ML21075A211: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==Title:==
683rd Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Standards (ACRS)
Docket Number:    N/A Location:        Teleconference Date:            Thursday, March 4, 2021 Work Order No.:  NRC-1424                          Pages 1-199 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                            683RD MEETING 5            ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6                                  (ACRS) 7                                + + + + +
8                                  THURSDAY 9                            MARCH 4, 2021 10                                + + + + +
11                  The      Advisory        Committee met        via 12 Teleconference, at 9:30 a.m. EST, Matthew W. Sunseri, 13 Chairman, presiding.
14 15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
16            MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Chairman 17            JOY L. REMPE, Vice Chairman 18            WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member-at-Large 19            RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 20            DENNIS BLEY, Member 21            CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 22            VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 23            JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24            DAVID PETTI, Member 25            PETER RICCARDELLA, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    (202) 234-4433
 
2 1 ACRS CONSULTANTS:
2            MICHAEL L. CORRADINI 3            STEPHEN SCHULTZ 4
5 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
6            LARRY BURKHART 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  (202) 234-4433
 
3 1                                CONTENTS 2
3 Call to Order and Opening Remarks . . . . . . . .                        5 4 Be riskSMART Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        8 5            Mirela Gavrilas, Office of Nuclear 6            Security and Incident Response              . . . . . .      8 7            Candace De Messieres, Office of 8            Nuclear Reactor Regulation              . . . . . . 13, 37 9            Eric Duncan, Chief, Division of 10            Reactor Projects      . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 11            Michael Gartman, Office of Legal Counsel                . 51 12            Elizabeth Bowlin, Office of the Chief 13            Financial Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 14            Russell Chazell, Office of the Secretary                . 57 15 EMBARK Venture Studio Briefing                  . . . . . . . . . 70 16            Shaun Anderson, Managing Director . . . . . 70 17            Jennifer Whitman, Strategic Director              . . . 71 18            Andrew Lerch, Region II Inspector . . . . . 77 19            Taylor Lamb, Product Manager, 20            Mission Analytics Portal (MAP)              . . . . . . 79 21            Michael Lee, Product Owner, 22            Mission Analytics Portal (MAP)              . . . . . . 81 23            Jason Carneal, Office of Nuclear 24            Reactor Regulation        . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 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                        CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 2 3 EMBARK Venture Studio Briefing (Continued) 4            Caty Nolan, Product Owner, Mission 5            Analytics Portal externally-facing 6            (MAP-X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7 Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR Parts 50/52/Other Business 8            Remarks from the Subcommittee Chairman        . 109 9            Presentations and discussion with 10                representatives from the NRC staff      . .      110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  (202) 234-4433
 
5 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                                9:30 a.m.
3                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Good morning, everyone.
4 It's 9:30.        The meeting will now come to order.
5                  This  is    the    second      day  of  the    683rd 6 meeting        of  the    Advisory        Committee      on  Reactor 7 Safeguards.        I'm Matthew Sunseri, the Chair of the 8 ACRS.
9                  I'll call the roll now to confirm a quorum 10 and that communications are clear.
11                  Ron Ballinger?
12                  MEMBER BALLINGER:          Here.
13                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dennis Bley?
14                  MEMBER BLEY:        Here.
15                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Member Brown will be 16 stepping away for a few minutes, but he'll join us 17 here in a minute.
18                  Vesna Dimitrijevic?
19                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Here.
20                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Walt Kirchner?
21                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Here.
22                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Jose March-Leuba?
23                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Here.
24                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dave Petti?
25                  MEMBER PETTI:        Here.
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                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Joy Rempe?
2                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Here.
3                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Pete Riccardella?
4                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Here.
5                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            All right.      Loud and 6 clear on everyone, and we have a quorum.
7                  The Designated Federal Officer for this 8 meeting is Mr. Larry Burkhart.
9                  During today's meeting, the Committee will 10 consider the following: we will have a briefing on Be 11 riskSMART, EMBARK Venture Studio, and finally, we'll 12 have a briefing later this afternoon on regulatory 13 basis of 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 52, and other related 14 business.
15                  Additionally, we will be conducting report 16 preparation on a digital I&C conduct of access letter 17 that we're working on.
18                  The phone bridge line has been opened to 19 allow        members  of    the    public        to  listen    in      to 20 presentations and Committee discussions.                        We have 21 received no written comments or requests to make oral 22 statements        from  members      of    the      public  regarding 23 today's session.
24                  Members of the ACRS staff monitor the 25 remote aspects of this meeting and are in position 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
 
7 1 correct        problems    with    open    mics,    excessive    audio 2 interference,          or    other      problems      that  may      be 3 encountered.
4                    There will be an opportunity for public 5 comment.        We have set aside time in the agenda for 6 comments from members of the public attending or 7 listening to our meeting.                  Written comments may be 8 forwarded        to  Mr. Larry      Burkhart,      the  Designated 9 Federal Officer.
10                    A transcript of the open portions of the 11 meeting is being kept, and it is requested that the 12 speakers identify themselves and speak with sufficient 13 clarity and volume, so that they may readily be heard.
14                    And most importantly, participants should 15 mute themselves when not speaking.                    Having open mics 16 of    people    not  presenting        or    speaking    contributes 17 greatly to the interference, the audio interference.
18 So, we respectfully request everyone to mute yourself 19 if you're not speaking.
20                    Members, I'll now turn to you, if there 21 are any questions or comments regarding the activities 22 we're getting into or questions about the agenda.
23                    (No audible response.)
24                    All right, hearing none, then we will 25 proceed to the first topics, and let me introduce 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 these.
2                The ACRS began its own transformation 3 activities a couple of years ago.                  We wrote a letter 4 to the Commissioners about what we were doing. And in 5 that letter, we promised to keep abreast of Agency 6 transformation initiatives.            So, we have a couple of 7 topics here today along that line.
8                Additionally,          during        our  Commission 9 briefing last fall, last December, the topic of EMBARK 10 Venture Studio was brought up, and it sounded like 11 something we should learn more about.                  So, today, we 12 will hear on both of these topics. The first one will 13 be an update on the Be riskSMART Initiative, and the 14 second one will be EMBARK Studio.
15                So, let me introduce a member of the 16 staff, a familiar -- I was going to say, "a familiar 17 face," but I'll call her "a familiar voice," Mirela 18 Gavrilas, with the Office of Nuclear Security and 19 Incident Response.        I'll turn to Mirela to offer any 20 comments; Mirela?
21                DR. GAVRILAS:        Thank you very much.
22                So, I'm Mirela Gavrilas. I'm the Director 23 of NSIR, but, for the purpose of this meeting, I'm the 24 very proud leader of the Be riskSMART team.                    And I 25 will share with all of you that it has been 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
 
9 1 absolute pleasure to lead this team over the past year 2 and a half.
3                    I'm going to keep my remarks short, but I 4 want to start with an overarching assessment of what 5 the Be riskSMART framework accomplished.                      And in my 6 mind, the biggest contribution of the framework is 7 that      it  takes  the    mystique      out      of  risk-informed 8 decision making and it allows people to talk about 9 risk, even if they never heard the term "Boolean," let 10 alone "Bayesian," in their professional lives.
11                    So, with that, next slide, please.
12                    The charter of the team was pretty simple:
13 provide        a  high-level      framework        applicable    to    all 14 disciplines -- technical, legal, and corporate --
15 because risk-informed decision making happens in all 16 arenas of the Agency.              And our intent was to engage 17 all arenas in a meaningful way.
18                    The folks you're going to hear from today, 19 we started out with a team of five.                    We've grown to a 20 team of 15.          And now, most recently, we've added a 21 very large number of ambassadors, but I'm very proud 22 to say that the speakers today are members of that 23 original team.          We stayed together over this past 18 24 months.
25                    So, one of the other objectives of 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
 
10 1 team was to address obstacles that were perceived to 2 be in the way of including risk considerations in 3 decision making.        And I'm going to talk a bit more 4 about that because we had a somewhat separate, but 5 related effort when the Commission sent an SRM for the 6 IAB in 2019.      So, that's going to be the topic of the 7 next slide.
8                One  of    our    mantras        has been  do    not 9 reinvent the wheel.          In other words, make sure that 10 whatever we do does not harm any of the risk-informed 11 decision making aspects of the Agency; for example, 12 the use of probabilistic risk assessment for reactor 13 safety; the use of enterprise risk management in 14 Agency decisions. So, we wanted to make sure that our 15 framework becomes an umbrella rather than a deviation 16 from existing practices.
17                And then, finally, we realized there was 18 some confusion originally about the intent of the 19 framework.      So, we explicitly offered that we had no 20 intention of revisiting existing criteria.                  So, the 21 framework does not target the criteria familiar to the 22 Committee from Reg Guide 1.174. It doesn't change any 23 of the steps in STP for oversight. But it facilitates 24 the      explicit  consideration          of    those  criteria      in 25 decision making.
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                  Next slide, please.
2                  So, I've mentioned the parallel effort.
3 So, there was an SRM on Commission direction on 4 applying      risk-informed          principle      in regulatory 5 decision making.          And in response to that, we were 6 tasked by the EDO to sort of assess what the obstacles 7 are.
8                  And what you see on this page were what 9 the team -- and I was on that team as well -- the team 10 who wrote that response to the view that's the most 11 significant obstacles.            And not surprisingly, at the 12 top of the list was inconsistent management support 13 and expectations.
14                  You'll see a letter after each of these 15 obstacles, and the letter is actually the letter in 16 the Be riskSMART framework, where "A" stands for 17 "act". We'll talk about that on the next slide. That 18 is the main contributor to removing that obstacle.
19 So, one obstacle: inconsistent management support and 20 expectations.
21                  Another obstacle, potential flexibilities 22 not reflected in the guidance, in other words, rigid 23 guidance.
24                  Another obstacle is reluctance to adapt 25 processes, I mean, thinking that the processes is 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
 
12 1 ultimate authority.
2                    In some cases, it's the total lack of 3 guidance.          One  very    common      pitfall    that  we    had 4 observed        in  time    was    that    risk    information      was 5 introduced too late in the decision-making process.
6                    And the next one is a huge sort of faux 7 pas, which is the limited considerations of benefits.
8 We were so focused on what can go wrong, that we 9 didn't consider that the benefits can offset that 10 wrong.
11                    The    next      one      is      the  presence        of 12 uncertainties. This is, you know, sort of inherent in 13 human nature.          We were thinking specifically about 14 lack of information and how we, as humans, react to 15 not having sufficient information.
16                    Another one was siloed organization in 17 risk-informed decision making, especially in risks 18 that      canvass    a  variety      of    disciplines,      as    risks 19 associated with all kinds of work you usually do.
20 Working        in  siloed    organization          is  detrimental      to 21 making the sound decision.
22                    Treatment of low-likelihood events, that's 23 another one that's sort of inherent in human nature.
24                    Where    regulations        provide    flexibility, 25 overly rigid interpretation of regulation, that 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
 
13 1 another big one in the staff's view.
2                  And    finally,        limited        awareness        of 3 guidance.
4                  So, the Be riskSMART team was a complement 5 to the identification of all these obstacles, and it 6 had the explicit purpose of removing these obstacles.
7                  And with that, I'm going to pass the 8 presentation over to Eric, who is going to talk about 9 the framework on the next slide.
10                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          And so, actually, this 11 is Candace De Messieres.              So, I'll be presenting on 12 the framework.        And again, my name is Candace De 13 Messieres. I'm a Technical Assistant in the Office of 14 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and I have the pleasure 15 this morning to walk through this.
16                  And again, I echo Mirela's comments that 17 being on this team has been an honor, and it's just 18 been a great experience to see so many people from 19 different backgrounds coming together to get behind 20 this approach and framework.
21                  So, without further ado, I'll start just 22 by noting that the first, the very first step, and 23 very important step, is to be clear about the problem.
24 There's a note here at the bottom.                  You know, part of 25 this        step  is,    of    course,        knowing    and    fully 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 understanding what is required. We are not, as Mirela 2 stated, changing any of the existing requirements or 3 criteria, but we are optimizing our decision-making 4 process and how we make that decision.
5                  So, the problem could be a simple binary 6 decision.        It could be something that an individual 7 makes that is a yes-or-no answer.                  They can certainly 8 use this framework. Or it could be more complex. For 9 example, how to optimize a process or procedure to 10 enhance the principles of good regulation.
11                  And  again,      it's    very    scalable,      this 12 process.        In  many      cases,      the    steps,  you    know, 13 depending on that complexity, are more detailed or 14 not.      But, again, it can be used for simple decisions 15 or those that are the most complex.
16                  So, the first step here, "S" for "spot,"
17 may look very, very familiar to you.                        And that's 18 because it really envelopes the risk triplet.                          And 19 that is, what can go wrong, how likely is it, and what 20 are the consequences. What you'll notice is there are 21 a few changes that you'll notice.                      And one Mirela 22 already mentioned is that, of course, in the reactor 23 safety realm, focused on things like core damage 24 frequency, there is an implicit what-can-go-wrong 25 approach.      However, this framework, which, again, 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
 
15 1 applicable to all disciplines, explicitly considers 2 those opportunities or things that can go right and 3 wrong.
4                    We also, again, from thinking how this 5 could be applied in non-technical contexts, thought 6 about        what    is    intuitive        from      a  psychological 7 perspective.              And,      you    know,      you    might      not 8 automatically jump to how likely is it, which may 9 involve some further thought or analysis.                      So, you'll 10 notice        that  the    next      step    is:        what  are      the 11 consequences? And then, once you've identified those, 12 thinking        either,      again,      in      a  qualitative        or 13 quantitative way how likely is it.
14                    And so, with that, I'll move to the next 15 step.        And this is --
16                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            So, Candace, this is 17 Matt.
18                    MS. DE MESSIERES:          Oh, sure, uh-hum.
19                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              So, at least in my 20 experience, this could be the hardest step in the 21 sequence of things because people that are steeped in 22 their paradigm often can't see beyond that.                      So, they 23 can't spot the right or the wrong because they're so 24 entrenched, if I can use that terminology.                        Have you 25 thought about that and things to overcome 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
 
16 1                  MS. DE MESSIERES:              Yes, absolutely.          I 2 mean, that's a very, very good point.                    And I'll say, 3 prior        to  being  a    Technical        Assistant,    I    was      a 4 Reliability Risk Analyst in the Division of Risk 5 Assessment.          And    coming      from      that  background,        I 6 absolutely        had  to    kind    of  shift    my  thinking        to 7 overcome some of those unconscious biases from our 8 training, if you would call it.
9                  The thing is that the beauty of this 10 framework, and one way that we overcome it, is that 11 it's a collaborative effort.                The spot step -- and we 12 have      a  detailed    guidance      document      --  it    really 13 involves engaging all stakeholders in the decision.
14 And that collaborative aspect I think can help with 15 advancing a culture that's kind of receptive to things 16 that can go right or wrong. And there's definitely an 17 aspect of training folks to really understand that 18 that's an important aspect, and that just doing things 19 differently        doesn't    mean    that      you're  not,    again, 20 following the guidance or following the requirements.
21 It's not that you're changing criteria; it's just a 22 different approach, which leads you to maybe a more 23 focused way to accomplish the problem you're trying to 24 solve.
25                  So, that's an excellent question.                    It'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 something we think a lot about every day, and we work 2 with our culture team as well to overcome some of 3 those issues.
4                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Just a little bit of a 5 follow-up on that -- and maybe it comes in later in 6 the follow-up steps -- but if you learn something, 7 let's say, during the act step, does this allow for 8 looping back to the spot, and then, reassessing what 9 the best --
10                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Absolutely. Yes.
11                  Then, Mirela, you wanted to say something 12 as well.        Go ahead.
13                  DR. GAVRILAS:        Yes, I think that that's a 14 great question, and we will address it explicitly.
15 But I wanted to say that, even in traditional PRA, 16 because        I  thought      about    this      for a  while,        in 17 traditional PRA you don't need to say what can go 18 right or what can go wrong, because you have a common 19 figure of merit, right, that takes into consideration 20 what's working and what's not working.                    You're like 21 looking at core damage frequency, but you're sort of 22 considering systems responding or not responding.
23 But, in more general risk decisions, you may not have, 24 nor would you need, a common figure of merit.                    And it 25 makes it even more imperative to consider right 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
 
18 1 wrong separately.
2                    That was all that I wanted to add.
3                    MS. DE MESSIERES:              Yes, that's a great 4 point.        Thank you.
5                    And then, yes, to your second question 6 about the iterative nature, that's absolutely part of 7 that, and I will talk a little bit more about that 8 under "realize" in just a minute.
9                    And so, I think we're now to the manage 10 step. Again, this framework is meant to be intuitive.
11 It    means      exactly    what    it    says.      This  is    really 12 managing what you can.                It involves anything from a 13 range of possibilities -- for example, additional 14 public meetings, increased resources or focus to some 15 issue.          It could be additional inspections.                      So, 16 there's          many    different          management      techniques, 17 depending on what your problem is.
18                    And again, this is an explicit focus on 19 those techniques to know that there may be risks that 20 you identify and spot, things that could go wrong.
21 But if you really have the correct management in 22 place, those things can sometimes be okay in that 23 context, to proceed with that action.                    Sometimes not.
24 And again, it can go either way, but there is an 25 explicit step for 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
 
19 1                  Once you've managed what you can, you, 2 then, act on the decision.              And I'd ask, Eric, if you 3 could --
4                  MR. DUNCAN: Yes, let me just jump in real 5 quick.
6                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Oh, sure. Of course.
7                  MR. DUNCAN:        This is Eric Duncan here.
8                  So, right, manage what you can; those are 9 the guardrails, right, that we put in place.                    And we 10 already do this often.            I think one great example of 11 that is the use of pilots, right? Typically, when the 12 NRC rolls out a new program, what we'll do is we'll 13 test it with a smaller group of people, just to find 14 out how well it works for us.                And then, we can make 15 adjustments to that as necessary.                  And so, that pilot 16 would be, I think a great example of a manage-what-17 you-can        action  that    we    can    take    to  assess      the 18 effectiveness and overall efficacy of whatever the 19 program is or whatever the new idea is that we're 20 getting ready to implement.
21                  Thanks.
22                  MS. DE MESSIERES: That's a great example, 23 yes.
24                  Eric, or I think it's Jason, would you 25 mind going to the next slide for a second? Thank 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
 
20 1                So, for the act step, what I put on the 2 screen here is just a tool that we've adopted from 3 enterprise risk management, and this is a heat map.
4 And again, on the act step, after collaboratively 5 hearing all the different perspectives, evaluating all 6 the      challenges  and    opportunities,            managing    those 7 things, documenting that, this step is really the step 8 where you can explicitly consider all of those things 9 holistically and see where, as an organization, as an 10 individual, depending on the decision, what is your 11 risk appetite.
12                And  again,        if    you      have  a  low-risk 13 appetite, you really need risks that have a very low 14 consequence or likelihood, and that might be totally 15 appropriate. In other cases in other areas, you might 16 have a high-risk tolerance.              If something goes wrong 17 from an organizational enterprise risk perspective, or 18 whatever the perspective it may be, that may be 19 acceptable.        And    again,      we    use    our  guidelines, 20 organizations, guidelines, and criteria in helping 21 develop these risk appetites.
22                And I would mention that this could be, 23 again, very qualitative or it could be quantitative.
24 So, we mention Reg Guide 1.174 in the reactor safety 25 realm. That's like a quantitative example for CDF 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
 
21 1 LRF risk appetites.
2                However, again, in a corporate or a legal, 3 or any other type of decision, where quantitative 4 numbers may not be available, or to a less degree, you 5 know, this could literally just be where your group or 6 organization has identified that risk appetite.                      And 7 that's one tool that you can use as part of the Be 8 riskSMART      framework      to  help    you    in acting    on    a 9 decision.
10                If you can go back --
11                DR. GAVRILAS:        Can I --
12                MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes, uh-hum.
13                DR. GAVRILAS:        Can I jump in?
14                MS. DE MESSIERES:          Absolutely.
15                DR. GAVRILAS:            Because    one  of      the 16 objectives of the team was to make this framework 17 accessible to everybody.            And what we did is -- I'm 18 noticing that when we're talking to you guys, we're 19 falling back on PRA examples -- but what we did in the 20 context of the framework, we actually came up with a 21 simple example to walk everybody through all the steps 22 of the framework.
23                And the feedback that we got initially 24 when we rolled out the example -- I'll tell you what 25 it was in a moment -- was this is too simple.                  And 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
 
22 1 were delighted that people were telling us that this 2 is too simple.        Because in the back of our mind, we 3 were walking through sort of PRA type of thinking, 4 enterprise risk kind of thinking, but the example that 5 we rolled out was somebody having to make a decision 6 on whether to commute to work on a bicycle or to 7 continue to drive their car.
8                  And the decision had the positives, which 9 were better health, and the negatives, such as you'll 10 fall and get hurt, right?              And then, the mitigation 11 was, the manage what you can was travel during daytime 12 and only in good weather, and use proper equipment.
13 And      then,  we  played    up    the    risk  appetite,    that 14 somebody who has osteoporosis or another preexisting 15 condition may have a low risk appetite while somebody 16 who is an expert bike rider will have a high risk 17 appetite.      So, that example was actually what we used 18 to roll out the framework.
19                  Sorry for the interruption, Candace.
20                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Oh, no, that's a great 21 example, and I'm glad we had the opportunity to bring 22 that up for sure.        Yes, I mean, this is really meant 23 to be very intuitive to any person, regardless of your 24 background.      And that's a great example.
25                  MR. DUNCAN:        Hey, Candace?
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                    MS. DE MESSIERES:          Uh-hum?
2                    MR. DUNCAN:        Yes, let me also add real 3 quick here, when we're talking about risk appetite, 4 we're talking about risk appetite in a specific area.
5 Okay?        Because if you think about, if you go back to 6 spot and think about what can go wrong and what can go 7 right, there's lot of, usually more than one thing 8 that can go wrong, but there's also different areas 9 that they can go wrong in.
10                    So, you may have a financial risk or you 11 may have a public perception risk or a technical risk.
12 So, there's all kinds of areas.                        And so, when you 13 apply this framework, it's not just one area.                              It 14 could be many, many areas, and each of those areas 15 could also have their own risk appetites that would 16 collectively have to be considered when making a final 17 decision        in  this    act-on-a-decision            step  in      the 18 framework.
19                    Thank you.
20                    MS. DE MESSIERES:              Yes, that's a great 21 point.
22                    And I mention one of the foundational 23 documents we used when we were trying to benchmark 24 with other organizations is the USAID had a risk 25 appetite statement that did explicitly what Eric 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
 
24 1 talking about. As an organization, they defined their 2 risk appetite in different areas, and that was really 3 helpful to us in kind of giving us an example of how 4 this        could  actually      be    played      out in    a    more 5 organizational level.
6                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Candace, this is Walt 7 Kirchner.
8                  This diagram is a good one.              It's often 9 used in investment management.                    And sometimes risk 10 appetite correlates with age.                  I won't reveal mine.
11 But it's good, then, to have stakeholders that have a 12 good spread in terms of age also when you start 13 approaching taking on risk, not in investment areas, 14 but in things like programmatic opportunities.
15                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes, yes. Sure.      Yes, 16 it's always good to get that diversity of perspective.
17 And, yes, that's, again, I think a highlight of the 18 framework, the ability to really get that consensus 19 among all your stakeholders.
20                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well, as a former biker, 21 to use that example, my appetite was pretty high --
22                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes.
23                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          -- for risk when I was 24 much younger.          I don't think so now.              My balance 25 probably isn't as good as it used 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
 
25 1                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Absolutely.
2                  MEMBER      RICCARDELLA:              This    is      Pete 3 Riccardella.
4                  I think that an issue is, I mean, you've 5 got 3,000 employees and every one of them has a 6 different        risk  appetite.          How      do  you    adopt      a 7 corporate, where's the proper corporate risk appetite?
8 And then, how do you get everyone to sign up for that?
9                  MS. DE MESSIERES:              So, that's a great 10 observation.        I think part of it -- and again, other 11 team members can jump in -- is that this is really 12 scalable.        So, we have some guiding principles that 13 could give us insights into what the actual risk 14 appetite      is  for    our    organization.            We  have      our 15 mission.        We have our principles and we have other 16 things.
17                  But a lot of the decisions that we're 18 talking about here, while that could be a helpful 19 thing, something similar to have like the USAID risk 20 appetite        statement        that      is      an    organizational 21 benchmark, a lot of the decisions that use this 22 framework are at a much smaller level.                        I mean, it 23 could be a working group.              Well, we'll show you some 24 of the examples later.              It could be a working group 25 that      is  trying    to    seek    all      of    those    different 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 perspectives in arriving collaboratively at that risk 2 appetite that's appropriate.
3                  So, yes, it is definitely a challenge when 4 you're dealing with an organization close to 3,000 5 people.        But  when    you    look    at      the  bulk  of    the 6 decisions, a lot of these can be discussed at a much 7 more granular level.          And we have some examples later 8 on in the presentation that demonstrate that.
9                  DR. GAVRILAS:        Let me help here, Candace.
10                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Absolutely.
11                  DR. GAVRILAS:          Because      I  think      the 12 guidance that we put in place explicitly addresses 13 this, that the team has to decide that the risk 14 appetite is unique to not only individuals, but also 15 organizations and the decision.                    So, the team who's 16 been designated to work on that decision has to, 17 basically,      talk    about      risk    appetite.        And      in 18 recognition of the fact that there are different risk 19 appetites, we emphasize the importance of having a 20 decision      maker.      So,    it's    if      the  team    cannot 21 converge -- you know, that's part of the hierarchical 22 process -- having the decision maker is imperative, 23 but only if the team cannot converge by themselves.
24                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Okay. Thank you.
25                  MS. DE MESSIERES: Okay. So, Jason, 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
 
27 1 you go back up to the previous slide, please?
2                  So, after you act on the decision, then 3 you realize the result.                  And this was mentioned 4 earlier about iterating, the iterative nature.                          So, 5 after        you've  acted,      you,      then,      implement      your 6 management        strategies      and    you      also  realize      the 7 results. Do things need to be adjusted? Is there new 8 information that you've realized.                    And so, this is 9 extremely iterative and there's no reason at any time 10 you really can't go back and revisit spot/manage. You 11 may even need to act on either a different decision or 12 make      a  revision  to    the    decision.        So,  this      is 13 definitely iterative, and this realize step explicitly 14 encourages that, that you revisit the decision and see 15 how things are going.
16                  And then, that kind of leads to the teach.
17 As you're realizing the result, as you're learning 18 more, seeing what went well, what didn't.                    If things 19 need to be modified, there's also a really important 20 teach component.        And maybe this approach went really 21 well and you could apply it in different contexts.
22 Perhaps lessons learned are needed.
23                  And  so,    I    think      the  teach  step      is 24 something that we do think the framework, the realize 25 and      teach    is  something        we    do    really  think      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
 
28 1 framework has a strength, in that it goes an extra 2 step to make you think about have you engaged all your 3 stakeholders, and let them know how things are going, 4 and do you need to adjust?                And so, I think those are 5 definitely the important parts of the framework.
6                    Any other thing on it or?
7                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              Okay. So, this is 8 Matt, Candace.
9                    I was reflecting on Member Riccardella's 10 comment about the organization and this teach ties in 11 with      it.      My  experience        with      organizations        in 12 transformation is that you've got to look for your 13 role models, if you will, and sometimes those are 14 managers, but sometimes they're other people.                            And 15 those role models setting a good example can help move 16 the organization, the 3,000-strong organization, or 17 what have you, and have role modeling behaviors that 18 don't always, I'll say -- I want to say this right --
19 don't succumb to the lowest common denominator of risk 20 appetite, which may not be appropriate for the overall 21 strategy, but, you know, on an individual basis, might 22 be quite appropriate.
23                    So, trying to find that balance and set 24 those        stages  and      being      good      role  models      and 25 demonstrating        the    right      behaviors        is critical,        I 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 think.        I'll just leave it as a comment.
2                    MS. DE MESSIERES:              Yes, and -- oh, go 3 ahead, Mirela.          Go ahead.
4                    DR. GAVRILAS:          So,      two  comments      in 5 response to the chairman's comment right now.                              We 6 explicitly        consider      the    importance        of  engaging 7 knowledgeable        people      who    can    --    I  mentioned      the 8 ambassadors orally, and you saw that our objective is 9 building the community of practice to do this.                            And 10 that's who we envision carrying, basically, the word 11 and spreading it, and becoming those role models that 12 you mentioned.        And we'll talk in a few moments about 13 sort of our view of the role of management and the 14 individual contributors when it comes to risk-informed 15 decision making.
16                    But I want to talk about, because we 17 mentioned the iterative process, and if you noticed on 18 our logos, the Be riskSMART logos has actually an 19 arrow underneath, and that arrow is described in our 20 guidance as the opportunity to rethink the decision as 21 substantial information becomes available.
22                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Let me say there are 23 open mics that need to be closed.                          Unless you're 24 speaking as a presenter, close your mic.
25                    MS. DE MESSIERES:          Great.
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                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Okay. Thank you.      Go 2 ahead.
3                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Great. Yes, and I was 4 also -- thank you, Mirela -- I was also going to 5 mention that I believe Eric is going to go over that 6 explicit importance of modeling the behaviors and kind 7 of seeking a state where this framework would be 8 organically used in, again, kind of a staff-driven 9 process.      And so, I think Eric will be able to go a 10 little bit more into detail on that one.
11                  MR. DUNCAN:        Yes, I've got that, and I 12 also wanted to mention under teach, part of teach 13 could also be teaching others about the use of the 14 framework and how the use of the framework benefitted 15 their organization in their decision.                  And that could 16 take a lot of different forms.                    It could be maybe 17 there were numerous options to choose from and that 18 the framework is used to identify the option in act.
19 It could be maybe there's more than one risk area that 20 was considered, and how the framework benefitted the 21 decision in discussing these various risk areas that 22 were considered.
23                  It could be risk appetite.              I think that 24 will be a big one that we're going to see, in fact, 25 because risk appetite is something that we all 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
 
