ML22095A106: 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:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
==Title:==
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, March 2, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-1869 Pages 1-120 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
 
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
1 2
3 DISCLAIMER 4
5 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23
 
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 693RD MEETING 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
(ACRS) 6
+ + + + +
7 WEDNESDAY 8
MARCH 2, 2022 9
+ + + + +
10 The Advisory Committee met via 11 teleconference at 8:30 a.m., Joy L. Rempe, Chairman, 12 presiding.
13 14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
15 JOY L. REMPE, Chairman 16 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Vice Chairman 17 DAVID A. PETTI, Member-at-Large 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 VICKI M. BIER, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 21 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 23 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Chairman 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
2 ACRS CONSULTANT:
1 DENNIS BLEY 2
3 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
4 QUYNH NGUYEN 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 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
3 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 2
Opening Statement.............
4 3
Agenda and Items of Current Interest 7
4 Proposed Draft Rulemaking 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 5
Remarks from the Subcommittee Chairman 8
6 Presentations and discussion with 7
representatives from the NRC staff 8
Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of 9
Advanced Reactor Initiatives 100 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
8:30 a.m.
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, good morning, 3
everyone. This meeting will now come to order. This 4
is the first day of the 693rd meeting of the Advisory 5
Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
6 Because of the COVID 19 outbreak and 7
current health precautions this meeting is being 8
conducted remotely. I'm Joy Rempe, Chairman of the 9
ACRS. I want to now call roll to verify a quorum, and 10 that clear communications exist. Ron Ballinger.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Here.
12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Vicki Bier.
13 MEMBER BIER: Here.
14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Charles Brown.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Here.
16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Vesna Dimitrijevic.
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Here.
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Greg Halnon.
19 MEMBER HALNON: Here.
20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Walt Kirchner.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Here.
22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Jose March-Leuba.
23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Here.
24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave Petti.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
5 MEMBER PETTI: Here.
1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And Matthew Sunseri.
2 MEMBER SUNSERI: I'm here.
3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Great. Everyone's here.
4 I note we have we have a quorum.
5 The ACRS was established by the Atomic 6
Entity Act, and governed by the Federal Advisory 7
Committee Act. The ACRS section of the USNRC public 8
website provides information about the history of this 9
Committee, and documents such as our charter, by law, 10 Federal Register notices for meetings, letter reports, 11 and transcripts of all full and Subcommittee meetings, 12 including all slides presented with the meetings.
13 This Committee provides its advice on 14 safety matters to the Commission through its publicly 15 available letter reports. The Federal Register notice 16 announcing this meeting was published on February 17 14th, 2022.
18 This announcement, providing a meeting 19 agenda as well as instructions for interested parties 20 to submit written documents or request opportunities 21 to address the Committee. The designated federal 22 officer for this meeting is Mr. Quynh Nguyen.
23 A communications channel has been opened 24 to allow members of the public to monitor the open 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
6 portions of this meeting. The ACRS has just started 1
inviting members of the public to use the MST, the MS, 2
Microsoft Teams link to view slides and other 3
discussion materials during these open sessions.
4 If you're a member of the public who does 5
not yet have the link, please email Lawrence Burkhart 6
at lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov. So, I'm going to repeat 7
this email address, just to make sure that everyone 8
got it that needs it. It's lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov.
9 In the future this MS Teams link 10 information will be placed in the Federal Register 11 notice and agendas on the ACRS public website.
12 We've received no written comments or 13 requests to make oral statements from members of the 14 public regarding today's sessions.
15 Periodically the meeting will be open to 16 accept comments from participants listening to our 17 meeting. Written comments may be forwarded to Mr.
18 Quynh Nguyen, the designated federal officer.
19 During today's meeting the Committee will 20 consider two technical
: topics, proposed draft 21 rulemaking on 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, and integration 22 our source connectivities in support of advanced 23 reactor initiatives.
24 A transcript of the open portions of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
7 meeting is being kept. And it's requested that 1
speaker identify themselves, and speak with sufficient 2
clarity and volume, so that they can be readily heard.
3 Additionally, participants should mute 4
themselves when not speaking. And I'd note that if 5
participants are not muting themselves our staff will 6
mute you.
7 Before we begin today's meeting I have two 8
items of current interest that I'd like to share.
9 First, on February 9th the National Academy of 10 Engineering issued an announcement that they have 11 elected ACRS Member David Petti as one of their 12 members, because of his outstanding contributions in 13 the areas of field development and reactor safety.
14 So, I'd like to ask members to unmute 15 themselves, and join me in congratulating Member Petti 16 for this accomplishment. I'll start clapping. And 17 hopefully other folks are also clapping out there.
18 MEMBER: Congratulations, Dave.
19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay.
20 MEMBER PETTI: Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Great. Okay. So, 22 second, on a more somber note I'd like to acknowledge 23 that some of us have worked with or are currently 24 working with colleagues in the Ukraine that support 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
8 their current operating lease for the Chernobyl site.
1 And today I'd like to acknowledge that our 2
thoughts and prayers are with these colleagues as they 3
continue to perform their duties during this difficult 4
time.
5 So, at this time I'd like to ask other 6
Members if they have any opening remarks. And hearing 7
none, I'd then like to ask Member Bier to lead us 8
through our first topic for today's meeting. Vicki.
9 MEMBER BIER: Thank you very much. Let me 10 pull up my notes here quickly. First, as we move 11 forward on the topic of Part 50 and 52 alignment that 12 the staff has been working on, I want to begin by 13 thanking the staff for all their efforts in the past 14 two briefings on this topic. I think the interactions 15 so far have been very constructive and informative for 16 the Committee.
17 Today I would emphasize a few topics that 18 the Committee has identified as being of particular 19 interest for today. One is how the Agency will assess 20 the cumulative effects of any changes during the 21 construction process for Part 52 licensees.
22 Second of all, ensuring that there is 23 sufficient flexibility for INC upgrades and 24 modernization in the new process.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
9 Third, how the staff is defining various 1
design concepts, such as essentially complete design, 2
or preliminary design, et cetera.
3 And finally, any lessons learned from 4
recent applications, or anticipated near term 5
applications, what things are on the minds of industry 6
in this process as they go forward.
7 I'd like to begin by calling on Brian 8
Smith, Director of the Division of New and Renewed 9
Licenses in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for 10 any opening remarks.
11 MR. SMITH: All right. Thank you, Member 12 Bier. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Rempe and 13 other Members of the ACRS. My name is Brian Smith.
14 And I'm the Director of the Division of New and 15 Renewed Licenses in NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation.
17 The purpose of today's meeting is to 18 finalize our discussions related to the staff's 19 rulemaking efforts to align Parts 50 and 52 licensing 20 processes.
And specifically to address any 21 Subcommittee members' follow-up questions that were 22 raised during the previous two Subommittee briefings, 23 as well as the issues that Member Bier just discussed.
24 In our previous briefings the staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
10 described in detail the scope of the rulemaking, 1
focusing on the alignment areas between Parts 50 and 2
52, the proposed changes to the rule language, and the 3
basis for proposing the changes. The staff also 4
summarized the public comments that we received in 5
each alignment area.
6 Please remember that the draft proposed 7
rule and the associated draft revised guidance 8
documents are still under NRC management review. They 9
have not yet been reviewed by the NRC's Office of the 10 General Counsel. As such, the content of the draft 11 Federal Register notice should not be interpreted as 12 NRC's official agency positions.
13 I'll be listening to the discussions 14 today. And my staff will be attending the letter 15 writing session to ensure that you have the resources 16 available to you to finalize your review and your 17 subsequent letter.
18 My thanks to you, the Members of the full 19 Committee, for your time today. The staff is looking 20 forward to having another productive meeting with you 21 today. With that I turn it back over to you, Member 22 Bier.
23 MEMBER BIER: Thank you very much for 24 those remarks. And I would like to now turn the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
11 meeting over to the NRC staff presenters, Jim 1
O'Driscoll and Omid Tabatabar, for their presentation.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you. My name is, 3
hello, everybody. My name is Jim O'Driscoll. I'm the 4
lead rulemaking project manager on this effort. I'm 5
in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 6
Safeguards within the Division of Rulemaking, 7
Environmental and Financial Support, known as, we 8
know, known as REFS.
9 So, also joining me today is Omid 10 Tabatabar from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 11 Regulation, Division of New and Renewed Licenses. And 12 we have several other NRC staff on the call as well.
13 So, I want Slide 6, and we'll talk about 14 this meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to 15 provide the ACRS an update on the staff's efforts 16 since the last ACRS full Committee meeting the NRC 17 staff held on this topic, which took place almost 18 exactly a year ago on March 4th, 2021. You can find 19 a summary of that meeting in ADAMS under Session 20 number ML21075A211.
21 This meeting will provide an opportunity 22 to discuss the purpose of the rulemaking with the full 23 Committee. The staff provided the ACRS a preliminary 24 draft proposed rule, Federal Register notice earlier 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
12 last month. This document is publicly available, and 1
can be found under ADAMS Session number ML22020A002.
2 This meeting will also allow the ACRS to 3
further discuss items of interest to the Committee 4
from the ACRS Subommittee meetings held last month.
5 So, last month the staff briefed the ACRS Subommittee 6
on regulatory practices, sorry, regulatory policies 7
and practices on two occasions.
8 The first took place in February 1st, 9
2022. The staff briefed the Subommittee on the 10 purpose of the rule, provided an overview of its 11 contents, and discussed several aspects of the 12 proposal.
13 You will find, you'll soon find the 14 transcript and slides on the ACRS public website.
15 It's under the 2022 ACRS meeting schedule page and 16 related documents page.
17 So, in the meantime the meeting slides and 18 preliminary draft proposed Federal Register notice 19 that was made available to the ACRS are available in 20 ADAMS. And I'll go into where, I won't say the 21 number. But I'll tell you how to find that in a 22 minute.
23 On February 18th the staff briefed the 24 Subommittee in a follow-up meeting that provided an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
13 opportunity to continue a discussion on several topics 1
that we covered at the February 1st meeting.
2 That meeting also allowed an opportunity 3
for staff to discuss specific changes and several 4
guidance documents that are necessary to implement 5
those rules.
6 Again, you'll find the transcript and 7
slides on the ACRS public website, on the same page.
8 In the meantime the meeting slides and the preliminary 9
draft guidance documents that were made available to 10 the ACRS are available in ADAMS.
11 We will pause for questions and answers as 12 we go on any topics of ACRS interest. Finally, we 13 will provide you an update on the next steps for the 14 project.
15 So, we hope this interaction will provide 16 additional detail on the contents of the preliminary 17 draft proposed rule and the associated guidance that 18 is under staff management review, and the status of 19 the rulemaking.
20 We'll respond to the Committee's written 21 comments that we receive. Also, please note that a 22 list of the abbreviations used in the slides is at the 23 end of the presentation. I'll try to say the full 24 term at least once to help folks follow along.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
14 Also note that a list of the ADAMS session 1
numbers to the documents referenced in the NRC staff's 2
presentation can be found at the end of the staff's 3
slide presentation.
4 Please be careful to not discuss any 5
safeguards, security
: related, classified, or 6
proprietary information during this meeting. Although 7
we intend to have an open dialogue, please note that 8
the NRC staff will not make any regulatory commitments 9
during this meeting.
10 So, go on to the next slide. So, we are 11 on Slide 7. So, the staff is engaging in a rulemaking 12 to better align portions of the regulations in 10 CFR 13 Part 50 and 52 in four areas, as described in the 14 preliminary draft proposed rule.
15 The staff will also address items derived 16 from lessons learned from previous new reactor 17 licensing activities described in the preliminary 18 draft proposed rule.
