ML19344A419

Transcript of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing: 11/21/19 Public Meeting Transcript & Slides (NRC-2009-0196)

ML19344A419
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/21/2019
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Andrukat D
References
NRC-0682, NRC-2009-0196, RIN 3150-AI66
Download: ML19344A419 (80)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing Docket Number:

NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66 Location:

Rockville, Maryland Date:

Thursday, November 21, 2019 Work Order No.:

NRC-0682 Pages 1-55 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

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

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

+ + + + +

4 STATUS OF RULEMAKING TO ALIGN LICENSING PROCESSES 5

AND APPLY LESSONS LEARNED FROM NEW REACTOR LICENSING 6

+ + + + +

7 PUBLIC MEETING 8

+ + + + +

9

THURSDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 21, 2019 11

+ + + + +

12 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 13

+ + + + +

14 The Meeting convened in the Commissioners' 15 Hearing Room at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One 16 White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, at 1:00 p.m.,

17 Sheila Ray, Facilitator, presiding.

18 PRESENT:

19 SHEILA RAY, Facilitator 20 ANNA BRADFORD, Director, Office of New Reactor 21 Regulation (NRR) Division of New and Renewed 22 Licenses 23 JAMES O'DRISCOLL, Project Manager, Division of 24 Rulemaking, Environmental, & Financial 25 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 2

1 Safeguards (NMSS)

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 3

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

Meeting Logistics and Opening Remarks..............4 3

NRC Staff Presentations............................9 4

Questions and Answers.............................44 5

Adjournment.......................................55 6

7 8

9

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2

1:00 p.m.

3 MS. RAY: Hello. Welcome everyone. We'll 4

begin our meeting.

This is on the Status of 5

Rulemaking to Align the Licensing Processes and Apply 6

Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing.

7 My name is Sheila Ray, and I'll be serving 8

as your facilitator today.

My role is to help the 9

meeting go smoothly and to achieve a common objective.

10 My approach will be to set the ground rules, encourage 11 participation and open dialogue, and maintain a 12 respective environment.

I will keep the meeting 13 focused on the topic at hand and keep track of the 14 agenda to ensure timeliness and all topics are 15 covered.

16 This is a Category 3 Public Meeting, which 17 means that it is structured to provide opportunities 18 for public interaction. We have provided an agenda, 19 which includes time to discuss your questions on the 20 screening criteria and the scope in SECY-19-0084. Our 21 meeting is scheduled for one 2-hour session with no 22 breaks.

23 Before we get started, I'd like to go over 24 some logistics and housekeeping items.

For ground 25 rules, please let's have one speaker at a time.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 5

1 Please state your name before speaking, as this 2

meeting is being recorded and transcribed.

Please 3

hold your questions until after the NRC presentations.

4 Let's all follow the agenda to stay on track and stay 5

on topic.

6 At this time, I'd like to ask that you 7

please mute or place on vibrate all of your electronic 8

devices since this session is being recorded.

9 Do we all agree to the ground rules? I 10 see nods. Thank you.

11 I have a brief safety message for those of 12 us in the room. In the event of an emergency, please 13 exit through the doors at the rear of this conference 14 room and then proceed per the directions of the 15 security staff.

If you decide to leave after the 16 emergency has been initiated, please inform Carolyn or 17 myself so we can accurately account for the 18 participants.

19 With regard to getting around the 20 building, all visitors are allowed unescorted access 21 on this level.

As long as your visitor badge is 22 visible, you'll have unrestricted access to the lobby, 23 the cafeteria, Starbucks, and the general store.

24 To get to the restrooms, please leave the 25 room through the door and turn left. The women's room

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 6

1 is on your left, and the men's room is on the right 2

side of the hallway right before the glass doors.

3 I'd appreciate if everyone could take the 4

time to sign in.

The sign-in sheet is near the 5

entrance on the table with the slides. We also have 6

public meeting feedback forms available, which we hope 7

you'll take the time to fill out.

8 For those of you in the room, there are 9

microphones to speak so that everyone can clearly hear 10 you. For those on the phone, the operator will place 11 you into a queue to ask a question. Please press *1 12 to indicate that you have a question.

13 During the Q&A session, I will alternative 14 between those in the room and those on the phone.

15 When you speak, please speak slowly and clearly and 16 remember to state your name and organizational 17 affiliation.

18 For those of you dialing into this 19 meeting, we have an operator on the line to assist 20 you. You'll be in listen-only mode unless you specify 21 that you would wish to speak.

You can accommodate 22 this by pressing *1.

23 For those on the phone, if you're at a 24 computer and would like to see the slides for today's 25 meeting, you can access them on the NRC's home page

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 7

1 under public meetings and involvement. Then click the 2

link on the public meetings schedule, scroll down to 3

today's date, and click on the link for the meeting 4

info.

There you'll find the meeting notice and 5

agenda.

On the third page, click the link for the 6

meeting details, and after that you'll find the link 7

to the presentation slides in the related document 8

section.

9 Please note that a list of the ADAMS 10 Accession Numbers to the documents referenced in the 11 staff's presentation can be found at the end of the 12 staff's slide presentation. Please be careful not to 13 discuss any safeguards, security-related, classified 14 or proprietary information during this meeting.

15 Although we intend to have an open dialogue, please 16 note that the NRC will not make any regulatory 17 commitments during the meeting.

18 Next slide, slide three. The purpose of 19 today's meeting is to provide an update on the staff's 20 efforts since the last public meeting the NRC held on 21 this topic, which took place on January 15th of this 22 year. A summary of that meeting can be found in ADAMS 23 under Accession Number ML19023A046.

We'll also 24 provide you with an overview of the staff's screening 25 process criteria and the current scope as described in

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 8

1 SECY-19-0084.

2 Finally, we will conduct a question-and-3 answer session on the scope of the regulatory basis 4

and status of the rulemaking and provide an overview 5

of the rulemaking schedule. We hope this interaction 6

will help you understand the process by which we 7

determine the scope of the regulatory basis. We'll 8

take the information, perspectives, and questions we 9

hear today into consideration when developing the 10 regulatory basis. We plan to hold additional meetings 11 after the regulatory basis is published.

12 Next slide.

Now I'd like to introduce 13 Anna Bradford, Director of the New and Renewed 14 Licensees Division in NRR, for opening remarks.

15 MS. BRADFORD: Thanks, thanks, Sheila. As 16 Sheila said, my name is Anna Bradford.

I'm the 17 Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses, 18 NRR. That's a new division, but this rulemaking is 19 not new, and we've been planning and working on it for 20 a little while now.

So as you heard, today we're 21 going to update you on the status of our activities 22 for this rulemaking, which will better align Parts 50 23 and 52, as well as incorporate lessons learned.

24 You'll hear about the process we used to determine the 25 scope, as well as our schedule moving forward.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 1

2 3

4 5

9 I personally believe this rulemaking is an important vehicle for improving our processes and our approaches, and so I look forward to your input and to the feedback during this discussion. Thanks.

MS. RAY: Thank you, Anna. I'll now turn 6

it over to Jim.

7 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

All right.

We're on 8

slide six now. Good afternoon. I'm Jim O'Driscoll, 9

the lead rulemaking project manager on this activity.

10 I'm in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 11 Safeguards in the Division of Rulemaking, 12 Environmental, and Financial Support, REFS for short.

13 Joining me today are Carolyn Lauron, Allen 14 Fetter who is going to show up a little bit later, and 15 Demetrius Murray.

Also joining me today is Joe 16 Colaccino, which he should be -- thanks, Joe. He's 17 the author of SECY Paper 19-0084.

All those folks 18 are from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 19 Regulation. We have several other NRC staff here in 20 the audience, as well.