31 1 but we always don't talk about explicitly.                      In fact, 2 I think you're aware sometimes there's not complete 3 alignment on decisions.                  And I think part of the 4 reason for that could be that, basically, decision 5 makers and those that are involved in the decision may 6 have different risk appetites, and they're generally 7 not discussed.            Those appetites aren't discussed; 8 they're implied.
9                    So, I think this framework could help to 10 make      these    decisions,        and    the      basis  for    these 11 decisions, much more transparent to everyone.                              So 12 that, in the end, although there may not be complete 13 alignment on the decision, I think there could be a 14 much better understanding of the decision and why that 15 decision was made the way it was.
16                    MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes, and we have some 17 examples of that coming up that I think really hit 18 that right on the mark, indeed, that alignment piece, 19 getting everyone's perspectives documented, getting 20 them realized; understanding where you have different 21 ideas and where you have similarities, and how you can 22 really        explicitly      address      them,      again,  through 23 managing techniques.
24                    And sometimes that's made the difference.
25 Sometimes people that haven't been aligned previously 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 see their differences, understand what their issues 2 are,        and  then,    because      of    this  process,      have 3 explicitly said, okay, well, you know what; if you 4 beef up this management, I think I may be okay with 5 this.        So, definitely, in our pilots we've seen that.
6                    Okay. So, I think, then, Jason, could you 7 go to slide 6, please?
8                    And just one quick note.            We've mentioned 9 this many times now, about how this is an umbrella 10 over many of the existing, you know, many times the 11 risk-informed processes.                And so, I just wanted to 12 share this not to dig into the details, but the team 13 developed posters in areas like materials safety, 14 legal advice, security preparedness and response, 15 reactor safety, research, corporate support -- mapping 16 the Be riskSMART framework to those existing processes 17 that you have.          And this is to show staff and to be 18 used as tools to really see where the riskSMART 19 framework can help advance or bolster those existing 20 processes.
21                    And with that, I guess I'll turn it over 22 to Eric.
23                    MR. DUNCAN:        Yes, next slide, please.
24                    Okay. So, I've got the next few slides.
25 I'll be talking a little bit about the vision or 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
 
33 1 goal that Candace just mentioned here, and then, we'll 2 also talk a little bit about data, the trajectory of 3 perspectives, the using staff feedback, just what 4 we've gathered in surveys, things like that, to help 5 to inform us and you where we were and where we are, 6 and then, where we're heading.
7                  This first slide, though, I think depicts 8 the ideal organization, okay, in terms of use of risk-9 informed decision making. You'll see along the X-axis 10 you've got management driving, and that represents to 11 what level or what degree management is driving risk-12 informed decision making in an organization.                          It's 13 reflected there, basically, as low, medium, and high.
14                  And then, also, on the Y-axis you have 15 individuals contributor driving.                  And so, this would, 16 of course, represent the individuals, the staff, those 17 that are doing the work, and how much are they using 18 risk-informed        decision        making      to  develop    their 19 decisions,        to  develop      their      recommendations        for 20 decisions at these low, medium, and high levels.
21                  And so, as you can see in this chart right 22 here,        the  ideal    organization          is  actually      the 23 management driving at a low level with the individual 24 contributor driving at a high level.                  And that may be 25 a little counterintuitive. I think maybe some natural 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 view      might    be  that    it    should      be    high  in      both 2 categories.          But, in fact, it's not.                In fact, it's 3 low in management driving, and that's because what 4 we're striving for here is an ideal organization, is 5 an      organization        where      management        is    certainly 6 promoting, certainly monitoring, the use of risk-7 informed decision making, but it's really the staff.
8 The staff is leading.                The staff is leading risk-9 informed decision making, and there isn't a need for 10 a high level of management engagement in risk-informed 11 decision making.
12                    And you can see from this chart, you know, 13 we've mapped out a typical organization and just 14 wanted to express, I think, that there's different 15 paths        to  overcoming        these        challenges.            Each 16 organization is unique and different in how they're 17 going to get to this ideal organization. Nonetheless, 18 the      ideal    organization        will    be      the  same    in    all 19 organizations across the NRC.
20                    Next slide, please.
21                    Okay. I talked about data.                So, we're 22 going to give you a little bit of data here.                        We call 23 this "trajectory of perspectives."                        In 2018 -- and 24 we're focused on the left side of the slide here -- in 25 2018,        NRR  conducted      a    survey        on  the    staff'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
 
35 1 perspective on risk and risk-informed decision making 2 within the individual offices.
3                    And so, on the left-hand side of this 4 slide, the question, "It would be appropriate for the 5 Agency to expand the use of risk or risk insights,"
6 was asked.          From the survey, attitudes toward risk 7 were generally positive, with only about 25 percent of 8 the staff having an unfavorable view of the idea of 9 expanding the use of risk or risk insights in decision 10 making.
11                    And then, two years later, there was an 12 OIG safety culture and climate survey, and they asked 13 what we believe is a similar question, the question 14 being,        "The  risk-informed          initiative    effectively 15 supports the NRC's mission?"                      The results of this 16 survey indicated a shift toward even more positive 17 results, with an increase in favorable responses by 10 18 percent, raising favorable responses to 58 percent at 19 the Agency level with little or no change at the 20 neutral level.          So, what that really means is, you 21 know,        you    have    a    number      of      people going    from 22 unfavorable to neutral and neutral to favorable, or 23 some combination of that. So, this is being viewed as 24 a positive trajectory overall.
25                    And then, next slide, please.
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                    Okay, the last thing that I have here, 2 using staff feedback.                The 2018 NRR rhythm survey 3 again, consistent with anecdotal evidence received 4 over the years, also identified that staff were not 5 comfortable with the available guidance, though, for 6 making risk-informed decisions in their daily work.
7 Only about 25 percent of those who responded to the 8 survey felt comfortable with the existing guidance.
9                    The survey also found that the majority of 10 staff perceived a gap between management expectations 11 and the staff use of risk or risk insights in decision 12 making.        And so, also note that, in more than the 100 13 respondents,        only    one    actually        had a  favorable 14 response to the existence of an expectations gap. So, 15 that could be compared to 2020, where each office and 16 region        applied  a    facilitated          diagnostic  tool        to 17 identify who in each NRC organization initiates or 18 drives the use of risk insights in decision making, 19 the individual contributor or management. Think about 20 a couple of slides ago we talked about that.
21                    So, this survey captured responses from 22 about 25 percent of the Agency, with the results as 23 shown here on the right. And the results reflect that 24 only about 10 percent of the staff believe that their 25 office is operating at the ideal state.                      Okay?      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
 
37 1 that's that top left-hand corner there.
2                  And there's also a majority view, though, 3 that the staff is operating at a medium level of 4 driving the use of risk-informed decision making, with 5 various levels of management engagement.                  So, that 6 would        be that  middle        band      there,  that    middle 7 horizontal band.
8                  But, all in all, the results, as well as 9 the 2018 risk-informed decision-making survey and the 10 2020 IG safety culture and climate survey, suggest 11 that, although there have been improvements in the use 12 of risk-informed decision making, some additional 13 effort is needed to close that gap. And, in fact, the 14 Be riskSMART framework has been developed specifically 15 to meet the staff where they are and to close that 16 gap.
17                  And that's what I have.              I'll turn the 18 presentation over to -- I think we're going to do some 19 examples now, right, some case studies?
20                  Thank you.
21                  Candace, do you have the first one?
22                  MS. DE MESSIERES:              Sure. Yes, this is 23 just a slide showing each of them, and I'll go right 24 into subsequent license renewal.
25                  So, again, it's my pleasure to share 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
 
38 1 early pilot example of the framework as it applies to 2 subsequent license renewal.                    And I would mention 3 you'll be hearing from EMBARK later, and this example 4 was part of a larger EMBARK and NRR, Division of New 5 and Renewed Licenses, initiative, coined RISLR, or 6 Risk Informing Subsequent License Renewal.                    And that 7 initiative was led by the NRRL's Lauren Gibson at that 8 time.        And so, the challenge with this, this pilot, 9 was really, should we modify the number of keywords as 10 part of these SLR operating experience audits to 11 improve focus?
12                    For some background -- and I'll be really 13 brief        here  --  these    operating        experience  audits, 14 historically, involved staff providing a long list of 15 keywords and licensees investigating their corrective 16 action program for those keywords.                    And the question 17 is,      sometimes    maybe      that      process      wasn't    fully 18 optimized.        A lot of times, you get long, long lists 19 of entries, some of them very relevant, some of them 20 not.        So, this was really a challenge to see, well, 21 can we do better in this area and really optimize 22 these operating experience audits?
23                    And without going into details, I want to 24 say that these pictures on the screen were real photos 25 from a bit over a year ago where the team, 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
 
39 1 group team here, we went through each step of the Be 2 riskSMART process, and actually, team members, over a 3 week or two, they thought about what opportunities and 4 challenges      were  associated        with      this. We      came 5 together as a group, plotted those. On the right-hand 6 screen here, you can see our work here.
7                  And what was great about this was there 8 were things that people hadn't originally thought of.
9 So,      the  decision    was    based      on      a  full  suite        of 10 scenarios that, again, wouldn't have been otherwise 11 considered.        Like plotting everyone's ideas on one 12 page here, we were able to identify a few items that 13 some people were really uncomfortable with.                      And how 14 do we manage those?
15                  And  so,    we    really      achieved    a    common 16 understanding        of    the    attributes          that  are      most 17 important and require the most management.                    There was 18 enhanced transparency and documentation.                    At the end 19 of this process, we had a database of things that 20 people were concerned about or things that we thought 21 were really big opportunities. And we were able to --
22 you know, not everyone was in alignment at first, but 23 we were able to, again, address and apply management 24 strategies to move forward with pursuing this.
25                  And I'll mention that, ultimately, 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
 
40 1 was, you know, some of these ideas were provided in a 2 larger context to external stakeholders.                And in the 3 end of the day, there was a different approach taken 4 to the operating experience audit.                  However, it was 5 through the discussion of these management strategies 6 that staff discovered there were multiple ways to 7 obtain the information that was needed for these 8 audits.
9                And so, I would say it was a really 10 successful pilot. We learned a lot not only about how 11 to address the challenge, but also how to adapt the 12 framework itself to improve it in future examples.
13 So, the learning piece was huge.
14                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:            Candace, this is Joe 15 March-Leuba.
16                MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes?
17                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Can I ask a question?
18 Are you done?
19                MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes, uh-hum.
20                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:                Yes, okay.      This 21 brings to mind one of my favorite topics. How can you 22 know the suite of scenarios you analyzed is full and 23 that you didn't forget one that was very important?
24                MS. DE MESSIERES:            Yes, that's true.          I 25 mean, I think this is -- and I don't know if I 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
 
41 1 the full answer for you -- but I would say that in any 2 decision-making          framework        that      at  least      I've 3 encountered, you try to capture all of the scenarios.
4                  But what we found with this is that, by 5 identifying what we could readily think about, and 6 then, discussing it as a group, we were able to say, 7 well, what if this happened and what if that happened?
8 I would say that I can't give you a definitive answer 9 that we couldn't have achieved this result another 10 way.      But what I will say is this methodical approach 11 definitely enhanced like the path to getting there.
12                  So, I don't know if that answers your 13 question, but --
14                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              I can give you the 15 definitive answer. The suite of scenarios analyzed is 16 not full.
17                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          I'm sure.
18                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              It's impossible.
19                  MS. DE MESSIERES: Oh, impossible, I agree 20 with that statement.
21                  MEMBER    MARCH-LEUBA:            Okay. But      the 22 question is, does your framework teach us, the users, 23 that identifying as full as possible a suite of 24 scenarios is the key step on any risk-based decision 25 making?        I  mean,    this    is  not      hypothetical.        It 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 happened last year.            We were certifying a reactor and 2 they forgot the most critical scenario that had to 3 lead to a reassign because it couldn't be survived.
4 It's not hypothetical.
5                    And if we move into the risk-informed, 6 "risk informed, risk informed", then we don't do the 7 detailed reviews and we miss those.                    So, I think in 8 your framework you need to emphasize that identifying 9 -- I mean spend more time on identifying scenarios 10 than on everything else.
11                    MS. DE MESSIERES:              Yes, great.      Great 12 observation.        And, yes, I think this really did, at 13 least in this case, I would say did enhance the suite 14 of scenarios, but I completely agree with you, you 15 know, perfection is illusive.                  But we certainly have 16 explicitly considered that desire to examine that 17 suite.        So, I do --
18                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:            The other thing, I'm 19 looking on the picture on the right.                      I assume you 20 selected the ones you circled, but in order to select, 21 you really had to analyze all of them.
22                    MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes, and we did.        So, 23 we did. So, the ones that were circled I believe were 24 ones that we thought needed some management or that we 25 had -- oh, actually, wait a minute.                      I'm looking a 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 little closer. You know, we binned these in different 2 ways, but we did examine each individual challenge and 3 opportunity individually. And so, I think, yes, those 4 circles, I can't remember exactly what we were trying 5 to recognize there, but --
6                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              I key point is, if 7 you don't analyze them first, you don't know which 8 ones are closer to the purple line.
9                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          Yes. Absolutely.      And 10 we    did    look at    every      single      dot  on  that    chart 11 individually and evaluated it, uh-hum.
12                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              All right. Another 13 thing I want to tell you is we, ACRS members, are 14 talking among ourselves.                We consider an important 15 input we can provide is how to select the design basis 16 events for an advance reactor. What do you need to do 17 to make sure that you consider all scenarios?                    So, we 18 may want to talk to you about what you did.                  Maybe you 19 can trigger our brain cells into figuring out a 20 methodology or at least an emphasis on how to identify 21 all scenarios.
22                  Okay. So, thank you.
23                  MS. DE MESSIERES:          No, thank you.        Thank 24 you.
25                  MR. DUNCAN:        Yes, let me just jump in on 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 this just a minute.              So, I think you've asked about 2 identifying maybe unknown unknowns.                    You know, how do 3 you wrap your head around that?                  And as Candace said, 4 these are not perfect processes.                    However -- however 5 -- this framework does, though, handle it a little bit 6 in that, as you've heard, the arrow allows us to go 7 back.          It's an iterative process.                  So, when new 8 information is identified or comes to light, we can go 9 back and review that information.                      You can start the 10 framework at any step at any time to include that.
11                    And the other thing is the realize-the-12 results step also, I think, incorporates the lesson.
13 So, when you implement whatever your act was, whatever 14 the      decision    was,    and    you      start    to  get      that 15 information back, maybe one of your management actions 16 is the implementation of a pilot. So, you're going to 17 get that pilot information, and you may find some 18 things or you may get some results that you didn't 19 expect, right?          And so, that allows, the framework 20 provides, then, for going back, maybe revising your 21 management-what-you-can actions.                    Maybe you identify 22 a new what-can-go-wrong that has to be considered as 23 well.        So, there is some, I think, treatment of those 24 types of issues.
25                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Let me bring a new 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 concept to this discussion which is very relevant.
2 The concept of deadlines.              The staff has committed to 3 send the SER for review to ACRS in September, and 4 they're committed.          And even worse, they're committed 5 to      the    Commission      maybe,      and      then,  those      are 6 impossible to break. And you find something else. Do 7 you go into the recirculation loop and tell ACRS, "No, 8 you are not going to get this in September because we 9 need to do more work."?                  Real life tells you that 10 tells you that you wouldn't.
11                    DR. GAVRILAS:        Can I take that?
12                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:            But, yes, please, go 13 ahead.
14                    DR. GAVRILAS: Yes. So, let me take that.
15                    I think that there are cases in which it's 16 not that we -- the staff can, and does on occasion, go 17 back to the Commission and tells the Commission that 18 we've found something and we need to change the 19 deadline.        And we do it.          You know, I can tell you 20 that I've approved lots of requests for extension from 21 SECY for items when we found something.                        So, we do 22 that.
23                    And I think that the staff, by and large, 24 has the attitude that what we care more about is 25 quality        versus  timeliness.            We      don't think      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
 
46 1 timeliness is -- but it's one of the considerations, 2 right?        I mean, on the one hand, you don't want to 3 delay the decision indefinitely.                    On the other hand, 4 when you find something important, you want to have 5 the ability to go back and revisit the timeline.
6                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:            It would nice if, in 7 the teaching section of the framework, or somewhere in 8 the framework, you mentioned that deadlines should not 9 take precedence over doing a good job.
10                    DR. GAVRILAS:        Yes.
11                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Nothing is perfect.
12 You can never do your job perfectly.                      And as I always 13 say, the student always studies better the night 14 before the exam.          So, having deadlines is good.
15                    DR. GAVRILAS:        Yes.
16                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              But somewhere you 17 should provide some cover in framework and say, hey, 18 deadlines are there to make you get to a point, but if 19 you cannot make it, you cannot make it. I don't know; 20 I    think      it  would    be  worthwhile          to  have  that      in 21 writing.
22                    DR. GAVRILAS:          Yes, so we'll consider 23 that.
24                    But  let    me    also    address      your  earlier 25 question with the completeness of scenarios.                      I don't 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 think that we put it that way.                But we, basically, in 2 the spot step, we emphasize the importance of spotting 3 everything.        And I can't remember if we kept that 4 statement or not, but at one point we were explicitly 5 thinking that most of the work, if we were to judge 6 where most of the work goes, that most of the work 7 needs to go in spot and manage.                    So, I don't know if 8 that answers, but, again, you asked a very specific 9 question and we have to go back and think if we have 10 addressed it or how to better address it.
11                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Just putting some 12 ideas into your mind of what could go wrong.                      You're 13 telling us what could go right, which is the first 14 step.        I'm telling you what could possibly go wrong 15 and you try to fix it.
16                  Thank you.
17                  DR. GAVRILAS:              So,    we  emphasize 18 completeness, right?            We emphasize that one needs to 19 be complete in their thought with regard to both 20 wrongs and rights, because they can offset each other.
21 To make the right decision, you need to understand 22 both the bad and the good.
23                  But I'm going to think about it, and I 24 think        we  all  are    going    to      think  about    if      we 25 sufficiently        emphasized        the    importance    of    being 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 comprehensive.
2                  MEMBER BLEY:        Mirela, it's Dennis Bley.
3 It's Dennis Bley.
4                  Along this same line, and not just within 5 your framework, but if one looks over at what's done 6 in PRA, this area that Jose was talking about with you 7 is one where we've always just told people to be 8 complete, as complete as possible, but it's probably 9 the only area in both these processes where we haven't 10 really thought out and provided guidance.
11                  DR. GAVRILAS:          Yes.      I think that your 12 question goes beyond our charter, but that doesn't 13 mean that we can't think about it.                    So, we'll think 14 about it.        I understand, I think we all understand, 15 the need for completeness, but we have to think more 16 about how to get there.
17                  MEMBER BLEY:        I have another question for 18 you.      You and the other members of your team, while I 19 like the enthusiasm you've brought to this, it's 20 exciting, but you've mentioned the guidance.                      And I 21 just went into the public website, and then, I went 22 into the NRC website and tried to search saying, gee, 23 if I'm somebody here and want to do this riskSMART 24 stuff, where do I find the guidance? It's not trivial 25 to find whatever guidance you 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
 
49 1                    DR. GAVRILAS:          Yes.        So, first, we're 2 working on a NUREG, and the NUREG is almost done.
3 You'll hear about that in a few minutes.
4                    But, for internal, for the staff, the Be 5 riskSMART framework is linked to the initiatives.
6 We've discussed the initiatives with all the offices.
7 We've shared with them the SharePoint site. Everybody 8 has access to the SharePoint site, and that's where we 9 have presentations, guidance. So, we think we've done 10 a pretty job inside Agency telling people where to 11 find additional information.
12                    But, frankly, this is still a work-in-13 progress.        You know, we're not done.              We'll tell you 14 in a moment that we're still working on finalizing the 15 guidance.        Again, it's going to be a NUREG/CR.                We're 16 working on finalizing the training module.                        You'll 17 hear a bit about that, if time permits.
18                    So,  I    am  not    surprised      that  external 19 stakeholders wouldn't have access to the information.
20 Internal stakeholders, however, we made huge efforts 21 to disseminate the information, to disseminate where 22 they can find material.
23                    MEMBER BLEY: Thanks. And I'm sure that's 24 true.        If I were a new hire, though, and I came to the 25 internal website and did some searching trying to find 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 it, I'll tell you, I had trouble doing it, but that's 2 just me.
3                DR. GAVRILAS:          Okay.        So, we'll address 4 that.
5                MEMBER BLEY: And my boss would be able to 6 point me; I'm sure that's true.
7                DR. GAVRILAS:          But we'll address that.
8 We'll take that comment.              The fact that it's not 9 easily found needs to be addressed.                  So, we'll take 10 that feedback.
11                MEMBER BLEY:        Okay.      Thanks. I did find 12 some of your presentations, including the ones folks 13 talked about earlier.        But go ahead.
14                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Hey, Mirela, this is 15 Matt.
16                A time check here.            It looks like you've 17 got five or six more case studies to go over and we 18 only have 30 minutes.        So, I don't know how you want 19 to proceed. Perhaps you could pick some of the more 20 compelling ones and go in detail versus shortcutting 21 all of them, or something.              I don't know; it's your 22 choice.
23                DR. GAVRILAS:            So,      let  me  make      a 24 suggestion.      Let me make a suggestion that we go 25 through one more case study because this is more on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
51 1 the technical, maybe two case studies.
2                  The one, Elizabeth, if I can ask you to 3 present the one that's CFO developed as an example of 4 something on the corporate side?
5                  And, Mike, if you can talk about the one 6 that OGC developed as an example on the legal side?
7                  And please do it quickly, so that we allow 8 sufficient time for questions.
9                  CHAIRMAN      SUNSERI:          Well, we have      30 10 minutes.      So, you know, use it wisely.
11                  MR. GARTMAN:        Hi. Good morning. My name 12 is Michael Gartman.          I'm an attorney with the Office 13 of General Counsel, and I am a proud member of the 14 riskSMART team.
15                  So, given the timeframes, I just want to 16 quickly present the issues that we looked at with 17 regard to analysis of timing of legal reviews.                      So, 18 the issue was, should the Office of General Counsel 19 defer formal legal review of certain staff initiatives 20 until after the staff has had early engagement with 21 external stakeholders?
22                  So, the background to this issue was that, 23 on occasion, OGC would devote time and resources to 24 the legal review of staff initiatives, only to have 25 those initiatives abandoned or significantly modified 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 following stakeholder feedback.                      This analysis comes 2 from a desire to balance the advantages of a thorough 3 legal review with staff's eagerness to get early 4 stakeholder          input,      which,      too,      can  have    great 5 advantages.
6                    Now, as you heard, when analyzing, we look 7 at what can go right and what can go wrong.                        So, for 8 example,        one  benefit      was    that      early    stakeholder 9 engagement can save OGC resources while allowing the 10 staff        to  sharpen    and    focus      policy      guidance.          A 11 potential downside, for example, is that there could 12 be      embarrassment        or    confusion          if  the  proposal 13 ultimately raises significant legal concerns, as the 14 staff may need to modify or abandon the policy. Also, 15 the revised policy or guidance resulting from after-16 the-fact legal review has the potential to indirectly 17 reveal attorney-client privileged information.
18                    So, then, we looked at, well, how do we 19 manage        these  risks,      both      the      positive    and      the 20 downside?          In this case, OGC can manage the risk by 21 fostering early communications with our offices.                              In 22 partnership with client offices, OGC can look for 23 opportunities to conduct less resource-intensive, what 24 we call, fatal flaw legal reviews.                          So, these are 25 legal reviews where there is known legal impediment 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
 
53 1 showstopper.        We could also pilot reviews in lower-2 risk scenarios; for example, low public concern where 3 there's no pending litigation.
4                  Ultimately, OGC believes that using the 5 riskSMART analysis will promote consistent engagement 6 with      client  offices      to    discuss        when  early      OGC 7 engagement with policy proposal development would be 8 most useful.
9                  Thank you.      Any questions?
10                  MEMBER BLEY: I don't have a question, but 11 I do want to back up.            This is Dennis Bley again.
12                  I want to withdraw my last comment.                      I 13 hadn't searched SharePoint.                That's not the way I've 14 been        using  SharePoint.            But      if  one  searches 15 SharePoint, Mirela, I'm buried in all kind of guidance 16 and information.          So, I think you're in really good 17 shape.
18                  DR. GAVRILAS:        Thank you.
19                  MR. DUNCAN: And there's even more coming.
20 So, as Mirela mentioned, this NUREG is absolutely 21 comprehensive.        It will walk the staff through every 22 single step of the Be riskSMART framework in detail.
23 It provides background on how we got to where we are 24 today.        It provides a lot of the data that you are 25 hearing today in terms of the surveys, things of 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
 
54 1 nature.          It provides the examples, more examples, 2 actually, than the ones that you are hearing today.
3 It is absolutely comprehensive, and it will be a 4 legacy        document    that    the    staff      will be  able      to 5 reference and use for years and years to come.
6                    MEMBER BLEY:          We will look forward to 7 that.        When I said I was buried, I really meant it.
8 You might actually have too much for people to find 9 their way through.
10                    MR. DUNCAN:      Right.      And hopefully, we'll 11 be able to show you just a snippet of this training 12 that all the staff -- in fact, there's an OKR that 85 13 percent of the staff complete this training by the end 14 of year.          And we're going to show you just a small 15 portion of that.          It is entertaining and interactive, 16 and I hope you really enjoy it, too.
17                    Thank you.
18                    DR. GAVRILAS:        So, again, thanks for the 19 feedback.
20                    Let me just mention, you know, like all 21 NUREGs, if we should decide that it warrants expanding 22 on something such as completeness, right, in spot, we 23 can always open it back up and revise it.
24                    MS. BOWLIN:          Good morning.        Oh, good 25 morning.          Hi. I'm Elizabeth Bowlin, an accountant 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 CFO, and just will talk a moment on how 2 riskSMART we use for forward funding.
3                  The Be riskSMART initiative is also trying 4 to increase awareness of how risk information is 5 helpful        in  corporate      support        issues,  broadening 6 enterprise        risk  management        at    NRC  beyond    senior 7 leadership, and as Mirela mentioned, for all staff to 8 have a common language to identify and talk about risk 9 information        and    a    common      structure      to  compile 10 information across disciplines.
11                  Because risk information is part of every 12 job -- we weigh options and consider challenges and 13 opportunities -- the CFO used the riskSMART framework 14 to look at the issue of how to improve efficiency 15 around the Agency's forward funding, forward funding 16 being prior year obligated funds already placed and 17 available to spend.            And the main focus is weighing 18 options for placement of funds in an optimized manner.
19                  The spot step was very helpful in this 20 issue.        It  approaches        the    issue      from  a  neutral 21 perspective, looking at all available information and 22 possibilities.        There are multiple uses for forward 23 funding,        among    them,      balancing        the  purposeful 24 placement of forward funding for things that require 25 it, with the risk that the timing of availability 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
 
56 1 funds could cause a stop work on a project; and also, 2 balancing with the risk of having a balance on lower-3 priority work when higher-priority work could have 4 received the funds.
5                    And sometimes a perspective may emphasize 6 one of them.          And from today's discussion, you, of 7 course, saw this straightaway. The spot step helps to 8 ensure that all potentials are considered.                      And the 9 decision in this case was to have a standard and 10 repeatable          process      for    offices      to review        and 11 categorize prior year balances, and as a result, we 12 have a greater understanding of what comprises the 13 balance.
14                    And what we learned that we can share with 15 others is to proactively manage a balance as the year 16 progresses rather than what is often used as a metric 17 at the end of the year to see where we are, and to 18 look        at    how    the    budget      execution    influences 19 formulation in that full cycle. And I should say that 20 this decision was built upon and made possible by 21 recent        standardizations        and    automation    in    budget 22 execution, and that would really be a starting point 23 as part of a teaching message.
24                    And thank you for the chance to share this 25 example.          If there's not questions, I'll have 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
 
57 1 continue, please.
2                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Thank you.      Very nice.
3                  MR. CHAZELL:        Hello.        Good morning.        My 4 name is Russ Chazell, and I'm an attorney in the 5 Office of the Secretary.
6                  As part of the Be riskSMART initiative, 7 each office was asked to identify an ambassador to the 8 team.        I am the ambassador from SECY.
9                  As you can see, many people were involved 10 in the development of the Be riskSMART program. There 11 is the original project team, denoted by a single 12 asterisk, who worked to develop the program.                        There 13 are the executive sponsors to the team, denoted by a 14 double asterisk, who provided guidance to the project 15 team, and there are the office ambassadors, who are 16 most of the people listed on this slide, whose role it 17 is to socialize the Be riskSMART program within their 18 offices and to help their teammates understand the 19 benefits and execution of the program, in order to 20 build the community of practice that Mirela discussed 21 earlier.
22                  Next slide, please.
23                  In 2020, the Agency adopted the concept of 24 Objectives and Key Results, or OKRs. OKRs, originally 25 developed by Google, are a schema whereby a broad 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 qualitative        goal      or    objective        is driven        by 2 quantitative key results that measure whether the 3 objective was met.
4                  In 2021, the Agency objective for the Be 5 riskSMART program is to increase the use of the Be 6 riskSMART framework across all sectors of the NRC.
7 There are four key results we'll use to measure 8 whether we've successfully met our Agency objective.
9                  First, as discussed earlier, at least 85 10 percent        of  the    staff      will    successfully  pass      a 11 knowledge        check    following        completion    of  the      Be 12 riskSMART training before the end of calendar year 13 2021.
14                  Second, the Be riskSMART framework is used 15 to inform the evaluations and analyses that support at 16 least 50 percent of the key decisions in each office 17 in 2021.
18                  Third, in 2021, each office will submit to 19 the IdeaScale Success Gallery for examples where use 20 of the Be riskSMART framework improved the timeliness 21 and quality of decision making.
22                  And  fourth,        at  least    75 percent      of 23 external stakeholders surveyed by the NRC during 2021 24 will agree that the use of risk information has 25 improved the timeliness and quality of the Agency'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
 
