ML18254A205
| 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) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Future Plant Designs and Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittees Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Work Order No.: NRC-3859 Pages 1-185 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1
2 3
4 DISCLAIMER 5
6 7 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11 The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17 This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 (ACRS) 6 + + + + +
7 FUTURE PLANT DESIGNS AND REGULATORY POLICIES AND 8 PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEES 9 + + + + +
10 WEDNESDAY 11 AUGUST 22, 2018 12 + + + + +
13 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 14 + + + + +
15 The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 17 T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Dennis C.
18 Bley, Chairman, presiding.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
2 DENNIS C. BLEY, Chairman 3 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 4 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 5 MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Member 6 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 7 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 8 JOY L. REMPE, Member 9 PETER C. RICCARDELLA, Member*
10 GORDON R. SKILLMAN, Member 11 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member 12 13 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
14 DEREK A. WIDMAYER 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC 3 ANNA BRADFORD, NRO 4 ANDREW CARRERA, NMSS 5 KEITH COMPTON, RES 6 ARLON COSTA, NRO 7 SARAH FIELDS*
8 DARRELL GARDNER, Kairos 9 MICHELLE HART, NRO 10 PATRICIA HOLAHAN, NMSS 11 BRIAN JOHNSON, TerraPower 12 STEVE LYNCH, NRR 13 PATRICIA MILLIGAN, NSIR 14 STEVEN MIRSKY, NuScale 15 ED ROACH, NSIR 16 JOHN SEGALA, NRO 17 FARSHID SHAHROKHI, Framatome 18 ROBERT TAYLOR, NSIR 19 KENNETH THOMAS, NSIR 20 BRANDON WAITES, Southern Nuclear 21 *Present via telephone 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 C O N T E N T S 2 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Staff Introduction Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Draft Proposed RuleDraft Proposed Rule, Emergency 5 Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other 6 New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7 Break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 8 Draft Proposed RuleDraft Proposed Rule, Emergency 9 Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other 10 New Technologies (cont) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 11 Public Statements for the Record . . . . . . . 126 12 Subcommittee Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 13 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 8:29 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Good morning. The meeting 4 will now come to order. This is a joint meeting of 5 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 6 Subcommittees on Future Plant Designs and Regulatory 7 Policies and Practices.
8 I'm Dennis Bley, Chairman of the Future 9 Plants Design Subcommittee. ACRS members in 10 attendance are Joy Rempe, Charlie Brown, Walt 11 Kirchner, Jose March-Leuba, Dick Skillman, Mike 12 Corradini, Matt Sunseri, and Ron Ballinger.
13 MEMBER REMPE: Charlie's kind of quiet 14 today.
15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And we have Charlie Brown 16 with us momentarily. Did I skip you? No, I didn't.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No, you said Charlie 18 was here. His name is not here.
19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: No, but he's -- yeah.
20 Member Riccardella is attending the meeting via 21 teleconference. And he is on the line. Derek 22 Widmayer of the ACRS staff is the designated federal 23 official for this meeting.
24 The purpose of today's meeting is to 25 review the draft proposed rule, Emergency Preparedness NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, 2 and its associated draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1350.
3 The Subcommittee will gather information, 4 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 5 proposed positions and actions as appropriate for 6 consideration by the full Committee.
7 The Committee is scheduled to address this 8 matter at the October 2018 full Committee meeting.
9 This service was established by Statute, and is 10 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
11 That means that the Committee can only 12 speak through its published letter reports. We hold 13 meetings to gather information to support our 14 deliberations.
15 Interested parties who wish to provide 16 comments can contact our offices requesting time 17 after the Federal Register Notice of the meeting is 18 published.
19 With that said, we also set aside time for 20 extemporaneous comments from members of the public 21 attending or listening to our meetings. Both comments 22 are also welcome.
23 The ACRS section of the USNRC public 24 website provides our charter, bylaws, letter reports, 25 and transcripts of all full and Subcommittee meetings, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 including slides presented at the meetings.
2 Detailed proceedings for conduct of ACRS 3 meetings was previously published in the Federal 4 Register on October 24, 2017.
5 This is open to public attendance, and we 6 have received requests for time to make oral 7 statements from several industry representatives.
8 Time has been allotted in today's agenda to allow for 9 these statements.
10 We also have received several written 11 statements, copies of which have been distributed to 12 Subcommittee Members and are available for the public 13 at the back of the room.
14 Today's meeting is being held with a 15 telephone bridge line allowing participation of the 16 public over the phone.
17 A transcript of today's meeting is being 18 kept. Therefore, we request that any participants on 19 the bridge line, when they are called upon to identify 20 themselves when they speak, and to speak with 21 sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be 22 readily heard.
23 Participants in the meeting room should 24 use the microphones located throughout the meeting 25 room when addressing the Subcommittee and likewise, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 identify yourselves and who you're with.
2 At this time I ask that attendees in the 3 room please silence all cell phones and other noise 4 making devices.
5 And remind speakers at the front table and 6 this table to turn on their microphone indicated by 7 the illuminated green light, and the button's right 8 nearest you where it says push, every time you talk.
9 And please turn them off when you're finished because 10 we get interference on the phone lines otherwise.
11 We will now proceed with the meeting. I 12 call upon Patricia Holahan, Director of the Division 13 of Rulemaking Office of NMSS to make introductory 14 remarks. Trish?
15 DR. HOLAHAN: Thank you. As I said ear --
16 or as you said, I'm Dr. Trish Holahan. I'm the 17 Director of the Division of Rulemaking. And I'm 18 incognito. I don't have a name tag, so.
19 I'd like to take this opportunity to thank 20 the Subcommittee for allowing us this opportunity to 21 discuss with you the Emergency Preparedness for Small 22 Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies proposed 23 rulemaking.
24 In the staff requirement's memorandum, 25 SECY 15-0077, the Commission approved the staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 proposal to initiate rulemaking to develop alternative 2 EP requirements and implementing Guidance for small 3 modular reactors and other new technologies in part to 4 reduce requests for exemptions for the current EP 5 requirements and promote regulatory stability, 6 predictability, and clarity to the licensing process 7 for these future facilities.
8 Then in the SRM on SECY 16-0009, the 9 Commission actually approved our rulemaking plan to 10 move forward. The new alternative EP requirements and 11 implementing Guidance adopt a consequence oriented, 12 risk-informed, and performance-based approach as well 13 as being technology inclusive.
14 It would provide an option to all future 15 small modular reactor and other new technology 16 facilities to be licensed after the effective date of 17 the final rule.
18 The proposed rule does not include within 19 its scope emergency planning preparation and response 20 for large light water reactors, fuel cycle facilities, 21 or currently operating non-power reactors.
22 However, as you will hear further from 23 Kenny Thomas in his presentation, the Federal Register 24 Notice has a question regarding whether the scope of 25 the rulemaking should be expanded to include other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 facilities such as large light water reactors.
2 The --
3 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Can I interrupt you? I'm 4 sorry to interrupt your opening statement.
5 DR. HOLAHAN: No.
6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: That part's kind of new to 7 me. Where did that come? The consideration for large 8 LWRs?
9 DR. HOLAHAN: It came about through the 10 concurrence process. There was a question because 11 SECY 15-0077 wasn't -- didn't clearly articulate why 12 we couldn't include light water reactors.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So that will be considered 14 during the rulemaking?
15 DR. HOLAHAN: Well, we'll ask a question.
16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.
17 DR. HOLAHAN: Yeah.
18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. Go ahead. I'm 19 sorry.
20 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay. The associated draft 21 implementing Guidance performance-based emergency 22 preparedness for small modular reactors, non-light 23 water reactors, and non-power production or 24 utilization facilities is intended for use by 25 licensees, applicants, and the NRC staff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 The draft Guidance describes optional 2 approaches and methods acceptable for implementing the 3 new alternative EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.160, 4 Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors, 5 Non-Light Water Reactors, and Non-Power Production, or 6 Utilization Facilities.
7 As Guidance document DG-1350 does not 8 establish additional requirements, and licensees are 9 free to propose alternative ways for demonstrating 10 compliance with the regulations. And Kenny will be 11 discussing this draft Guidance document in further 12 detail during his presentation.
13 We look forward to addressing any 14 questions or comments that you may have on this SECY 15 paper, the Federal Register Notice, which includes the 16 proposed Rule and statements of consideration, as well 17 as on the Guidance documents, DG-1350.
18 Before I want to -- before I introduce the 19 staff, I want to mention that the draft proposed Rule 20 is on track to be submitted to the Commission for a 21 vote on October 12, 2018, prior to issuance for public 22 comment. Andy will provide you with further details 23 regarding the rulemaking deliverables and schedule.
24 I'd like to especially acknowledge and 25 express my appreciation for the efforts of the Working NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 Group Members. For all of their excellent work 2 involved with this rulemaking effort.
3 Several members from NRR as well as 4 Research, NSIR, NMSS, and NRO are here this morning to 5 support this presentation. Including Kenny Thomas, 6 who's an Emergency Preparedness Specialist in the 7 Office of Nuclear Security and Instant Response.
8 He will be leading the discussion 9 regarding the proposed rulemaking and draft Guidance 10 document. Andy Carrera, the Lead Project Manager for 11 this rulemaking, from my division in NMSS will close 12 the presentation with the upcoming deliverables.
13 And additionally, we have members of the 14 Working Group. And key -- and Office of New Reactor, 15 Office of Nuclear Security and Instant Responses, 16 NMSS, and Office of General Counsel management and 17 staff, including Ed Roach, Ed is in the audience.
18 And I forgot to mention Arlon Costa, which 19 is a Senior Project Manager from the Office of New 20 Reactors. Sorry Arlon. And Keith Compton from the 21 Office of Research, in addition to address any 22 questions you may have.
23 We look forward to an informative 24 interaction with the ACRS staff today. I want to 25 thank the ACRS for its review and support to the staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 with regard to this important rulemaking activity.
2 And now I'll turn it over to Arlon.
3 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Before you do, I have one 4 quick thing I wanted to get in. First, there are two 5 areas that I couldn't quite track, and I didn't have 6 time to chase down all the way.
7 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: But I hope people will 9 address as we go forward. The one is, it seems to me 10 the most difficult thing about being able to do this 11 well would be to get the source terms right.
12 And near as I can tell, there's only hints 13 that you've got to do that. Or short statements both 14 in the Rule and in the draft Guide. Which doesn't 15 tell us much about how to do that.
16 And I hope you can expand on that later in 17 the morning.
18 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The other one is, I'm not 20 completely clear. I'm not clear, what's different in 21 the proposed Rule and the Guidance for the other 22 aspects of 70-EPZ that's different from Appendix E?
23 And most of that -- most of the Guide 24 deals with what's in the Emergency Plan. And if you 25 can highlight things that are different from the old NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 Guidance, that would be helpful to me especially.
2 So, with that said, I'd like you to go 3 ahead --
4 DR. HOLAHAN: Okay.
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: With Ken. It's up to you.
6 DR. HOLAHAN: I'll turn it over to Ken.
7 MR. THOMAS: Good morning. Thank you Dr.
8 Holahan, I appreciate it. I am Kenny Thomas and I 9 will be leading the staff's presentation this morning.
10 I'd like to thank the Working Group again, 11 and the project managers for all their efforts to get 12 here. And this presentation will provide you with the 13 key messages, background, and objectives and a 14 detailed look at the Rule and Guidance.
15 We will discuss the reasons why the staff 16 did not address operating reactors as Dr. Holahan had 17 discussed, on slides four through six. That the NRC 18 is okay with the site boundary EPZ on slide seven.
19 How the EPZ will be calculated on side 20 seven and eight. The reasoning that informed the 21 ingestion planning requirements on slide 11.
22 And offsite planning considerations on 23 slide 12. Next slide, please.
24 The proposed Rule would be technology 25 inclusive. And we provide an option to all future NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 small modular reactor and other new technology 2 facilities licensed after the effective date of the 3 final Rule.
4 The proposed Rule would address those 5 nuclear facilities that have source terms, and by 6 extension, reactor power levels ranging from very 7 small too large.
8 For the sake of convenience, we will use 9 the term other new technologies in this presentation 10 and in some of the associated documents to refer to 11 non-light water reactors, medical radioisotope 12 facilities, and future non-power reactors.
13 However, in the Rule and the Guidance, we 14 don't refer to other new technologies. Rather, we use 15 non-light water reactors, or non-power production or 16 utilization facilities.
17 In the context of this proposal, medical 18 radioisotope facilities to be licensed under 10 CFR 19 Part 50, would also be included within the definition 20 of non-power production or utilization facilities.
21 This Rule proposed to apply the 22 Commission's expectation that advanced reactors would 23 provide enhanced margins of safety and/or use 24 simplified inherent, passive, or other innovative 25 means to accomplish their safety and security NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 functions. Next slide, please.
2 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Before you proceed, Ken 3 --
4 MR. THOMAS: Yeah.
5 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Let me ask you this.
6 I've reviewed the documentation. And DG-1350 does not 7 include ONT. Does not include that effort.
8 I'm not suggesting that it must. But, I'm 9 wondering if an opportunity is being lost? What 10 you've just said is, you're going to include ONT under 11 the definitions of in-house or non-production, smaller 12 facilities.
13 As I was reading all of the documentation, 14 my sense was that the term ONT delivered a punch that 15 was worth continuing with. I thought there was value 16 in that acronym. Because at least in my mind it was 17 offering a view of something different that needed 18 recognition.
19 So, I would suggest you might want to 20 rethink simply writing a definition that includes ONT 21 under something else. When in actuality the term, or 22 the acronym ONT might be one that takes on its own 23 value.
24 One man's opinion. We're a subcommittee 25 here. But that's -- when I read 1350, I said where's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 ONT? Because you make a great defense of it in your 2 other documentation.
3 MR. THOMAS: Thank you Dr. Skillman. We 4 will take a look at this and we'll consider it. I 5 will let you know that when we kicked this off about 6 three years ago, we set out to identify those power 7 plants within the scope, small modular reactors and 8 other new technology.
9 In 15-0077, or SECY 15-0077, we discussed 10 what those could be, medical radioisotope facilities 11 and non-light water reactors. When we come together 12 as a Working Group to start looking at the construct 13 of the Rule, how do we go around and try to define 14 this?
15 So, we went through a very deliberative 16 process. And that's something that we can reconsider 17 as we move forward with crafting the final rule.
18 And I have a note of it, we will reconvene 19 the Working Group and take a look at it. It's 20 valuable insight. Thank you.
21 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you. Thank you.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: May I -- at the risk of 23 regression, go back to the previous slide. And just 24 a -- I'm stumbling over your choice of words.
25 So, an SMR is less then 1,000 megawatts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 thermal that may have a modular design. What do you 2 mean by that?
3 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. When we were looking 4 at -- again, we're looking at small modular reactors.
5 And one of the questions that we tried to tackle in 6 the Working Group as a technical group is, so if we 7 had a small reactor come in, would this not apply to 8 a small reactor as well?
9 So, when we start looking at putting the 10 definition, as you'll see in the Rule language in the 11 Federal Register Notice, we said we could have, or may 12 have modular design as defined in Part 52.
13 So, it was important for us to acknowledge 14 that even if a small reactor came in with a small 15 source term, smaller consequences, or less 16 consequences to public health and safety, why wouldn't 17 we want to include that?
18 So, some of the -- what we looked at is 19 maybe squishy language there. May have modular design 20 is our attempt to address even the small reactors that 21 may want to use this as other new technology.
22 So, a small reactor --
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: That makes sense.
24 That's not what I'm reacting to. I'm reacting to 25 1,000 megawatts is a change in definition from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 previously what was used for SMRs.
2 And you don't address multiple units 3 explicitly.
4 MR. THOMAS: Okay, so --
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Therefore you could have 6 more then 1,000 megawatts on the site. Thermal. And 7 we have that actually in front of us.
8 MR. THOMAS: It's that path right there.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Well, in some of the 10 documentation they say this 1,000 megawatts applies 11 per module.
12 MEMBER REMPE: And that's what I was going 13 to bring that up. I mean, what's the limit here? How 14 many -- if you have an 800 megawatt thermal reactor 15 and they put 12 on a site, are you still going to do 16 per module?
17 MR. THOMAS: That's correct.
18 MEMBER CORRADINI: So, I was going to 19 wait, but since we're not going to let you get off 20 slide number two.
21 (Laughter) 22 MEMBER CORRADINI: So, I'm trying to 23 understand the technical bit. Let's just -- let's 24 just stipulate for a moment that they're all 25 independent.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 So, 1,000 megawatts per module. Just for 2 the sake of argument. Where is there a calculation 3 that shows 1,000 megawatts is the breakpoint?
4 I'm back at TID-14844, which is not 5 appropriate, because it's reciting and it's expounded.
6 But I'm looking for a calculation for a light water 7 reactor that shrinks, and continues to shrink.
8 And 1,000 megawatts is the breakpoint 9 before changing the peg from automatically ten miles 10 to less then ten miles. Is there such a calculation?
11 Use the alternative source term using TID-12 14844, using anything.
13 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to call my --
14 DR. HOLAHAN: Lifeline?
15 MR. THOMAS: My lifeline. Yeah, exactly.
16 Thanks Trish. Dr. Compton, will you -- are you able 17 to address this?
18 Or can we take this as a note to follow up 19 with the ACRS?
20 MEMBER CORRADINI: And I'll explain my 21 logic. My logic is I personally know how you guys 22 have structured this from a process standpoint make's 23 sense. I don't have a problem with that.
