Text

Transcript of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs and Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittees - August 22, 2018, Pages 1-185
	ML18254A205
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/22/2018
From:	Widmayer A; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	;
	Widmayer D
References
	NRC-3859
	Download: ML18254A205 (185)
	v • d • e

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs and Regulatory Policies and Practices SubcommitteesDocket Number:(n/a)Location:Rockville, Maryland Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018Work Order No.:NRC-3859 Pages 1-1NEAL 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 COMMISSION'S 7 ADVISORY COMMITTE E 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 t ranscript 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 AND REGULATORY POLICIES AND 7 PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEES 8+ + + + +9 WEDNESDAY 10 AUGUST 22, 2018 11+ + + + +12 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 13+ + + + +14 The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 16 T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Dennis C.

17 Bley, Chairman, presiding.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

1 DENNIS C. BLEY, Chairman 2 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 3 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 4 MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Member 5 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 6 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 7 JOY L. REMPE, Member 8 PETER C. RICCARDELLA, Member*

9 GORDON R. SKILLMAN, Member 10 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member 11 12 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

13 DEREK A. WIDMAYER 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) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 3 ALSO PRESENT:

1 HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC 2 ANNA BRADFORD, NRO 3 ANDREW CARRERA, NMSS 4 KEITH COMPTON, RES 5 ARLON COSTA, NRO 6 SARAH FIELDS*

7 DARRELL GARDNER, Kairos 8 MICHELLE HART, NRO 9 PATRICIA HOLAHAN, NMSS 10 BRIAN JOHNSON, TerraPower 11 STEVE LYNCH, NRR 12 PATRICIA MILLIGAN, NSIR 13 STEVEN MIRSKY, NuScale 14 ED ROACH, NSIR 15 JOHN SEGALA, NRO 16 FARSHID SHAHROKHI, Framatome 17 ROBERT TAYLOR, NSIR 18 KENNETH THOMAS, NSIR 19 BRANDON WAITES, Southern Nuclear 20*Present via telephone 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4 C O N T E N T S 1 Opening Remarks.................5 2 Staff Introduction Remarks...........8 3 Draft Proposed RuleDraft Proposed Rule, Emergency 4 Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other 5 New Technologies................14 6 Break......................79 7 Draft Proposed RuleDraft Proposed Rule, Emergency 8 Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other 9 New Technologies (cont).............79 10 Public Statements for the Record.......126 11 Subcommittee Discussion............135 12 Adjourn....................142 13 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) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 8:29 a.m.2CHAIRMAN BLEY: Good morning. The meeting 3 will now come to order. This is a joint meeting of 4 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 5 Subcommittees on Future Plant Designs and Regulatory 6 Policies and Practices.

7 I'm Dennis Bley, Chairman of the Future 8Plants Design Subcommittee. ACRS members in 9 attendance are Joy Rempe, Charlie Brown, Walt 10 Kirchner, Jose March-Leuba, Dick Skillman, Mike 11 Corradini, Matt Sunseri, and Ron Ballinger.

12MEMBER REMPE: Charlie's kind of quiet 13 today.14CHAIRMAN BLEY: And we have Charlie Brown 15 with us momentarily. Did I skip you? No, I didn't.

16MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No, you said Charlie 17 was here. His name is not here.

18CHAIRMAN BLEY: No, but he's -- yeah.

19 Member Riccardella is attending the meeting via 20teleconference. And he is on the line. Derek 21 Widmayer of the ACRS staff is the designated federal 22 official for this meeting.

23 The purpose of today's meeting is to 24 review the draft proposed rule, Emergency Preparedness 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6 for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, 1 and its associated draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1350.

2 The Subcommittee will gather information, 3 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 4 proposed positions and actions as appropriate for 5 consideration by the full Committee.

6 The Committee is scheduled to address this 7 matter at the October 2018 full Committee meeting.

8 This service was established by Statute, and is 9 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.

10 That means that the Committee can only 11 speak through its published letter reports. We hold 12 meetings to gather information to support our 13 deliberations.

14 Interested parties who wish to provide 15 comments can contact our offices requesting time 16 after the Federal Register Notice of the meeting is 17 published.

18 With that said, we also set aside time for 19 extemporaneous comments from members of the public 20attending or listening to our meetings. Both comments 21 are also welcome.

22 The ACRS section of the USNRC public 23 website provides our charter, bylaws, letter reports, 24 and transcripts of all full and Subcommittee meetings, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7 including slides presented at the meetings.

1 Detailed proceedings for conduct of ACRS 2 meetings was previously published in the Federal 3 Register on October 24, 2017.

4 This is open to public attendance, and we 5 have received requests for time to make oral 6 statements from several industry representatives.

7 Time has been allotted in today's agenda to allow for 8 these statements.

9 We also have received several written 10 statements, copies of which have been distributed to 11 Subcommittee Members and are available for the public 12 at the back of the room.

13 Today's meeting is being held with a 14 telephone bridge line allowing participation of the 15 public over the phone.

16 A transcript of today's meeting is being 17kept. Therefore, we request that any participants on 18 the bridge line, when they are called upon to identify 19 themselves when they speak, and to speak with 20 sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be 21 readily heard.

22 Participants in the meeting room should 23 use the microphones located throughout the meeting 24 room when addressing the Subcommittee and likewise, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8 identify yourselves and who you're with.

1 At this time I ask that attendees in the 2 room please silence all cell phones and other noise 3 making devices.

4 And remind speakers at the front table and 5 this table to turn on their microphone indicated by 6 the illuminated green light, and the button's right 7 nearest you where it says push, every time you talk.

8 And please turn them off when you're finished because 9 we get interference on the phone lines otherwise.

10 We will now proceed with the meeting. I 11 call upon Patricia Holahan, Director of the Division 12 of Rulemaking Office of NMSS to make introductory 13 remarks. Trish?

14DR. HOLAHAN: Thank you. As I said ear --

15or as you said, I'm Dr. Trish Holahan. I'm the 16Director of the Division of Rulemaking. And I'm 17 incognito. I don't have a name tag, so.

18 I'd like to take this opportunity to thank 19 the Subcommittee for allowing us this opportunity to 20 discuss with you the Emergency Preparedness for Small 21 Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies proposed 22 rulemaking.

23 In the staff requirement's memorandum, 24 SECY 15-0077, the Commission approved the staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9 proposal to initiate rulemaking to develop alternative 1 EP requirements and implementing Guidance for small 2 modular reactors and other new technologies in part to 3 reduce requests for exemptions for the current EP 4 requirements and promote regulatory stability, 5 predictability, and clarity to the licensing process 6 for these future facilities.

7Then in the SRM on SECY 16-0009, the 8 Commission actually approved our rulemaking plan to 9move forward. The new alternative EP requirements and 10 implementing Guidance adopt a consequence oriented, 11 risk-informed, and performance-based approach as well 12 as being technology inclusive.

13 It would provide an option to all future 14 small modular reactor and other new technology 15 facilities to be licensed after the effective date of 16 the final rule.

17 The proposed rule does not include within 18 its scope emergency planning preparation and response 19 for large light water reactors, fuel cycle facilities, 20 or currently operating non-power reactors.

21 However, as you will hear further from 22 Kenny Thomas in his presentation, the Federal Register 23 Notice has a question regarding whether the scope of 24the rulemaking should be expanded to include other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10 facilities such as large light water reactors.

1 The --2CHAIRMAN BLEY: Can I interrupt you? I'm 3 sorry to interrupt your opening statement.

4 DR. HOLAHAN: No.

5CHAIRMAN BLEY: That part's kind of new to 6me. Where did that come? The consideration for large 7 LWRs?8DR. HOLAHAN: It came about through the 9concurrence process. There was a question because 10 SECY 15-0077 wasn't -- didn't clearly articulate why 11 we couldn't include light water reactors.

12CHAIRMAN BLEY: So that will be considered 13 during the rulemaking?

14DR. HOLAHAN: Well, we'll ask a question.

15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.

16 DR. HOLAHAN: Yeah.

17CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. Go ahead. I'm 18 sorry.19DR. HOLAHAN: Okay. The associated draft 20 implementing Guidance performance-based emergency 21 preparedness for small modular reactors, non-light 22 water reactors, and non-power production or 23 utilization facilities is intended for use by 24 licensees, applicants, and the NRC staff.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11 The draft Guidance describes optional 1 approaches and methods acceptable for implementing the 2new alternative EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.160, 3 Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors, 4 Non-Light Water Reactors, and Non-Power Production, or 5 Utilization Facilities.

6 As Guidance document DG-1350 does not 7 establish additional requirements, and licensees are 8 free to propose alternative ways for demonstrating 9compliance with the regulations. And Kenny will be 10 discussing this draft Guidance document in further 11 detail during his presentation.

12 We look forward to addressing any 13 questions or comments that you may have on this SECY 14 paper, the Federal Register Notice, which includes the 15 proposed Rule and statements of consideration, as well 16 as on the Guidance documents, DG-1350.

17 Before I want to -- before I introduce the 18 staff, I want to mention that the draft proposed Rule 19 is on track to be submitted to the Commission for a 20 vote on October 12, 2018, prior to issuance for public 21 comment. Andy will provide you with further details 22 regarding the rulemaking deliverables and schedule.

23 I'd like to especially acknowledge and 24 express my appreciation for the efforts of the Working 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12Group Members. For all of their excellent work 1 involved with this rulemaking effort.

2 Several members from NRR as well as 3 Research, NSIR, NMSS, and NRO are here this morning to 4support this presentation. Including Kenny Thomas, 5 who's an Emergency Preparedness Specialist in the 6 Office of Nuclear Security and Instant Response.

7 He will be leading the discussion 8 regarding the proposed rulemaking and draft Guidance 9document. Andy Carrera, the Lead Project Manager for 10 this rulemaking, from my division in NMSS will close 11 the presentation with the upcoming deliverables.

12 And additionally, we have members of the 13Working Group. And key -- and Office of New Reactor, 14 Office of Nuclear Security and Instant Responses, 15 NMSS, and Office of General Counsel management and 16 staff, including Ed Roach, Ed is in the audience.

17 And I forgot to mention Arlon Costa, which 18 is a Senior Project Manager from the Office of New 19Reactors. Sorry Arlon. And Keith Compton from the 20Office of Research, in addition to address any 21 questions you may have.

22 We look forward to an informative 23interaction with the ACRS staff today. I want to 24 thank the ACRS for its review and support to the staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13 with regard to this important rulemaking activity.

1 And now I'll turn it over to Arlon.

2CHAIRMAN BLEY: Before you do, I have one 3quick thing I wanted to get in. First, there are two 4 areas that I couldn't quite track, and I didn't have 5 time to chase down all the way.

6 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.

7CHAIRMAN BLEY: But I hope people will 8address as we go forward. The one is, it seems to me 9 the most difficult thing about being able to do this 10 well would be to get the source terms right.

11 And near as I can tell, there's only hints 12that you've got to do that. Or short statements both 13in the Rule and in the draft Guide. Which doesn't 14 tell us much about how to do that.

15 And I hope you can expand on that later in 16 the morning.

17 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.

18CHAIRMAN BLEY: The other one is, I'm not 19completely clear. I'm not clear, what's different in 20 the proposed Rule and the Guidance for the other 21 aspects of 70-EPZ that's different from Appendix E?

22 And most of that -- most of the Guide 23 deals with what's in the Emergency Plan. And if you 24 can highlight things that are different from the old 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 14 Guidance, that would be helpful to me especially.

1 So, with that said, I'd like you to go 2 ahead --3 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.

4CHAIRMAN BLEY: With Ken. It's up to you.

5 DR. HOLAHAN: I'll turn it over to Ken.

6MR. THOMAS: Good morning. Thank you Dr.

7Holahan, I appreciate it. I am Kenny Thomas and I 8 will be leading the staff's presentation this morning.

9 I'd like to thank the Working Group again, 10 and the project managers for all their efforts to get 11here. And this presentation will provide you with the 12 key messages, background, and objectives and a 13 detailed look at the Rule and Guidance.

14 We will discuss the reasons why the staff 15 did not address operating reactors as Dr. Holahan had 16 discussed, on slides four through six. That the NRC 17 is okay with the site boundary EPZ on slide seven.

18 How the EPZ will be calculated on side 19seven and eight. The reasoning that informed the 20 ingestion planning requirements on slide 11.

21 And offsite planning considerations on 22 slide 12. Next slide, please.

23 The proposed Rule would be technology 24inclusive. And we provide an option to all future 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15 small modular reactor and other new technology 1 facilities licensed after the effective date of the 2 final Rule.

3 The proposed Rule would address those 4 nuclear facilities that have source terms, and by 5 extension, reactor power levels ranging from very 6 small too large.

7 For the sake of convenience, we will use 8 the term other new technologies in this presentation 9and in some of the associated documents to refer to 10 non-light water reactors, medical radioisotope 11 facilities, and future non-power reactors.

12 However, in the Rule and the Guidance, we 13don't refer to other new technologies. Rather, we use 14 non-light water reactors, or non-power production or 15 utilization facilities.

16 In the context of this proposal, medical 17radioisotope facilities to be licensed under 10 CFR 18 Part 50, would also be included within the definition 19 of non-power production or utilization facilities.

20 This Rule proposed to apply the 21 Commission's expectation that advanced reactors would 22 provide enhanced margins of safety and/or use 23 simplified inherent, passive, or other innovative 24 means to accomplish their safety and security 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16 functions. Next slide, please.

1MEMBER SKILLMAN: Before you proceed, Ken 2--3 MR. THOMAS: Yeah.

4MEMBER SKILLMAN: Let me ask you this.

5I've reviewed the documentation. And DG-1350 does not 6 include ONT. Does not include that effort.

7I'm not suggesting that it must. But, I'm 8wondering if an opportunity is being lost? What 9 you've just said is, you're going to include ONT under 10 the definitions of in-house or non-production, smaller 11 facilities.

12 As I was reading all of the documentation, 13 my sense was that the term ONT delivered a punch that 14was worth continuing with. I thought there was value 15 in that acronym. Because at least in my mind it was 16offering a view of something different that needed 17 recognition.

18So, I would suggest you might want to 19 rethink simply writing a definition that includes ONT 20under something else. When in actuality the term, or 21 the acronym ONT might be one that takes on its own 22 value.23 One man's opinion. We're a subcommittee 24here. But that's -- when I read 1350, I said where's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17 ONT? Because you make a great defense of it in your 1 other documentation.

2 MR. THOMAS: Thank you Dr. Skillman. We 3will take a look at this and we'll consider it. I 4 will let you know that when we kicked this off about 5three years ago, we set out to identify those power 6 plants within the scope, small modular reactors and 7 other new technology.

8 In 15-0077, or SECY 15-0077, we discussed 9 what those could be, medical radioisotope facilities 10 and non-light water reactors. When we come together 11 as a Working Group to start looking at the construct 12 of the Rule, how do we go around and try to define 13 this?14 So, we went through a very deliberative 15process. And that's something that we can reconsider 16 as we move forward with crafting the final rule.

17 And I have a note of it, we will reconvene 18the Working Group and take a look at it. It's 19 valuable insight. Thank you.

20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you. Thank you.

21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: May I -- at the risk of 22 regression, go back to the previous slide. And just 23 a -- I'm stumbling over your choice of words.

24So, an SMR is less then 1,000 megawatts 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18 thermal that may have a modular design. What do you 1 mean by that?

2 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. When we were looking 3 at -- again, we're looking at small modular reactors.

4 And one of the questions that we tried to tackle in 5 the Working Group as a technical group is, so if we 6 had a small reactor come in, would this not apply to 7 a small reactor as well?

8 So, when we start looking at putting the 9 definition, as you'll see in the Rule language in the 10 Federal Register Notice, we said we could have, or may 11 have modular design as defined in Part 52.

12 So, it was important for us to acknowledge 13 that even if a small reactor came in with a small 14 source term, smaller consequences, or less 15 consequences to public health and safety, why wouldn't 16 we want to include that?

17 So, some of the -- what we looked at is 18maybe squishy language there. May have modular design 19 is our attempt to address even the small reactors that 20 may want to use this as other new technology.

21 So, a small reactor --

22MEMBER KIRCHNER: That makes sense.

23That's not what I'm reacting to. I'm reacting to 241,000 megawatts is a change in definition from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19 previously what was used for SMRs.

1 And you don't address multiple units 2 explicitly.

3 MR. THOMAS: Okay, so --

4MEMBER KIRCHNER: Therefore you could have 5more then 1,000 megawatts on the site. Thermal. And 6 we have that actually in front of us.

7 MR. THOMAS: It's that path right there.

8CHAIRMAN BLEY: Well, in some of the 9 documentation they say this 1,000 megawatts applies 10 per module.

11MEMBER REMPE: And that's what I was going 12to bring that up. I mean, what's the limit here? How 13 many -- if you have an 800 megawatt thermal reactor 14 and they put 12 on a site, are you still going to do 15 per module?

16 MR. THOMAS: That's correct.

17MEMBER CORRADINI: So, I was going to 18 wait, but since we're not going to let you get off 19 slide number two.

20 (Laughter) 21MEMBER CORRADINI: So, I'm trying to 22understand the technical bit. Let's just -- let's 23 just stipulate for a moment that they're all 24 independent.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 20So, 1,000 megawatts per module. Just for 1the sake of argument. Where is there a calculation 2 that shows 1,000 megawatts is the breakpoint?

3 I'm back at TID-14844, which is not 4 appropriate, because it's reciting and it's expounded.

5 But I'm looking for a calculation for a light water 6 reactor that shrinks, and continues to shrink.

7 And 1,000 megawatts is the breakpoint 8 before changing the peg from automatically ten miles 9to less then ten miles. Is there such a calculation?

10 Use the alternative source term using TID-11 14844, using anything.

12 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to call my --

13 DR. HOLAHAN: Lifeline?

14MR. THOMAS: My lifeline. Yeah, exactly.

15 Thanks Trish. Dr. Compton, will you -- are you able 16 to address this?

17 Or can we take this as a note to follow up 18 with the ACRS?

19MEMBER CORRADINI: And I'll explain my 20logic. My logic is I personally know how you guys 21 have structured this from a process standpoint make's 22 sense. I don't have a problem with that.

23 I'm just back with Dennis on source term, 24source term, source term. Because it's going to be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 21used for citing. It's going to be used for emergency 1 planning.2 It's going to be used for equipment 3qualification, control room habitability. It maybe 4 used for all of these things or they maybe different 5 source terms.

6 So, I just want to understand the 7technical basis of the breakpoint. And I assume 8 somebody did something to justify that.

9CHAIRMAN BLEY: Or is it just the biggest 10 one you thought you might have to see?