21 As stated earlier, the staff is engaging 22 in rulemaking to better align the regulations in 23 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 in four areas as described on 24 pages four and five of SECY-19-0084. The staff will 25 also address items derived from lessons learned from

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 10 1

previous new reactor licensing activities described in 2

the enclosures of the SECY.

3 The purpose of this rulemaking is to 4

implement the Commission's direction in SRM SECY 5

0002. The goal of the rulemaking is to better align 6

Parts 50 and 52 licensing processes such that 7

equivalent designs submitted for NRC review under each 8

process are assessed against consistent technical 9

standards that yield outcomes with equivalent 10 demonstration of adequate safety, security, and 11 environmental protection.

12 In SECY-15-0002 that was issued on January 13 8th, 2015, the staff made several recommendations to 14 the Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates 15 to ensure consistency in the new reactor licensing 16 reviews.

The staff also made recommendations to 17 address staff-identified lessons learned obtained 18 through the licensing reviews completed up to this 19 July. These changes are intended to improve clarity 20 and reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff.

21 As well as these, the staff has addressed or intends 22 to address editorial and administrative changes, as 23 well.

24 This slide, slide eight, shows our typical 25 rulemaking process.

Rulemaking is how the NRC

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 11 1

develops its regulations. We are in the second box 2

with the star over it, the regulatory basis, where our 3

present task is to define the scope and develop the 4

regulatory basis. We have completed our activities to 5

define the scope. We have communicated the scope to 6

the Commission in SECY-19-0084.

We are currently 7

developing the regulatory basis for that scope.

8 For a rulemaking of this size, development 9

of the regulatory basis takes about 12 months after 10 the scope is defined, so we anticipate publication of 11 the regulatory basis for public comment in the fourth 12 quarter of calendar year 2020, but this date may 13 change depending on the results of the staff's current 14 effort to align on the alternatives for each issue.

15 Since we last discussed this process in 16 January, the rulemaking division enacted an initiative 17 to better streamline a rulemaking process. In the new 18 process, the agency will publish the regulatory basis 19 document for comment and then we will address those 20 comments during the proposed rule phase, as opposed to 21 publishing a final regulatory basis document.

The 22 staff expects this change to take months off of the 23 overall rulemaking time line.

24 After we develop and publish the 25 regulatory basis, there will be a 75-day public

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 12 1

comment period.

The written comments we receive 2

during that comment period will go on the docket for 3

the rule.

In the proposed rule, we will include a 4

summary of the stakeholder interactions, comments, and 5

key messages we received from the public during the 6

development of the regulatory basis.

7 The next two major steps are the 8

publication of the proposed rule and the publication 9

of the final rule.

We will continue to provide 10 opportunities for public comment in this process.

11 Upon publication of the proposed rule in 12 the Federal Register, you will have an opportunity to 13 review the proposed rule and provide written comments 14 to the NRC. We expect to hold a public meeting during 15 that public comment period.

16 Slide nine. The NRC requires a regulatory 17 basis for most of its rulemakings in order to ensure 18 sound and informed decision-making throughout the 19 rulemaking process.

The regulatory basis documents 20 the justification for why rulemaking is the best way 21 to resolve a regulatory issue. The regulatory basis 22 also describes the technical, legal, or policy 23 information that would support the content of the 24 rule.

25 The regulatory basis will include a draft

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 13 1

cost-benefit analysis of the proposed changes. The 2

Commission's direction in SRM-15-0002 provided the 3

direction to the staff to proceed with rulemaking.

4 The project was deliberately budgeted to 5

start in fiscal year 2019. The staff commenced work 6

in October 2018.

The staff's first task was to 7

clearly define the scope of the regulatory basis for 8

the rulemaking.

From the staff's outreach efforts 9

inside and outside the NRC, the staff collected a 10 large number of items to consider for inclusion.

11 On January 15th of this year, the staff 12 held a Category 3 public meeting to request feedback 13 from external stakeholders. NEI arranged for a panel 14 of industry representatives to attend.

Using the 15 input from the staff and stakeholders, the staff 16 aligned on the scope on July 11th. In late August, 17 the staff issued information paper SECY-19-0084 which 18 provided information to the Commission on the status 19 and the scope of the regulatory basis.

In late 20 September, the staff briefed members of the Advisory 21 Committee on Reactor Safeguards [(ACRS)]

subcommittee on 22 regulatory policies and practices. The staff received 23 views and comments from the ACRS as individual 24 members.

There was no ACRS letter issued on the 25 topic. The slides and transcript for that meeting are

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 14 1

available in ADAMS at Accession Number ML19294A009.

2 Slide 11.

For the next steps of this 3

project, the staff plans to complete the technical 4

development of the regulatory basis in June 2020. The 5

document will be handed over to the Division of 6

Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support for 7

technical editing and concurrence, which should be 8

complete by November 2020 or earlier. We continue to 9

look at process efficiencies in order to improve this 10 schedule.

11 The regulatory basis should be published 12 for public comment in December of 2020 for a 75-day 13 public comment period.

About 30 days after the 14 publication, we plan to hold a public meeting to 15 discuss the regulatory basis and to seek public 16 comments. After the public comment period concludes, 17 we will commence drafting the proposed rule in March 18 2021.

19 We're in slide 12. The staff requested 20 inputs on the scope of the regulatory basis from a 21 wide variety of stakeholders, including the general 22 public, industry organizations, and non-governmental 23 organizations. In addition, the staff solicited input 24 internally.

In all, approximately 250 separate 25 scoping items were received.

The staff initially

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 15 1

screened each item to determine if it aligned with the 2

overall purpose of the rulemaking.

The item was 3

screened in if it met at least one of the following 4

criteria: it addressed the alignment requirements for 5

contents of application submitted under Part 50 or 6

Part 52; or it addressed a lessons learned from new 7

reactor licensing activities; or it was a change that 8

could significantly improve the licensing process or 9

the change would clarify the regulations or reduce 10 unnecessary burden and would not adversely impact 11 other requirements.

12 Next slide.

The staff did a second 13 screening of the items to obtain a manageable list of 14 high-impact items.

An item was screened out if it 15 would provide neither a significant safety benefit, 16 nor a clear burden reduction to staff or industry.

17 Items were also screened out if they could be 18 addressed through more appropriate processes than 19 rulemaking.

If the item was judged to be an 20 administrative correction, it was transferred to the 21 agency's periodic administrative corrections 22 rulemaking for corrections.

If the item could be 23 addressed through guidance alone without any changes 24 to the regulation, it was screened out.

25 Next slide. In July, the staff aligned on

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 16 1

the scope of the regulatory basis. The current scope 2

consists of the four alignment items discussed on 3

pages four and five of SECY-19-0084. The scope also 4

includes 52 lessons-learned items listed in the 5

enclosure to SECY-19-0084.

Eight administrative 6

corrections identified during the final screening 7

process were transferred to the NRC's 2019 8

administrative corrections rule.

9 I'll now hand it over to Sheila for 10 questions-and-answers session for the meeting.

11 MS. RAY: Thank you. I know NEI has some 12 comments and a short presentation, but I will ask 13 anyone in the room or anyone on the phone if they'd 14 like to make a comment beforehand.

For the room, 15 please step up to the microphone and on the phone 16 please press *1.

17 Are there any comments on the phone?

18 THE OPERATOR:

There's no questions at 19 this time.

20 MS. RAY: Thank you. I'll turn it over to 21 NEI for their prepared remarks.

22 MR. SHEA: Good afternoon. I'm Joe Shea.

23 I'm the Vice President of Nuclear Technology 24 Innovation at the Tennessee Valley Authority and also 25 chairman of the NEI New Plant Working Group.

I'll

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 17 1

just offer a couple of comments, and I think Mike 2

Tschiltz will offer a few more.