59 1 decision making over the past year.
2                  We're confident that successful completion 3 of this OKR will inculcate the Be riskSMART framework 4 into the decision-making culture of the NRC.
5                  Next slide, please.
6                  As discussed earlier, the Be riskSMART 7 team has developed, or is currently developing, a 8 number of resources to assist NRC staff in effectively 9 implementing the framework.                These include:
10                  A diagnostic tool to demonstrate to users 11 of the framework how to get to the ideal risk-informed 12 decision from wherever their starting point is.
13                  Two, a NUREG that lays out the framework 14 in detail.        And as we discussed, we're still working 15 on that, but it's nearly complete.
16                  Case studies that can be used to show how 17 the framework can be applied to diverse situations, a 18 few of which you've already seen today.
19                  Posters        showing          discipline-specific 20 guidance and applications.
21                  And  lastly,        a  TMS      training  course      to 22 provide        staff  with    baseline      knowledge    of  the      Be 23 riskSMART framework and its implementation.
24                  Before I hand off this presentation back 25 to Mirela for closing remarks, we'd like to give 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
 
60 1 a brief taste of the TMS training course.
2                    Please start the video.
3                    (Whereupon, the video was played.)
4                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              So, is this a good 5 time to ask a question while we're waiting to get the 6 video off?        Or is there something else going on here?
7                    DR. GAVRILAS:        It's always a good time to 8 ask a question.        I think that's the only snippet that 9 we were going to show.
10                    MR. DUNCAN:      Right, right.        That's right.
11                    DR. GAVRILAS: We just have one more slide 12 which        is  the  slide    that    actually      points  to    the 13 SharePoint site.          If we can have that one up, and we 14 can have discussions while that slide is on the 15 screen.
16                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay. So, I have a 17 question, and I'm thinking about a Topical Report that 18 we recently reviewed.            And in this case, the guidance 19 in the SLP was not as clear as perhaps it should have 20 been.        And the staff in this case applied their risk 21 insights and precedent, and a bunch of things.                          And 22 they concurred with the applicant 23                    But    some      of      these      decisions        are 24 subjective.        And I'm thinking about what might have 25 happened, and I think some of what you're proposing 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 here, the decisions are also going to be subjective.
2 And if there is a disagreement between the staff and 3 the applicant, have you thought in your framework 4 about how -- because if the staff disagrees with the 5 applicant, there are other avenues they can take, like 6 an exemption, that are more costly.
7                  And would it be appropriate to have some 8 earlier,      like  this      legal      thing    about  earlier 9 engagement, would there be a way to have an earlier 10 engagement between the staff and the applicant when 11 there are disagreements and some things that are 12 subjective?
13                  DR. GAVRILAS: Wow, so that's loaded. Let 14 me try to start with answer, and then, I'd appreciate 15 if the team wants to add something.
16                  So, I'm not sure which Topical Report 17 we're talking about. I think the framework emphasizes 18 the      need  for  early      engagement        of everybody      who 19 supposed to be a contributor to the final decision.
20 The framework also emphasizes, which is very important 21 to us, it's not supposed to be empowering the staff to 22 say yes.      It's supposed to empower the staff to say 23 yes, and it's supposed to empower the staff to say 24 no, depending on the particular circumstances.
25                  So, again, I don't know if they explicitly 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 applied the framework or they just applied some of the 2 concepts in the framework. I'm just not familiar with 3 that decision.
4                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                They applied the 5 concepts, the way it was presented to us.                    Okay?      And 6 we agreed with them that they made a wise decision.
7 And so, life is good; the applicant is happy.
8                    But I'm thinking about what you've been 9 presenting today about other cases where there will be 10 a disagreement or other cases I've seen in the past 11 where        there  have    been      disagreements.          And      I'm 12 wondering if there should be some recognition about 13 the earlier process where the applicant may feel like 14 they've been treated unfairly, and should there be 15 recognition that there's uncertainties and allow for 16 some sort of additional earlier engagement where they 17 could have not an override, but you're saying, no, we 18 want to empower the staff to make the right decisions, 19 is, I think, what your response back is.                      But I just 20 am bringing this up because I'm thinking of the future 21 here.
22                    DR. GAVRILAS:          Yes.        So, not knowing 23 exactly what it was, I'm going to fall back in my 24 former position, which was Deputy Director in NRR.
25 And we have a system of, you know, we always say 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 engage early, engage often to make sure that we're on 2 the path; that we understand what finding the staff 3 must make and we understand what the licensee or 4 applicant provides in order for the staff to make that 5 finding.
6                And that position, which was the position 7 that I think we've had in NRR for almost as long as I 8 can remember having been part of NRR, definitely for 9 the past 10 years or so.          Maybe it started as a kernel 10 of thought, but it's grown to a point which today I 11 think it's the practice.              That position is actually 12 confirmed by the framework, which, again, emphasizes 13 the need to bring all the contributors together to 14 make a decision.      And if that involves legal counsel, 15 too, so be it.
16                VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Okay. It's just a 17 thought.      And  again,    in    this      case,  the case      is 18 irrelevant.      It's just I always kind of apply it to 19 what I've seen and what I think might occur in the 20 future. And everybody was happy, including ACRS, that 21 we thought the staff made the right decision.                    But I 22 just am thinking about other cases where the applicant 23 doesn't agree with what -- I mean, the applicant's not 24 always going to be happy with what the staff says.
25 And would there be a recognition that some of this 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
 
64 1 subjective and they should have an avenue to complain 2 earlier or, no, you think this is framework is not 3 going make any changes in that type of situation?
4                DR. GAVRILAS:        So, I think that part of 5 what this framework does is acknowledges that most of 6 the      decisions  that    we    make    do    not have  perfect 7 information.        The    other    thing      that it  does,      it 8 actually emphasizes the fact that information can come 9 along the way.      That's again the arrow.            You can get 10 information at any time in the process, including 11 while you're teaching it.
12                MS. RICHARDSON:          Hey, Mirela?
13                DR. GAVRILAS:        Yes?
14                MS. RICHARDSON:            Hey, this is Rebecca.
15 Can I jump in with an example?
16                DR. GAVRILAS:        Absolutely.
17                MS. RICHARDSON:          We didn't have time to 18 get to the security example in the slides, but this 19 isn't directly related, Joy, but I think it's a good 20 example of how the framework did work to include 21 differing opinions and views.
22                So, the security example was a SECY paper, 23 a recent SECY paper.          And we were able to include in 24 the SECY paper differing views from not only staff 25 internal to the Agency; there was an entire enclosure 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 on some views where our staff disagreed, that we were 2 able to provide to the Commission for consideration.
3 But we were also able to, through public meetings, 4 engage industry and provide some of their views in the 5 paper.        We also had a separate legal enclosure that 6 outlined the differing risk appetite from the legal 7 perspective as well.
8                    So, I think that the framework does lend 9 itself to those types of differing perspectives. This 10 is a little bit different than directly working with 11 an applicant, but I just wanted to bring that up.
12                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Well, there's been 13 examples in the past where people wanted to have, 14 especially with all these non-LWRs coming down the 15 pathway, there's going to be some people wanting to 16 get exceptions to, whether it's the GDCs or the 17 advanced reactor GDCs, and all that.                      But that takes 18 money to go and get an exemption.                  And if they have an 19 opinion that they don't need one, for whatever reason, 20 going up to the Commission and having the options 21 takes a lot of time and money and delays schedules.
22 And I'm just wondering if there is a path to think of 23 an      alternate      way    that      could        do  things      more 24 efficiently.        But, anyway, it's just a thought.
25                    DR. GAVRILAS:        So, let me just take 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
 
66 1 Sometimes exemption is, if regulatory requirements are 2 clear, the staff has no option other than to process 3 an exemption. But I would offer that an exemption can 4 be initiated at anyone's request. I mean, most of our 5 regulations are written so that the staff can initiate 6 exemptions, provided that the balance exists between 7 public good and maintaining reasonable assurance of 8 adequate protection.
9                  And we did that during COVID.            If you've 10 been privy to all the exemptions during COVID, you 11 will see a lot of that.
12                  But I want to, at the risk of sounding a 13 bid defensive, I'm going to make a statement that keep 14 in mind what the original charter of this framework 15 was.        It was, basically, to inculcate, to take away 16 the fear of risk-informed decision making among the 17 staff, right?        So, that was our main objective.
18                  I  think      that,      as    we exercise      this 19 framework -- and right now, frankly, the majority of 20 the staff has an idea of what the framework is, but 21 they're not applying it rigorously because we're still 22 working on training the staff. We're still working on 23 providing them with a NUREG and any other support that 24 they need, such as the support of ambassadors, right?
25                  So,  it    will    take      time to  apply      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
 
67 1 framework appropriately. And the framework, you know, 2 I had a side chat with Mike Gartman and I want to give 3 him credit for putting the thought in my ear.                          The 4 framework        is  not    supposed        to    be the  be-all      of 5 regulatory decision making.                    It needs to work in 6 concert with other processes and the other practices 7 that we have throughout the Agency.
8                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          All right. Thank you 9 for that thorough response.
10                    I would ask that, if there's no more 11 questions, that we try to wrap this one up now.
12                    Members, any more questions?
13                    (No audible response.)
14                    Mirela, your team, anything else that you 15 want to present?
16                    DR. GAVRILAS:        No, we thank you for your 17 time,        and  as  always,    we've      learned    something      in 18 meeting with the ACRS.
19                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Well, thank you, and I 20 think your team did a wonderful job of presenting a 21 topic        that  we  weren't        all    that    familiar    with.
22 Conceptually, we are, but the details are certainly 23 helpful.
24                    And as Member March-Leuba mentions, there 25 may be an opportunity for us to visit with you on a 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 specific case study for some work that we do with the 2 advanced reactor design in identifying case scenarios 3 for accident sequences, or something like that. Don't 4 get hung up on the details of what I just said.                          We 5 need to talk about it as a Committee, but, certainly, 6 it stimulated enough interest by us to think we might 7 reach out to you in the future.                    So, that's part of 8 the reason why we wanted to have this briefing today.
9                  So, if you got something out of it, we got 10 something out of it, success was on all sides.                          So, 11 thank you very much to your team.
12                  DR. GAVRILAS:          Great.      Thanks.      We're 13 looking forward to it.
14                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            So, Members, at this 15 point, it is a little after 11 o'clock. We've been at 16 this a long time and I hate to put off the next 17 presentation, but I'm going to call for a 20-minute 18 break right here.
19                  We will ask the EMBARK Venture Studio 20 folks to come back at 11:25, and we will reconvene 21 then.        Until then, we are in recess.
22                  Thank you.
23                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 11:03 a.m. and resumed at 11:25 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
 
69 1                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              All right. Welcome 2 back from the break.        It's 11:25.        We will reconvene.
3 I'll call the roll to verify a quorum.
4                Ron Ballinger?
5                MEMBER BALLINGER:          Here.
6                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dennis Bley?
7                MEMBER BLEY:        Here.
8                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Charles Brown?
9                MEMBER BROWN:        Here.
10                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Vesna Dimitrijevic?
11                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Here.
12                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Walt Kirchner?
13                MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Here.
14                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Jose March-Leuba?
15                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Here.
16                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dave Petti?
17                MEMBER PETTI:        Here.
18                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Joy Rempe?    Joy?
19                (No audible response.)
20                Pete Riccardella?
21                MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              I'm here.
22                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            All right.      I'm not 23 seeing any response from Joy's mic.
24                But we have a quorum, so we will resume.
25                Let  me,      first,      start      by  saying        I 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 appreciate        the    patience        of  the      EMBARK  folks      for 2 allowing us to work in a break there. We're scheduled 3 to    end    this  session      at    12:30,        but  if  you    need 4 additional time because of the time we took for the 5 break, then we'll allow that to occur.
6                  So, at this point we are going to continue 7 with today's session.                The next presentation is on 8 EMBARK Venture Studio, and I will call on Shaun 9 Anderson, Managing Director of the EMBARK Venture 10 Studio, for any remarks.
11                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                Matt, this is Joy.
12 I don't know if you called roll, but I was tied up.
13 I'm back.
14                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:                Okay.      We got you.
15 Thank you.
16                  MR. ANDERSON:            Thank you, Chairman and 17 ACRS Members.
18                  I just want to confirm, can everyone see 19 my screen?
20                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Yes, sir.
21                  MR. ANDERSON:          All right.        Thank you.
22                  I'll keep my remarks short.                  I just want 23 to thank you for the time that we have here.                              I'm 24 happy        that  we  can    kind    of    share      a  lot  of    the 25 activities that we've been involved with over the last 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 year and a half as it relates to our innovation.
2                  I'm just going to turn it over to Jen 3 Whitman.      She's currently our Strategic Director for 4 EMBARK Venture Studio, and we'll just get right into 5 the presentation.
6                  Thank you.
7                  MS. WHITMAN:          Good morning.      As Shaun 8 said, I'm Jen Whitman, the Strategic Director EMBARK 9 Venture Studio.          And I'm going to be giving you a 10 brief overview of EMBARK and some of our activities.
11 I've brought some of the team who's actually doing all 12 of the heavy lifting to provide more details about a 13 few of our projects.
14                  We're also going to have a RIC session 15 next week, in case anyone is interested, on Thursday, 16 at      1:30,  on "Technology        Advances      and Regulatory 17 Decision Making for Nuclear Reactors."
18                  So, here at EMBARK we support the reactor 19 safety program by optimizing processes, leveraging 20 technology, and advancing the use of data and data 21 analytics to better inform decision making.
22                  We are partnering with all parts of the 23 Agency, especially the fantastic team in OCIO, to 24 drive and accelerate changes to how we do business.
25 Many of our approaches are scalable and have 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
 
72 1 potential to impact Agency business beyond just the 2 reactor safety program.
3                  So, what is EMBARK?            We are an innovation 4 accelerator, a small team of dedicated people, whom I 5 really can't thank enough, that are working to change 6 the minds and culture at NRC to allow staff to make 7 real change.          Our focus is, first and foremost, on 8 safety, and we use staff ideas to spark initiatives 9 and remove barriers, so that we can improve the way we 10 work.        We've been accomplishing this at a tactical 11 level by helping staff bring their ideas to fruition 12 in various aspects.
13                    Next slide, please.
14                    So, how does EMBARK work?            Within EMBARK, 15 no two initiatives are alike.                  We lead entirely some 16 of them; some of them, we just provide support.
17 Others,        we  partner      with    other      organizations,      and 18 sometimes we just remove some barriers.
19                    So, our operating model is to combine 20 whichever of these are necessary to complete the 21 project at hand.          We enable.        We advise. We partner.
22 We create.        And we teach.          But, most importantly, we 23 inspire.
24                    We want to inspire staff to innovate.                  We 25 believe that creating a culture of sustained 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
 
73 1 permanent innovation is key to organizational agility, 2 and inspiring staff to look at old problems in new 3 ways is helping to build innovation capacity across 4 all levels of the Agency.
5                    Ultimately, we want to inspire all staff 6 to feel empowered to try new things that contribute to 7 NRC's        mission.      If    those      things      don't  work      out 8 sometimes,          that's      okay.            We're    a  learning 9 organization, and we'll learn from that experience and 10 work to make it better next time.                        Our goal is to 11 create a permanent culture of innovation at NRC.
12                    Next slide, please.
13                    So, how is EMBARK structured and what 14 projects do we take on?              We have four departments --
15 The        Garage,      Neurology,          NextGen      Data,        and 16 #HASHtagChange.            And    they    nicely      align  with      the 17 Agency's four transformation focus areas.
18                    So, in The Garage, that's where we have 19 all      of    our  process      improvement          efforts.      We're 20 revamping the infrastructure for the foundational work 21 of the reactor safety program, like our licensing 22 processes.
23                    Neurology, there it's all about mindset, 24 about understanding risk, and being open to try new 25 approaches to the problems than we have in the past 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
 
74 1 the same problems.
2                You  just      heard    from      the  Be  riskSMART 3 folks, and one of our projects over the last year was 4 actually helping them to develop that training video 5 that you saw a piece of.
6                Then, we have NextGen Data.                And that's 7 all about embracing data, the use of data, and data 8 analytics, and developing tools to monitor and manage 9 how we conduct business; expanding the use of data and 10 applying      visualizations        to      help      increase        our 11 curiosity, drive us to be asking the right questions, 12 and ultimately, making better informed decisions.
13                Lastly, we have #HASHtagChange, where it's 14 all about the cultural experience, how we interact 15 with each other and with our stakeholders. We want to 16 create a positive culture of innovation that empowers 17 staff and includes varying stakeholder perspectives 18 and improves interactions at all levels.
19                Next slide, please.
20                Here, I just want to highlight a few of 21 the activities that we've been involved in over the 22 last year and a half.              We have the risk-informed 23 process for evaluations; requests for confirmatory 24 information; subsequent license renewal enhancements; 25 oversight      and  inspection        activities,        and  mission 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 analytics portal.            And I'll get into the details of 2 the first three and I'll have some team members cover 3 the last two.
4                    So, next slide, please.
5                    So,    the      risk-informed            process        for 6 evaluations. You may have heard it called RIPE. This 7 is      a    grassroots    staff      effort        to  leverage      the 8 significant PRA work that's been done by staff and 9 licensees over the last few years.
10                    The staff developed guidance for providing 11 an acceptable means for characterizing the safety 12 impact of issues identified at licensee facilities for 13 which the safety impact can be modeled using the PRA.
14 And the RIPE team is actually going to be briefing 15 ACRS, a full, more detailed briefing on this, sometime 16 in the future.
17                    Next slide, please.
18                    So, requests for confirmatory information.
19 This falls into both The Garage and the Neurology 20 departments, and it's a more clearly defined subset of 21 the      traditional    RAIs,      or    Requests        for  Additional 22 Information.            To    facilitate          docketing      of    high-23 confidence, low-complexity factual information that 24 the staff has identified during the course of the 25 review        at a  public      meeting,        at    an  audit,    at    a 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 clarification call, somewhere they found information 2 that they need to make their safety finding and need 3 to get it on the docket.              Using the RCI process saves 4 both staff and licensees time getting the needed 5 information on the docket.
6                    Next slide, please.
7                    So,      subsequent            license    renewal 8 enhancements.          We partnered with the staff in the 9 Division of New and Renewed License to complete a 10 process improvement evaluation for subsequent license 11 renewal, and we've identified a number of activities, 12 many of which are currently being implemented.
13                    An example of some of the activities is 14 the      expanded    use    of    pre-submittal        meetings      and 15 integrated review teams; elimination of one of the 16 standalone audits; capturing of all audit activities 17 into a single aging management audit, and then, use of 18 integrated review teams when applicable.
19                    And next slide, please.
20                    So now, I'm going to turn it over to 21 Andrew        Lerch  to    talk      about      our  oversight      and 22 inspection activities.
23                    MR. LERCH:      Thanks, Jen.
24                    As she said, my name is Andrew Lerch, and 25 I'm an inspector from Region II on rotation to EMBARK.
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 I'll be presenting inspection and oversight projects 2 that focus on the regions.
3                  Our project ideas are sourced from the 4 Regions, and we've been using those ideas, along with 5 EMBARK's resources, to develop these projects that 6 relate to both process improvement and data-driven 7 decision making.
8                  Right now, there are several inspection 9 initiatives going on.          We just concluded an Innovate 10 2.0      campaign  using    the    IdeaScale      platform.        Our 11 moderators were a team of staff from EMBARK and the 12 Division of Reactor Oversight.
13                  We ranked the ideas from that campaign, 14 and ultimately, four ideas were picked to develop 15 project plans for further implementation.                  The first 16 meetings for these groups are being scheduled for the 17 next week, and as we finalize these ideas, we will be 18 briefing      management      for    a    decision    on  the    path 19 forward.
20                  Additionally, I'm leading a team that's 21 developing dashboards and analytics for regional use.
22 The regional dashboard team is made up of Regional 23 Inspectors, Branch Chiefs, Project Engineers, and 24 Resident Inspectors who are all driving the ideas and 25 the implementation of the dashboards that we want 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
 
78 1 develop.
2                We solicited ideas from the Regions on how 3 we can use data to make our lives as inspectors and be 4 more efficient, especially on tasks that are overhead 5 tasks.
6                The first project that we're doing is a 7 dashboard to automate data collection for the end of 8 cycle. The goal is to reduce the time to develop end-9 of-cycle packages that we have to prepare for those 10 meetings.
11                There's      a    good      amount  of  work        in 12 collecting data, and freeing staff from this data 13 collection will let us focus more on safety efforts.
14 And as this information is available from the cycle, 15 we can expand its use to reduce time when we develop 16 briefing sheets for visiting management.
17                We  have    other      projects  that  include 18 automating the ROP metrics; inspection planning roles 19 that we are developing with the Operating Experience 20 Branch, and resource management analysis for regional 21 inspections.
22                And lastly, we're working on a Resident 23 tracking tool that's going to be developed as a part 24 of RPS to move the Residents to tracking online 25 through RPS rather than on whiteboards or notebooks 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
 
79 1 Excel files.          This drive will help the Residents 2 communicate inspection status more quickly and for 3 turnover for either Regional Inspectors or Residents 4 who are supporting them, either through backfill or 5 Resident      support.        The    pilot      for    this idea      was 6 developed by one of the Residents, and we are working 7 with him to expand the use of this tool across the 8 Regions and to the different reactor sites.
9                  Thanks for this opportunity to present to 10 you guys, and next, we will present on MAP.
11                  MS. LAMB:        All right.          Good morning.        My 12 name is Taylor Lamb. I am the Product Manager for the 13 Mission Analytics Portal, and I'm going to talk to you 14 a little bit about MAP and what we do.
15                  So, I am just one member of this really 16 fantastic team.        Andrew Lerch is, of course, one of 17 the regional leads.            Michael Lee will be presenting 18 today, as well as Jason Carneal.
19                  And MAP is really all about empowering the 20 NRC      staff  to  keep      them    better        informed,      more 21 effective, more agile through the use of more data and 22 data analytics tools.
23                  Next slide, please.
24                  All right.          So, the MAP approach.              The 25 first step in our approach is to create the data 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 analytics      environment      that    contains      authoritative 2 datasets anyone at the NRC can access.                  We take the 3 data from NRC systems that the staff already uses, 4 standardize it, and we centralize it in the data 5 warehouse.
6                The next step is we develop the data 7 analytics skill sets and partner with the program 8 organizations to ensure the end users are getting 9 tailored -- no pun intended -- analytical tools, 10 otherwise known as user-centered design.                So, this is 11 because what might interest a Branch Chief, it might 12 not necessarily interest a technical reviewer.
13                Third, we empower the staff by providing 14 them access to the data and the tools that they need 15 to enhance their current positions.                  This might mean 16 access to Tableau or Power BI, as well as training 17 resources.
18                An example of this is the NRC dashboard 19 developers' community that actually has about 150 20 members across the Agency.            The group meets routinely 21 to discuss analytical tools being developed in all of 22 the offices across the Agency, while also providing 23 training based on what the community needs are.
24                And  finally,        we  work    to  acquire      the 25 technologies      needed      to    enable      more  effective 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 communications and analytics.
2                And Michael Lee is actually on the line, 3 and he's going to talk to you a little bit more about 4 that.
5                MR. LEE:      Good morning, everybody.            My 6 name is Michael Lee.          I'm the Product Owner of the 7 Mission Analytics Portal.          And today, I'm going to go 8 over some of the benefits that we've realized, even in 9 ways in our infancy in terms of becoming a more data-10 mature organization.
11                So, a lot of the tools that we've created 12 have served many purposes.              First and foremost, we 13 have created many dashboards that have served in ways 14 to enhance performance, providing dashboards that 15 provide live, real-time understanding to leadership of 16 where the program is, how it's performing, and those 17 areas at risk. And those insights have really allowed 18 leadership the information it needs to make corrective 19 actions, and thereby, improve performance over time.
20                Other tools that we've created have really 21 boosted the Agency's ability to analyze and estimate 22 its data.      One great tool is some of our precedent 23 analysis dashboards that we've created that allow end 24 users to isolate certain types of licensing actions 25 and see the level of effort and the time it took 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
 
82 1 accomplish those things over a period of time, which 2 has, in turn, allowed us to provide better estimates 3 for a lot of the products that we're issuing out.
4                    And, of course, from a workload management 5 perspective, it's been tremendous.                      Oftentimes, there 6 are      hundreds    of    different        licensing      actions      and 7 thousands of different milestones that leadership and 8 project managers have to keep track of at one time.
9 The tools that we provide provide this information in 10 an    easily    understandable        way.          So,  these    people 11 running these different projects and running these 12 different programs can effectively manage them and 13 report.
14                    Of  course,      resource        management,      we've 15 created        many  tools    that    have      served    to  help        us 16 allocate our resources optimally, including budgets-17 based, where we've developed tools that track actuals 18 over a period of time and compare them to proposed 19 budget years, to allow us to see whether or not the 20 resources that we are requesting are consistent with 21 historical actuals.
22                    So, that's just the taste of some of the 23 benefits that we've realized as an Agency through data 24 analytics.        Now I'm going to pass it over to Jason --
25                    MEMBER PETTI:        So, I have a question on 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 this.
2                    MR. LEE:      Oh, go ahead.
3                    MEMBER    PETTI:        It    sounds  like    you've 4 developed a lot of tools that are useful for a variety 5 of stakeholders in the organization.                          Is there a 6 mechanism to make them sustainable, so that everybody 7 uses them?          Or will you get 400 different tools that 8 kind of do all the same thing because everybody likes 9 their own flavor, if you will                  Is the goal to try to 10 streamline and have a next-generation set of tools for 11 people to do some of these things?                        Or is it more 12 towards        the  other,      that    everybody        will  get      to 13 customize the tools as they would like to see it?
14                    MR. LEE:      That's a very, very insightful 15 question, and it kind of goes to the data strategy 16 that we are taking.              So, even though we're creating 17 these        dashboards,      on  the    way      to  creating      these 18 dashboards, we're creating these centralized datasets 19 that everybody has access to.                        We're distributing 20 technologies that allow very rapid, easy-to-use tools 21 that can create these dashboards.                        So, what we're 22 doing is we're creating these dashboards for these 23 major        stakeholders,        as    well      as  providing        the 24 foundations for staff in ways to become their own data 25 analysts through the availability of data and 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
 
84 1 providing these in ways transformational tools that 2 allow them to become data analysts of their own.                            So, 3 it's really about empowering the staff, as well as 4 spoon-feeding them along the way, too.                        But that's a 5 great question.
6                    MEMBER PETTI: Because, I mean, there must 7 be some tools now that are out there.                      And sort of my 8 experience is there is huge inertia.                      People are used 9 to the way they've always done it.                      And to get them to 10 kind of think differently and to use some of these 11 more advanced tools, is that also part of the overall 12 program, you know, how to persuade the hearts and 13 minds of people to do it differently?
14                    MS. LAMB:        Absolutely, yes.            So, let me 15 pitch in there.          That kind of goes back to what I was 16 talking          about    with      the      dashboard        developers' 17 community.          That's just one of many ways that we're 18 reaching out to the staff and trying to increase usage 19 across        the  Agency      and    make    data    analytics      more 20 normalized and less scary for the staff.                            We also 21 provide all sorts of training materials for the staff 22 and specifically show them how to use these to help 23 improve their everyday work.
24                    MEMBER PETTI:          Okay.      Great. Thanks.
25                    MR. LEE:      All right, Jason.          I'm going 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
 
85 1 hand it off to Jason Corneal.                Jason's one of our key 2 members of the Mission Analytics team. He leads a lot 3 of the efforts in the oversight inspection area and 4 does        a  lot  of    analytics        related      to  operating 5 experience.
6                  Jason, do you want to take it over?
7                  MR. CARNEAL:        Sure.      I'd like to verify 8 that everyone can see my screen.
9                  MR. ANDERSON:        Yes, we can see it.
10                  MR. CARNEAL:        Okay.      So, my name is Jason 11 Carneal. I work in the Operating Experience Branch in 12 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.                    I've been 13 in the Branch about five years.                  Before that, I was a 14 rule maker in various positions throughout the Agency.
15                  The Operating Experience Branch, we deal 16 with a lot of different sources of information.                        So, 17 we're constantly pulling information from multiple 18 systems, both in-house, external, the international 19 reporting system from IEA, INPO's event, databases, 20 multiple internal systems.              And what we found was we 21 were doing similar types of requests over and over 22 again and using a lot of staff time in order to 23 provide management with updated trends on specific 24 topics.
25                  So, what I was going to show you today 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
 
86 1 a    subset      of  one    of    the    dashboards      that  we    have 2 developed, the Operator Reactor Inspection Oversight 3 Dashboard.        This is specifically showing you all of 4 the public data that's available in that module, so 5 the MAP oversight module.
6                    There's a lot of information here.                  It's 7 pulling from, again, multiple sources.                      And I just 8 wanted to step through some of the functionality you 9 see      to    show  you    some    of    the    tools  that  we    are 10 developing.
11                    So, what you're seeing here is our entry 12 page.        And on the map, you're seeing an overview of 13 the entire fleet and the current action matrix status 14 for all the reactors. So, most of them are in action, 15 matrix column 1, which means no additional oversight.
16 And we have four plants -- Clinton, Callaway, Surry, 17 Grand Gulf -- that are in action matrix level 2.
18                    On this screen, also, we have a summary of 19 important findings matrix.                So, here at the top left, 20 you are seeing recent greater-than-green issues.                        So, 21 these        are  the  2020      finalized        greater-than-green 22 issues.        We've got four of them -- Browns Ferry, 23 Clinton, Surry, Vogtle 1 and 2.
24                    We're also showing a trend of findings for 25 the last three years and how we're stacking up in 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
 