24 I'm just back with Dennis on source term, 25 source term, source term. Because it's going to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 used for citing. It's going to be used for emergency 2 planning.
3 It's going to be used for equipment 4 qualification, control room habitability. It maybe 5 used for all of these things or they maybe different 6 source terms.
7 So, I just want to understand the 8 technical basis of the breakpoint. And I assume 9 somebody did something to justify that.
10 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Or is it just the biggest 11 one you thought you might have to see?
12 MEMBER CORRADINI: Don't give them that.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Because that's technology 14 neutral.
15 MR. ROACH: Good morning. Ed Roach. I'm 16 a Senior EP Specialist in NRC at NSIR. When we 17 started the rulemaking, existing rulemaking had 18 already been completed in the Fee Rule.
19 And the Fee Rule had in Part 171, had 20 previously defined it. And NRO, I believe, worked 21 with the offices to define it as a 1,000 megawatt 22 thermal.
23 And it also had the words, I think, 24 equipment to 300 megawatts electrical deposit.
25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: And any basis?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 MR. ROACH: We searched for that through 2 the Federal Register, and didn't pull that out.
3 However, in looking at the various designs that were 4 out there, there were discussions relative to where do 5 you make that cut?
6 Previously the Rule and the current Rule 7 states 250 megawatts thermal as the -- as where 8 plants, light water reactor or light water is less 9 then that, or high temperature gas reactors can come 10 in for a case by case evaluation. And the ones that 11 have previously been there have had about a five-mile 12 EPZ.
13 So, off the top there is not a hand 14 calculation that I can give you right now. But we'll 15 pull that.
16 MEMBER CORRADINI: And the only reason I'm 17 asking for it now as -- since the context is the way 18 you've structured the Rule, you've basically, thou 19 shall go find a source term.
20 I'm just trying to understand. Because 21 this is going to affect a number of things.
22 MR. ROACH: Yes.
23 MEMBER CORRADINI: And I guess we're a 24 technical committee, so I'd like a technical basis 25 rather then a legal basis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 MR. ROACH: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Mike said don't leave you 3 an out. But I'm of the persuasion, --
4 MEMBER CORRADINI: I'm sure you are.
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: That what Trish said 6 earlier is appropriate. There's nothing I read here 7 in the process that says this wouldn't be appropriate 8 for any reactor or any size.
9 We have a shortcut now both for these 10 details. But, if you want to go through all the 11 details it seems to me it's a reasonable approach for 12 any.
13 Although the hard part has been left out 14 so far.
15 MR. SEGALA: And this is John Segala from 16 NRO. I would just like to add, I mean, this is just 17 designating, you now, who can apply the new Rule.
18 In the end they have to demonstrate 19 through calculation and analysis, applying their 20 source term and the different accidents. They have to 21 demonstrate that they can meet the performance 22 criteria or the acceptance criteria in the Rule to 23 have a relaxed emergency planning zone size.
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I think we get that. But 25 our question is, why? Where did this come from?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 What's the basis for saying these are the people this 2 applies to?
3 MS. BRADFORD: Can I jump in for one 4 second? This is Anna Bradford.
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: If you say who you are.
6 MS. BRADFORD: Yeah. Anna Bradford, 7 Deputy Director in the Division of Licensing, Siting, 8 and Environmental Analysis at NRO.
9 And I was also back in the old Division of 10 Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking. You remember that 11 in NRO. We had all the SMRs, NuScale, Westinghouse, 12 MPOWER, Voltec.
13 So, the small modular reactor, 300 14 megawatt electric, which converts to about 1,000 15 megawatt thermal, was just a term that we were using 16 back when this whole kind of category of reactors came 17 up in the first place.
18 It really just meant to me this category 19 of this type of design of reactor. And the Industry 20 was using this term.
21 You know, we're aiming for under 300 22 megawatt electric per module. So, that's -- it just 23 became more of an okay, given that there's this 24 category of potential designs out there, could they be 25 eligible for a smaller EPZ?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 So to put it in five that the 1,000 came 2 up strictly when we started working on EPZ. It's been 3 used as kind of the term of art or the name for this 4 category for years, and years, and years, before we 5 started using EP.
6 And so you'll see this later, I think, 7 when we get into the details. And certainly this 8 afternoon when we start talking about specifics, 9 you'll see how we applied that to actually calculate 10 the source term. Because of course the source term is 11 what's most important regardless of what you call it.
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay. There's a rule 13 people say here. If you get ten seconds, just go 14 ahead.
15 MS. BRADFORD: Okay.
16 MR. THOMAS: Okay, so we're back on slide 17 three if you're following along in the audience or on 18 the phone lines.
19 Let's see. Major provisions of this 20 proposed Rule and Guidance would provide for an option 21 to all future small modular reactors and other new 22 technology facilities.
23 A new alternate performance-based EP 24 framework, including requirements for demonstrating 25 effective response and drills. And exercises for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 emergency and accident conditions.
2 A hazard analysis for any NRC licensed or 3 non-licensed facility contiguous for a small modular 4 reactor or other new technology facility to identify 5 hazards that could diversely impact the implementation 6 of the emergency plans.
7 A skillful for approach for determining 8 the size of the plum exposure pathway emergency 9 planning zone. Or as we'll keep referring to it as 10 the EPZ.
11 A requirement for licensees to describe 12 ingestion response planning in the facility's 13 emergency plan. Including the capabilities and 14 resources available to protect against contaminated 15 food and water from entering the ingestion pathway.
16 These requirements were applied to those 17 small modular reactor and other new technologies that 18 elect to use the rule in Section 50.160. It's the new 19 section for us. Next slide, please.
20 In this on the next slide, it will try to 21 provide some of the background. Dr. Holahan looked at 22 it just a few minutes ago. She spoke to it and gave 23 the context for some of the decisions to pursue 24 rulemaking for small modular reactors and other new 25 technologies.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 In 2010 the staff sent to the Commission 2 SECY 10-0034, where the staff presented the potential 3 policy, licensing, and key technical issues for small 4 modular reactor designs.
5 At that time the staff told the Commission 6 that the staff would consider white papers, topical 7 reports, and other information it received from the 8 Department of Energy and applicants to evaluate 9 proposals for site specific proposed emergency plans.
10 The staff also noted its commitment to work with the 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
12 In 2011, in SECY 11-0152, the staff 13 presented one solution to the policy and licensing 14 issues described in SECY 10-0034 for emergency 15 preparedness. This paper describes the staff's intent 16 to develop a technology neutral, dose based, 17 consequence oriented EP framework for small modular 18 reactor sites that takes into account the various 19 designs, modularity, and co-location as well as the 20 size of the EPZ.
21 Also in 2011 we had a final Rule. It was 22 published to enhance the EP requirements. Then the 23 following years the existing power plants implemented 24 provisions of the final rule, enhanced their 25 capabilities learned from the Fukushima Daiichi NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 accident.
2 In 2014 --
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: May I stop you again?
4 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
5 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You started out in 6 studying this and all the background material, has 7 there been any analysis by the staff of why this is 8 restricted to singular modules, given the Fukushima 9 events?
10 MR. THOMAS: Analysis?
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: In terms of a single 12 module being the basis for making the dose estimate?
13 MR. THOMAS: That's a good question. I 14 believe that we're in a -- we're using research to 15 actually identify what the source terms are in the 16 sensitivities of the different accidents that --
17 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I mean, Fukushima in 18 short was a lesson in common mode and common cause 19 failure.
20 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So why post-Fukushima 22 would we not look at multiple modules?
23 MR. THOMAS: I believe we are, sir. I'm 24 going to turn this over to Dr. Compton.
25 DR. COMPTON: Keith Compton from the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 Office of Research. Yeah, strictly -- I'll just speak 2 strictly to the doses estimate methodology.
3 I haven't -- we haven't kind of developed 4 that to be strictly limited to a single source term.
5 So, if you had a multi-sourced term, if you generated 6 that, that was something that came out of your 7 analysis, you could.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So for your bounding 9 source term in a severe accident, would we use a 10 source term based on multiple modules or a single 11 module?
12 DR. COMPTON: I haven't -- we haven't, or 13 at least I haven't in the methodology specified 14 exactly how to do that.
15 MEMBER REMPE: Didn't you say in the Rule 16 that you are doing it on a single module? I mean, 17 that's what I was trying to get to earlier with my 18 question.
19 And I agree with Walt, why are you not 20 considering multiple modules on a site? Why are you 21 doing a single module?
22 The other question I was curious about was 23 --
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: It's not a technical 25 decision then it's a policy decision.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 MEMBER REMPE: If it's a policy decision, 2 I'd like to understand that. And the other question 3 I have is why 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />?
4 A long time ago we used to use the first 5 two hours for siting. And they decided with some of 6 the advanced designs that the worst two hours should 7 be used.
8 Now if we have 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> again, we don't 9 know what designs are going to come through in the 10 future. So what happens if somebody has a pool of 11 water that boils away?
12 All their modules are in, and again, I'm 13 not picking on a particular design. I'm trying to 14 think of Joe's reactor that a former member used to 15 always mention.
16 If there's a bump up at 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> because 17 that water boils away at 97 hours0.00112 days <br />0.0269 hours <br />1.603836e-4 weeks <br />3.69085e-5 months <br />. And you know, 18 again, should you not have something more then 96 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />?
20 I'm just curious again, why 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />? And 21 that was mentioned in the Rule, the draft Rule.
22 MR. TAYLOR: If I can, I'm Robert Taylor, 23 Branch Chief in NSIR Division of Preparedness and 24 Response.
25 To address the multiple source term and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 such. The methodology for EPZ size determination 2 talks to source term.
3 But it talks to also the accident 4 conditions that occur at the site, which would need to 5 make considerations for multiple co-located facilities 6 on the site. Which would include other source term 7 sources essentially. Where they can come from.
8 So, it's not restricted to only the module 9 that's being licensed at the time. It would be any 10 design accident that the applicant would be including 11 in their analysis, which would include accidents of 12 multiple facilities at the site, multiple modules.
13 MEMBER REMPE: I saw that word and I 14 thought about well, they must be thinking about the 15 spent fuel pool. But I kind of found the good --
16 MR. TAYLOR: The spent fuel pool and other 17 modules, and other types of facilities not restricted 18 just to the same type of reactor.
19 MEMBER REMPE: I agree that you might be 20 able to interpret the verbiage in the draft Rule so 21 that it would be that way. But jeepers, we're talking 22 about small modular reactors in this rulemaking.
23 We might not be a little more explicit, 24 because it's real vague that that -- and you know, I 25 was trying to read it. It's like are they considering NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 multiple modules or not?
2 It wasn't clear to me. And again, I spent 3 some time trying to understand it. But maybe I'm not 4 a lawyer or I didn't see another one.
5 MR. TAYLOR: We don't want to restrict it 6 to just the additional modules that maybe present at 7 the site. We wanted to make it general in nature to 8 include other sources of source terms.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. So, put in purposing 10 --
11 MR. TAYLOR: Which would include the 12 commonality of a spent fuel pool --
13 MEMBER REMPE: Um-hum.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Between modules and the 15 reactor at the same time modules. So, that would be 16 an analysis and would be based upon the credible 17 accidents that occur at the site, in the analysis that 18 the applicant would provide to us.
19 MEMBER REMPE: It looks like you could put 20 a parenthetical statement saying this is what --
21 MR. TAYLOR: A little bit more precise?
22 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah. A little more common 23 college that -- or easier to understand language would 24 have been helpful to me.
25 But again, I'm an engineer.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 MEMBER CORRADINI: So, can I take a little 2 bit different question? Is the anticipation of staff 3 that the source term an applicant may use to insert 4 into this process the same source term that would be 5 used for siting?
6 MR. COSTA: Let's go back to siting first 7 for a second. If you recall, in siting we have the 8 measurements have to do with specifically for siting.
9 And in the part of siting that's 10 associated with EP, is how you're going to deal with 11 the capabilities to move people away from the zone.
12 So, that number is very high as you recall.
13 So the one rem number that we're talking 14 about here is, she mentioned the 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />, is way more 15 -- is much smaller then the one in comparison to the 16 site.
17 But, for our rule it's specifically for 18 emergency preparedness. So it's not associated with 19 that number for siting.
20 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. So, is that a 21 yes or a no? I'm trying to understand. In other 22 words, if I today am going to apply for I'll Joy's and 23 a former member's, Joe's reactor.
24 And Joe's reactor is coming in, they're 25 going to have to develop a source term for a number of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 applications. My main question is, is the siting 2 source term expected to be the same source term as for 3 the EP?
4 MR. COSTA: The rule that we have right 5 now for siting is much -- the number, the 25 rem 6 number, if you compare that to the one rem, is much 7 smaller.
8 So anybody that makes -- meets the siting 9 criteria of 25 rem in comparison to the one rem for 96 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> that we have for EP, it's pretty obvious that 11 they make it for the emergency preparedness 12 measurements.
13 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay.
14 MR. COSTA: Which is much more strict then 15 the siting number.
16 MEMBER CORRADINI: Are you going to put a 17 lot of that to her for reference?
18 MR. THOMAS: We also have Michelle Hart 19 from the Office of New Reactors standing by to answer.
20 MS. HART: Yes. As Kenny said, I'm 21 Michelle Hart in the Office of New Reactors. I do the 22 siting analysis, and I've also been on the Working 23 Group for this Rule. Proposed Rule, excuse me.
24 The source terms that you're talking 25 about, there's not just one source term. For the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 emergency preparedness, there's a range of accidents 2 that they need to look at.
3 It may include, it should include the 4 source term that they use for siting. So that design 5 basis accident source term would only give credit for 6 safety-related equipment.
7 But all of these accidents would be like 8 severe accidents, wouldn't include it.
9 MEMBER CORRADINI: So the -- so from your 10 experience, the one for siting may not be the bounding 11 one. There would be --
12 MS. HART: That's correct.
13 MEMBER CORRADINI: Okay. Okay. All 14 right. Thank you.
15 MS. HART: Okay.
16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.
17 MR. THOMAS: Ten second rule I guess.
18 Okay. In 2014 we're somewhere around the last bullet 19 on this slide.
20 In SECY 14-0038, the staff stated that a 21 performance based over site regime could simplify EP 22 regulation of focused inspections. More fully on, 23 response related performance rather then the current 24 focus on plant maintenance and compliance.
25 However, the staff recognized that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 existing programs provide reasonable assurance and 2 protection of public health and safety. Therefore, 3 the staff recommended at that time that the current EP 4 regime for existing facilities be maintained.
5 This rulemaking was based on the earlier 6 work presented in these SECY papers. The Working 7 Group addressed the issues related to modularity, the 8 designs, the potential for co-locating the reactors 9 near industrial facilities, and the size of the EPZ.
10 Next slide, please.
11 Continuing with some of the background on 12 slide five. In the staff requirement's memorandum to 13 SECY 14-0038, which was published in September 2014, 14 the Commission approved the staff's recommendation not 15 to pursue rulemaking for implementing the performance 16 based EP framework for operating nuclear power plants.
17 Additionally, the Commission stated that 18 the staff should remain vigilant in continuing to 19 assess the NRC's EP program. And should not rule out 20 the possibility of moving to a performance based frame 21 work in the future.
22 The Commission also noted the potential 23 benefit of a performance based EP regiment for small 24 modular reactors. The staff should return to the 25 Commission if it finds conditions warrant rulemaking.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 A few months later in April 2015, the 2 staff sent SECY 15-0077 to the Commission to request 3 initiating rulemaking to revise the regulations and 4 guidance for EP for small modular reactors and other 5 new technologies such as non-light water reactors and 6 medical radioisotope facilities.
7 The staff proposed a consequence-based 8 approach to establish new requirements as necessary 9 for offsite EP. And to establish EP requirements for 10 small modular reactors and other new technologies that 11 are commensurate with the potential consequences to 12 public health and safety.
13 The EP for small modular reactors and 14 other new technologies, including addressing the EPZ 15 size would enable the NRC staff to develop regulations 16 and guidance to provide for regulatory stability, 17 predictability, and clarity in the licensing process.
18 And would minimize or eliminate the uncertainty for 19 applicants and the inefficient use of agency resources 20 caused by reliance on serial EPZ size exemption 21 requests.
22 The staff requirement's memorandum to SECY 23 15-0077, the Commission approved the staff's request 24 to initiate rulemaking for small modular reactors and 25 other new technologies. And stated that the staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 should keep in mind the Commission's previous 2 direction from the SRM for SECY 14-0038 in mind.
3 This rulemaking began in 2016, and the 4 Commission approved the staff's proposed schedule in 5 SECY 16-0069. Next slide, please.
6 So here we're addressing one of the 7 questions where the staff's attempting to address what 8 about the operating reactors? And one of the 9 questions I believe from Dr. Corradini earlier is what 10 is -- where did this come from?
11 So, -- or Dr. Bley, sorry. The existing 12 regulatory oversight program provides reasonable 13 assurance that public health and safety is protected.
14 Given the recent to EP regulations and 15 guidance, such as the enhancements to the EP final 16 rule in 2011, and the Near-Term Task Force recommended 17 action and lessons learned implemented by the industry 18 developing and implementing a rule with the resources 19 from higher priority projects for both the NRC and for 20 the industry.
21 So, we did not address operating reactors 22 within this Rule. Next slide, please.
23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Ken, if I recall, in one 24 of the documents I read, the argument for that was it 25 just would be too much of a burden for an existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 reactor to even consider this at this point.
2 Is that right? Is my memory correct?
3 MR. THOMAS: We did make that case in the 4 documents.
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah.