3 I think Anna and Jim, as you've commented, 4

the lessons, 250 items, if you will, or lessons that 5

are being contemplated in this rulemaking have 6

developed and aggregated over a long period of time, 7

you know, from the mid 90s and early 2000s through the 8

first wave of the renaissance, if you will, and the 9

experiences there.

So it's a long time that these 10 have developed, and they've been identified by you 11 all, the staff, as you've used the processes.

12 Designers, utilities, applicants have all experienced, 13 have gained experiences and out of those have been 14 lessons learned, if you will.

15 So as we looked and prepared for today's 16 meeting, we looked at, stepped back and said what's 17 the value of rulemaking to address all of those 18 lessons learned.

Certainly, we did want to assess 19 whether rulemaking, you know, item by item is the best 20 vehicle to affect the resolution of that item. And 21 when you get around to drafting the rule change 22 language in the draft stage and, ultimately, by the 23 final stage, you know, having confidence among all of 24 us that it unambiguously resolves whatever the issue 25 was. And then, finally, whether it's timely relative

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 18 1

to serving whatever is coming next, and I think that's 2

what struck us as we were looking at the schedule.

3 Certainly, as you understand the Administrative 4

Procedures Act and the internal processes for doing 5

rulemaking, there's a piece and a pace for everything 6

and a priority that's defined by the staff, consulted 7

with the Commission, you know, dialogue with 8

stakeholders. But it's a priority to that.

9 But when we kind of step back and said the 10 final rule won't be in effect until nearly five years 11 from now, and so we think it's worth reflecting on, at 12 some point, if you step back and look at what may 13 happen over the next five years.

No one has got a 14 perfect crystal ball, right? But you can see from a 15 range of designers out there all working hard on 16 designs that some of them are in various stages of 17 interface with you all in terms of regulatory 18 approvals. A variety of state and local drivers are 19 causing utilities to look at considering new build for 20 a different set of drivers than in the early 2000s, 21 but nothing that, you know, has a lot more confidence 22 that that's going to lead to new applications and new 23 builds, but, certainly, new drivers and those drivers 24 are going to get more intense over the next five 25 years, not less, you know, from our point of view.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 19 1

And, certainly, you can imagine that between now and 2

five years from now, there are going to be entities 3

vying to put applications together, whether it's 4

design certs, whether it's COLAs, whether it's 5

construction permits or even, well, it's not really 6

germane but 50, you know, 21 type, 104(c) application.

7 But in the meantime all of those entities will be 8

trying to work through the work-arounds, work 9

thoughts, or whatever the resolution passed that got 10 through all of these lesson issues to date.

11 So it's probably worth reflecting on 12 whether, not so much that the rulemaking is worth 13 doing at all but maybe looking at it differently. If 14 I'm trying to consider working with an entity to put 15 an application together and I've got a date that's 16 before five years from now, is there a point in time 17 where I'd like to have a certain scope of these things 18 resolved, maybe it's a smaller scope, to, you know, 19 make that application process go better.

20 So it's perhaps worth considering, you 21 know, and I know there's steps in the process that 22 mandate certain defined periods of times, but is there 23 a process by which the final rule date can be brought 24 to the left even if that involves a different scope 25 and really looking hard at that question because,

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 20 1

ultimately, you know, there are entities out there 2

trying to develop the next wave of applications.

3 So just kind of a big-picture perspective.

4 I know Mike and we all went through the SECY this 5

morning and cross walked it to what NEI had provided 6

earlier this year or late last year and we got some 7

perspectives on, more clarifications to make sure that 8

we've got common understanding of what you all scoped 9

into the SECY. But I just wanted to offer that kind 10 of big picture. Maybe looking at, before we all get 11 down two years down, three years down a five-year 12 road, you know, is this the time to look at it a 13 little differently.

14 Mike?

15 MR. TSCHILTZ: Thanks, Joe. My name is 16 Mike Tschiltz. I'm a consultant for NEI, so my title 17 is still Senior Director of New Reactors at NEI.

18 If you can go to the next slide, please.

19 So what we did is we tried to do a reconciliation of 20 what was in the SECY compared to what we had submitted 21 for the January 15th public meeting, and what we 22 called out of that crosswalk were the items we, it 23 wasn't clear to us whether they were fully addressed 24 in the scope of the proposed rulemaking.

25 So let me go through these item for item

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 21 1

and maybe you can clarify and help us out and let us 2

know where these are at. So the first one has to do 3

with changes during construction.

And what we had 4

submitted as the need for a process for constructing 5

while you were resolving issues with your licensing 6

basis and not having to be in 100-percent compliance 7

with our licensing basis at all times during 8

construction.

9 We had submitted a written paper to Fred 10 Brown on this a while ago and I know there was a 11 response. I think SECY-19-0034 was written partial in 12 response to the design certification content, which 13 was considered what was provided in that paper.

I 14 know part of the issue is deceasing the level of 15 detail in Tier 1 content, but, in our view, that only 16 addresses part of the issue because there's an ongoing 17 need to address this changes during construction issue 18 and I kind of wanted to know where you guys were at 19 with all of that.

20 MS. BRADFORD: Do you just want to go item 21 by item, if that makes sense?

22 MR. TSCHILTZ: Yes, yes.

23 MS. BRADFORD: Okay. So this is something 24 we've actually been working on internally, looking at 25 the interpretation of implementation and when it's

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 22 1

actually put into, when the changes are put into 2

effect and made operable. So we have been thinking 3

about that and going back and looking at that paper, 4

which I think was October 2018. So we are drafting a 5

draft reg guide that will address this changes during 6

construction and allowing some deviation from the 7

licensing basis while constructing at the risk of the 8

applicant, and we're hoping to put that out for public 9

comment within the next few months and get comment 10 back and then finalize it. And that was a way, and, 11 Joe, kind of getting to your earlier comment of 12 getting it out on the street earlier without waiting 13 necessarily for this rule, but it will eventually be 14 sort of rolled up into this rule so it's not just a 15 standalone reg guide.

16 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay, great. That's very 17 helpful.

If we can go to the next slide, we'll go 18 after the next issue. So the next issue is one that 19 involves delays in issuance of COL due to design 20 certification errors.

I know we had an ongoing 21 dialogue with this, and NEI had provided a paper with, 22 I think, three options in it at one point in time.

23 And in the last, I think there was a May 8th letter 24 that you signed out, Anna, that this would be 25 considered as part of the rulemaking process, which is

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 23 1

when we did the crosswalk it didn't jump out to us 2

where this actually was in the rulemaking scope so --

3 MS. BRADFORD: Okay. I would go back and 4

look at that to see if it's exactly, you know, if it's 5

clear where that is.

But as you know, like you 6

mentioned, there was a long history of this of letters 7

kind of going back and forth and with our fundamental 8

issue being that we were trying to figure out how, 9

when we were talking about this previously, how we can 10 issue a license when we know that that license, when 11 we know the applicant's proposal doesn't meet all of 12 our regulations at the time because of the errors in 13 the design certification. So I will take that as a 14 comment to go back and look at where it is that we 15 think we'll be looking at that in this rule.

16 MR. TSCHILTZ: All right. Next issue. So 17 this gets to a comment that was submitted concerning, 18 essentially, what constitutes essentially complete.

19 And I think there has been some differing views on 20 this, as opposed to essentially complete for 21 determining the safety basis as opposed to something 22 more along the lines of complete with drawings and 23 detailed drawings and that aspect of the design.

24 So just looking at this, we were kind of 25 wondering where that essentially complete is included

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 24 1

in the rulemaking. We wanted to make sure that was 2

something that was going to be addressed, and it 3

didn't jump out to us in that.

4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, so this one kind of 5

maps out, considering this is in the scope and spirit 6

in page five. I think it's the bottom item on page 7

five of the enclosure to the SECY.

That's where that 8

maps to.

