 50, be a requirement in the new risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework?

Alternatively, should NRC regulations defer to internationally recognized, independent certification schemes for assessing quality processes at commercial nuclear facilities and at suppliers of equipment and services?

19 Questions for Public Feedback

13. Stakeholder Documents, Standards, Guidance: The NRC encourages active stakeholder participation through development of proposed supporting documents, standards, and guidance. In such a process, the proposed documents, standards, and guidance would be submitted to and reviewed by NRC staff, and the NRC staff could endorse them, if appropriate. Is there any interest by stakeholders to develop proposed supporting documents, standards, or guidance?

20 Questions for Public Feedback

14. Other Issues: Are there significant issues, possible approaches, or other topics related to the initial crafting of a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors that are not addressed in the above questions? If so, please identify the subject areas and, if possible, provide a suggestion on how the new framework could resolve the issue or incorporate a proposed approach.

21 Part 53 Rulemaking

22 Consequence Based Security (SECY-18-0076)

EP for SMRs and ONTs (SECY-18-0103)

Functional Containment (SECY-18-0096)

Insurance and Liability Siting near densely populated areas Environmental Reviews Licensing Modernization Project Backup Slide - Integrated Approach

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20218A576&oldid=5476255"