6 MR. THOMAS: In the regulatory basis, I 7 believe. And in the FRN we talked to it again.
8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah.
9 MR. THOMAS: It was based on the input in 10 the public meetings that we had with the industry.
11 We've had two public meetings with the industry.
12 One in August 2016 when we addressed or 13 asked the question whether a performance based rule 14 would be beneficial for small modular reactors, as the 15 direction we should go.
16 And again, when we published the draft 17 regulatory basis document in May 2017, we had a public 18 meeting that also addressed this. So, it's based on 19 the interactions that we did have with the industry.
20 And they felt at that time it would be too 21 costly to actually change to a new program when the 22 existing program provided reasonable assurance.
23 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: For clarification, was 25 that the NEI comment that you referenced in your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 previous paragraph?
2 MR. THOMAS: That's a -- that's a good 3 question. NEI did make a comment to us when they were 4 -- we were soliciting public comments on the draft 5 regulatory basis.
6 About expanding the scope of the 7 rulemaking to include operating reactors. At that 8 time when we were -- and we have a slide that actually 9 addresses this at some point.
10 At that point we initially felt that that 11 comment was out of scope. Because we felt that the 12 scope was established by the SRM to SECY 15-0077, go 13 out and do rulemaking for SMRs and ONTs.
14 Based on what we learned during the 15 concurrence process for this set of documents, it was 16 raised by individuals who were reviewing it. And it's 17 like there's nothing in this rule that would not apply 18 or could not conceivably apply to large light water 19 reactors or the operating fleet.
20 So, we're revisiting that by including a 21 question in the FRN about including them within the 22 scope of this regulation.
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
24 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Next slide please.
25 Slide seven. Discussing the scalable approach for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 plume exposure pathway, EPZ.
2 The EPZ size would be scaled in proportion 3 to the potential consequences in a similar manner as 4 the NRC uses for operating research and test reactors 5 for fuel cycle facilities and independent fuel --
6 spent fuel storage installations under the existing 7 rules, since it would be a consequence oriented 8 approach to provide the same level of protection to 9 the public, health and safety as afforded to other 10 facilities.
11 Next slide, please. The staff is 12 proposing that applicants who select to comply with 13 the new Rule provide an analysis that supports the 14 request the EPZ size. The requirements would be in 15 Sections 50.33 and 50.34 of 10 CFR. 16 For the EPZ size determinations, the size 17 of the EPZ would encompass an area where prompt 18 protective actions such as evacuation of sheltering, 19 maybe needed to minimize the exposure to individuals.
20 If the applicant or licensee demonstrates 21 that prompt protective measures are not required due 22 to the timing of the releases from a credible 23 accident, or that extended time exists after release 24 and prior to reaching the need for evacuation or 25 sheltering such that the state and local authorities NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 could initiate actions in sufficient time to 2 adequately protect the public health and safety, such 3 accidents maybe excluded from consideration in 4 determining the size of the EPZ.
5 If the proposed EPZ extends beyond the 6 site boundary, then the exact size -- sorry, the exact 7 shape of the EPZ would need to be determined in 8 relation to the local emergency response needs and 9 capabilities as they are affected by such conditions 10 as demography, topography, land characteristics, 11 access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. Next 12 slide, please.
13 Slide number nine. The existing EPZ 14 Guidance for nuclear power plants. Large light water 15 reactors use a variety of guidance documents in 16 support of their EP programs.
17 Among the various documents I'm discussing 18 NUREG-0396. 0396 provides the basis for federal, 19 state and local emergency preparedness organizations 20 to determine the appropriate distance for which 21 emergency response planning efforts around a nuclear 22 power plant.
23 It introduced the concepts of a generic 24 emergency planning zone as a basis for planning the 25 response actions that would result in dose savings in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 an event of a serious power reactor accident.
2 These concepts were included in the final 3 Rule in 1980 in Sections 50.33, 50.47, and in Appendix 4 E to Part 50. And required a ten-mile plume exposure 5 pathway EPZ, and a 50-mile injection pathway EPZ 6 around each nuclear power reactor. Next slide.
7 MEMBER REMPE: Excuse me. In the draft 8 Rule, you mentioned two documents, ML18064A317 and ML 9 18114A176 that are not available on the public NRC 10 website.
11 Some of the information in those documents 12 is included in the draft Guide in Appendix A. But, 13 are you planning to issue those before the draft Rule 14 becomes public? And what's their status?
15 MR. THOMAS: I'm not sure. Dr. Rempe, 16 could you repeat those ML numbers for me?
17 MEMBER REMPE: Sure. ML18064A317 and ML 18 18114A176. That's on the bottom of page 78 and 79 and 19 -- the top of page 79 of the draft Rule. Generalized 20 dose assessment methodology for forming emergency 21 planning zone size determinations and required 22 analysis for informing emergency planning 23 determinations.
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Keith's an author on 25 these.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 MEMBER REMPE: Yeah. You know which 2 documents I'm talking about folks?
3 (Off mic yeses.)
4 MR. THOMAS: Dr. Compton is --
5 MEMBER REMPE: And you actually quote 6 things in Appendix A of the draft Guide.
7 DR. COMPTON: Yeah. I think those 8 documents are complete and they can be -- or filed as 9 public.
10 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. Thank you.
11 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Ken, I would like to ask 12 this question, please.
13 MR. THOMAS: Sure.
14 MEMBER SKILLMAN: As I look at this slide, 15 and I've got a pretty good understanding of how large 16 a power plant executes under this NUREG.
17 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: The get done track for 19 the emergency preparedness organization at the site is 20 the accumulation of the EALs. You begin with them.
21 And you go event, you get an alert. You 22 get a site area emergency. And when you see 23 radiological conditions further decaying, when you 24 push that button to go to general, you realize that 25 you're evacuating schools and nursing homes and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 hospitals.
2 That is a big, big deal. So, at this time 3 I'm look -- I'm listening to your presentation. I've 4 looked at the background documents.
5 And I'm looking at Draft Guide 1350, and 6 I'm thinking about EALs. What is your thought, and 7 this is just a general question.
8 What's your thought about EALs when the 9 source term is low and the offsite release is also 10 very low for some of these ONTs?
11 And how do you develop EALs when there is 12 almost nothing to deal with?
13 MR. THOMAS: Well, I believe that we have 14 several models that we could use for that or the 15 industry could take a look at. We have a --
16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Has the industry 17 responded to that? And they said hey, you know, that 18 you've got -- you've got technologies here where the 19 source term is so very, very low, we're not really 20 sure how to develop an EAL for this.
21 MR. THOMAS: We have not engaged the 22 industry at this time to address that specific 23 question. But within our own documents and within our 24 own constructs, if we were to look at NUREG-0849 for 25 research and test reactors, there's an EAL scheme NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 there.
2 We've endorsed ANSI Standard 1516 that 3 also has an EAL scheme that for really small source 4 terms, for those type of facilities. I'm not the 5 expert on that.
6 I could ask Mr. Lynch to address that as 7 well. But, we do have the different models for --
8 that does address emergency classification levels and 9 EALs for these types.
10 What we do expect from the rule, as you 11 look at the -- in the FRN, the proposed Rule, is that 12 they have to be able to classify the event.
13 So again, that's when the bells and 14 whistles start going on. And that's when the plant 15 needs to be thinking that they're in an emergency 16 situation. They have a condition that meets their 17 initiating condition.
18 We expected the various designs to have 19 different EALs. One size will not fit all.
20 If we look at NUREG-0654, there's a set of 21 EALs that we published in NUREG-0645. And those EALs 22 for large light water reactors have evolved quite 23 dramatically in the 40 years that we published NUREG-24 0654.
25 And I think we're in rev six of NEI 99-01.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 And so it -- they can vary from -- based on the 2 operating experience for the industry that we felt was 3 of major importance back in 1980 through the various 4 revisions, they've refined where those emergency 5 classifications and those EALs fall.
6 In order to support this Rule, to 7 implement this Rule, the industry and then specific to 8 designers will have to actually evaluate their plants 9 and determine what their EAL list is.
10 We give a template in the DG that kind of 11 -- if you look at the existing ones, the abnormal 12 radiological conditions, you have to be able to 13 address those.
14 The hazards. What are those hazards? And 15 that might be where the hazard analysis from 16 contiguous plants, those EALs maybe incorporated in 17 that. And there are analyses for those adjoining 18 contiguous plants need to be able to address that.
19 You know, equipment malfunctions. If you 20 have a design that relies on, you know, AC, DC, or 21 specific ECCS, those casualties have to be addressed 22 on your emergency classification scheme, the EALs and 23 initiating conditions.
24 And then your radiological barriers, 25 fission product barriers in the current scheme. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 would expect something analogous or very similar to 2 that for plants.
3 For the technical staff, we look at a 4 whole range and spectrum of different plants and 5 designs from the light water, small modular reactors 6 to small reactors to sodium fast reactors, molten salt 7 reactors with vacuous fuel.
8 So, developing those specific EALs was not 9 our intent for the Working Group. What we wanted to 10 do is follow what we were instructed to do, was to be 11 technology inclusive.
12 And then for the specific designs to come 13 in and describe your design. And then much like your 14 experience, you look at this and this doesn't make 15 sense.
16 The staff would also have to go, did you 17 look at abnormal radiological conditions? Did you 18 look at equipment malfunctions?
19 Did you look at whatever your fission 20 product barriers is? Is there a loss of containment?
21 For a sodium fast reactor, there's a 22 containment function as opposed to maybe a metal 23 building. So, the EALs is where it starts.
24 It's the one EPIP, the emergency planning 25 implementing procedure that you never leave. You're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 always in your classification procedure from the day 2 you start your program.
3 You know, I can't as an operator person, 4 I can't just close the book because it's -- that's the 5 one procedure. I'm always scanning.
6 My reactor operators are always scanning 7 to make sure that we're in that -- in the right place.
8 Operating in the right place.
9 And when it's not, I'm familiar enough 10 with that procedure and my EALs to immediately go 11 there. So, personally, based on my experience, EALs 12 is fundamental.
13 For today, for tomorrow, in the past, it's 14 that important that we address and try to give those 15 considerations in the draft Guide.
16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: That's sufficient.
17 Thank you very much. Thank you.
18 MR. THOMAS: I could talk about it all 19 day.
20 (Laughter) 21 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I wanted to sneak in a 22 question related to what was going on just before 23 that.
24 Those two papers were brought up, and they 25 aren't public yet. It sounds like they will be soon.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 MR. THOMAS: Right.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Those papers, like all the 3 other Guidance and like everything else I've read, 4 have an icebox. And as Michelle said, you've got to 5 do the source terms, you've got to do some area 6 specific source terms.
7 But so far we've got no guidance on how 8 you want people to do that. Do you anticipate 9 developing such guidance into the draft Reg Guide 10 before it's published?
11 Or are you leaving this up to the poor 12 folks who are going to have to send you a lock?
13 MR. COSTA: This is Arlon Costa. The 14 Guide that we have right now, it's overarching. So, 15 it's the big picture for the whole group.
16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: It hints there will be 17 something on source terms.
18 MR. COSTA: Right. So, because this is 19 technology inclusive, we expect that, well, right now 20 we don't have any application for some of these newer 21 technologies that we're talking about, like molten 22 salt reactors or the other one.
23 So, there will be a time when we're going 24 to have to address that. But, the Guide --
25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah. I wasn't asking for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 an example. I was asking for guidance on how to 2 actually do those calculations.
3 MR. COSTA: Right. That will be there.
4 When we come to specificity, we may need to develop a 5 new Guide for those specific types of reactors coming 6 our way.
7 MEMBER CORRADINI: But I think what Dennis 8 is asking is, why in advance -- well, I mean, if I 9 were an applicant, I'd like to know way in advance 10 some general guidance to know what I have to throw 11 over the fence--
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Right.
13 MEMBER CORRADINI: Before I throw it.
14 MEMBER REMPE: For example, a cut off 15 frequency.
16 MR. THOMAS: That's the exact same 17 questions that the Working Group and the Steering 18 Committee have been tackling. And then whether to 19 talk specifically to what's gone on recently with the 20 licensing.
21 We had two vendors who came to us in early 22 discussions prior to the licensing. And the staff 23 developed what we call design specific review 24 standards.
25 We do envision that process continuing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 forward. And we've engaged those individuals in NRO 2 to find out if that's a feasible process to moving 3 forward, as a design is going through its design 4 phases.
5 Hopefully the vendors come to us and talk 6 to us early enough to where we're starting work. We 7 get the information. We start looking at the standard 8 of review plan, NUREG-0800.
9 And we look at this Guidance and say what 10 do we need to do to address those specific reviews and 11 those specific contest via application?
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I must not be speaking 13 clearly. What I'm looking for is comments in 14 principal on how one does this.
15 What considerations need to be worked out?
16 What kind of calculations need to be done? Not what's 17 the specific source to input in a particular reactor.
18 And that's missing. And part of my 19 concern is some vendors are deeply, technically 20 competent and know what's involved here. Others maybe 21 not on this area.
22 And with no guidance at all, it's -- it 23 smells like a trap. You know?
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: If I could add in here, 25 I think you underestimate how difficult this is to do.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 And since that view graph is up, if you go back, I 2 have it with me.
3 They -- the task force that did 0396 did 4 what I thought, and I'll use their words, the prudence 5 approach. That remember this was done before TMI and 6 before Fukushima. In the late '70s.
7 And they realized then, even for the 8 commercial LWR fleet, which is much more mature then 9 than any of the advanced designs we're thinking about 10 now. That they couldn't bound the possibilities.
11 WASH-1400 had just been issued a couple of 12 years before. So they took that in consideration.
13 And then they stepped back from that.
14 And I think it's relevant, if you'll 15 indulge me, Dennis, the Task Force recognized that 16 more specific events with respect to acts and 17 incidents, consequences would be more severe then 18 design accidents, should be explicitly considered in 19 the process.
20 And that emergency response plans should 21 provide dose ABs for a spectrum of accidents that 22 could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs.
23 And that the planning basis is independent of a 24 specific accident sequence.
25 And then they went onto reference the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 reactor safety study. And then they fin -- they 2 concluded that in the Task Force's judgement that 3 offsite planning for a generic distance around a 4 nuclear power plant is prudent and useful.
5 And that's because they recognized the 6 difficulty of covering the spectrum of accident 7 sequences that could -- that could occur.
8 Now we're dealing with new designs that 9 don't have the maturity or the PRA base that -- and 10 won't. Because many of them are paper designs.
11 So you're not going to have the 12 confidence. The uncertainties are going to be large.
13 So now if we go to the first principal 14 source term calculation, the uncertainties that 15 propagate through that calculation are enormous.
16 It's almost like compound interest when 17 you go through and see how your uncertainties grow in 18 trying to get your arms around a spectrum of source 19 terms that you could have from the many accident 20 scenarios.
21 And so with the slide up there, I wanted 22 to ask you what you believe is the prudent approach 23 given that you're stance of technology neutral right.
24 Would you not fall back on some minimum 25 take the source term which the first order correlates NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 with the power level? And then back out a bounding 2 set of calculations based on a worst case.
3 And then would you not come back to 4 exactly where the Task Force wound up? That's how 5 they came up with the ten miles by the way.
6 There is actually some -- there is some 7 actual technical basis for that. They looked at a 8 large spectrum. And then they looked at the fall off 9 with distance and weather conditions.
10 And then that's where the ten, you know, 11 the ten miles came from.
12 MR. THOMAS: Right.
13 MR. COSTA: And what you've said is our 14 expectation.
15 In fact, this is the point I was trying to 16 explain to Dr. Blue about the guidance that we have 17 general picture of what the Applicant of licensee will 18 have to do, something similar to exactly what you 19 said.
20 And that's why in our general guidance 21 that we have right now, which is technology inclusive, 22 we even provide a figure where we start with a source 23 term, we identify the release scenario, evaluated the 24 source term information, as described in the 25 instruction that we give, and then we go to the next NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 step.
2 What's the meteorological data development 3 that you're going to have, and then the following one 4 is what are the atmospheric transport models that 5 you're going to need, and then what is the exposure 6 model, and then the dose estimates that you have to 7 do, and also the probabilistic dose aggregations that 8 you have to have.
9 So, we understand precisely what you said 10 so this guidance is thinking technology inclusive and 11 we need to address that. That's just the fact.
12 MEMBER REMPE: So what you're saying is in 13 Appendix A of the draft guide and it was in those two 14 documents that aren't public, but when I was looking 15 at that, I really had wanted to see multiple modules 16 again explicitly called out.
17 It's not stated there. And then it would 18 be nice to think about a cut-off frequency, that's a 19 big thing.
20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Let me ask you a question.
21 Is this assuming the rulemaking goes forward?
22 Somewhere before it's over, when maybe 23 these ideas have been fared out a little bit more, I 24 think it would be useful if we could have another 25 conversation and dig into some of the details of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 two papers and other things.
2 It's the same kind of picture we had 3 elsewhere. It's nice boxes that say what you have to 4 do but there's no hint of the work hidden inside those 5 brief little boxes.
6 So we'd love to dig into that sum with you 7 either before or at the end of this process, but I 8 think now there's nothing to dig into.
9 DR. HOLAHAN: We can do that and the 10 Steering Committee raised this issue as well and at 11 the time, we didn't have any Applicants. So we didn't 12 know but we always talked about needing further 13 guidance for individual Applicants.