9 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. The other item on 10 here gets to submission of a complete application 11 versus portions of an application, which I think may 12 be of some interest and is allowed under Subpart E of 13 the SDA. So we're wondering if that's included in the 14 rulemaking.

15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. We consider that 16 covered by the last item on page seven of Enclosure 1 17 of the SECY.

18 MR. TSCHILTZ:

This is all good news 19 because we haven't found anything where there's really 20 a gap yet except, potentially, the one item.

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We describe it, you know, 22 make sure that we describe it the same way. It might 23 be different, but, you know, this is where we think 24 we're aligned.

25 MR. TSCHILTZ:

Sure, no.

I appreciate

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 25 1

that.

I mean, part of the challenge here was that 2

when we did the crosswalk, I mean, the language isn't 3

exactly the same because I know you had to compile a 4

large number of items into your list of 52, and that 5

probably involved changing the language some. So when 6

we tried to do the crosswalk, it wasn't readily 7

apparent that all of these had corresponding items 8

within the scope.

So I'm ready to go to the next 9

slide.

10 MR. BECKER:

May I before we move on?

11 Gary Becker with NuScale Power. So just on that last 12 one, I wanted to make sure I understood. This is the 13 last item on page seven which discusses a phase COL 14 application, but you're envisioning this addresses the 15 16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, Joe, do you want to 17 comment on that?

18 MS. BRADFORD: You're asking specifically?

19 Because it doesn't say design certification 20 specifically --

21 MR. BECKER: Correct.

22 MR. COLACCINO: Hi. Joe Colaccino from 23 NRR.

So I think what you're getting, what your 24 question is getting to is is, when we looked at that 25 item on page seven, is does it specifically cover

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 26 1

design certifications, and the answer is, no, it does 2

not. We address the lessons learned that we had in 3

the review related to submitting an EIS separate from 4

a COL, and so there were some requirements that were, 5

requirements in Part 2 that allow you to do that, but 6

there were other things that were involved that had to 7

be submitted, as well.

And so the lessons learned 8

that we have there is to submit the, is to consider 9

submitting the EIS. So it does not, and I understand 10 and maybe this addresses Mike's comment, as well, so 11 we do have an item to submit it in parts, but what is 12 not within the scope of that is separate parts of the 13 design certification.

14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think that clarifies.

15 Yes, I'm not --

16 MR. BECKER:

I apologize if I confused 17 you.

18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, that's okay. I think 19 we, I'm not exactly familiar with the original comment 20 that NEI made, but I think what I gather is it was 21 aimed at partial scope of time --

22 MR. BECKER: SSEs and --

23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, exactly.

24 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. So the next item --

25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Slide five. Okay.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 27 1

MR. TSCHILTZ:

This talks about 2

standardization and finality, and I know there's some 3

discussion of this in the scope of the rulemaking but 4

it wasn't clear how the NRC was going to go about and 5

consider or contemplate changes to the balance between 6

standardization and finality. I don't know whether 7

you're at a point where you can talk about that, but 8

I think it would be beneficial at some point to talk 9

about that issue in a public forum so we have a better 10 understanding and can be comfortable with where you 11 guys are headed with all that.

12 MS. BRADFORD: I agree with what you said 13 that it's a little early in the process to know 14 exactly our line of thinking on that, but we know that 15 that's challenging and we would certainly want to talk 16 about that in a public meeting.

17 MR. TSCHILTZ:

So just to make sure I 18 understand correctly, this is within the scope of the 19 rulemaking and something that's going to be better 20 defined.

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Page six of the enclosure 22 to the SECY has an item that covers this, but we have, 23 again, we haven't formulated the balance that you were 24 mentioning between standardization and, you know, and 25 trying to be flexible.

So we're still working on

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 28 1

that. Joe?

2 MR. COLACCINO: Yes, this is Joe Colaccino 3

again. You had made reference to an earlier paper on 4

design certification. I forgot the number now what it 5

was, but we were looking at the scope of a design 6

certification.

And the standardization piece is 7

touched upon in that paper, as well, and so that's a 8

feeder to the thing that we're working on right now.

9 Again, a little premature to talk about, but, as 10 probably many people in this room know, that there's 11 a long history associated with standardization and 12 what the intents of what the Commission did starting 13 back in the 80s to do.

At the point of this 14 rulemaking where we are, it's good to look at that 15 and, you know, to tier off of what, I was listening 16 closely to what Joe Shea had said, now we've gone 17 through this thing, what is really important for 18 standardization to adhere to what the policies were at 19 the time because those policies are still in place, 20 but, at the same time, what is the most appropriate 21 thing to do and most efficient to do when certifying 22 a design.

23 MS. BRADFORD: I also do wonder if this is 24 a topic that would be a candidate more maybe for 25 guidance than the rule itself in terms of defining

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 29 1

the, you know, balance of standardization. I'm not 2

sure if that would be rule language, if it might be 3

implementing guidance language. But as I said, we're 4

kind of early, but we will keep this on you radar 5

screen as something to continue to discuss.

6 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. Thank you. I think 7

it was 19-0034. You probably wrote that paper, too, 8

Joe. So next slide, please.

9 Okay. So this is definitely within the 10 scope of the rulemaking, and I think the point of us 11 putting this up here is we kind of want to gain a 12 better understanding of what changes to the 50.59 13 process you're contemplating. I know that, you know, 14 Vogtle 3 and 4 have had a number of license amendments 15 that facilitate these for the 50.59-like process. Is 16 that the scope of what you're looking at incorporating 17 in the rule change, or does it go beyond that, or what 18 are you envisioning?

19 MS. BRADFORD: So here is where we wanted 20 to go back and look at the difference between 50.59 21 and the 50.59-like process to see if we're still in 22 the right place in terms of the 50.59-like process 23 being what's needed for design certification and COL 24 changes. So it really was because of the experience 25 with Vogtle, as well as other experience that we've

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 30 1

had under Part 52, we wanted, basically, to go back 2

and say do we still agree that that was the right 3

thing to do to basically put more constraints on the 4

50.59 or the 50.59-like process and see do we still 5

need to do that.

Maybe you revised the 50.59-like 6

process and put other requirements within the rules.

7 The idea was that we wanted to go back and look to see 8

if those are still in alignment between 50 and 52 and 9

whether they should be and need to be.

10 MR. TSCHILTZ: So one item that comes to 11 mind when we talk about this is the one where there 12 are like minor administrative errors in Tier 1 13 information that don't have any impact on safety, so 14 that would be within the scope of what you're 15 considering to change in the rule.

16 MS. BRADFORD: I think we want to see if 17 this 50.59-like process is providing the appropriate 18 amount of control on changes, whatever those changes 19 are, if they're administrative or something else.

20 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay, all right. We'll be 21 interested in that. I think the follow-on to that was 22 is there a similar process being considered for an SDA 23 or is this --

24 MS. BRADFORD:

I don't know that we 25 thought of that specifically, but we will --

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 31 1

MR. O'DRISCOLL: What we'll do is we'll, 2

you know, we've got your question and we'll certainly, 3

you know, since we're writing the reg basis, we can 4

put that clarification as we develop the reg basis and 5

you'll be able to get that answer.

6 MR. SHEA: As you look at the reg basis 7

and as you get to the rule language specifically for, 8

you know, a key process change like this, 50.59 versus 9

50.59-like process, you know, we you might want to 10 contemplate something like a workshop to actually 11 test, you know, whatever language you're coming up 12 with to make sure that it would smoothly for both the 13 licensing folks, compliance folks, inspectors, be 14 fairly well with confidence understood at how it would 15 apply, what it would apply to, and how it resolved.

16 You know, that will be one that, you know, you can do 17 in a, you can't really do as effectively just in a Q&A 18 like this. It's an important process to get.