19 Activity implements the Commission's 20 direction in SRM SECY 150002. Our goal is to better 21 align the Part 50 and Part 52 licensing processes such 22 that equivalent design submitted for NRC review under 23 each licensing process are assessed against consistent 24 technical standards that yield outcomes with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
15 equivalent demonstrations of adequate
: safety, 1
security, and environmental protections.
2 In SECY 150002, issued on January 8th, 3
2015, the staff made several recommendations to the 4
Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 5
ensure consistency in new reactor licensing review.
6 The staff also made recommendations to 7
address staff identified lessons learned, obtained 8
through the licensing reviews completed up to July 9
2019. These changes are intended to improve clarity, 10 and reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff.
11 As well as these, the staff has addressed, 12 or intends to address editorial and administrative 13 changes as well. Go on to the next slide. We're on 14 Slide 8.
15 So, there's 61 items discussed in seven, 16 excuse, and 11 general technical areas in the scope of 17 the proposed rule. This is up from the 50 items we 18 had in the scope of the regulatory basis that was 19 issued for public comment, as briefed at the time of 20 our last ACRS full Committee meeting.
21 The preliminary draft proposed rule, 22 Federal Register notice preamble, discusses how the 23 staff dispositioned each item that the staff 24 communicated in the regulatory phases.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
16 Among the 61 items discussed in the 1
Federal Register notice preamble the staff is 2
recommending rulemaking for 60 of them. This is up 3
from the 43 items we recommended for rulemaking in the 4
regulatory phases. So, the staff added a few items 5
based on public feedback and additional staff input.
6 Of these 60 items 18 of them will also 7
require the staff to develop guidance updates for 8
noticing comment with the proposed rule. There are no 9
new guidance documents proposed.
10 In the proposed rule the staff identified 11 13 different guidance documents that will be issued 12 for comment with the proposed rule. Specifically, 13 seven regulatory guides, and six revised sections of 14 NUREG 0800, the standard review plan, or SRP.
15 The staff also identified the need to 16 update one technical report with this rulemaking.
17 This rule spans a large number of CFR parts besides 18 Parts 50 and 52, to make informing changes and to 19 address other lessons learned from new reactor 20 licensing. These parts are Part 2, 21, 26, 51, 55, 21 70, and 73. Going on to Slide 9.
22 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. Hold on. This is 23 Dave. I have a question. Unfortunately I want to 24 take you back to seven, Slide 7 for a minute.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Please go ahead.
1 MEMBER PETTI: The scope of this 50 52 2
alignment, you know that we are also hearing about 3
Part 53 in parallel. And there's lots of ideas in 4
Part 53 that are risk informed and performance based.
5 I
understand this alignment won't 6
necessarily be technology inclusive. But is it out of 7
bounds to take some of that though process in Part 53 8
and put it into 50 and 52? Is the SRM, and I'll give 9
you some pretty bright lines that you got to stay in 10 firmly, if you understand what I'm saying.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, yes. I can talk a 12 little bit about that, Dave. So, the way we do 13 rulemakings, we try to, we need to have, ensure that 14 we have a clearly defined scope that has been agreed 15 to by management. And we try to stick to that scope 16 as we proceed, unless there's a, you know, a need to 17 change it, or something comes up.
18 So, what we have is, we set up a group 19 called the Steering Committee that, of senior 20 management that makes sure that --
21 (Audio interference) 22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: -- so, the rulemaking 23 path's scope. And so, in this particular rule we are 24 well aware of Part 53, and the schedule of Part 53.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
18 But we had to establish essentially lines where we 1
would operate and Part 53 would operate.
2 And generally speaking we, we're, this 3
rulemaking is a retrospective approach, looking back 4
on lessons learned and alignment issues that we've 5
identified from past licensing reviews.
6 So, those things are going to require 7
changes in the regulations. Or we're going to propose 8
changes in the regulations.
9 So, the way Part 53 comes in is, we want 10 to make sure that for the sections we're touching that 11 we're staying as technology neutral as we can. So, 12 we'll go, you know, in the course of responding to 13 SECY 150002 we will write whatever regulation such 14 that it should not pose a hindrance to new 15 technologies. And it's also risk informed and 16 performance based as much as possible. Does that 17 make, does that answer your question?
18 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, no. I think it does.
19 Thanks. That helped.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. All right. I'll 21 move back to Slide 9. So, we're back on Slide 9. So, 22 the scope includes six items in four areas, meant to 23 better align Parts 50 and 52.
24 The proposed rule Federal Register notice 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
19 includes a detailed discussion of these items in 1
Preamble Sections 3.A through 3.D. These are the same 2
areas that are identified in the originating SECY.
3 Going on to Slide 10. So, the scope also 4
includes 54 lessons learned items. The staff 5
organized these in general areas of operator 6
licensing, physical security, fitness for duty, 7
emergency planning, Part 52 licensing process, 8
environmental protection, applicability of other 9
processes to the Part 52 process, and miscellaneous 10 topics.
11 Move on to the next slide. We're on Slide 12
: 11. And this is estimated costs and savings. So, as 13 part of the development of the proposed rule the staff 14 considered the potential costs and savings for both 15 the industry and the NRC.
16 These estimates are preliminary and 17 subject to change as we further develop the regulatory 18 solutions in the final rule. In the proposed rule we 19 intend to make available a separate draft cost 20 estimate document that will have more details on this.
21 We evaluated the proposed changes against 22 the regulatory baseline, that is, what we are 23 currently doing right now. We analyzed savings for 24 the next ten years where it was applicable.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
20 So, the total net savings could be 1
anywhere from $16 million to about $26 million 2
dollars, depending on the discount rate used in the 3
estimate calculation.
4 The corresponding sensitivity study, our 5
analysis concluded there is a very, very high chance 6
of obtaining a cost savings from proceeding with this 7
rulemaking. Of course, the rulemaking also achieves 8
unquantified benefits, such as regulatory efficiency 9
and public confidence.
10 So, the biggest items that avert costs in 11 this rule are the items related to security 12 requirements for the storage of unirradiated fuel, the 13 elimination of the need for DC renewals, the 14 clarification of scope of Tier 1 information, the 15 elimination of information requirements related to 16 conformance to the standard review plan in an 17 application, enabling a construction permit applicant 18 to reference a reviewed environmental assessment.
19 So, there were several items where the 20 changes increased costs. These, the major ones are 21 the evaluation of severe accidents earlier in the Part 22 50 process, the items related to probabilistic risk 23 assessment, or PRA, requirements for new Part 50 24 licenses, the application of Three Mile Island, or TMI 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
21 requirements for future Part 50 applicants, and 1
operator licensing continuing training requirements 2
for plants undergoing construction.
3 Next slide.
4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: This is Joy.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I have a question. I was 7
going to bring it up later. But I think this last 8
slide's a good place to bring it up. I just want to 9
make sure, because I didn't see it in the slides 10 anywhere about, there had been a lot of discussion 11 with the stakeholders about allowing --
12 Well, first of all, you have provided 13 definitions for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2* in this 14 rulemaking effort. And those definitions were 15 designed to provide more clarity, and to help 16 applicants better select what to designate as wet.
17 But the staff did not change any of the 18 positions about whether Tier 1 information could be 19 used for 5059 changes. The staff kept the policy that 20 had been in place before.
21 And I just wanted you to confirm that on 22 the record here today. Because not everyone who's 23 listening in might have been listening in to our 24 Subommittee meetings. Tier 1 as well as Tier 2*,
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
22 right, has not been --
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. So --
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: -- changed?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. So, I can answer 4
that one. We're not changing, that's a fundamental 5
principle that we're not changing in this rule. So, 6
we are not changing what is subject, as far as the 7
tiers go, tiered information, to 5059. That is not 8
being changed.
9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And I personally as a 10 single member agree with that. But I just wanted to 11 make sure that everyone who's here today gets that 12 point. So, thank you.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Any other 14 questions?
15 DR. BLEY: Yes, Jim. It's Dennis Bley.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey, Dennis.
17 DR. BLEY: You said I think that the TMI 18 lessons learned changes raised the costs. But I 19 thought anybody new coming in under Part 50 still had 20 to do those before they could be an operating plant.
21 Am I wrong on --
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, no, they don't. If 23 you look at the beginning of 5034F there's a preamble.
24 That, those, all that stuff is applicable to a very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
23 small scope, basically a bunch of activities going on 1
or around 1979 or 1980.
2 So, if you read that to, you know, letter 3
of, you know, exact, the regulation, it doesn't apply 4
to a new Part 50 plant. So what, so this is the 5
problem. So, when we went and made Part 52, you know, 6
I think what we were thinking was, nobody's ever going 7
to use Part 50 again. So, we don't need to fix that 8
now.
9 So, we just took those TMI requirements 10 and made them a requirement for new Part 52 plants, 11 okay. But now, you know, of course we know that 12 there's a possibility of Part 50 applications coming 13 in.
14 So, we want to make sure that, you know, 15 that obviously, you know, you need to address those 16 requirements, you know, in a future, in any 17 application. So that's, I think that answers your 18 questions.
19 DR. BLEY: Yes, it does. And I'm a little 20 surprised by that. But I, that slid by me in the 21 past. Thanks.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay. I'll move 23 on to Slide 12 if there's no other questions. So, 24 we're on Slide 12. So, from the last two Subommittee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
24 1
DR. BLEY: I'm sorry, Jim.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.
3 DR. BLEY: Yes. I had one other.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
5 DR. BLEY: You said the PRA raised the 6
costs. But this is something we've gotten into in 7
other cases. PRA raises the costs if you just look at 8
the cost of doing the PRA.
9 But if you look at the benefits that 10 accrue from doing the PRA I think it usually turns out 11 the other way. But I think all this analysis does is 12 say, well, we have to pay so much to get a PRA done.
13 Am I right about that one?
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I whole heartedly agree 15 with you. We talked about how to quantify the 16 benefits on the end. And we found that it's too 17 speculative. So, it goes under that unquantified 18 benefit efficiency, et cetera.
19 So, we're really trying to be conservative 20 when we do these estimates, and not over sell or 21 under, you know, under sell things here. Does that 22 answer your question?
23 DR. BLEY: It does. It's unfortunate that 24 it gets presented that way. But it's what I thought 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
25 you were going to say. Thanks.
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay. Any other 2
questions? I'll continue on Slide 12. So, from the 3
last two Subommittee meetings we noted several items 4
where you wished for more discussion. Several items 5
stood out. And we have a slide or two on each.
6 So, these are further discussion on the 7
relationship of this rulemaking to other activities 8
the staff is engaged that are associated with non 9
light water reactor technology.
10 The issue of cumulative effects on safety 11 changes to the design made during construction. There 12 was interest in further discussion on the details on 13 how PRA is to be used in the design phase.
14 There was also some interest in more 15 discussions on the concept of credible accident, 16 specifically, how it should or could be defined as a 17 design goal objective in a PRA.
18 There was interest in further discussion 19 on specifics regarding future licensing reviews of 20 digital instrumentation and control systems, and how 21 the ongoing rulemakings affect these reviews.
22 Finally, the Subommittee also desired 23 further discussion on the concept of essentially 24 complete design, and how the staff plans to carry 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
26 forth this concept in future licensing.
1 So, I'm going to go ahead and briefly 2
discuss each of these. So, we're on Slide 13. So, 3
this is on relationship to non light water reactors.
4 So, based on public comments on the regulatory basis 5
the staff added a cross cutting item to the scope.
6 The relationship of this rulemaking activity to 7
advance reactors.
8 And the Federal Register notice covers 9
this topic in Section 2.1.2 of the preliminary draft 10 of the Federal Register notice.
11 So, the purpose of that discussion is to 12 explain how the reader should put the rulemaking 13 activity, or this rulemaking activity in context with 14 other NRC license process efforts and rulemakings that 15 relate to non light water reactor technology.