14 MEMBER CORRADINI: So if I might just ask, 15 if you were to point to something for us to study, I 16 would assume the ESP for Clinch River is the closest 17 thing?
18 MR. COSTA: Well, Clinch River is under --
19 MEMBER CORRADINI: That's not for you, I 20 was throwing the ball over to the fellow with the 21 yellow shirt over there.
22 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- again from the Clinch 24 River early site permit.
25 MEMBER CORRADINI: That's the only thing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 practically that I would assume there is a calculation 2 by the Applicant and one can look at the details of.
3 MR. COSTA: Let me just clarify something, 4 and I think you're aware of this but maybe for the 5 public, for the Clinch River application, the 6 discussion that will be this afternoon is under the 7 current rule, under the current process that we have.
8 And what we're proposing today is 9 something totally new for technology-inclusive so that 10 will be different. So you're going to be looking at 11 NUREG-0396 and the documents that Walter mentioned 12 earlier.
13 So it's a different approach.
14 MR. THOMAS: Let me toss this back over to 15 Dr. Compton and Mr. Segala.
16 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala. I would 17 just like to add, developing a source term for a 18 design is essential for licensing so we're going to 19 have to come up with a source term to do the design 20 basis accidents as well as EP.
21 This is not solely an EP issue, this is 22 something that you need and I think going into this 23 gives the assumption that they'll be able to develop 24 a source term for whatever particular design comes 25 forward.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 Maybe this is something that down the road 2 we need to develop some sort of guidance to help these 3 new technologies come up with what are all the steps 4 they need to do to develop a source term. I'm not 5 sure that's strictly an EP issue.
6 MEMBER CORRADINI: And just speaking for 7 myself, I'm assuming they similarly are not but this 8 is the first thing, this is one of the applications of 9 it that make it quite important.
10 So we're looking for some sort of 11 generalized guidance so, as Dennis said, you don't 12 have a range of individuals that are highly 13 sophisticated and maybe not as sophisticated and they 14 don't appreciate the task ahead of them.
15 MR. SEGALA: I think that's probably why 16 we encourage early pre-application engagements, so we 17 can start talking to these developers and what are you 18 doing to develop that, what kind of --
19 MEMBER REMPE: Some of the Meetings we've 20 had on other topics related to this, some of the Staff 21 had said, well, we've got some of these little 22 reactors that just want to release the whole inventory 23 and they have such a small amount it won't matter.
24 And yet, if you're doing this to qualify 25 any sort of mitigating strategies, the chemistry, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 timing is important. And so I think those kind of 2 questions also need to be thought about.
3 Is that really acceptable to say I'm going 4 to just have the source term, just let the whole thing 5 go, and I don't care about any sort of chronological 6 or mechanistic type of considerations?
7 MR. SEGALA: I mean the NRC and maybe 8 Steve can talk about it. We do consider maximum 9 hypothetical accidents.
10 MEMBER REMPE: In an appropriate way?
11 MR. SEGALA: To take an approach that's 12 very conservative and clearly conservative, and that 13 is the approach that we have considered.
14 MEMBER REMPE: But in the past, sometimes 15 what we think is conservative has turned out to not be 16 conservative.
17 The TID source term was not perhaps the 18 most conservative when we think about it later. So 19 those kind of things need to be thought about perhaps.
20 MR. LYNCH: And just to briefly add onto 21 that, this is Steve Lynch, I'm a Project Manager in 22 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
23 As John said, we do at times consider 24 these maximum hypothetical accidents, whereas, some 25 Applicants may choose to take credit for a complete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 release of inventory. But that's not something we 2 could accept in the Office.
3 It will depend on what are the 4 consequences of that complete release? Where we have 5 accepted that, it's been where Applicants have still 6 demonstrated that even with that complete release, 7 they're still meeting Part 1 for what's considered 8 normal release at the site boundary so 100 millirem.
9 So that's an example of where maybe a 10 complete release might be acceptable. For larger 11 source terms, that's not something the Staff would 12 necessarily accept. It would be considered on a 13 case-by-case basis.
14 MEMBER CORRADINI: So let me ask you a 15 historical question since Will brought it up, which I 16 thought was interesting. 0396 has a technical basis 17 in how they came to the ten miles.
18 Has there been any sort of analysis within 19 the Agency since then that would re-look at that and 20 come to a different technical basis or confirm that 21 basis?
22 In other words, within Staff, has this 23 been re-looked at computationally?
24 MR. THOMAS: Dr. Compton?
25 MEMBER CORRADINI: So let me take it as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 somebody who is against it.
2 So if were against all of what we're 3 talking about, I'd say 0396 is still acceptable and 4 unless you show me a technical calculation that says 5 that as I reduce the thermal power of the machine, 6 0396 becomes too conservative, I don't abide that.
7 Has there been any sort of analysis like 8 that since 0396?
9 DR. COMPTON: There certainly had been 10 calculations of -- I'm not speaking within the NRC --
11 but there have been calculations saying that if you 12 have reduced source terms, if you can show you have 13 reduced source terms, your dose distance curves are 14 going to come in closer. And I think that's the 15 principle.
16 I'll go back right now to a few things on 17 source term. First off, clearly it's an assumption of 18 the methodology that you have adequate information of 19 source terms and also in frequencies if you're dealing 20 with beyond design basis space.
21 That's just an assumption. What we did is 22 we had looked at NUREG-0396 and did a critical review 23 of the document and how they came up with it. And 24 it's fairly clear that they did two lines of approach.
25 They looked at the existing safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 analysis reports, about 70 of them at the time, and 2 then they did some scaling and they did some 3 calculations to figure out where you would get doses 4 exceeding 1 rem without really thinking of the 5 frequency.
6 They just took the worst-case DBA LOCA.
7 Then they also did another line of evidence which was 8 more PRA-based, which is where they were looking 9 beyond the siting, that single site source term. But 10 then they considered the frequency of the accidents.
11 That's why as we're writing, as we're 12 trying to come up with this methodology, we're trying 13 to be very general and recognize the different 14 designs. Different Applicants may want to use 15 different strategies.
16 MEMBER CORRADINI: So, you actually were 17 helpful. So, if tomorrow Joe's Reactor -- I didn't 18 mean it the way it sounded. It came out wrong, I 19 apologize.
20 But if tomorrow Joe's Reactor, LLC came to 21 you and said we're new to the game but we think we've 22 got the greatest machine since sliced bread but we 23 need a methodology to start thinking source terms, 24 would you point at the 0396?
25 Is that the only thing out there that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 point them to in terms of a methodology that they 2 could exercise their thinking process with?
3 DR. COMPTON: For source term, no, and 4 this is kind of a point, and back when 0396 was 5 developed, they used existing information on source 6 terms. They used the existing safety analysis 7 reports, they used the PRA that they had which was 8 WASH-1400.
9 And given that, one can look and see what 10 is the effect of those source terms on a particular --
11 to get doses out, what effect would it have on an EPZ 12 size? But those documents are not going to tell you 13 how to do the source term.
14 For this methodology, that's an assumption 15 that you can come up with this. Without trivializing, 16 yes, that's a hard problem.
17 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Pragmatically, I'm 18 thinking through a JM Applicant coming in. On paper 19 I'm going to have a PRA.
20 We expect it's the Commission statements 21 and policy that they expect these new designs to have 22 enhanced safety and that can be manifested in a number 23 of ways, lower frequencies.
24 But the question is that early in the game 25 how uncertain are you about the PRA numbers that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 presented? Because if you're going to entertain 2 frequency, then you're going to entertain that with a 3 large degree of uncertainty early in the design.
4 And yet, you'll want an early site permit 5 for one of these reactors. So, how do you swear the 6 difference so to speak? I see that as very 7 problematic for advanced designs that are not very 8 mature, to enter into the frequency arguments.
9 Because they're probably going to say the 10 CDF is 10 to the -7 or -8 so we don't have severe 11 accidents. That was not the approach that was taken 12 in 0396. They recognized that you could have a severe 13 accident.
14 They didn't do it on a frequency basis, 15 they just presumed that you could have a severe 16 accident.
17 DR. COMPTON: They did presume that you 18 could have a severe accident but then those were again 19 weighted by the frequency, they had frequencies from 20 the PRAs.
21 But, yes, they did not screen for that 22 particular analysis, they didn't screen out any of the 23 sequences.
24 MEMBER CORRADINI: They didn't screen out.
25 MR. COSTA: This is Arlon Costa.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 Let me add a bigger picture because from 2 0396 we also recognized that the numbers that were 3 picked out by the EPA PAGs, the 1 rem number, were the 4 trigger point for all the other things that you have 5 to do after an accident happens, and the accidents 6 that you were talking about that Keith mentioned 7 there.
8 So there's an advantage for emergency 9 preparedness being in this situation because you're 10 thinking about the big picture. But you can backtrack 11 from it.
12 You still have to do the analysis that you 13 were talking about but at least for the purposes of 14 public protection, we use those same trigger points, 15 the 1 rem number, where all these things have to be 16 considered for the accident sequences to be evaluated 17 from the licensee standpoint and bring that analysis 18 to us.
19 And in the EP we're concerned about public 20 protection and we feel that is a very safe number, not 21 only because we have looked at it from 0396 but we're 22 imposing or putting it in the rule now.
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I have no problems with 24 the PAGs. I'm just curious as to how you're going to 25 evaluate this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 It seems to me a very complicated 2 undertaking to do a source term for a wide spectrum of 3 accidents and then evaluate the quality of the PRA, 4 which is where the frequencies are coming from and the 5 main sequences, and then come up with -- would it not 6 be more prudent for the Agency to just come up with a 7 new definition based on just 0396, just scale with the 8 source term?
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going to interrupt at 10 this point. You've got a sense that some Members have 11 an area of concern and we would like to revisit it 12 later. I'm going to correct a little bit.
13 When we were talking Clinch River, Arlon 14 said that's under the current licensing. Yes, but 15 it's an exemption, which they have to justify. And 16 we'll be looking at that later.
17 MR. COSTA: And they are looking at the 18 PAGs, the 1 rem number, for the boundary EPZ that 19 they're looking for, properly so.
20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm ahead. I'll wake him 21 up and go ahead again.
22 MR. THOMAS: Well, it's not going by.
23 When you started this conversation, it was on Slide 9, 24 it was talking about 0396.
25 Well, you guys really jumped forward in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 our presentation to Slide 10, not a whole lot but I 2 was going to talk to -- Keith already did.
3 You guys have talked about what we were 4 going to talk to about this slide.
5 Part of the rulemaking process was to 6 engage research to get the subject-matter experts over 7 there to do the analysis to look at for the Agency 8 whether 0396, of course, could be applied to small 9 modular reactors and other new technologies.
10 Because the premise there was it was 11 written based on large light-water reactors that were 12 operating in the '60s and '70s.
13 So, we engaged Dr. Compton over there to 14 do the analysis for us. He quite eloquently talked 15 about the analysis that he did. It's still ongoing, 16 his analysis that we're doing is still ongoing.
17 So, Slide 11, please. This is where we're 18 talking about the ingestion response planning.
19 Earlier and elsewhere in the documents, we 20 clearly and decidedly said we're not including a 21 predetermined zone for ingestion planning within this 22 rule. And this slide tries to address why we, the 23 Staff, feels this is an appropriate approach when 24 doing so.
25 So the NRC is proposing ingestion response NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 planning requirements instead of a set distance as 2 part of a performance-based framework.
3 The proposed rule would require licensees 4 to comply with Section 50.160 to describe in their 5 emergency plan the licensee's state, local, travel, or 6 Federal resources for emergency response capabilities 7 to protect against contaminated food and water from 8 entering the ingestion pathway.
9 The concept of an ingestion pathway 10 emergency planning zone was created in the 1970s when 11 there may not have been a sufficient infrastructure to 12 support the identification or removal of 13 radiologically contaminated goods from the food chain.
14 Our primary concern in the 1970s were the 15 livestock and food products that could be contaminated 16 from a radiological release at a large light-water 17 reactor.
18 Since the 1970s, there have been I guess 19 improvements in the Federal and state capabilities to 20 identify and remove from the food chain biologically 21 and radiologically contaminated foods or produce. All 22 of the response actions are long-term issues.
23 Some immediate precautionary actions could 24 be taken prior to a significant release occurring.
25 For example, state and local authorities could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 instruct individual farmers to wash garden products 2 and to place livestock in fields on stored feed.
3 State and Federal authorities frequently 4 use similar precautionary actions to implement 5 quarantines or embargoes for non- radiologically 6 contaminated foods.
7 Further, Federal resources are available 8 upon request to state, local, and travel response 9 through any nuclear radiological incident, including 10 no notice of incidents.
11 Federal resources that are available for 12 radiological emergency response include the Federal 13 Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the 14 advisory team for environmental food and health, as 15 well as sampling and testing laboratories.
16 Through notable incidents documented by 17 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention that 18 demonstrate the capability to conduct large-scale 19 quarantines for the multi-state outbreaks of E.Coli, 20 infections from spinach in 2006, a multi-state 21 outbreak of salmonella associated with eggs in July 22 2010, multi-state outbreak of fungal meningitis and 23 other infections in October 2012.
24 In each case, the success quarantine and 25 removal from public access of contaminated food and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 water products in response to biological contamination 2 demonstrates that a response to prevent ingestion of 3 contaminated foods and water could be performed in an 4 expeditious manner without a predetermined planning 5 zone.
6 Unlike biological contamination, the cause 7 is widespread illnesses and only discovered days after 8 infection, a radioactive accident is a leading 9 indicator that long-term actions to protect against 10 ingestion should be considered.
11 Next slide, please. This slide addresses 12 the existing offsite national level emergency 13 preparedness. These programs are managed by FEMA, our 14 Federal partner, who are in attendance today. I see 15 several FEMA faces here.
16 They're waving at me; hi, guys. For all 17 communities in the United States, the National 18 Preparedness Goal allows for a scaled and coordinated 19 response to any emergency.
20 The implementation and review of the 21 frameworks considered effective practices and lessons 22 learned from exercises and operations as well as 23 pertinent new processes and technologies.
24 These technologies enable the nation to 25 adapt efficiently to the evolving risk environments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 and use data relating to a location, context, and 2 interdependencies, allowing for effective integration 3 across all missions using a standard spaced approach.
4 The mission areas on the slide represent 5 a spectrum of activities that are highly 6 interdependent and there is regular coordination among 7 the Departments within FEMA and inter-agencies working 8 to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and 9 recover from all threats and hazards.
10 Next slide, please. On this slide, we 11 briefly discuss the existing EP requirements for 12 nuclear power plants, as I said briefly. The existing 13 EP requirements for nuclear power plants and 14 production utilization facilities are found in Part 50 15 of the regulations.
16 The regulations in Section 50.47 provide 17 the EP requirements for nuclear power reactors 18 including planning standards for onsite and offsite 19 emergency response plans. These regulations took 20 effect in 1980 after the Three Mile Island accident.
21 Appendix E identifies the specific items 22 required to be included in the emergency plans. These 23 regulations took effect in 1970 and were last updated 24 in 2011.
25 Other relevant regulations include Section NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 50.33, the contents of the applications, Paragraph 2 (g). So that's the 50.34, technical content of 3 applications, Section 50.54, conditions of license 4 paragraphs (q), (s), and (t).
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Kenneth, a quick question.
6 Most of the guidance document is focused on, or a 7 great bulk of it, on content of the emergency plans.
8 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I haven't done the 10 side-by-side comparison with 50.47 Appendix E but 11 isn't most of the emergency plan the same as in the 12 past or are there many changes?
13 MR. THOMAS: There's a considerable amount 14 of changes from what we have in the current guidance, 15 NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1, that's a joint document, and 16 the content and structure of Draft Regulatory Guide 17 1350.
18 Where NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1 tried to 19 identify capabilities or resources that should be 20 available to implement the planning standards in 10 21 CFR 50.47, Paragraph B, if you look at the structure 22 of the NUREG 0654, the planning standards A-16, JM 23 whatever, must align with the 16 planning standards in 24 Paragraphs 50.47(b) 1 through 16.
25 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Pardon me.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 MR. THOMAS: So we looked at 50.47(b) and 2 its alignment with NUREG-0654 and those were captured 3 for the evaluation of emergency plans, and as 4 stipulated in the NUREG-0800 standard review plan.
5 What we did here is we drafted Section 160 6 and we said, okay, let's line up a similar guide for 7 Applicant who are going to come in for a permit 8 application or a license application for the various 9 parts, and they need to be able to submit in their 10 application an emergency plan that describes what 11 their emergency preparedness program is.
12 So there was a parallel that I used and 13 that's why I kind of point to what we have here, 14 50.47, in this corresponding guidance, what we did in 15 5160 or what we proposed to do in 5160, and its 16 proposed guidance as well.
17 And that's why we did that. We also 18 wanted to make sure that we had some kind of generic 19 or general guidance on how to develop a calculation or 20 analysis --
21 AUTOMATED PHONE MESSAGE: Please pardon 22 the interruption. Your conference contains less than 23 three participants at this time. If you would like to 24 continue, press star 1 now or the conference will be 25 terminated.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Apologies again. If you 2 can capture the thread, keep going.
3 MR. THOMAS: Sorry for the interruption.
4 So, we wanted to contain general guidance for it to 5 assist the Applicant in submitting their application 6 for this.
7 So, I'm trying to keep it technology 8 inclusive. So that's why we had the preponderance of 9 the guidance speaking to the content of our emergency 10 plan, because that's our primary licensing document as 11 you will hear later on this afternoon.
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: You gave good guidance in 13 a lot of detail.