11 MEMBER CORRADINI: Don't give them that.

12CHAIRMAN BLEY: Because that's technology 13 neutral.14MR. ROACH: Good morning. Ed Roach. I'm 15a Senior EP Specialist in NRC at NSIR. When we 16 started the rulemaking, existing rulemaking had 17 already been completed in the Fee Rule.

18 And the Fee Rule had in Part 171, had 19previously defined it. And NRO, I believe, worked 20 with the offices to define it as a 1,000 megawatt 21 thermal.22And it also had the words, I think, 23 equipment to 300 megawatts electrical deposit.

24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And any basis?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 22 MR. ROACH: We searched for that through 1 the Federal Register, and didn't pull that out.

2 However, in looking at the various designs that were 3 out there, there were discussions relative to where do 4 you make that cut?

5 Previously the Rule and the current Rule 6 states 250 megawatts thermal as the -- as where 7 plants, light water reactor or light water is less 8 then that, or high temperature gas reactors can come 9 in for a case by case evaluation. And the ones that 10 have previously been there have had about a five-mile 11 EPZ.12 So, off the top there is not a hand 13calculation that I can give you right now. But we'll 14 pull that.

15MEMBER CORRADINI: And the only reason I'm 16 asking for it now as -- since the context is the way 17 you've structured the Rule, you've basically, thou 18 shall go find a source term.

19I'm just trying to understand. Because 20 this is going to affect a number of things.

21 MR. ROACH: Yes.

22MEMBER CORRADINI: And I guess we're a 23technical committee, so I'd like a technical basis 24 rather then a legal basis.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 23 MR. ROACH: Okay.

1CHAIRMAN BLEY: Mike said don't leave you 2 an out. But I'm of the persuasion, --

3 MEMBER CORRADINI: I'm sure you are.

4CHAIRMAN BLEY: That what Trish said 5 earlier is appropriate. There's nothing I read here 6 in the process that says this wouldn't be appropriate 7 for any reactor or any size.

8 We have a shortcut now both for these 9details. But, if you want to go through all the 10 details it seems to me it's a reasonable approach for 11 any.12 Although the hard part has been left out 13 so far.14MR. SEGALA: And this is John Segala from 15 NRO. I would just like to add, I mean, this is just 16 designating, you now, who can apply the new Rule.

17 In the end they have to demonstrate 18 through calculation and analysis, applying their 19source term and the different accidents. They have to 20 demonstrate that they can meet the performance 21 criteria or the acceptance criteria in the Rule to 22 have a relaxed emergency planning zone size.

23CHAIRMAN BLEY: I think we get that. But 24our question is, why? Where did this come from?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 24 What's the basis for saying these are the people this 1 applies to?

2MS. BRADFORD: Can I jump in for one 3 second? This is Anna Bradford.

4 CHAIRMAN BLEY: If you say who you are.

5MS. BRADFORD: Yeah. Anna Bradford, 6 Deputy Director in the Division of Licensing, Siting, 7 and Environmental Analysis at NRO.

8 And I was also back in the old Division of 9 Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking. You remember that 10 in NRO. We had all the SMRs, NuScale, Westinghouse, 11 MPOWER, Voltec.

12 So, the small modular reactor, 300 13 megawatt electric, which converts to about 1,000 14 megawatt thermal, was just a term that we were using 15 back when this whole kind of category of reactors came 16 up in the first place.

17 It really just meant to me this category 18 of this type of design of reactor. And the Industry 19 was using this term.

20 You know, we're aiming for under 300 21 megawatt electric per module. So, that's -- it just 22 became more of an okay, given that there's this 23 category of potential designs out there, could they be 24 eligible for a smaller EPZ?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 25 So to put it in five that the 1,000 came 1up strictly when we started working on EPZ. It's been 2 used as kind of the term of art or the name for this 3 category for years, and years, and years, before we 4 started using EP.

5 And so you'll see this later, I think, 6when we get into the details. And certainly this 7 afternoon when we start talking about specifics, 8 you'll see how we applied that to actually calculate 9the source term. Because of course the source term is 10 what's most important regardless of what you call it.

11CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay. There's a rule 12people say here. If you get ten seconds, just go 13 ahead.14 MS. BRADFORD: Okay.

15MR. THOMAS: Okay, so we're back on slide 16 three if you're following along in the audience or on 17 the phone lines.

18Let's see. Major provisions of this 19 proposed Rule and Guidance would provide for an option 20 to all future small modular reactors and other new 21 technology facilities.

22 A new alternate performance-based EP 23 framework, including requirements for demonstrating 24effective response and drills. And exercises for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 26 emergency and accident conditions.

1 A hazard analysis for any NRC licensed or 2 non-licensed facility contiguous for a small modular 3 reactor or other new technology facility to identify 4 hazards that could diversely impact the implementation 5 of the emergency plans.

6 A skillful for approach for determining 7 the size of the plum exposure pathway emergency 8planning zone. Or as we'll keep referring to it as 9 the EPZ.10 A requirement for licensees to describe 11 ingestion response planning in the facility's 12emergency plan. Including the capabilities and 13 resources available to protect against contaminated 14 food and water from entering the ingestion pathway.

15 These requirements were applied to those 16 small modular reactor and other new technologies that 17elect to use the rule in Section 50.160. It's the new 18 section for us. Next slide, please.

19 In this on the next slide, it will try to 20provide some of the background. Dr. Holahan looked at 21 it just a few minutes ago. She spoke to it and gave 22 the context for some of the decisions to pursue 23 rulemaking for small modular reactors and other new 24 technologies.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 27 In 2010 the staff sent to the Commission 1 SECY 10-0034, where the staff presented the potential 2 policy, licensing, and key technical issues for small 3 modular reactor designs.

4 At that time the staff told the Commission 5 that the staff would consider white papers, topical 6reports, and other information it received from the 7 Department of Energy and applicants to evaluate 8 proposals for site specific proposed emergency plans.

9 The staff also noted its commitment to work with the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.

11 In 2011, in SECY 11-0152, the staff 12 presented one solution to the policy and licensing 13 issues described in SECY 10-0034 for emergency 14preparedness. This paper describes the staff's intent 15 to develop a technology neutral, dose based, 16 consequence oriented EP framework for small modular 17reactor sites that takes into account the various 18 designs, modularity, and co-location as well as the 19 size of the EPZ.

20Also in 2011 we had a final Rule. It was 21published to enhance the EP requirements. Then the 22 following years the existing power plants implemented 23 provisions of the final rule, enhanced their 24 capabilities learned from the Fukushima Daiichi 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 28 accident.1 In 2014 --

2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: May I stop you again?

3 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

4MEMBER KIRCHNER: You started out in 5 studying this and all the background material, has 6 there been any analysis by the staff of why this is 7 restricted to singular modules, given the Fukushima 8 events?9 MR. THOMAS: Analysis?

10MEMBER KIRCHNER: In terms of a single 11 module being the basis for making the dose estimate?

12MR. THOMAS: That's a good question. I 13believe that we're in a -- we're using research to 14 actually identify what the source terms are in the 15 sensitivities of the different accidents that --

16MEMBER KIRCHNER: I mean, Fukushima in 17 short was a lesson in common mode and common cause 18 failure.19 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

20MEMBER KIRCHNER: So why post-Fukushima 21 would we not look at multiple modules?

22 MR. THOMAS: I believe we are, sir. I'm 23 going to turn this over to Dr. Compton.

24DR. COMPTON: Keith Compton from the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 29Office of Research. Yeah, strictly -- I'll just speak 1 strictly to the doses estimate methodology.

2 I haven't -- we haven't kind of developed 3 that to be strictly limited to a single source term.

4 So, if you had a multi-sourced term, if you generated 5 that, that was something that came out of your 6 analysis, you could.

7MEMBER KIRCHNER: So for your bounding 8 source term in a severe accident, would we use a 9 source term based on multiple modules or a single 10 module?11DR. COMPTON: I haven't -- we haven't, or 12 at least I haven't in the methodology specified 13 exactly how to do that.

14MEMBER REMPE: Didn't you say in the Rule 15 that you are doing it on a single module? I mean, 16 that's what I was trying to get to earlier with my 17 question.18 And I agree with Walt, why are you not 19 considering multiple modules on a site? Why are you 20 doing a single module?

21 The other question I was curious about was 22--23MEMBER KIRCHNER: It's not a technical 24 decision then it's a policy decision.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 30MEMBER REMPE: If it's a policy decision, 1 I'd like to understand that. And the other question 2 I have is why 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months ?

3 A long time ago we used to use the first 4 two hours for siting. And they decided with some of 5 the advanced designs that the worst two hours should 6 be used.7 Now if we have 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months again, we don't 8 know what designs are going to come through in the 9future. So what happens if somebody has a pool of 10 water that boils away?

11 All their modules are in, and again, I'm 12not picking on a particular design. I'm trying to 13 think of Joe's reactor that a former member used to 14 always mention.

15 If there's a bump up at 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months because 16that water boils away at 97 hours0.00112 days 0.0269 hours 1.603836e-4 weeks 3.69085e-5 months . And you know, 17 again, should you not have something more then 96 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months ?19I'm just curious again, why 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months ? And 20 that was mentioned in the Rule, the draft Rule.

21MR. TAYLOR: If I can, I'm Robert Taylor, 22 Branch Chief in NSIR Division of Preparedness and 23 Response.24 To address the multiple source term and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 31such. The methodology for EPZ size determination 1 talks to source term.

2 But it talks to also the accident 3 conditions that occur at the site, which would need to 4 make considerations for multiple co-located facilities 5on the site. Which would include other source term 6 sources essentially. Where they can come from.

7 So, it's not restricted to only the module 8that's being licensed at the time. It would be any 9 design accident that the applicant would be including 10 in their analysis, which would include accidents of 11 multiple facilities at the site, multiple modules.

12MEMBER REMPE: I saw that word and I 13 thought about well, they must be thinking about the 14 spent fuel pool. But I kind of found the good --

15MR. TAYLOR: The spent fuel pool and other 16 modules, and other types of facilities not restricted 17 just to the same type of reactor.

18 MEMBER REMPE: I agree that you might be 19 able to interpret the verbiage in the draft Rule so 20that it would be that way. But jeepers, we're talking 21 about small modular reactors in this rulemaking.

22We might not be a little more explicit, 23 because it's real vague that that -- and you know, I 24was trying to read it. It's like are they considering 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 32 multiple modules or not?

1It wasn't clear to me. And again, I spent 2some time trying to understand it. But maybe I'm not 3 a lawyer or I didn't see another one.

4MR. TAYLOR: We don't want to restrict it 5 to just the additional modules that maybe present at 6 the site. We wanted to make it general in nature to 7 include other sources of source terms.

8MEMBER REMPE: Okay. So, put in purposing 9--10MR. TAYLOR: Which would include the 11 commonality of a spent fuel pool --

12 MEMBER REMPE: Um-hum.

13MR. TAYLOR: Between modules and the 14 reactor at the same time modules. So, that would be 15 an analysis and would be based upon the credible 16 accidents that occur at the site, in the analysis that 17 the applicant would provide to us.

18MEMBER REMPE: It looks like you could put 19 a parenthetical statement saying this is what --

20 MR. TAYLOR: A little bit more precise?

21MEMBER REMPE: Yeah. A little more common 22 college that -- or easier to understand language would 23 have been helpful to me.

24 But again, I'm an engineer.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 33MEMBER CORRADINI: So, can I take a little 1bit different question? Is the anticipation of staff 2that the source term an applicant may use to insert 3 into this process the same source term that would be 4 used for siting?

5MR. COSTA: Let's go back to siting first 6for a second. If you recall, in siting we have the 7 measurements have to do with specifically for siting.

8 And in the part of siting that's 9 associated with EP, is how you're going to deal with 10 the capabilities to move people away from the zone.

11 So, that number is very high as you recall.

12 So the one rem number that we're talking 13 about here is, she mentioned the 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months , is way more 14-- is much smaller then the one in comparison to the 15 site.16 But, for our rule it's specifically for 17 emergency preparedness. So it's not associated with 18 that number for siting.

19MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. So, is that a 20yes or a no? I'm trying to understand. In other 21 words, if I today am going to apply for I'll Joy's and 22 a former member's, Joe's reactor.

23 And Joe's reactor is coming in, they're 24 going to have to develop a source term for a number of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 34applications. My main question is, is the siting 1 source term expected to be the same source term as for 2 the EP?3MR. COSTA: The rule that we have right 4 now for siting is much -- the number, the 25 rem 5 number, if you compare that to the one rem, is much 6 smaller.7 So anybody that makes -- meets the siting 8 criteria of 25 rem in comparison to the one rem for 96 9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months that we have for EP, it's pretty obvious that 10 they make it for the emergency preparedness 11 measurements.

12 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay.

13MR. COSTA: Which is much more strict then 14 the siting number.

15MEMBER CORRADINI: Are you going to put a 16 lot of that to her for reference?

17MR. THOMAS: We also have Michelle Hart 18 from the Office of New Reactors standing by to answer.

19MS. HART: Yes. As Kenny said, I'm 20Michelle Hart in the Office of New Reactors. I do the 21 siting analysis, and I've also been on the Working 22 Group for this Rule. Proposed Rule, excuse me.

23 The source terms that you're talking 24about, there's not just one source term. For the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 35 emergency preparedness, there's a range of accidents 1 that they need to look at.

2 It may include, it should include the 3source term that they use for siting. So that design 4 basis accident source term would only give credit for 5 safety-related equipment.

6 But all of these accidents would be like 7 severe accidents, wouldn't include it.

8MEMBER CORRADINI: So the -- so from your 9 experience, the one for siting may not be the bounding 10 one. There would be --

11 MS. HART: That's correct.

12MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. Okay. All 13 right. Thank you.

14 MS. HART: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.

16MR. THOMAS: Ten second rule I guess.

17Okay. In 2014 we're somewhere around the last bullet 18 on this slide.

19 In SECY 14-0038, the staff stated that a 20 performance based over site regime could simplify EP 21regulation of focused inspections. More fully on, 22 response related performance rather then the current 23 focus on plant maintenance and compliance.

24 However, the staff recognized that the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 36 existing programs provide reasonable assurance and 1protection of public health and safety. Therefore, 2 the staff recommended at that time that the current EP 3 regime for existing facilities be maintained.

4 This rulemaking was based on the earlier 5work presented in these SECY papers. The Working 6 Group addressed the issues related to modularity, the 7 designs, the potential for co-locating the reactors 8 near industrial facilities, and the size of the EPZ.

9 Next slide, please.

10 Continuing with some of the background on 11slide five. In the staff requirement's memorandum to 12 SECY 14-0038, which was published in September 2014, 13 the Commission approved the staff's recommendation not 14 to pursue rulemaking for implementing the performance 15 based EP framework for operating nuclear power plants.

16 Additionally, the Commission stated that 17 the staff should remain vigilant in continuing to 18assess the NRC's EP program. And should not rule out 19 the possibility of moving to a performance based frame 20 work in the future.

21 The Commission also noted the potential 22 benefit of a performance based EP regiment for small 23modular reactors. The staff should return to the 24 Commission if it finds conditions warrant rulemaking.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 37 A few months later in April 2015, the 1 staff sent SECY 15-0077 to the Commission to request 2 initiating rulemaking to revise the regulations and 3 guidance for EP for small modular reactors and other 4 new technologies such as non-light water reactors and 5 medical radioisotope facilities.

6 The staff proposed a consequence-based 7 approach to establish new requirements as necessary 8for offsite EP. And to establish EP requirements for 9 small modular reactors and other new technologies that 10 are commensurate with the potential consequences to 11 public health and safety.

12 The EP for small modular reactors and 13 other new technologies, including addressing the EPZ 14 size would enable the NRC staff to develop regulations 15 and guidance to provide for regulatory stability, 16 predictability, and clarity in the licensing process.

17 And would minimize or eliminate the uncertainty for 18 applicants and the inefficient use of agency resources 19 caused by reliance on s erial EPZ size exemption 20 requests.21 The staff requirement's memorandum to SECY 22 15-0077, the Commission approved the staff's request 23 to initiate rulemaking for small modular reactors and 24other new technologies. And stated that the staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 38 should keep in mind the Commission's previous 1 direction from the SRM for SECY 14-0038 in mind.

2 This rulemaking began in 2016, and the 3 Commission approved the staff's proposed schedule in 4 SECY 16-0069. Next slide, please.

5 So here we're addressing one of the 6 questions where the staff's attempting to address what 7about the operating reactors? And one of the 8 questions I believe from Dr. Corradini earlier is what 9 is -- where did this come from?

10 So, -- or Dr. Bley, sorry. The existing 11 regulatory oversight program provides reasonable 12 assurance that public health and safety is protected.

13 Given the recent to EP regulations and 14 guidance, such as the enhancements to the EP final 15 rule in 2011, and the Near-Term Task Force recommended 16 action and lessons learned implemented by the industry 17 developing and implementing a rule with the resources 18 from higher priority projects for both the NRC and for 19 the industry.

20 So, we did not address operating reactors 21 within this Rule. Next slide, please.

22 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Ken, if I recall, in one 23 of the documents I read, the argument for that was it 24 just would be too much of a burden for an existing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 39 reactor to even consider this at this point.

1 Is that right? Is my memory correct?

2MR. THOMAS: We did make that case in the 3 documents.

4 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah.

5MR. THOMAS: In the regulatory basis, I 6 believe. And in the FRN we talked to it again.

7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah.

8MR. THOMAS: It was based on the input in 9 the public meetings that we had with the industry.

10 We've had two public meetings with the industry.

11One in August 2016 when we addressed or 12 asked the question whether a performance based rule 13 would be beneficial for small modular reactors, as the 14 direction we should go.

15 And again, when we published the draft 16 regulatory basis document in May 2017, we had a public 17 meeting that also addressed this. So, it's based on 18 the interactions that we did have with the industry.

19 And they felt at that time it would be too 20 costly to actually change to a new program when the 21 existing program provided reasonable assurance.

22 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks.

23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: For clarification, was 24 that the NEI comment that you referenced in your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 40 previous paragraph?

1MR. THOMAS: That's a -- that's a good 2question. NEI did make a comment to us when they were 3-- we were soliciting public comments on the draft 4 regulatory basis.

5 About expanding the scope of the 6rulemaking to include operating reactors. At that 7 time when we were -- and we have a slide that actually 8 addresses this at some point.

9 At that point we initially felt that that 10comment was out of scope. Because we felt that the 11 scope was established by the SRM to SECY 15-0077, go 12 out and do rulemaking for SMRs and ONTs.