87 1 current year versus those previous years. So, you can 2 see the three years divided up by Region and the 3 findings trend associated with that. Of course, we're 4 pretty early in 2021 calendar year. So, we don't have 5 a lot of findings in 2021 at this point.
6                One area where we got a lot of management 7 request is scram trending.                This is actually the 8 initial tool that we developed and deployed.                  It was 9 a scram tracking tool.            It just shows the overall 10 trend in scrams over the last 10 years, the average 11 over the last 10 years, and also, summarizing the 12 number of event notifications by Region, and total 13 number of licensee event reports received this year.
14                So, the nice thing about these types of 15 tools is it allows us to drill down and get more 16 information in any of these areas.                    And so, for 17 instance, if I just start with scrams, it drills down 18 and gives us some more details.                    So, it gives a 19 summary of the scrams this year for this year, 23 20 projected and 44 in the last 365 days.                It gives us 21 the same trend that we saw on the previous screen, but 22 allows the user to focus in, if they wish to do so, on 23 PWRs or BWRs; and also, allows the user to select a 24 specific plant, if they wish to do so.
25                I also see the scrams by month 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
 
88 1 last three years and how our current year is stacking 2 up versus the previous two years, and versus the 10-3 year average plus and minus one standard deviation.
4 So, you can see, as we're projecting, 23 scrams this 5 year, based on a linear projections.                    You can see the 6 scrams this year have been relatively low relative to 7 the 10-year running average.                  And you can see, for 8 instance, that last year we had a very active August, 9 significantly over the average number of scrams in 10 August.
11                    We're also able to break out scrams by 12 system, the initiating system.                      So, you can select 13 different          systems,        design          condensate,      main 14 transformer, RPS.          So, you can do some trending here.
15                    We  also      have    scrams      broken  out      by 16 overarching cause.            So, mechanical, electrical, and 17 human performance. Let's take a look at those type of 18 trends.        And I'll go back.        So, that was for scrams.
19                    And how this really benefits our Branch is 20 50 times a year the old model was each time there was 21 a scram, there would be a PowerPoint exercise to 22 update        all  the  graphics        and    send  it  up  through 23 management, get approval.                Now we have a centralized 24 tool that you're just automatically pulling the data.
25 It saves our Branch a lot of time.
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                  I'll    go    also      go        into the      event 2 notifications as an example, another example.                    So, if 3 I click into the detailed page on event notifications, 4 I can get the EN trends by Region, by reporting code, 5 and a list of all the historical event notifications.
6 And the user is able to hover over and actually read 7 any of the reports that they would like to read using 8 this interface.
9                  We have the ability to, for instance, do 10 an EN title search.              So, I just put in the term 11 "breaker," and you can see the trend in events by 12 Region for breakers.            It also updates all the other 13 graphics.      If I cancel that out, it does respond like 14 that.
15                  One of the more popular features we've had 16 is a search by utility company.                So, I were to go into 17 it and type "Exelon" for a utility company, you can 18 see the event reporting by that specific, by all the 19 plants owned by that specific utility. And it's also, 20 again, updating the distributions by CFR code and the 21 historical trend.          And again, once you whittle down 22 the results you would like to see, you can do further 23 reading.      Or if you want to see a specific year, you 24 can even zoom in on 2015 per se and really drill down 25 into the data and get to the question you're trying 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
 
90 1 answer.
2                  MEMBER PETTI:          I have a question.
3                  MR. CARNEAL:          Yes?
4                  MEMBER PETTI: Is this on the Tableau? Is 5 this      based  on  the    Tableau      platform      or  is    it    a 6 different commercial --
7                  MR. CARNEAL: Yes, this particular tool is 8 in Tableau.        We also had some previous versions of 9 most of these tools in Power BI.                    So, we kind of have 10 multiple reports.          This specific one is developed in 11 Tableau,        though,    because      that      was  the  technology 12 selected for the Mission Analytics Portal.
13                  MEMBER PETTI:          All right.      Thanks.
14                  MR. CARNEAL:          Sure.
15                  So, the last one I'll show, I won't go 16 into every one, but each of these has a different 17 detail screen.          I'll just go into the site-specific 18 page.        So, if I click on "Grand Gulf," for instance, 19 for the public data, this is pulling together six 20 separate reports.          So, if you wanted to compile this 21 type of report yourself from the existing systems, it 22 would take several hours to do so, accessing the 23 existing systems.
24                  Let's say we've got the action matrix 25 column that the plant is currently in.                        And what'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
 
91 1 received a lot of positive feedback is the power 2 history for the site.              You can look at the current 3 year or previous year, and whenever you see a down 4 power, you can get to the notes for that specific down 5 power.        So,  if  I    hover    here,      you  can see,      for 6 instance, back in June they were down at 65 percent 7 due to maintenance on Bravo feed pump.
8                    I also have the site-specific ENs it's 9 pulling from the same data source, but getting at the 10 events in the current year, you can look at previous 11 year, and, of course, look through all the events, 12 completed licensing actions that are recent, because 13 the inspectors might -- there might be some change 14 that the inspectors need to look into at that site.
15                    Recent findings, again, we default to the 16 current year, but since we're so early in the year, 17 there aren't that many.              But you can select previous 18 years and the overall inspection schedule for that 19 site.          So,  again,      just    trying      to  compile      and 20 centralize data from multiple sources and make it easy 21 for people to get to the data and get the information 22 that they need.
23                    So, right now, this is an internal tool.
24 What we would really like to look forward to in the 25 future is getting versions of this, or at least some 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 type of revision of these types of visuals on the 2 public website, so that external stakeholders can be 3 looking at the same data that we're looking at.
4                  And that's a good lead-in to our next 5 speaker, Caty Nolan.
6                  Caty, are you online?
7                  MR. LEE:        Hey, this is Mike Lee, the 8 Product Owner for the Mission Analytics Portal.
9                  Just to chime in before we transfer to 10 Caty, you know, another effort that we're doing in 11 data analytics space is we are working with the Office 12 of Research to take a lot of the datasets from the 13 site-specific SPAR models that they've created, that 14 provide risk insights per plant, and provide a variety 15 of    statistics,    based    on    different    scenarios,      and 16 creating dashboards that offer a kind of easy-to-use, 17 easy, understandable interface for PMs and inspectors 18 to leverage.      So, they can benefit from a lot of the 19 research and insights that the Office of Research has 20 been working on for decades.
21                  So, I think that's the next big step for 22 us.      And as I was saying before, we are still at our 23 infancy, and it's only going to get better from here.
24                  And then, I guess, Caty, do you want to 25 chime 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
 
93 1                  MS. NOLAN:        Yes.      And so, speaking of 2 being only in our infancy, I would like to talk to you 3 guys about MAP-X.          And so, I'm Caty Nolan.              I am the 4 Product Owner, which is basically like the lead, the 5 team        lead,  for    the      Mission        Analytics    Portal 6 externally-facing side.
7                  And so, the reason I say we're still in 8 our infancy is because we are, basically, coming up 9 with a vision at this point.                And so, I want to share 10 that vision with you, and then, kind of let you know 11 our thoughts, ideas, and where we are.
12                  And so, our vision for this is to be able 13 to create this external portal, this interface for our 14 licensees, the public, anyone to be able to use.
15 There        will be  a  log-in      section        that  is  for      the 16 licensees/applicants.            They will go through normal 17 protocols in order to log in, and then, they will be 18 able to interact with our data that we keep talking 19 about.          And  so,    they      will      be    able  to    submit 20 information to us, be able to retrieve that data from 21 us, such as workflow, status, things like that, and 22 then, also be able to interact with our data.
23                  And so, also, beyond a log-in section, we 24 want to be able to show some of these visualizations, 25 these dashboards that you just got a demo of. And so, 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 this is where MAP and MAP-X can come together. So, we 2 want to engage these stakeholders with these data 3 analytical        tools,    but    also    providing    a  secure, 4 flexible, and personalized self-service gateway, like 5 I just talked about.            And it will all be able to be 6 through a standard web browser rather than being on 7 some        special    computer        and        needing  specific 8 certificates or anything like that.
9                  And so, if we can go to the next slide, 10 the key functions of the portal, I know this question 11 was sort of asked before, but I just want to also 12 reiterate that, in order to create this portal, since 13 we'll be having so many different key functions in the 14 portal, we'll be empowering staff to initiate the 15 change and their own innovation of their own business 16 processes that they use every day.
17                  And so, having better business process 18 automation through system integration is what we're 19 going for here, at least on the external side, or on 20 the internal -- both really.                    So that we can have 21 more resource saving and it will be -- I just see it 22 as such a great product.
23                  So, what types of things do we see in this 24 portal?        As  I  already      mentioned,      having  current 25 status; being able to submit documents to us; retrieve 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 documents; have a billing, being able to pay bills 2 right in there; just viewing any related documents; 3 potentially, a reading room in there.                    And just like 4 I said on the back-end, integrating all of these 5 systems so that they each talk to each other.                      So, we 6 can go into one place and be able to work all in one 7 place, like a one-stop, a patient portal through your 8 doctor or medical insurance, and launch into an app 9 and      be    able  to    see    all    of      your  personalized 10 information.          That's the kind of theme that we're 11 going for, once logged into the portal.
12                    MEMBER BROWN:          Excuse me.        Can I ask a 13 question?
14                    MS. NOLAN:      Yes. Yes, please.
15                    MEMBER BROWN: NRC staff has to pay a bill 16 to do this?        What's billing information mean?
17                    MS. NOLAN:          I'm sorry, yes, so that's 18 really        more for the licensees/applicants.                There's 19 currently an e-billing feature that I believe sends 20 you to pay.gov.        I am not 100 percent on that.              But we 21 would like to have a billing thing, not for the 22 internal        side,  for    NRC    staff,      but  more  for      the 23 external-facing.
24                    MEMBER BROWN:          So, licensees can access 25 this if they have subscription or something?                      Is 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
 
96 1 the point?
2                MS. NOLAN:      Shaun, do you want to answer 3 that for me?    Or do you want to help me?
4                MR. ANDERSON: Sure, sure. And, Caty, you 5 were probably getting to it.
6                It's more about that experience of where 7 you're logging into a certain application and you have 8 a certain product.        You want to be able to not only 9 see the current status of your licensing reviews or 10 your application you submitted, but why can you not 11 also see your billing information or immediately go to 12 your billing information in that same -- I'm going to 13 use air quotes -- "portal," for lack of a better word?
14 So,      we're trying    to  make      sure      that  we  can      be 15 responsive and create a collection of information 16 that's relative to a particular licensee or applicant 17 related to the work that NRC is currently conducting 18 under their request.
19                MEMBER BROWN:          So, NRC bills them, and 20 they can see what they have to pay?
21                MR. ANDERSON:          Correct.        NRC currently 22 does the billing and --
23                MEMBER BROWN:        Okay.      All right.
24                MR. ANDERSON: The only thing that we want 25 to do here is create that view to that system, so 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
 
97 1 they can easily see it without, oh, going to another 2 location and logging in, or going to here to log in.
3 That one-stop-shop feeling is what we're trying to 4 create.
5                MEMBER BROWN:        Okay.      Thank you.
6                MR. ANDERSON:        Okay.      Thank you.
7                MEMBER      KIRCHNER:              Are  submissions 8 applications or is this data coming in from the field?
9                MS. NOLAN:      So, the kinds of submissions 10 that we think would be prime for this would be --
11 actually, we have a pilot project -- which are the 12 proposed alternatives or web-based relief requests, 13 submissions such as reporting requirements, different 14 licensing actions like a license amendment request or 15 an exemption, that type of thing.
16                MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Okay.      So, this is not 17 data coming into your system?
18                MS. NOLAN:        Well,      so  they  would      be 19 submitting the data, yes.
20                Go ahead, Shaun.
21                MR. ANDERSON:        Okay.      Sorry, Caty.
22                But I like that point of where you're 23 going for the information such as the web-based relief 24 request. You know, one of the options to submit it is 25 actually documenting your application online. So, 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
 
98 1 future state down the line is we want to take that 2 data, that data that applicants currently submit to 3 the NRC, not necessarily the PDF, but the actual data 4 that we can easily take, you know, put it in part of 5 our Agency record, but also immediately take that data 6 to add it to MAP, you know, and put it as a part of 7 that      repository,    so    we    can    immediately    do    data 8 analytics on that new data that we have.
9                  Right now, there's a processing timeline 10 and lag that's required because many of the requests 11 that we get are either documentations or its own PDF.
12 The goal is to kind of streamline that and just 13 leverage the clean data that we can receive.
14                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Now who validates the 15 data that comes in outside of the NRC?
16                  MR. ANDERSON:          Do you want me to take 17 that?        I can take that.
18                  MS. NOLAN:          Sure.        And  I  have      a 19 clarification point when you're done.
20                  MR. ANDERSON:          Okay.      Just  like      any 21 submissions that we have from licensees and industry, 22 we still follow our protocols in terms of the licensee 23 communicating to the NRC, who has the responsibilities 24 and authority.          And we have our security protocols 25 that each individual will have to have approval 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
 
99 1 actually submit anything.              So, you can get access to 2 the portal, actually, and they have to have additional 3 approvals to have certain permissions to actually 4 submit or author documents within the portal.
5                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Just one last question.
6 Going back to your dashboard on the operating fleet, 7 we had a presentation from INPO management, oh, I 8 would say a year and a half ago.                      I don't remember 9 exactly when.        And they showed very similar kind of 10 graphics, as well as information tracking on many of 11 the same items that you've covered. To what extent do 12 you coordinate with INPO?
13                  MR. CARNEAL:        So, I can take that.            Our 14 group, the Operating Experience Branch, we actually 15 have a very solid working relationship and Memorandum 16 of Understanding with INPO. So, we actually meet with 17 them every Friday to discuss topics of interest, and 18 oftentimes, we're talking about a lot of data issues.
19 They actually send us a lot of their data on a 20 quarterly basis, and we have access to that.                    But, of 21 course,        it's  all    internal      to      NRC  because      it's 22 considered INPO proprietary.
23                  But  we      have    a    very    close  working 24 relationship with INPO, and we do a lot of data-25 sharing        back and    forth.        And      yes,  we  have    been 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 presenting our products to INPO and getting feedback 2 and doing the same on their side.
3                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: Great, Jason. Thank you 4 very much.
5                  MS. NOLAN:      Yes, and this is Caty Nolan 6 again.
7                  And to that point, I was going to also 8 next mention that I had planned to have quarterly 9 public meetings.          I had my first one in January to 10 just kind of launch the idea of MAP-X and ask for any 11 feedback from anyone, from the public, industry, and 12 to gather thoughts and see what product pieces would 13 be useful for them, and if we could add any or help 14 with any burden or anything like that.
15                  And so, because the first one was in 16 January, the next one will most likely be in April.
17 And so, that's another way for us to be able to 18 interact.      So, I just wanted to make sure I pointed 19 that out.
20                  And before you were asking about data.                  I 21 just wanted to make the clarification point, I'm not 22 sure      if  you're  thinking        of    the    ERDS  data,      the 23 Emergency Response Data System.                  That is not the data 24 that we're talking about here.                    That is a separate 25 system used in the Ops Center.                  So, in case that may 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 be where you were thinking about --
2                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: No, I was thinking more, 3 Caty, more the operating data like INPO has.                  And it 4 seems like you're coordinating on that.                So, that was 5 the kind of data, and then, of course, that begs the 6 question, you know, how validated is the data that you 7 put into an NRC system. But, based on what Jason just 8 shared, I think you have a strong relationship with 9 INPO.        So, that answers my question.
10                  MS. NOLAN:      Okay.      Great. I just wanted 11 to make sure we answered your question.
12                  And then, to the last point that I'll make 13 before I pass it back to Shaun, it is that this 14 project is, I think it's an amazing effort that we're 15 doing, that we're working on.                And it is just another 16 option, basically, for the licensees and applicants to 17 use, such as they have the EIE, or -- what is that? --
18 Information Exchange.                The Electronic Information 19 Exchange is one option they have.
20                  But we're hoping to make this such an 21 intuitive and innovative process that everyone wants 22 to use this as their option.                  But I just wanted to 23 make sure that we're not making this a requirement.
24 It is just an option for use for them.
25                  So, unless there are any questions, I will 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 pass it off to Shaun.
2                  Shaun,    you're      on      mute,  if  you    were 3 talking.
4                  MR. ANDERSON:        Thank you.
5                  I think I just want to thank the ACRS for 6 the time today.          I'm definitely opened up to the 7 questions.      Hopefully, this gives you a little bit of 8 flavor in the activities and products that EMBARK has 9 been working on.        And thank you for the staff that's 10 been here to present.
11                  That, hopefully, gives you also another 12 sense that EMBARK is a small organization, but we 13 can't do it without the ideas from the staff and, 14 also,        the support      from    our      leadership  and      the 15 partnership that we have across the entire Agency, as 16 we're trying to improve the way that we do business 17 within the reactor safety program.
18                  So, that's all I have, and if you have any 19 questions, we're here.
20                  MEMBER BLEY:        Shaun?
21                  MR. ANDERSON:        Yes?
22                  MEMBER BLEY:        Dennis Bley.
23                  While you guys have been going through all 24 your talks, I've been listening, but I've also been 25 nosing around through the NRC website and SharePoint 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 and your part of the SharePoint. It looks like almost 2 all your people that I see listed there are associated 3 with other jobs, and this is something to come to.
4 Where does this fit in the overall NRC organization, 5 and are there people permanently attached to EMBARK, 6 or are they all people coming into solve specific 7 problems?
8                MR. ANDERSON:        It's a combination between 9 the two, and I'm happy that you're poking around in 10 SharePoint at pages.        Excited to hear about that.
11                So, EMBARK, we are small organization.
12 The way that we operate, we have approximately three 13 staff members that are dedicated to you in EMBARK that 14 help more of the IT or the MAP initiative continue to 15 move forward. Most of the staff that are working with 16 EMBARK are either on rotations or details.            But, to 17 your point, it's to provide for two goals.
18                One, to come in and help elevate or move 19 some projects along.          Many of them are staff ideas, 20 and the staff ideas are many times their own ideas 21 that they had and they want to leverage and move it 22 forward.
23                But the majority of the staff that are 24 working with EMBARK is part of or pretty much belong 25 to, or operate or work under another organization.
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 And that's a good benefit, or the benefit to that is, 2 you      know,  the  resources        support      their  specific 3 program.        For example, Jason Carneal is doing a lot 4 with OPI. We're helping to advance the activities and 5 the projects that they're specifically doing on a day-6 to-day basis.
7                  We're partnering with Research.                  We're 8 helping Research to kind of make sure we're moving in 9 a direction, so that we can leverage the data as we 10 can move forward.
11                  If it's subsequent license renewal, that's 12 another project or initiative that it's only going to 13 help      our  program    as    a    whole      overall  as we    move 14 forward.
15                  And even, for example, the RCI project, 16 the request for confirmation of information, that's an 17 idea where the individual started, gets a project that 18 started in license renewal, and the question was, 19 well, can we use this and leverage this for licensing?
20 And, well, I don't know; let's see that.                      So, the 21 person helped us kind of move that project forward and 22 communicate that out to the staff.                    And now, we have 23 a recommendation, and are looking for feedback, on 24 what are our next steps on leveraging RCI.                    And not 25 only that, it's now being asked, hey, how can 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
 
105 1 leverage this in NMSS?
2                  So, the benefit there is the staff that 3 are coming to help work on many of these initiatives 4 are doing it so that they could help propose or, you 5 know, move their programs forward.
6                  MEMBER BLEY:        Thanks.
7                  MR. ANDERSON:        Any other questions?
8                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              Members, any other 9 questions?
10                  MS. WHITMAN: I was just going to clarify, 11 too, that we're in NRR.              We're one of the Divisions 12 and we report to the ET.
13                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Okay. Thank you.
14                  All right.      Well, I don't hear any other 15 questions.
16                  So, Shaun, I will thank you and your team 17 for enlightening us with the EMBARK Venture Studio.
18 We had not known much about it, and then, it came up, 19 as    I    mentioned  earlier      today,      in our  Commission 20 briefing.      So, we thought we should get to understand 21 it better, and you certainly have done a good job.
22 Your team, your entire team, has done a good job of 23 raising our awareness. And so, we thank you for that.
24                  MR. ANDERSON:        Thank you.      Thank you for 25 having us.
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                And thanks to the team and all in the 2 background supporting.          Greatly appreciate it.
3                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          You're welcome.
4                All right.          Members, we are about 15 5 minutes away from our lunch period.                  I don't think 6 there's enough time there to squeeze in anything with 7 respect to the report that Charlie is facilitating us 8 on preparation.
9                So, I guess my recommendation would be we 10 start our lunch early and reconvene at 1:30 with the 11 regulatory basis discussion.              Does anybody have an 12 alternative?
13                MEMBER PETTI:          Well, Matt, we could do 14 another read-in.      The document has changed a lot.                  We 15 could just read it in.
16                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Do you think we would 17 have enough time to read it in?                Do you think?
18                MEMBER PETTI:        Fifteen minutes?        I think 19 so.
20                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Okay. Well, I'm up; 21 I'm okay with that, yes.
22                MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Could someone please 23 send out the revised version, so we would have it to 24 look at the whole thing rather than just what's on the 25 screen?
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                CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          So, let me check with 2 Alicia.
3                (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 4 off the record at 12:14 p.m. and resumed at 1:30 p.m.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      (202) 234-4433
 
108 1                A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N          S-E-S-S-I-O-N 2                                                            1:30 p.m.
3                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          We will reconvene the 4 683rd ACRS meeting.            I'll confirm a quorum by roll 5 call.        Ron Ballinger?
6                  (Laughter.)
7                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dennis Bley?
8                  MEMBER BLEY:        Here.
9                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Charles Brown?
10                  MEMBER BROWN:        Here.
11                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Vesna Dimitrijevic?
12                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Here.
13                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Walt Kirchner?
14                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Here.
15                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Jose March-Leuba?
16                  MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Yes.
17                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Dave Petti?
18                  MEMBER PETTI:        Here.
19                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Joy Rempe?
20                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Here.
21                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Pete Riccardella?
22                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Here.
23                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              And Ron Ballinger?
24 Okay.        Without Ron we still have a quorum so I'm sure 25 he'll be joining. I don't know, he hasn't let me know 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 that he can't attend.
2                  All right.          We will, I'm getting big 3 feedback, can everyone hear me okay?
4                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          I think Ron just came 5 on.      His mic was on, Matt.
6                  MEMBER BALLINGER:          Here.
7                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Ron?
8                  MEMBER BALLINGER:          I'm here.
9                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Okay, great. Great.
10 All right.      The roadmap for the remainder of the day 11 is we're going to have a session on Regulatory Basis 12 10 CFR Parts 50/52 and other business.
13                  And then time permitting we will continue 14 with the report preparation of the letter report we 15 read in just before the lunch break.                    So with no 16 further, well, let me ask.                Members, any questions 17 about the agenda?        Okay.
18                  No further comments then, I'll turn it 19 over to Member Bley for introduction of this session.
20                  MEMBER BLEY:          Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 This is a full committee information briefing by the 22 Staff on the rulemaking to align Parts 50 and 52.
23 It's being held in lieu of a Subcommittee meeting.
24                  We  have    had    two      previous  briefings, 25 meetings on this topic. Way back in 2014 Joe Williams 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 gave us a very preliminary indication of where things 2 were headed.      And then in 2019 we had Jim O'Driscoll, 3 who is here today, and Carolyn Haass of NRR.
4                  At  that    last    briefing,        at  least        it 5 appeared to me, that identifying the guidance that 6 requires      the  revision,      and    the      revision  of      that 7 guidance, would be a really major task.                      But we're 8 going to get to that some point today.
9                  At the time of this meeting, wherein the 10 middle of the public comment period on the regulatory 11 basis, we don't always, or even often, write letters 12 at this stage of the rulemaking. But we can hear from 13 the members on their thoughts in this area later.
14                  Certainly,        it's      an      opportunity        for 15 individual      members      to    make      public      comments        as 16 stakeholders. We did receive the extensive regulatory 17 basis document, and we'll be hearing about that today.
18                  At this time I will turn over the meeting 19 to Anna Bradford, who is director of the NRR Division 20 of New and Renewed Licenses.              Anna, it's yours now.
21                  MS. BRADFORD:        Great, thank you.          Can you 22 please confirm you can hear me?
23                  MEMBER BLEY:        Perfectly.
24                  MS. BRADFORD:        Great.      Wonderful. So, as 25 you mentioned, my name is Anna Bradford.                        I'm 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
 
111 1 director for the division of new and renewed licenses 2 in NRR.          And my division has the technical lead for 3 the content for what we informally call the Part 50/52 4 lessons learned rulemaking.
5                    We've been planning for and working on 6 this overall part 50/52 effort for several years now.
7 And as you mentioned, we previously briefed the ACRS 8 on our efforts.
9                    And today's presentation to ACRS will 10 focus on the status of the rulemaking activities. And 11 it's intended to facilitate your understanding of the 12 content of the regulatory basis document, which is 13 currently out for public comment.
14                    And we know that the Committee has been 15 very involved with a lot of the implementation of Part 16 52, between your reviews of design certifications, 17 early site permits and combined licenses.                      And so we 18 thought that you're likely to have thoughts on Part 52 19 and what could be improved or changed.
20                    So  we'll      consider        the  input  that      we 21 receive on the regulatory basis document from the 22 public, and from ACRS, for developing the proposed 23 rule itself, which is the next step, as you'll hear.
24                    And the Staff understands that any opinion 25 shared        by  ACRS  members        at  this      meeting  are      not 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 official positions of the Committee and that any 2 comments made by Members are analogous to comments 3 made by members of the public.              And the Staff are not 4 --
5                MEMBER BLEY:        Anna?
6                MS. BRADFORD:        Sure.
7                MEMBER BLEY:        I'm sorry?
8                MS. BRADFORD:        Yes. I'm sorry, I thought 9 you said something.
10                MEMBER BLEY:        Is it safe to assume that 11 the Staff is still aware of comments we've made on the 12 Part 52 process in our previous letters?
13                MS. BRADFORD:          Absolutely.      Do you mean 14 ones related to the design certifications and combined 15 licenses, those previous reviews?
16                MEMBER BLEY:        I do.
17                MS. BRADFORD:          Yes.        And so we're not 18 requesting a letter from the ACRS at this time.
19                So, we'll formally present the proposed 20 rule package to the ACRS after its developed.                        And 21 we'll subsequently send the proposed rule to the 22 Commission in 2022.            And the proposed rule will 23 obviously also go out for public comment.
24                So I look forward to the discussion today 25 and your questions and comments.                  And with that, I 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 will turn it back over to the project managers to give 2 you more details.          Thank you.
3                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Anna, this is Joy, 4 could I ask you a question?
5                    MS. BRADFORD:        Certainly.
6                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                I appreciate you 7 guys coming and talking to us again early in this 8 stage.        Remind me exactly how much of the regulatory 9 basis document might appear in the final rule?
10                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I can get into that --
11                    MS. BRADFORD:        Okay.
12                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: -- when we go through it, 13 if that's okay, Joy?
14                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:            That would be fine.
15 I just am curious.              Again, I know that it's up for 16 public comments for a lot of it will change, but what 17 portions of it might appear in the actual, is it 18 called a regulatory basis that's incorporated at a 19 high level in the final rule?
20                    Because there is some part of this text 21 that would appear.
22                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      Yes, I'm going to 23 go through the process.              And I'll try to explain how 24 much of the scope that when we scoped it out landed 25 into the regulatory 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
 
114 1                  And we're operating, all these items that 2 are scoped in, we are working towards rulemaking that 3 would carry through the final rule.                    So, to answer 4 your question I'll kind of give you a flavor of what 5 would probably be in that final rule if we didn't get 6 any significant changes from future interactions with 7 the public, et cetera.
8                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Thank you.
9                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Great.
10                  MEMBER BLEY:          Anna, one more question.
11 You suggested you probably wouldn't come back to us 12 until you had rule language in 2022.
13                  On another current rulemaking, another 14 part of 10 CFR, the staff has really asked us to meet 15 with them very regularly to avoid surprises at the 16 end.      Have you thought about that at all and are you 17 comfortable with waiting till you have the draft 18 rulemaking in place to hearing from us?
19                  MS. BRADFORD:          I mean, that's a good 20 question.      I do think that the contents of certain 21 rules would affect how often we think would be useful 22 to interact with the ACRS.
23                  I  could      see    that      a    very complicated 24 technical rule with significant policy issues that it 25 would be advantageous to come more frequently.                    We'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
 