19 MS. BRADFORD: Okay, thanks.

20 MR. TSCHILTZ: Next slide, please. Okay.

21 So this one is not so much about the specifics in 10 22 CFR 70 and 74, but it's more about the concept of 23 going back and looking at the LARs and the exemptions 24 that were issued for Vogtle 3 and 4 and determining 25 whether there can be improvements to the rule that

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 32 1

would obviate the need for these types of amendments 2

or exemptions, clarifications, corrections, whatever.

3 So I'm wondering whether that is part of the process 4

is to go back and review those and consider those four 5

changes.

6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, we have a pretty 7

broad working group that's working on this, and the 8

folks that were involved with a lot of those LARs were 9

tasked during the time we requested the staff for 10 inputs on lessons learned to look at the available 11 information they had, including the LARs they had to 12 work on and their problems that they've encountered on 13 their end to develop their suggested changes. So that 14 was basically part of the process.

15 MS. BRADFORD:

I would say that we did 16 this.

17 MR. TSCHILTZ: So you're saying it's all, 18 those changes are already within the scope of the --

19 MS. BRADFORD: The ones that we thought 20 were within the, we took our Vogtle experience and 21 those lessons learned that we thought made it through 22 the screening process are in there.

23 MR. TSCHILTZ: Is there any way that you 24 can share how those items came through the screening 25 process?

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 33 1

MS. BRADFORD:

I don't have a line for 2

line of each LAR and how it did or didn't go through 3

the screening process. I mean, there's a hundred and 4

fifty-some LARs. We didn't map each one like that.

5 MR. TSCHILTZ: Oh, okay. All right. I 6

guess that's something that we'll need to pursue to 7

better understand that.

8 MS. BRADFORD: I mean, if there's topics 9

within the LARs or kind of recurring themes that are 10 of particular importance to you that you don't think 11 are covered in here, then we'd be welcome, you know, 12 we'd be happy to hear it.

13 MR. TSCHILTZ: Well, the reason I think we 14 put this one up as an example is we didn't, in the 15 crosswalk we didn't see this. So that was one of the 16 ones that we said, okay, well, this is something that 17

-- and when we started to consider it during our 18 discussion, it was like, well, should we be looking at 19 this from a broader perspective of all the exemptions 20 that were issued? You know, can we obviate the need 21 for them by making changes to the rule?

Are there 22 LARs that were generated because there were problems 23 with the rules?

24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And that was the general 25 approach that we did on our side to come up with the

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 34 1

lessons learned because, obviously, these LARs come 2

in, we're spending what we think is, you know, 3

important or not important resources to look at it.

4 If it's something that we think is something that we 5

don't need to be doing, that would be a lessons 6

learned for us that we would say this is something we 7

need to change in our process here so that we don't 8

have to, you know, have the applicants submit and us 9

to review these items.

10 MR. TSCHILTZ: Oh, absolutely. I commend 11 you for doing it.

I would just say, from a 12 transparency standpoint, it would be helpful to know 13 which ones were considered and included and which ones 14 weren't because right now it's kind of we're flying 15 blind on that.

16 MS. BRADFORD: Like I said, if you think 17 we missed something, we'd be happy to hear it, but we 18 don't have a road map of all of the LARs.

19 MR. TSCHILTZ: I know. I guess I don't 20 want to be argumentative, but I think it's hard to 21 know what you've missed until you've seen what's 22 included in the rule. And right now we have a draft 23 reg basis, so we need to wait for further on down the 24 line to see specific rule language to figure that out.

25 At least it's with additional work on our end to go

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 35 1

back and see, well, did they actually go do this?

2 But, anyway, maybe in the future, when you 3

consider those types of things, you have a closer 4

aligned crosswalk to what was actually considered 5

included and what wasn't.

That would make our 6

dialogue and exchange easier, I think.

7 Next slide, please. So I'm going to ask 8

Gary to help me out with this.

9 MR. BECKER:

Okay.

So this item, if I 10 understand the history, we did include it in NEI's 11 recommended changes list for the January scoping, and 12 it does not appear to have made it into your list, the 13 item being potentially revisiting the requirements for 14 addressing Part 20 radiological protection, radiation 15 protection requirements.

Within the design 16 certification application, we added SDAs, as well, and 17 potentially also extends to COLs and even 18 manufacturing license because the requirements are all 19 similar.

20 But our focus, of course, is on design 21 certification and SDA at this moment in time.

So 22 before I proceed to provide further input, did you 23 have feedback on how you screened this recommendation?

24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Joe, do you have anything 25 on this one?

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 36 1

MR. COLACCINO: Hi. It's Joe Colaccino 2

again.

I know there's been, this has been an area 3

that's gotten a lot of, especially for design 4

certification reviews and trying to decide where the 5

line is here. I don't remember specifically how this 6

screened. I don't think we considered it a lessons 7

learned that was within the scope. We can go back and 8

look at that.

9 Having said that, there are probably some 10 other ways that we may have considered that we did 11 that. I'll just speak freely here. And we've written 12 guidance on this, but maybe there's an area in the 13 guidance area that is probably something that we could 14 consider further and maybe that's why it screened out.

15 So not a satisfactory answer probably that 16 you were looking for, but that's what I can give you 17 at the time that I have now.

18 MR. BECKER: Okay. Well, if I can provide 19 some --

20 MR. COLACCINO: Please.

21 MR. BECKER: -- additional clarity. So as 22 far as specifics go, I think guidance could be 23 helpful.

I think there's an opportunity here in a 24 rulemaking to clarify the actual regulatory language.

25 And we would bin this, in our view, clearly under the

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 37 1

unnecessary burden category of your rule changes. And 2

the ideas, beyond what guidance can accomplish, I 3

think there's some ambiguity in the rule itself, and 4

this pertains to, in the case of design certification, 5

10 CFR 52.47(a)(5), and there's a similar rule, as I 6

said, for all the other requirements in Part 52.

7 But the issue in our view and our 8

experience at NuScale is that, essentially, the depth 9

and breadth of the radiation protection review, 10 primarily in Chapter 12, exceeds, is very challenging 11 for a design certification applicant to fulfill 12 successfully and effectively.

I think there's two 13 reasons that I can identify for this.

One is that 14 there's a very strong dependence, in order to satisfy 15 the Part 20 radiation protection requirements there's 16 a very strong dependence on the actual operational 17 radiation protection program, which, of course, is 18 beyond the scope of a vendor's design review. So it's 19 difficult to adequately address the Part 20 as part of 20 a design review.

21 And the other part of it is that, in order 22 to complete that review at the design stage, it 23 requires design details that are extensive and, in my 24 view, exceed for, you know, features that are 25 radiation protection features alone and not related to

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 38 1

radiological release safety or security.

It's an 2

amount of design detail that's a very high burden for 3

a design vendor.

4 I think there's an opportunity to fix that 5

within the rule itself, and my first recommendation 6

would be to clarify the statement within the limits 7

set forth in Part 20. That is the language that's in 8

the rule currently. The limits of Part 20, to us, has 9

a different meaning than the way it's currently 10 implemented by the staff, and, specifically, we don't 11 view ALARA as a Part 20 limit.

12 So while we view it as important for a 13 design to consider ALARA lessons in developing the 14 design, we don't think that an ALARA design review was 15 intended by this requirement.

So we think the 16 language, what the limits of Part 20 means could be 17 clarified.

18 My second recommendation would be that a 19 standard for the staff's review be incorporated into 20 the rule.

So we think to kind of right-size this 21 regulation, we imagine that the staff's finding at the 22 design stage would be more akin to the design doesn't 23 present an impediment to effective implementation of 24 a radiation protection program by the licensee. So 25 rather than reviewing every design detail and dose

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 39 1

maps and things that are hard to do at a design stage, 2

it would be looking more at, you know, big picture, 3

are there any glaring flaws, holes in the design, that 4

are going to make meeting the Part 20 requirements 5

possible down the road.