13 Based on what we learned during the 14 concurrence process for this set of documents, it was 15raised by individuals who were reviewing it. And it's 16 like there's nothing in this rule that would not apply 17 or could not conceivably apply to large light water 18 reactors or the operating fleet.

19 So, we're revisiting that by including a 20 question in the FRN about including them within the 21 scope of this regulation.

22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.

23MR. THOMAS: Okay. Next slide please.

24Slide seven. Discussing the scalable approach for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 41 plume exposure pathway, EPZ.

1 The EPZ size would be scaled in proportion 2 to the potential consequences in a similar manner as 3 the NRC uses for operating research and test reactors 4for fuel cycle facilities and independent fuel --

5 spent fuel storage installations under the existing 6 rules, since it would be a consequence oriented 7 approach to provide the same level of protection to 8 the public, health and safety as afforded to other 9 facilities.

10Next slide, please. The staff is 11 proposing that applicants who select to comply with 12 the new Rule provide an analysis that supports the 13request the EPZ size. The requirements would be in 14 Sections 50.33 and 50.34 of 10 CFR. 15 For the EPZ size determinations, the size 16 of the EPZ would encompass an area where prompt 17 protective actions such as evacuation of sheltering, 18 maybe needed to minimize the exposure to individuals.

19 If the applicant or licensee demonstrates 20 that prompt protective measures are not required due 21 to the timing of the releases from a credible 22 accident, or that extended time exists after release 23 and prior to reaching the need for evacuation or 24 sheltering such that the state and local authorities 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 42 could initiate actions in sufficient time to 1 adequately protect the public health and safety, such 2 accidents maybe excluded from consideration in 3 determining the size of the EPZ.

4 If the proposed EPZ extends beyond the 5 site boundary, then the exact size -- sorry, the exact 6 shape of the EPZ would need to be determined in 7 relation to the local emergency response needs and 8 capabilities as they are affected by such conditions 9 as demography, topography, land characteristics, 10access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. Next 11 slide, please.

12Slide number nine. The existing EPZ 13Guidance for nuclear power plants. Large light water 14 reactors use a variety of guidance documents in 15 support of their EP programs.

16 Among the various documents I'm discussing 17NUREG-0396. 0396 provides the basis for federal, 18 state and local emergency preparedness organizations 19 to determine the appropriate distance for which 20 emergency response planning efforts around a nuclear 21 power plant.

22 It introduced the concepts of a generic 23 emergency planning zone as a basis for planning the 24 response actions that would result in dose savings in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 43 an event of a serious power reactor accident.

1 These concepts were included in the final 2 Rule in 1980 in Sections 50.33, 50.47, and in Appendix 3E to Part 50. And required a ten-mile plume exposure 4 pathway EPZ, and a 50-mile injection pathway EPZ 5 around each nuclear power reactor. Next slide.

6MEMBER REMPE: Excuse me. In the draft 7 Rule, you mentioned two documents, ML 18064A317 and ML 8 18114A176 that are not available on the public NRC 9 website.10 Some of the information in those documents 11is included in the draft Guide in Appendix A. But, 12 are you planning to issue those before the draft Rule 13 becomes public? And what's their status?

14MR. THOMAS: I'm not sure. Dr. Rempe, 15 could you repeat those ML numbers for me?

16MEMBER REMPE: Sure. ML 18064A317 and ML 1718114A176. That's on the bottom of page 78 and 79 and 18-- the top of page 79 of the draft Rule. Generalized 19 dose assessment methodology for forming emergency 20 planning zone size determinations and required 21 analysis for informing emergency planning 22 determinations.

23CHAIRMAN BLEY: Keith's an author on 24 these.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 44MEMBER REMPE: Yeah. You know which 1 documents I'm talking about folks?

2 (Off mic yeses.)

3 MR. THOMAS: Dr. Compton is --

4MEMBER REMPE: And you actually quote 5 things in Appendix A of the draft Guide.

6 DR. COMPTON: Yeah. I think those 7 documents are complete and they can be -- or filed as 8 public.9 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. Thank you.

10MEMBER SKILLMAN: Ken, I would like to ask 11 this question, please.

12 MR. THOMAS: Sure.

13MEMBER SKILLMAN: As I look at this slide, 14 and I've got a pretty good understanding of how large 15 a power plant executes under this NUREG.

16 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

17 MEMBER SKILLMAN: The get done track for 18 the emergency preparedness organization at the site is 19 the accumulation of the EALs. You begin with them.

20 And you go event, you get an alert. You 21 get a site area emergency. And when you see 22 radiological conditions further decaying, when you 23 push that button to go to general, you realize that 24 you're evacuating schools and nursing homes and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 45 hospitals.

1That is a big, big deal. So, at this time 2I'm look -- I'm listening to your presentation. I've 3 looked at the background documents.

4 And I'm looking at Draft Guide 1350, and 5I'm thinking about EALs. What is your thought, and 6 this is just a general question.

7 What's your thought about EALs when the 8 source term is low and the offsite release is also 9 very low for some of these ONTs?

10 And how do you develop EALs when there is 11 almost nothing to deal with?

12MR. THOMAS: Well, I believe that we have 13 several models that we could use for that or the 14 industry could take a look at. We have a --

15MEMBER SKILLMAN: Has the industry 16responded to that? And they said hey, you know, that 17 you've got -- you've got technologies here where the 18source term is so very, very low, we're not really 19 sure how to develop an EAL for this.

20MR. THOMAS: We have not engaged the 21 industry at this time to address that specific 22question. But within our own documents and within our 23 own constructs, if we were to look at NUREG-0849 for 24 research and test reactors, there's an EAL scheme 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 46 there.1 We've endorsed ANSI Standard 1516 that 2 also has an EAL scheme that for really small source 3terms, for those type of facilities. I'm not the 4 expert on that.

5 I could ask Mr. Lynch to address that as 6well. But, we do have the different models for --

7 that does address emergency classification levels and 8 EALs for these types.

9 What we do expect from the rule, as you 10 look at the -- in the FRN, the proposed Rule, is that 11 they have to be able to classify the event.

12 So again, that's when the bells and 13whistles start going on. And that's when the plant 14 needs to be thinking that they're in an emergency 15situation. They have a condition that meets their 16 initiating condition.

17 We expected the various designs to have 18 different EALs. One size will not fit all.

19 If we look at NUREG-0654, there's a set of 20EALs that we published in NUREG-0645. And those EALs 21for large light water reactors have evolved quite 22 dramatically in the 40 years that we published NUREG-23 0654.24 And I think we're in rev six of NEI 99-01.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 47 And so it -- they can vary from -- based on the 1 operating experience for the industry that we felt was 2 of major importance back in 1980 through the various 3 revisions, they've refined where those emergency 4 classifications and those EALs fall.

5 In order to support this Rule, to 6 implement this Rule, the industry and then specific to 7 designers will have to actually evaluate their plants 8 and determine what their EAL list is.

9 We give a template in the DG that kind of 10-- if you look at the existing ones, the abnormal 11 radiological conditions, you have to be able to 12 address those.

13The hazards. What are those hazards? And 14 that might be where the hazard analysis from 15 contiguous plants, those EALs maybe incorporated in 16that. And there are analyses for those adjoining 17 contiguous plants need to be able to address that.

18You know, equipment malfunctions. If you 19 have a design that relies on, you know, AC, DC, or 20 specific ECCS, those casualties have to be addressed 21 on your emergency classification scheme, the EALs and 22 initiating conditions.

23 And then your radiological barriers, 24fission product barriers in the current scheme. We 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 48 would expect something analogous or very similar to 1 that for plants.

2 For the technical staff, we look at a 3 whole range and spectrum of different plants and 4 designs from the light water, small modular reactors 5 to small reactors to sodium fast reactors, molten salt 6 reactors with vacuous fuel.

7 So, developing those specific EALs was not 8 our intent for the Working Group. What we wanted to 9 do is follow what we were instructed to do, was to be 10 technology inclusive.

11 And then for the specific designs to come 12in and describe your design. And then much like your 13 experience, you look at this and this doesn't make 14 sense.15 The staff would also have to go, did you 16look at abnormal radiological conditions? Did you 17 look at equipment malfunctions?

18 Did you look at whatever your fission 19product barriers is? Is there a loss of containment?

20 For a sodium fast reactor, there's a 21containment function as opposed to maybe a metal 22 building. So, the EALs is where it starts.

23 It's the one EPIP, the emergency planning 24 implementing procedure that you never leave. You're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 49 always in your classification procedure from the day 1 you start your program.

2 You know, I can't as an operator person, 3 I can't just close the book because it's -- that's the 4 one procedure. I'm always scanning.

5 My reactor operators are always scanning 6 to make sure that we're in that -- in the right place.

7 Operating in the right place.

8 And when it's not, I'm familiar enough 9 with that procedure and my EALs to immediately go 10 there. So, personally, based on my experience, EALs 11 is fundamental.

12 For today, for tomorrow, in the past, it's 13 that important that we address and try to give those 14 considerations in the draft Guide.

15MEMBER SKILLMAN: That's sufficient.

16 Thank you very much. Thank you.

17MR. THOMAS: I could talk about it all 18 day.19 (Laughter) 20CHAIRMAN BLEY: I wanted to sneak in a 21 question related to what was going on just before 22 that.23 Those two papers were brought up, and they 24aren't public yet. It sounds like they will be soon.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 50 MR. THOMAS: Right.

1CHAIRMAN BLEY: Those papers, like all the 2 other Guidance and like everything else I've read, 3 have an icebox. And as Michelle said, you've got to 4do the source terms, you've got to do some area 5 specific source terms.

6 But so far we've got no guidance on how 7you want people to do that. Do you anticipate 8developing such guidance into the draft Reg Guide 9 before it's published?

10 Or are you leaving this up to the poor 11 folks who are going to have to send you a lock?

12MR. COSTA: This is Arlon Costa. The 13 Guide that we have right now, it's overarching. So, 14 it's the big picture for the whole group.

15CHAIRMAN BLEY: It hints there will be 16 something on source terms.

17MR. COSTA: Right. So, because this is 18 technology inclusive, we expect that, well, right now 19 we don't have any application for some of these newer 20 technologies that we're talking about, like molten 21 salt reactors or the other one.

22 So, there will be a time when we're going 23 to have to address that. But, the Guide --

24CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah. I wasn't asking for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 51an example. I was asking for guidance on how to 1 actually do those calculations.

2MR. COSTA: Right. That will be there.

3 When we come to specificity, we may need to develop a 4 new Guide for those specific types of reactors coming 5 our way.6MEMBER CORRADINI: But I think what Dennis 7 is asking is, why in advance --

well, I mean, if I 8 were an applicant, I'd like to know way in advance 9 some general guidance to know what I have to throw 10 over the fence--

11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Right.

12 MEMBER CORRADINI: Before I throw it.

13MEMBER REMPE: For example, a cut off 14 frequency.

15MR. THOMAS: That's the exact same 16questions that the Working Group and the Steering 17Committee have been tackling. And then whether to 18 talk specifically to what's gone on recently with the 19 licensing.

20 We had two vendors who came to us in early 21discussions prior to the licensing. And the staff 22 developed what we call design specific review 23 standards.

24 We do envision that process continuing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 52 forward. And we've engaged those individuals in NRO 1 to find out if that's a feasible process to moving 2 forward, as a design is going through its design 3 phases.4 Hopefully the vendors come to us and talk 5 to us early enough to where we're starting work. We 6get the information. We start looking at the standard 7 of review plan, NUREG-0800.

8 And we look at this Guidance and say what 9 do we need to do to address those specific reviews and 10 those specific contest via application?

11CHAIRMAN BLEY: I must not be speaking 12clearly. What I'm looking for is comments in 13 principal on how one does this.

14 What considerations need to be worked out?

15What kind of calculations need to be done? Not what's 16 the specific source to input in a particular reactor.

17 And that's missing. And part of my 18 concern is some vendors are deeply, technically 19competent and know what's involved here. Others maybe 20 not on this area.

21 And with no guidance at all, it's -- it 22 smells like a trap. You know?

23MEMBER KIRCHNER: If I could add in here, 24 I think you underestimate how difficult this is to do.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 53 And since that view graph is up, if you go back, I 1 have it with me.

2 They -- the task force that did 0396 did 3 what I thought, and I'll use their words, the prudence 4approach. That remember this was done before TMI and 5 before Fukushima. In the late '70s.

6 And they realized then, even for the 7 commercial LWR fleet, which is much more mature then 8 than any of the advanced designs we're thinking about 9 now. That they couldn't bound the possibilities.

10 WASH-1400 had just been issued a couple of 11years before. So they took that in consideration.

12 And then they stepped back from that.

13 And I think it's relevant, if you'll 14indulge me, Dennis, the Task Force recognized that 15 more specific events with respect to acts and 16 incidents, consequences would be more severe then 17 design accidents, should be explicitly considered in 18 the process.

19 And that emergency response plans should 20 provide dose ABs for a spectrum of accidents that 21 could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs.

22 And that the planning basis is independent of a 23 specific accident sequence.

24 And then they went onto reference the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 54reactor safety study. And then they fin -- they 1concluded that in the Task Force's judgement that 2 offsite planning for a generic distance around a 3 nuclear power plant is prudent and useful.

4 And that's because they recognized the 5 difficulty of covering the spectrum of accident 6 sequences that could -- that could occur.

7 Now we're dealing with new designs that 8 don't have the maturity or the PRA base that -- and 9 won't. Because many of them are paper designs.

10 So you're not going to have the 11confidence. The uncertainties are going to be large.

12 So now if we go to the first principal 13 source term calculation, the uncertainties that 14 propagate through that calculation are enormous.

15 It's almost like compound interest when 16 you go through and see how your uncertainties grow in 17 trying to get your arms around a spectrum of source 18 terms that you could have from the many accident 19 scenarios.

20 And so with the slide up there, I wanted 21 to ask you what you believe is the prudent approach 22 given that you're stance of technology neutral right.

23 Would you not fall back on some minimum 24 take the source term which the first order correlates 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 55with the power level? And then back out a bounding 1 set of calculations based on a worst case.

2 And then would you not come back to 3 exactly where the Task Force wound up? That's how 4 they came up with the ten miles by the way.

5There is actually some -- there is some 6 actual technical basis for that. They looked at a 7large spectrum. And then they looked at the fall off 8 with distance and weather conditions.

9 And then that's where the ten, you know, 10 the ten miles came from.

11 MR. THOMAS: Right.

12MR. COSTA: And what you've said is our 13 expectation.

14 In fact, this is the point I was trying to 15 explain to Dr. Blue about the guidance that we have 16 general picture of what the Applicant of licensee will 17 have to do, something similar to exactly what you 18 said. 19 And that's why in our general guidance 20 that we have right now, which is technology inclusive, 21 we even provide a figure where we start with a source 22 term, we identify the release scenario, evaluated the 23 source term information, as described in the 24 instruction that we give, and then we go to the next 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 56 step. 1 What's the meteorological data development 2 that you're going to have, and then the following one 3is what are the atmospheric transport models that 4 you're going to need, and then what is the exposure 5 model, and then the dose estimates that you have to 6 do, and also the probabilistic dose aggregations that 7 you have to have.

8 So, we understand precisely what you said 9 so this guidance is thinking technology inclusive and 10 we need to address that. That's just the fact.

11MEMBER REMPE: So what you're saying is in 12 Appendix A of the draft guide and it was in those two 13 documents that aren't public, but when I was looking 14 at that, I really had wanted to see multiple modules 15 again explicitly called out.

16It's not stated there. And then it would 17 be nice to think about a cut-off frequency, that's a 18 big thing.

19CHAIRMAN BLEY: Let me ask you a question.

20 Is this assuming the rulemaking goes forward?

21 Somewhere before it's over, when maybe 22 these ideas have been fared out a little bit more, I 23 think it would be useful if we could have another 24 conversation and dig into some of the details of those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 57 two papers and other things.

1It's the same kind of picture we had 2elsewhere. It's nice boxes that say what you have to 3 do but there's no hint of the work hidden inside those 4 brief little boxes.

5 So we'd love to dig into that sum with you 6 either before or at the end of this process, but I 7 think now there's nothing to dig into.

8DR. HOLAHAN: We can do that and the 9 Steering Committee raised this issue as well and at 10the time, we didn't have any Applicants. So we didn't 11 know but we always talked about needing further 12 guidance for individual Applicants.

13MEMBER CORRADINI: So if I might just ask, 14if you were to point to something for us to study, I 15 would assume the ESP for Clinch River is the closest 16 thing? 17MR. COSTA: Well, Clinch River is under --

18 MEMBER CORRADINI: That's not for you, I 19 was throwing the ball over to the fellow with the 20 yellow shirt over there.

21 (Simultaneous Speaking.)

22MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- again from the Clinch 23 River early site permit.

24 MEMBER CORRADINI: That's the only thing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 58 practically that I would assume there is a calculation 1 by the Applicant and one can look at the details of.

2MR. COSTA: Let me just clarify something, 3 and I think you're aware of this but maybe for the 4 public, for the Clinch River application, the 5 discussion that will be this afternoon is under the 6 current rule, under the current process that we have.

7 And what we're proposing today is 8 something totally new for technology-inclusive so that 9 will be different. So you're going to be looking at 10 NUREG-0396 and the documents that Walter mentioned 11 earlier.

12 So it's a different approach.

13MR. THOMAS: Let me toss this back over to 14 Dr. Compton and Mr. Segala.

15MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala. I would 16 just like to add, developing a source term for a 17 design is essential for licensing so we're going to 18 have to come up with a source term to do the design 19 basis accidents as well as EP.

20 This is not solely an EP issue, this is 21something that you need and I think going into this 22 gives the assumption that they'll be able to develop 23 a source term for whatever particular design comes 24 forward.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 59 Maybe this is something that down the road 1 we need to develop some sort of guidance to help these 2 new technologies come up with what are all the steps 3they need to do to develop a source term. I'm not 4 sure that's strictly an EP issue.

5 MEMBER CORRADINI: And just speaking for 6 myself, I'm assuming they similarly are not but this 7 is the first thing, this is one of the applications of 8 it that make it quite important.

9 So we're looking for some sort of 10 generalized guidance so, as Dennis said, you don't 11 have a range of individuals that are highly 12 sophisticated and maybe not as sophisticated and they 13 don't appreciate the task ahead of them.

14 MR. SEGALA: I think that's probably why 15 we encourage early pre-application engagements, so we 16 can start talking to these developers and what are you 17 doing to develop that, what kind of --

18MEMBER REMPE: Some of the Meetings we've 19 had on other topics related to this, some of the Staff 20 had said, well, we've got some of these little 21 reactors that just want to release the whole inventory 22 and they have such a small amount it won't matter.