14 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: We were looking for 16 something similar on the other side. We're near the 17 halfway point. I think one more slide and then it 18 looks to me like that's a good place for our break.
19 MR. THOMAS: I think so as well. So here 20 we go. I'm going to finish this one up. Next slide, 21 please.
22 The summarized recent rule-making 23 activities, as we mentioned earlier, with the 24 regulatory basis, the draft was issued in April 2017.
25 We had a public Meeting May 10th, 2017, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 where we facilitated the public's ability to construct 2 public comments and submit those to us. We weren't 3 accepting comments at that Meeting. I'll be very 4 particular about how I say that.
5 As a result of the draft regulatory basis, 6 we got 57 public comment submissions on the draft 7 regulatory basis as we discussed earlier. NEI 8 supplied one comment to us but questioned about how we 9 were not addressing large light-water reactors and 10 operating reactors.
11 They felt that given the information in 12 draft reg, or at least how we interpret it, they felt 13 that it may be technology-inclusive enough to apply to 14 them.
15 Like I said before, the Staff initially 16 considered that to be outside the scope and we didn't 17 address that comment directly but upon concurrence of 18 the proposed rule package that we have going now, we 19 are reassessing that by including another opportunity 20 for the public to weigh in on the scope of the FRN.
21 MEMBER REMPE: So I have a question about 22 this document. The version I have says September 2017 23 but I guess that's the one that was issued November 24 2017.
25 But in there, and as well as in the draft NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 rule, you have a comment that says the NRC hasn't 2 issued a license for a commercial non-LWR facility for 3 construction or operations in Fort St. Vrain in 1973.
4 And maybe that's the way you guys refer to 5 things but since the NRC wasn't established until 6 after that, I'm kind of wondering if in the draft 7 rule, if you correct it, you ought to fix that 8 language?
9 MR. THOMAS: No, no, it's a valuable 10 thing. We did catch a couple of our anachronisms, 11 cell phones, riding horseback in the 11th century. I 12 tried to avoid that at all costs.
13 So, we did catch a couple of those and we 14 kind of face-palmed when we do that. So I appreciate 15 it, I will take note of it and we'll address it in our 16 published documents. We'll be happy to so I 17 appreciate that.
18 Key messages, no comments were received 19 that would alter the Staff's proposed approach in the 20 draft regulatory basis. The Staff reviewed all of the 21 comments, we binned them and then we addressed the 22 meter on the final regulatory basis, or we deferred 23 their resolution for the proposed rule and proposed 24 guidance.
25 And then we also, as we were instructed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 the Commission, worked very closely with the 2 decommissioning or the transitioning into 3 decommissioning for nuclear power plant rulemaking 4 that's currently in front of the Commission.
5 And we tried to apply those lessons 6 learned as we went through. In fact, there were 7 several Members on our Working Group that also were 8 Members of that Work Group. There were several 9 different themes. We addressed those as well.
10 The definition of small modular reactors, 11 that's one of those action items that we included in 12 the proposed rule.
13 Consequence-based approach for the sizing 14 of the emergency planning zone and the need for a 15 co-location discussion which is how we're addressing 16 or using hazard analysis to talk about multi-module 17 events and the co-location.
18 And the sum total is that we issued the 19 final regulatory basis in the fall of 2017.
20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. At this time, 21 I think we'll recess until 20 after. We're going to 22 start promptly at 20 after. See you back here then.
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 10:01 a.m. and resumed at 10:19 25 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 CHAIRMAN BLEY: The Meeting will come to 2 order. And Patricia, you're going to start?
3 DR. HOLAHAN: Yes. I'd like to just 4 refocus us on this is an EP rule going forward. We'd 5 like it to be published for public comment and the 6 source term will be already addressed through the 7 siting and licensing process.
8 And Bob may want to add something but 9 we're focusing on the emergency preparedness aspects, 10 not the source terms specifically.
11 MR. TAYLOR: I'm Robert Taylor, Branch 12 Chief of NSIR. Very good interesting conversation 13 that was just prior to the break.
14 We do want to emphasize that this is the 15 emergency preparedness rule-making for small modular 16 reactors and other new technologies and our guidance 17 is based upon the information that would be available 18 at the time the Applicant would be providing us with 19 their emergency plan content based upon that guidance, 20 which would include the EPZ size.
21 And we provided some guidance on how to 22 make that determination on our EPZ size utilizing the 23 methodology that had been researched on NUREG-0396.
24 So, during the licensing process, all the 25 discussion we've had, those kind of items would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 assumed to have already been determined and policy 2 decisions been made on it such that emergency 3 preparedness would be utilizing that information, the 4 Applicant would be utilizing that information in order 5 to make that EPZ size determination, similar to what 6 happened with NUREG-0396.
7 You're quite familiar, of course, that 8 they had the WASH-1400 document to be able to draw 9 from for the current fleet of operating plants.
10 Those kind of items would already be there 11 for the designs that were being applied for by the 12 Applicant, early site permits, already having that 13 parameter set for EPZ sizes on what the source term 14 would need to be.
15 It's divorced from that development, just 16 that it would need to plug in that this is what it 17 cannot exceed once those accidents are being 18 determined.
19 So, the emergency preparedness is a 20 general broad framework in order for small modular 21 reactors and new technologies based upon assumptions 22 that the licensing process, we would be part of that 23 licensing process, utilizing that information that 24 would already be available at the time.
25 So I just wanted to try to talk to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 emergency preparedness program is not where we have 2 included in the scope a determination of how to create 3 that source term.
4 That is something that would be part of 5 another piece of the licensing process.
6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Do I hear any 7 protestations? You'll probably hear this from us 8 again. Go ahead.
9 MR. TAYLOR: I'm just trying to delineate 10 the scope of the rule-making itself.
11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I understand.
12 DR. HOLAHAN: So, Kenny, we'll turn it 13 back to you.
14 MR. THOMAS: Okay, welcome back.
15 Up to this moment, we talked about some of 16 the policy and some of the considerations that the 17 Work Group, the technical issues for the Work Group, 18 are addressing within this rule.
19 On the next slide, Slide Number 15, we 20 have a diagram that provides the overall structure of 21 the rule and this relationship to the existing EP 22 regulations.
23 We've already used the performance-based 24 rule and the Applicant would need to specify in 25 application which approach the licensee would use.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 The options are the existing EP regulations or the 2 performance-based regulations over in 10 CFR 50.160, 3 or the proposed Section.
4 In the following slides I will present the 5 specific changes to Sections 50.33, 34, 47, 54, and 6 the new Section, 160.
7 For conforming changes elsewhere in the 8 regulations are proposed to allow for an Applicant or 9 a licensee to use either of the existing EP 10 regulations or the new set of regulations in Section 11 160.
12 I'll draw your attention now to the bottom 13 or lower right-hand corner of the slide. The 14 Applicant would have to provide an analysis to support 15 the specific EPZ size.
16 If the Applicant demonstrates that a side 17 boundary EPZ is appropriate, then the regulations in 18 Paragraph (c1)IV(b) would not apply to the licensee.
19 If the emergency plan would extend beyond 20 the site boundary, then the Applicant would need to 21 address the requirements in C(1)IV(a) and (b) of the 22 proposed rule.
23 The Staff would then need to re-engage our 24 friends over at FEMA for a review of the offsite plan 25 submitted as part of the licensed application or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 permit application as appropriate.
2 There is guidance in the Draft Regulatory 3 Guide to support the implementation of the 4 performance-based regulations.
5 Next slide, please.
6 In Section 50.2, the Staff is proposing 7 adding three definitions, one for a non-light-water 8 reactor means that nuclear power reactor using a 9 coolant other than light water, non-power production 10 or utilization facility means a non-power reactor 11 testing facility or other production or utilization 12 facility licensed under Section 50.21(a), Section 13 50.21(c), or Section 50.22 that is not a nuclear power 14 reactor fuel reprocessing plant.
15 This definition aligns with the non-power 16 production or utilization rule. Small modular reactor 17 means a power reactor as defined in 10 CFR 100.3 18 licensed to produce heat energy up to 1000 megawatts 19 thermal, which may be a modular design as defined in 20 10 CFR 52.1.
21 In the rule, we used the explicit language 22 for the facilities, although for convenience, while 23 I'm speaking I will continue to use other than new 24 technologies, having Dr. Skillman's comment from 25 earlier about the use of ONT in the ruling guidance as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 well. I made a note of that.
2 In Section 50.33, this proposed rule would 3 revise Paragraph (g) to construct two sub-paragraphs, 4 (g)(1)and (g)(2), which would allow for the Applicant 5 to select which EP regulations the licensee would 6 meet.
7 Additionally, paragraph (g)(2) would 8 establish an EPZ size determination process for small 9 modular reactors and other new technology for 10 Applicants to comply with Section 50.160. We will 11 discuss this further in a few minutes.
12 In Section 50.34 of this proposed rule, we 13 would revise paragraphs(a)(10) and (b)(6)IV to require 14 small modular reactors and other new technologies 15 described in their preliminary safety analysis report 16 or final safety analysis report as appropriate to the 17 application and the plans for coping with emergency 18 based on the requirements in either Section 5160 or 19 Appendix E to Part 50.
20 Next slide, please. Section 50.47, this 21 proposed rule would remove and reserve Paragraph 22 (C)(2). Paragraph (f) denoting the offsite remaining 23 response plan requirements in Section 50.47(b) do not 24 apply when the EPZ is entirely within or at the site 25 boundary.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 This aligns with the proposed changes to 2 the transition to the decommissioning rule that's 3 before the Commission.
4 In Section 50.54, this proposed rule would 5 add a new subparagraph (Q)(7) but would contain the 6 details for submitting license amendment requests for 7 small modular reactors and other new technology 8 licensees implementing the associated plan changes 9 necessary to meet the requirements in Section 50.160.
10 The Staff proposes revising Paragraph 11 (s)(3) to add clarification that if the standards 12 apply to offsite emergency response plans or with the 13 planning activities in the new Section 5160(c)(1)IV(b) 14 apply, then the NRC will base its reasonable assurance 15 findings on a review of FEMA's findings and 16 determinations.
17 This proposed rule would also revise the 18 paragraphs in these Sections to include conforming 19 changes for a small modular reactor and other new 20 technology for Applicants to use the Section 50.160 as 21 applicable.
22 Next slide, please. The following slides 23 provide the details of the Staff's proposed rule.
24 This proposed rule would add Section 5160, which would 25 contain the alternative EP requirements for small NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 modular reactors, non-light-water reactors and non-2 power-production or utilization facilities.
3 Paragraph (a) is the applicability.
4 Summarizing that paragraph, Applicants or licensees 5 that elect to use Section 51.60 must comply with the 6 requirements of this Section for the contents of their 7 emergency plans.
8 (B) is the definition. We have one new 9 definition here, although, you've seen it elsewhere in 10 10 CFR 20.1003 for a site boundary.
11 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Could you just clarify, 12 does that equal the exclusion area boundary?
13 MR. COSTA: No, it does not.
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So the site boundary 15 is...what's the distinction?
16 MR. COSTA: Basically, the site boundary 17 is what is owned by the licensee and the exclusion 18 area is a calculation using the source terms.
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: They may be or may not 20 be the same?
21 MR. COSTA: They may or may not be the 22 same.
23 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay.
24 MR. THOMAS: Next slide, please.
25 Paragraph (c) are the requirements. The emergency NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 planning shall contain the information needed to 2 demonstrate compliance with the elements set forth in 3 this paragraph.
4 The NRC will not issue an initial 5 operating license to a licensee unless a finding is 6 made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance 7 that adequate protective measures can an will be taken 8 in the event of a radiological emergency.
9 No finding under this Section is necessary 10 for an assurance of a renewed power reactor operating 11 license.
12 Paragraph 1 is the performance-based 13 framework. The licensee must demonstrate effective 14 response in drills and exercise for emergency and 15 accident conditions.
16 The Draft Regulatory Guide 1350 simply 17 states Section 50.60 requires licensees to demonstrate 18 effective response in drills and exercises for 19 emergency and accident conditions.
20 I, maintenance and performance, the 21 licensing must maintain in effect preparedness to 22 respond to emergency and accident conditions and 23 describe in an emergency plan the provisions to 24 re-employ to maintain preparedness.
25 Essentially, the Applicant needs to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 describe the process of running drills and exercises, 2 critiquing its performance, implementing corrective 3 actions to improve its performance, and develop the 4 metrics to measure their effectiveness in maintaining 5 their preparedness.
6 The guidance for the emergency plan is it 7 should contain a general description of the facility, 8 any site-specific definitions, any relevant 9 appendices, drawings, diagrams, and other information 10 needed to demonstrate compliance with this Section.
11 The emergency plan should describe the 12 process for maintaining and making changes to the 13 emergency plan and associated procedures, including 14 methods to account for facility changes and methods 15 used to conduct independent reviews of the EP program.
16 Next slide, please.
17 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Question, please?
18 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir?
19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: This is a topic that has 20 been debated very thoroughly around this table after 21 Fukushima and it has to do with changes that get made 22 off site.
23 So here we have the site, nice, tight 24 site, the site demonstrates by and large that its 25 emergency planning conditions and its releases are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 fairly well described by the site boundary and we end 2 up with an emergency plan that the relevant 3 authorities and the licensee agree to.
4 And then there are major changes in the 5 area whereby the emergency plan probably needs to be 6 adjusted. How is that potential change factored into 7 the new 50.160?
8 MR. THOMAS: That's a great question.
9 Could you go to Slide 28, please?
10 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'm looking for the word 11 contemplated or actual changes wrapped in that 12 paragraph.
13 MR. THOMAS: They're not in that 14 paragraph.
15 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: -- the question, okay.
17 MR. THOMAS: So the words that you were 18 looking for again?
19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Actual or contemplated 20 changes. So, everybody is happy to put a hospital 21 right on the property line, everybody's happy to put 22 a large school right on the property line.
23 I know it's nuts but the issue that we 24 dealt with in months following Fukushima as we sat 25 around the table is how can we handle the changes in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 the locality that affect how we see the licensed 2 acceptability of this?
3 MR. THOMAS: Well, the 5054(2) just kind 4 of mentions it's part of the change process but if 5 it's not being proposed by the licensee, it's not 6 necessarily going to be analyzed.
7 One of the interesting parallels between 8 what you just said is similar to the resources working 9 with IAEA small modular reactors regulators was that 10 Great Britain has different zoning laws, which they 11 are able to immediately tackle this as part of their 12 nuclear reactor safety regulations.
13 They talk about how the licensee and the 14 community action monitors to maintain a low population 15 zone for their facility. So what I can do is go back 16 and take a look at that. I made a note of your 17 comment and I can go back and look at that.
18 But quite clearly, those words are not in 19 this but this regulation is intended to be continually 20 assessed. It's not just once that you do for siting 21 and then not going on.
22 The licensee should be aware of, hey, 23 there's a new transportation hub or a new industrial 24 facility that's going to be put into place near here.
25 They need to go back and re-evaluate the hazard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 analysis.
2 MEMBER SKILLMAN: If the words continually 3 assessed were to be endowed, I think it is accurate to 4 communicate that what we've come up against was the 5 motion of finality, which we all understand very 6 clearly.
7 Once the permit's been granted, it's fine, 8 and so that raises the question, what happens when 9 there's a change? How final is final? Does something 10 need to be reassessed?
11 Hence the words that you just used. Since 12 this is new rule-making, those words might just be the 13 right thing at the right time as we looked at ONTs and 14 as we looked at Carpin SMR and Ravenswood across the 15 East River from the United Nations, a site that was 16 once considered in 1964.
17 I'm just saying.
18 MR. THOMAS: That's a good point. We are 19 going to take a note of it, sir.
20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.
21 MR. TAYLOR: This is Bob Taylor, Branch 22 Chief of NSIR DPR. Your question was very well taken.
23 It does go back to the 54(q) regulation that talks to 24 having a plan in place and the furtherance of 54(q),
25 it talks to maintain the effectiveness of the plan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 I think this is a possibility to try to 2 clarify what that continuous observation is of all the 3 factors that would impact the plan, be it on site or 4 off site, even if you have a site boundary EPZ, that 5 you would need to have that in consideration at all 6 times. And the licensee needs to be made aware of 7 that.
8 But that is the intent of that statement 9 about maintaining the effectiveness of the plan, it's 10 not just if you make a change to the plan. You have 11 to make sure that the change maintains effectiveness 12 of the plan with the change.
13 It also means outside influences if the 14 plan as written doesn't get changed, what does that do 15 to the effectiveness of the plan? So instead of a 16 change, it needs to be initiated from that offsite 17 impact.
18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I think what's missing, 19 at least from my perspective, is the trigger 20 statement. Something that communicates and, oh, by 21 the way, you can't just let this sit for 10 or 20 or 22 30 years.
23 There needs to be a trigger at some point 24 in time, when you go back and you take an official 25 look, and you formally document what we assumed before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 remains sound today for there have been some changes 2 and we're going to assess those changes and we're 3 going to give a report in 90 days or whatever it is, 4 and then if we need to make adjustments, particularly 5 to our emergency plan, we will.
6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going to back up what 7 Dick is saying a little bit.
8 We've run into, in this room, both from 9 Staff and from holders of licenses completely 10 divergent arguments on this issue from here's the 11 quarter part of the regulation, when you need to do 12 this, to nobody does it, we don't do it, to Applicants 13 and licensees who say, yes, we do that all the time.
14 It's not consistent throughout the Staff 15 and throughout our regulated people. It would be nice 16 to make it clearer.