115 1 here.        I think of this more as kind of a bunch of 2 process changes I'll say.
3                    But I would appreciate your all's feedback 4 on that.          If after today, and after you've had a 5 chance        to look  at    the    reg  basis    you  think    more 6 frequent interactions would be helpful, I think we 7 would be open to that discussion.
8                    MEMBER BLEY:        Okay, thank you.      I'm just 9 a little nervous with seeing you come back and say, 10 here, it's all done and we say, oh my God, this part 11 of it is really in trouble.
12                    (Laughter.)
13                    MEMBER BLEY: So, if we could, well, let's 14 talk about it at the end of the meeting.                  But if there 15 is some way to keep us up to date on what's going on 16 and if there should be any really substantive things 17 related to safety working their way into this, I think 18 that it would be a good idea for us to get together 19 again.
20                    But  we'll        know    more    after  today's 21 briefing.        So please go ahead.
22                    MR. MOORE:      Chairman Bley, this is Scott 23 Moore.        May I ask a question, please?
24                    MEMBER BLEY:        Absolutely, Scott.
25                    MR. MOORE:      Sure.        Anna, this is Scott.
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 Part 53, to follow on Chairman Bley's comment, Part 53 2 is going through an iterative rule process where 3 they're putting out proposed rule language in parts 4 and then putting out proposed rule language again to 5 the public and asking for comments.
6                Is this rule going to do the same or is it 7 just going to go to a proposed rule stage?
8                MS. BRADFORD:        Right now we're just going 9 to go to the proposed rule stage.
10                MR. MOORE:      Okay, thank you.
11                MEMBER BLEY:          Thanks, Scott. Anna, go 12 ahead.
13                MS. BRADFORD: Okay. I think I'm actually 14 turning it over to Joe O'Driscoll.
15                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hi, everybody. Sorry to, 16 I kind of jumped (telephonic interference).            My name 17 is Joe O'Driscoll.        I'm the lead rulemaking project 18 manager on this effort.
19                And again, I'm just going to reiterate 20 what was just said. The purpose of today's meeting is 21 to provide the ACRS an update on the Staff's effort.
22                Since the last ACRS meeting, the NRC Staff 23 held on this topic, which took place on September 24 20th, 2019. The summary of the meeting can be found 25 in ADAMS under accession number ML192948009.
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                  So, this meeting is going to provide an 2 opportunity to discuss the specific items in the 3 rulemaking as described in the regulatory basis, which 4 was published on the 29th of January of this year.
5 And which is currently out for public comment.
6                  The detail of the discussion will be a 7 high level.        Because the rule scope is so broad, we 8 may not have the specific subject matter experts 9 available on the phone to address your question if it 10 gets too technical.
11                  However, you'll always have the option to 12 submit your question formally. We can always get back 13 to you so don't worry about that.
14                  We will also discuss the estimates for 15 cost and savings for the activity, as we know them 16 now.        We'll discuss, we'll conduct a question and 17 answer session on the topics of ACRS's interests. And 18 finally, we'll provide you an update of the next step 19 for the project.
20                  So  like      Anna      said,    we  hope      this 21 interaction will help you understand the content of 22 the regulatory basis that's out for comment and the 23 status of the rulemaking.
24                  And just a couple of things.              Like our 25 previous        public  meetings,        although    we  will      take 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 information, your perspectives and questions we hear 2 today in developing the proposed rule, we don't intent 3 to formally respond to comments you provide at this 4 meeting.
5                I'll    discuss,      as      I    discussed,    we'll 6 respond to written comments about the subject that we 7 received during the public comment period.
8                I'll briefly remind you of the ways that 9 comments can be provided.            That is detailed in the 10 federal register notice for this activity.
11                Also, a couple of things.                Please note 12 that the acronyms used in the slides is at the end of 13 the presentation.          I'll try to say the full term 14 first, once at least, just to keep folks following 15 along.
16                Also    note    that      a    list    of  the    ADAMS 17 accession numbers of all the documents referenced in 18 the NRC staff presentation can be found at the end of 19 the Staff's slide presentation.
20                And  then    another      reminder,    please        be 21 careful not to discuss any safeguard security related 22 classified or proprietary information during this 23 meeting. Although we intend to have an open dialogue, 24 please note that the NRC Staff will not make any 25 regulatory commitments during this meeting.
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.      Okay.      Next slide.      We're on 2 Slide 5.          Okay.
3                    As I said, I'm Jim O'Driscoll, the lead 4 rulemaking project manager of this activity.                        I'm in 5 the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 6 in    the      Division    of    Rulemaking,        Environmental        and 7 Financial Support, known as REFS.
8                    So, also joining me today is Mr. Allen 9 Fetter        from  the  NRC's      Office      of    Nuclear  Reactor 10 Regulation.          We have several NRC Staff on the call as 11 well.
12                    Next slide.        So we're on Slide 6.              The 13 purpose of the rulemaking.                So the Staff's engaged in 14 a    rulemaking        to    better      align        portions  of      the 15 regulations in 10 CFR, Parts 50 and 52 in four areas, 16 as described in the regulatory basis.
17                    The Staff will also address items derived 18 from      lessons      learned      from    previous        new  reactor 19 licensing          activities      described        in    the  regulatory 20 basis.        This whole activity implements the Commission 21 direction in SRM-SECY-150002.
22                    And our goal is to better align Parts 50 23 and 52 licensing processes.                    Such that equivalent 24 designs submitted for NRC review under each process 25 are assessed against consistent technical standards 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 that yield outcomes with equivalent demonstrations of 2 adequate        safety,        security          and    environmental 3 protection.
4                  So in SECY-150002 issued on January 8th, 5 2015, the Staff made several recommendations to the 6 Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 7 ensure consistency in new reactor licensing reviews.
8 The Staff also made recommendations to address Staff 9 identified        lessons      learned      obtained      through      the 10 licensing reviews completed up to July 2019.
11                  These changes are intended to improve 12 clarity        and  reduce      unnecessary          burden    on      the 13 applicants and staff.            As well as this, the Staff has 14 addressed,        or  intends      to    address,      editorial      and 15 administrative changes.
16                  Next slide.        Sorry, there's a question?
17                  MEMBER BLEY:        Yes, Jim?
18                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Jim?
19                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
20                  MEMBER BLEY:        Dennis Bley.
21                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
22                  MEMBER BLEY:        We're asking the folks who 23 are doing the rulemaking on Part 53 how they're trying 24 to coordinate, or at least be aware of what's going on 25 over here, so that we don't have to have another 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 rulemaking to align Part 53 with 50/52. It's sometime 2 in the future.
3                  Can you say anything about that from your 4 side of this?
5                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      So Bob Bell, he's 6 the lead rulemaking project manager on Part 53.                      He's 7 in my branch and we talk all the time about each 8 other's projects.
9                  We're trying to keep the strings separate.
10 The regulatory areas that we're focusing on straight.
11 And      when  they  do    cross,      sometimes      they'll    cross 12 necessarily.        We intend to coordinate to make sure 13 that what we do on this rule doesn't unintentionally 14 force Part 53's hand, or causes problems with what's 15 going on over there.
16                  So, I know they're just starting out with 17 a lot of rule language. They're still formulating the 18 regulatory structure.
19                  So    we      intend        to      continue      this 20 relationship.        So that's sort of how we're handling 21 things.
22                  MEMBER BLEY:        Okay, thank you.
23                  MS. BERRIOS:        May I add --
24                  MEMBER BLEY: We are considered about that 25 one.      Sure, go ahead.
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                    MS. BERRIOS:        Hi. This is Ilka Berrios, 2 I'm the branch chief for the rulemaking branch.
3                    As Jim said, we're working together and 4 we're keeping communication between the part 53 rule, 5 the physical security for advance reactors, the EPSMR, 6 the Part 50/52.          Everyone is in the same branch.                    We 7 are      keeping    communication        to    be    sure  we're      not 8 changing something in one rule that is affecting 9 another rule.
10                    MEMBER BLEY:        Ilka, thank you.        It's good 11 to hear your voice again.                Welcome back.
12                    (Laughter.)
13                    MS. BERRIOS:          Thank you.        Good to hear 14 you, Dennis.
15                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Could I introduce a 16 follow-on question that I started to bring up awhile 17 back in the September 2019 meeting.
18                    I really think a diagram that shows what 19 will      eventually    be    part    50/52      and  53,  so    three 20 diagrams, would be really helpful.                        From what I've 21 seen, the big change, maybe there's more, the big 22 changes        are  that    maybe      multiple        SDAs  might      be 23 referenced        now    in    the    processes        that    you're 24 mentioning. And you're going to be requiring a PRA as 25 an input for Part 50.
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                  And just to kind of give folks a high 2 level capture of what's the input and what's required.
3 And I know I brought this up back in September 2019.
4 It was suggested I go back and look at revision and 5 strategy for the advance reactors, and it kind of lays 6 that out.
7                  But I think that a better diagram might be 8 helpful.        Just one member's thought.
9                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Great.        Yes, so we're 10 going to keep Quynh in the loop on some of these 11 things to make sure that you're kept up to speed.                          We 12 appreciate that.          We made a note of that.
13                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              I could even go a 14 bit further and say that Harold Ray authored an 15 article        that's    going      to    be      appearing    in      the 16 Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy.                      And that article 17 actually shows what his vision is of the processes are 18 for Parts 50 and 52.                  And that might be a good 19 starting point.
20                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.        If we can, you 21 know, I'll ask Quynh for that reference.                      That would 22 be very helpful.
23                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                I'd be happy to 24 provide --
25                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:        All right.        Joy, you cut 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 off there.
2                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:            I was too fast with 3 my trigger on the mute.                  But yes, I'll give the 4 reference to Quynh.
5                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay. All right.      Any 6 other questions on Slide 6.
7                    All right, so let's move on to Slide 7.
8 So, this is Slide 7.            It shows our typical rulemaking 9 process.
10                    So rulemaking, as you know, is how we 11 develop our regulations.              With the publication of the 12 regulatory basis for comment, we have completed the 13 task in the second box.              That's the regulatory basis 14 box there.
15                    So we're in the 75 day public comment 16 period.        And we held a Category 3 public meeting on 17 Tuesday.        Where we basically kind of went through it, 18 just      like  we're    doing    right      now. We  asked      for 19 questions, et cetera.
20                    Anyway. The written comments we received 21 during this comment period will go into the docket for 22 the rule.          In the proposed rule we will include a 23 summary of the stakeholder interactions, comments and 24 key messages that we received from the public on the 25 regulatory 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
 
125 1                  The next two steps are the public --
2                  MEMBER BLEY:        Hey, Jim?
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Oh, yes.
4                  MEMBER BLEY:        Yes.      When did this go out 5 for public comment, and have you begun to receive any?
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: January 29th it went out.
7 It was made public. We have not received any comments 8 yet.      So that's sort of where we are.
9                  MEMBER BLEY:        Okay, thanks.
10                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Certainly. So the next 11 two major steps are the publication of the proposed 12 rule and the publication of the final rule.
13                  And      we'll        continue      to    provide 14 opportunities for the ACRS to comment on this process.
15 Before publication of the proposed rule in the federal 16 register, you will again have the opportunity to 17 review the proposed rule and provide written comments 18 to the NRC Staff.
19                  We expect to hold an ACRS meeting for that 20 purpose.      We will also hold a public meeting during 21 that public comment period.                Any questions on this 22 slide?
23                  If we can go to Slide 8.            All right.      So 24 here is some milestones for the activity. So although 25 the Staff received direction to commence rulemaking on 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 this regulatory issue in 2015, the Commission directed 2 the Staff to prioritize the project in accordance with 3 Project Aim.
4                And as you recall, the purpose of Project 5 Aim was to ensure the Staff continues its focus on 6 those tasks. Seeing it's essential for our mission as 7 seen in the next few years.
8                To that end, the rulemaking project was 9 deliberately budgeted to start in Fiscal Year 2019.
10 So the Staff commenced work in October of 2018.                  The 11 Staff's first task was to clearly define the scope of 12 the regulatory basis for rulemaking.
13                MEMBER BLEY:        I'm sorry to interrupt.
14                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
15                MEMBER BLEY:        We just had a briefing this 16 morning on the Be riskSMART program.              And is Project 17 Aim still active or is it now somehow linked to the Be 18 riskSMART program or --
19                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I think --
20                MEMBER BLEY: -- can you tell me anything?
21                MR. O'DRISCOLL:        I'm not sure, but put it 22 this way, I believe it's been superseded by more 23 current programs.        So what Project Aim was, if you 24 recall, was a --
25                MEMBER BLEY:        No, we remember.
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                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          -- a snapshot, yes, we 2 tried to snapshot what we thought the future would be 3 and right size what we were doing at that time, at the 4 time.
5                MEMBER BLEY:          Okay, thanks.          I didn't 6 realize it was a kind of one and done thing.                    But go 7 ahead.
8                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right. So, we 9 started work in October of 2018.                    The Staff's first 10 task was to clearly define the scope of the regulatory 11 basis for the rulemaking.
12                From the Staff's outreach efforts inside 13 and outside the NRC, the Staff collected a large 14 number of items considered for inclusion. On October, 15 excuse me, on January 15th, 2019, the Staff held a 16 Category 3 public meeting to request feedback from 17 external stakeholders on what should be included in 18 the scope.
19                So NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, 20 arranged for a panel of industry representatives to 21 attend.        So  using      input      from      Staff  and      the 22 stakeholders, the Staff aligned on the scope for the 23 regulatory basis on July 11th, 2019.
24                So in late August of that year, oh, is 25 there a question?
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                    MEMBER BLEY:        Yes, Jim.
2                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
3                    MEMBER BLEY:        From the public meeting, or 4 any other interactions you've had, do you see public 5 support for where you're headed with this or do you 6 see problem areas that might come up?
7                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          So, thus far we've seen 8 general, very positive support for what we're doing, 9 however,        we're  getting      particular      ideas  and    wish 10 lists.        But the general aim for this rule is highly 11 supported.        They, that's certainly a common theme in 12 the responses.          This is a good thing we're doing.
13                    MEMBER BLEY:        Okay, good.
14                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          All right.      So, in late 15 August of that year, this is a couple, a month later, 16 the Staff issued an information paper, SECY-19084, 17 which provided information to the Commission and the 18 public on the status and scope of the regulatory 19 basis.
20                    So in late September, the Staff briefed 21 members        of  the    ACRS    Subcommittee        on  regulatory 22 policies and practices.              The Staff received views and 23 comments from the ACRS as individual members.
24                    So  we    talked      to  them,    essentially      as 25 individual members, just like we're doing today.                        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
 
129 1 there was no letter, ACRS letter, issued on the topic.
2 And the slides and transcript for that meeting are 3 available in ADAMS.            Accession Number ML-19294A009.
4                  Next slide.        So, in November 21, 21st of 5 that year, we held a public meeting. In that meeting, 6 NEI and other industry representatives asked questions 7 and provided comments on the scope of the rule of the 8 activity, or the reg basis, as it was described in the 9 SECY.        SECY-19084. The slides and the transcript for 10 that meeting are available in ADAMS at ML-19344C768.
11                  In  February        of    last      year  the    senior 12 technical project manager in NRR, Allen, received the 13 first drafts of the regulatory basis inputs from the 14 technical writers.
15                  In April of last year the NRC held another 16 public meeting where we discussed several, specific 17 issues that were of interest to the public.
18                  As we previously stated, the slides and 19 summary of that meeting can be found in ADAMS under 20 accession number ML-20141L609.
21                  So, in January of this year, the NRC 22 published regulatory basis for public comment.                            So 23 currently we're in the public comment period where the 24 NRC      is    soliciting    comments      on    the  document      for 25 consideration when developing the proposed rule.
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                Earlier this week, on March 2nd, the Staff 2 held a public meeting to provide the public an update 3 on the rulemaking.        And to answer any questions the 4 public had on the regulatory basis out for comment.
5                And      also        the        solicited    public 6 participation in the comment process.                And so again, 7 the comment period will end on April 14th.                          Any 8 questions on that?
9                Next slide.        So here is some next steps.
10 So for next steps, after the public comment period 11 ends in April, the Staff will carefully evaluate the 12 comments received while drafting the proposed rule.
13 We expect a complete and technical development of the 14 proposed rule by October.
15                After this, the Staff must perform several 16 tasks in order to finish the proposed rule.                  First, 17 we'll need to develop the regulatory analysis.
18                We also need to hold management and ACRS 19 briefings.      And finally, we will need to obtain 20 management approval. This is expected to be completed 21 by May of next year.
22                So under the current schedule, in March 23 2024 the Staff will forward the final rule to the 24 Commission for approval.              We continue to look at 25 process improvements in REFS here to improve 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
 
131 1 schedule.        Any questions on that?
2                  DR. CORRADINI:        I have a question.          This 3 is Corradini, I'm a consultant for the Committee.
4                  I was under the impression Part 53 had a 5 schedule, they were looking to finish their proposed 6 rule in 2024 also, is that correct?
7                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I don't know the answer 8 to that question. Ilka, if you're on the line, do you 9 have the answer to that?
10                  DR. CORRADINI:        The reason I'm asking the 11 question such that, in that way, is the question I 12 think        that  Dennis      came      to    you  about  relative 13 coordination between these seemed to be either aligned 14 on a similar, at least proposed schedule.                  That's why 15 I was curious.
16                  MS. BERRIOS: What was the question again?
17                  MR. WIDMAYER:        Hey, Mike Corradini, this 18 is Derek.        You're correct.            2024 is when they're 19 trying to finish Part 53.
20                  DR. CORRADINI:        And so my question is, if 21 Part 53 is to be finished at the same time as the call 22 with lessons learned and regularization of 50/52, 23 crosstalk is important all the through that time.
24 It's not as if one is going to happen later so that 25 you can look at it.
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                  So  I'm    just    curious        again, back    with 2 Dennis' question about crosstalk between the various 3 developments since they seem to be coming in at the 4 same time period.
5                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:        So, we said earlier, and 6 it's really the same answer, Bob Bell, he's the lead 7 PM on the Part 53 rule, and myself, we're all both in 8 Ilka's branch.      We communicate regularly when we have 9 issues to run by each other.
10                  So, Bob is aware of my rule, he's aware of 11 the regulatory basis.              And there is a couple of 12 things, I can't think of off the top of my head, but 13 we've occasionally speak and talk about what's going 14 on in each other's rules.
15                  But I understand also at this time that 16 there is, you know, I think these interactions are 17 going to speed up because right now Part 53, they're 18 trying to essentially come up with the regulatory 19 structure, and they're doing workshops.
20                  So I expect there's going to be more and 21 more      interaction    as    we    go    forward.        And    we're 22 definitely talking.
23                  MS. BRADFORD:        Jim, this is Anna.        Do you 24 mind if I add to that?
25                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
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                  MS. BRADFORD:        This is Anna Bradford from 2 NRR again.      And Jim mentioned that the rulemaking PMs 3 are in close coordination. I would just also say that 4 the technical staff and technical management in NRR 5 are also in close coordination on these two issues.
6                  So, I mentioned that my division has the 7 lead for this rulemaking. It's the DANU division that 8 has the lead for Part 53.
9                  Both    of    our    divisions      report  to    Rob 10 Taylor.        So Rob Taylor has oversight of everything 11 that's going on within all of these rules.                  And he's 12 very aware that we need to be coordinating and looking 13 for conflicts or synergies or anything like that.
14                  So  in      addition        to    the  management 15 coordination, a lot of the tech staff are, if not the 16 same tech staff person working on each rule, are in 17 the same branch and are talking to each other.                      So I 18 think we have multiple methods for communication.
19                  But I agree with the idea that that is 20 very important and we need to make sure that it's 21 happening on both of these rules.
22                  DR. CORRADINI:        Okay, thank you.
23                  MS. BERRIOS:        Yes, this is Ilka.        I would 24 like to add, and as I said before, we are also working 25 closely with the EPSMR rule.              Like everything, we 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
 
134 1 all communicating with each other on all those rules 2 that are happening simultaneously.                  That's all, Jim.
3                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Any other questions on 4 Slide 10?
5                Okay, next slide. We're on Slide 11. So, 6 what's the purpose of our regulatory basis?
7                The NRC requires a regulatory basis for 8 most its rulemakings in order to ensure sound and 9 informed decision making throughout the regulatory, 10 excuse me, the rulemaking process.                    The regulatory 11 basis documents, the justification of why rulemaking 12 is the best way to resolve the regulatory issue, or 13 issues.
14                The regulatory basis also describes the 15 technical, legal and/or policy information that would 16 support the content of the rule. The regulatory basis 17 out for comment includes a preliminary cost benefit 18 analysis of the proposed changes.
19                Next slide.        So, this is a little bit of 20 what's in there.      So, to try to give you the snapshot 21 of the scope of the regulatory basis.
22                So  there's      50    items      in  scope  in    the 23 regulatory basis.        This is down from about 50, well, 24 from      the 54  items      that    we    had    earlier    in    the 25 development when we issued the SECY-190084. Basically 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 that was, at the time of our last meeting.
2                  The  regulatory        basis      has  a  detailed 3 discussion of how the staff evaluated each item that 4 was communicated in the SECY and how we got to the 5 point where we are now in the regulatory basis.                          So 6 among the 50 items the Staff evaluated and discussed 7 115 alternatives.
8                  These    alternatives          are  primarily        no 9 action, a rulemaking and guidance only alternative for 10 each item.        However, for several items there are 11 additional alternatives to analyze.                  Depending on the 12 issue.        Most  of    these      are      multiple,    different 13 rulemaking options.
14                  So, of the 50 scope items, the Staff 15 recommends rulemaking on 43 of them.                      So, you had 16 asked earlier about, what's the final rule going to 17 look like, so right now many items are "screening in" 18 to the proposed rule.
19                  And going back to the bit on guidance, of 20 those 43 items, 23 of them also require some kind of 21 guidance update.          Or new guidance document to be 22 developed and issued for comment with the proposed 23 rule.
24                  In the regulatory basis, you know, reading 25 it, the Staff specifically identified 17 different 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 guidance documents that could be affected.                      So this 2 rule also spans a large number of CFR parts, besides 3 Part 50 and 52, in order to make the conforming 4 changes.        These parts include, but may not be limited 5 to, Parts 2, 21, 26, 51, 55, 70 and 73.
6                    Next slide.        Any questions on Slide 12 7 there before we go to Slide 13?                    Okay, next slide.
8                    Okay. So the scope includes four items 9 meant to align Parts 50 and 52.                    These are discussed 10 in Appendices A through D, of the regulatory basis.
11                    Next slide. So the scope also includes 46 12 lessons learned items. These are broken up in general 13 areas        of  operator      licensing,          physical  security, 14 fitness        for  duty,      emergency        planning,  Part        52 15 licensing process, environmental topics, applicability 16 of      other    processes      to    the    Part    52  process      and 17 miscellaneous topics.
18                    So, now I'll go and briefly summarize the 19 Staff's recommendation on each of these items.                            Is 20 there any question so far?
21                    VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Yes. Okay, so the 22 regulatory basis document is 437 pages, so perhaps I 23 missed it.          But one of the points I thought we 24 emphasized in the September 2019 meeting was related 25 to the accumulative changes made during the actual 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 construction in Part 52.
2                And as I recall, there was some concern as 3 the licensee was going through and addressing items.
4 And it was with reference, I believe, to the Vogtle 5 Plant experience.        That there had been changes during 6 the process.
7                And with that one I know there is a 8 separate ongoing activity. But just as we think about 9 how you, as you go forward and align the Part 50 and 10 52    processes,  there      is    always,        when you  have      a 11 construction permit and an operating license there's 12 a final review of all of these changes.
13                And is the Staff going to be looking at 14 anything,      do you    remember      this      concern  expressed 15 during the September 21 --
16                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
17                VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              -- meeting and how 18 was that addressed?          And did I just miss it and it 19 discussed in the regulatory basis document?
20                MR. O'DRISCOLL:        So, Joy, this is related 21 to changes during construction and some of the changes 22 we're going to be doing.            And so, what's really where 23 we're at is that we are recommending changes that will 24 facilitate those types of changes to be made with a 25 more efficient way during construction, but we'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
 
138 1 still working that out.
2                  We're still trying to figure out exactly 3 what controls, et cetera, we're going to need to have 4 on that such that we don't, I guess really the concern 5 is to negate any, undue some findings we made when we 6 initially gave the license out.
7                  So --
8                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Right. I did see 9 something about a way to make it more efficient, where 10 the licensee would have more flexibility.
11                  I guess the concern was, we always talk 12 about        the cumulative      effect      of      regulation.        The 13 cumulative effect of such changes is what I would have 14 characterized the concern.
15                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      So there is a, I 16 will tell you, there is not a specific discussion on 17 that      particular    idea    in    the      reg  basis,    to      my 18 recollection.
19                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Okay. So it was a 20 comment raised during our meeting.                        And as you're 21 tallying up, and I saw a lot in the document about 22 comments made by ACRS, as well as something said about 23 ACRS Staff, which I didn't follow.
24                  But anyway, as you're going through and 25 tallying it, I think that one might be one that I 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 would be interested in seeing discussed.                But again, 2 I'm just one member.
3                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay. That's perfect.
4 I have made a note of that.
5                Any other questions on Slide 14?                Okay, 6 let's go to Slide 15.
7                So, we're on Slide 15 everybody. Starting 8 with the issue of      severe accidents in Part 50, which 9 is covered by Appendix A of the regulatory basis, the 10 Staff has identified that the Part 50 process does not 11 adequately address the NRC's severe accident policy 12 statement.
13                We are recommending rulemaking to revise 14 Part 50 to include Part 52 light requirements to 15 address severe accidents. We identified Section 50.34 16 as the affected section of the regulations, along with 17 the standard review plan, Chapter 19, which deals with 18 these requirements.
19                Next slide.        We are now on Slide 16.            We 20 have several issues that relate to the probabilistic 21 risk assessment, the probabilistic risk assessment, or 22 PRA, requirements that we are addressing.
23                These are related to requiring the use of 24 PRA and design making the risk informed process for 25 safety related structures, systems and components more 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 accessible        and  changing        the      timing  of  the      PRA 2 upgrades.        The Staff is recommending rulemaking with 3 guidance changes to address these three items.
4                    The regulatory changes include Sections 5 50.34 and 50.71 and 50.69.                  And we'll also revise 6 several regulatory guides to PRA.
7                    Those regulatory guides are regulatory 8 guide 1.174, which is the approach to using PRA 9 decision, informed, excuse me, probabilistic risk 10 assessment        and  risk      informed        decisions  on    plant 11 specific changes to the licensing basis.
12                    Regulatory      Guide      1.200,    which    is      an 13 approach to determining the technical adequacy of PRA 14 results for risked informed activities.                      Reg Guide 15 1.201, which is guidelines for categorizing structure 16 systems        and  components        in  nuclear    power    plants 17 according to their safety significance.
18                    Regulatory Guide 1.205, which is risk 19 informed        performance        based      fire    protection      for 20 existing        light  water      nuclear      power  plants.        And 21 Regulatory Guide 1.206, which is the regulatory guide 22 on the applications for nuclear power plants.
23                    MEMBER BROWN:        Can I ask a question?
24                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
25                    MEMBER BROWN:        Yes, I may have asked 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
 
141 1 in one of the previous meetings a year ago or so, but 2 now I've forgotten the answer.
3                  (Laughter.)
4                  MEMBER BROWN:          All these reevaluations, 5 the requirement for PRAs and all this other type of 6 stuff that's coming into this rulemaking, or advised 7 updating, does back fitting get addressed as part of 8 this        rulemaking    once      it    gets        approved  by      the 9 Commission?
10                  In other words, is everybody required to 11 use this?
12                  And I may have asked this a year ago but 13 I just don't remember.
14                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:        I can briefly talk about 15 that.        And I think we also have an attorney on the 16 line.        I think Howard Benowitz is on the line.
17                  But basically, we have a back fitting 18 discussion in the regulatory basis for every item. So 19 all 50 items has got an evaluation about back fitting 20 as we see it from how it's been developed so far.
21                  And then in the proposed rule we're going 22 to have a section on back fitting. And it's going to, 23 basically we're going to evaluate if any of the items 24 do or not constitute finality issues or back fitting 25 issues.
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                MEMBER BROWN:        So, is there a general set 2 of criteria that apply across all of the specific 43 3 changes, I guess it's 43 changes --
4                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
5                MEMBER BROWN:        -- for evaluating?
6                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Right. So --
7                MEMBER BROWN:          In other words, do you 8 assess them all and then yes and no, yes and no?
9                I mean --
10                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. That's exactly what 11 --
12                MEMBER BROWN:        -- it's not in any of the 13 slides here. I just don't --
14                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So I'll just, let 15 me just talk a little bit about that.                So right now 16 there aren't any identified back fits. And yes, we've 17 done a yes and no, yes and no type analysis on each 18 one of the items.
19                And for criteria we use NUREG-BR0058 as 20 one of the guides, guidance documents on back fitting.
21 It basically uses the current guidance we have.
22                MR. BENOWITZ:            That's    actually      the 23 regulatory analysis document --
24                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Ah, Howard.
25                MR. BENOWITZ:        -- so we did not use 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
 
143 1                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, Howard, do you want 2 to chime in?
3                MR. BENOWITZ:        Happy to.
4                (Laughter.)
5                MR. BENOWITZ:        But, Jim, you did a fine 6 job, I really don't have much to add.                I just wanted 7 to clarify that last part.                That was a regulatory 8 analysis NUREG.
9                And just like Jim said, we looked at each 10 of the changes, the recommendations, alternatives too.
11 Not just, for each of the items there are alternatives 12 for each item and so we looked at each one.                  And in 13 the regulatory basis document there is a section, back 14 fitting or issue finality.            So we looked at each one 15 of them to make sure that in order to assess to 16 whether or not there would be a, potentially down the 17 road if there became a final rule, there would be any 18 back fitting or issue finality concerns.
19                And at this point, as Jim said, we have 20 not identified any. And if as the rule progresses, in 21 the proposed rule stage, in the final rule stage, as 22 these recommendations from the regulatory basis become 23 proposed      requirements          and        then  final      rule 24 requirements, we will, if anything changes in that 25 aspect we will identified that and discuss them in 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
 