23 And yet, if you're doing this to qualify 24 any sort of mitigating strategies, the chemistry, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 60timing is important. And so I think those kind of 1 questions also need to be thought about.

2 Is that really acceptable to say I'm going 3 to just have the source term, just let the whole thing 4 go, and I don't care about any sort of chronological 5 or mechanistic type of considerations?

6MR. SEGALA: I mean the NRC and maybe 7Steve can talk about it. We do consider maximum 8 hypothetical accidents.

9 MEMBER REMPE: In an appropriate way?

10MR. SEGALA: To take an approach that's 11 very conservative and clearly conservative, and that 12 is the approach that we have considered.

13MEMBER REMPE: But in the past, sometimes 14 what we think is conservative has turned out to not be 15 conservative.

16 The TID source term was not perhaps the 17most conservative when we think about it later. So 18 those kind of things need to be thought about perhaps.

19 MR. LYNCH: And just to briefly add onto 20 that, this is Steve Lynch, I'm a Project Manager in 21 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

22 As John said, we do at times consider 23 these maximum hypothetical accidents, whereas, some 24 Applicants may choose to take credit for a complete 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 61release of inventory. But that's not something we 1 could accept in the Office.

2 It will depend on what are the 3consequences of that complete release? Where we have 4 accepted that, it's been where Applicants have still 5 demonstrated that even with that complete release, 6 they're still meeting Part 1 for what's considered 7 normal release at the site boundary so 100 millirem.

8 So that's an example of where maybe a 9 complete release might be acceptable. For larger 10 source terms, that's not something the Staff would 11necessarily accept. It would be considered on a 12 case-by-case basis.

13MEMBER CORRADINI: So let me ask you a 14 historical question since Will brought it up, which I 15 thought was interesting. 0396 has a technical basis 16 in how they came to the ten miles.

17 Has there been any sort of analysis within 18 the Agency since then that would re-look at that and 19 come to a different technical basis or confirm that 20 basis? 21 In other words, within Staff, has this 22 been re-looked at computationally?

23 MR. THOMAS: Dr. Compton?

24MEMBER CORRADINI: So let me take it as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 62 somebody who is against it.

1 So if were against all of what we're 2 talking about, I'd say 0396 is still acceptable and 3 unless you show me a technical calculation that says 4that as I reduce the thermal power of the machine, 5 0396 becomes too conservative, I don't abide that.

6 Has there been any sort of analysis like 7 that since 0396?

8DR. COMPTON: There certainly had been 9 calculations of -- I'm not speaking within the NRC --

10 but there have been calculations saying that if you 11 have reduced source terms, if you can show you have 12 reduced source terms, your dose distance curves are 13going to come in closer. And I think that's the 14 principle.

15 I'll go back right now to a few things on 16source term. First off, clearly it's an assumption of 17 the methodology that you have adequate information of 18 source terms and also in frequencies if you're dealing 19 with beyond design basis space.

20That's just an assumption. What we did is 21 we had looked at NUREG-0396 and did a critical review 22 of the document and how they came up with it. And 23 it's fairly clear that they did two lines of approach.

24 They looked at the existing safety 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 63analysis reports, about 70 of them at the time, and 1 then they did some scaling and they did some 2 calculations to figure out where you would get doses 3 exceeding 1 rem without really thinking of the 4 frequency.

5 They just took the worst-case DBA LOCA.

6 Then they also did another line of evidence which was 7 more PRA-based, which is where they were looking 8beyond the siting, that single site source term. But 9 then they considered the frequency of the accidents.

10 That's why as we're writing, as we're 11 trying to come up with this methodology, we're trying 12to be very general and recognize the different 13designs. Different Applicants may want to use 14 different strategies.

15 MEMBER CORRADINI: So, you actually were 16helpful. So, if tomorrow Joe's Reactor -- I didn't 17 mean it the way it sounded. It came out wrong, I 18 apologize.

19 But if tomorrow Joe's Reactor, LLC came to 20 you and said we're new to the game but we think we've 21 got the greatest machine since sliced bread but we 22 need a methodology to start thinking source terms, 23 would you point at the 0396?

24 Is that the only thing out there that you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 64 point them to in terms of a methodology that they 1 could exercise their thinking process with?

2DR. COMPTON: For source term, no, and 3 this is kind of a point, and back when 0396 was 4 developed, they used existing information on source 5terms. They used t he existing safety analysis 6 reports, they used the PRA that they had which was 7 WASH-1400.

8 And given that, one can look and see what 9 is the effect of those source terms on a particular --

10to get doses out, what effect would it have on an EPZ 11 size? But those documents are not going to tell you 12 how to do the source term.

13 For this methodology, that's an assumption 14that you can come up with this. Without trivializing, 15 yes, that's a hard problem.

16MEMBER KIRCHNER: Pragmatically, I'm 17 thinking through a JM Applicant coming in. On paper 18 I'm going to have a PRA.

19 We expect it's the Commission statements 20 and policy that they expect these new designs to have 21 enhanced safety and that can be manifested in a number 22 of ways, lower frequencies.

23 But the question is that early in the game 24 how uncertain are you about the PRA numbers that are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 65presented? Because if you're going to entertain 1 frequency, then you're going to entertain that with a 2 large degree of uncertainty early in the design.

3 And yet, you'll want an early site permit 4 for one of these reactors. So, how do you swear the 5difference so to speak? I see that as very 6 problematic for advanced designs that are not very 7 mature, to enter into the frequency arguments.

8 Because they're probably going to say the 9 CDF is 10 to the -7 or -8 so we don't have severe 10 accidents. That was not the approach that was taken 11in 0396. They recognized that you could have a severe 12 accident.

13 They didn't do it on a frequency basis, 14 they just presumed that you could have a severe 15 accident.

16DR. COMPTON: They did presume that you 17 could have a severe accident but then those were again 18 weighted by the frequency, they had frequencies from 19 the PRAs.

20 But, yes, they did not screen for that 21 particular analysis, they didn't screen out any of the 22 sequences.

23MEMBER CORRADINI: They didn't screen out.

24 MR. COSTA: This is Arlon Costa.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 66 Let me add a bigger picture because from 1 0396 we also recognized that the numbers that were 2 picked out by the EPA PAGs, the 1 rem number, were the 3 trigger point for all the other things that you have 4 to do after an accident happens, and the accidents 5that you were talking about that Keith mentioned 6 there. 7 So there's an advantage for emergency 8 preparedness being in this situation because you're 9thinking about the big picture. But you can backtrack 10 from it.

11 You still have to do the analysis that you 12 were talking about but at least for the purposes of 13 public protection, we use those same trigger points, 14 the 1 rem number, where all these things have to be 15 considered for the accident sequences to be evaluated 16 from the licensee standpoint and bring that analysis 17 to us. 18 And in the EP we're concerned about public 19 protection and we feel that is a very safe number, not 20 only because we have looked at it from 0396 but we're 21 imposing or putting it in the rule now.

22MEMBER KIRCHNER: I have no problems with 23the PAGs. I'm just curious as to how you're going to 24 evaluate this.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 67 It seems to me a very complicated 1 undertaking to do a source term for a wide spectrum of 2 accidents and then evaluate the quality of the PRA, 3 which is where the frequencies are coming from and the 4 main sequences, and then come up with -- would it not 5 be more prudent for the Agency to just come up with a 6 new definition based on just 0396, just scale with the 7 source term?

8CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going to interrupt at 9 this point. You've got a sense that some Members have 10 an area of concern and we would like to revisit it 11 later. I'm going to correct a little bit.

12 When we were talking Clinch River, Arlon 13said that's under the current licensing. Yes, but 14it's an exemption, which they have to justify. And 15 we'll be looking at that later.

16MR. COSTA: And they are looking at the 17 PAGs, the 1 rem number, for the boundary EPZ that 18 they're looking for, properly so.

19CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm ahead. I'll wake him 20 up and go ahead again.

21MR. THOMAS: Well, it's not going by.

22 When you started this conversation, it was on Slide 9, 23 it was talking about 0396.

24 Well, you guys really jumped forward in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 68 our presentation to Slide 10, not a whole lot but I 1 was going to talk to -- Keith already did.

2 You guys have talked about what we were 3 going to talk to about this slide.

4 Part of the rulemaking process was to 5 engage research to get the subject-matter experts over 6 there to do the analysis to look at for the Agency 7 whether 0396, of course, could be applied to small 8 modular reactors and other new technologies.

9 Because the premise there was it was 10 written based on large light-water reactors that were 11 operating in the '60s and '70s.

12 So, we engaged Dr. Compton over there to 13do the analysis for us. He quite eloquently talked 14 about the analysis that he did. It's still ongoing, 15 his analysis that we're doing is still ongoing.

16So, Slide 11, please. This is where we're 17 talking about the ingestion response planning.

18 Earlier and elsewhere in the documents, we 19 clearly and decidedly said we're not including a 20 predetermined zone for ingestion planning within this 21rule. And this slide tries to address why we, the 22 Staff, feels this is an appropriate approach when 23 doing so.

24 So the NRC is proposing ingestion response 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 69 planning requirements instead of a set distance as 1 part of a performance-based framework.

2 The proposed rule would require licensees 3 to comply with Section 50.160 to describe in their 4 emergency plan the licensee's state, local, travel, or 5 Federal resources for emergency response capabilities 6 to protect against contaminated food and water from 7 entering the ingestion pathway.

8 The concept of an ingestion pathway 9 emergency planning zone was created in the 1970s when 10 there may not have been a sufficient infrastructure to 11 support the identification or removal of 12 radiologically contaminated goods from the food chain.

13 Our primary concern in the 1970s were the 14 livestock and food products that could be contaminated 15 from a radiological release at a large light-water 16 reactor.

17 Since the 1970s, there have been I guess 18 improvements in the Federal and state capabilities to 19 identify and remove from the food chain biologically 20and radiologically contaminated foods or produce. All 21 of the response actions are long-term issues.

22 Some immediate precautionary actions could 23 be taken prior to a significant release occurring.

24 For example, state and local authorities could 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 70 instruct individual farmers to wash garden products 1 and to place livestock in fields on stored feed.

2 State and Federal authorities frequently 3 use similar precautionary actions to implement 4 quarantines or embargoes for non- radiologically 5 contaminated foods.

6 Further, Federal resources are available 7 upon request to state, local, and travel response 8 through any nuclear radiological incident, including 9 no notice of incidents.

10 Federal resources that are available for 11 radiological emergency response include the Federal 12 Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the 13 advisory team for environmental food and health, as 14 well as sampling and testing laboratories.

15 Through notable incidents documented by 16 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention that 17 demonstrate the capability to conduct large-scale 18 quarantines for the multi-state outbreaks of E.Coli, 19 infections from spinach in 2006, a multi-state 20 outbreak of salmonella associated with eggs in July 21 2010, multi-state outbreak of fungal meningitis and 22 other infections in October 2012.

23 In each case, the success quarantine and 24 removal from public access of contaminated food and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 71 water products in response to biological contamination 1 demonstrates that a response to prevent ingestion of 2 contaminated foods and water could be performed in an 3 expeditious manner without a predetermined planning 4 zone. 5 Unlike biological contamination, the cause 6 is widespread illnesses and only discovered days after 7 infection, a radioactive accident is a leading 8 indicator that long-term actions to protect against 9 ingestion should be considered.

10Next slide, please. This slide addresses 11 the existing offsite national level emergency 12preparedness. These programs are managed by FEMA, our 13 Federal partner, who are in attendance today. I see 14 several FEMA faces here.

15 They're waving at me; hi, guys. For all 16 communities in the United States, the National 17 Preparedness Goal allows for a scaled and coordinated 18 response to any emergency.

19 The implementation and review of the 20 frameworks considered effective practices and lessons 21learned from exercises and operations as well as 22 pertinent new processes and technologies.

23 These technologies enable the nation to 24 adapt efficiently to the evolving risk environments 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 72 and use data relating to a location, context, and 1 interdependencies, allowing for effective integration 2 across all missions using a standard spaced approach.

3 The mission areas on the slide represent 4 a spectrum of activities that are highly 5 interdependent and there is regular coordination among 6 the Departments within FEMA and inter-agencies working 7 to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and 8 recover from all threats and hazards.

9Next slide, please. On this slide, we 10 briefly discuss the existing EP requirements for 11nuclear power plants, as I said briefly. The existing 12 EP requirements for nuclear power plants and 13 production utilization facilities are found in Part 50 14 of the regulations.

15 The regulations in Section 50.47 provide 16 the EP requirements for nuclear power reactors 17 including planning standards for onsite and offsite 18emergency response plans. These regulations took 19 effect in 1980 after the Three Mile Island accident.

20 Appendix E identifies the specific items 21required to be included in the emergency plans. These 22 regulations took effect in 1970 and were last updated 23 in 2011.

24Other relevant regulations include Section 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 73 50.33, the contents of the applications, Paragraph 1(g). So that's the 50.34, technical content of 2 applications, Section 50.54, conditions of license 3 paragraphs (q), (s), and (t).

4CHAIRMAN BLEY: Kenneth, a quick question.

5 Most of the guidance document is focused on, or a 6 great bulk of it, on content of the emergency plans.

7 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

8CHAIRMAN BLEY: I haven't done the 9 side-by-side comparison with 50.47 Appendix E but 10 isn't most of the emergency plan the same as in the 11 past or are there many changes?

12MR. THOMAS: There's a considerable amount 13 of changes from what we have in the current guidance, 14 NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1, that's a joint document, and 15 the content and structure of Draft Regulatory Guide 16 1350. 17 Where NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1 tried to 18 identify capabilities or resources that should be 19 available to implement the planning standards in 10 20 CFR 50.47, Paragraph B, if you look at the structure 21 of the NUREG 0654, the planning standards A-16, JM 22 whatever, must align with the 16 planning standards in 23 Paragraphs 50.47(b) 1 through 16.

24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Pardon me.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 74MR. THOMAS: So we looked at 50.47(b) and 1 its alignment with NUREG-0654 and those were captured 2 for the evaluation of emergency plans, and as 3 stipulated in the NUREG-0800 standard review plan.

4 What we did here is we drafted Section 160 5 and we said, okay, let's line up a similar guide for 6 Applicant who are going to come in for a permit 7 application or a license application for the various 8 parts, and they need to be able to submit in their 9 application an emergency plan that describes what 10 their emergency preparedness program is.

11 So there was a parallel that I used and 12 that's why I kind of point to what we have here, 13 50.47, in this corresponding guidance, what we did in 14 5160 or what we proposed to do in 5160, and its 15 proposed guidance as well.

16And that's why we did that. We also 17 wanted to make sure that we had some kind of generic 18 or general guidance on how to develop a calculation or 19 analysis --

20AUTOMATED PHONE MESSAGE: Please pardon 21the interruption. Your conference contains less than 22three participants at this time. If you would like to 23 continue, press star 1 now or the conference will be 24 terminated.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 75CHAIRMAN BLEY: Apologies again. If you 1 can capture the thread, keep going.

2 MR. THOMAS: Sorry for the interruption.

3 So, we wanted to contain general guidance for it to 4 assist the Applicant in submitting their application 5 for this.

6 So, I'm trying to keep it technology 7inclusive. So that's why we had the preponderance of 8 the guidance speaking to the content of our emergency 9 plan, because that's our primary licensing document as 10 you will hear later on this afternoon.

11CHAIRMAN BLEY: You gave good guidance in 12 a lot of detail.

13 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.

14CHAIRMAN BLEY: We were looking for 15 something similar on the other side. We're near the 16halfway point. I think one more slide and then it 17 looks to me like that's a good place for our break.

18MR. THOMAS: I think so as well. So here 19we go. I'm going to finish this one up. Next slide, 20 please.21 The summarized recent rule-making 22 activities, as we mentioned earlier, with the 23 regulatory basis, the draft was issued in April 2017.

24We had a public Meeting May 10th, 2017, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 76 where we facilitated the public's ability to construct 1public comments and submit those to us. We weren't 2 accepting comments at that Meet ing. I'll be very 3 particular about how I say that.

4 As a result of the draft regulatory basis, 5 we got 57 public comment submissions on the draft 6regulatory basis as we discussed earlier. NEI 7 supplied one comment to us but questioned about how we 8were not addressing large light-water reactors and 9 operating reactors.

10 They felt that given the information in 11 draft reg, or at least how we interpret it, they felt 12 that it may be technology-inclusive enough to apply to 13 them. 14 Like I said before, the Staff initially 15 considered that to be outside the scope and we didn't 16 address that comment directly but upon concurrence of 17 the proposed rule package that we have going now, we 18 are reassessing that by including another opportunity 19 for the public to weigh in on the scope of the FRN.

20MEMBER REMPE: So I have a question about 21this document. The version I have says September 2017 22but I guess that's the one that was issued November 23 2017. 24 But in there, and as well as in the draft 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 77 rule, you have a comment that says the NRC hasn't 1 issued a license for a commercial non-LWR facility for 2 construction or operations in Fort St. Vrain in 1973.

3 And maybe that's the way you guys refer to 4 things but since the NRC wasn't established until 5 after that, I'm kind of wondering if in the draft 6 rule, if you correct it, you ought to fix that 7 language?8MR. THOMAS: No, no, it's a valuable 9thing. We did catch a couple of our anachronisms, 10 cell phones, riding horseback in the 11th century. I 11 tried to avoid that at all costs.

12 So, we did catch a couple of those and we 13kind of face-palmed when we do that. So I appreciate 14 it, I will take note of it and we'll address it in our 15published documents. We'll be happy to so I 16 appreciate that.

17 Key messages, no comments were received 18 that would alter the Staff's proposed approach in the 19draft regulatory basis. The Staff reviewed all of the 20 comments, we binned them and then we addressed the 21 meter on the final regulatory basis, or we deferred 22 their resolution for the proposed rule and proposed 23 guidance.

24 And then we also, as we were instructed by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 78 the Commission, worked very closely with the 1 decommissioning or the transitioning into 2 decommissioning for nuclear power plant rulemaking 3 that's currently in front of the Commission.

4 And we tried to apply those lessons 5learned as we went through. In fact, there were 6 several Members on our Working Group that also were 7Members of that Work Group. There were several 8 different themes. We addressed those as well.

9 The definition of small modular reactors, 10 that's one of those action items that we included in 11 the proposed rule.

12 Consequence-based approach for the sizing 13 of the emergency planning zone and the need for a 14 co-location discussion which is how we're addressing 15or using hazard analysis to talk about multi-module 16 events and the co-location.

17 And the sum total is that we issued the 18 final regulatory basis in the fall of 2017.

19CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. At this time, 20 I think we'll recess until 20 after. We're going to 21 start promptly at 20 after. See you back here then.