16 The commenter commented that the NRC 17 performed a comprehensive review of Parts 50 and 52 to 18 evaluate each provision of the regulations with 19 respect to the applicability to non light water 20 reactor technology.
21 The staff partially agreed with the 22 comment. I think I mentioned this earlier. I know I 23 did. However, the effort to conduct such a review 24 would be outside the scope of the Commission's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
27 direction on this activity, in the SECY I mentioned.
1 Nevertheless, the staff agreed to evaluate 2
the applicability to non light water reactors in those 3
areas where we are already proposing to change the 4
regulations, to ensure that the recommended rule 5
language is as technology neutral as possible. Any 6
questions on that?
7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Well, this is Joy. And 8
again, this is one where I couldn't figure out where 9
to bring up a point during your presentation. So, 10 I'll bring it up here.
11 Let me just say, from all of the 12 discussions and the responses that we heard back from 13 the staff, that when we look at the broad spectrum of 14 ongoing rule activities and the guidance available, 15 that it's not going to be very easy for someone who 16 wants to bring in a mobile reactor with a loaded core 17 to figure out what the rules will be at this time.
18 Is that perhaps a true statement? I mean, 19 they're going to have to have exemptions. They're 20 going to have to take something from Part 70, from 21 this that and the other. And maybe Part 53 will 22 address it.
23 But in the near term, I mean, we've also 24 been told that it's not clearly focusing on, Part 53 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
28 is also not focusing on it. So that there's maybe 1
that needs to be done in that area too.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I can only, you 3
know, what I remember was what we, we briefly 4
discussed this on the February 18th meeting, Chairman.
5 And we basically described a situation 6
where, we basically described it as we don't think 7
that the regulations as they are, or as they're going 8
to change is going to be a, you know, make that 9
impossible to approve.
10 I mean, we mentioned, we always have the 11 ability to do exemption requests, and to look at 12 things on a case by case basis. And the thing is is 13 that, and I think this was the message, was that 14 there's lots of different technologies out there.
15 And you, it becomes hard to, you know, to 16 write regulations, you know, to something that is not 17 quite defined yet, as far as its design concept. So, 18 we think that that, the possibility of mobile reactors 19 right now is, we're in a position where we can manage 20 to license them.
21 But we would, as you said, would have to 22 do some exemption type of work. And I think if 23 there's anybody from DANU that would like to chime in 24 on this I can turn the mic over.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
29 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes, Jim. This is Amy 1
Cubbage from DANU. Dr. Rempe, I just would like to 2
clarify. Are you speaking about reactors that are 3
fueled in factor and transported to a fixed location, 4
or reactors that could be rapidly deployed to multiple 5
locations?
6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I'm thinking about the 7
first alternative. And I realize there's no 8
manufacturing facility that's currently capable of --
9 MS. CUBBAGE: Right.
10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: -- making a reactor with 11 a loaded core. But yet, I think you're probably more 12 aware that I am that there's ongoing regulatory 13 engagement interactions on someone who thinks they're 14 going to do this. And I'm just thinking that it's 15 going to be a difficult, yes, it's not going to be 16 easy for them.
17 MS. CUBBAGE: Absolutely, Dr. Rempe. So, 18 I'd like to explain that we have had engagements with 19 developers who are contemplating fueling micro 20 reactors in factory and transporting to a fixed 21 location.
22 We believe that we do have the regulatory 23 infrastructure in place to support that. We produced 24 a white paper talking about micro reactor licensing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
30 strategies that goes through all of the scenarios, and 1
the different licenses and permits that would be 2
required.
3 There's the potential under Part 53 that 4
that would be, could be consolidated into a 5
manufacturing license if the developer chose to go 6
that route. However, we do believe that it could be 7
accomplished from the current requirements.
8 You would need various permits and 9
licenses to possess the material, and to transport the 10 material, similar to how an operating license for a 11 large reactor would be today, to have licenses under 12 Parts 30, 40, 70, for possession of nuclear materials, 13 and transport of nuclear materials. So, we don't see 14 this as a significant impediment.
15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I just think some 16 guidance might be helpful. But that's just my 17 personal opinion. I also would suggest --
18 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. So, if I --
19 (Simultaneous speaking) 20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Excuse me for a minute.
21 Let me finish, and I'll let you come back. Okay, Amy?
22 But I think the preamble for this particular 23 rulemaking ought to say clearly, it doesn't consider 24 this case. Go ahead, Amy.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
31 MS. CUBBAGE: Well, this rulemaking does 1
not make any changes to make it any easier or harder.
2 However, the current rules do permit this. And I 3
would refer the Committee to the staff white paper.
4 If you don't have it, I can make it available through 5
your staff. That explains the different licenses that 6
would be required.
7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, the white paper was 8
provided to, it was mentioned during the February 18th 9
meeting. And it was provided to us. Or somehow or 10 other, a member of our staff sent us a copy of it, 11 because they were aware of it. And so, we do have it.
12 I guess, well, your comment about this 13 doesn't make it any harder. Well, there's a lot of 14 guidance that does say that it's specific about prior 15 to fuel loading.
16 So, this particular rulemaking, because 17 some of these changes have been made, which I 18 understand why those changes were made, doesn't make 19 it any easier. Because it, again, I think we were 20 told, well, we'll consider fuel loading the minute it 21 hits the site. I don't think it makes it any easier.
22 MS. CUBBAGE: Right. So, you'd be talking 23 about fuel load in the context of the COL, which would 24 need to be when the fuel arrives on site, yes. So, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
32 any of this, a larger conversation perhaps we could 1
have separately. But I think we can take the thought 2
back. Right, Jim?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
4 MS. CUBBAGE: All right.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Absolutely.
6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Any other 8
questions on this topic? All right. I'm going to 9
move on to Slide --
10 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I just --
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
12 MEMBER PETTI: This is Dave. Just for the 13 other members, this is not in my opinion a big issue.
14 Some of these micro reactors want to move an 15 irradiated core after life. That's a much bigger 16 challenge.
17 But people are looking at it. And again, 18 I don't think, I think as Amy said, the rules are all 19 there. And they're trying to make sure that the 20 design meets all the requirements. It's certainly 21 challenging. But I don't think it's, you know, it 22 can't be done sort of thing.
23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I'm not saying it can't 24 be done, Dave. I'm just, I think some guidance or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
33 something sure would help the situation.
1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 2
Walt.
3 MEMBER PETTI: Yes.
4 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I think, Joy, we 5
really need to be careful on the language too. We 6
don't, these are not mobile reactors.
And 7
conceptually, Amy, thank you for the white paper. I 8
looked at it carefully.
9 I don't see any impediments to doing this.
10 I think the rule, you're right in suggesting that 11 perhaps a little further guidance might help someone 12 navigate the rules.
13 But if someone is taking on this 14 challenge, my review of what's out there suggests that 15 this can be done within the existing regulations. I 16 think Dave hit on the most challenging part.
17 And that is designing to take out an 18 irradiated core, and having a shipping container 19 that's certified to do it. And having a core design 20 that meets all those requirements.
21 Both shipping a fresh core and an 22 irradiated core will be quite a challenge. A few 23 examples are things like the drop test. That imposes 24 a structural load on that intact core, whether it's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
34 fresh or irradiated, that may prove rather challenging 1
in terms of design requirements and cost.
2 But having looked at this 30 odd years 3
ago, I don't see any impediment, so to speak, for 4
someone to do this. Yes, it may be less than 5
straightforward. But conceptually, I think it's 6
doable.
7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Looks like Ron Ballinger 8
has his hand up.
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes. You know, the 10 Navy has been effectively doing this for the last 30 11 years. So, I don't, I think I agree with, well, I 12 agree with Walt as well as Dave. But moving an 13 irradiated core has been happening for a long time.
14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: But in this case they are 15 not, it's going to be shipped. It's not going to be 16 defueled on the site, is the difference. And anyway, 17 I just think some guidance could be helpful here.
18 It's not the Navy doing it, or the Army this time.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. There's a couple 20 of hands still raised.
21 MEMBER BIER: Yes. Ron or Amy, any 22 further --
23 MS. CUBBAGE: I just wanted to add that 24 the staff stands ready to support the Department of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
35 Defense Strategic Capabilities Office, Project Pele, 1
which is contemplating the mobile, the truly mobile 2
reactor concepts. And we are prepared to support them 3
in the review of transportation aspects, both with 4
fresh and irradiated fuel.
5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: But there's also an 6
organization that's not the Army or the Navy, engaged 7
with your office right now too. And that's where I'm 8
coming from, right.
9 MS. CUBBAGE: Understood. And we stand 10 ready and prepared to support that with our existing 11 regulations for transport. So, I think, that's about 12 all I can say right now.
13 MEMBER BIER: Are we ready to move on?
14 Any further comments?
15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I see Vesna's hand up.
16 MEMBER BIER: Oh, thanks.
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Hi. Yes. I just 18 want to point something out, to which in my previous 19 discussions I wasn't aware, I mean, I had time to look 20 more and think about that.
21 The actually changes in the PRA 22 requirements are all related to the light water 23 reactors. So, you know, like 50.69 is only applicable 24 to light water reactors. So, you know, the older 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
36 guidance and the things that also related to the light 1
water reactors.
2 So, that some new thing which I sort of 3
like to have the time to think about. So, I bring it 4
this up to see do you sort of agree with that 5
statement?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Well, I think, do 7
I agree with the fact that 50.69 applies only to light 8
water reactor technology? The answer is yes. It was, 9
that rule was, that rule only applies to that 10 technology. We thought about it. And that's how it's 11 written.
12 And in this rulemaking we, you know, 13 identified it as clearly out of scope trying to expand 14 the applicability of 50.69. But we did, you know, to 15 non light water reactor technologies.
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. But also, 17 okay. So, this is abuse in that degree. But also, 18 the older PRA, you know, the using PRA design, what is 19 required to report, you know, to the Reg Guide 1206, 20 the 19.0, the core damage frequency, larger frequency.
21 These things are all related to the light 22 water reactor. So, I will have to say that the new 23 requirements of the PRA related things are the light 24 water reactors based.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
37 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Amy, you're --
1 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. I just wanted to point 2
out that 50.69 is generally targeted towards operating 3
reactors who would like to make changes to risk inform 4
their facilities.
5 For new reactors we do both, especially 6
for non light water reactors, we have approved Reg 7
Guide 1.233, the licensing modernization project, 8
which has a risk informed approach to system 9
structures and component classification.
10 And also, under Part 53 we will be 11 incorporating in risk conformed licensing approaches 12 that would obviate the need for 50.69.
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. I understand 14 that. But the level of the changes, important changes 15 you are proposing, is this is to allow to use the 16 50.69 for non operating reactors, you know, in the 17 design specification phase, in the, you know, 18 construction permit, and so, meaning applications for 19 the new license.
20 MS. CUBBAGE: Right. And I would just 21 offer that the licensing modernization project, where 22 eventually Part 53 would provide that alternative to 23 50.69 for non light water reactors. It would be --
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. This is when, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
38 you know, you also hear our, regularly hear our 1
comments that those two applications, you know, that 2
these two upgrades somehow have to, you know, somehow 3
have to have some, not merger, but, you know, 4
adjustment to the alignment. If you align 50 and 52, 5
come finally they will have to be aligned with 53.
6 Okay. Thanks.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Is there any other 8
questions on this topic? Okay, I'll move on to Slide 9
: 14. So, this one is cumulative effects of changes 10 during construction.
11 So, at the February 1st Subommittee 12 meeting Chairman Rempe asked a question about this 13 during our discussion on the Part 52 change process 14 topic. So, other members of the ACRS also raised this 15 issue of cumulative effects in earlier meetings.
16 So, I want to summarize the response I 17 gave at the February 18th Subommittee meeting, and 18 provide the opportunity for further discussion on the 19 topic.