17 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
18 MR. TAYLOR: -- Committee Members is this 19 is in opportunity to possibly take a look at that.
20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: You're proposing new 21 regulations. This is the time to catch it is my 22 point. Thank you.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Dr. Skillman.
24 Return us, please, I think back to Slide 20. Did I 25 skip number 19? Good, that's what I thought.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 Performance indicators, the process used 2 to develop performance indicators for each emergency 3 response function in (c)(1)III, including the 4 methodology used to develop the indicators, the basis 5 for relying on the indicators, and how acceptability 6 or successful achievement is determined.
7 In the guidance the Staff provided for an 8 example for the methodology to develop the premise 9 indicators is a quotient, a percentage quotient, 10 number of correct opportunities over the number of 11 total opportunities.
12 Next slide, please. Further, parts of the 13 performance-based framework and the things that we're 14 expecting the Applicant and licensees to be able to 15 demonstrate. I'm not going to read each and every one 16 of these to you. It could get kind of boring.
17 So here we go. At the top of the list we 18 have vent classification and mitigation, assess, 19 classify, monitor, and repair facility malfunctions in 20 accordance with the emergency plan and return the 21 facility to safe conditions.
22 Part of this is not getting into the ops 23 or maintenance or engineering procedures, it is in 24 accordance with the emergency plan for staffing, 25 making sure you have the right individuals identified NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 to be able to perform these.
2 And then using those individuals to 3 actually perform, it's not getting into the ops, 4 maintenance or any of those other procedures.
5 Protective actions, plants should maintain 6 protective actions for onsite personnel for emergency 7 conditions, recommend protective action to offsite 8 authorities as conditions warrant.
9 Communications, establish and maintain 10 effective communications with the emergency response 11 organization and make notifications to response 12 personnel and organizations who may have 13 responsibilities for responding during emergencies.
14 Command and control, establish and 15 maintain effective command and control for emergencies 16 by using the supporting organizational structure with 17 defined roles, responsibilities, and authorities for 18 directing and performing emergency response functions 19 as described in Paragraph (c) of the Section.
20 So particularly for the command and 21 control, when we took a look back at the near-term 22 taskforce, command and control was one of those 23 concerns from Fukushima Daiichi.
24 Among the other ones that we have on here 25 are staffing and operations, radiological assessment, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 radiological conditions underneath that, protective 2 equipment for radiological assessment, core and vessel 3 damage and releases for radiological conditions.
4 We also have one for re-entry and one for 5 critique and corrective actions.
6 Yes, sir?
7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm going back to where I 8 started. The last time you asked the question you 9 pointed to I think some guidance that's occurred over 10 the years and other documents that have led to the 11 things you're incorporating in 160 but are not, I 12 think he said, in Appendix E.
13 Now, most of these things are in Appendix 14 E in one form or another. I hate to ask it this way, 15 the way you're writing 160, is that the way one might 16 think Appendix E ought to be revised?
17 I'm not suggesting you ought to run off 18 and revise Appendix E right now but the impression I 19 got from what you said earlier is these are things 20 that have been adapted into the guidance for meeting 21 Appendix E that will now be part of 160.
22 Am I misinterpreting?
23 MR. THOMAS: No, sir, I don't think you're 24 misinterpreting it, and by the way, Bob, I need more 25 money for my project.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 MR. TAYLOR: No problem, Kenny, it's on 2 its way.
3 MR. THOMAS: Okay, so the ACRS says that 4 -- Dr. Bley, I think the approach that we took was 5 emergency management is emergency management so there 6 should be a great number of parallels between what you 7 see in any emergency response framework.
8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I would think so.
9 MR. THOMAS: Exactly.
10 So the similarities between what we see in 11 Section 5160 may be very similar to what you see in 12 Appendix D and 50.47 but then also very familiar with 13 what our friends over at FEMA put out for the national 14 planning frameworks.
15 Emergency management and this is emergency 16 preparedness as a portion of emergency management.
17 There's no crystal ball on this. What we did do is 18 construct Section 5160 in what I would say the 19 importance, and again, the emergency classifications 20 mitigations at the top of the list.
21 That's where we get started for our 22 licensee or an Applicant. Corrective actions, we have 23 to protect our individuals.
24 When we first started looking at this, we 25 looked at the significant determination process and in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 our document we have risk-significant planning 2 standards, the four that we currently have under 3 50.47.
4 I said, well, I'm going to move those to 5 the top of my list because those are the ones that are 6 the most important to us currently and what's really 7 important for everybody else.
8 So good emergency management is good 9 emergency management. There are parallels, I'm glad 10 you're not asking me to go out and revise Appendix E, 11 I think that would be fraught with a lot of other 12 things that I don't really want to address.
13 This is an opportunity for us to write the 14 new rules to take another look at what's really 15 applicable to small module reactors and other new 16 technologies and that's where we constructed this 17 framework the way we did.
18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So let me ask a little 19 differently because I don't see the difference between 20 the LWR here and the SMR for this kind of thing.
21 If we didn't have an Appendix E in 50.47 22 and we were going to write one tomorrow, I'm thinking 23 we'd write it kind of the way you're trying to write 24 160. That's Working Group.
25 Do you agree?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 MR. TAYLOR: If I can? Again, Bob Taylor.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm not suggesting we do 3 that, I'm trying to understand why there would be a 4 difference in principle.
5 MR. TAYLOR: What we found is, and I'll 6 have to congratulate the authors of Appendix Echo at 7 this time because they incorporated into Appendix Echo 8 all the core principles of emergency preparedness.
9 They also did that in 10 CFR 50.47 Bravo 10 and those stand today and it has been validated by the 11 fact that our partners at FEMA have established core 12 capabilities.
13 And whenever we start to align those core 14 capabilities in the current national response 15 framework that's currently existing in Appendix Echo, 16 5047 Bravo, they are matched well such that all of 17 those core capabilities of today are found within 18 Appendix Echo and as a result, also in 160.
19 So we're following suit with what's 20 happened not only in the past but what's the current 21 principles of good emergency management.
22 So, when you're asking would we rewrite 23 Appendix Echo to mimic 160, I would say we would be 24 rewriting Appendix Echo to match what the current 25 level of emergency management principles are today, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 which is already found in the Appendix Echo in 160.
2 So, yes, that would be something that 3 would follow the logic principle.
4 CHAIRMAN BLEY: So let me try one last 5 time. Is there any technical reason why there should 6 be a difference between emergency planning other than 7 the size of the EPZ perhaps for the SMRs and for the 8 OWRs?
9 MR. TAYLOR: To answer that question, we 10 would have to take a deep dive into the Appendix Echo 11 and we did not do that in the scope of this 12 rule-making.
13 I'll be honest about that in that that has 14 been brought up, the Working Group has approached that 15 but what we're saying is that's one of the reasons for 16 the questions, because if that were true, we would 17 want to give that assessment and an analysis as part 18 of the rule-making which we haven't done.
19 MR. COSTA: Dr. Bley, just to emphasize 20 the direction that we're going in the rule, in a 21 little bit Kenny is probably going to talk a little 22 bit more about the boundaries.
23 You're going to see that for the offsite 24 boundary, the whole Appendix Echo is part of that.
25 And when you're talking about the boundary, the inside NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 boundaries, we take advantage of the performance-based 2 approach that we have.
3 And you're going to see that some of the 4 requirements in Appendix X was brought in and some are 5 not necessary because of the size of the boundary does 6 not apply.
7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Here's where I'm coming 8 from with everything I read in the rule and in the 9 guidance. It's all about how to do emergency 10 planning. I think that subsequently changed.
11 The real change is it might have a 12 different-sized set of boundaries and part of which is 13 that source term which allows you to do that.
14 So all of our focus is on the stuff that 15 isn't really changing much and we'll send somebody 16 else to be covering this other piece. And I don't 17 want to keep going on that.
18 MR. THOMAS: Let me (Simultaneous 19 Speaking.) Patricia Milligan.
20 DR. MILLIGAN: Hi, Patricia Milligan, 21 Senior Advisor of Preparedness and Response.
22 To get to your question, 160 is describing 23 a performance-based program which is going to be very 24 different than 5047 and Appendix E which describes a 25 more deterministic approach that would have to EP.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 So in order to keep them separate, the 2 criteria 160 is describing performance-based. So 3 that's why we're trying to do it a little bit 4 differently and call them out separately.
5 MEMBER CORRADINI: I think all Dennis is 6 asking is once ten miles becomes X miles, once that's 7 done, the procedure ought to be technically similar if 8 not identical. I think that's all you're asking.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: It is but she brings up 10 the point of what the performance criteria would be, 11 which is different.
12 DR. MILLIGAN: Which is different, yes, 13 and will look different. So I think that's an 14 important distinction and Kenny will probably talk a 15 little bit more about that when he gets the 16 opportunity to talk more about the performance-based 17 program.
18 MR. THOMAS: Let me give a 19 behind-the-curtain look. When the Work Group started 20 this process we started with the end in mind.
21 So one of our retirees, he's now since 22 retired, Steve Levine, who you are probably very 23 familiar with, he said no rule is good if you can't 24 write a contrary to statement.
25 So they illustrate the difference between NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 what would be contained in 50.47 or Appendix E in 2 today's rule and what we're proposing in Section 150 3 is the contrary to statement.
4 Contrary to statement for the current 5 regulations would be contrary to the regulation 6 50.47(b) where the licensee failed to maintain the 7 capability to perform whatever.
8 Here in Section 160, the contrary to 9 statement would be contrary to the requirements of the 10 5160(c)(1)III whatever, the licensee failed to perform 11 whatever.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 10:51 a.m.)
14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks. That's good. I 15 think you can go ahead.
16 MR. THOMAS: I think I'm on slide 22 at 17 this point.
18 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Kenneth, let me as you 19 a question.
20 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
21 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Back on the slide you 22 just presented, you identify a event classification 23 and mitigation.
24 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
25 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I look at Draft Guide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 1350, pages 9 and 10, and you provided some sample EAL 2 descriptions.
3 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
4 MEMBER SKILLMAN: I'm stuck on the EALs 5 because I've lived a rich life being judged on how 6 well we executed EALs.
7 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
8 MEMBER SKILLMAN: The ones that are 9 presented in Draft Guide 1350, I will read them:
10 abnormal radiological controls, external hazard and 11 natural phenomenon, system malfunction, fission 12 product barriers and judgment.
13 I will caution be certain that the EALs 14 are based on source term and radiological consequence 15 as opposed to administrative issues. For instance, at 16 one site we got to a site area emergency because of a 17 perceived intruder into a vital area. A security 18 issues.
19 I'm not saying for a millisecond that 20 security is not important but I'm not sure we ought to 21 get to a site area emergency in this procedure in 22 Draft Guide 1350. I think this ought to be a 23 radiological influence instead of guidance for the 24 industry.
25 If there are other reasons to escalate an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 EAL, and security may certainly be one, it ought to be 2 somewhere else. Otherwise, I think it in tolerates 3 what you're trying to communicate here, or it somehow 4 affects the importance of the source-term arguments 5 that you are attempting to make in this Draft Guide.
6 I hope I haven't goofed up in my 7 communication. What I'm trying to say is there may be 8 a reason to get to a site based on security.
9 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
10 MEMBER SKILLMAN: No doubt very important.
11 Highly important. I think what you're trying to drive 12 at here is with an SMR and an ONT you can have the 13 source term that is so very very low you may be able 14 to bring in your boundary. That has some very 15 important implementation as to where we might be able 16 to park an SMR. Security ought to be just as 17 important but it not ought to be hiding in these EALs 18 that are basically radiologically based.
19 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.
21 MR. THOMAS: Point taken. Slide 22.
22 These are the planning activities. These planning 23 activities are for those activities that may be 24 impractical or even if you did measure them, those 25 measurements may not mean that much. These planning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 activities are for all SMRs and ONTs, not just ones 2 that are situated for onsite and offsite.
3 (iv) Planning activities. The licensees 4 must be capable of -- this is where we have the 5 capabilities -- preparing and issuing public 6 information during emergencies.
7 Were you able to coordinate with the 8 public information with federal, state, local, or 9 tribal officials to make sure that if you have 10 declared emergency and the sirens and the fire trucks 11 or whatever, are you able to adequately notify the 12 public what's going on.
13 Implementing the NRC-approved emergency 14 response plan in conjunction with the licensee 15 safeguard contingency plan. Can you implement both at 16 the same time.
17 Next slide, please. Onsite for voice 18 communications with the NRC. There's no surprises 19 there. When you have an emergency we want you to be 20 able to notify us and do you have the capabilities to 21 be able to do so.
22 Establish an emergency response facility 23 from which effective direction can be given and 24 effective control can be exercised during an emergency 25 with capabilities to support emergency response NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 functions described in Paragraph C. In the emergency 2 plan it should describe the facilities; location, 3 capability, size, equipment, backup locations if it's 4 needed.
5 MR. COSTA: Dr. Bley, in this slide here 6 -- this is Arlon Costa again -- where the 7 incorporation of Appendix E is coming into this rule 8 for the performance base, part of it, as Kenny has 9 demonstrated here about voice communication, about 10 emergency facility. You are going to see a slew of 11 things like that from the experience as a baseline.
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I can find everything over 13 here.
14 MR. COSTA: Okay.
15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: In fact, I can't find 16 anything here, and if you have one as we go through 17 that wouldn't apply to an LWR, say this one really 18 doesn't apply to an LWR. But go ahead.
19 MR. THOMAS: Challenge accepted. The four 20 next slides describe the planning activities for those 21 facilities that have an EPZ that extends beyond the 22 site boundary. These are the offsite planning.
23 Contacts and arrangements made and 24 documented with local, state, tribal, and federal 25 government agencies as applicable with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 responsibilities for coping with the emergencies 2 including identification of the principal coordinating 3 agencies and coordinated reviews of changes in offsite 4 and onsite planning and preparation that may touch 5 tangentially to the other question about changes to 6 the offsite areas. This would be applicable to those 7 facilities that do have an offsite plan.
8 Offsite organizations responsible for 9 coping with emergencies and means of notifying in the 10 event of emergency, persons assigned to the emergency 11 organizations including the means of validating the 12 notifications and the time period by which the 13 notifications must be completed, and primary and 14 secondary methods of communicating the notification.
15 This is going back to our means of 16 notification, validation of the notification, time 17 within which the notifications need to be completed 18 and, of course, primary and secondary methods of 19 making those notifications.
20 Next slide, please. Protective measures 21 to be taken within the Emergency Planning Zone to 22 protect the health and safety of the public in the 23 event of an emergency including the procedures by 24 which the protective measures are implemented, 25 maintained, and discontinued.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 There's a subtle difference here about 2 where it's discontinued. We don't currently require 3 that for large light-water reactors. Have a 4 description of where the protective measures could be 5 discontinued. Subtle difference.
6 No. 4. Site familiarization training for 7 any offsite organization that may respond to the site 8 given an emergency. We currently do that for large 9 light-water reactors. In the guidance in 1350 the 10 service-specific information concerning a site's 11 capability should be shared with the responding 12 service.
13 For example, the locations of important 14 fire mains, hydrants, suppression systems should be 15 provided to the fire response services if needed to 16 respond to the facility to assist in fire suppression 17 investigation. Likewise, for local law enforcement 18 and medical services, services should be aware the 19 capabilities of the site and the locations of key 20 resources.
21 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm just curious since you 22 pointed that one out --
23 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: -- even thought it's not 25 spelled out currently, if we reach the point that all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 the stuff was gone, what happens if the staff 2 recommends to the Commission that we no longer need 3 emergency planning, how is it done? It's not spelled 4 out in the rule.
5 MR. THOMAS: You're talking about 6 termination of the event?
7 CHAIRMAN BLEY: No. This was for an event 8 here. I thought you meant --
9 MR. THOMAS: This is the capability to be 10 able to respond to an event.
11 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah. And it's spelled 12 out when we no longer have to be able to do that. I'm 13 sorry. Go ahead. I'm slowing us down.
14 MR. THOMAS: That's all right.
15 An evacuation time estimate. The areas 16 beyond the site boundary but within the Emergency 17 Planning Zone.
18 Next slide, please. Offsite licensee and 19 any backup facilities from which the licensee 20 coordinates the licensee's response with the offsite 21 response. Kind of like the ELF ISH thing.
22 No. 7. The means of making offsite dose 23 projections and the means of communicating the offsite 24 dose projections to the offsite response coordinating 25 agencies.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 1 No. 8. The means by which public 2 information is provided to the members of the public 3 concerns emergency planning information, public alert 4 notification system, and any prompt actions that need 5 to be taken by the public.
6 Here is where I would like to -- we had 7 another face palm, Dr. Rempe, where we had a small 8 discrepancy in the Draft Regulatory Guide where we had 9 guidance to implement an emergency response data 10 system that is required by 10 CFR 50.72(a)(4). There 11 is no requirement in Section 164 for emergency 12 response data system.
13 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Why not?
14 MR. THOMAS: Because the requirement for 15 emergency response data system is actually located in 16 50.72(a)(4) for nuclear power reactors. If you are a 17 nuclear power reactor irrespective of where your EPZ 18 is, we're not changing this rule and you still have to 19 implement emergency response data system. I just need 20 to have a similar rule in EP to implement that rule.
21 It's already in there.
22 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Thank you. So 23 it's not precluded, it's just, if you will, embedded 24 in another part applicable regulation.