22 (Whereupon, the above-ent itled matter went 23 off the record at 10:01 a.m. and resumed at 10:19 24 a.m.)25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 79 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The Meeting will come to 1 order. And Patricia, you're going to start?

2DR. HOLAHAN: Yes. I'd like to just 3refocus us on this is an EP rule going forward. We'd 4 like it to be published for public comment and the 5source term will be already addressed through the 6 siting and licensing process.

7 And Bob may want to add something but 8 we're focusing on the emergency preparedness aspects, 9 not the source terms specifically.

10MR. TAYLOR: I'm Robert Taylor, Branch 11Chief of NSIR. Very good interesting conversation 12 that was just prior to the break.

13 We do want to emphasize that this is the 14 emergency preparedness rule-making for small modular 15 reactors and other new technologies and our guidance 16 is based upon the information that would be available 17 at the time the Applicant would be providing us with 18 their emergency plan content based upon that guidance, 19 which would include the EPZ size.

20And we provided some guidance on how to 21 make that determination on our EPZ size utilizing the 22 methodology that had been researched on NUREG-0396.

23 So, during the licensing process, all the 24 discussion we've had, those kind of items would be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 80 assumed to have already been determined and policy 1 decisions been made on it such that emergency 2 preparedness would be utilizing that information, the 3 Applicant would be utilizing that information in order 4 to make that EPZ size determination, similar to what 5 happened with NUREG-0396.

6 You're quite familiar, of course, that 7they had the WASH-1400 document to be able to draw 8 from for the current fleet of operating plants.

9 Those kind of items would already be there 10 for the designs that were being applied for by the 11 Applicant, early site permits, already having that 12 parameter set for EPZ sizes on what the source term 13 would need to be.

14 It's divorced from that development, just 15 that it would need to plug in that this is what it 16 cannot exceed once those accidents are being 17 determined.

18 So, the emergency preparedness is a 19 general broad framework in order for small modular 20 reactors and new technologies based upon assumptions 21 that the licensing process, we would be part of that 22 licensing process, utilizing that information that 23 would already be available at the time.

24 So I just wanted to try to talk to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 81 emergency preparedness program is not where we have 1 included in the scope a determination of how to create 2 that source term.

3 That is something that would be part of 4 another piece of the licensing process.

5CHAIRMAN BLEY: Do I hear any 6protestations? You'll probably hear this from us 7 again. Go ahead.

8MR. TAYLOR: I'm just trying to delineate 9 the scope of the rule-making itself.

10 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I understand.

11DR. HOLAHAN: So, Kenny, we'll turn it 12 back to you.

13 MR. THOMAS: Okay, welcome back.

14 Up to this moment, we talked about some of 15 the policy and some of the considerations that the 16 Work Group, the technical issues for the Work Group, 17 are addressing within this rule.

18 On the next slide, Slide Number 15, we 19 have a diagram that provides the overall structure of 20 the rule and this relationship to the existing EP 21 regulations.

22 We've already used the performance-based 23 rule and the Applicant would need to specify in 24 application which approach the licensee would use.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 82 The options are the existing EP regulations or the 1 performance-based regulations over in 10 CFR 50.160, 2 or the proposed Section.

3 In the following slides I will present the 4 specific changes to Sections 50.33, 34, 47, 54, and 5 the new Section, 160.

6 For conforming changes elsewhere in the 7 regulations are proposed to allow for an Applicant or 8 a licensee to use either of the existing EP 9 regulations or the new set of regulations in Section 10 160. 11 I'll draw your attention now to the bottom 12or lower right-hand corner of the slide. The 13 Applicant would have to provide an analysis to support 14 the specific EPZ size.

15 If the Applicant demonstrates that a side 16 boundary EPZ is appropriate, then the regulations in 17 Paragraph (c1)IV(b) would not apply to the licensee.

18 If the emergency plan would extend beyond 19 the site boundary, then the Applicant would need to 20 address the requirements in C(1)IV(a) and (b) of the 21 proposed rule.

22 The Staff would then need to re-engage our 23 friends over at FEMA for a review of the offsite plan 24 submitted as part of the licensed application or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 83 permit application as appropriate.

1 There is guidance in the Draft Regulatory 2 Guide to support the implementation of the 3 performance-based regulations.

4 Next slide, please.

5 In Section 50.2, the Staff is proposing 6 adding three definitions, one for a non-light-water 7 reactor means that nuclear power reactor using a 8 coolant other than light water, non-power production 9 or utilization facility means a non-power reactor 10 testing facility or other production or utilization 11 facility licensed under Section 50.21(a), Section 12 50.21(c), or Section 50.22 that is not a nuclear power 13 reactor fuel reprocessing plant.

14 This definition aligns with the non-power 15production or utilization rule. Small modular reactor 16means a power reactor as defined in 10 CFR 100.3 17 licensed to produce heat energy up to 1000 megawatts 18 thermal, which may be a modular design as defined in 19 10 CFR 52.1.

20 In the rule, we used the explicit language 21 for the facilities, although for convenience, while 22 I'm speaking I will continue to use other than new 23 technologies, having Dr. Skillman's comment from 24 earlier about the use of ONT in the ruling guidance as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 84 well. I made a note of that.

1 In Section 50.33, this proposed rule would 2 revise Paragraph (g) to construct two sub-paragraphs, 3 (g)(1)and (g)(2), which would allow for the Applicant 4 to select which EP regulations the licensee would 5 meet. 6 Additionally, paragraph (g)(2) would 7 establish an EPZ size determination process for small 8 modular reactors and other new technology for 9Applicants to comply with Section 50.160. We will 10 discuss this further in a few minutes.

11 In Section 50.34 of this proposed rule, we 12 would revise paragraphs(a)(10) and (b)(6)IV to require 13 small modular reactors and other new technologies 14 described in their preliminary safety analysis report 15 or final safety analysis report as appropriate to the 16application and the plans for coping with emergency 17 based on the requirements in either Section 5160 or 18 Appendix E to Part 50.

19 Next slide, please. Section 50.47, this 20 proposed rule would remove and reserve Paragraph 21(C)(2). Paragraph (f) denoting the offsite remaining 22 response plan requirements in Section 50.47(b) do not 23 apply when the EPZ is entirely within or at the site 24 boundary.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 85 This aligns with the proposed changes to 1 the transition to the decommissioning rule that's 2 before the Commission.

3 In Section 50.54, this proposed rule would 4 add a new subparagraph (Q)(7) but would contain the 5 details for submitting license amendment requests for 6 small modular reactors and other new technology 7 licensees implementing the associated plan changes 8 necessary to meet the requirements in Section 50.160.

9 The Staff proposes revising Paragraph 10 (s)(3) to add clarification that if the standards 11 apply to offsite emergency response plans or with the 12 planning activities in the new Section 5160(c)(1)IV(b) 13 apply, then the NRC will base its reasonable assurance 14 findings on a review of FEMA's findings and 15 determinations.

16 This proposed rule would also revise the 17 paragraphs in these Sections to include conforming 18 changes for a small modular reactor and other new 19 technology for Applicants to use the Section 50.160 as 20 applicable.

21Next slide, please. The following slides 22 provide the details of the Staff's proposed rule.

23 This proposed rule would add Section 5160, which would 24 contain the alternative EP requirements for small 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 86 modular reactors, non-light-water reactors and non-1 power-production or utilization facilities.

2 Paragraph (a) is the applicability.

3 Summarizing that paragraph, Applicants or licensees 4 that elect to use Section 51.60 must comply with the 5 requirements of this Section for the contents of their 6 emergency plans.

7(B) is the definition. We have one new 8 definition here, although, you've seen it elsewhere in 9 10 CFR 20.1003 for a site boundary.

10MEMBER KIRCHNER: Could you just clarify, 11 does that equal the exclusion area boundary?

12 MR. COSTA: No, it does not.

13MEMBER KIRCHNER: So the site boundary 14 is...what's the distinction?

15 MR. COSTA: Basically, the site boundary 16 is what is owned by the licensee and the exclusion 17 area is a calculation using the source terms.

18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: They may be or may not 19 be the same?

20MR. COSTA: They may or may not be the 21 same. 22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay.

23MR. THOMAS: Next slide, please.

24Paragraph (c) are the requirements. The emergency 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 87 planning shall contain the information needed to 1 demonstrate compliance with the elements set forth in 2 this paragraph.

3 The NRC will not issue an initial 4 operating license to a licensee unless a finding is 5 made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance 6 that adequate protective measures can an will be taken 7 in the event of a radiological emergency.

8 No finding under this Section is necessary 9 for an assurance of a renewed power reactor operating 10 license. 11 Paragraph 1 is the performance-based 12framework. The licensee must demonstrate effective 13 response in drills and exercise for emergency and 14 accident conditions.

15 The Draft Regulatory Guide 1350 simply 16 states Section 50.60 requires licensees to demonstrate 17 effective response in drills and exercises for 18 emergency and accident conditions.

19 I, maintenance and performance, the 20 licensing must maintain in effect preparedness to 21 respond to emergency and accident conditions and 22describe in an emergency plan the provisions to 23 re-employ to maintain preparedness.

24 Essentially, the Applicant needs to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 88 describe the process of running drills and exercises, 1 critiquing its performance, implementing corrective 2 actions to improve its performance, and develop the 3 metrics to measure their effectiveness in maintaining 4 their preparedness.

5 The guidance for the emergency plan is it 6 should contain a general description of the facility, 7 any site-specific definitions, any relevant 8 appendices, drawings, diagrams, and other information 9 needed to demonstrate compliance with this Section.

10 The emergency plan should describe the 11 process for maintaining and making changes to the 12 emergency plan and associated procedures, including 13 methods to account for facility changes and methods 14 used to conduct independent reviews of the EP program.

15 Next slide, please.

16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Question, please?

17 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir?

18MEMBER SKILLMAN: This is a topic that has 19 been debated very thoroughly around this table after 20 Fukushima and it has to do with changes that get made 21 off site.

22 So here we have the site, nice, tight 23 site, the site demonstrates by and large that its 24 emergency planning conditions and its releases are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 89 fairly well described by the site boundary and we end 1 up with an emergency plan that the relevant 2 authorities and the licensee agree to.

3 And then there are major changes in the 4 area whereby the emergency plan probably needs to be 5adjusted. How is that potential change factored into 6 the new 50.160?

7MR. THOMAS: That's a great question.

8 Could you go to Slide 28, please?

9MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'm looking for the word 10 contemplated or actual changes wrapped in that 11 paragraph.

12MR. THOMAS: They're not in that 13 paragraph.

14 (Simultaneous Speaking.)

15 MEMBER SKILLMAN: -- the question, okay.

16MR. THOMAS: So the words that you were 17 looking for again?

18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Actual or contemplated 19changes. So, everybody is happy to put a hospital 20 right on the property line, everybody's happy to put 21 a large school right on the property line.

22 I know it's nuts but the issue that we 23 dealt with in months following Fukushima as we sat 24 around the table is how can we handle the changes in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 90 the locality that affect how we see the licensed 1 acceptability of this?

2 MR. THOMAS: Well, the 5054(2) just kind 3of mentions it's part of the change process but if 4 it's not being proposed by the licensee, it's not 5 necessarily going to be analyzed.

6 One of the interesting parallels between 7 what you just said is similar to the resources working 8 with IAEA small modular reactors regulators was that 9 Great Britain has different zoning laws, which they 10 are able to immediately tackle this as part of their 11 nuclear reactor safety regulations.

12 They talk about how the licensee and the 13 community action monitors to maintain a low population 14zone for their facility. So what I can do is go back 15and take a look at that. I made a note of your 16 comment and I can go back and look at that.

17 But quite clearly, those words are not in 18 this but this regulation is intended to be continually 19 assessed. It's not just once that you do for siting 20 and then not going on.

21 The licensee should be aware of, hey, 22 there's a new transportation hub or a new industrial 23 facility that's going to be put into place near here.

24 They need to go back and re-evaluate the hazard 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 91 analysis.

1MEMBER SKILLMAN: If the words continually 2 assessed were to be endowed, I think it is accurate to 3 communicate that what we've come up against was the 4motion of finality, which we all understand very 5 clearly.

6 Once the permit's been granted, it's fine, 7 and so that raises the question, what happens when 8there's a change? How final is final? Does something 9 need to be reassessed?

10Hence the words that you just used. Since 11 this is new rule-making, those words might just be the 12 right thing at the right time as we looked at ONTs and 13 as we looked at Carpin SMR and Ravenswood across the 14East River from the United Nations, a site that was 15 once considered in 1964.

16 I'm just saying.

17MR. THOMAS: That's a good point. We are 18 going to take a note of it, sir.

19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.

20MR. TAYLOR: This is Bob Taylor, Branch 21Chief of NSIR DPR. Your question was very well taken.

22 It does go back to the 54(q) regulation that talks to 23 having a plan in place and the furtherance of 54(q), 24 it talks to maintain the effectiveness of the plan.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 92 I think this is a possibility to try to 1 clarify what that continuous observation is of all the 2 factors that would impact the plan, be it on site or 3 off site, even if you have a site boundary EPZ, that 4you would need to have that in consideration at all 5times. And the licensee needs to be made aware of 6 that. 7 But that is the intent of that statement 8 about maintaining the effectiveness of the plan, it's 9 not just if you make a change to the plan. You have 10 to make sure that the change maintains effectiveness 11 of the plan with the change.

12 It also means outside influences if the 13 plan as written doesn't get changed, what does that do 14to the effectiveness of the plan? So instead of a 15 change, it needs to be initiated from that offsite 16 impact. 17MEMBER SKILLMAN: I think what's missing, 18 at least from my perspective, is the trigger 19statement. Something that communicates and, oh, by 20 the way, you can't just let this sit for 10 or 20 or 21 30 years.

22 There needs to be a trigger at some point 23 in time, when you go back and you take an official 24 look, and you formally document what we assumed before 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 93 remains sound today for there have been some changes 1 and we're going to assess those changes and we're 2 going to give a report in 90 days or whatever it is, 3 and then if we need to make adjustments, particularly 4 to our emergency plan, we will.

5CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going to back up what 6 Dick is saying a little bit.

7 We've run into, in this room, both from 8 Staff and from holders of licenses completely 9 divergent arguments on this issue from here's the 10 quarter part of the regulation, when you need to do 11 this, to nobody does it, we don't do it, to Applicants 12 and licensees who say, yes, we do that all the time.

13 It's not consistent throughout the Staff 14and throughout our regulated people. It would be nice 15 to make it clearer.

16 (Simultaneous Speaking.)

17MR. TAYLOR: -- Committee Members is this 18 is in opportunity to possibly take a look at that.

19MEMBER SKILLMAN: You're proposing new 20regulations. This is the time to catch it is my 21 point. Thank you.

22MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Dr. Skillman.

23Return us, please, I think back to Slide 20. Did I 24 skip number 19? Good, that's what I thought.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 94 Performance indicators, the process used 1 to develop performance indicators for each emergency 2 response function in (c)(1)III, including the 3 methodology used to develop the indicators, the basis 4 for relying on the indicators, and how acceptability 5 or successful achievement is determined.

6 In the guidance the Staff provided for an 7 example for the methodology to develop the premise 8 indicators is a quotient, a percentage quotient, 9 number of correct opportunities over the number of 10 total opportunities.

11Next slide, please. Further, parts of the 12 performance-based framework and the things that we're 13 expecting the Applicant and licensees to be able to 14demonstrate. I'm not going to read each and every one 15 of these to you. It could get kind of boring.

16So here we go. At the top of the list we 17 have vent classification and mitigation, assess, 18 classify, monitor, and repair facility malfunctions in 19 accordance with the emergency plan and return the 20 facility to safe conditions.

21 Part of this is not getting into the ops 22 or maintenance or engineering procedures, it is in 23 accordance with the emergency plan for staffing, 24 making sure you have the right individuals identified 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 95 to be able to perform these.

1 And then using those individuals to 2 actually perform, it's not getting into the ops, 3 maintenance or any of those other procedures.

4 Protective actions, plants should maintain 5 protective actions for onsite personnel for emergency 6 conditions, recommend protective action to offsite 7 authorities as conditions warrant.

8 Communications, establish and maintain 9 effective communications with the emergency response 10 organization and make notifications to response 11 personnel and organizations who may have 12 responsibilities for responding during emergencies.

13 Command and control, establish and 14 maintain effective command and control for emergencies 15 by using the supporting organizational structure with 16 defined roles, responsibilities, and authorities for 17 directing and performing emergency response functions 18 as described in Paragraph (c) of the Section.

19 So particularly for the command and 20 control, when we took a look back at the near-term 21 taskforce, command and control was one of those 22 concerns from Fukushima Daiichi.

23 Among the other ones that we have on here 24 are staffing and operations, radiological assessment, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 96 radiological conditions underneath that, protective 1 equipment for radiological assessment, core and vessel 2 damage and releases for radiological conditions.

3 We also have one for re-entry and one for 4 critique and corrective actions.

5 Yes, sir?6CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going back to where I 7started. The last time you asked the question you 8 pointed to I think some guidance that's occurred over 9the years and other documents that have led to the 10 things you're incorporating in 160 but are not, I 11 think he said, in Appendix E.

12 Now, most of these things are in Appendix 13E in one form or another. I hate to ask it this way, 14 the way you're writing 160, is that the way one might 15 think Appendix E ought to be revised?

16 I'm not suggesting you ought to run off 17 and revise Appendix E right now but the impression I 18 got from what you said earlier is these are things 19 that have been adapted into the guidance for meeting 20 Appendix E that will now be part of 160.

21 Am I misinterpreting?

22MR. THOMAS: No, sir, I don't think you're 23 misinterpreting it, and by the way, Bob, I need more 24 money for my project.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 97MR. TAYLOR: No problem, Kenny, it's on 1 its way. 2 MR. THOMAS: Okay, so the ACRS says that 3-- Dr. Bley, I think the approach that we took was 4 emergency management is emergency management so there 5 should be a great number of parallels between what you 6 see in any emergency response framework.

7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I would think so.

8 MR. THOMAS: Exactly.

9 So the similarities between what we see in 10 Section 5160 may be very similar to what you see in 11 Appendix D and 50.47 but then also very familiar with 12 what our friends over at FEMA put out for the national 13 planning frameworks.

14 Emergency management and this is emergency 15 preparedness as a portion of emergency management.

16There's no crystal ball on this. What we did do is 17 construct Section 5160 in what I would say the 18 importance, and again, the emergency classifications 19 mitigations at the top of the list.

20 That's where we get started for our 21licensee or an Applicant. Corrective actions, we have 22 to protect our individuals.