20 So, this rulemaking is not changing a 21 fundamental difference between Part 50 and Part 52 22 processes. Part 52 continues to serve as the 23 standardization rule.
24 The foundation of the standardization rule 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
39 remains the principle of one design, one review. The 1
aim of which is the final resolution of all common 2
safety issues in the standardized design early in the 3
licensing process.
4 The main features remain a
design 5
certification that has finality through the Commission 6
and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel 7
hearing. The design certification is codified as a 8
regulation. And the design can be referenced by 9
multiple applicants in the future.
10 The design certification includes those 11 inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria 12 that when met provide assurance that the affected 13 plant meets the safety performance requirements 14 specified in the certification. There is no need for 15 an additional final check because of the existence of 16 ITAAC.
17 The process for the NRC review of 18 exemptions from the requirements of a
design 19 certification rule, and departures of the plant's 20 final safety analysis report from the standard design 21 control document are reviewed by the NRC, such that 22 there is no residual accumulation of unresolved safety 23 issues.
24 The Part 52 process also requires ITAAC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
40 maintenance. So, ITAAC maintenance is important. In 1
light of the sometimes lengthy construction schedules 2
this rulemaking strengthens that idea.
3 Specifically, the rule includes an item 4
discussed in Section 3.K.7 of the preliminary draft 5
Federal Register notice that helps ensure that the 6
ITAAC were not just met at one point during 7
construction, but must continue to be met. That is, 8
ITAAC are met.
9 We continue to believe that these 10 requirements are sufficient to ensure that the Part 52 11 process does not need an additional step of a final 12 check of the as built design.
13 At the February 18th meeting Member Bier 14 asked for more details on the process by which ITAAC 15 are selected for inspection. We have added a set of 16 supporting slides on this subject to this 17 presentation, which I think will help answer your 18 question.
19 Member Bier also asked, what would be a 20 good reference that explains the process of ITAAC 21 selection for inspection? This would be NRC Procedure 22 OINRR-LIC-201, which it titled Prioritization of 23 Inspections Tests Analyses and Acceptance Criteria for 24 Inspection.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
41 And the ADAMS session number for that is 1
ML20057D521. And that's the best reference I think 2
for further information on that process of selection.
3 So, also a reminder. Aside from Item 4
3.K.7 in the preliminary draft proposed rule, we are 5
not making any changes to the ITAAC selection, 6
maintenance, or reporting processes. Are there any 7
questions on this item before I go on?
8 MEMBER BIER: Yes. Jim, I would like to 9
follow-up just briefly. Thank you, first of all for 10 the additional reference material. And I'm not sure 11 if my comment reflects a philosophical disagreement, 12 or just a lack of understanding still on my part.
13 I understand the idea about design 14 finality. But there are many details that will be 15 worked out during the construction process that are 16 not part of the previously approved design, spatial 17 interactions, which things are located where, and how 18 they might interfere with each other, the exact 19 details of, you know, power supply, and wiring, and, 20 you know, which components --
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. I --
22 MEMBER BIER: -- get powered from which 23 busses. And that would not have been priorly approved 24 in the --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
42 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.
1 MEMBER BIER: -- original design. But can 2
still be important for risk. So, where is all of that 3
handled?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So, that's a very 5
good question. So, I can answer that.
6 MEMBER BIER: Great.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, obviously the 8
fundamental philosophy behind Part 52, that it is 9
possible to provide information in advance of a 10 construction of a plant if it's detailed enough for 11 the staff to resolve all safety issues prior to its 12 being built.
13 So, we do acknowledge, we knew that back 14 then, you know, when we wrote this regulation in the 15
'80s, you know, or '89 and updated '07, that there's 16 going to be things like, you know, as, you know, skill 17 of the craft, you know, fit ups, things like that 18 that's going to change, and not necessarily be 19 reflected in the, in what we reviewed.
20 But we believe that because the PRA has 21 got to be basically updated, that action in Part 52 22 will cover that residual issue. So, there's a few 23 folks on the line I think that may want to speak about 24 this more, or chime in, or counter my statement. Is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
43 there anybody? Anybody? Does that answer your 1
question, Chairman?
2 MEMBER BIER: not quite. Because it looks 3
to me like the licensee has a requirement to maintain 4
and update the PRA. But there is not a place where 5
whether they do that is assessed, from what I can see.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't know if Malcolm 7
Patterson is on the line, that can basically explain 8
the, this process. Oh, there's, somebody's hand is 9
up. Whose hand is up? Malcolm, please go ahead.
10 MEMBER BIER: Yes, great.
11 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
12 There is no requirement for the staff to assess the 13 PRA. However, if the applicant chooses to use the PRA 14 for any risk informed application the staff will do 15 so.
16 Inspectors of course will be able to 17 observe how the licensee uses the PRA in normal 18 operation. And as you pointed out the PRA must be 19 maintained and updated.
20 It will also have to be upgraded as new 21 operating modes or initiating events are addressed by 22 consensus standards that the staff endorses. It must 23 also be upgraded at least once prior to fuel load.
24 This is the opportunity for the licensee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
44 to ensure that the PRA accurately reflects the as 1
built plan, including spatial details, wiring details, 2
normal arrangement of the electrical plant, how the 3
electrical plant would be rearranged under casualty 4
conditions.
5 So, the PRA gets the updates required.
6 The fact that the staff doesn't have a milestone that, 7
in the regulations where the staff will inspect, 8
doesn't appear to me to be a fatal problem.
9 When the licensee wants to use the PRA for 10 whatever reason, whether it's categorization of SSCs, 11 or risk informing, in service tests, controlling 12 surveillance frequencies, completion times, any of 13 those activities would make it necessary for the staff 14 to confirm that the PRA was adequate for the intended 15 application.
16 MEMBER BIER: Okay. I mean, I think I 17 understand it. I'm not sure I like it. That's a 18 tough question. So, Joy, I think you have your hand 19 up.
20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Sure. I have two 21 questions. The first one I think is best discussed if 22 you could bring up Slide 38, Jim. And I do appreciate 23 you guys providing this extra information. Okay, yes.
24 This one about prioritization process. And I thought 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
45 it was Slide, oh, excuse me, it's 36. I apologize.
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I'm sorry. These 2
ones are, let me see. Which one is this?
3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's one more previous.
4 Well, in my, it's 36 out of 40 is the -- There, you 5
got it.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Oops, I'm sorry.
7 Oops.
8 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It flashed up at least.
9 Okay. So, during our meeting I got, I thought, 10 anyway, it was someone, my mind though someone had 11 said from the staff that we prioritize, which I 12 (Telephonic interference.) we inspect. Because only 13 a sample are inspected based on risk.
14 But I was wondering later, because of the 15 risk assessment wouldn't necessarily help one think 16 about which ones to prioritize. And it looks now like 17 it's not really a risk assessment, that it's a safety 18 significance, some sort of extra assessment. It's not 19 the PRA. What is it that you're, is this the staff 20 who does this rank ordering? Or who does this 21 prioritization?
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I'd like to see if 23 Chris Welch on the staff could answer that question.
24 Chris, your hand is up. Please go ahead.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
46 MR. WELCH: Yes. This is Chris Welch with 1
VPO. And I've been heavily involved in the targeting 2
of ITAAC. The targeting of ITAAC utilized the 3
analytical hierarchy process, where we weight the 4
ITAAC on the significance of preventing a flaw from 5
not being recognized.
6 And the safety significance is the first 7
attribute. And in all honesty it really is the 8
driving attribute in the targeting process. And it 9
utilized a limited PRA scope that was performed for 10 the design prior to the full PRA.
11 And it involved a
team of three 12 individuals that looked at each of the ITAAC, and 13 designed a level of significance to that ITAAC. And 14 then the results went through the weighting process.
15 So, it is driven based off of the limited 16 PRA that the designers perform and then weighted. And 17 it is performed by the staff. And there's one --
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's just by the staff.
19 No one from the licensee gets to participate?
20 MR. WELCH: That is correct. That's 21 correct.
22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, would you, you know, 23 there was the design acceptance criteria that, a 24 subset of ITAAC. Are they automatically included in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
47 the prioritization, especially on, you know, ones for 1
the I&C system, the control room, et cetera? Do they 2
get in the high priority rank?
3 MR. WELCH: Right. When ITAAC, when you 4
look at the table I think, it is comprised of the 5
design commitment, the inspection test analysis, which 6
is the activity that's taken to demonstrate the design 7
commitment has been met, and then the acceptance 8
criteria, which is the criteria that has to be 9
demonstrated to prove or demonstrate that you have met 10 the design commitment.
11 So, the design commitment is in fact part 12 of the whole process of ranking the ITAAC. For 13 example, when we do the ranking we sit down, we look 14 at what the design commitment is, what is the ITA, 15 inspection test analysis, and the acceptance criteria?
16 And based off --
17 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, excuse me for a 18 minute. But I'm not, do you know what I'm mentioning 19 when I'm saying that there were DAC that were a subset 20 of ITAAC?
21 MR. WELCH: Yes. And all the DAC were 22 required to be targeted for inspection by policy.
23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, that helps me. The 24 other thing was, I came away from the meeting, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
48 Subommittee meeting with the, I was a little 1
concerned.
2 I mean, I came away with the impression 3
the staff said we are standing by our policies on 4
ITAAC. We think that's enough for having confidence 5
in a Part 52 evaluation.
6 And I am, you know, when I think back 7
about some of the history of this ITAAC and DAC 8
situation, I know that the ACRS has historically said, 9
are you going to have the folks from headquarters 10 involved in the I&C?
11 And we call it an inspection. But it's 12 really more of an evaluation. It has to be more in 13 depth. And my takeaway from the, looking through the 14 history of what happened in the past, there was some 15 concern about who would be doing it.
16 Are you just going to have the regional 17 office do it? Or did you bring in, have you done the 18 inspection I guess is the first question, on the I&C 19 system with the ongoing Votgle Plant, for example?
20 Has that been done yet?
21 MR. WELCH: Part of it has been. And 22 those inspections were conducted both by headquarters 23 and region staff during the factor acceptance testing 24 and the development. There still remains outstanding 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
49 ITAAC that are really just the testing of the as 1
built/installed components down in the plant.
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: You know, there are 3
actually, from March 21st, 2011 there was an SRM from 4
the Commissioners that, to the staff, and said the 5
staff should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 6
review. And is that going on right now? Are you guys 7
planning to come back to us?
8 MR. WELCH: I cannot answer that question, 9
ma'am.
10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Is there anyone else on 11 the staff that could answer that question?
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: What was, I'm sorry, 13 Chairman. What was the SRM? Do you have the actual 14 number? We can, I --
15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I believe it's, it 16 was dated March 21st, 2011. It was not after a 17 meeting with the Commissioners and ACRS. So, it's 18 made it a bit harder to find it.
19 But I believe it's 2010-0140. And it was 20 an SRM. And actually I can send it to Quinn, and he 21 can provide it to you. But anyway, it has a note that 22 staff should provide the pilot --
23 It's talking about the options for 24 revising the construction reactor oversight process 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
50 assessment program. And it talks about the ITAAC and 1
PR graph. Above this direction it says the staff 2
should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 3
review.
4 This was like back when I first started on 5
ACRS. And I remember Member Bley constantly talking 6
about, or not constantly, but regularly talking about 7
this SRM. And apparently it was more related to the 8
South Texas project that got cancelled with ESBWR.
9 And there was a meeting set up that got cancelled.
10 But nevertheless, the SRM refers 11 generically to ITAAC, not just South Texas project.
12 And it does say that the staff's supposed to come back 13 with the pilot results to the ACRS for review 14 And I think that, you know, if we learn 15 more about how carefully you are doing these ITAAC we 16 might have more confidence in how this interaction is 17 proceeding.