25 MR. THOMAS: It is. In Appendix E we have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 1 Section 6 something is the emergency response data 2 system where we address that, but the requirement is 3 actually in 50.72 so I didn't see the need for 4 redundancy.
5 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. THOMAS: We should be on Slide 27 7 where we start talking about reentry, the general 8 plans and methods to allow entry into the Emergency 9 Planning Zone during and after an emergency.
10 Capabilities should exist that the 11 specific plans can be developed during an emergency to 12 allow for timely reentry into the affected parts of 13 the EPZ and the facility as conditions warrant.
14 No. 10. Drill and exercise program that 15 tests and implements major portions for the planning 16 and preparation of coordinated response by the onsite 17 response organizations with the offsite response 18 organizations within the Emergency Planning Zone 19 without a mandatory public participation.
20 No. 11. The methods for maintaining the 21 emergency plan, contacts and arrangements, procedures, 22 evacuation time estimate up to date including periodic 23 reviews by the licensee and the coordinating 24 organizations.
25 And the next slide, Slide 28. We get to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 the hazard analysis which we looked at earlier. The 2 words "collocation, modularity, industrial" I don't 3 believe are in the actual rule text. I used that on 4 this slide just to pinpoint what I'm actually 5 addressing, or intend to address, with this proposed 6 paragraph.
7 MEMBER CORRADINI: I don't -- so you're 8 saying -- I'm not sure what you just said. You're 9 saying that what's in the parens doesn't appear in the 10 rule?
11 MR. THOMAS: I don't believe it does.
12 MEMBER CORRADINI: But your intent is to 13 consider it?
14 MR. THOMAS: Yes. This is the 15 consideration that we have for the hazard analysis for 16 the intensive -- elsewhere I told you I was going to 17 address collocation, modularity, and industrial in the 18 SRMs and the SECYs. This is where I'm addressing 19 collocation, modularity, and industrial facilities.
20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Why had you folks decided 21 not to be specific on that?
22 MR. THOMAS: Is it in the rule language?
23 I didn't think it was. It is in the guidance.
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay.
25 MR. THOMAS: I was getting ready to read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 the guidance --
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I remembered it from 3 somewhere.
4 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. It's in the 5 Statements of Considerations.
6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Legally binding.
7 MR. THOMAS: Modular reactor, non-light 8 water reactor, or nonpower production or utilization 9 facility. Applicant or licensee that chooses to adopt 10 the EP regulations in Section 5160 must include in the 11 emergency plan an analysis of any credible hazard from 12 a contiguous facility that would adversely impact the 13 implementation of the emergency plans.
14 The emergency plans should describe the 15 results of the hazard analysis of any contiguous 16 facility, planning activities, or emergency response 17 functions that will address any credible hazard that 18 would adversely impact the implementation of the 19 emergency plans.
20 The analysis should identify and 21 characterize site-specific hazards posed by 22 multi-modular or nuclear units or contiguous 23 facilities that could complicate the small modular 24 reactor or non-light water reactor or nonpower 25 production and utilization facilities' emergency NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 response. For example, the nature of the challenge in 2 terms of timing, severity, and persistence.
3 Evaluate the impacts of the identified 4 hazards; for example, realistic response time, 5 functional threats caused by the hazard, strategies 6 needed to address the hazard. And describe the 7 planning activities or emergency response functions 8 that will mitigate the impacts of the identified 9 hazard.
10 MEMBER SKILLMAN: And this is where we 11 would sure like to see something like what we 12 periodically updated.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Just for my illumination 14 the Statements of Consideration, are they in the FRN?
15 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
16 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Are they labeled that way?
17 I didn't remember seeing that label.
18 MR. THOMAS: I don't think it's labeled 19 that way.
20 CHAIRMAN BLEY: That seems to be happening 21 these days which is a little confusing because my 22 understanding is Statements of Consideration are 23 legally used and the lawyers refer back to them all 24 the time. Except in some of the older rules it's 25 really hard to find the Statements of Consideration.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 If they are in the FRN, that's great. It would be 2 nice if we knew what they were.
3 MR. THOMAS: And Howard Benowitz, our 4 attorney, is at the mic.
5 MR. BENOWITZ: Howard Benowitz, Office of 6 General Counsel. The Statements of Consideration are 7 the part of the Federal Register Notice that appear 8 for the rule text.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Always.
10 MR. BENOWITZ: I think the Office of the 11 Register refers to them as supplementary information.
12 I think that is the actual heading in the FRN. They 13 are not legally binding. The Statements of 14 Consideration, supplementary information, are more 15 like guidance so lawyers might be referring to them 16 not to legally binding requirements, but maybe for 17 explanations of those requirements. That's their 18 intent.
19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: What the requirements 20 mean.
21 MR. BENOWITZ: It's what does the agency 22 mean in the rule language. What is the basis for the 23 proposed rule.
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: They used to actually be 25 labeled Statements of Consideration.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 MR. BENOWITZ: Long time ago.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Some of us have been 3 around. Go ahead.
4 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Slide No. 29. We 5 lumped two of these requirements on the same page.
6 One of the Emergency Planning Zone. Licensees and 7 applicants must determine and describe the boundary, 8 physical characteristics of the Emergency Planning 9 Zone in the emergency plan.
10 This is not the analysis. Remember the 11 analysis is required as part of the application and 12 those requirements contained in Sections 50.33 and 34.
13 This is just -- once you establish the EPZ what does 14 it look like. Currently we have maps and other 15 descriptions and stuff like that in the emergency 16 plan. It's the same idea here.
17 The next one is the ingestion response 18 planning. This is the requirement for the description 19 of all of the resources and capabilities that would go 20 into ingestion response planning. This is applicable 21 for those facilities with an onsite only EPZ within 22 the site boundary or at the site boundary, and for 23 those facilities that have an offsite EPZ.
24 Next slide, please. Implementation. Here 25 we are not deviating from what's already required for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 operational programs. Eighteen months prior to fuel 2 loading for Part 52 combined license application, or 3 18 months before the issuance of an operating license 4 for a Part 50 operating license issuance. We're not 5 deviating too far outside that box for the 6 implementation of this operational program.
7 Next slide, please. We've been talking 8 all day about a particular question that we have set 9 up for this scope. Here are all of the specific 10 requests for comments and it's contained within 11 Section IV of the FRN and there are several other 12 sections.
13 There are specific questions on here. We 14 are asking a question about the scope of the proposed 15 rule, performance-based requirements, drills or 16 exercises, planning activities, hazard analysis for 17 contiguous facilities, the Emergency Planning Zones.
18 Next slide, please. They are up on the 19 screen. There's all sorts of more questions here.
20 Draft regulatory analysis question, cumulative effects 21 of regulation, plain writing, environmental 22 assessment, Paperwork Reduction Act, and on the Draft 23 Regulatory Guide. Within the FRN we actually have the 24 addresses and instructions on how the public can 25 provide us those comments as required.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 Next slide, please. Slide No. 33. There 2 is a nexus between what we're doing here and the 3 Licensing Modernization Project. The Licensing 4 Modernization Project's objective is to develop 5 technology-inclusive risk informed and performance 6 based regulatory guidance for licensing with non-light 7 water reactors.
8 The NRC could consider and possibly 9 endorse an industry-submitted working draft of a 10 consolidated guidance document called Risk-Informed 11 Performance-Based Guidance for Non-light Water Reactor 12 Licensing Basis Development.
13 The NRC is supporting activities related 14 to the licensing modernization project being led by 15 Southern Company coordinated by the Nuclear Energy 16 Institute, and cost sharing by the Department of 17 Energy.
18 The current draft of this document was 19 submitted on May 27, 2018. The staff has held several 20 public meetings to discuss the draft guidance document 21 and brief the ACRS in June of 2018. As you can see 22 from the purpose of the licensing modernization 23 project the staff is currently working to ensure the 24 guidance related to the project is consistent with and 25 supportive of the proposed rule and draft guide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 The staff is scheduled to brief the ACRS 2 Future Plant Design Subcommittee again in October 2018 3 and the ACRS full committee in December 2018. The 4 staff is targeting late calendar year 2019 to issue a 5 draft regulatory guide DG-1353 to endorse the 6 NEI-18-04 guidance which will be submitted to the NRC.
7 MEMBER REMPE: When we had the meeting on 8 this, we discussed the point that the two-hour limit 9 for 10 CFR 20 was not included. They said, well, they 10 need them for a licensing basis event selection.
11 That's all true, but as I recall, former 12 Commissioner Apostolakis pointed out, "Yeah, you're 13 right. Even if you use this to select your licensing 14 basis events and you design your reactor that way, you 15 may not meet all the regulations."
16 Now, with emergency planning it seems like 17 it better include that two-hour limit for 10 CFR 20.
18 It's just something to think about if you do this 19 draft guide and you endorse it.
20 MEMBER CORRADINI: I don't understand.
21 Versus the --
22 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.
23 MEMBER CORRADINI: For them to make an 24 action based on the PAGs is a dose over time and the 25 time goes longer. That's why I'm not clear. You guys NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1 are writing it down so I'm still not sure if there's 2 a consistency.
3 MEMBER REMPE: I'm not sure at all but I 4 just am bringing up the point that if you endorse it, 5 it may not meet all the regulations. Yeah, you can 6 use it for licensing basis events. For the PAG, 7 again, it's not clear to me and it would be cleaner if 8 they would include all of the regulations in that 9 document in the draft guide.
10 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala, NRC 11 staff in NRO. I think it's part of the licensing 12 modernization project. We are making it clear that, 13 you know, if we endorse that process, they still have 14 to meet all the NRC's regulations.
15 MEMBER REMPE: If you design a plant for 16 that, it may not need all the regulations. Thanks.
17 MR. THOMAS: Okay. That concludes my 18 portion of the presentation. I'm going to now turn it 19 over to Dr. Carrera who will discuss the status and 20 the path forward.
21 DR. CARRERA: Okay. Thank you, Kenny.
22 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and ACRS 23 members, and members of the audience. My name is 24 Andrew Carrera. I'm one of the project managers for 25 this rule. Dennis Andrukat is my co-pilot and he's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 standing back there. You can look up his number if 2 you have any questions.
3 (Laughter.)
4 Thank you again for allowing us the 5 opportunity to come in front of you to discuss this 6 rulemaking on Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular 7 Reactors and Other New Technologies.
8 I initially made this protest to Trish 9 before and I'm making this protest to you, Mr.
10 Chairman. After two years of hard work, scraping my 11 knees and my hands, catering to every need of the 12 working group, all I get is just one lousy slide that 13 talks about schedules and process which no one wants 14 to hear. I've got to follow through and be a soldier 15 about it.
16 (Laughter.)
17 I would like to take a moment today to 18 briefly go over the current status of the rulemaking 19 effort on where we are now and where we're going next.
20 You've heard from Trish and Kenny on how 21 we got here with the background information on SMR 22 SECY-16-0069 where the Commission approved the staff's 23 rulemaking plan to move forward. Since then the staff 24 has had significant interactions with internal and 25 external stakeholders regarding this rulemaking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 effort.
2 The staff will continue interactions with 3 the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating 4 Committee to discuss issues of mutual interest to the 5 NRC and our federal partners.
6 The staff also coordinated with other NRC, 7 as you heard before, such as the ongoing regulatory 8 improvement for production and utilization facilities 9 transitioning to decommission, or the DECOM rule, and 10 the non-power production of utilization facilities 11 license renewal, or the NPUF rule.
12 As well as the Tennessee Valley Authority 13 early site permit review that we touched a little bit 14 on earlier to ensure that what we do in this 15 rulemaking will not undue the great work that has 16 already been done to other projects. As such, we 17 continue to assess and coordinate this rulemaking 18 effort with those activities moving forward.
19 Current status of this rulemaking is that 20 the staff is still working on finalizing this draft 21 proposed rule. The staff has released a draft 22 rulemaking document to support today's rulemaking, but 23 please note that these documents have not been subject 24 to the Commission's senior management and legal review 25 and approval and the contents should not be taken as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 final official agency position.
2 Following this meeting the staff plans to 3 continue working on these documents as well as other 4 documents related to this rulemaking effort.
5 The staff now has to provide a final 6 proposed rule package including the associated draft 7 guidance document to EDO on September 28th and to 8 Commission for approval on October 12th. As Trish 9 mentioned earlier, we are currently on track to meet 10 these dates.
11 Pending Commission approval the proposed 12 rule package and associated draft guidance documents 13 will be issued for official public comments in 14 estimated early in 2019.
15 After the official public comment period 16 closes and based on the public comments received, the 17 staff will develop a draft final rule which the staff 18 plans to submit to the Commission for approval in 19 early 2020.
20 I believe our next scheduled discussion 21 with the ACRS regarding this proposed rule after 22 today's meeting will be at the full committee meeting 23 in October. I've heard some requests -- some desires 24 from ACRS members that we should still go back to the 25 ACRS for further clarification or discussion of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 aspects of this rule after this rule has been 2 published. That is a discussion that needs to be done 3 at Trish's level and the committee level on how we can 4 best accommodate your request.
5 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Okay. That's good. Work 6 with Derek on that as time goes on. I don't know when 7 that will happen here. They are not due for their 8 final rule until 2020. That's not that far away, is 9 it?
10 DR. HOLAHAN: No.
11 DR. CARRERA: In rulemaking timeline 12 anything beyond three weeks is purely a guess.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I would suggest, and you 14 can talk with Derek some about this, for October if 15 anything you folks do internally leads to anything 16 anticipated changes, go through those in great detail 17 in October.
18 Over two-thirds of us are here today so it 19 will be a review for the rest of us. There are 20 several members who are not here today who will be 21 hearing this for the first time in October and we're 22 expected to write a letter about what we've heard at 23 that time.
24 Anything else from members for the staff?
25 Okay. I think we're finished. We have some public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1 comments from members of industry, and then we'll have 2 comments from anyone on the line or here in the room 3 who wants to make them.
4 My understanding is that we have five 5 people who wish to speak. The first one on my list is 6 Farshid Shahrokhi from Framatome. I hope I didn't 7 mangle your name too much but please come forward.
8 MR. SHAHROKHI: Thank you, Dr. Bley. My 9 name is Farshid Shahrokhi. I'm the high-temperature 10 gas reactor director of technology for Framatome.
11 Obviously we support and encourage this rulemaking, 12 this proposed rulemaking, and the basis for our 13 support is our reactor design.
14 Our reactor is a high-temperature gas fuel 15 reactor prismatic. It's a four-modular plant. Many 16 safety systems, impassive and inherent safety, and at 17 the core of that is our fuel. It's been under 18 irradiation qualification the last 15 years. We have 19 another three or four years to go.
20 Interim results from this radiation 21 exceeds our expectations. Our reactor is basically 22 designed to produce process heat in the form of 23 high-temperature steam and, of course, we can product 24 electricity also. Therefore, we need to be collocated 25 near our end users.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 Performance of our reactor establishes EPZ 2 at our plant boundary which is 400 meters which is our 3 site boundary. The dose rate for our boundary based 4 on expected performance of our fuel and our reactor 5 design is much less than one rem over any two-hour 6 period.
7 Based on that, of course, that doesn't 8 mean that the potential owner operator of our reactor 9 will not have an emergency plan. It will be similar 10 to the emergency plan of any industrial facility. It 11 will not be a basis of this license. It will be a 12 cooperation with the local and state authorities to 13 establish an emergency plan on that site. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you. I should 15 mention most of the people who are going to speak now 16 have submitted written comments and those will be 17 attached to our minutes when they are published on the 18 NRC website.
19 Next is Steve Mirsky from NuScale. Steve.
20 MR. MIRSKY: Thank you, Dr. Bley. My name 21 is Steven Mirsky. I am currently the senior technical 22 adviser for NuScale Power. Previously I was manager 23 of Regulatory Affairs. Of all the vendors you may be 24 hearing from tonight -- excuse me, today, we are the 25 one vendor of an SMR that is actually under review by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 the NRC. We submitted our design certification in 2 January of 2017.
3 I heard a number of comments made by some 4 members regarding concerns about how this proposed 5 rulemaking could actually be applied. I think it's 6 important to present the ACRS with as much information 7 of what has really been going on the last few years to 8 help you in seeing a perspective.
9 NuScale started engaging with the NRC and 10 preapplication on Emergency Planning Zone back in 11 2011, six years before our submittal. NuScale has 12 worked closely with NEI to develop NEI white papers 13 that were submitted to the small modular reactor 14 Emergency Planning Zone methodology.
15 NuScale's presentations to the NRC have 16 occurred over several years. In 2015 NuScale 17 submitted a plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone 18 methodology topical report. We support this proposed 19 rulemaking because it exactly aligns with our 20 methodology topical report.
21 A methodology topical report is 22 performance based, risk informed, and consequence 23 oriented. It's been under review by the NRC since 24 2015. It's been revised once and we are now in the 25 mode of waiting for the development of the safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 evaluation report which you will all, of course, be 2 seeing in future ACRS meetings.
3 I would like to assure ACRS members that 4 the methodology doesn't appear to be extremely 5 detailed and is sufficient for a vendor to develop a 6 topical report and a means to justify a pre-exposure 7 Emergency Planning Zone at distances different from 10 8 miles.
9 I also would like to make one comment 10 about PRA and NUREG-0396. We looked very closely at 11 NUREG-0396. We've been able to duplicate the figures 12 specifically in Appendix I, the famous knee curve 13 which was the basis for the 10-mile plume exposure.