So we think kind of that 6

standard, going back to the guidance, that standard 7

could be in the guidance, but we also think it would 8

be even better if it were in the rule directly. Thank 9

you.

10 MS. BRADFORD: Good comment. Thank you.

11 MR. TSCHILTZ: So I think there's one or 12 two more slides. Okay. So I think this is our last 13 slide.

So I think we looked at, this kind of gets 14 back to Joe's comments, we looked at the potential 15 need for an updated rule for applicants before a Part 16 53 is issued or the legislation in 2027. So this is 17 November 2024, which means, basically, almost 2025, so 18 you've got a two-year window between this updated Part 19 52 and Part 53.

Our thought was if this could be 20 accelerated in some ways that it would become more 21 beneficial, especially if it's going to be used by a 22 demonstration reactor, something that could be coming 23 in, you know, the near term versus something out that 24 we could apply to Part 53.

25 So one of the questions that comes out, I

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 40 1

mean, I know the rulemaking is categorized as a 2

meeting in priority rulemaking.

If that was to be 3

recategorized as a high-priority rulemaking, would 4

that change the resources scheduled for this?

5 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Well, yes, I can 6

basically say it's really a factor of there is no set, 7

you know, time frame for medium or versus a high-8 priority rule. It's simply the more resources we put 9

on something that we could maybe make it better, but, 10 again, there's certain hold points that we have to do 11 by nature of the fact that we interact with other 12 outside agency, outside-the-NRC agency folks for 13 rulemaking, for example OMB and OFR.

14 So the answer is that we would need to 15 look at, you know, the balance of this project with 16 the other projects that the business line has and 17 determine where that falls out.

And then we would 18 have to then apply more resources depending, you know, 19 on the workload.

So it's something I really can't 20 speak to more than that.

21 MR. TSCHILTZ: So another thing that up 22 when we were contemplating what could be done or 23 something we should ask about is whether the Part 50 24 changes, which we really haven't talked about, could 25 be separated and pursued in a separate rulemaking from

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 41 1

the Part 52 lessons learned rulemaking.

2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, just from me, this 3

is my opinion, is that a rulemaking is a rulemaking 4

and the scope, you know, this is a broad rulemaking 5

and there's a certain inherent time requirement for 6

rulemaking. And we can improve the schedule somewhat, 7

but we're not going to, I think, in my opinion, 8

drastically improve the schedule such that it would 9

warrant removing some good stuff that we know we have 10 to do. We would basically just be doubling the work.

11 You know, we'd have to have two separate activities.

12 We still committed to the Commission to align those 13 two parts, so we are still on the hook to get another, 14 to get that done. So I don't, in my personal opinion, 15 I don't see that being a good thing. I don't think it 16 would improve the schedule to the degree to which I 17 think you are wanting the schedule to be improved on 18 because, you know, the scope is still going to be 19 pretty broad. There's a lot of topics we're covering, 20 you know, to improve, a lot of different sections of 21 the CFR we're touching with this rule we're changing.

22 MS. BRADFORD: So I assume you're asking 23 could the Part 50 be separated out and done later, not 24 can the Part 50 be done earlier if it was separated 25 out, right?

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 42 1

MR. TSCHILTZ:

I think that was the 2

thought, yes.

3 MS. BRADFORD: Okay, okay. I will tell 4

you that back when we started talking about what would 5

be in the scope of this rule we had a lot of 6

discussions about the balance between how substantive 7

the changes would be and, therefore, how long it would 8

take to do it because the bigger and more kind of 9

impactful the substantive the changes are just, 10 inherently, it takes longer because you know you're 11 going to get a lot more public comments, a lot more 12 complicated comments that you then have to deal with.

13 So we tried to have a balance between providing 14 meaningful change in an appropriate amount of time.

15 So that's the balance that Jim was talking about.

16 I understand you would appreciate it to be 17 done quicker. We can go back and look at the schedule 18 and see, but there is a lot of resource balancing that 19 goes into that.

20 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. I appreciate that.

21 I think one of the last things that we had on our list 22 of things to talk about was the certification renewal 23 requirements and the expiration date.

I know it's 24 included within the scope of the rulemaking, so this 25 gets into the timing of it, in particular with one

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 43 1

specific entity. I don't know whether, Zach, you want 2

to come to the microphone and talk about this, but the 3

timing of the rulemaking as it lines up with the next 4

certification.

5 MR. HARPER: Good afternoon. Zach Harper, 6

Westinghouse. So I think what Mike was alluding to 7

there is that, as you know, the AP1000 design 8

certification expires or is no longer referenceable in 9

the 2021 February time frame.

We submitted an 10 exemption that kicks it out our window to resubmit or 11 to submit a renewal application in the 2024 time 12 frame. So, you know, the issue here being that, you 13 know, we are looking forward to all your hard work on 14 this rulemaking and seeing good results there, but, 15 you know, landing it in the November 2024 time frame 16 really is going to cause us to have to make some 17 decisions on how to proceed forward.

18 So any improvement on that would be at 19 least beneficial from our standpoint. Thank you.

20 MS. BRADFORD: All right, thanks. Okay.

21 MR. TSCHILTZ: And I think that concludes 22 the comments we prepared.

23 MS. RAY: Thank you so much. We greatly 24 appreciate your comments. I will turn to anyone in 25 the room or anyone on the phone who would like to make

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 44 1

additional comments. In the room, please come up to 2

the microphone or on the phone please press *1.

3 Go ahead, sir. Please state your name and 4

affiliation.

5 MR. PETERS: Yes, good afternoon. Gary 6

Peters, Framatome. There was a recent memorandum of 7

cooperation between the NRC and the Canadian Nuclear 8

Safety Commission to work together on enhancing 9

technical reviews of advanced and SMART reactor 10 technologies. Is this process of this rulemaking, is 11 there going to be any interface with the CNSC that the 12 NRC is going to use to consult with them or get their 13 ideas or get a little bit of interface with the 14 Canadian authorities?

15 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

I believe I understand 16 the question.

So we are working with, there's two 17 rulemakings that are going on right now. There's this 18 rule, and there's also the, as you mentioned, the Part 19 53 rule that deals with non-light water technologies.

20 And we're both working very closely with the other 21 rulemaking project manager running that project to 22 make sure that anything that we come up with that 23 seems to be a cross-cutting issue is shared with those 24 two rulemakings.

25 As far as specific outreach to Canada on

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 45 1

this rule, we do not anticipate the need for that.

2 But if that happens and it somehow comes up, we'll 3

look into it.

4 MS. RAY: Thank you. Other comments? Oh, 5

go ahead, sir.

6 MR. TSCHILTZ:

So there's one other 7

comment that I just remembered that we were talking 8

about, and that concerned a lessons learned from 9

ITAAC. So I know NRC and Vogtle 3 and 4 are in the 10 process of going through the ITAAC closure process 11 and, you know, the NRC making its decision eventually 12 on 103(g). So I think we are very interested in where 13 it's recognized it's in process now, but, as that 14 process continues, whether we can gain any lessons 15 learned from that that could be useful in informing 16 the rulemaking.

So we wanted to kind of leave the 17 door open for revisiting this at some point, but I 18 think we're very concerned we're here asking you to 19 accelerate the rulemaking but then we're saying leave 20 it open to consider ITAAC. So they're a little bit 21 conflicting there. But as things go on, if there's 22 something that's obviously a benefit in the rule 23 change concerning ITAAC, I think we would encourage 24 that the NRC include it.

25 MS. BRADFORD: Yes, that's a good comment.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 46 1

We have to keep our eyes open for other things that 2

we've learned during this time and see if it's worth 3

including the rulemaking, as opposed to not. Yes, I 4

agree.

5 MS. RAY:

Thank you for your comment.