18 And that's why I brought up this question 19 about the cumulative effect of changes during 20 construction, is that maybe, at least I was not aware 21 of how well this is being performed in accordance with 22 the understanding that ACRS had with the staff.
23 There was actually, there were some 24 letters where this was mentioned from ACRS. And the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
51 staff did come back and say, yes, we'll share this 1
too. But of course the Commission direction has more 2
weight. And that's why I'm bringing it up today.
3 MR. WELCH: I vaguely recall something on 4
that line. And I guess I was thinking that that was 5
past. But ESBWR would make a lot of sense. Because 6
ESBWR had a tremendous number of DAC.
7 MS. CUBBAGE: Well actually that was a 8
ABWR plant in South Texas.
9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, I'm sorry. You're 10 right, Amy. I said the wrong thing. I was in ABWR 11 instead of ESBWR -- because of -- Thank you.
12 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. I would guess that 13 this is a very interesting topic. And we definitely 14 need to follow-up with the Committee on that SRM item.
15 But it's outside the scope of this rulemaking.
16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, I would take you at 17 your word if you will follow-up with this, and it 18 doesn't get lost. I will forward the SRM to Quinn.
19 And he can forward it to Jim. But I'll take you at 20 your word, and I'll drop the subject on it for this 21 rulemaking then.
22 But I just wanted to make sure. Because 23 I, that's why I have been concerned about this, is 24 that I don't perhaps share this understanding the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
52 staff has on it. Okay.
1 MEMBER BIER: Great. Vesna, do you have 2
a follow-up?
3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. I would like 4
to bring something here. When we stop mixing this 5
design finality ITAAC in the PRA, there is a lot of 6
sort of, like, you know, the mixed responses.
7 So, for example, that we just got response 8
there could not be changes during construction that 9
are captured by PRA, right? That's what with the we 10 hear as the question, it was the response.
11 And then the question was, well how is 12 that PRA reviewed? So, which is correct, the request 13 for PRA review is only if applicant's interested in 14 the risk inform application?
15 So, that means, if applicant is not 16 interested in risk inform application we never really, 17 we review cumulative changes from design during the 18 construction. See, the requirement to PRA review is 19 related to the applicant's volunteering to use the 20 risk inform application.
21 But we also say the cumulative changes in 22 design during the construction are captured by PRA.
23 Well, and then we don't really ever review that if 24 applicant does not really have to go on to have some 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
53 risk inform application.
1 So, I just want to point that this is out.
2 And this is sort of like contradictory in my opinion.
3 So, I mean, not contradictory. But this open ended 4
thing again.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
6 MS. CUBBAGE: Okay.
7 MEMBER BIER: Okay. I see no further 8
hands. So, maybe we can move on.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I'll move back to 10
-- so I think we're done with this topic so I'm going 11 to move on to the next one, which is a great segue, 12 use of probabilistic risk assessment design. So we 13 can talk more.
14 We're on Slide 15 now. The proposed rule 15 would amend 5034 to require applicants for future Part 16 50 power reactor construction permits and operating 17 licenses to submit a description of the plant specific 18 PRA and its results in a construction permit 19 application.
20 In addition, the purpose of the change is 21 to encourage the use of PRA methodology in the design 22 phase of the project. The existence of a PRA also 23 would allow the NRC staff and applicant a better basis 24 to risk inform the review. A risk-informed review is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
54 much more efficient than a deterministic review and 1
should result in decreased burden in the licensing 2
phase.
3 The NRC, you know, received 10 comments on 4
this item as it was discussed in the regulatory basis.
5 So I'll discuss some of these comments.
6 One commenter expressed the concern that 7
the addition of a description of a PRA and its results 8
to the Part 50 licensing process would make that 9
process a
less attractive option for future 10 applicants. And the PRA would create finality 11 requirements similar to Part 52.
12 The NRC disagreed with the comment because 13 the construction permit PRA would be preliminary, just 14 like the rest of a construction permit information.
15 The mere requirement to submit the results 16 of a PRA would in no way reduce the flexibility of the 17 construction permit holder to further develop the 18 design during the construction. The issues of use of 19 PRA and finality are unrelated.
20 Another commenter stated that the review 21 of the summary of the PRA and its result is not 22 necessary for the NRC to come to a safety finding for 23 the construction permit. The commenter stated that 24 instead of a PRA, the NRC should require a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
55 "preliminary risk assessment," but the commenter also 1
recommended the development of guidance that explains 2
the expectations for the PRA in the construction 3
permit phase for an advanced plan.
4 The commenter further recommended that 5
non-power reactors should not be subject to the 6
proposed requirement.
7 The NRC agreed in part with these 8
comments. The NRC agrees that non-power reactors 9
should not be subject to the requirement, and the 10 staff further developed the proposed rule language in 11 consideration of that comment.
12 The NRC disagrees with the argument that 13 because a PRA is not necessary for a safety finding in 14 the construction permit phase, a construction permit 15 application should not include a summary and a result 16 of a PRA.
17 One purpose of the proposed change is to 18 encourage the use of PRA in the design phase in 19 accordance with the Commission's policy statement on 20 PRA, which was made, I think, in the 90s. Another 21 purpose of the proposed change is to eliminate 22 differences in the licensing processes that would 23 result in differing design bases information for 24 equivalent designs, not addressing that issue would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
56 result in differing future regulatory outcomes and 1
would not fulfill the Commission's direction for this 2
rulemaking.
3 The NRC also disagrees with comments that 4
state that new or revised regulatory guidance is 5
needed for advanced plants because the existing 6
guidance would cover the development of a PRA for an 7
advanced plant license under Part 50 as well as it 8
currently does for one developed under Part 52.
9 Another commenter stated that the needed 10 information to complete a PRA may not be available at 11 the construction permit stage and requested that the 12 NRC clarify what information the application needs 13 with respect to PRA that would address the TMI-related 14 requirements in 10 CFR 5034.
15 The commenter recommended that the NRC 16 should only require the applicant to submit a summary 17 and the result of a PRA at the operating licensing 18 stage. The NRC agrees in part with this comment.
19 If the construction permit and operating 20 license applicant submitted a summary and results of 21 a PRA that the applicant developed in accordance with 22 NRC's guidance on PRA, which is Reg. Guide 1.200, then 23 yes, many of the TMI items would be met. And that 24 would obviate some of the specific analyses 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
57 requirements in 10 CFR 34.
1 For that reason, the NRC is also proposing 2
to eliminate many TMI requirements with the 3
understanding that instead, the applicant would have 4
developed a PRA and its results.
5 One commenter recommended that the use of 6
a PRA should complement the NRC's deterministic 7
approach, quoting language from the NRC's PRA policy 8
statement.
The commenter recommended that a
9 construction permit applicant supply a preliminary 10 risk analysis only and use deterministic analyses to 11 demonstrate that the design meets regulatory 12 requirements.
13 The NRC agrees in part with this comment.
14 As previously stated, the NRC disagrees that a 15 submittal of the summary and results of a PRA at the 16 construction permit stage should be voluntary.
17 The NRC agrees that it is up to the 18 applicant to determine the degree of which it uses PRA 19 to demonstrate conformance with regulations. As 20 before, future Part 50 applicants are free to use 21 deterministic methods for this purpose.
22 Two commenters requested the NRC clarify 23 how the new requirement for a Part 50 PRA would work 24 with existing requirements of Part 51 for applicants 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
58 to develop severe accident mitigation alternatives, 1
otherwise called SAMDAs, and applicants should use PRA 2
to support these alternatives.
3 The NRC agrees in part with the comment.
4 The NRC agrees that if the PRA was of sufficient 5
quality, an applicant could use it for that purpose.
6 However, the NRC disagrees that a PRA should be the 7
only method to do so. And if appropriate, an 8
applicant can use other methods to develop the SAMDAs.
9 One commenter asked the NRC to confirm 10 that the PRA submitted at the construction permit 11 stage would be based on preliminary design information 12 and need not be complete as one submitted at the 13 operating license stage. The NRC agrees with that 14 comment as previously discussed.
15 One commenter disagreed with the NRC's 16 assessment with the cost benefit of developing the 17 PRA. They just stated that the development of a 18 preliminary PRA at the construction permit stage would 19 cost the same as one that is done at the final stage.
20 The NRC agreed with this comment because 21 the NRC expects that an applicant would upgrade the 22 PRA at the operating license stage prior to loading of 23 fuel.
24 The NRC added additional industry cost to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
59 the cost benefit calculation to account for this. The 1
proposed change would result in additional cost to the 2
industry to develop a PRA at the construction permit 3
stage, but would result in some cost savings for the 4
NRC and the applicant later on. And that's, again, 5
unquantified as I mentioned earlier.
6 Are there any questions on this topic 7
before I go to the next topic? I don't think there's 8
questions. All right. I'm going to move on.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, there was. I thought 10 I raised my hand. This is Charlie.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, go ahead.
12 MEMBER BROWN: It didn't show up. I 13 obviously don't know how to do that yet. I lost the 14 bubble through that long discourse.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm sorry.
16 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not criticizing. I'm 17 just -- it's me. Okay? The PRA at the construction 18
-- if you do a PRA at the construction permit phase, 19 I mean, that's very, very early in the whole process.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
21 MEMBER BROWN: And to me, most of the 22 design details aren't even available, large changes.
23 I've been involved in seven different projects in the 24 Navy, eight maybe if I count them properly.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
60 And doing stuff when we're doing those 1
very preliminary evaluations and then we get into the 2
design details would have required extensive revisions 3
to PRAs if we had been under that particular manner of 4
doing business.
5 So I really don't totally understand how 6
doing a construction permit PRA then does not 7
constrain making appropriate design changes subsequent 8
when you're actually doing the design details. I just 9
have a hard time walking my way through that.
10 That's just a comment. I have no idea.
11 I'm just very concerned that industry is right and 12 that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with 13 this, and it's just not a simple thing of not having 14 to redo the PRA when you start changing design details 15 that were preliminary in the beginning part of the 16 construction permit process. So I just don't 17 understand that, and I probably never will. That's 18 where I am right now.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So it looks like Malcolm 20 Patterson has his hand raised. Malcolm, go ahead.
21 MEMBER BROWN: I'd like my hand unraised.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Just click it 23 again.
24 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
61 of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A PRA at the 1
construction permit phase is not early enough. The 2
Commission has made it clear they expect the PRA to be 3
used during design.
4 In fact, when I was in the Office of New 5
Reactors, we were looking at the PRAs being used as 6
vendors were developing their designs. And they made 7
significant design changes as a result of the results 8
of their PRAs. So we've seen how important it is to 9
be using PRA from the very beginning.
10 Using the PRA that's based only on 11 preliminary information is still very useful. And so 12 I push back against those who say, oh, it's too early 13 to do the PRA. Changes to the details of the design, 14 even significant changes during construction, are 15 expected using a
two-step construction permit 16 operating license process, the Part 50 process.
17 Well, we think that's a problem that we've 18 already learned how to solve. We know that during 19 construction as changes are made that have an impact 20 on the PRA, licensees are monitoring that. They're 21 looking at the cumulative effect of design changes on 22 risk.
23 So you can't have it both ways. If you 24 have a useful PRA in the design phase, you should be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
62 using it to full advantage at the construction permit 1
phase during construction, and you need to have it 2
ready for operations and maintenance before you load 3
fuel.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Let me just respond. There 5
are systems -- for instance when we did the design 6
phase in the initial application for a number of new 7
designs as they came along, the I&C was very well 8
defined via the framework of independence redundancy, 9
deterministic behavior, control of access and on and 10 on.
There's definitely a
configuration and 11 architecture that is very well described within the 12 Reg. Guides and some of the preliminary documents as 13 you get started with the licensing process.