144 1 proposed rule documentation, the federal register 2 notice and in the final rule federal register notice 3 as well.
4                    MEMBER BROWN:          In that assessment have 5 their, you haven't identified any up to this point, 6 correct?
7                    MR. BENOWITZ:        Correct.
8                    MEMBER BROWN:        Okay.      But in the process 9 of identified that you know there is no back fitting 10 requirement to be imposed, were there compromises made 11 in terms of what you wanted to do in order to avoid 12 back fit considerations?
13                    MR. BENOWITZ:          Hmm.        Their potentially 14 might        be  one  or  two,    but    I    wouldn't    call    it    a 15 compromise though, it's just how it's applied.
16                    And I don't think we actually, it was 17 discussed but we didn't have to. I mean, there is no, 18 let me back up.
19                    Essentially, there is one way to avoid 20 back fitting and that is to say, well, we're not going 21 to apply it to the current, you know, if we want to 22 change        a  requirement        that    a      current  licensee, 23 operating licensee, if you want to change something 24 that they're required to do that it probably meets the 25 definition of back fitting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
145 1                  And if you say, well, we're not going to 2 apply it to them we're just going to make it something 3 that future applicants would have to comply, you know, 4 but not any current licensees.
5                  But that's not something, I don't think we 6 did that with any of these.                  Now going forward, if 7 something were to change, that is an approach we can 8 take.        But as of now, we have not identified anything 9 like that.
10                  MEMBER BROWN:        Yes. I was just wondering 11 whether there were anything people really wanted to do 12 but then you decided hold it, that would really put us 13 into the back fit world, which would be pretty much, 14 that that would be argued very strongly, I think, by 15 the existing fleet.
16                  So that's why I was asking if you kind of 17 backed off on the requirement. But what you're saying 18 is, what you're going to do is you would apply it as 19 a forward fit on anything new, but not necessarily on 20 past existing operators.
21                  MR. BENOWITZ:          I would not use the term 22 forward fit as the Commission has --
23                  MEMBER BROWN:        Bad words.
24                  MR. BENOWITZ:          -- a specific, there's a 25 specific definition now.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
146 1                MEMBER BROWN:        Oh yes.
2                MR. BENOWITZ:          But    I understand      the 3 concept of what you're saying --
4                MEMBER BROWN:        Your new plants --
5                MR. BENOWITZ:        -- I would agree with.
6                MEMBER BROWN:          -- I was talking about.
7 New plants --
8                MR. BENOWITZ:        Right.
9                MEMBER BROWN:        -- I was talking about.
10                MR. BENOWITZ:          Right.      And recall of 11 course, in the back fitting issue finality world, when 12 we're talking about applicants, especially new ones 13 coming in, we typically, you don't have back fits for 14 new applicants.
15                But in some cases there are some issue 16 finality.      Or there could be some back fitting, in 17 very few cases, like a COL applicant that has a 18 already approved design cert.                  There is some issue 19 finality attached to that design cert.
20                And so these are things that we looked at 21 for each of these items.                These are some of the 22 considerations that we made.
23                MEMBER BROWN:        And this may be, you may 24 have said this before and I didn't catch it, have 25 there been any elimination of requirements?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
147 1                  MR. BENOWITZ:        Oh.
2                  MEMBER BROWN: A review of this, hey, this 3 was overboard in the past and we don't need to do it 4 anymore?
5                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          We can get into that.
6 I'll      discuss,    very    briefly,        what  the Staff        is 7 recommending for each item.                And I think that comes 8 out in the presentation.
9                  MEMBER BROWN:          Okay.      All right, I'll 10 wait.        Thank you.
11                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
12                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, before you leave 13 this slide, I'm interested in the updates to Reg Guide 14 1.174 because I, it talks about a graded approach for 15 what's needed for a PRA at various stages.                        And I 16 think that this is a good place where there ought to 17 be a lot of coordination between Part 50 and Part 53 18 requirements for a PRA and what would be expected by 19 the Staff at various stages.
20                  Are you going along that line or how much 21 of an upgrade are you doing to this reg guide?
22                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Well, we don't have the 23 PRA expert on the line with us, but he called me 24 before this meeting and I told him that I would 25 feedback any questions.              But I can tell you 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
 
148 1 same individual, I'm pretty confident, is working on 2 both rules on this issue.
3                  So I would, like we said before, expect an 4 integrated approach solution that's going to work with 5 both rulemakings.
6                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE: So that's good. But 7 yes, I still want to hear about the update to this reg 8 guide when it happens but I think from what I've read, 9 and what we've heard as we've been reviewing these 10 topics, that that's going to be guidance that will be 11 important to future applicants.
12                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I made a note that 13 that's of interest to the ACRS.
14                  And if there is anything we can, you know, 15 again, like we said before, there is any additional 16 needed discussions we can also, we can accommodate 17 that when the time is right for it.                      When we start 18 writing it or making changes to it.
19                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                Okay. And again, 20 I'm just one member but it's something that caught my 21 eye.
22                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.      All right.        Any 23 other questions on Slide 16?
24                  All right, we'll go to Slide 17.                          So 25 Appendix      C. We're    on    Slide      17.      The  Staff        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
 
149 1 recommending rulemaking with guidance changes to align 2 Parts 50 and 52 with respect to the submission of the 3 Three Mile Island related information.
4                  The    regulations          in      50.34 will        be 5 effective, along with the standard review plan.                          In 6 addition, we have a specific request for comment, 7 question, in the federal register notice of this 8 regulatory basis that relates to what impacts of the, 9 impacts of the Three Mile Island requirement on non-10 light water reactor applicants should be considered in 11 the scope of the proposed rule.
12                  So again, this is going back to what 13 you're saying is, there is some tentacles here between 14 52 and 53 and so we're trying to get the appropriate 15 information from the public and into consideration as 16 we revise the regulation.
17                  Next slide.      Any questions on Appendix C?
18                  DR. CORRADINI:          This is Corradini.          Can 19 you give an example on what might not be applicable 20 for an advance reactor?
21                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Well, I mean, Part 22 34, 50.34(f), if you read it, it's very, actually, 23 it's not only technology specific, some of these 24 items,        but    their      actually            vendor  specific 25 recommendations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
150 1                    So  there    is    things        that  are    pretty 2 clearly, you know, can be decided on if they apply or 3 not.
4                    I don't want to go into too much detail 5 but let's take reactor pressure vessel vents. I think 6 that's an item that's on there.
7                    Hydrogen combustion issues. That problem 8 will vary across technologies.                      They may not be as 9 important for other technologies.
10                    So again, just to keep everybody clear, 11 this rule is, the rule I'm working on here, this Part 12 50 and 52 alignment in lessons learned, is we're 13 looking primarily backwards to fix the problems we've 14 discovered during the previous licensing reviews.
15 That's the main focus of what we're trying to do here.
16                    But in while doing that we want to, we 17 don't want to carry things forward that may or may not 18 be needed for the future.                Does that help?
19                    DR. CORRADINI:          Yes, that helps.            That 20 helps.        I was looking more for, well, that helps for 21 the moment.        Thank you.
22                    MEMBER    KIRCHNER:            Jim,    this  is    Walt 23 Kirchner.        Just a follow-up with Mike's question.
24                    Since you picked the example, it's the 25 same      one  I  was  going      to    use.        The  vessel      vent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
151 1 requirements.
2                How are you going to approach this in this 3 rulemaking, are you going to divide up the list of TMI 4 requirements into these applied LWRs and don't apply 5 to advance reactors since advance reactors can come in 6 through the loophole of 52.41(b)(ii).
7                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes, that gets a little 8 bit beyond my can at this point.                I think it's being 9 looked at.
10                Again, this is another situation where the 11 individual is the same individual that's working on 12 both rules, I believe, for this problem.                  And this 13 came up during the review of this reg basis during the 14 concurrence    period    to  ensure      that    we only    carry 15 forward only those requirements that, again, make 16 sense for future reactors. And not worry about things 17 that are, vendors that are not producing, creating 18 reactors anymore.
19                But I can't really answer exactly the nuts 20 and bolts of how that's being done at this point.
21                DR. CORRADINI: This is Corradini. Let me 22 go back to Walt's question a different way.
23                If I have a light water reactor, is the 24 way you're writing this preclude them from applying to 25 Part 53 such that they would then have to have 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
 
152 1 certain requirements that just wouldn't exist in the 2 rule?        Do you understand my question?
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: Not quite. You're saying 4 LWR using Part 53?
5                  DR. CORRADINI:        I have a, well, I'll pick 6 an example.        I have the Holtec small modular reactor, 7 which is a water reactor.                It's part of the advance 8 reactor development program.
9                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
10                  DR. CORRADINI:          They're  going    to      go 11 forward with a design.            Are they precluded from Part 12 53 or are they an advance reactor that are included in 13 Part 53 and therefore you have to have a consistent 14 set of requirements?
15                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          So I understand --
16                  MS. BRADFORD:          This is Anna Bradford.
17 Jim, do you mind if I answer that one?
18                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Go ahead. Please.
19                  MS. BRADFORD:        This is Anna Bradford from 20 NRR again.        All of, I think of all of these licensing 21 approaches, rather it's Part 50, 52 or 53 as choices 22 that applicants can use. And nobody is precluded from 23 using any of them.
24                  Some might be better fits for a non-light 25 or a light, but Holtec could certainly use Part 53 if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
153 1 they wanted to.
2                  DR. CORRADINI:            All right, thank you.
3 That's what I was expecting the answer, I just wanted 4 to check.      Thank you.
5                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          All right.
6                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          But then the problem I 7 see, to follow-up on Mike, just for this particular 8 exercise, Anna and Jim, is under 50 and 52, the LWRs 9 have to use Appendix B.              And I'm not seeing that in 10 53.      To date. In other words, NQA 1.
11                  And that would turn out to be a major 12 inconsistency in my opinion in reconciling the three.
13                  MS. BRADFORD:        Yes.      I just put caution 14 that we're still at the very beginning stages of both 15 of these rules.          We're at the reg basis stage.                    I 16 think Part 53 is at an even earlier stage.
17                  So there is still things that need to be 18 worked out.      But in terms of things to keep an eye on, 19 I think that's a good point.
20                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: I would just add another 21 caution then, Anna, and that is, to me definitions are 22 important.      And definitions in 50 and 52 are pretty 23 decisive in establishing things like classification of 24 system structures and components.                  I said that wrong, 25 structure, systems and components.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
154 1                  What we've seen so far in the framework 2 for 53 would not be consistent with that.
3                  MS. BRADFORD:        That's true.
4                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          I notice there is not a 5 53 discussion today.          But an example, in my mind, of 6 the potential at a very fundamental level of having 7 inconsistencies as we go forward.
8                  MS. BRADFORD:        Understood.
9                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          All right.      Any other 10 questions on Appendix C?
11                  Okay, we'll go to the next slide, Slide 12 18.        So we're on Slide 18.            The Staff recommends 13 section 50.34 changed to clarify the specific fire 14 protection information that needs to be submitted with 15 a Part 50 application.              So we don't anticipate any 16 guidance changes for this item.
17                  Any  questions        on    that?      Next    slide, 18 Appendix E.      So this is on operator licensing.                We're 19 on Slide 19.
20                  The  Staff      recommends        rulemaking      and 21 guidance to address an inadequacy in the regulations 22 with respect to operator training for operators of 23 plants that are undergoing construction.                  Which we're 24 calling COL plants.
25                  Like    the      criteria        for  simulation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
155 1 facilities is another item.            And the requirements for 2 plant walkthrough and continuing training is another 3 item.
4                So, several sections of Part 55 would be 5 amended.      A new guidance document would have to be 6 created.
7                Any questions on this area?                This is, 8 again, a lessons learned.              In regard to the lessons 9 learned items.
10                All right, going on to the next slide.
11 We're at Appendix F.            This one is on the physical 12 security part of it.          We're on Slide 20.
13                So the interim physical security, the 14 Staff is recommending rulemaking to reduce what we 15 believe is an unnecessary regulatory burden related to 16 the physical protection of unirradiated fuel at sites.
17 We are proposing to amend several sections of Part 70 18 and 73 to update the guidance.
19                And any questions on that?                All right.
20 I'll move on to the next slide.                    Fitness for duty 21 requirements.      Slide 21.
22                The Staff here is recommending rulemaking 23 and guidance to address some lessons learned related 24 to construction site access for contract employees.
25 Fitness for duty related lessons learned from 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
 
156 1 plant construction, medical review officer procedures 2 and other technical corrections.
3                  We  are    proposing        changes  in  several 4 sections of Part 26 and regulatory guide changes. Any 5 questions on that?
6                  Next slide.        Appendix G is on emergency 7 planning, so we're on Slide 22.
8                  And the Staff is proposing a variety of 9 rulemaking and guidance changes to address several 10 issues related to emergency planning. So these issues 11 are, the initial emergency classification and action 12 level        scheme,  the    emergency      plan    change  process, 13 emergency          preparedness          exercises,        significant 14 impediments to development of emergency plans and 15 requirements for offsite contacts, arrangements and 16 certifications.
17                  So,  for      those      items      the  Staff        is 18 recommending guidance for that first item. Rulemaking 19 for items, the second and the fifth item, rulemaking 20 and guidance for Items 3 and 4.
21                  The regulations affected include several 22 sections of Part 50 and 52 and several sections of 23 Appendix E to Part 50.            A new guidance document would 24 have to be created.
25                  In addition, we have specific requests 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
 
157 1 comment, question, in the FRN for this regulatory 2 basis that relates to what is the appropriate distance 3 within which to perform the citing analysis. Is there 4 any questions on that?
5                  MEMBER BROWN:        Yes, Charlie Brown again.
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
7                  MEMBER BROWN:        Refresh me on how you went 8 through the list of key issues.                    You mentioned that 9 some        of  these    right      now    you      say  are    --      my 10 understanding based on our previous work we've done, 11 at least that I've been with, those have been largely 12 guidance issues.          Now you're going to turn them into 13 rules now?
14                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          It's a mixture of rule 15 changes and guidance changes. And it depends on which 16 items we're talking about.                  This has one of those 17 appendices in the reg bases that has a bit of a 18 potpourri of disparate but related things.                        And we 19 analyzed each one of these items on its own terms.
20 And we have a recommendation for it.
21                  And it's a discussion on each one those 22 items        I mentioned,      those    five      items,  a  complete 23 discussion with a recommendation on it.                  It describes 24 exactly what, well, up to a point, you know, what the 25 staff desires to do or to develop from this point.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
158 1                    MEMBER BROWN:          But rules for some stuff 2 just become extremely binding and inflexible. I guess 3 that's where my question was coming from.                      I mean, I 4 just read through this list of five, and it just seems 5 to me applying rules to those as opposed to guidance, 6 regardless, I would have pictured no action.
7                    If I was on your team, I would have picked 8 no action for all of these.                  They should be fluid, 9 there        should  be    variableness,            they  should        be 10 evaluated, and they should be presented.                    But turning 11 them into rules which are cast in concrete seems to me 12 extremely overdone when we apply it to emergency 13 planning which can certainly vary as situations around 14 the entire neighborhoods change.
15                    The emergency planning for some of the 16 initial plants built 60 years ago, or 50 years, yes, 17 60    years    ago  in    the    case    of    shipping    port,      you 18 wouldn't even look at doing things the same way they 19 did them back them.
20                    MS. BRADFORD: I think, I'm sorry, this is 21 Ann.        I just want to say, you know, some of these, 22 they are already rules. They're already requirements.
23 We're just tweaking them or adjusting them based on 24 lessons        learned.      So  I    don't      want  to  leave      the 25 impression that we're taking things that were not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
159 1 requirements        and    now    making        them    requirements.
2 Because that's not always the case.
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Very good point, yes.
4                  MEMBER BROWN:        Requirements equals rule, 5 right?
6                  MS. BRADFORD:        Yes.
7                  MEMBER BROWN:        I got the flavor in here 8 when you did your presentation, that some of these 9 were being changed.              You were going to be making 10 rulemakings.        And I interpreted that they weren't.
11 But then you say all these were not rules.
12                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Well, some of --
13                  VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE:                Some may be rules 14 right now.
15                  MS. BRADFORD:        Yes.
16                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:        A good many of these are 17 already rules. When we say rulemaking, it means we're 18 going to have to change the language of the existing 19 rule      to  add  or  take    out    something        or  to    change 20 wording. There's a few that are new, but for the most 21 part, I would think the majority of these items are 22 changes to existing rules that are already in place as 23 rules.
24                  MEMBER BROWN:        Is there any consideration 25 given to stuff like this to make them not rules, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
160 1 because the nature of the beast would --
2                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Right.
3                MEMBER    BROWN:        --    allow  them    to      be 4 included as guidance that you can just evaluate as you 5 go?
6                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          So the whole project, 7 when we kicked it off way back in 2019, we asked the 8 staff several, you know, things to look at when 9 they're looking at lessons learned.                And among those 10 things, other than identifying, you know, errors in 11 the regulations or things that need to be fixed, but 12 what are the things that aren't adding any value?
13                And if those aren't adding any value, then 14 that's a candidate for us to change to maybe turn it 15 into, you know, to turn it into something that's less 16 burdensome if there's no corresponding safety benefit.
17 So those type of questions were asked of the staff 18 when we developed the regulatory scope of this way 19 back, well, not way back, but in 2019.
20                MEMBER BROWN:        Did the industry have any 21 comment on de-ruling some of --
22                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Oh, yes, they did.
23                MEMBER BROWN:        I can imagine.
24                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Ha, ha, ha.      They did.
25                MEMBER BROWN:        Were you open?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
161 1                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:        Of course.      Yes, we were 2 open. And we took their comments into account, and we 3 continued to work with the industry to refine the 4 rule.          But I can't really, I guess, give you an 5 example of, I mean, one or another that we changed 6 based on input.          I don't know that off the top of my 7 head.        But we have been interacting with the public 8 all along on this activity.
9                    MEMBER BROWN:        Okay, thank you.
10                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.      All right, any 11 other questions on Appendix G?
12                    All right, we can move on to Appendix H.
13 So this is quite a large appendix.                    We're addressing 14 several different areas that relate to lessons learned 15 from the Part 52 licensing process.                    These areas are 16 design certification renewal and regulatory basis 17 Appendix Section H1.
18                    We looked at the Part 52 change process 19 discussed in Section H2 of the regulatory basis, 20 design        scopes  and    standardization          in  Section      H3, 21 standard        design  approval        in    Section    H4,  and      the 22 content of applications discussed in Section H5.                          So 23 these actually have some items underneath them I'll 24 discuss in the next slides.
25                    Next slide? So we're on Slide 24. So 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
 
162 1 these          items,      we're        making        the    following 2 recommendations.            So we're going to do rulemaking, 3 again, this is an example of an existing rule that 4 we're changing.        We're doing rulemaking to remove the 5 current 15-year duration of design certifications.
6                  We're doing rulemaking and guidance to 7 clarify aspects of the change process.                      We're doing 8 rulemaking        and    guidance        to      clarify    the      term 9 essentially complete design and to streamline some 10 requirements related to design information.
11                  We're      doing      rulemaking        to    clarify 12 requirements          when      filing      an      application      that 13 references        multiple      standard          design    approvals.
14 Finally,        we're  doing      rulemaking          and  guidance        to 15 clarify the content of the applications.
16                  So in addition, we've had three specific 17 requests for comment questions in the Federal Register 18 notice that relate to whether to eliminate or change 19 the duration requirements for manufacturing licenses, 20 whether        to  change      the    duration        requirements        of 21 standard design approvals, and whether to remove the 22 expired design certification rules from the Part 52 23 appendices?
24                  Any questions on that?
25                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Jim, yes, this is Walt NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
163 1 Kirchner again.          You mentioned a topic that I had 2 raised in September 20th in 2019 in our subcommittee 3 meeting.
4                  And  it's    this      matter    of essentially 5 complete.      So I have my notes in front of me from that 6 meeting.        I think the response from you, or perhaps 7 Anna, was that in practice it's not needed for a 8 safety determination.
9                  But from a practical standpoint, I mean, 10 when 52 was written, it was primarily with the idea in 11 mind that these next generation reactors that would be 12 evolutionary change to the LWRs already designed and 13 licensed. And then in the scope of b2, 41b2, you open 14 the door for other designs that differ significantly 15 or      use    simplified      inherent        passive  and    other 16 innovative means to accomplish their safety functions.
17                  But the issue that I had then, and I still 18 have now, and I have reasons that I won't go into in 19 a public meeting, were concerned is that if someone's 20 after something like a design certification, then a 21 fairly mature, let me use different words, design 22 really is necessary, I think, for the staff to reach 23 that kind of determination.
24                  Allowing other designs to come in under 52 25 that are less mature, have less operational or no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
164 1 operational experience, and then reaching to find, 2 make a safety determination, is quite a stretch in 3 this member's opinion. So can you give us the essence 4 of what you're going to do in terms of redefining 5 essentially complete.
6                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, I can only reference 7 the reg basis at this point, because we haven't come 8 up with the definition of rule language yet.                            But, 9 you know, let me see if I can -- we basically worry 10 about we want that information that has basically a 11 safety        nexus    that's      going      to      be  part  of      the 12 definition.          So I'm just trying to find the right 13 words here, but I can't.
14                    But just to answer your question, we have 15 yet to write that definition.                  We have yet to come to 16 precisely what we want to say in the definition 17 section or in the guidance on that. We are working on 18 that.          We're trying to get these technical issues 19 worked out to have a good technical, you know, draft 20 of this in the near term.              But right now, I don't have 21 that definition.
22                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Well again, this is not 23 a question, it's more an observation.                        It would seem 24 to me, as I mentioned back in September 2019, that if 25 you      start    with  a    new    definition          for  essentially NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
165 1 complete, that's more safety oriented.                  Let me say it 2 that way.
3                For  advanced        LWR    designs,      I  would        be 4 interested to -- at least I, for one, would look at 5 what parallelism would be implied for an advanced 6 reactor design, now I'm talking about non-LWRs, such 7 that      the safety    features,        et      cetera,    that      are 8 referenced coming in under 41b2 have been demonstrated 9 sufficiently      so  that    one    could        make  your    safety 10 determination.
11                That's      more      an    observation        than        a 12 question.      So you don't have to respond in real time.
13                MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, thank you. Ha, ha.
14                MEMBER BLEY:        Jim?
15                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes?
16                MEMBER BLEY: This all made sense to me at 17 one time when I read it.          Now I'm looking at the first 18 one, rulemaking to remove the 15-year duration of 19 design certs and renewal requirements.                      If you do 20 this, does that mean 40 years from now somebody could 21 build a plant under Appendix Q or whatever it is in 22 Part 52 --
23                MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Well right now, yes, 24 right now the staff is recommending the complete 25 removal of any time limit on a design certification.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
166 1 But we're asking for input on that.                We're asking a 2 specific question in the FRN on that. Essentially, if 3 not nothing then what would be the right number?                      I 4 believe that's in the FRN, if I remember correctly.
5                (Simultaneous speaking.)
6                MR. O'DRISCOLL:            But right now we are 7 recommending, the staff is recommending removal of the 8 time duration.      So you would not need to renew a 9 design.
10                MEMBER BLEY: So the implications to this, 11 I guess, are that 50 years from now somebody could 12 just go build that thing, ha, ha --
13                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
14                MEMBER BLEY:        -- without have revisit any 15 of the reviews, even if the technology is obsolete in 16 many different areas.
17                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
18                MS. BRADFORD:        I think Dr. Bley is --
19                MEMBER BLEY:        Is there a lot of support 20 for this one?    I'm sorry, go ahead.
21                MS. BRADFORD:          Sorry, Dr. Bley, this is 22 Anna Bradford. I would just say this topic engendered 23 a lot of discussion internally, because there were 24 some thoughts about just how would this work process-25 wise, and what does it mean in terms of, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
167 1 someone coming in 40 years from now and wanting to 2 reference a design certification that, you know, is 3 that old and hasn't been, quote, unquote, updated 4 since then?
5                  You asked if there was a lot of interest.
6 I would say that the industry is interested in this as 7 well.        If you remember, the API000, about two years 8 ago, requested an exemption from renewing, sorry, 9 Westinghouse requested an exemption from renewing the 10 API000, because their 15 years was about to be up, and 11 it just, honestly, it wasn't long enough for them to 12 have incorporated all their construction experience 13 and decide what they wanted to do.
14                  So we went back and looked, and there 15 wasn't a real solid technical reason for the 15 years, 16 for the DCs expiring every 15 years.                  In terms of 17 could someone come in and reference an older design, 18 if this makes it into the final rule, which at this 19 point we don't know, I think the thought is, you 20 know, if it's safe today, so if we approve something 21 today in 2020, it's safe enough today, unless they can 22 pass a backfit rule which we have on the books and can 23 force changes to be made if it's important to safety, 24 then it's probably also safe enough 40 years from now.
25                  Now, economically would you want to build NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      (202) 234-4433
 
168 1 it, or just marketing-wise is it a good idea to build 2 that one that's 40 years old, I mean, that's a whole 3 separate decision.          And I think -
4                  (Simultaneous speaking.)
5                  MS. BRADFORD:        Go ahead.
6                  MEMBER BLEY:          Let me talk about this a 7 second with you.        Because, you know, when we came in 8 to build a couple of AP1000s, they actually had to 9 revisit their design, because what the people who 10 wanted to build it found was there were a lot of gaps 11 and holes.
12                  The design cert really wasn't complete in 13 a lot of areas, or there were things they really 14 needed to change.          And four other cases where one of 15 these is on the books but nobody's ever built it, 16 which is several of them, just feels a little funny.
17 We'll have to think about it some. I'll have to think 18 about it.
19                  MS. BRADFORD:          Yes.      Well, honestly, we 20 would        appreciate    your      comments        on  this    issue.
21 Because,        like  I  said,    it    did      engender  a    lot      of 22 discussion, and there's a lot of aspects to it. So we 23 welcome comments on that.
24                  DR. CORRADINI:            So,    Anna,  this        is 25 Corradini.        Going forward with Dr. Bley's question, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
169 1 you said that within the staff there was a lot of 2 discussion, that people were discussing why there 3 ought not to be some sort of time limit.                What was the 4 reason that there should be no time limit?                  The last 5 discussion you had which is if it's safe now, it'll be 6 safe in perpetuity?
7                  MS. BRADFORD:          I think part of it came 8 from, you know, we're finishing up the ABWR design 9 certification renewal.              And there might have been a 10 few, you know, I'll call them small gains from that 11 process.        But I'm not sure.            I'm not sure the gains 12 were worth the level of effort that both we and the 13 Applicant put into it.                So it became an idea, you 14 know, for the resources and time that we're putting 15 into      this  renewal,      are    we  getting  a  big    safety 16 benefit?        And I'm not sure the answer to that is yes.
17 So that's where the --
18                    (Simultaneous speaking.)
19                    DR. CORRADINI:          I'm sorry, I didn't mean 20 to interrupt you.
21                    MS. BRADFORD:        No, please, go ahead.
22                    DR. CORRADINI:        I was going to say, would 23 it be at 40 years?            I mean, Dennis picked 40 years.
24 I thought that was an intriguing number for me, 25 because that's essentially a reactor licensing time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
170 1 window.        So 40 years strikes me as approaching in 2 perpetuity compared to 15.              No time limit strikes me 3 as very odd.        I was going to bring it up.              Dennis is 4 much quicker than I am to the case on this.
5                  (Simultaneous speaking.)
6                  MEMBER BLEY:        Although Part 52 has been 7 here for, what, 40 years now, we've only got one plant 8 that's being built under it.                And we don't have much 9 experience.        It's uncomfortable, I'll say that.
10                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Well, Mike, this is 11 Pete.        But we're only talking about a design cert, 12 aren't we?        I mean, anyone who wants to build the 13 plant's going to have to go through a COL. And that's 14 --
15                  MEMBER BLEY:        Yes.      But you pass through 16 every item in the COL, Pete, if you don't want to 17 change the design.
18                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              I'm sorry, repeat 19 that, Dennis, I didn't hear it.
20                  MEMBER BLEY:        Yes.      If you remember from 21 some of the COLs we've done, unless the COL wants to 22 change something in the certified design, you don't do 23 any review.        You don't do anything.            They just say we 24 accept it as is.        And NRC says we accept it as it is.
25                  DR. CORRADINI:          So    it's  accepted      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
 
171 1 reference -
2                    MEMBER BLEY:        Exactly.
3                  DR. CORRADINI:          -- or whatever the proper 4 terminology is.
5                  MEMBER BLEY:          I think that's the right 6 one, Mike.        I couldn't even come up with that.
7                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              I would like to add 8 my      opinion    on    this      subject.          This  is    Vesna 9 Dimitrijevic.          I think the main, you know, I don't 10 really see problem. That's my personal opinion about, 11 you        know,    not      limiting        duration      of    design 12 certification.
13                  What I see is a bigger problem in that 14 what control we have between design certification to 15 the COL and then to the, you know, the plant before 16 the full load. And even Dennis just mentioned that he 17 didn't see controlling COL.                    We just issue design 18 certification where we said that we're going to check 19 this in COL, this in COL, this in COL.
20                  But we don't really have a clear control 21 what happened between design certification.                    We don't 22 have      a  clear  picture      of    control      between    design 23 certification and the COL, and then, you know, as 24 built        as  to  be    operated      plant.        So  maybe      the 25 definition of those control from the safety aspects 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
 