6 Other comments in the room, please step up to the 7

mic, or any comments on the phone, please press *1 to 8

make a comment from the phone line.

Are there any 9

comments on the phone line?

10 THE OPERATOR: Our first comment is from 11 Joe Williams from Oklo.

Go ahead, your line is open.

12 MR. WILLIAMS:

Thank you.

I'm working 13 with Oklo.

I'm part of the TICAP, the Technology 14 Inclusive Content of Applications Project. Many of 15 you know that I'd also worked on SECY-15-0002 and SECY-16 17-0075 when I was with the staff and both of those 17 were referenced in the recent paper SECY-19-0084.

18 I have a few comments here. First of all, 19 how has the NRC staff verified the scope of technical 20 requirements to align Parts 50 and 52?

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Hi, Joe.

This is Jim 22 O'Driscoll. I'm not sure we understand the question.

23 If you could just clarify that a little bit.

24 MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, the SECY-15-0002 25 identified the four topic areas that you guys have

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 47 1

identified in the recent paper.

Have you done any 2

review to see if there are any other technical 3

requirements where a misalignment exists?

4 MR. COLACCINO:

This is Joe Colaccino 5

again. I understand what your question is, Joe, and, 6

to just repeat for everybody in the room, I think what 7

you're feedback was to do, based on the four technical 8

areas that was there, to do a comprehensive look at 9

what the alignment was between Part 50 and Part 52 to 10 make sure that the areas that required alignment or 11 that should have alignment were inclusive, that we 12 didn't miss anything. And I'm doing that based not 13 only on your question but, I'll be forthright, 14 conversations that we had when you were still on the 15 staff. Is that true?

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. That's accurate.

17 MR. COLACCINO:

Okay.

So I understand 18 that. And I believe that there is some of that that 19 is within the scope of what the staff is doing for 20 those technical areas.

I'm not familiar with what 21 exactly it is, but I'm sure when the reg basis comes 22 out that we'll have more of a description of what the 23 staff did for that.

24 MR. WILLIAMS:

Okay.

Thank you.

In a 25 similar vein, we had previously talked about when I

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 48 1

was with the staff some administrative misalignment 2

between Parts 50 and 52. Specifically, there was some 3

discussion earlier about 50.59 and the 50.59-like 4

process.

50.59 does not presently include 5

requirements for consideration of severe accident 6

issues when you're evaluating changes to the facility, 7

so is this rulemaking going to address that 8

misalignment, as well? Is that within the scope of 9

the four items that you've described?

10 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

So, Joe, we're still 11 looking at the implications of what that is. It's in 12 the scope and in the fact that we are looking at those 13 two processes we discussed earlier in this meeting, 14 but we haven't come up with a firm decision on what 15 alternative we would like to pursue on that at this 16 point.

17 MR. WILLIAMS:

Okay.

So, similarity, 18 there's also requirements for maintenance of PRA and 19 PRA updates that are applicable to Part 52 licensees 20 that are not applicable to future Part 50 licensees, 21 so that would be the same kind of response, I presume, 22 Jim?

23 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Yes.

Well, that's a 24 different item that's also in the scope. It's going 25 to be in our PRA discussion in the reg basis, and

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 49 1

that's going to be discussed.

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I appreciate that.

3 Have just a couple of comments, reactions, to some of 4

the discussion I was hearing earlier.

One of the 5

things about when Mike and Anna Bradford were talking 6

about the 50.59-like controls, there seemed to be a 7

misalignment there insofar as Mike was addressing, at 8

least in part, change to Tier 1 and the discussion was 9

about changes to the 50.59-like process. I'll note 10 that the 50.59-like process applies to Tier 2.

It 11 doesn't apply to Tier 1. So it seems that maybe you 12 guys were talking past each other a little bit there, 13 so some clarification on that point might be 14 beneficial.

15 And then there was one other item. I just 16 wanted to react a little bit to the statements that 17 people were making about the possibility of separating 18 the rulemaking activities, the Part 50 aspects from 19 the Part 52 aspects.

I think it's important to 20 remember that there are designers out there right now 21 that are considering whether or not they want to use 22 Part 50, and so delaying that activity could have a 23 negative effect upon their future plans, as well.

24 MR. TSCHILTZ: So I can maybe comment and 25 clarify on what I was talking about for the 50.59-like

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 50 1

process for Tier 1 at admin as it relates to a Vogtle 2

LAR.

So as I understand it, there's a process 3

approved for those types of changes to be made without 4

prior NRC approval.

5 MS. BRADFORD:

You're talking about the 6

PAR process?

7 MR. TSCHILTZ: Well, not the PAR but for 8

minor administrative things that have no safety 9

benefit.

10 MS. BRADFORD: 98-03. NEI 98-03? I'm not 11 sure exactly which process you're referring to. So we 12 just sent a letter recently to Vogtle about using 98-03 13 to make administrative changes their FSAR. Is that --

14 MR. TSCHILTZ:

Okay, okay, all right.

15 Then that's been addressed.

16 MS. BRADFORD: Okay.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

18 MS. RAY: Any other comments in the room 19 or on the phone, please press *1 or step up to the 20 mike. Are there any comments on the phone?

21 THE OPERATOR:

Our next question or 22 comment is from Steve Dolley from S&P Global Plant.

23 Go ahead, your line is open.

24 MR. DOLLEY:

Thank you very much.

Hi, 25 good afternoon, everybody. The first one is could I

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 51 1

please get the ML number for the NEI slides? They're 2

not attached to the meeting notice.

3 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Right.

So we just 4

received those. They're going to be attached to the 5

meeting summary, so we're going to have to put these 6

into ADAMS.

7 MR. DOLLEY: Okay. That's difficult for 8

those of us who are on deadline. Would it be possible 9

for Carolyn or somebody to email the deck to me?

10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I will, I will take it to 11 try to expeditiously put this into ADAMS, and if you 12 could send me your contact information, as soon as it 13 gets declared public, I will send it to you.

14 MR. DOLLEY: Okay. And you are?

15 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Jim O'Driscoll.

It's 16 James, J-A-M-E-S, dot, odriscoll@nrc.gov.

17 MR. DOLLEY: Okay. And thank you, Jim.

18 And that does bring up one of my other comments, which 19 is a few of you were trying to do this but it's 20 extraordinarily difficult to follow the meeting on the 21 phone bridge when people aren't identifying themselves 22 when they speak.

So if that could be pursued more 23 assiduously in future meetings, it would be really 24 helpful for stakeholders on the line.

25 And the last thing is just a

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 52 1

clarification.

It's probably an apples/oranges 2

confusion on my part, but, during the initial 3

presentation the slides said that there were, I think 4

it was 52 lessons and four alignment items scoped in.

5 Joe Shea from TVA made reference to 250 lesson items.

6 What am I missing there? It sounds like there's kind 7

of a mismatch.

8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So to clarify that, we 9

collected a lot of information. We cast a broad net 10 earlier in the year, and we received a lot of items 11 which we had to first cull through and determine which 12 were really germane to the activity we were doing. A 13 lot of these items were duplicative.

A lot of the 14 items didn't apply to the rulemaking. So those items 15 were whittled down to a number that we just 16 communicated, which was the four alignment items and 17 the 52 lessons learned. And, again, those 52 lessons 18 learned consists of, you know, a conglomeration of the 19 raw input we received in many cases. Does that answer 20 your question?

21 MR. DOLLEY:

It answers half of it.

22 What's the 250?

23 MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Those are the early 24 inputs we received, so we received --

25 MR. DOLLEY: Okay, okay. So the 250 got

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 53 1

funneled down to 52, 4, and 8?

2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's correct.

3 MR. DOLLEY: Okay. Thanks very much. And 4

I will send you a note about the slides. Thank you.

5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you.