14 And a PRA doesn't really fit with that 15 framework approach to doing business. You need 16 multiple channels. You need independence. You need 17 watchdog timers if you're going to use computer-based 18 stuff. And if somebody comes along and would tell me 19 they've done their PRA and they don't need a watchdog 20 timer to make sure processors are working, I would 21 tell them to pound sound. Okay? There's just no --
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I think there's a 23 difference -- and Malcolm, maybe I'm just taking your 24
: thunder, but we're still doing risk-informed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
63 regulation. So, and I think Malcolm you can take it 1
over, but, you know, if there's deterministic -- you 2
know, it's supposed to work with certain, you know, 3
deterministic requirements. And if we choose, if we 4
think for I&C, whatever, this architecture, you know, 5
adherence, you know, is key to safety, then we would, 6
you know, adhere. You know, the PRA wouldn't trump 7
that. Malcolm, I'm sorry if I misspoke. Go ahead.
8 MR. PATTERSON: I'm afraid I'm in violent 9
agreement with both of you. I was principal engineer 10 for instrumentation and control at a utility. I know 11 whereof you speak.
12 PRA isn't the answer to every question.
13 In fact, even taking a look at the AP1000 design 14 certification amendment, the major I&C components were 15 created as a black box. There was no effort to get 16 into the details of a PRA even at the channel level of 17 the reactor protection system. That didn't mean the 18 PRA wasn't useful. It meant that the PRA didn't model 19 that with the level of fidelity that we would expect 20 in the operating phase.
21 MEMBER BROWN: So I can understand that.
22 In other words, you would tell me you've put a --
23 there was a black -- I actually reviewed that, okay, 24 years ago since I came on the committee back in 2008.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
64 MR. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.
1 MEMBER BROWN: And I went through that 2
design in spades along with the APR1400 NuScale after 3
that, et cetera, et cetera.
4 So if I'm interpreting what you're saying 5
properly, while we went through the framework, laid 6
out the architecture, the independence, how the 7
detectors were connected internally to that big black 8
box, you looked at that as a block box, not what was 9
inside of it. Am I interpreting what you said 10 correctly?
11 MR. PATTERSON: That's the way the PRA 12 looked at it.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. I'm very 14 worried about somebody coming in and trying to extend 15 that. But if what you're saying that's the case, then 16 I guess I can quietly go away and retire to my 17 quietness again. But I get pretty protective of the 18 reactor trip and safeguard systems relative to the 19 overall methodologies we've developed with ISGs and 20 frameworks and everything else. They're getting 21 defined although slowly in the various NRC documents.
22 All right. I think you've answered my 23 question.
24 MEMBER BIER: Dennis?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
65 DR. BLEY: Yes. I kind of want to support 1
the staff and a little bit Charlie. But for Charlie 2
I would point out that there's more to a power plant 3
than the I&C although it's a crucial integrating 4
aspect.
5 MEMBER BROWN: I know that.
6 DR. BLEY: The idea of the black box kind 7
of works okay, especially with those basic criteria 8
for the architecture Charlie has talked about many 9
times. On the other hand, we have not lived yet to 10 see that that leads us to a final design that it 11 really works well. We have a couple that are getting 12 close, but we haven't been there yet.
13 I would also point out that at least, and 14 maybe more, of the design certs that have happened in 15 the last 10 years, 15 years, used the PRA throughout 16 their design to make improvements in many of the 17 systems and locations of equipment and the like. So 18 it's proved itself very useful.
19 And if we go back to the construction 20 permit stage, at that stage you won't have everything 21 worked out, of course. You're not even close. But 22 the first element of the PRA is to find out what can 23 go wrong, what are the initiating events and scenarios 24 that can lead to releases. And that needs to be done 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
66 thoroughly at the design stage to support the PRA, and 1
it needed to be done, even if you weren't doing a PRA 2
to define what would be included in any safety 3
analysis.
4 And I think both the staff and the 5
committee have been pretty clear in the couple of 6
construction permits that were looked in recent years 7
that identification of the scenarios that could lead 8
to damage needs to be done well early on at that 9
stage.
10 So I think the staff is right. And I 11 don't disagree with Charlie on detail, but overall 12 maybe a little. Thanks.
13 MEMBER BROWN: I expected that.
14 MEMBER BIER: Yes.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Thanks, Dennis.
16 MEMBER BIER: So we are kind of behind 17 relative to finishing at 10 o'clock, and I don't know 18 whether we should race through or whether we have a 19 little bit of flexibility on the timing. But, Jim, I 20 21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm fine. I can go. I 22 mean, it's really -- I think we could just continue.
23 And I'll --
24 MEMBER BIER: Okay.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
67 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right?
1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, Vicki, this is Joy.
2 And although we have a little bit of flexibility, 3
let's try and adhere to it as closely as we can.
4 MEMBER BIER: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I'll move on to the 7
next topic. So this one is about cutoff accident 8
frequency for credible accidents. So we're on Slide 9
16.
10 So there was some discussion during the 11 Part 50 and 52 change process subcommittee discussion 12 regarding the proposed addition to 50.59C(2)(9) and 13 (10). These paragraphs would require licensees of 14 power plants that are licensed under Part 50 after the 15 effective date of the final rule to seek amendment to 16 the operating license if a proposed change, test or 17 experiment would significantly increase the 18 probability or consequence of an ex-vessel severe 19 accident.
20 Chairman Rempe asked how would one know if 21 a postulated accident is credible? That is, is there 22 such a thing as a cutoff accident frequency below 23 which such accidents need not be considered?
24 At the meeting, the staff stated that what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
68 would be a credible versus incredible is not defined.
1 And such a definition is the prerogative of the 2
Commission to determine.
3 We clarified at the last meeting that the 4
new provisions would only require analyses on 5
previously identified ex-vessel severe accidents, not 6
newly defined ones.
7 The staff agreed that the proposed changes 8
don't resolve the ambiguity of the terms substantial 9
and credible. But they do align the Part 50 language 10
-- sorry the Part 50 change process to the current 11 requirements in Part 52 with regard to the impact of 12 changes, tests and experiments on the probability and 13 consequences of a severe accident.
14 So from my read of the February 1 meeting 15 transcript, there was agreement that the staff and the 16 ACRS discussion of this concept of a cutoff risk 17 frequency will continue but would not be carried 18 forward in this rulemaking.
19 And so here's some additional points that 20 the staff would like to make on this topic.
21 The NRC staff recognizes the term credible 22 is used in slightly different contexts in various NRC 23 regulations and guidance documents, but it is not 24 defined. However, the staff is taking several actions 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
69 to ensure that the guidance is clear for defining 1
accident sequences, including appropriate controls to 2
prevent and mitigate potential accident consequences 3
and taking probabilistic considerations into account 4
as appropriate.
5 In most cases the term credible is used to 6
ensure that requirements are not imposed to protect 7
against non-physical or obviously very unlikely events 8
or phenomena. The definition of the term "impossible 9
demarcations" of what may or may not be deemed 10 credible can differ based on how a specific design and 11 licensing methodology incorporate the concept.
12 As such developing generic definitions of 13 credible may not present the most technology inclusive 14 approach and could unintentionally limit the ability 15 of applicants to propose reasonable alternatives, 16 methods for determining what is credible for their 17 designs.
18 The current regulations under 10 CFR Part 19 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 provide a regulatory framework 20 that if met ensures that there is adequate protection 21 of public health and safety, including appropriate 22 defense and depth.
23 The SRP provides guidance on establishing 24 the plant transients and accidents for light water 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
70 reactors that should be analyzed to represent a 1
sufficiently broad spectrum of transients and 2
accidents or initiating events.
3 As required by NIMA, the Nuclear Energy 4
Innovation and Modernization
: Act, the NRC is 5
developing a technology-inclusive risk-informed and 6
performance based regulatory framework, which is Part 7
53 rulemaking for any new reactor applicant.
8 As part of this rulemaking activity, the 9
NRC staff is developing flexible options for selecting 10 licensing basis events. One approach for the 11 licensing basis event selection is described in NEI 12 18-04, Revision 1, titled, Risk-Informed Performance-13 Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light 14 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, which was 15 issued in August 2019.
16 The NRC endorsed Regulatory Guide -- we 17 endorsed that document in Regulatory Guide 1.233, 18 which is titled, Guidance for Technology Inclusive 19 Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Methodology to 20 Inform the Licensing Basis and Content Applications 21 for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Non-22 Light Water Reactors and that was issued in June of 23 2020.
24 So this approaches PRA as an enhanced role 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
71 for the selection of licensing basis events. By 1
following this approach, an applicant can establish 2
the event sequences for which its proposed design must 3
include prevention and mitigation measures while the 4
embedded methodology considers frequency, engineering 5
judgment remains an important part of the process.
6 The methodology does not address credible but instead 7
includes a determination of what sequences are 8
specifically considered in the design and programmatic 9
controls and those that contribute to the residual 10 risk associated with a facility.
11 Without using insights from a full scope 12 PRA in a holistic fashion, it's more difficult and can 13 be even more subjective to define what constitutes 14 credible for a given plan.
15 So in response to stakeholder feedback on 16 the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking and to avoid -- excuse 17 me, and to afford applicants additional flexibility in 18 defining and evaluating licensing basis events without 19 using PRA in an enhanced role, the staff is also 20 developing two additional approaches.
21 One of these approaches uses PRA in a 22 traditional role that is intended to better align NRC 23 requirements with the International Atomic Energy 24 Agency, IAEA, Specific Safety Requirements Number 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
72 SSR2/1, which is titled, Safety of Nuclear Power Plant 1
Design.
2 This traditional approach includes 3
defining design rules and allowing the use of stylized 4
events to establish a design basis for the associated 5
structure systems and components.
6 While not meant to include physically 7
impossible events or phenomena, the traditional 8
approach introduces intentional conservatisms to 9
account for uncertainties or limitations in testing 10 and analyses data in the credible accidents that the 11 applicant is required to analyze and address in the 12 design.
13 The other option under development would 14 provide an alternative approach to selecting licensing 15 basis events by establishing a maximum credible or 16 hypothetical accident. All three approaches would 17 provide acceptable means of identifying the spectrum 18 of credible events to support the safety case. The 19 staff continues to encourage prospective new reactor 20 license applicants to engage the NRC staff as early as 21 practicable to discuss topics such as licensing basis 22 event selection and what approaches they propose to 23 identify credible accident scenarios for their design.
24 So at the February 18 meeting, Mr. Bley 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
73 commented that we should avoid future use of the term 1
credible by the staff because of the uncertainty of 2
what the term means. Member Petti asked if we checked 3
if we consistently use the term in our regulations and 4
if this term -- if the term's maximum hypothetical 5
accident and maximum credible accident mean the same 6
thing.
7 By my read of the transcript, I believe we 8
satisfied the ACRS with our discussions on this item.
9 Are there any questions on this item before I go on?
10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, this is Vesna.
11 I would like just to make some comments here that, you 12 know, I was thinking of making on the earlier slides.
13 You know, these statements also rely on 14 the lessons learned. And we have the numerous 15 advanced reactor applications that went through the 16 NRC. So there should be numerous data on what the 17 applicant selected as a credible accident, right?
18 What are the alternatives to the regulations? Why 19 wasn't this used in here or even quoted here?
20 I mean, why we are saying with this sort 21 of like, you know, the not well-defined definition if 22 we have experience, you know, we have a lessons 23 learned in this area. Why I wanted to make this 24 earlier because I was sort of curious how were the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
74 lessons learned?
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So I think I can 2
answer that question. So this is the alignment in 3
lessons learned rulemaking. But we're not addressing 4
all lessons learned in all areas. We were tasked in 5
SECY 15.00.02 to address lessons learned from recent 6
large light water reactor reviews. So I think the 7
experiences you describe have to do with other 8
technologies. Is that right?