172 1 important in here when discussing duration of the DC.
2                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              You know, Mike, I 3 inherited the ABWR update or renewal of the design 4 cert.        And I can concur with what the staff said.                  It 5 was, the changes were so trivial, and to spend a lot 6 of effort on that was just a waste of their time and 7 ACRS time, I think.
8                  DR. CORRADINI: But I guess, Pete, I can't 9 disagree with you at 15 years. But if 15 years became 10 45 years I --
11                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Yes.
12                  DR. CORRADINI:          -- somehow in my mind I 13 would expect there's going to be differences.                        I'll 14 use the word lessons learned in the design that you 15 might want to incorporate. Because the expectation of 16 safety is going to go up as time marches on.                        It's 17 just going to go up.
18                  MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              Yes.
19                  MS. BRADFORD:            I think, this is Anna 20 Bradford again.        And I think that's one thing we have 21 to honestly be a little bit careful about.                      Are we 22 going        to  ratchet,      I'll      call      it, our    safety 23 requirements for newer reactors?
24                  I mean, we haven't given non-light water 25 reactors, you know, a different number for accidents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
173 1 and things like that they need to reach.                    We've said 2 they need to have the same level of safety.                        So I'm 3 not, now there might be technological changes that 4 would          make    building        a    40-year      old    design 5 certification, you know, economically silly or maybe 6 not      even    feasible,      because      certain    parts    aren't 7 available any more.              But that's not really a safety 8 decision.
9                    So, like, I personally don't know of any 10 errors in, for example, the ones that are expired on 11 the books right now. If someone wanted to come in and 12 reference the AP600, or the System 80+, I mean, we 13 decided that those were fine.                  Right now, we have no 14 reason to think that they're not fine.                      And I don't 15 think we would go back and second guess that decision.
16                    I understand, it's a leap to think, well, 17 you know, 15 years to never, it seems like maybe a 18 bridge too far.          But then when you think to actually 19 step through the process you wonder, well, what number 20 is appropriate?          Maybe it's no number.
21                    MEMBER RICCARDELLA:              I think maybe Vesna 22 was on the right track, there should be some sort of 23 an overall check at the COL stage that has to be done 24 to just make sure that everything in the design cert 25 is still satisfactory.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
174 1                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Well, this is what 2 also was mentioned, that we have actually entered --
3 the part of the design certification is the PRA and a 4 lot of conclusions made on the PRA results, you know, 5 like design changes that the inputs to ISAC, you 6 know, could be exemptions, the normal impacts to 7 human factors and things like that.
8                But as it's currently now, when the PRA 9 gets certified, the COL applicant doesn't have to do 10 anything about that, can just reference that. But all 11 the changes which happen between design certification 12 and COLA should be in some way accounted also going 13 through construction, completing construction of the 14 new design, things like that.                So it should be some 15 way the regulator can track what has changed and how 16 does      this imply    on    the    conclusions      from    design 17 certification.
18                MEMBER KIRCHNER:            Vesna, this is Walt.
19 Wouldn't that fuel load, the PRA have to be updated, 20 and then that would be a mechanism to, track isn't the 21 right word, but at least identify things that you 22 mentioned, like the actual construction as built.
23                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Yes.
24                MEMBER KIRCHNER:          And then -
25                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              That's true, Walt, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
175 1 but then it's not requirement for the fuel load PRA to 2 be      reviewed    or    any    conclusions          to  be  tracked.
3 Basically, the only PRAs are currently in the process 4 is in design certification which has been reviewed.
5 The PRA will go through all of these phases and will 6 be updated, then will be updated even when operation 7 started.        But there is no review requirement in this 8 process.
9                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:          So maybe if we ask the 10 staff, would this be something that would be, quote, 11 unquote, inspected at the fuel load?
12                    MEMBER BLEY: Walt, I'm going to call this 13 off.      I got it started but --
14                    MEMBER KIRCHNER:          I'm sorry.        Okay.
15                    MEMBER BLEY:        Ha, ha.        We want to let the 16 staff get through their presentations.                          And we're 17 getting into implementations that will certainly come 18 up later.        But, you know, this might be an area where 19 we    want    to  give    some    thought        to  sending    a    full 20 committee comment.
21                    Jim, please, go ahead to the presentation.
22                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.      So are there any 23 other questions on this slide, 24?
24                    Move on to Slide 25, so environmental 25 topics.        So we did find two issues here.              The first 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
 
176 1 the staff considered changes that would ease the 2 process for the submittal of environmental reports in 3 a Part 50 construction permit application.
4                  The second topic relates to fixing the 5 regulations to enable an applicant to incorporate a 6 prior        environmental      assessment          in  a  Part        50 7 construction permit process.
8                  So the staff recommended no action for the 9 first item. Because there was not a clear crossing to 10 the action.        For the second item the staff recommends 11 rulemaking to amend Section 51, excuse me, Section 12 51.50 to allow a construction permit applicant to 13 reference a prior environmental report.                    And we don't 14 anticipate the need for any guidance changes on this 15 item.
16                  Any questions on that?
17                  All right, next slide.              So Appendix J is 18 topics related to the applicability of other processes 19 to the Part 52 process.                So here we're addressing 20 three issues.        The first is really a correction to 21 clarify the rules around an ITAC hearing.
22                  The second is a change that would reduce 23 burden on certain COL applicants and holders for the 24 submittal of FSAR updates, the Final Safety Analysis 25 Report updates.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
177 1                And  the    third    clarifies        inconsistency 2 relating to back fitting and issue finality.                      So on 3 these, the staff recommends rulemaking for the first 4 and the second items, and rulemaking with guidance 5 changes to address the third item.
6                The    regulatory        changes      would    affect 7 Sections 2.4, Section 50.71, and Section 51.09.                        And 8 the guidance updates would affect Management Directive 9 8.4 and NUREG-1409.
10                Any questions on this?
11                Go to the next slide then.
12                MEMBER BLEY:        Jim?
13                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes?
14                MEMBER    BLEY:        This      is  Dennis.        I'm 15 thinking between now and a half hour from now we're 16 going to want to take a break.                  You have about ten 17 slides on current scope with a lot of detail. Is your 18 intent to go through those in any detail?
19                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          No.      I'm giving you an 20 overview.      This is as much detail as I'm getting into 21 or I intended to get into because of the, you know, 22 the breadth of the scope we have to cover here.
23                MEMBER BLEY:        Okay.      And you have a bunch 24 of supporting slides.          They're not really planned as 25 part of 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
 
178 1                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Oh, yes, yes, yes.          I'm 2 sorry. Yes, all that stuff is, the supporting slides, 3 I think, start on, I don't know, Slide 20.                    I don't 4 know what it is, Slide 30.
5                  MEMBER BLEY:        Thirty-four.
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thirty-four, yes, that's 7 all for your reference.              Basically, I'll just talk 8 about what's in there.            Just so you know, the first 9 couple are, I believe, references.                  And then we have 10 a couple on what administrative corrections we found 11 and fixed during the activities so far.                  And then the 12 rest of it is basically an overview in a little bit 13 more detail of what we're doing, what the scope items 14 are.      So there's more information there.
15                  MEMBER BLEY:        Okay.      Well, given that, I 16 think we're going to finish a little early.                    So I'm 17 going to call a break right now.
18                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
19                  MEMBER BLEY: Let's take a 20 minute break 20 and return then at 20 minutes after, what is it back 21 there, it'll be 3 o'clock, 20 after 3:00.
22                  PARTICIPANT:        20 after 3:00.
23                  MEMBER BLEY:        we're in recess now for 20 24 minutes.
25                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
179 1 went off the record at 2:59 p.m. and resumed at 2 3:20 p.m.)
3                    MEMBER BLEY:          Okay, we are now back in 4 session.        Jim O'Driscoll, if you're ready, please 5 continue on.
6                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure, thank you. I think 7 we were on Slide 26, just finishing that up and going 8 to Slide 27.
9                    MEMBER BLEY:        Yes.
10                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:        Okay.      So Slide 27 is on 11 Appendix K which is our miscellaneous topics area.
12 And      in    this  area,      we're    addressing      ten  separate 13 topics.          We're    recommending          rulemaking    with      no 14 guidance changes needed for eight of the items.
15                    For the two items, the items related to 16 the      change    process      for    plant-specific        technical 17 specification bases, and the use of ASME Boiling 18 Pressure Vessel Code Section 11, in the Part 52 19 process, the staff is recommending no action.
20                    So any questions on all of this?
21                    DR. CORRADINI:        Yes.      This is Corradini.
22 Can you explain completion of power ascension testing 23 and what -
24                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Sure.      So  we    have 25 petitioned for rulemaking recently.                    I think it's PRM NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
180 1 51.70 where we basically agreed with the petitioner 2 that rulemaking was needed to basically change the 3 rules where we collect fees on new reactors or when 4 that should start.
5                  So in that rule, we changed the point at 6 which we collect fees from the 51.03G finding to a new 7 point where we call it the beginning of commercial 8 operation which has been agreed to be the point at 9 which power ascension testing is completed.
10                  So we currently don't have a requirement 11 for      notification      of  the    NRC    when    that  point      is 12 reached.        The applicant need not, you know, there's 13 nothing triggering a letter or communication between 14 the applicant and us.                So we need to change the 15 regulation in order to facilitate that other rule 16 change.        Does that make sense?
17                  DR. CORRADINI:          So it's more about when 18 fees kick in versus anything about the power ascension 19 testing.
20                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes, exactly.        This is 21 about fee collection.
22                  DR. CORRADINI:          Okay, fine.        All right.
23 That helps me, thank you.              Sorry.
24                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:              Sure.      Any    other 25 questions on 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
 
181 1                  All right, next slide.              So a little bit 2 about the cost and savings on this.                    As part of the 3 development of regulatory basis, the staff considered 4 the potential cost and savings for both the industry 5 and the NRC.        These estimates are primarily, excuse 6 me, are preliminary and are subject to change as we 7 further develop the regulatory solutions.
8                  In the proposed rule, we intend to make 9 available a separate draft cost estimate document that 10 will have more details.            So we evaluated the proposed 11 changes        against  the    regulatory          baseline  which      is 12 essentially        what    we're    currently        doing. And      we 13 analyzed the savings, you know, for the next ten 14 years where it was applicable.
15                  So we came up with a total net savings 16 that could be anywhere from $18 million to about $30 17 million for this rule, depending on -- that's with the 18 industry and the NRC combined.                  And that's depending 19 on the, and that variation depends on the discount 20 rate we used on the estimate.
21                  So we also did a corresponding sensitivity 22 study on this which basically concluded that it was a 23 very, very, very high chance of obtaining some cost 24 savings for proceeding with this activity.                        So of 25 course, in addition to that, the rulemaking also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
182 1 achieves the non-quantifiable benefits such as public 2 confidence.
3                    The biggest items that avert the cost are 4 items related to the security requirements for storage 5 of unirradiated fuel, the elimination of the need for 6 the DC renewals, the clarification of the scope of 7 Tier 1 information, the elimination of information 8 requirements related to conformance with the standard 9 review        plan,  and    enabling        a    construction    permit 10 applicant to reference a review and environmental 11 assessment.
12                    So in addition to that, there were several 13 areas where the changes increased the costs. So these 14 major ones are the requirements for evaluation of 15 severe accidents earlier in the Part 50 application 16 process.        The items are related to the PRA changes, 17 the application of the Three Mile Island requirements 18 for Part 50 applicants, and also the requirements for 19 operators' licensing requirements for the coal plant.
20                    Next slide.        So that's the review of the 21 regulatory basis.            And right now, we'd like to take 22 your comments and try to answer them as best we can.
23                    MEMBER BLEY:        All right.      I think you've 24 mostly gotten them along the way, but thanks very 25 much, Jim, for the presentation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
183 1                Members, questions, comments at this time?
2                VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE: So this is Joy. And 3 I guess I had a couple of comments just to throw out 4 on the table. I was just thinking about your comment 5 about the completion of power ascension testing.                    And 6 of    course, with    an    established,          experienced,      LWR 7 industry, that might work.
8                But I'm just thinking about what happened 9 with Fort St. Vrain and Fermi Unit 1.                And there were 10 a lot of hiccups even after they completed or they got 11 to where they were starting commercial operation.
12 That might be something that some folks might want to 13 be worried about.
14                But anyway, the other thing is, and I 15 brought it up earlier, about the cumulative effects of 16 changes during construction.                And I think Vesna's 17 comment about having the PRA and updating might be a 18 good combined subject that I do hope you bring up.
19 Because I think that is probably the way one would 20 address it.      But of course that's just my initial 21 reaction.
22                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.      I'm  sorry --
23                (Simultaneous speaking.)
24                MEMBER    BLEY:        Anyone      else  have    some 25 comments?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
184 1                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Dennis, if I may.
2                  MEMBER BLEY:        Sure, Paul.
3                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes. Thank you, Dennis.
4 Jim, could you just go over Tier 1 and Tier 2 in terms 5 of what that terminology means?
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:        Okay.        So it's a leading 7 question.
8                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Yes, I know.
9                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: And I'll have a follow-up 10 question        after  it.      So    we    had      an  item    in    the 11 regulatory basis where we are going to better define 12 these terms.        Because right now the way the current 13 structure, we structure our Part 52, these terms are 14 defined in the appendices.
15                  So  essentially,          each      applicant    could 16 propose their own scheme where we could end up with a 17 different scheme for what is in Tier 1, Tier 2, and 18 Tier        2  star  amongst      the    different,        you    know, 19 applications.          Because      all    the      stuff  is  in    the 20 appendices portion.
21                  So what we were proposing is come up with 22 a uniform definition of these items and put it into 23 the Part 52 itself as opposed to the appendices.                          So, 24 you know, that clarifies things, it makes it a little 25 bit more standard across all the applicants.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            (202) 234-4433
 
185 1                  So what do these terms mean?                Well, you 2 know, essentially Tier 1 is information that is 3 approved and certified, quote, unquote.                    Tier 2 star 4 is    reviewed    information.          I'm      sorry,  Tier    2    is 5 reviewed information that staff used to come to their 6 regulatory finding and becomes part of a licensing 7 basis.        And Tier 2 star, it's a bit of a tricky 8 definition, but basically, because there are several 9 different flavors of what Tier 2 star is.
10                  But  essentially        it's      information      that 11 would be normally, it could be one or two, but anyway, 12 it needs to be -- you need to go to the NRC in order 13 to, you know, before you can change that information.
14 I'm not sure if that --
15                  MEMBER KIRCHNER:          That helps.      It was a 16 leading question.              So I'll follow it up with my 17 second.        You know, I don't understand why the FSAR is 18 not in Tier 1.          That's my first observation.                  That 19 always, I struggled with that.
20                  And secondly, if the FSAR is not in Tier 21 1 then, for example, if you're using 50.59, you have 22 to have that FSAR for any subsequent changes and such.
23 So I'm just --
24                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          So can I help you with 25 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
 
186 1                MEMBER KIRCHNER:          Go ahead.
2                MR. O'DRISCOLL:        I think what's important 3 is that, you know, the licensing basis, you know, 4 50.59 works with the licensing basis.                  So what's in 5 Tier 2 is in the applicant's licensing basis.                  So in 6 other words, that information needs to be reviewed.
7                If you're going to do a change under 50.59 8 in a new reactor plant that was licensed under Part 9 52, you have to review Tier 2 information, you know, 10 that's part of the licensing basis, in order to 11 determine      whether    you    need    to,    you know, if it 12 screens out or screens in, if you have to notify the 13 NRC.
14                So in that sense, that information isn't 15 throw away information.            It's important, and Tier 2 16 information becomes part of the licensing basis. Tier 17 2 star, it's obvious, Tier 1, has to do with the 18 concept of finality so the one design, one review. So 19 in other words, what is the minimum information that 20 you really need to remain fixed such that somebody can 21 reference the design, and you would have a reasonable 22 assurance that you're not going to have any variation 23 that would undermine your finding on that information.
24 Does that make sense?
25                MS. BRADFORD:        Hey, Jim, do you mind if I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
187 1 weigh in here?        This is Anna Bradford.
2                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
3                  MS. BRADFORD: So in my mind, when I think 4 of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2 star, one of the most 5 important things is the change process that controls 6 it.        Like you touched on 50.59.                Remember, 50.59 7 itself does not apply under Part 52.                    Part 52 has a 8 50.59-like process within Part 52 itself.
9                  And you asked, you know, the thought 10 process of why isn't the FSAR Tier 1.                  So the things 11 that are in Tier 1, you have to get an exemption, and 12 you have to get NRC approval before you change it.
13 But operating plants, they don't have to get an 14 exemption and NRC approval every time they change 15 something.
16                  They  could    use    50.59      in  their  change 17 control processes.          So I think it would be an over, 18 you know, an overcontrolling situation if everything 19 in their FSAR was in Tier 1 and then needed an 20 exemption to change it. It would be very difficult to 21 operate that way.
22                  MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay, I understand that.
23 So just one quick side observation, Anna and Jim, that 24 what we, in the material presented on 10 CFR 53, 25 they're talking about Tier 1 and Tier 2 safety kind 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
 
188 1 requirements.      And I think that opens the door for 2 some potential confusion, just an observation.
3                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
4                MEMBER BLEY:        Other members?      All right, 5 Thomas, could we open the public line?                  I'd like to 6 ask for comments.
7                PARTICIPANT:        The bridge line is open for 8 public comment.
9                MEMBER BLEY:        Thanks, Thomas.      If anyone 10 is on the bridge line and would like to make a 11 comment, please speak up.              Give us your name, and 12 provide your comment.
13                PARTICIPANT:        Hello.      We cannot hear.
14                MEMBER BLEY: Is that someone who wants to 15 make a comment?      I'm not sure what's going on, but we 16 don't have anyone.          Thomas, let's close the bridge 17 line again. Members -
18                PARTICIPANT:        We can't hear the meeting 19 any longer.
20                MEMBER BLEY:        Thomas, I don't know what's 21 going on.      But if somebody can check on the bridge 22 line and see if there is someone who wants to comment.
23                MR. BURKHART:        Hey, Dennis?
24                MEMBER BLEY:        Yes?
25                MR. BURKHART:        This is Larry.      I think I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
189 1 recognized that was Tom Bergman's voice. I think he's 2 having difficulty hearing --
3                  PARTICIPANT:        He cannot hear the meeting.
4                  MR. BURKHART:        Yes.
5                  MEMBER    BLEY:        All      right. Is    there 6 anything we can do about it or should I just go ahead?
7                  MR. BURKHART:          Tom, I think we, Thomas, 8 can you let us know the status?
9                  MR. BERGMAN:          Well, the bridge line is 10 still open.
11                  MEMBER BLEY:        All right.        If someone is 12 out there --
13                  MR. BERGMAN:        You could mute it.
14                  MEMBER BLEY:          -- and wanted to make a 15 comment, please contact our staff and Quynh Nguyen and 16 talk to him about getting the comment to us.
17                  At this time, I'd like to ask the members, 18 you know, I only heard one thing kind of created some 19 confusion among the members.                And is there any reason 20 the members would like to prepare a letter at this 21 time?        If so, we could do it in April.
22                  Doesn't sound like it.              I don't think so 23 either.        Anna, we said at the beginning we'd come 24 back.        I don't really have anything I can point to to 25 say there's a time before you have to draft language.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
190 1 But you ought to come back.
2                  But I would say if along the way you --
3 and Clint will be watching what's going on, I think --
4 if there's anything that sounds like it could be a 5 significant issue, and you'd like to make sure we 6 weigh in on it before you publish the language, we'd 7 be happy to do that.            But I don't think we'd call for 8 another meeting at this time.                Anything else from the 9 members before we end the meeting?
10                  Anna and Jim, we really appreciate the 11 discussion and the presentation. It was very helpful.
12                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.      I actually have 13 another slide, ha, ha, ha, before we close out.
14 Because I want to recap what you guys said, what I 15 understand on our end.
16                  MEMBER BLEY:        Is this Jim?
17                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes, this is Jim.
18                  MEMBER BLEY:        Okay.
19                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I'm sorry about that.
20                  MEMBER BLEY: Yes, I can see it now at the 21 bottom.        Okay.
22                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.      So I just wanted 23 to say that we'll do a recap in a second, you know, 24 what I understand you're most interested in, but we're 25 going to consider these comments received.                        We'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
 
191 1 going to commence drafting the proposed rule, we're 2 going to submit the proposal to the Commission.                And 3 of course we're going to plan for additional public 4 meetings      during the proposed rule phase.      And then, 5 of course, we're going to consider your feedback.
6                  So there's a couple of items I thought we 7 would want to note that I think Dr. Rempe mentioned 8 the process, basically the concern was to ensure that 9 the Part 52.50 alignment rulemaking is aligned with 10 Part 53 rulemaking, make sure that those process 11 boxes, et cetera, basically there's no gaps, you 12 know, that basically they work together.            That's my 13 understanding, to make sure that that's something that 14 is of interest to the ACRS or at least to Dr. Rempe.
15                  Dr. Rempe also mentioned the cumulative 16 effects issue, basically what would happen if you have 17 too many changes, and what does that do to your 18 findings?      So I think there was some discussion on 19 possibly looking at the Appendix B, the PRA changes 20 we're making to try to capture that discussion or to 21 make that, you know, to put thoughts in that area.
22                  And then I think the only other item I had 23 here is you mentioned a desire to engage, you know, 24 as early as appropriate when there is something, you 25 know, substantive as far as rule language goes.                  So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  (202) 234-4433
 
192 1 I've taken note of that.          And I'll work with Alan and 2 my branch chief.          But we've got to determine if 3 there's a logical point for that interaction.
4                And those are the items I caught that were 5 of interest, you know, that were important, I think.
6 Does that work?
7                MEMBER BLEY:        That works for me. And if 8 any other members want to say something you may.                    I 9 also would point out, we did get a summary document 10 that you've produced on the relevant guidance that 11 would be applicable to this rule change.
12                Last meeting we had, you talked about the 13 extent of the work that would be, whenever you get the 14 rule language in place, I'm still assuming, and you 15 could correct me if I'm wrong, that you're going to 16 meet the intent of having the guidance in place before 17 the final rule is issued.            Is that still the intent?
18                MR. O'DRISCOLL:        That's correct. So just 19 to briefly clarify that, the intent of the staff in 20 this project is to have both the FRN and the rule 21 language done, and the corresponding draft guidance 22 ready at the same time.              So at the proposed rule 23 phase, when these documents go out for comment, the 24 whole picture would be there, the FRN with the rule 25 language plus the draft guides.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      (202) 234-4433
 
193 1                  MEMBER BLEY: Okay. So we'll get a chance 2 to review those at the same time we review the rule.
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          That's correct.
4                  MEMBER BLEY:        That sounds good. Anything 5 else from the members before we close the meeting?
6                  Well, we won't close the whole meeting, 7 but at this time, I turn it back over to the Chairman.
8                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Thank you, Dennis. And 9 since we have a little bit of time here, I'd like to 10 go back to Thomas and see if we can reopen the pubic 11 line and get that comment from the person who was 12 trying to comment.
13                  Thomas, can you go back to the pubic line 14 and see if we can open it?
15                  PARTICIPANT:        Hello, can you hear me?
16                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:          Yes, we can.
17                  PARTICIPANT: Okay, it's breaking up on my 18 end.      I'm not sure. When the line was open before, we 19 couldn't hear anything that was going on at the 20 meeting.
21                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Okay. So we're just 22 wrapping up the meeting, right now and it's offering 23 comments to the public.            So you can --
24                  PARTICIPANT:        So you can't make comments 25 without acknowledgment that I'm connected and people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      (202) 234-4433
 
194 1 can hear me.
2                  CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            We can hear you.
3                  MR. MOORE:        This is Scott Moore, and I'm 4 on the public line.            Whoever's talking, the room can 5 hear you now.        So you can go ahead and make a comment.
6                  PARTICIPANT:          Okay, thank you very much, 7 Scott.
8                  MR. TSCHILTZ:          This is Mike Tschiltz, I'm 9 a consultant to the Nuclear Energy Institute. And I'm 10 working on the monthly review of the Part 50.52 11 lessons        learned    for    the    draft        regulatory    basis 12 document.
13                  And, you know, as the staff indicated 14 earlier        on  in  the    meeting,      there's      a  number      of 15 beneficial changes that were included in the draft reg 16 basis, many of which were identified by the industry 17 through experiences with licensing and constructing 18 plants under Part 52.
19                  The    one    area    that      I  would  like      to 20 characterize a little different is I think there's a 21 number of recommended changes that the industry came 22 forward with that the NRC has decided not to include 23 in the proposed rulemaking, at least in the draft reg 24 basis for the proposed rulemaking.
25                  And I recognize that the process is 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
 
195 1 the public to comment on those areas, and we intend to 2 do so.        I think many of the ones that have been left 3 out by the staff are ones that are critical for people 4 who are trying to decide whether to go forward with a 5 Part 52D or Part 52 COL or DC and COL.                      So there are 6 several changes that are crucial.
7                    One of them is the ability to make changes 8 during construction without prior approval.                      And the 9 staff has included an option in there for making 10 changes to Tier 2 information.                        But the industry 11 believes it needs to go forward further than that.
12 And there's no safety basis for not allowing changes 13 to Tier 1 and to Tier 2 star information.                        And the 14 industry is basically not intending to use Tier 2 star 15 going forward.
16                    So those comments will be forthcoming.
17 But I would just like to say that there's been a 18 number of areas that we've been advocating over a 19 number of years for changes that aren't included in 20 the draft regulatory basis.                    So that concludes my 21 comments.
22                    CHAIRMAN      SUNSERI:            Thank  you.        Any 23 additional comments from members of the public?
24                    MR. BERGMAN:        I have a comment if I may.
25                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:            Go ahead.      Please go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
196 1 ahead with your comment.
2                MR. BERGMAN:          Yes, this is Tom Bergman 3 with NuScale Power.        Just two comments.          And as Mike 4 noted, we'll comment extensively on the rule.                        But 5 since it was a bit of a lengthy discussion today, I 6 thought about Anna's discussion of how extending or 7 eliminating the timeframe on design certification that 8 the Agency can maintain an acceptable level of safety 9 was good.
10                I would say that that same logic extends 11 to Sub-part E for standard design approvals and Sub-12 part F for manufacturing licenses, both of which have 13 a 15-year term.      And in the case of an SDA it cannot 14 currently be renewed.              So we would advocate for 15 conforming changes to those sub-parts.
16                The second discussion was on marking FSAR 17 with the tiered information, and there was a proposal, 18 why not the whole FSAR in Tier 1?                  And I go back to 19 the original rule in 1989.              In fact, that was the 20 concept.
21                And  it    was    quickly        realized    to      be 22 completely unworkable given the volume of information 23 in an FSAR and as the tiered structure was created.
24 And the tiering is relevant only to certification. So 25 if you were to incorporate the entire FSAR into Tier NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
197 1 1, you might as well delete Sub-part E from the rule.
2 Nobody would use Sub-part E anymore.
3                  The  Tier      1    isn't        certified      design 4 information.        I question the need for Tier 2 star.
5 Neither        KHNP  nor    NuScale      had      any    Tier    2    star 6 information. And I'm wondering if that's a step back.
7                  But in the regulatory basis document, it 8 also mentions extending the tiering to Sub-part C, and 9 E, and F which makes no sense since they aren't 10 certified. I mean, the COL incorporates the certified 11 design in those cases, but neither an SDA nor a 12 manufacturing        license      have      any      certified      design 13 information.        Therefore, Tier 1 and Tier 2 star are 14 just conceptually incorrect.
15                  And  even      in    the      COL    or  DCA,      the 16 administrative burden of marking up the FSAR, it isn't 17 clear what's gained.            Tier 2 star was already marked 18 in FSAR, but again, if you don't have any Tier 2 star, 19 you don't have it.
20                  But most applicants have put Tier 1 in a 21 different part of the application than the FSAR.                          And 22 it isn't clear why that process isn't sufficient.                          So 23 anytime        we're    looking        at        things    that        add 24 administrative burden, I would just question.                        But I 25 did want to make the point that please don't put 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
 
198 1 FSAR in Tier 1 or extend that concept to other sub-2 parts.        That's all I've got.
3                    CHAIRMAN      SUNSERI:          Thank you for      the 4 comment. Any other members of the public care to make 5 a comment?
6                    MR. MOORE:        Thank you for the comment.
7 Any other members of the public have a comment?
8                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay, so I think we can 9 now close this line.            Thank you, Scott, for bridging 10 the communications for us.                Thomas, you can close the 11 line.
12                    MR. MOORE:        So for the members on the 13 line, the two public members, the committee heard all 14 of your comments.          We just couldn't hear for a moment 15 what was going on amongst the members.                          They're 16 closing the line in the room right now. Well, there's 17 not a room, it's a virtual room.
18                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              All right. So that 19 concludes this session.
20                    MR. MOORE:        Thank you very much, have 21 a good day.
22                    CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:              Thomas, you can now 23 close that line, and it concludes the regulatory basis 24 discussion.        It is ten minutes to 4:00 p.m. and we 25 have some time.          I would suggest we take a ten minute NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        (202) 234-4433
 
199 1 break        and resume    at  4    o'clock        with the    report 2 preparation on the control of access letter.                      So we 3 will recess until 4:00, and pick that letter up then.
4 Thank you.
5                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 6 went off the record at 3:48 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          (202) 234-4433
 
ADAMS Accession No. ML21061A033 ACRS Meeting:
Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing March 4, 2021 1
 
Todays Meeting
* Provide an update on the effort since the last ACRS meeting on this rulemaking (meeting transcript and slides: ADAMS Accession No. ML19294A009)
* Walk through the major topics addressed in the regulatory basis and identify specific regulatory issues on which input is sought
* Discuss the estimates of costs and savings
* Provide an update on next steps and the rulemaking schedule
* Receive ACRS members perspectives from their review of ESP, DC, and COL applications and the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 52 process 2
 
OPENING REMARKS Anna Bradford - Director NRR Division of New and Renewed Licenses 3
 
NRC STAFF PRESENTATION 4
 
NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Allen Fetter, NRR Senior Project Manager 5
 
Purpose of the Rulemaking
* Implement Commission direction in SRM-SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications to:
  - Align Parts 50 and 52 reactor licensing processes
  - Improve clarity
  - Incorporate lessons learned in recent licensing proceedings
  - Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff 6
 
Rulemaking Process Identify            Regulatory          Proposed          Final Rule need for            Basis                Rule rulemaking
* Described in
* Analyze
* Proposed rule  *Final rule text SECY-15-0002        alternatives for    text resolution
* Commissions
* Public meeting direction in
* Public Meeting
* 75-day public SRM-SECY
* 75-day public        comment period 0002                comment period Opportunities for public participation 7
 
Staffs Milestones of Rulemaking Activities October 1, 2018      Started scoping and outreach January 15, 2019          Held public meeting July 11, 2019    Internal alignment on scope of RB Issuance of Commission Information August 27, 2019            Paper SECY-19-0084 September 20, 2019          Held ACRS meeting 8
 