23 When we first started looking at this, we 24 looked at the significant determination process and in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 98 our document we have risk-significant planning 1 standards, the four that we currently have under 2 50.47. 3 I said, well, I'm going to move those to 4 the top of my list because those are the ones that are 5 the most important to us currently and what's really 6 important for everybody else.

7 So good emergency management is good 8 emergency management. There are parallels, I'm glad 9 you're not asking me to go out and revise Appendix E, 10 I think that would be fraught with a lot of other 11 things that I don't really want to address.

12 This is an opportunity for us to write the 13 new rules to take another look at what's really 14 applicable to small module reactors and other new 15 technologies and that's where we constructed this 16 framework the way we did.

17CHAIRMAN BLEY: So let me ask a little 18 differently because I don't see the difference between 19 the LWR here and the SMR for this kind of thing.

20 If we didn't have an Appendix E in 50.47 21 and we were going to write one tomorrow, I'm thinking 22 we'd write it kind of the way you're trying to write 23 160. That's Working Group.

24 Do you agree?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 99MR. TAYLOR: If I can? Again, Bob Taylor.

1 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm not suggesting we do 2 that, I'm trying to understand why there would be a 3 difference in principle.

4MR. TAYLOR: What we found is, and I'll 5 have to congratulate the authors of Appendix Echo at 6 this time because they incorporated into Appendix Echo 7 all the core principles of emergency preparedness.

8 They also did that in 10 CFR 50.47 Bravo 9 and those stand today and it has been validated by the 10 fact that our partners at FEMA have established core 11 capabilities.

12 And whenever we start to align those core 13 capabilities in the current national response 14 framework that's currently existing in Appendix Echo, 155047 Bravo, they are matched well such that all of 16 those core capabilities of today are found within 17 Appendix Echo and as a result, also in 160.

18 So we're following suit with what's 19 happened not only in the past but what's the current 20 principles of good emergency management.

21 So, when you're asking would we rewrite 22 Appendix Echo to mimic 160, I would say we would be 23 rewriting Appendix Echo to match what the current 24 level of emergency management principles are today, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 100 which is already found in the Appendix Echo in 160.

1 So, yes, that would be something that 2 would follow the logic principle.

3CHAIRMAN BLEY: So let me try one last 4time. Is there any technical reason why there should 5 be a difference between emergency planning other than 6 the size of the EPZ perhaps for the SMRs and for the 7 OWRs?8 MR. TAYLOR: To answer that question, we 9 would have to take a deep dive into the Appendix Echo 10 and we did not do that in the scope of this 11 rule-making.

12 I'll be honest about that in that that has 13 been brought up, the Working Group has approached that 14 but what we're saying is that's one of the reasons for 15 the questions, because if that were true, we would 16 want to give that assessment and an analysis as part 17 of the rule-making which we haven't done.

18MR. COSTA: Dr. Bley, just to emphasize 19 the direction that we're going in the rule, in a 20 little bit Kenny is probably going to talk a little 21 bit more about the boundaries.

22 You're going to see that for the offsite 23 boundary, the whole Appendix Echo is part of that.

24 And when you're talking about the boundary, the inside 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 101 boundaries, we take advantage of the performance-based 1 approach that we have.

2 And you're going to see that some of the 3 requirements in Appendix X was brought in and some are 4 not necessary because of the size of the boundary does 5 not apply.

6CHAIRMAN BLEY: Here's where I'm coming 7 from with everything I read in the rule and in the 8guidance. It's all about how to do emergency 9 planning. I think that subsequently changed.

10The real change is it might have a 11 different-sized set of boundaries and part of which is 12 that source term which allows you to do that.

13 So all of our focus is on the stuff that 14isn't really changing much and we'll send somebody 15else to be covering this other piece. And I don't 16 want to keep going on that.

17MR. THOMAS: Let me (Simultaneous 18 Speaking.) Patricia Milligan.

19DR. MILLIGAN: Hi, Patricia Milligan, 20 Senior Advisor of Preparedness and Response.

21 To get to your question, 160 is describing 22 a performance-based program which is going to be very 23 different than 5047 and Appendix E which describes a 24 more deterministic approach that would have to EP.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 102 So in order to keep them separate, the 1criteria 160 is describing performance-based. So 2that's why we're trying to do it a little bit 3 differently and call them out separately.

4 MEMBER CORRADINI: I think all Dennis is 5 asking is once ten miles becomes X miles, once that's 6 done, the procedure ought to be technically similar if 7 not identical. I think that's all you're asking.

8CHAIRMAN BLEY: It is but she brings up 9 the point of what the performance criteria would be, 10 which is different.

11DR. MILLIGAN: Which is different, yes, 12and will look different. So I think that's an 13 important distinction and Kenny will probably talk a 14 little bit more about that when he gets the 15 opportunity to talk more about the performance-based 16 program.

17MR. THOMAS: Let me give a 18 behind-the-curtain look. When the Work Group started 19 this process we started with the end in mind.

20 So one of our retirees, he's now since 21retired, Steve Levine, who you are probably very 22 familiar with, he said no rule is good if you can't 23 write a contrary to statement.

24 So they illustrate the difference between 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 103 what would be contained in 50.47 or Appendix E in 1 today's rule and what we're proposing in Section 150 2 is the contrary to statement.

3 Contrary to statement for the current 4 regulations would be contrary to the regulation 5 50.47(b) where the licensee failed to maintain the 6 capability to perform whatever.

7 Here in Section 160, the contrary to 8 statement would be contrary to the requirements of the 9 5160(c)(1)III whatever, the licensee failed to perform 10 whatever.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 10:51 a.m.)

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks. That's good. I 14 think you can go ahead.

15MR. THOMAS: I think I'm on slide 22 at 16 this point.

17 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Kenneth, let me as you 18 a question.

19 MR. THOMAS: Yes.

20MEMBER SKILLMAN: Back on the slide you 21 just presented, you identify a event classification 22 and mitigation.

23 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

24MEMBER SKILLMAN: I look at Draft Guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 104 1350, pages 9 and 10, and you provided some sample EAL 1 descriptions.

2 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

3MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'm stuck on the EALs 4 because I've lived a rich life being judged on how 5 well we executed EALs.

6 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

7MEMBER SKILLMAN: The ones that are 8 presented in Draft Guide 1350, I will read them:

9 abnormal radiological controls, external hazard and 10 natural phenomenon, system malfunction, fission 11 product barriers and judgment.

12 I will caution be certain that the EALs 13 are based on source term and radiological consequence 14as opposed to administrative issues. For instance, at 15 one site we got to a site area emergency because of a 16perceived intruder into a vital area. A security 17 issues.18 I'm not saying for a millisecond that 19 security is not important but I'm not sure we ought to 20 get to a site area emergency in this procedure in 21Draft Guide 1350. I think this ought to be a 22 radiological influence instead of guidance for the 23 industry.24 If there are other reasons to escalate an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 105 EAL, and security may certainly be one, it ought to be 1somewhere else. Otherwise, I think it in tolerates 2 what you're trying to communicate here, or it somehow 3 affects the importance of the source-term arguments 4 that you are attempting to make in this Draft Guide.

5 I hope I haven't goofed up in my 6communication. What I'm trying to say is there may be 7 a reason to get to a site based on security.

8 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

9MEMBER SKILLMAN: No doubt very important.

10Highly important. I think what you're trying to drive 11 at here is with an SMR and an ONT you can have the 12 source term that is so very very low you may be able 13to bring in your boundary. That has some very 14 important implementation as to where we might be able 15to park an SMR. Security ought to be just as 16 important but it not ought to be hiding in these EALs 17 that are basically radiologically based.

18 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.

20MR. THOMAS: Point taken. Slide 22.

21These are the planning activities. These planning 22 activities are for those act ivities that may be 23 impractical or even if you did measure them, those 24 measurements may not mean that much. These planning 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 106 activities are for all SMRs and ONTs, not just ones 1 that are situated for onsite and offsite.

2 (iv) Planning activities. The licensees 3 must be capable of -- this is where we have the 4 capabilities -- preparing and issuing public 5 information during emergencies.

6 Were you able to coordinate with the 7 public information with federal, state, local, or 8 tribal officials to make sure that if you have 9 declared emergency and the sirens and the fire trucks 10 or whatever, are you able to adequately notify the 11 public what's going on.

12 Implementing the NRC-approved emergency 13 response plan in conjunction with the licensee 14safeguard contingency plan. Can you implement both at 15 the same time.

16Next slide, please. Onsite for voice 17communications with the NRC. There's no surprises 18 there. When you have an emergency we want you to be 19 able to notify us and do you have the capabilities to 20 be able to do so.

21 Establish an emergency response facility 22from which effective direction can be given and 23 effective control can be exercised during an emergency 24 with capabilities to support emergency response 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 107 functions described in Paragraph C. In the emergency 1 plan it should describe the facilities; location, 2 capability, size, equipment, backup locations if it's 3 needed.4 MR. COSTA: Dr. Bley, in this slide here 5-- this is Arlon Costa again -- where the 6 incorporation of Appendix E is coming into this rule 7for the performance base, part of it, as Kenny has 8 demonstrated here about voice communication, about 9emergency facility. You are going to see a slew of 10 things like that from the experience as a baseline.

11CHAIRMAN BLEY: I can find everything over 12 here.13 MR. COSTA: Okay.

14CHAIRMAN BLEY: In fact, I can't find 15 anything here, and if you have one as we go through 16 that wouldn't apply to an LWR, say this one really 17 doesn't apply to an LWR. But go ahead.

18MR. THOMAS: Challenge accepted. The four 19 next slides describe the planning activities for those 20 facilities that have an EPZ that extends beyond the 21 site boundary. These are the offsite planning.

22 Contacts and arrangements made and 23 documented with local, state, tribal, and federal 24government agencies as appl icable with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 108 responsibilities for coping with the emergencies 1 including identification of the principal coordinating 2 agencies and coordinated reviews of changes in offsite 3and onsite planning and preparation that may touch 4tangentially to the other question about changes to 5the offsite areas. This would be applicable to those 6 facilities that do have an offsite plan.

7 Offsite organizations responsible for 8 coping with emergencies and means of notifying in the 9 event of emergency, persons assigned to the emergency 10 organizations including the means of validating the 11 notifications and the time period by which the 12 notifications must be completed, and primary and 13 secondary methods of communicating the notification.

14This is going back to our means of 15 notification, validation of the notification, time 16 within which the notifications need to be completed 17 and, of course, primary and secondary methods of 18 making those notifications.

19 Next slide, please. Protective measures 20 to be taken within the Emergency Planning Zone to 21protect the health and safety of the public in the 22 event of an emergency including the procedures by 23 which the protective measures are implemented, 24 maintained, and discontinued.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 109 There's a subtle difference here about 1 where it's discontinued. We don't currently require 2that for large light-water reactors. Have a 3 description of where the protective measures could be 4 discontinued. Subtle difference.

5No. 4. Site familiarization training for 6 any offsite organization that may respond to the site 7given an emergency. We currently do that for large 8light-water reactors. In the guidance in 1350 the 9 service-specific information concerning a site's 10 capability should be shared with the responding 11 service.12 For example, the locations of important 13 fire mains, hydrants, suppression systems should be 14 provided to the fire response services if needed to 15 respond to the facility to assist in fire suppression 16investigation. Likewise, for local law enforcement 17and medical services, services should be aware the 18 capabilities of the site and the locations of key 19 resources.

20CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm just curious since you 21 pointed that one out --

22 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: -- even thought it's not 24 spelled out currently, if we reach the point that all 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 110 the stuff was gone, what happens if the staff 1 recommends to the Commission that we no longer need 2emergency planning, how is it done? It's not spelled 3 out in the rule.

4MR. THOMAS: You're talking about 5 termination of the event?

6CHAIRMAN BLEY: No. This was for an event 7 here. I thought you meant --

8MR. THOMAS: This is the capability to be 9 able to respond to an event.

10CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah. And it's spelled 11out when we no longer have to be able to do that. I'm 12 sorry. Go ahead. I'm slowing us down.

13 MR. THOMAS: That's all right.

14An evacuation time estimate. The areas 15 beyond the site boundary but within the Emergency 16 Planning Zone.

17Next slide, please. Offsite licensee and 18 any backup facilities from which the licensee 19 coordinates the licensee's response with the offsite 20 response. Kind of like the ELF ISH thing.

21 No. 7. The means of making offsite dose 22 projections and the means of communicating the offsite 23 dose projections to the offsite response coordinating 24 agencies.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 111No. 8. The means by which public 1 information is provided to the members of the public 2 concerns emergency planning information, public alert 3 notification system, and any prompt actions that need 4 to be taken by the public.

5 Here is where I would like to -- we had 6 another face palm, Dr. Rempe, where we had a small 7 discrepancy in the Draft Regulatory Guide where we had 8 guidance to implement an emergency response data 9system that is required by 10 CFR 50.72(a)(4). There 10 is no requirement in Section 164 for emergency 11 response data system.

12 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Why not?

13 MR. THOMAS: Because the requirement for 14 emergency response data system is actually located in 1550.72(a)(4) for nuclear power reactors. If you are a 16 nuclear power reactor irrespective of where your EPZ 17 is, we're not changing this rule and you still have to 18implement emergency response data system. I just need 19 to have a similar rule in EP to implement that rule.

20 It's already in there.

21MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Thank you. So 22 it's not precluded, it's just, if you will, embedded 23 in another part applicable regulation.

24MR. THOMAS: It is. In Appendix E we have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 112 Section 6 something is the emergency response data 1 system where we address that, but the requirement is 2 actually in 50.72 so I didn't see the need for 3 redundancy.

4 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Thank you.

5MR. THOMAS: We should be on Slide 27 6 where we start talking about reentry, the general 7 plans and methods to allow entry into the Emergency 8 Planning Zone during and after an emergency.

9 Capabilities should exist that the 10 specific plans can be developed during an emergency to 11 allow for timely reentry into the affected parts of 12 the EPZ and the facility as conditions warrant.

13 No. 10. Drill and exercise program that 14 tests and implements major portions for the planning 15 and preparation of coordinated response by the onsite 16 response organizations with the offsite response 17 organizations within the Emergency Planning Zone 18 without a mandatory public participation.

19 No. 11. The methods for maintaining the 20 emergency plan, contacts and arrangements, procedures, 21 evacuation time estimate up to date including periodic 22 reviews by the licensee and the coordinating 23 organizations.

24 And the next slide, Slide 28. We get to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 113 the hazard analysis which we looked at earlier. The 1 words "collocation, modularity, industrial" I don't 2 believe are in the actual rule text. I used that on 3 this slide just to pinpoint what I'm actually 4 addressing, or intend to address, with this proposed 5 paragraph.

6MEMBER CORRADINI: I don't -- so you're 7saying -- I'm not sure what you just said. You're 8 saying that what's in the parens doesn't appear in the 9 rule?10 MR. THOMAS: I don't believe it does.

11 MEMBER CORRADINI: But your intent is to 12 consider it?

13MR. THOMAS: Yes. This is the 14 consideration that we have for the hazard analysis for 15 the intensive -- elsewhere I told you I was going to 16 address collocation, modularity, and industrial in the 17SRMs and the SECYs. This is where I'm addressing 18 collocation, modularity, and industrial facilities.

19CHAIRMAN BLEY: Why had you folks decided 20 not to be specific on that?

21 MR. THOMAS: Is it in the rule language?

22 I didn't think it was. It is in the guidance.

23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.

24 MR. THOMAS: I was getting ready to read 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 114 the guidance --

1CHAIRMAN BLEY: I remembered it from 2 somewhere.

3MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. It's in the 4 Statements of Considerations.

5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Legally binding.

6MR. THOMAS: Modular reactor, non-light 7 water reactor, or nonpower production or utilization 8facility. Applicant or licensee that chooses to adopt 9 the EP regulations in Section 5160 must include in the 10 emergency plan an analysis of any credible hazard from 11 a contiguous facility that would adversely impact the 12 implementation of the emergency plans.

13 The emergency plans should describe the 14 results of the hazard analysis of any contiguous 15 facility, planning activities, or emergency response 16 functions that will address any credible hazard that 17 would adversely impact the implementation of the 18 emergency plans.

19 The analysis should identify and 20 characterize site-specific hazards posed by 21 multi-modular or nuclear units or contiguous 22 facilities that could complicate the small modular 23 reactor or non-light water reactor or nonpower 24 production and utilization facilities' emergency 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 115response. For example, the nature of the challenge in 1 terms of timing, severity, and persistence.

2 Evaluate the impacts of the identified 3 hazards; for example, realistic response time, 4 functional threats caused by the hazard, strategies 5needed to address the hazard. And describe the 6 planning activities or emergency response functions 7 that will mitigate the impacts of the identified 8 hazard.9MEMBER SKILLMAN: And this is where we 10 would sure like to see something like what we 11 periodically updated.

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Just for my illumination 13 the Statements of Consideration, are they in the FRN?

14 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.

15CHAIRMAN BLEY: Are they labeled that way?

16 I didn't remember seeing that label.

17MR. THOMAS: I don't think it's labeled 18 that way.

19CHAIRMAN BLEY: That seems to be happening 20 these days which is a little confusing because my 21 understanding is Statements of Consideration are 22 legally used and the lawyers refer back to them all 23the time. Except in some of the older rules it's 24 really hard to find the Statements of Consideration.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 116If they are in the FRN, that's great.

It would be 1 nice if we knew what they were.

2MR. THOMAS: And Howard Benowitz, our 3 attorney, is at the mic.

4MR. BENOWITZ: Howard Benowitz, Office of 5General Counsel. The Statements of Consideration are 6 the part of the Federal Register Notice that appear 7 for the rule text.

8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Always.

9 MR. BENOWITZ: I think the Office of the 10 Register refers to them as supplementary information.

11 I think that is the actual heading in the FRN. They 12are not legally binding. The Statements of 13 Consideration, supplementary information, are more 14 like guidance so lawyers might be referring to them 15 not to legally binding requirements, but maybe for 16explanations of those requirements. That's their 17 intent.18CHAIRMAN BLEY: What the requirements 19 mean.20 MR. BENOWITZ: It's what does the agency 21mean in the rule language. What is the basis for the 22 proposed rule.

23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: They used to actually be 24 labeled Statements of Consideration.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 117 MR. BENOWITZ: Long time ago.

1CHAIRMAN BLEY: Some of us have been 2 around. Go ahead.

3MR. THOMAS: Okay. Slide No. 29. We 4 lumped two of these requirements on the same page.

5One of the Emergency Planning Zone. Licensees and 6 applicants must determine and describe the boundary, 7 physical characteristics of the Emergency Planning 8 Zone in the emergency plan.

9This is not the analysis. Remember the 10 analysis is required as part of the application and 11 those requirements contained in Sections 50.33 and 34.