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Why would that mean 10 other technologies? I mean, this applies also for the 11 large advanced light water reactor with very low 12 frequency of core damage in the large release, you 13 know? So how do they select the credible accidents?
14 So it doesn't have to be new technology.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I can just talk 16 from my history on this is that, you know, we asked 17 the staff in the process of developing the scope for 18 items. So I kind of, you know, can't say why we 19 didn't pick this. But we did have the opportunity, 20 the staff and the public, to propose areas that we 21 should focus on.
22 And we had to then go through a process of 23 scoping. I don't believe in my recollection, and 24 Malcolm you can correct me, if this issue of defining 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
75 what is credible ever came up in the scoping process.
1 Amy, you have your hand up. Do you want to go ahead?
2 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. So I'd just like to 3
say that's a very substantial issue that was more 4
appropriate for handling under Part 53 with the 5
development of a new technology inclusive regulatory 6
framework.
7 A lot of the work we're doing over there 8
is speaking to what events would need to be 9
considered. I think under 50 and 52 currently 10 particularly through the design basis accident dose 11 calculations, there's an expectation that there would 12 be a substantial core melt accident that's assumed.
13 This is a more deterministic approach 14 under the existing 50 and 52 and to have taken that on 15 under this rulemaking would have been a major 16 undertaking and is more appropriate to be handled 17 under the Part 53 development of a new regulatory 18 framework.
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Any other 21 questions on this topic?
22 MEMBER BIER: Joy, do you have your hand 23 up?
24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes, I do. And I know 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
76 I'm the one who is saying, no, we need to be done at 1
10:00. But, Jim, you always have so much information 2
that if you -- I may have missed something.
3 And so your response back with the IAEA 4
and the MHA issue and all of those things at a high 5
level, it's mentioning that there's many options. And 6
some of them are going to be addressed under Part 53.
7 And I think that's where Amy's comments are coming 8
back to.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN REMPE:
Is there any 11 consideration -- one am I correct in my high level 12 interpretation?
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Basically that 14 discussion I gave were, you know, along the lines of 15 what Amy just mentioned.
16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. So if that's true, 17 I guess I'm still wondering about a point that we 18 raised previously that, gee, there's a lot of spectrum 19 of PRAs and that what was going on in 53 might make it 20 a little more -- a better approach for what's being 21 proposed here for the alignment in lessons learned 22 because not all PRAs are done at the same level as a 23 graded approach.
24 And is staff going to have any sort of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
77 pointer or they're still thinking about it, but they 1
haven't currently in what we've seen, clearly pointing 2
to what's being developed under the Part 53 of the 3
spectrum of what a PRA could be?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I'm going to ask folks 5
in DANU to answer that one. But I know there's folks 6
in my group that are the same folks on 53. But I'll 7
let, Boyce -- if you don't mind, Boyce, can you just 8
chime in on this one?
9 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, Jim. And this is Boyce 10 Travis for the record. With regards to pointers back 11 between 50 and 52 and 53, the staff's intent with the 12 Part 53 rulemaking is to create an option or set of 13 options for a regulatory framework that stands on its 14 own.
15 That doesn't necessarily mean it's 16 independent of 50 and 52, but Parts 50 and 52 would 17 present their own licensing pathway based on a more 18 traditional approach. And the regulatory framework in 19 Part 53 will have options available to applicants that 20 will in effect be their own standalone regulatory 21 frameworks.
22 We do not expect there to be pointers in 23 50 or 52 back to 53 except for conforming changes for 24 licensing processes and administrative requirements.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
78 Does that answer your question or are you looking for 1
something more specific?
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Not where I particularly 3
wanted to go. It's more the guidance. I said it 4
poorly. It's not your fault. But what I'm going to 5
is the Marty Stutzke paper that's still under 6
development so of course you can't have any sort of 7
acknowledgment of it yet.
8 But the question is is that, jeepers, I 9
think it would help if one could have some sort of 10 acknowledgment that a PRA might include a very 11 simplistic -- based on the fact that you have a 12 systematic approach for looking at all the different 13 types of events, you might bound it with NMHA. And I 14 guess I don't see that anywhere in the guidance or the 15 language changes. And as you go forward with this 16 effort, it might be worth considering it is where I'm 17 going.
18 MR. TRAVIS: I think we understand where 19 you're coming from. As you said, you know, we're 20 still in the process of developing those options. I 21 will say that what you just discussed, I mean, the use 22 of a bounding event is not just going to be dependent 23 on simplicity and PRA. It's going to inherit a lot of 24 the characteristics and performance aspects of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
79 whatever the reactor design is, i.e. its size, its 1
radionuclide inventory, et cetera.
2 And so what the entry conditions are for 3
using that approach is still being explored by the 4
staff. And I guess I'll leave it there for now if 5
that's all right.
6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I think it's 7
something that in the future that maybe should be 8
considered -- might be worthwhile considering. But, 9
of course, one has to look at the size of the reactor 10 as to how well the applicant looks at the various 11 types of challenges, too, so the selection of the 12 events would have to occur, too.
13 But if you did some sort of a risk matrix 14 like we're seeing in some of the input applications, 15 that might work for something like this. But anyway, 16 it's just a thought. And I think you understand where 17 I'm going.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Amy, your hand is up?
19 MS. CUBBAGE: That is from before. Sorry.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. Any other 21 comments on this topic before I go on to the next one?
22 All right. I'll move on.
23 So we're on Slide 17. So the issue at 24 digital instrumentation control, or I&C, licensing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
80 reviews came up at the February 1 meeting during our 1
discussion on Part 52 change process topic.
2 So Member Brown described an experience 3
last year where the staff at ACRS worked with industry 4
to obtain some additional flexibility in the use of 5
the 10 CFR 5059 change process for the application of 6
digital I&C.
7 This work resulted in consensus on an 8
industry standard NEI 96-07, Appendix D, titled, 9
Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 10 to digital modifications.
11 The main objective of that guidance is to 12 provide all stakeholders a common framework and 13 understanding of how to apply the 10 CFR 50.59 process 14 to activities involving digital modifications. The 15 new guidance superseded 10 CFR 50.59 related guidance 16 contained in NEI-01-EPRI TR-102348, which is titled, 17 Guidelines on Licensing Digital Upgrades.
18 And the new guidance incorporates 10 CFR 19 50.59 related guidance contained in Regulatory Issue 20 Summary 2002-22, Supplement 1, which is titled, 21 Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy 22 Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in 23 Instrumentation and Control Systems.
24 Member Brown's questions were, does that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
81 work get affected or carried forward with the changes 1
that the staff is proposing in this rule to the 10 CFR 2
50.59 process? Will it be applicable to the Part 52 3
process and other licensing processes?
4 The answer is that there are no changes 5
being proposed in this rule to the 10 CFR 50.59 change 6
process or any other change process that would undo 7
the consensus we obtained in NEI 96-07, Appendix D.
8 So to be clear, the proposed rule does not contain any 9
changes that would constitute backfitting in this 10 technical area.
11 Current licensees can continue to perform 12 digital upgrades and modernize their I&C systems using 13 existing applicable regulations and related guidance 14 documents.
15 Current licensees can continue to perform 16 screening and evaluation of digital upgrades in 17 accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 rule using NEI 96-07, 18 Appendix D, guidance as endorsed by the current 19 revision and proposed revision of Reg Guide 1.187.
20 Current licensees can continue to use the 21 interim staff guidance DI&C-ISG-06, Rev. 2, to inform 22 preparation of license amendment request for digital 23 upgrades.
24 The changes to Reg Guide 1.187 from the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
82 proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 1
do not impact the endorsement of any NEI 96-07, 2
Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for 3
Application of 10 CFR 50.59 Digital Modifications.
4 Therefore, future licensees can perform 5
digital upgrades using the current guidance. The 6
proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 7
does not have any impact on 10 CFR 50.55 -- I'm sorry, 8
50.55a, Paragraph (h), rule that incorporates by 9
reference IEEE Standard 603-1991.
10 The staff will review I&C system design 11 submitted under the alignment, aligned Part 50 and 52 12 rule, using current applicable review guidance 13 documents, that is NuScale, DSRS's, that's Design 14 Specific Review Standard, Chapter 7, Design Specific 15 Re Review Guidance for Non-LWR Designs and Modernize 16 Standard Review Plan, Chapter 7.
17 So I'm going to go on to Slide 18 and then 18 I'll take questions if you guys don't mind.
19 MEMBER BROWN: I think I've got my hand 20 up. I just spoke.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Go ahead.
22 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown 23 again. I think I remembered asking one additional 24 question when we, I don't want to say terminated, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
83 when we finished this discussion in the subcommittee 1
meeting.
2 You went through all the same comments 3
during our discussion in the subcommittee meeting.
4 And you've highlighted it here, I think, correctly, 5
based on that memory. Anyway the one question I think 6
I did ask that I'm not sure you addressed was in the 7
process of doing -- this had to do with a severe 8
accident. I think it was Items 9 and 10 --
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
10 MEMBER BROWN: -- in the listing. And 11 while you're saying all these things don't affect 12 anything, did industry have any comment on this? Do 13 they agree with you?
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We have yet to put this 15 proposed rule out for public comment.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So we will find out.
17 That's okay.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Absolutely, yes.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. I will 20 remain silent for now.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
22 MEMBER BROWN: And then we'll see how it 23 goes when it goes for public comment. Okay?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. And -- sure.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
84 MEMBER BROWN: Go ahead.
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So we're on Slide 18. So 2
for the I&C system designs in future applications 3
submitted for design certifications or standard design 4
approvals, the staff will continue to ask for the 5
level of detail necessary to make a reasonable 6
assurance of safety finding. That is the changes we 7
are making to the definition of essentially complete 8
design are not intended to affect these reviews.
9 The use of design acceptance criteria, 10 DAC, for an I&C design is not needed. For example, 11 NuScale and the APR1400 reactor designs have been sort 12 of fine without using I&C DAC.
13 So at the February 18 Steering Committee 14 meeting, there was a lengthy discussion on the issue 15 as we said. Member Brown requested additional 16 information on this item at the full Committee 17 meeting. Specifically, Member Brown requested an 18 explanation of exactly why the new Criteria 9 and 10 19 in Section 50.59C(2) would not impact operating plants 20 today or how the criteria would impact the future 21 digital I&C upgrade or change a new plant design --
22 excuse me, or change a new plant license under Part 23 50.
24 Mr. Bley asked if the staff had any 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
85 discussions or open meeting with stakeholders on how 1
these two new criteria would be interpreted and 2
requested that the staff describe them at the full 3
Committee meeting.
4 So I think I answered that question. Is 5
there any other questions on this? Okay. I'm going 6
to move on.
7 So we're on -- we're almost done. So 8
we're on Slide 19. The proposed rule would add the 9
definition of essentially complete design in the 10 definition section of Part 52. The added definition 11 would provide more clarity regarding the information 12 needed in the design certification application.
13 Improved clarity on what it means for a 14 design to be essentially complete should better focus 15 the applicant and the staff to address matters that 16 relate to safety.
17 The NRC received one comment on this item.
18 The commenter requested the NRC review a letter sent 19 to the NRC from the NEI on September 24, 2020. That 20 letter had several recommendations on the subject.
21 The staff partially agreed with that comment. The 22 staff is not proposing any further changes to the 23 regulations as a result of that comment and also the 24 proposed changes are cost beneficial to both the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
86 industry and the NRC.
1 So at the February 1 subcommittee meeting, 2
there was some discussion on the aspects of what an 3
essentially complete design should mean. These came 4
up during our discussion of the design scope and 5
sanitization of the technical area.
6 The first question was from Chairman Rempe 7
where we asked if we considered adding a definition 8
for an essentially complete conceptual design on the 9
Part 50 construction permit process.