Staffs Milestones of Rulemaking Activities (contd)
November 21, 2019            Held public meeting February 2020      First draft of RB inputs completed April 29, 2020            Held public meeting January 2021            Published RB and FRN March 2021                Held public meeting Ongoing              Evaluate comments on RB 9
 
Next Steps April 2021  RB public comment period ends, staff commence drafting the proposed rule October 2021 Complete technical development of the proposed rule Forward the proposed rule to the May 2022          Commission for approval Forward the final rule to the Commission March 2024                for approval 10
 
Regulatory Basis
* A regulatory basis (RB) provides a sound foundation for informed decision-making throughout the rulemaking process
  - The RB describes the technical, legal, and policy issues and the staffs consideration of options to resolve the issues
  - A cost-benefit analysis of options is developed as part of the RB 11
 
Scope of the Regulatory Basis
* Number of items in scope: 50
* Number of alternatives evaluated: 115
* Items with rulemaking recommendation: 43
  - Number of items with rulemaking and guidance development or revision: 23
  - Number of guidance documents affected: 17
* Number of CFR Parts potentially affected by rulemaking: 9 12
 
Alignment of Parts 50 and 52
* The RB addresses four areas in which the NRCs policies and direction for new reactors have translated into requirements and guidance for Part 52 applicants only:
  -  Application of Severe Accident Policy Statement
  -  Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements
  -  Three Mile Island Requirements
  -  Fire Protection Design Features and Plans 13
 
Lessons Learned from Recent Experience
* The RB also covers topics for which the NRCs recent experience with new reactor licensing has resulted in lessons learned Operator  Physical        Fitness      Emergency Licensing  Security        For Duty        Planning Part 52                Applicability of Environmental Other Processes  Miscellaneous Licensing Topics      to the 10 CFR      Topics Process                Part 52 Process 14
 
Appendix A:
Applying the Severe Accident Policy Statement to New Part 50 License Applications
* Key issue: Part 50 does not address the NRCs Severe Accident Policy Statement
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking, Guidance Only
* Staff recommendation: Rulemaking to revise Part 50 to include Part 52-like requirements about the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents, with updates to related guidance
  - Regulatory scope: 10 CFR 50.34
  - Guidance: Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter 19 15
 
Appendix B:
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)
Requirements
* Key issues: (1) Application to Part 50 of Part 52 requirements for use of PRA in design; (2) availability of risk-informed process for safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs); and (3) timing of certain PRA upgrades
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking and Guidance
* Staff recommendations: Rulemaking and guidance to (1) extend Part 52 PRA design requirements to Part 50; (2) broaden access to risk-informed classification of SSCs; and (3) permit deferral of some PRA upgrades
  -  Regulatory scope: (1) 10 CFR 50.34 and 50.71; (2) 10 CFR 50.69; and (3) 10 CFR 50.71
  -  Guidance: Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.174, 1.200, 1.201, 1.205, and 1.206 16
 
Appendix C:
Three Mile Island (TMI) Requirements
* Key issue: Inconsistency between Parts 50 and 52 regarding the submission of TMI-related information
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking and Guidance
* Staff recommendation: Rulemaking and guidance to align the regulations related to TMI requirements
  - Regulatory scope: 10 CFR 50.34
  - Guidance: SRP Chapters 6.2.5 and 13.3 17
 
Appendix D:
Description of Fire Protection Design Features and Fire Protection Plans
* Key issue: Requirements for specific fire protection information to be submitted in applications are limited to Part 52
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking
* Staff recommendation: Rulemaking to extend the Part 52 fire protection requirements to Part 50
  - Regulatory scope: 10 CFR 50.34 18
 
Appendix E:
Operator Licensing
* Key issues: Inadequacy of regulations for operators of cold plants about (1) criteria for simulation facilities; (2) plant walkthrough; and (3) continuing training
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking and Guidance, Guidance Only
* Staff recommendations: Rulemaking and guidance to govern operator licensing at cold plants
  - Regulatory scope: (1) 10 CFR 55.4 and 55.46; (2) 10 CFR 55.45; and (3) 10 CFR 55.31
  - Guidance: New guidance 19
 
Appendix F:
Physical Security Requirements
* Key issue: Potential unnecessary burden on industry related to unirradiated fuel
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking and Guidance
* Staff recommendation: Rulemaking and guidance to clarify what requirements apply to unirradiated fuel
  - Regulatory scope: 10 CFR 70.22, 73.55, 73.56, and 73.67
  - Guidance: RG 1.206 20
 
Appendix F:
Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) Requirements
* Key issues: Construction site access issues, risk insights learned from reactor plant construction, Medical Review Officer procedures, and technical corrections
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking and Guidance
* Staff recommendation: Rulemaking and guidance to improve the consistency and clarity of the FFD regulations
  - Regulatory scope: 10 CFR 26.5, 26.401, 26.405, and 26.419
  - Guidance: RG 5.84 and DG-5040 21
 
Appendix G:
Emergency Planning (EP)
* Key issues: (1) Initial emergency classification and action level scheme; (2) emergency plan change process; (3) emergency preparedness exercises; (4) significant impediments to development of emergency plans; and (5) offsite contacts, arrangements, and certifications
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking, Rulemaking and Guidance, Guidance Only
* Staff recommendations: (1) Guidance only; (2) rulemaking; (3) rulemaking and guidance; (4) rulemaking and guidance; and (5) rulemaking
  -  Regulatory scope: (1) 10 CFR 52.17 and 52.79, Sec. IV.B of App. E to Part 50; (2) 10 CFR 50.54; (3) Sec. IV.F.2.a of App. E to Part 50; (4) 10 CFR 52.18; and (5) 10 CFR 52.17
  -  Guidance: New guidance 22
 
Appendix H:
Part 52 Licensing Process
* Appendix H addresses five areas in which NRC experience with Part 52 new reactor licensing has resulted in lessons learned:
  -  Design Certification (DC) Renewal (H.1)
  -  Change Process (H.2)
  -  Design Scope and Standardization (H.3)
  -  Standard Design Approval (SDA) (H.4)
  -  Content of Applications (H.5) 23
 
Appendix H:
Part 52 Licensing Process
* Some staff recommendations in Appendix H:
  - Rulemaking to remove the 15-year duration of DCs and associated renewal requirements (H.1)
  - Rulemaking and guidance to clarify and simplify certain change processes (no action recommended in other cases) (H.2)
  - Rulemaking and guidance to define and clarify design terms and to streamline design requirements (H.3)
  - Rulemaking to facilitate filing of applications that reference more than one SDA (H.4)
  - Rulemaking and guidance to simplify, align, and clarify the content of applications (H.5) 24
 
Appendix I:
Environmental Topics
* Key issues: (1) environmental report submittal process for a construction permit application; and (2) incorporation by reference (IBR) of prior environmental assessment for combined license (COL) but not for construction permit
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking, Guidance Only
* Staff recommendations: (1) No action; and (2) rulemaking to allow IBR for construction permit
  - Regulatory scope: (1) N/A; and (2) 10 CFR 51.50 25
 
Appendix J:
Applicability of Other Processes to the 10 CFR Part 52 Process
* Key issues: (1) contested proceeding under 10 CFR 2.4 excludes ITAAC hearing; (2) undue burden on certain COL applicants and holders from annual FSAR updates; and (3) inconsistencies in requirements for backfitting and issue finality
* Alternatives considered: No Action, Rulemaking, Rulemaking and Guidance, Guidance Only
* Staff recommendations: Rulemaking to (1) align definition of contested proceeding; and (2) alleviate regulatory burden on certain COL applicants and holders; and rulemaking and guidance to (3) remove inconsistent issue finality provisions
  -  Regulatory scope: (1) 10 CFR 2.4; (2) 10 CFR 50.71; and (3) 10 CFR 50.109
  -  Guidance: MD 8.4 and NUREG-1409 26
 
Appendix K:
Miscellaneous Topics
* Appendix K addresses lessons learned for several topics covered across Title 10 Notice of        Applicability of Safety Parameter issuance of          10 CFR Part Display System findings re:        21 definitions console ITAAC              to Part 52 Use of ASME            Notice to NRR Change process        Reporting errors BPV Code,            of information for plant-specific    and changes in Section XI,          with significant TS bases            ECCS models under Part 52          implications Risk-informed        Description of          Completion of approach to              ITAAC                  power generic safety        completion at            ascension issues          COL issuance                testing 27
 
Estimates of Costs and Savings
* Total net averted costs to industry and the NRC of between $18.0 million and $29.7 million
* To account for sensitivity to plant-specific conditions, the NRC staff performed an uncertainty analysis, which found that the chance of net averted costs is greater than 99%
* Rulemaking would yield nonquantifiable benefits as well (regulatory efficiency, public confidence) 28
 
Questions 29
 
Recap and Next Steps
* Consider comments received on the regulatory basis
* Commence drafting the proposed rule
* Submit the proposed rule to the Commission
* Plan for additional public meeting(s) during the proposed rule phase
* Staff will consider your feedback from this meeting 30
 
Rulemaking Schedule Submit Start drafting proposed    Issue final proposed rule to the    rule rule Commission April 2021    May 2022    October 2024 31
 
Contact Information Jim ODriscoll, Project Manager Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, & Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: James.ODriscoll@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-1325 Allen Fetter, Senior Project Manager Division of New Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-8556 32
 
How to Stay Informed and Involved
* The meeting summary will be posted soon
* Search regulations.gov on the docket ID NRC-2009-0196
* Press the comment button and leave your comment    33
 
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 34
 
References ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation 86 FR 7513 - Regulatory Basis-Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned From New              86 FR 7513 Reactor Licensing 04/29/2020 - Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and        ML20141L609 Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66]
85 FR 9328 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2020                                85 FR 9328 2/14/20 - Letter to Petitioner M. Lorton on Behalf of Algignis, Inc.; Results of PRM Sufficiency Review; ML20008D640 Petition for Rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants (Pkg) 11/18/2019 - 84 FR 63565 - Miscellaneous Corrections                                                    84 FR 63565 11/21/2019 - Category 3 Public Meeting Summary RE: Regulatory Basis: Rulemaking to Align                ML19344C768 Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (NRC-2009-0196)
Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Policies & Practices-Part 50      ML19294A009 52 Meeting - September 20, 2019 SECY-19-0084, Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New            ML19161A169 Reactor Licensing (RIN 3150-AI66)
SECY-19-0034, Improving Design Certification Content                                                  ML19080A034 35
 
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Summary of January 15, 2019 Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking to Align the          ML19023A046 Regulations in Parts 50 and 52 to Address Updates to the Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned for Future New Reactor Applications SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New            ML13277A420 Reactor Applications SRM-SECY-15-002, Staff Requirements-SECY-15-002-Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies,            ML15266A023 Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants          60 FR 32138 SECY-89-013, Design Requirements Related to the Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactors,        ML003707947 dated January 19, 1989 SECY-90-016, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to  ML003707849 Current Regulatory Requirements, dated January 12, 1990 SECY-93-087, Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light- ML003708021 Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs, dated April 2, 1993 Bipartisan Policy Center Report Recommendations on the New Reactor Licensing Process                ML13059A240 36
 
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for          https://www.nrc.gov/rea Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, with updates through 2007                            ding-rm/doccollections/
nuregs/staff/sr0800/
Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment      ML17317A256 in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, dated 2018 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 2, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy        ML090410014 of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated 2009 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Revision 0, Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and      ML061090627 Components in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated 2006 Regulatory Guide 1.189 Revision 3, Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants. dated 2018      ML17340A875 Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. dated 2018        ML18131A181 Bipartisan Policy Center Report Recommendations on the New Reactor Licensing Process            ML13059A240 Regulatory Guide 5.84, Revision 0, Fitness-for-Duty for New Nuclear Power Plant                ML15083A412 Construction Sites, dated July 2015 Draft Regulatory Guide 5040, Urine Specimen Collection and Test Result Review Under            84 FR 48750 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs, dated September 16, 2019 NRC Management Directive 8.4, Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue              ML18093B087 Finality, and Information Requests. DT-19-15, dated 2019.
NRC NUREG-1409, Revision 1, Backfitting Guidelines., Draft Report for Comment, dated        ML18109A498 2020                                                                                                            37
 
Administrative Corrections 10 CFR            Description
§ 2.627            The references to § 2.617 in § 2.629(b) and § 52.83(b) should be to § 2.627.
Part 52 Appendices Both the ABWR and System 80+ design certification final rules (Part 52, Appendices A and B, respectively) initially correctly referred to ANSI/AISC N-690. Both the AP600 and AP1000 design cert final rules (Appendices C and D, respectively) incorrectly stated ANSI/AISC-690 (omitting the N). 64 Fed. Reg. 72,002, 72,018; 71 Fed. Reg. 4,464, 4,481.
Unfortunately, the NRC changed the ABWR and System 80+ references to match the AP600 and AP1000 references in the 2007 Part 52 rulemaking. Correct the reference in Appendices A-D by adding the N back into ANSI/AISC N-690.
Part 52 Appendix D Part 52, Appendix D, Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f . . . but the reference is incorrect. It Section VI.B.6    should be except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g . . . (rather than VIII.B.5.f).
Part 52 Appendix E Part 52, Appendix E, Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f . . . but the reference is incorrect. It Section VI.B.6    should be except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g . . . (rather than VIII.B.5.f).
Part 50 Appendix J Under Option B, Subsection IV. Recordkeeping, refers to §§ 50.72 (b)(1)(ii) and § 50.72 (b)(2)(i). There is no § 50.72 (b)(1)(ii), only § 50.72 (b)(1). 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J references 10 CFR Part 52 and 10 CFR 50.54(o) imposes Appendix J as a requirement.
§ 21.3, Basic    Revise definition by deleting text in brackets as follows:
component        (2) When applied to standard design certifications [under subpart C of part 52 of this chapter] and standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter,
§ 52.43(b)        Correct the following text in 10 CFR 52.43(b) which was not updated when SDAs were renamed to state: Subpart E of this part governs the NRC staff review and approval of a final standard design.
§ 52.79(c)(2)      Correct as follows: all terms and conditions that have been included in the final standard design approval will be satisfied.
38
 
Administrative Corrections 10 CFR      Description 52.39(a)(1) Reference to 52.27 needs to be changed to 52.26. When the NRC issued the 2007 Part 52 final rule (72 FR 49352; August 28, 2007), § 52.27 was the Duration of permit section. However, when the NRC issued the Limited Work Authorization for Nuclear Power Plants final rule a few weeks later (72 FR 57416; October 9, 2007), § 52.27 was redesignated as § 52.26, the current § 52.27 was added, but the reference to § 52.27 in § 52.39(a)(1) was not changed to § 52.26.
52.98(d)    Lessons Learned-Miscellaneous lessons learned-clarify the reference to ML and subpart F-there is unnecessary wording in the paragraph that is confusing. During BC review and concurrence, this item was deemed an administrative correction
            ,and was descoped from the rulemaking and placed in the Fall 2020 administrative corrections rule scope.
39
 
Current Scope 40
 
Current Scope (contd) 41
 
Current Scope (contd) 42
 
Current Scope (contd) 43
 
Current Scope (contd) 44
 
Current Scope (contd) 45
 
Current Scope (contd) 46
 
Current Scope (contd) 47
 
Current Scope (contd) 48
 
Current Scope (contd) 49
 
Current Scope (contd) 50
 
Abbreviations ACRS  Advisory Committee on Reactor  ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Safeguards                          Acceptance Criteria ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access    NPV  Net Present Value and Management System          NRC  Nuclear Regulatory Commission ASME  American Society of Mechanical NRR  Office of Nuclear Reactor Engineers                            Regulations BPV  Boiler and Pressure Vessel    OL    Operating License CFR  Code of Federal Regulations    PRA  Probabilistic Risk Assessment COL  Combined License              RB    Regulatory Basis CP    Construction Permit            SAMDA Severe Accident Mitigation Design DC    Design Certification                Alternative DCD  Design Control Document        SDA  Standard Design Approval ECCS  Emergency Core Cooling System  SOC  Statement of Considerations EP    Emergency Planning            SRM  Staff Requirements Memorandum FFD  Fitness For Duty              SRP  Standard Review Plan FRN  Federal Register Notice        SSC  Structure, System, and Component FSAR  Final Safety Analysis Report  TMI  Three Mile Island IBR  Incorporation By Reference    TS    Technical Specifications 51
 
Evolving to a Community of Practice Presentation to ACRS March 4, 2021
 
TEAMS PURPOSE
* Provide a common high-level framework applicable to all disciplines (technical, legal, corporate)
* Address obstacles to using risk information in decision-making
* Do not reinvent the wheel but increase consistency, awareness, and usability of existing risk-informed approaches, e.g., probabilistic risk assessment and enterprise risk management
* Do not revisit existing criteria; note that one of the frameworks steps facilitates the explicit consideration of the appropriateness of decision criteria 2
 
REMOVING OBSTACLES Inconsistent management support and expectations (A)                                            Potential policy flexibilities not reflected in guidance (S)
              *Reluctance to adapt processes (T)
Lack of guidance (T)
*Applied too late in process (S)                      *Limited consideration of benefits (S)
      *Presence of uncertainties (M and S)
Siloed organizations (SMART)
                    *Treatment of low likelihood events (S)                                            *Where regulations provide flexibility, overly rigid interpretation of regulations (S)
Limited awareness of guidance (T)
Summarized from: Implementing Commission Direction on Applying Risk-Informed Principles in Regulatory Decision Making, ML19319C832 3
* Denotes cultural challenges
 
FRAMEWORK
* Note: Step 1, Be  clear about the problem, includes What is required?  4
 
on the decision Act          After hearing everyone and evaluating the information, document what you spotted and managed, and make a decision.
Consequence Likelihood 5
 
INCREASING CONSISTENCY HOW DO WE JUDGE SUCCESS?
7
 
TRAJECTORY OF PERSPECTIVES 2018 NRR RIDM Survey                              2020 OIG SCCS It would be appropriate for the agency      The risk-informed initiative effectively to expand the use of risk or risk insights          supports NRCs mission Most staff favorable towards expanding use of RIDM, but about a                    Significant shift towards quarter of staff unsure                      favorable since 2018 survey 8
 
USING STAFF FEEDBACK 2018 NRR RIDM Survey 2020 Be riskSMART Diagnostic Survey Most staff perceived gap in expectations regarding risk Most staff not comfortable with        Staff engaged, though some guidance            may still perceive gap Be riskSMART meets staff where they are!
9
 
CASE STUDIES Reactor Safety                  Legal
* Subsequent License Renewal
* Legal Review Timing
* Refueling Outage Inspection  Corporate Material Safety
* Forward Funding
* Onsite ISFSI Inspection with Research COVID-19
* Regulatory Readiness for Security, Preparedness              Emergent Technical Issues and Response
* Security Bounding Time 10
 
Subsequent License Renewal Challenge Should we modify the number of key words as part of SLR operating experience audits to improve focus?
Highlights
* Achieved common understanding of the attributes that are most important or require management
* Decision based on a full suite of scenarios that would not have otherwise been considered
* Enhanced transparency and documentation
* Collaborative effort 11
 
Refueling Outage Inspection Challenge: Complete RFO inspections despite...
* Increasingly shorter RFO durations
* Many critical activities
* Limited resident inspector staff Solution: Utilize dedicated region-based inspector
* Focus on risk-assessment and management
* Select periods of heightened risk and critical activities Be riskSMART Highlights
* Manage - Address licensee concerns with added inspection
* Realize - Positive feedback from resident inspectors and staff 12
 
Onsite ISFSI Inspection with COVID-19 Challenge: Conducting Prairie Island ISFSI inspection during COVID-19
* Dry cask storage activities only performed every 2 years
* Some inspection activities require direct inspector observation Solution: Multiple Inspection Options Considered
* Five options considered
* Options ranged from cancellation to routine treatment Be riskSMART Highlights
* Successful use of Be riskSMART to evaluate multiple options
* Consideration of >1 risk area: Oversight and Public Perception
* Act - Remote inspection with onsite follow-up
* Manage - Innovative use of cameras
* Teach - Sharing lessons learned with other regions/headquarters 13
 
Security Bounding Time Challenge Develop a Commission paper that includes recommendations for providing credit for a broader set of operator actions, including the use of FLEX equipment, and providing credit for response by local, State, and Federal law enforcement in our security inspection program at operating nuclear power plants.
Potential Solutions A risk-informed concept for protecting against the design basis threat (DBT) that considers the range of capabilities and assets available to licensees that, taken together, provide reasonable assurance that licensees can maintain adequate physical protection of their sites against the DBT.
Two new concepts:
* Implement a new concept, Reasonable Assurance of Protection Time (RAPT), which recognizes the existing layers of protection available to sites along with how the safety and security of the site would evolve over time following initiation of an attack, in a revision to existing guidance;
* Provide options for the Commissions consideration on whether and how to implement a site-specific security bounding time (SBT)
Be riskSMART Highlights Beclear about the problem - Recognizing the importance of the first step in the framework.
* In the development stage of the concepts in this paper we were really challenged to look at the problem statement from a different perspective due to challenges in defining the timeframe for survivability of an adversary.
Acton a decision - Industry is already working toward implementing the RAPT concept.
14
 
Legal Review Timing Challenge: Should the Office of the General Counsel defer formal legal review of certain staff initiatives until after the staff has had some early engagement with external stakeholders?
Be riskSMART Highlights
* Spot - Balance the advantages of a thorough legal review with Staffs eagerness to get early stakeholder input
* Manage - Early and proactive communications with client offices to promote a common understanding (i.e., together build a Risk Appetite context for various areas)
* Teach - This framework can be used to evaluate changes in the timing and scope of legal reviews 15
 
Forward Funding Challenge: How to improve efficiency around the agencys forward funding (prior year obligations available to spend)
Be riskSMART Highlights
* Be  clear about the problem - Federal-wide issue, opportunity to maximize the use of resources
* Spot - Approach from a neutral perspective, consider challenges and opportunities
* Teach - Proactively manage balances as the year progresses rather than as a metric at the end of the year; and continue working on how budget execution influences budget formulation 16
 
Research Regulatory Readiness for Emergent Technical Issues Challenge: Regulatory Readiness for technical issues not currently addressed in business lines
* Close technical gaps ahead of regulatory needs
* Identify over the horizon research with longer-term benefits Solution: Future Focused Research Program
* Balanced research portfolio addressing a wide range of advances in technologies
* Identifies long term research needs Be riskSMART Highlights
* Manage - Be cognizant of novel technologies
* Teach - RES seminars & technical workshops 17
 
Project Team      Ambassadors        Community of Practice Allison Robinson, OCHCO Amanda Marshall, NSIR                    Jonathan Marcano, NMSS Amy Hsu, OIP                        Joshua Havertape, R3 Arlette Howard, OCFO                      Julie Winslow, NRR Becca Richardson*, ADM                        June Cai*, NMSS Ben Ficks**, OCFO                    Kathy Lyons-Burke, OCIO Betsy Ullrich, R1                        Katie McCurry, R2 Brian Harris*, OGC                        Lindsay Merker, R4 Brian Harris*, RES                        Matt Whorral, OIP Candace de Messieres*, NRR                      Michael Dean, R1 Darrell Adams, OCA                Michael Gartman*, OGC/OCHCO Darrell Roberts, DEDM (Champion)              Mirabelle Shoemaker*, NMSS Dennis Morey, NRR                Mirela Gavrilas*, NSIR (Team Lead)
Diana Betancourt-Roldan, R3                Patricia Walker-Webb, OCIO Elba Sanchez-Santiago, R3                        Paul Krohn, R1 Elizabeth Bowlin*, OCFO                    Patrick Moulding*, OGC Eric Duncan*, NRR (Co-Team Lead)                  Reed Anzalone*, NRR Erik Martinez Rodriguez, NSIR                Roger Hannah*, OPA R2 Fanta Sacko, NSIR                      Russell Chazell, SECY Geoffrey Miller, R4                      Sarah Lopas, NMSS Jack Giessner**, R3                        Shane Sandal, R2 Jacob Steffes, R3                      Shaun Anderson, NRR Jake Dolecki, R1                      Shilp Vasavada*, NRR Janice Owens, OIP                        Stacy Prasad*, NSIR Jason Paige*, NRR (Project Manager)                  Steve Vitto, NSIR Jason Piotter*, NMSS                          Tam Tran, NMSS Jennifer Whitman, NRR                  Tania Martinez Navedo, NRR Jim Beardsley, NSIR                        Taylor Lamb, NRR Joanne Savoy, OIP                      Trish Gallalee, OCHCO John Lubinski**, NMSS                        Wendy Reed, RES Jonathan Fiske, NSIR                        William Cook, R1 Woody Machalek, ADM        18
*Project Team
**Executive Sponsors
 
2021 Objectives and Key Results
* Objective: Increase the use of the Be riskSMART framework across all sectors of the NRC
* KR1: At least 85% of staff successfully pass a knowledge check following the completion of Be riskSMART training before the end of calendar year 2021
* KR2: The Be riskSMART framework is used to inform the evaluations and analyses that support at least 50% of the key decisions in each office in 2021
* KR3: In 2021, each Office submits to the IdeaScale Success Gallery four examples in which use of the Be riskSMART framework improved the timeliness and quality of decision-making
* KR4: At least 75% of external stakeholders surveyed by NRC during 2021 agree that the use of risk information has improved the timeliness and quality of the agencys decision-making over the past year.
19
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
* Diagnostic tool
* Be riskSMART NUREG (publicly available)
* Case studies
* Posters with crosswalks to discipline-specific guidance
* Training course in TMS HTTPS://USNRC.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/BE-RISKSMART 20
 
VISION Give staff the courage to make real change MISSION We are creative catalysts who remove barriers to innovation and launch initiatives that improve the way we work to make SAFE use of nuclear technology POSSIBLE
 
OPERATING MODEL No two EMBARK projects are alike  so how we engage varies.
We        We            We          We        We ENABLE    ADVISE      PARTNER      CREATE      TEACH We INSPIRE.
 
THE GARAGE                                      NEUROLOGY The Garage is our process          DEPARTMENTS Neurology is about improvement effort. It is the place            understanding risk, overcoming fear where we tune up our processes                  of failure, challenging the status and upgrade our procedures to                  quo, and breaking down barriers.
transform the way we regulate for              We envision an agency that the nuclear future. We are looking              proactively and creatively adapts to at our approach and prototyping                our environment while staying true new ideas.                                      to our mission.
NEXTGEN DATA                                    #HASHtagchange NextGen Data is focused on taking              HASHtagChange is all about data to the masses, leveraging the              improving the experience for our data we have in innovative ways to              internal and external bring transparency and greater                  stakeholders and providing more understanding for better regulatory            effective tools that enhance the decisionmaking.                                way we interact with each other.
 
Risk Informed Process          Request for Confirmatory        Subsequent License for Evaluations                  Information            Renewal Enhancements EVALUATING "BUSINESS AS USUAL" Oversight and                    Mission Analytics Inspection Activities                    Portal
 
Risk Informed Process for Evaluations Established a more efficient means to review licensing actions that address low-safety-significance issues within the licensing basis by leveraging current regulations and risk-informed initiatives to allow licensees to request plant-specific exemptions or license amendments for low-safety-significance issues using a streamlined NRC review process.
 
Request for Confirmatory Information Created a subset of the standard request for additional information process that may be used to facilitate the licensee docketing of high-confidence, low complexity, factual information that was identified by or presented to the staff during the review process. A more efficient and effective means of communication.
 
Subsequent License Renewal Enhancements Partnered with our staff in the Division of New and Renewed Licenses and completed a process improvement evaluation for subsequent license renewals. Identified activities that could be enhanced during the safety review while maintaining effectiveness, many of which are currently being implemented in ongoing reviews.
 
Conducted an Innovate Campaign seeking regional input for ROP innovation ideas using the Ideascale platform. Currently developing project plans for the candidate ideas. Additionally, developing dashboards and analytics tools for regional uses to enhance data driven decisionmaking and improve inspections.
Oversight and Inspection Activities
 
Empowering the NRC staff to be more informed, effective, and agile than ever before through the democratization of data and data analysis tools.
Mission Analytics Portal
 
The MAP Approach Create the              Skillsets &            Empower              Technology Environment              Partnerships          Staff Create a Data Analytics  Secure data analytics  Empower staff by      Acquire technologies and Environment that        skill sets and partner providing them access develop tools that enable contains authoritative  them with program      to the data and tools more effective analytics data sets that users can organizations          they need            and communications access.
 
The Benefits of Data Analytics...
Performance              Analysis and Estimation          Workload Management              Resource Management Data analytics has allowed us to  The tools we have developed        Analytics tools have been    Analytics tools are also being track and improve agency          enable us to better track    created that provide leadership  developed and used for the performance through reports      historical actuals in ways that  more effective ways to track      management of agency that provide live feedback in  will allow the agency to improve  workload distribution among      resources to promote the ways that provide depths of      the way we estimate moving        staff members so that the    optimal allocation of resources.
insight that were not possible              forward.            organization can more optimally before.                                              allocate resources for mission accomplishment.
 
Demo MAP-X - The External Portal The purpose of MAP-X is to fundamentally transform the way we engage with our stakeholders by empowering them with data analytical tools, including a secure, flexible, and personalized self-service gateway to retrieve, submit, and/or interact with regulatory related information and assessment tools through a standard web browser.
 
Key Functions of the External Portal Current Status            Submissions                Billing Information Related Documents Reading Room for Ongoing Requests Connection to NRC Systems
 
COME FLY WITH US!}}

Latest revision as of 10:21, 29 November 2024

Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguard 683rd Full Committee Meeting - March 4, 2021, Pages 1-288 (Open)
ML21075A211
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/04/2021
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Burkhart, L, ACRS
References
NRC-1424
Download: ML21075A211 (288)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21075A211&oldid=3820501"