6 MS. RAY:

Thank you for your comment.

7 Sir, to the microphone. Please state your name.

8 MR. KELLEBERGER:

Yes, this is Nick 9

Kelleberger at Vogtle.

I just want to clarify, I 10 think, for Mike and that previous discussion is we 11 have permission to change Tier 2-star information in 12 our COL. We do not have permission to make editorial 13 changes to Tier 1. That would still require a LAR.

14 MS. RAY: Thank you. Any other comments 15 on the phone?

16 THE OPERATOR: There's no more questions 17 at this time.

18 MS. RAY:

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other 19 comments in the room?

Okay. We will try one more 20 time. Any other comments on the phone?

21 THE OPERATOR:

There are no further 22 questions at this time.

23 MS. RAY:

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

24 Jim, I will turn it over to you to wrap up.

25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Guys, can you put slide

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 54 1

16 up?

So we're on slide 16 of the NRC's 2

presentation. All right. So briefly recapping the 3

next steps, the staff is going to finalize and issue 4

the regulatory basis for public comment. We plan to 5

hold a public meeting 30 days into the comment period.

6 In order to be more efficient, the staff will address 7

the public comments when it drafts the proposed rule.

8 The staff will hold additional stakeholder meetings 9

during the proposed rule phase.

10 Next slide. The staff plans to issue the 11 regulatory basis for comment in December of next year.

12 The proposed rule will be issued for public comment 13 approximately two years after this in October 2022.

14 The final rule will be issued in November 2024.

15 Next slide. You can reach out to us here 16 if you have need of further information. Please note 17 that Carolyn is going on a rotation for several 18 months. Please Contact Allen Fetter who will be the 19 technical project manager. Demetrius Murray also will 20 be supporting the rule.

21 Thanks very much for your attention and 22 questions.

We welcome feedback to our public 23 meetings. We like to know if you are satisfied with 24 today's public meeting or if you have any suggestions 25 for how we could make it more effective. On your way

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 55 1

out, please take one of the public meeting feedback 2

forms at the sign-in table.

Once you complete the 3

form, you can leave it with us or mail it in.

4 You can access a link on the online 5

feedback form and the meeting details for this meeting 6

on the NRC's public meeting schedule page.

7 Alternatively, you can scan this QR code and that will 8

bring you directly to an online feedback form for this 9

meeting. You can also access the online feedback form 10 for this meeting by going to our public meeting 11 website at the below link.

12 Next slide.

You can find information 13 about this rulemaking activity on regulations.gov.

14 The meeting materials and the meeting summary will be 15 posted there soon. Just search for the Docket ID: NRC-16 2009-0196.

17 Thanks for attending.

Have a great 18 afternoon. Our meeting is now concluded.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 2:09 p.m.)

21 22 23 24 25

Public Meeting:

Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing 1

November 21, 2019 ADAMS Accession No. ML19304A144

2 Ground Rules

• One speaker at a time

• Please state your name before speaking -

this session is being transcribed.

• Please hold questions until after the NRC presentations

• Follow the agenda

• Stay on topic

• Mute or place on vibrate all electronic devices

3 Todays Meeting

• Provide an update on the effort since the last public meeting on this rulemaking (Meeting summary; ADAMS Accession No. ML19023A046)

• Provide an overview of the scope described in SECY-19-0084

• Conduct a Question and Answer Session on the scope of the rulemaking described in the SECY

• Provide an overview of the rulemaking schedule

4 Anna Bradford - Director NRR Division of New and Renewed Licenses OPENING REMARKS

5 NRC STAFF PRESENTATION

6 NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Carolyn Lauron, NRR Senior Project Manager

7 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 the reactor licensing processes

• Improve clarity

• Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff

8 Rulemaking Process Final Rule Proposed Rule Regulatory Basis Identify need for rulemaking Described in SECY-15-0002 Commissions direction in SRM-SECY 0002

• Analyze alternatives for resolution

• Public Meeting

• 75 day public comment period

• Proposed rule text

• Public meeting

• 75 day public comment period (typically)

• Final rule text Opportunities for public participation

9 Regulatory Basis (RB)

• A regulatory basis provides a sound foundation for informed decision-making throughout the rulemaking process

- RB describes the technical, legal and policy issues and the staffs consideration of options to resolve the issues

- A cost/benefit analysis of options will be developed as part of the RB

10 10 Rulemaking Activities Started scoping and outreach October 1, 2018 Held public meeting January 15, 2019 Alignment on scope July 11, 2019 Issuance of Commission Information Paper SECY 19-0084 August 27, 2019 Held ACRS meeting September 20, 2019

11 11 Next Steps Complete the technical development of the regulatory basis June 2020 Complete concurrence on the regulatory basis package November 2020 Issue the regulatory basis for public comment December 2020 Hold public meeting and commence drafting the proposed rule March 2021

12 12 Screening Criteria (SECY-19-0084)

• Items were first considered if they met at least one of the following criteria:

- Addresses alignment of Parts 50 and 52

- Addresses lessons learned from licensing activities

- A change that could significantly improve the licensing process

- Reduces unnecessary burden and does not impact other requirements

13 13 Screening Criteria (contd)

• Items were screened out if they met at least one of the following criteria:

- The item would provide neither a significant safety benefit nor burden reduction to staff or industry while maintaining the agencys safety mission

- The item could be addressed by the administrative rulemaking for corrections

- The item could be addressed through the development of guidance outside of rulemaking

14 14 Scoping Results

• Four alignment items

• 52 lessons learned items

• 8 additional items are corrections, to be addressed in the semiannual administrative rulemaking for corrections to the CFR

15 Q&A Please come up to the microphone or press *1 on the phone Please state your name &

affiliation before your question.

16 16 Next Steps

• Finalize and issue the regulatory basis for public comment

• Hold public meeting during the comment period.

• Consider comments received on the regulatory basis during the proposed rule phase

• Plan for additional public meeting(s) during the proposed rule phase

17 17 Rulemaking Schedule Issue final rule November 2024 Issue proposed rule for comment October 2022 Issue regulatory basis for comment December 2020

18 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 Contact Information

How Did We Do?

• Link to NRC Public Meeting Feedback form:

19 https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20191133

How to Stay Informed and Involved 20

• The meeting materials and meeting summary will be posted soon

• Search regulations.gov on the docket ID NRC-2009-0196

21 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

22 22 References Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/ FR Citation Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Policies & Practices-Part 50 52 Meeting -

September 20, 2019.

ML19294A009 SECY-19-0084, Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (RIN 3150-AI66)

ML19161A169 SECY-19-0034, Improving Design Certification Content ML19080A034 Summary of January 15, 2019 Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking to Align the Regulations in Parts 50 and 52 to Address Updates to the Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned for Future New Reactor Applications, ML19023A046 SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications ML13277A420 SRM-SECY-15-002, Staff Requirements-SECY-15-002-Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications ML15266A023 Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants 50 FR 32138 SECY-89-013, Design Requirements Related to the Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactors, dated January 19, 1989 ML003707947 SECY-90-016, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements, dated January 12, 1990 ML003707849 SECY-93-087, Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs, dated April 2, 1993 ML003708021 Bipartisan Policy Center Report Recommendations on the New Reactor Licensing Process ML13059A240

23 23 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 Section VI.B.6 Part 52, Appendix D,Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f... but the reference is incorrect. It should be except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g... (rather than VIII.B.5.f).

Part 52 Appendix E Section VI.B.6 Part 52, Appendix E,Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f... but the reference is incorrect. It 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 component" Revise definition by deleting text in brackets as follows:

"(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.

24 24 Acronyms ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL Combined License CP Construction Permit DC Design Certification DCD Design Certification Document NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OL Operating License PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment RB Regulatory Basis SOC Statement of Considerations SRP Standard Review Plan SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum TMI Three Mile Island