14 I think it's important to note that the 15 state of technology of PRA in 1974 and the state of 16 knowledge of the input to PRA. That is actually very 17 crude compared to what we have today. The PRA that 18 NuScale has done and revised many times involves much 19 fewer systems, much fewer structures, much fewer 20 components and considerably more --
21 AUTOMATED HONE MESSAGE: Pardon the 22 interruption. Your conference contains less than 23 three participants at this time. If you would like to 24 continue, press *1 now or the conference will be 25 terminated.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 MR. MIRSKY: That's all I've got to say.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: It worked.
3 (Laughter.) Thanks, Steve.
4 Next we'll have Brian Johnson from 5 TerraPower.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Hello. I'm Brian Johnson 7 from TerraPower. I'm the nuclear risk assessment lead 8 which is sort of short for Chapter 19. There's a lot 9 of stuff in there. I just wanted to come and say we 10 do support and encourage this rulemaking. A lot of 11 thanks certainly to NuScale and NEI developing the 12 methodology. We've written an emergency preparedness 13 plan that we would like to implement.
14 In looking at this draft rulemaking it's 15 extremely aligned with the NEI guidance with what 16 NuScale has been doing and the path that TerraPower 17 would like to go forward with our reactor designs.
18 For those who are not familiar, we are 19 pursuing both TWR more in China, but that could 20 eventually become a global product, as well as the 21 MCFR. TerraPower is an innovation company so we limit 22 ourself to two reactors. We are very excited to see 23 this rulemaking.
24 We do think that the PRA elements that a 25 lot of people are concerned about being crude, I was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 sort of going to say something reverse to what NuScale 2 said. With the 0396 there are using the most relevant 3 cold data, the most relevant data they could get to 4 make their PRAs for the nuclear reactors.
5 As we develop new technologies, we 6 shouldn't let the lack of operating data for those 7 specific technologies prevent us from creating PRAs 8 that we can use to inform our design, we can use to 9 inform our failures, and the expected reliability of 10 a lot of equipment in these reactor types. I think 11 this is very exciting. I think it's doable. I think 12 it will provide a lot of flexibility and also 13 practicability for licensing new designs.
14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
15 Next should be Darrell Gardner of Kairos.
16 MR. GARDNER: Thank you. I'm Darrell 17 Gardner with Kairos Power. We submitted comments in 18 writing. This is just a brief summary of some of the 19 highlights here.
20 I'm director of Licensing Applications and 21 we wanted to point out that we're developing a 22 TRISO-based fuel molten salt cool reactor design.
23 It's a new technology. We think this will enable us 24 to support our mission to transition the world to 25 clean energy sources and make a difference in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 improving people's quality of life around the world.
2 We expect to demonstrate minimal exposure 3 to the public as a result of postulated accidents and 4 as a result of the reduced source term, longer acts of 5 progression times, increased use of passive safety in 6 the design.
7 The deployment of this and other 8 technologies requires removal of artificial barriers 9 to emergency planning requirements not commensurate 10 with the risk of these technologies.
11 We encourage the NRC's proposed rule and 12 support the efforts here today.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
14 Last should be Brandon Waites from 15 Southern Nuclear.
16 MR. WAITES: Thank you for the opportunity 17 to speak today. My name is Brandon Waites. I am with 18 Southern Nuclear Development. I am providing 19 consulting services to X Energy for their design in 20 the area of regulatory affairs.
21 Today I would like to provide a few 22 comments for X Energy about this proposed rule. X 23 Energy supports to propose performance based EP rule.
24 X Energy is pursuing the deployment of Xe-100 reactor, 25 a pebble bed high temperature gas cooled reactor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 design that emphasizes highly reliable passive and 2 inherent safety features.
3 Leveraging this inherent safety case is 4 instrumental to X Energy's business case. The 5 proposed draft guidance and rulemaking, if adopted, 6 will provide vendors and users the ability to leverage 7 lower risk profiles and remove obstacles currently 8 associated with the deployment of advanced reactor 9 technologies under existing rules.
10 X Energy commends the work done in this 11 area for advanced reactor technologies and looks 12 forward to similar work done in other areas to further 13 enable advanced reactor deployment. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
15 At this point I would like to get the 16 phone line open. While we're waiting for that, if 17 there's anyone in the room who would like to make a 18 comment, please come to the microphone and identify 19 yourself and make a comment.
20 Is there anyone on the phone line who 21 would like to make a comment? If so, please identify 22 yourself and make your comment.
23 MS. FIELDS: Yes. This is Sarah Fields --
24 CHAIRMAN BLEY: I'm sorry. If you're 25 using a speaker phone, can you go to the handset?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 You're cutting out a lot. Can you go ahead? Do you 2 want to try again?
3 Is there anyone else who would like to 4 make a comment? I'll give her just a minute and see 5 if she's trying to dial back in.
6 MS. FIELDS: This is Ms. Fields. My 7 connection dropped off. I hope I can continue my 8 comments.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Yeah, go ahead. This is 10 much better. We can hear you now.
11 MS. FIELDS: Okay. Is the NRC taking into 12 consideration the indefinite storage for fuel at a 13 small modular reactor and maybe at some other advanced 14 reactor site? For example, NuScale intends to use 15 conventional nuclear fuel. Not that it's wrong but it 16 will still be conventional fuel.
17 Eventually it will go into the spent fuel 18 pool for five years and then be removed into canisters 19 and the design of those canisters has not been 20 identified. Currently there is no place to move that 21 fuel, only in terms of indefinite storage of that 22 fuel.
23 I don't see where you are taking into 24 consideration the possibility of different types of 25 accidents or releases related to that fuel. I would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 1 like maybe some comment from the ACRS about this.
2 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you for your 3 comment. We don't engage in discussions. We are 4 collecting information but your comments will appear 5 in our transcript and we will consider them. Thank 6 you.
7 MS. FIELDS: I read your comments in your 8 final determination. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
10 Anyone else care to make a comment? Okay.
11 We'll close the phone line now. Thank you.
12 At this time I'm going to go around to the 13 members and see what comments they have.
14 Pete Riccardella, are you still on the 15 line and can you make comments?
16 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: I am. I guess I have 17 some thoughts, you know, regarding modular reactors we 18 earlier had the discussion of single unit versus 19 multiple modules on a single site.
20 It seems to me that if the methodology is 21 truly risk informed and performance based that it 22 should be possible to address different accident 23 frequencies for single versus multiple module 24 accidents, as well as the different source terms that 25 are involved. I don't see that to be a big issue in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 this regard.
2 Then I'm also keenly intent on Dick's 3 point about future changes that might influence the 4 emergency plan and initial citing versus continual 5 assessment. That's all I have.
6 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Steve. Thanks for 7 being there.
8 Walt.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I would just thank the 10 presenters. I don't have any further comments at this 11 point. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Charlie.
13 MEMBER BROWN: I have no further comments.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you, Charlie.
16 Jose.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I have no specific 18 comments.
19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Joy.
20 MEMBER REMPE: So I also side with or like 21 the second what Pete said about that I think the draft 22 rule should explicitly say multiple modules need to be 23 considered with a parenthetical statement. I agree 24 that the continuous updates to emergency planning 25 should be noted.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 I guess I would like to see some 2 additional guidance on the source term more than what 3 I saw in Appendix A. For example, I think that some 4 discussion of cutoff frequency might be useful here, 5 or some place.
6 I am also curious about the 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />. Why 7 the first 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> and should we be thinking about 8 just reactor which might have something that comes out 9 at 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. I mean, why just that first 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />?
10 Last, there are those two papers and they 11 are not yet released. I would like to make sure those 12 two references are released publicly before we meet 13 again. Okay? Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks.
15 Mike.
16 MEMBER CORRADINI: No, I don't have any 17 additional comments. I think we've talked about our 18 concerns and interests earlier. Thanks to the staff.
19 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
20 Matt.
21 MEMBER SUNSERI: I would like to thank the 22 presenters and a few general comments. I do generally 23 support the need for and the direction of this rule.
24 I think it's important and necessary.
25 I suppose my biggest concern, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138 1 probably too strong a word, but the observation I'll 2 make is regarding the discriminator for applicability.
3 The success or failure of a rule like this will depend 4 on the implementation guidance and the quality of that 5 guidance.
6 I think you heard a number of comments 7 today about what is the discriminator, megawatts or 8 whatever, source term this or that. We heard, I 9 think, at least in my mind conflicting information 10 regarding the source term, whether the citing criteria 11 is bounding or not, multiple modules. Some of my 12 colleagues have already commented on this.
13 I suppose my closing point here is I look 14 forward through the comment period and after you get 15 the public and industry and everybody's comments after 16 the Federal Register addressing these issues in a way 17 that would make sense and make it absolutely clear how 18 we are going to implement this rule and who is going 19 to do that.
20 Just one final comment. I wasn't in the 21 military but maybe Charlie can comment on this. I've 22 often heard military planners say the battle plan goes 23 out the window when the first shot is fired. I think 24 a similar analogy applies here.
25 I don't know that we need to necessarily NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 1 have emergency plans that address the worse 2 conceivable thing that we could ever think of, but 3 what is the most credible thing that can happen at 4 these plants from a radiological consequences 5 perspective.
6 If we can adequately prepare for that, 7 then that planning and that thinking process will 8 carry over to whatever absurd thing that we might be 9 able to think of.
10 I've seen this happen in the communities 11 where I've worked where non-radiological events have 12 occurred; tornadoes, storms, floods, whatever, but the 13 community responded to those in a way of implementing 14 what they learned through working with the nuclear 15 power plant that was really beneficial to the 16 community. I think that type of thought adds value.
17 That's all I have. Thank you, Dennis.
18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thank you.
19 Dick.
20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: First of all, to Dr.
21 Holahan and the whole staff, thank you very much for 22 a very beneficial morning.
23 Second comment I would like to make is we 24 learned at TMI-2 the importance of the containment.
25 The containment of TMI-2 saved the day. It held the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 water from going in the Susquehanna River and it 2 prevented any real offsite dose release.
3 To that point, the way this documentation 4 is written, as Dr. Bley said, it seems to be all 5 around EP. It really needs to focus on source term.
6 Let me give you an example. We just had several SMR 7 vendors in here talking about their product. Salute 8 to them.
9 Let's suppose the staff and the ACRS gets 10 real antsy and basically says, "We don't like that 11 design because we have questions about the source 12 term." That vendor then says, "Okay. We'll put a 13 second containment on it. We say, "We still don't 14 like that." They says, "We've got deep pockets.
15 We'll put another containment."
16 At some point the designer has the 17 capability to make that source term of no consequence.
18 This rule should allow that. It should allow a 19 designer to be so innovative that the offsite releases 20 are so low that one would say that is a safe facility.
21 In my view, the source term carries the 22 day in this discussion as the reactor building carried 23 the day on March 28th of 1979. I don't think the 24 importance of that can be understated. A good strong 25 box, a good strong steel container, is just what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 doctor ordered.
2 Let the legislation, let the documentation 3 that you're creating, let the rule that you're 4 proposing focus solidly on source term that all of 5 kind of say, yeah, if we follow that path, we will 6 have a successful facility in terms of radiologic 7 consequence no matter what the fuel is. Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Dick.
9 Ron.
10 MEMBER CORRADINI: Green light.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: I'm not the first and 12 not the last.
13 CHAIRMAN BLEY: But you're consistent.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, since Stetkar 16 left. Where was I? I appreciate the presentations a 17 lot but I have no further comments.
18 CHAIRMAN BLEY: Thanks, Ron.
19 I, too, would like to thank all the 20 presenters today and thank you for your patience and 21 lengthy discussions. I'm sure we'll have more in the 22 future. I won't reiterate the things I've already 23 said but I stand by them. We'll look forward to 24 seeing you in October. We'll have some discussions 25 through Derek on our part for what to expect at that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 time.
2 Like I say, if anything out of this 3 meeting or anything that evolves as you go forward 4 makes changes of any kind in the rule language or in 5 the guidance, please bring that and show us clearly.
6 I assume it won't be much. If it heads that way, then 7 we need to see something in writing. But I think if 8 it's all minor things, you can show us at that time.
9 I would like to finally thank everyone 10 else who was here for a good session. We are 11 adjourned.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 11:44 a.m.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
ACRS Future Plant Designs and Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittees August 22, 2018 My name is Farshid Shahrokhi I am the director of the high temperature gascooled reactor (HTGR) technology at Framatome Inc.
Framatomes steam cycle HTGR relies on the performance and radionuclides retention characteristics of TRISO particle fuel currently undergoing irradiation testing for qualification at Idaho National Laboratory.
Interim results from multiyear irradiation and testing campaign indicate better than expected results. Framatomes steam cycle HTGR is designed to deliver process heat and electricity at the highest level of reactor safety utilizing intrinsic and passive safety design features.
The combined radionuclides retention capabilities of TRISO particle fuel, intrinsic, and passive safety of our design concept limits the accident dose to less than 1.0 Rem (EPA PAG dose limit) in any two hour time interval during and following any design bases accident at the plant site boundary of 400 meter.
In other words the SCHTGR is designed to not interfere with the environment beyond the plants site boundary.
We expect the plant owner/operator to develop a robust offsite emergency plan, not as a condition of the NRC license but in cooperation with the state and local authorities similar to the emergency plans of any other large industrial complex in the U.S.A.
Existing regulations on emergency planning (EP) do not allow the owner/operator to benefit from the added safety and security of the advanced reactors limiting incentives for deployments of these safer designs.
We therefore applaud and strongly support the NRCs proposed EP rulemaking.
KP-NRC-1808-001 August 21, 2018 Mr. Derek Widmayer Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Kairos Power LLC Comments on Draft Proposed Rule, Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Other New Technologies (ONTs)
Kairos Power appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for consideration by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in their review of the subject proposed rule. Kairos is developing an advanced reactor in support of our teams mission, which is to enable the worlds transition to clean energy, with the ultimate goal of dramatically improving peoples quality of life while protecting the environment. We seek to address energy poverty, reduce the impact of climate change, create real and lasting jobs, and reestablish American technology leadership. But doing that requires that we remove artificial impediments to deploying this safe technology.
Kairos is developing a solid, TRISO-fueled, molten salt-cooled, high-temperature reactor. We expect to demonstrate minimal public exposure during conservatively postulated events.
Kairos strongly supports the proposed rule. We know from the direct involvement of members of our team that this rule represents years of collaboration on an approach that recognizes enhancements in safety of advanced designs while still requiring applicants to demonstrate compliance with rigorous requirements before the new approach can be used. The proposed rule acknowledges safety enhancements such as reduced core inventories and source terms, reduced potential for accidents, longer progressions of events postulated to lead to releases, and increase in the use of passive safety. Further, as indicated in the proposed rule package, the rule would apply the same dose standard for predetermined protective actions as is required of the current operating large reactors. It results in no less protection of public health and safety as compared to existing requirements for the current operating fleet.
The real risk associated with many other industries is much higher than a reactor, yet our industry historically presupposes that a higher burden is necessary. The proposed rule is logical in that it removes barriers to deployment by establishing requirements commensurate with the risk of the technology.
Importantly, the lack of a pre-approved offsite emergency plan - which is an important aspect of the change being contemplated in this rule - does not imply a lack of emergency planning, but rather a level of emergency preparedness more aligned with other comparable risks.
Kairos is pleased to support this rulemaking and we hope the ACRS finds these comments to be useful.
Respectfully submitted, Peter Hastings, PE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs & Quality Kairos Power LLC 580 2nd Street, Suite 290 l Oakland, California 94607 l 510-808-5265 www.kairospower.com
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, was 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. This 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 plants; 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 appropriately 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 21st 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 EPZ 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.
ACRS Subcommittee August 22, 2018 Emergency 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) 1
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- Purpose of Rulemaking Amend regulations for new alternative performance-based EP requirements for future SMRs and ONTs.
- Proposed rule would be:
- Technology inclusive for future:
- Nuclear power reactor < 1000MWt that may have modular design
- ONTs
- Non-light-water power reactors
- Non-power Production or Utilization Facilities
>> Medical Radioisotope Facilities 2
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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.
3
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 4
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 5
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 rules scope.
6
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 facilities 7
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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.
8
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 sizes 9
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 Determinations 10
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 similarities 11
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- National Preparedness Goal
- National Planning Frameworks
- Prevention
- Protection
- Mitigation
- Response
- Recovery
- Federal Interagency Operations Plans 12
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 13
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- Regulatory Basis: Rulemaking for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies
- Draft issued April 2017
- Final issued November 2017
- Key comments 14
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking EP for SMRs and ONTs Existing EP Onsite only Onsite and Offsite 15
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 information 16
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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.
17
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §50.160
- (a) Applicability
- (b) Definitions
- Site-boundary refers to the Part 20 definition 18
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 preparedness 19
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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; 20
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 actions 21
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §50.160
- (c)(1)(iv) Planning activities
- (A) Onsite-
- (1) Public information
- (2) Implement emergency response plan with safeguards contingency plan 22
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §50.160
- (c)(1)(iv) Planning activities
- (A) Onsite-
- (3) Voice communications with the NRC (Emergency Notification System)
- (4) Emergency facility 23
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 organizations 24
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 25
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 information 26
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 plan 27
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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.
28
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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 Annex 29
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- §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.
30
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- Specific Requests for Comments
- Section IV of the FRN
- Scope of the proposed rule
- Performance-based requirements
- Drills or exercises
- Planning activities
- Hazard analysis
- EPZs 31
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies Proposed Rulemaking
- 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 Guide 32
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 NRCs 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 33
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 Commissions 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) 34
Abbreviations ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards CFR - 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 35
Abbreviations NMSS - Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC - 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 36