12 This is just -- once you establish the EPZ what does 13it look like. Currently we have maps and other 14 descriptions and stuff like that in the emergency 15 plan. It's the same idea here.

16 The next one is the ingestion response 17planning. This is the requirement for the description 18 of all of the resources and capabilities that would go 19into ingestion response planning. This is applicable 20 for those facilities with an onsite only EPZ within 21 the site boundary or at the site boundary, and for 22 those facilities that have an offsite EPZ.

23Next slide, please. Implementation. Here 24 we are not deviating from what's already required for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 118 operational programs. Eighteen months prior to fuel 1 loading for Part 52 combined license application, or 2 18 months before the issuance of an operating license 3 for a Part 50 operating license issuance. We're not 4 deviating too far outside that box for the 5 implementation of this operational program.

6Next slide, please. We've been talking 7 all day about a particular question that we have set 8up for this scope. Here are all of the specific 9 requests for comments and it's contained within 10 Section IV of the FRN and there are several other 11 sections.

12There are specific questions on here. We 13 are asking a question about the scope of the proposed 14 rule, performance-based requirements, drills or 15 exercises, planning activities, hazard analysis for 16 contiguous facilities, the Emergency Planning Zones.

17Next slide, please. They are up on the 18screen. There's all sorts of more questions here.

19 Draft regulatory analysis question, cumulative effects 20 of regulation, plain writing, environmental 21 assessment, Paperwork Reduction Act, and on the Draft 22Regulatory Guide. Within the FRN we actually have the 23 addresses and instructions on how the public can 24 provide us those comments as required.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 119Next slide, please. Slide No. 33. There 1 is a nexus between what we're doing here and the 2Licensing Modernization Project. The Licensing 3 Modernization Project's objective is to develop 4 technology-inclusive risk informed and performance 5 based regulatory guidance for licensing with non-light 6 water reactors.

7 The NRC could consider and possibly 8 endorse an industry-submitted working draft of a 9 consolidated guidance document called Risk-Informed 10 Performance-Based Guidance for Non-light Water Reactor 11 Licensing Basis Development.

12 The NRC is supporting activities related 13to the licensing modernization project being led by 14 Southern Company coordinated by the Nuclear Energy 15 Institute, and cost sharing by the Department of 16 Energy. 17 The current draft of this document was 18submitted on May 27, 2018. The staff has held several 19 public meetings to discuss the draft guidance document 20and brief the ACRS in June of 2018. As you can see 21 from the purpose of the licensing modernization 22 project the staff is currently working to ensure the 23 guidance related to the project is consistent with and 24 supportive of the proposed rule and draft guide.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 120 The staff is scheduled to brief the ACRS 1 Future Plant Design Subcommittee again in October 2018 2and the ACRS full committee in December 2018. The 3 staff is targeting late calendar year 2019 to issue a 4 draft regulatory guide DG-1353 to endorse the 5 NEI-18-04 guidance which will be submitted to the NRC.

6MEMBER REMPE: When we had the meeting on 7 this, we discussed the point that the two-hour limit 8for 10 CFR 20 was not included. They said, well, they 9 need them for a licensing basis event selection.

10 That's all true, but as I recall, former 11 Commissioner Apostolakis pointed out, "Yeah, you're 12right. Even if you use this to select your licensing 13 basis events and you design your reactor that way, you 14 may not meet all the regulations."

15 Now, with emergency planning it seems like 16 it better include that two-hour limit for 10 CFR 20.

17 It's just something to think about if you do this 18 draft guide and you endorse it.

19MEMBER CORRADINI: I don't understand.

20 Versus the --

21 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.

22MEMBER CORRADINI: For them to make an 23 action based on the PAGs is a dose over time and the 24time goes longer. That's why I'm not clear. You guys 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 121 are writing it down so I'm still not sure if there's 1 a consistency.

2 MEMBER REMPE: I'm not sure at all but I 3 just am bringing up the point that if you endorse it, 4it may not meet all the regulations. Yeah, you can 5use it for licensing basis events. For the PAG, 6 again, it's not clear to me and it would be cleaner if 7 they would include all of the regulations in that 8 document in the draft guide.

9MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala, NRC 10staff in NRO. I think it's part of the licensing 11 modernization project. We are making it clear that, 12 you know, if we endorse that process, they still have 13 to meet all the NRC's regulations.

14 MEMBER REMPE: If you design a plant for 15 that, it may not need all the regulations. Thanks.

16MR. THOMAS: Okay. That concludes my 17portion of the presentation. I'm going to now turn it 18over to Dr. Carrera who will discuss the status and 19 the path forward.

20 DR. CARRERA: Okay. Thank you, Kenny.

21 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and ACRS 22members, and members of the audience. My name is 23 Andrew Carrera. I'm one of the project managers for 24this rule. Dennis Andrukat is my co-pilot and he's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 122standing back there. You can look up his number if 1 you have any questions.

2 (Laughter.)

3 Thank you again for allowing us the 4opportunity to come in front of you to discuss this 5 rulemaking on Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular 6 Reactors and Other New Technologies.

7 I initially made this protest to Trish 8 before and I'm making this protest to you, Mr.

9 Chairman. After two years of hard work, scraping my 10 knees and my hands, catering to every need of the 11 working group, all I get is just one lousy slide that 12 talks about schedules and process which no one wants 13to hear. I've got to follow through and be a soldier 14 about it.

15 (Laughter.)

16 I would like to take a moment today to 17 briefly go over the current status of the rulemaking 18 effort on where we are now and where we're going next.

19 You've heard from Trish and Kenny on how 20 we got here with the background information on SMR 21 SECY-16-0069 where the Commission approved the staff's 22rulemaking plan to move forward. Since then the staff 23 has had significant interactions with internal and 24 external stakeholders regarding this rulemaking 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 123 effort.1 The staff will continue interactions with 2 the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating 3 Committee to discuss issues of mutual interest to the 4 NRC and our federal partners.

5 The staff also coordinated with other NRC, 6 as you heard before, such as the ongoing regulatory 7 improvement for production and utilization facilities 8 transitioning to decommission, or the DECOM rule, and 9 the non-power production of utilization facilities 10 license renewal, or the NPUF rule.

11 As well as the Tennessee Valley Authority 12 early site permit review that we touched a little bit 13on earlier to ensure that what we do in this 14 rulemaking will not undue the great work that has 15already been done to other projects. As such, we 16 continue to assess and coordinate this rulemaking 17 effort with those activities moving forward.

18 Current status of this rulemaking is that 19 the staff is still working on finalizing this draft 20proposed rule. The staff has released a draft 21 rulemaking document to support today's rulemaking, but 22 please note that these documents have not been subject 23 to the Commission's senior management and legal review 24 and approval and the contents should not be taken as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 124 final official agency position.

1 Following this meeting the staff plans to 2 continue working on these documents as well as other 3 documents related to this rulemaking effort.

4 The staff now has to provide a final 5 proposed rule package including the associated draft 6 guidance document to EDO on September 28th and to 7Commission for approval on October 12th. As Trish 8 mentioned earlier, we are currently on track to meet 9 these dates.

10 Pending Commission approval the proposed 11 rule package and associated draft guidance documents 12 will be issued for official public comments in 13 estimated early in 2019.

14 After the official public comment period 15 closes and based on the public comments received, the 16 staff will develop a draft final rule which the staff 17 plans to submit to the Commission for approval in 18 early 2020.

19 I believe our next scheduled discussion 20 with the ACRS regarding this proposed rule after 21 today's meeting will be at the full committee meeting 22in October. I've heard some requests -- some desires 23 from ACRS members that we should still go back to the 24 ACRS for further clarification or discussion of those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 125 aspects of this rule after this rule has been 1published. That is a discussion that needs to be done 2 at Trish's level and the committee level on how we can 3 best accommodate your request.

4CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay. That's good. Work 5with Derek on that as time goes on. I don't know when 6that will happen here. They are not due for their 7 final rule until 2020. That's not that far away, is 8 it?9 DR. HOLAHAN: No.

10 DR. CARRERA: In rulemaking timeline 11 anything beyond three weeks is purely a guess.

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I would suggest, and you 13 can talk with Derek some about this, for October if 14 anything you folks do internally leads to anything 15 anticipated changes, go through those in great detail 16 in October.

17 Over two-thirds of us are here today so it 18 will be a review for the rest of us. There are 19 several members who are not here today who will be 20 hearing this for the first time in October and we're 21 expected to write a letter about what we've heard at 22 that time.

23 Anything else from members for the staff?

24Okay. I think we're finished. We have some public 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 126 comments from members of industry, and then we'll have 1 comments from anyone on the line or here in the room 2 who wants to make them.

3 My understanding is that we have five 4people who wish to speak. The first one on my list is 5Farshid Shahrokhi from Framatome. I hope I didn't 6 mangle your name too much but please come forward.

7 MR. SHAHROKHI: Thank you, Dr. Bley. My 8 name is Farshid Shahrokhi. I'm the high-temperature 9 gas reactor director of technology for Framatome.

10 Obviously we support and encourage this rulemaking, 11 this proposed rulemaking, and the basis for our 12 support is our reactor design.

13 Our reactor is a high-temperature gas fuel 14 reactor prismatic. It's a four-modular plant. Many 15 safety systems, impassive and inherent safety, and at 16the core of that is our fuel. It's been under 17irradiation qualification the last 15 years. We have 18 another three or four years to go.

19 Interim results from this radiation 20exceeds our expectations. Our reactor is basically 21 designed to produce process heat in the form of 22 high-temperature steam and, of course, we can product 23electricity also. Therefore, we need to be collocated 24 near our end users.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 127 Performance of our reactor establishes EPZ 1 at our plant boundary which is 400 meters which is our 2 site boundary. The dose rate for our boundary based 3 on expected performance of our fuel and our reactor 4 design is much less than one rem over any two-hour 5 period.6 Based on that, of course, that doesn't 7 mean that the potential owner operator of our reactor 8 will not have an emergency plan. It will be similar 9to the emergency plan of any industrial facility. It 10will not be a basis of this license. It will be a 11 cooperation with the local and state authorities to 12establish an emergency plan on that site. Thank you.

13CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. I should 14 mention most of the people who are going to speak now 15 have submitted written comments and those will be 16 attached to our minutes when they are published on the 17 NRC website.

18Next is Steve Mirsky from NuScale. Steve.

19MR. MIRSKY: Thank you, Dr. Bley. My name 20is Steven Mirsky. I am currently the senior technical 21 adviser for NuScale Power. Previously I was manager 22of Regulatory Affairs. Of all the vendors you may be 23 hearing from tonight -- excuse me, today, we are the 24 one vendor of an SMR that is actually under review by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 128the NRC. We submitted our design certification in 1 January of 2017.

2 I heard a number of comments made by some 3 members regarding concerns about how this proposed 4rulemaking could actually be applied. I think it's 5 important to present the ACRS with as much information 6 of what has really been going on the last few years to 7 help you in seeing a perspective.

8 NuScale started engaging with the NRC and 9 preapplication on Emergency Planning Zone back in 102011, six years before our submittal. NuScale has 11 worked closely with NEI to develop NEI white papers 12that were submitted to the small modular reactor 13 Emergency Planning Zone methodology.

14 NuScale's presentations to the NRC have 15occurred over several years. In 2015 NuScale 16 submitted a plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone 17methodology topical report. We support this proposed 18 rulemaking because it exactly aligns with our 19 methodology topical report.

20 A methodology topical report is 21 performance based, risk informed, and consequence 22oriented. It's been under review by the NRC since 232015. It's been revised once and we are now in the 24 mode of waiting for the development of the safety 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 129 evaluation report which you will all, of course, be 1 seeing in future ACRS meetings.

2 I would like to assure ACRS members that 3 the methodology doesn't appear to be extremely 4 detailed and is sufficient for a vendor to develop a 5 topical report and a means to justify a pre-exposure 6 Emergency Planning Zone at distances different from 10 7 miles.8 I also would like to make one comment 9 about PRA and NUREG-0396. We looked very closely at 10NUREG-0396. We've been able to duplicate the figures 11 specifically in Appendix I, the famous knee curve 12 which was the basis for the 10-mile plume exposure.

13 I think it's important to note that the 14 state of technology of PRA in 1974 and the state of 15knowledge of the input to PRA. That is actually very 16crude compared to what we have today. The PRA that 17 NuScale has done and revised many times involves much 18 fewer systems, much fewer structures, much fewer 19 components and considerably more --

20AUTOMATED HONE MESSAGE: Pardon the 21interruption. Your conference contains less than 22three participants at this time. If you would like to 23 continue, press *1 now or the conference will be 24 terminated.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 130 MR. MIRSKY: That's all I've got to say.

1 CHAIRMAN BLEY: It worked.

2 (Laughter.) Thanks, Steve.

3 Next we'll have Brian Johnson from 4 TerraPower.

5MR. JOHNSON: Hello. I'm Brian Johnson 6from TerraPower. I'm the nuclear risk assessment lead 7which is sort of short for Chapter 19. There's a lot 8 of stuff in there. I just wanted to come and say we 9do support and encourage this rulemaking. A lot of 10 thanks certainly to NuScale and NEI developing the 11methodology. We've written an emergency preparedness 12 plan that we would like to implement.

13 In looking at this draft rulemaking it's 14 extremely aligned with the NEI guidance with what 15 NuScale has been doing and the path that TerraPower 16 would like to go forward with our reactor designs.

17 For those who are not familiar, we are 18 pursuing both TWR more in China, but that could 19 eventually become a global product, as well as the 20MCFR. TerraPower is an innovation company so we limit 21 ourself to two reactors. We are very excited to see 22 this rulemaking.

23 We do think that the PRA elements that a 24 lot of people are concerned about being crude, I was 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 131 sort of going to say something reverse to what NuScale 1said. With the 0396 there are using the most relevant 2 cold data, the most relevant data they could get to 3 make their PRAs for the nuclear reactors.

4 As we develop new technologies, we 5 shouldn't let the lack of operating data for those 6 specific technologies prevent us from creating PRAs 7that we can use to inform our design, we can use to 8 inform our failures, and the expected reliability of 9a lot of equipment in these reactor types. I think 10this is very exciting. I think it's doable. I think 11 it will provide a lot of flexibility and also 12 practicability for licensing new designs.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

14 Next should be Darrell Gardner of Kairos.

15MR. GARDNER: Thank you. I'm Darrell 16 Gardner with Kairos Power. We submitted comments in 17writing. This is just a brief summary of some of the 18 highlights here.

19 I'm director of Licensing Applications and 20 we wanted to point out that we're developing a 21 TRISO-based fuel molten salt cool reactor design.

22 It's a new technology. We think this will enable us 23 to support our mission to transition the world to 24 clean energy sources and make a difference in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 132 improving people's quality of life around the world.

1 We expect to demonstrate minimal exposure 2 to the public as a result of postulated accidents and 3 as a result of the reduced source term, longer acts of 4 progression times, increased use of passive safety in 5 the design.

6 The deployment of this and other 7 technologies requires removal of artificial barriers 8 to emergency planning requirements not commensurate 9 with the risk of these technologies.

10 We encourage the NRC's proposed rule and 11 support the efforts here today.

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

13 Last should be Brandon Waites from 14 Southern Nuclear.

15MR. WAITES: Thank you for the opportunity 16to speak today. My name is Brandon Waites. I am with 17Southern Nuclear Development. I am providing 18 consulting services to X Energy for their design in 19 the area of regulatory affairs.

20 Today I would like to provide a few 21 comments for X Energy about this proposed rule. X 22 Energy supports to propose performance based EP rule.

23 X Energy is pursuing the deployment of Xe-100 reactor, 24 a pebble bed high temperature gas cooled reactor 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 133 design that emphasizes highly reliable passive and 1 inherent safety features.

2 Leveraging this inherent safety case is 3 instrumental to X Energy's business case. The 4 proposed draft guidance and rulemaking, if adopted, 5 will provide vendors and users the ability to leverage 6 lower risk profiles and remove obstacles currently 7 associated with the deployment of advanced reactor 8 technologies under existing rules.

9X Energy commends the work done in this 10 area for advanced reactor technologies and looks 11 forward to similar work done in other areas to further 12 enable advanced reactor deployment. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

14 At this point I would like to get the 15phone line open. While we're waiting for that, if 16 there's anyone in the room who would like to make a 17 comment, please come to the microphone and identify 18 yourself and make a comment.

19 Is there anyone on the phone line who 20would like to make a comment? If so, please identify 21 yourself and make your comment.

22MS. FIELDS: Yes. This is Sarah Fields --

23CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm sorry. If you're 24 using a speaker phone, can you go to the handset?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 134 You're cutting out a lot. Can you go ahead? Do you 1 want to try again?

2 Is there anyone else who would like to 3 make a comment? I'll give her just a minute and see 4 if she's trying to dial back in.

5MS. FIELDS: This is Ms. Fields. My 6connection dropped off. I hope I can continue my 7 comments.

8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah, go ahead. This is 9 much better. We can hear you now.

10MS. FIELDS: Okay. Is the NRC taking into 11 consideration the indefinite storage for fuel at a 12 small modular reactor and maybe at some other advanced 13reactor site? For example, NuScale intends to use 14conventional nuclear fuel. Not that it's wrong but it 15 will still be conventional fuel.

16 Eventually it will go into the spent fuel 17 pool for five years and then be removed into canisters 18 and the design of those canisters has not been 19identified. Currently there is no place to move that 20 fuel, only in terms of indefinite storage of that 21 fuel. 22 I don't see where you are taking into 23 consideration the possibility of different types of 24 accidents or releases related to that fuel. I would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 135 like maybe some comment from the ACRS about this.

1CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you for your 2comment. We don't engage in discussions. We are 3 collecting information but your comments will appear 4in our transcript and we will consider them. Thank 5 you.6MS. FIELDS: I read your comments in your 7 final determination. Thank you.

8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

9Anyone else care to make a comment? Okay.

10 We'll close the phone line now. Thank you.

11 At this time I'm going to go around to the 12 members and see what comments they have.

13 Pete Riccardella, are you still on the 14 line and can you make comments?

15MEMBER RICCARDELLA: I am. I guess I have 16 some thoughts, you know, regarding modular reactors we 17 earlier had the discussion of single unit versus 18 multiple modules on a single site.

19 It seems to me that if the methodology is 20 truly risk informed and performance based that it 21 should be possible to address different accident 22 frequencies for single versus multiple module 23 accidents, as well as the different source terms that 24 are involved. I don't see that to be a big issue in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 136 this regard.

1 Then I'm also keenly intent on Dick's 2 point about future changes that might influence the 3 emergency plan and initial citing versus continual 4 assessment. That's all I have.

5CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Steve. Thanks for 6 being there.

7 Walt.8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I would just thank the 9presenters. I don't have any further comments at this 10 point. Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Charlie.

12MEMBER BROWN: I have no further comments.

13 Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you, Charlie.

15 Jose.16MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I have no specific 17 comments.18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Joy.

19MEMBER REMPE: So I also side with or like 20 the second what Pete said about that I think the draft 21 rule should explicitly say multiple modules need to be 22considered with a parenthetical statement. I agree 23 that the continuous updates to emergency planning 24 should be noted.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 137 I guess I would like to see some 1 additional guidance on the source term more than what 2 I saw in Appendix A. For example, I think that some 3 discussion of cutoff frequency might be useful here, 4 or some place.

5I am also curious about the 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months . Why 6 the first 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months and should we be thinking about 7 just reactor which might have something that comes out 8 at 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months . I mean, why just that first 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months ?

9 Last, there are those two papers and they 10are not yet released. I would like to make sure those 11 two references are released publicly before we meet 12 again. Okay? Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks.

14 Mike.15MEMBER CORRADINI: No, I don't have any 16 additional comments. I think we've talked about our 17concerns and interests earlier. Thanks to the staff.

18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

19 Matt.20MEMBER SUNSERI: I would like to thank the 21presenters and a few general comments. I do generally 22 support the need for and the direction of this rule.

23 I think it's important and necessary.

24 I suppose my biggest concern, which is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 138 probably too strong a word, but the observation I'll 1 make is regarding the discriminator for applicability.

2 The success or failure of a rule like this will depend 3 on the implementation guidance and the quality of that 4 guidance.5 I think you heard a number of comments 6 today about what is the discriminator, megawatts or 7whatever, source term this or that. We heard, I 8 think, at least in my mind conflicting information 9 regarding the source term, whether the citing criteria 10is bounding or not, multiple modules. Some of my 11 colleagues have already commented on this.

12 I suppose my closing point here is I look 13 forward through the comment period and after you get 14 the public and industry and everybody's comments after 15 the Federal Register addressing these issues in a way 16 that would make sense and make it absolutely clear how 17 we are going to implement this rule and who is going 18 to do that.

19 Just one final comment. I wasn't in the 20military but maybe Charlie can comment on this. I've 21 often heard military planners say the battle plan goes 22out the window when the first shot is fired. I think 23 a similar analogy applies here.

24 I don't know that we need to necessarily 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 139 have emergency plans that address the worse 1 conceivable thing that we could ever think of, but 2what is the most credible thing that can happen at 3 these plants from a radiological consequences 4 perspective.

5 If we can adequately prepare for that, 6 then that planning and that thinking process will 7 carry over to whatever absurd thing that we might be 8 able to think of.

9 I've seen this happen in the communities 10 where I've worked where non-radiological events have 11 occurred; tornadoes, storms, floods, whatever, but the 12 community responded to those in a way of implementing 13 what they learned through working with the nuclear 14 power plant that was really beneficial to the 15 community. I think that type of thought adds value.

16 That's all I have. Thank you, Dennis.

17 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.

18 Dick.19MEMBER SKILLMAN: First of all, to Dr.

20 Holahan and the whole staff, thank you very much for 21 a very beneficial morning.

22 Second comment I would like to make is we 23 learned at TMI-2 the importance of the containment.

24 The containment of TMI-2 saved the day. It held the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 140 water from going in the Susquehanna River and it 1 prevented any real offsite dose release.

2 To that point, the way this documentation 3 is written, as Dr. Bley said, it seems to be all 4 around EP. It really needs to focus on source term.

5 Let me give you an example. We just had several SMR 6 vendors in here talking about their product. Salute 7 to them.8 Let's suppose the staff and the ACRS gets 9 real antsy and basically says, "We don't like that 10design because we have questions about the source 11term." That vendor then says, "Okay. We'll put a 12 second containment on it. We say, "We still don't 13like that." They says, "We've got deep pockets.

14 We'll put another containment."

15 At some point the designer has the 16 capability to make that source term of no consequence.

17 This rule should allow that. It should allow a 18 designer to be so innovative that the offsite releases 19 are so low that one would say that is a safe facility.

20 In my view, the source term carries the 21 day in this discussion as the reactor building carried 22the day on March 28th of 1979. I don't think the 23importance of that can be understated. A good strong 24 box, a good strong steel container, is just what the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 141 doctor ordered.

1 Let the legislation, let the documentation 2 that you're creating, let the rule that you're 3 proposing focus solidly on source term that all of 4 kind of say, yeah, if we follow that path, we will 5 have a successful facility in terms of radiologic 6 consequence no matter what the fuel is. Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Dick.

8 Ron.9 MEMBER CORRADINI: Green light.

10 MEMBER BALLINGER: I'm not the first and 11 not the last.

12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: But you're consistent.

13 (Laughter.)

14MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, since Stetkar 15left. Where was I? I appreciate the presentations a 16 lot but I have no further comments.

17 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Ron.

18 I, too, would like to thank all the 19 presenters today and thank you for your patience and 20lengthy discussions. I'm sure we'll have more in the 21future. I won't reiterate the things I've already 22said but I stand by them. We'll look forward to 23seeing you in October. We'll have some discussions 24 through Derek on our part for what to expect at that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 142 time.1Like I say, if anything out of this 2 meeting or anything that evolves as you go forward 3 makes changes of any kind in the rule language or in 4 the guidance, please bring that and show us clearly.

5I assume it won't be much. If it heads that way, then 6 we need to see something in writing. But I think if 7 it's all minor things, you can show us at that time.

8 I would like to finally thank everyone 9else who was here for a good session. We are 10 adjourned.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 11:44 a.m.)

13 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) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 ACRSFuturePlantDesignsandRegulatoryPoliciesandPracticesSubcommitteesAugust22,2018MynameisFarshidShahrokhiIamthedirectorofthehightemperaturegas cooledreactor(HTGR)technologyatFramatomeInc.Framatome'ssteamcycleHTGRreliesontheperformanceandradionuclidesretentioncharacteristicsofTRISOparticlefuelcurrentlyundergoingirradiationtestingforqualificationatIdahoNationalLaboratory.Interimresultsfrommulti yearirradiationandtestingcampaignindicatebetterthanexpectedresults.Framatome'ssteamcycleHTGRisdesignedtodeliverprocessheatandelectricityatthehighestlevelofreactorsafetyutilizingintrinsicandpassivesafetydesignfeatures.ThecombinedradionuclidesretentioncapabilitiesofTRISOparticlefuel,intrinsic,andpassivesafetyofourdesignconceptlimitstheaccidentdosetolessthan1.0Rem(EPAPAGdoselimit)inanytwohourtimeintervalduringandfollowinganydesignbasesaccidentattheplantsiteboundaryof400meter.InotherwordstheSC HTGRisdesignedtonotinterferewiththeenvironmentbeyondtheplant'ssiteboundary.Weexpecttheplantowner/operatortodeveloparobustoff siteemergencyplan,notasaconditionoftheNRClicensebutinco operationwiththestateandlocalauthoritiessimilartotheemergencyplansofanyotherlargeindustrialcomplexintheU.S.A.Existingregulationsonemergencyplanning(EP)donotallowtheowner/operatortobenefitfromtheaddedsafetyandsecurityoftheadvancedreactorslimitingincentivesfordeploymentsofthesesaferdesigns.WethereforeapplaudandstronglysupporttheNRC'sproposedEPrulemaking.

NuScale Power, LLC Comments on the August 22, 2018 ACRS SC EP Rulemaking Meeting NuScale Power fully supports the NRC proposed rulemaking on small modular reactor (SMR) and other nuclear technology (ONT) Emergency Planning (EP). This proposed rule, along with draft regulatory guide DG

-1350, w as developed in response to a series of Commission

-approved documents (i.e., SECYs and SECY

-SRMs) that were issued since 2005

, as well as to extensive nuclear industry input.

It is based on evaluation of the technical basis for current emergency planning regulations for large light water reactors (LLWRs) and application of this identical basis to SMRs and ONT. New rulemaking for SMR and ONT EP is in alignment with revisions of many other LLWR regulations

, which have been updated to reflect the enhanced safety, simplicity and smaller radionuclide source terms of SMR and ONT designs. The NuScale SMR was designed to: eliminate many safety issues; greatly reduce the likelihood and consequence of applicable accidents; simplify operations; and expand reliance on passive systems and natural processes resulting in unparalleled resiliency. All these features greatly reduce risks to public health and safety.

Th is proposed EP rulemaking is in alignment with the NuScale plume exposure EPZ methodology topical report that is currently under review by the NRC. Both the proposed EP rulemaking and the NuScale EPZ topical report describe a performance

-based, risk informed, consequence

-oriented approach.

Public perception of nuclear power plant risk is closely tied to EP because signs, sirens, and emergency drills associated with the current 10

-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) are a tangible and visible manifestation of potential danger to individuals. The NRC has determined that many licensed nuclear facilities including: low electric power commercial nuclear plants

research and test reactors; decommissioned nuclear power plant s; orphan (i.e., with no collocated nuclear power plant) independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs)

and medical or industrial radioisotope users have an inherently low public health risk. This low risk results in a reduced EPZ by setting it at a smaller distance, the site boundary

, or replacing the EP with existing facility all hazard plans. This proposed rulemaking uses the identical regulatory basis and technical justification to allow SMRs and ONTs the same opportunity to have an appropriate ly sized EPZ. An appropriately sized EP for an SMR or ONT will afford the same protection to the public as the current 10

-mile plume exposure EPZ at operating LLWRs.

Since its inception in 1980, the underlying goal of EP has always been to protect the public. The proposed rulemaking provides the identical level of protection while recognizing that 21 st century nuclear power plant technology has and will offer game changing advances in safety. Crediting the new paradigm in SMR and ONT safety by an appropriately sized EP Z accurately informs the public on the relative risk of new nuclear power plants. Imposing unnecessary public EP responses (e.g. evacuation) to low risk nuclear facility events has been shown to increase risks to public health and safety, which is antithetical to the basic tenet of EP.

1 ACRS Subcommittee August 22, 2018Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 NRC-2015-0225 RIN 3150-AJ68*Project Manager:Andy Carrera (NMSS)*Technical Leads:Kenneth Thomas (NSIR)

Steve Lynch (NRR)

Arlon Costa (NRO) 2Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking*Purpose of RulemakingAmend regulations for new alternative performance-based EP requirements for future SMRs and ONTs. *Proposed rule would be:-Technology inclusive for future:*SMRs-Nuclear power reactor < 1000MWt that may have modular design*ONTs-Non-light-water power reactors-Non-power Production or Utilization Facilities>>Medical Radioisotope Facilities 3*Major provisions of this proposed rule:-technology-inclusive for future SMRs and ONTs, including medical isotope facilities-alternative performance-based EP framework, including demonstration of effective response in drills

and exercises-hazard analysis for contiguous facilities

-scalable approach for plume exposure pathway EPZ

-ingestion response planning option for SMRs and ONTs that opt to use §50.160.Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 4*Background-SECY-10-0034, "Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular Reactor Designs" -SECY-11-0152, "Development of an Emergency Planning and Preparedness Framework for Small Modular Reactors" -Final Rule in 2011 Enhancements to EP, post-Fukushima EP enhancements-SECY-14-038, "Performance-Based Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness

Oversight"Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 5*Background-SRM-SECY-14-0038, "Performance-Based Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Preparedness Oversight"-SECY-15-0077 and SRM-SECY-15-0077, "Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies"-SECY-16-0069 and SRM-SECY-16-0069, "Rulemaking Plan on Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New

Technologies"Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 6*What about Operating Reactors?-They meet existing rules.-Developing and implementing would divert resources from other higher priority projects for the NRC and

licensees.-Staff received a comment from NEI on draft regulatory basis document.-FRN would include a question whether to include within the rule's scope.Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 7*Scalable approach for plume exposure pathway EPZ-Same level of protection afforded to other reactors under existing rules-Consistent with the existing graded-approach afforded to other facilitiesEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 8*EPZ size technical analysis-The plume exposure pathway EPZ should encompass an area where prompt protective measures, such as evacuation and sheltering, may be needed to minimize the exposure to individuals. -The analysis should consider radiological releases from credible accidents for the facility. Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 9*Existing EPZ guidance for nuclear power plants-NUREG-0396, "Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants"*Sets generically applied distances-Dose Savings-Incorporated into the 1980 final rule

-Describes the considerations for determining EPZ sizesEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 10*Planning basis for EP for SMRs and ONTs consistent with the analyses documented in NUREG-0396*Development of guidance supported by User Need Request NSIR-2017-002-Generalized Dose Assessment Methodology for Informing Emergency Planning Zone Size

Determinations-Required Analyses for Informing Emergency Planning Zone Size DeterminationsEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 11*Ingestion response planning-Early phase of the response*Precautionary protective actions-Washing garden products and food-Placing livestock on stored feeds-Longer term actions*Leading indicator drives response-Biological contamination similaritiesEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 12*National Preparedness Goal-National Planning Frameworks*Prevention*Protection

Mitigation

Response

Recovery-Federal Interagency Operations PlansEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 13*Existing EP requirements for nuclear power plants in 10 CFR Part 50:-§50.47, "Emergency Plans" -Appendix E to Part 50, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and

Utilization Facilities"-§§50.33, 50.34, and 50.54 Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 14*Regulatory Basis: "Rulemaking for Emergency Preparedness for Small

Modular Reactors and Other New

Technologies"-Draft issued April 2017-Final issued November 2017*Key commentsEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 15Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking Existing EPEP for SMRs and ONTs Onsite only Onsite and Offsite 16*Draft Proposed Rule Changes:-§50.2 Definitions*Non-light Water Reactor*Non-power Production or Utilization Facility

Small Modular Reactors-§50.33 Contents of Applications; general information-§50.34 Contents of Applications; technical informationEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 17*Draft Proposed Rule Changes:-§50.47 Emergency Plans *Conforming changes to paragraph (b)*Reserves paragraph (c)(2)

New paragraph (f)-§50.54 Conditions of licenses*Conforming changes to (q), (s), and (gg)

Clarifying when FEMA determinations would be needed.Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 18*§50.160-(a) Applicability -(b) Definitions*Site-boundary refers to the Part 20 definitionEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 19*§50.160-(c) Requirements*(1) Performance-based framework-(i) Maintenance of performance: The licensee must maintain in effect preparedness to respond to emergency and accident conditions and describe in an emergency plan the provisions to be employed to maintain

preparednessEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 20*§50.160-(c) Requirements-(ii) Performance indicators: The licensee must maintain and update at the end of each calendar quarter, a complete list of performance indicators for the previous eight

calendar quarters;Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 21*§50.160-(c) Requirements*(1)(iii) Emergency response performance-(A) Event classification and mitigation-(B) Protective actions-(C) Communications-(D) Command and control-(E) Staffing and operations-(F) Radiological assessment-(G) Reentry-(H) Critique and corrective actionsEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 22*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(A) Onsite-

-(1) Public information

-(2) Implement emergency response plan with safeguards contingency planEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 23*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(A) Onsite-

-(3) Voice communications with the NRC (Emergency Notification System)

-(4) Emergency facilityEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 24*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(B) Offsite (if the plume exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond the site boundary)

-(1) Contacts and arrangements

-(2) Notification of offsite organizationsEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 25*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(B) Offsite (if the plume exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond the site boundary)

-(3) Protective measures

-(4) Offsite organizational training

-(5) Evacuation time estimate Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 26*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(B) Offsite (if the plume exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond the site boundary)

-(6) Emergency response facilities

-(7) Offsite dose projections

-(8) Public informationEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 27*§50.160-(c)(1)(iv) Planning activities*(B) Offsite (if the plume exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond the site boundary)-(9) Reentry

-(10) Drill and exercise program

-(11) Maintaining the emergency planEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 28*§50.160-(c) Requirements*(2) Hazard analysis (collocation, modularity, industrial)Licensees and applicants complying with this section must conduct a hazard analysis of any contiguous facility, such as industrial, military, and transportation facilities, and include any credible hazard into the licensee's emergency preparedness program that would adversely impact the implementation of

emergency plans. Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 29*§50.160-(c) Requirements*(3) Emergency Planning Zone*(4) Ingestion response planning-Federal, Tribal, state and local capabilities

-National Response Framework>>Federal Interagency Operation Plans

>>Nuclear/Radiological Incident AnnexEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 30*§50.160-(d) Implementation*(1) Future applicants must meet the requirements no later than 18 months before the issuance of an

operating license.*(2) A holder of a combined license must meet the requirements no later than 18 months before fuel

loading. Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 31*Specific Requests for Comments-Section IV of the FRN*Scope of the proposed rule*Performance-based requirements

Drills or exercises

Planning activities

Hazard analysis

EPZsEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 32*Specific Requests for Comments-Section VII Regulatory Analysis-Section IX Cumulative Effects of Regulation

-Section X Plain Writing

-Section XI Environmental Assessment

-Section XII Paperwork Reduction Act

-Draft Regulatory GuideEmergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking 33 Licensing Modernization Project*The LMP's objective is to develop technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based regulatory guidance for licensing non-LWRs for the NRC's consideration and possible endorsement*LMP Participants: -Southern Company -lead -Nuclear Energy Institute -coordination

-U.S. Department of Energy -cost-sharing*Integrated approach to licensing basis development-Licensing basis event selection

-Classification of structure, systems, and components

-Assessment of defense-in-depth *ACRS public meetings*Schedule calendar year 2019: -DG-1353 -to consider endorsing NEI-18-04 publication 34 Status and Path Forward*Proposed rule package is in concurrence:-Due to the OEDO on September 28, 2018 and the Commission on October 12, 2018-Draft guidance is planned for issuance with proposed rule in early 2019 (pending Commission's approval)-Draft final rule due to the Commission for approval in early 2020*Future ACRS interactions-Full committee -October 2018 (proposed rule)

-Full committee -to be determined (final rule) 35 AbbreviationsACRS -Advisory Committee on Reactor SafeguardsCFR -Code of Federal Regulations COL -combined license DG -draft regulatory guide OEDO -Office of the Executive Director of Operations EP -emergency preparedness EPZ -emergency planning zone FEMA -Federal Emergency Management Agency FRN -Federal Register notice LMP -Licensing Modernization Project LWR -light-water reactor NEI -Nuclear Energy Institute 36 AbbreviationsNMSS -Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsNRC -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRO -Office of New Reactors NRR -Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSIR -Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response ONT -other new technology RG -regulatory guide RIN -Regulation Identification Number SECY -Office of the Secretary to the Commission SMR -small modular reactor SRM -staff requirements memorandum

ML18254A205

Text

Navigation menu

Search