10 Member Sunseri and Mr. Bley commented that 11 the proposed definition still leaves much to 12 interpretation and the scope of the information that 13 meets the definition is unavoidably a function of the 14 staff's review of what is initially provided to them.
15 Member Kirchner commented that there seems 16 to be a break point in Part 52 where the term 17 essentially complete design seems to apply only to 18 evolutionary light water reactor designs and not 19 designs with advanced or inherent passive safety 20 features.
21 We brought these comments and questions to 22 the staff. The staff disagrees that we should apply 23 the concept of essentially complete in any form to the 24 Part 50 process. As I said earlier, the objective of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
87 this rulemaking is not to make the Part 50 and Part 52 1
process the same but to make it such that equivalent 2
designs reviewed under each process yields similar 3
outcomes with regard to
: safety, security and 4
environmental protection.
5 Part 50 affords a more relaxed requirement 6
for design information, maturity and changes during 7
the construction at the construction permit stage at 8
the cost of finality. The staff acknowledges that in 9
the preliminary draft proposed rule FRN preamble when 10 characterizing a construction permit application, the 11 staff used the phrase essentially complete conceptual 12 design.
13 This language appears in our response to 14 a comment summary and the language is not as precise 15 as it should be. Therefore, the staff plans to modify 16 the FRN preamble to use the phrase for preliminary 17 design when describing construction permit 18 applications and accurately align with the language 19 used in Part 50.
20 The Part 50 regulations recognize that at 21 the construction permit
: stage, the design is 22 preliminary and subject to future changes unlike for 23 a design certification, combined license or operating 24 license where final design information is required and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
88 all safety issues must be resolved.
1 The guidance for meeting 50.34a and 50.35 2
is contained in the Standard Review Plan Regulatory 3
Guide 1.70. And the staff is currently developing a 4
construction permit interim staff guidance to 5
supplement the standard review plan and that 6
regulatory guide.
7 So with regard to Member Kirchner's 8
comment that there seems to be a technology breakpoint 9
built into Part 52 with respect to the requirements to 10 submit an essentially complete design for review, the 11 staff looked at this and notes that it is a good 12 comment. It's a good observation.
13 However, that was not the intent of the 14 original Part 52 rulemaking. Section 52.41, Scope of 15 Subpart, which it's titled, has a Paragraph B(1) and 16 (2). B(1) says any person may seek a standard design 17 certification for an essentially complete nuclear 18 power plant design, which is an evolutionary change 19 from a light water reactor designs of plants which 20 have been licensed in any commercial operation before 21 April 18, 1989.
22 Paragraph 2 says any person may also seek 23 a standard design certification for a nuclear power 24 plant design which differs significantly from the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
89 light water reactor design described in Paragraph B(1) 1 of this section or used a simplified inherent passive 2
or other innovative means to accomplish its safety 3
functions.
4 We believe that this apparent distinction 5
in technology was not intended. Specifically, we 6
believe that the phrase in Paragraph B(1), which is an 7
"evolutionary change from a light water reactor 8
design" is not meant to qualify what Part 52 9
applicants must submit, designs that are essentially 10 complete.
11 So why is that? Because if you go to 12 52.47, Contents of Application, the purpose of which 13 that paragraph is to describe the information needed 14 for Part 52 license applications specifically does not 15
-- that paragraph specifically does not make a 16 distinction between these two classes of designs.
17 That paragraph is divided into C(1) for 18 evolutionary designs, C(2) for designs that differed 19 significantly from light-water reactor designs 20 described in Paragraph C(1) or used as simplified and 21 inherent, passive or other innovative means to 22 accomplish safety functions and Paragraph C(3) for 23 modular nuclear reactor designs. Of note is that the 24 Paragraph C(1) and C(2) both specifically require an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
90 essentially complete design.
1 Therefore, as a result of these comments 2
and this rulemaking, the staff plans to remove the 3
term "essentially complete" from 10 CFR 52.41B(1) and 4
ensure "essentially complete" is used consistently 5
within 10 CFR 52.47C(1) through (3).
6 Are there any questions on this topic? I 7
see one question. Member Kirchner?
8 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Yes, Jim. I 9
agree with your -- just one member's opinion. Your 10 approach to 50, the use of the terminology preliminary 11 design I think is appropriate.
12 I was going to make the same points that 13 you just did about the content of application under 52 14 both in the content Section 52.40 -- I'm probably not 15 going to get the numbers right, but C(1) and (2) --
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
17 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: -- both ask for 18 an essentially complete design. Are you actually 19 going to create a definition for essentially complete 20 design or are you just going to stand by -- I think 21 your preamble in 52.47 really suggests what you're 22 looking for because it suggests a design of such 23 maturity that you would be able to look at procurement 24 specs, installation specs and construction specs for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
91 that design.
1 So obviously in my experience, that's a 2
pretty -- you're pretty advanced in the design 3
process. And also in 52 you ask for an FSAR. So that 4
suggests a much more mature and complete design than 5
the 50 process does using the two steps of the CP and 6
OL, so as long as there is consistency in the 52 7
language.
8 So if I understand you correctly then in 9
52.41, you're going to strike -- in B(1) you're going 10 to strike essentially complete and then just leave it 11 in the content of application section in C(1) and (2)?
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, sir.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. We're going to 15 move on to the next item. Oh, we're done.
16 MEMBER BIER: We're done.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I've completed my 18 discussions?
19 MEMBER BIER: Yes. I've been impressed 20 how intricate these discussions are that even after 21 two subcommittee meetings, there's still a lot of 22 details to go over. So thank you for your patience 23 with this.
24 In the interests of time, I'm thinking we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
92 should just go to public comment now.
1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
2 MEMBER BIER: Do we have any comments or 3
questions from members of the public who want to state 4
their views, either you can unmute yourself, which I 5
is, I think star 6 or just on Teams? And right now I 6
hear none.
7 So, Joy, I'm thinking this might be a good 8
time for a break? I'm the sure the Committee will 9
have a lot of internal discussions but.
10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So thank you, Vicki. I 11 appreciate you leading us through this topic. And it 12 was a complex one, and I did let us go over.
13 We have to follow the agenda. And the 14 agenda did give us between 10:00 to 11:00 for letter 15 writing, but we're halfway through that period and 16 members haven't had a break all morning and some 17 members have puppy dogs that they need to walk is 18 something that a lot of times I hear.
19 So I'm to the point where I think we 20 should just break. And we do have the subcommittee 21 for P&P that starts up at noon East Coast time. And 22 so how about giving everybody an extra half hour at 23 this point for their break or whatever.
24 And later this afternoon there is a time 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
93 that would start at 3:45 p.m. And at that time, we 1
would let you read in your draft letter and discuss it 2
after we get through the afternoon topic on source 3
terms.
4 Did I correctly interpret the schedule on 5
the time because I'm looking at a computer that's 6
based in Idaho. But I believe that I've got a handle 7
on where we are in this time frame and that's the best 8
approach. Do I hear any concurrence from members or 9
disagreements?
10 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Joy, this is 11 Walt. I kind of lost an hour in your scheduling. Are 12 you proposing that we -- we don't have P&P starting 13 until 12:00 Eastern time. It's 10:30 Eastern time.
14 Is that correct?
15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Right now it's 16 about 10:30 Eastern time. And at 11:00 was the in 17 time for our letter writing, which only give us a half 18 hour, and we've not had a break.
19 So I'm proposing we defer the letter 20 writing and discussion of the draft letter until this 21 afternoon, which gives us a longer lunch hour, but we 22 didn't have a break. And if I give us 15 minutes 23 break, there's not time to bring up the draft letter 24 and even read it let alone have comments. So why 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
94 don't we just wait is what I'm proposing, Walt. Okay?
1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I'm just missing 2
the math here.
3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Maybe I've missed the 4
math.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: The P&P is 6
scheduled for 12:00.
7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right now if we came in 8
15 minutes, Walt, we'd have 15 minutes until 11:00.
9 MR. MOORE: This is Scott. P&P is 10 scheduled from noon to 1 o'clock East Coast time.
11 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right. So if we came 12 back here at 10:45, if I gave us 15 minutes, we'd have 13 15 minutes before we were supposed to break according 14 to the agenda for lunch, which would be 11:00 to noon 15 East Coast time.
16 Now, yes, we could work through lunch but 17 I know we're not supposed to do that because of FACA 18 and the Federal Register Notice. And so I'm proposing 19 that we just take an hour and a half for "lunch."
20 We'll come back at noon, which I believe you're on my 21 time, Walt, which would be 10 o'clock Mountain Time, 22 right?
23 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Correct.
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: That's (simultaneous 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
95 speaking), right, Joy? But everybody else comes back 1
at 1:00, right?
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right. Everyone else has 3
a very long lunch hour unless they want to come to the 4
-- everyone is invited to the subcommittee for P&P 5
also but that's what I'm proposing.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And then for the staff, 8
I apologize that we ran over, but it was a worthwhile 9
discussion. And I really appreciate you going into 10 these items we raised. I hope you'll be able to come 11 back at 3:45 East Coast time. Is that okay with your 12 team, Jim?
13 MEMBER O'DRISCOLL: That's okay with me.
14 I leave it to ask Omid. Are you good?
15 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, 3:45 is good. I will 16 be attending the letter writing session, Chairman 17 Rempe.
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I appreciate it. Thank 19 you. And, again, sorry we went over, but I allowed 20 it.
21 MEMBER BIER: Joy, Dennis has his hand up.
22 I don't know if that's still from before?
23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Who has their hand up?
24 MEMBER BIER: Dennis.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
96 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, Dennis. Did you have 1
a question or comment, Dennis?
2 DR. BLEY: I just had a short comment.
3 This Committee doesn't advise the staff how to manage 4
their staff. But I've reflected several times over 5
the years on something I've noticed. And that is when 6
there is a successful project, be it a nuclear plant 7
or whatever kind of project and you dig into it, you 8
find somewhere there's a champion, a person highly 9
involved, principal investigator or something who 10 really knows everything that's going on. And I just 11 want to compliment Jim. He's a champion in this role.
12 And your ability to address almost every question that 13 was raised was very impressive. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I agree. Sometimes you 15 were so good that I have trouble processing. But you 16 did a great, Jim, and I appreciate it.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm blushing.
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. So, everyone, I 19 didn't hear any strong disagreement with what I've 20 proposed, a longer lunch hour. And those of us who 21 come back at noon for P&P, we'll be here. And it's 22 actually on the same link for Microsoft Teams. It's 23 an open public link. And I'll see everybody then that 24 wants to join us. Okay? Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
97 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 1
off the record at 10:35 a.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay, everybody. It's 3
1:00 p.m. on the East Coast. And I'm going to 4
reconvene for the first day of the 693rd Meeting of 5
the ACRS to verify that we have a quorum and that 6
clear communications exist. I'm going to again call 7
roll. Vicki Bier?
8 MEMBER BIER: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN REMPE:
Thank you.
Ron 10 Ballinger?
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Here.
12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Charles Brown? I'll come 13 back (simultaneous speaking).
14 MEMBER BIER: Joy, Charlie was going to 15 walk his dog and be back in a minute.
16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, okay. Vesna 17 Dimitrijevic.
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I'm here.
19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you. Greg Halnon?
20 MEMBER HALNON: Here.
21 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thanks. Walt Kirchner?
22 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Here.
23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you. Jose March-24 Leuba?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
98 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.
1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave Petti?
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And Matthew Sunseri?
4 MEMBER SUNSERI: Here.
5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So we have a quorum, and 6
Charlie will be joining us later. At this point, I'm 7
going to ask Member Petti to lead us through the topic 8
for this afternoon, which is the integration of source 9
term activities. And, Dave, I'll turn it over to you.
10 MEMBER PETTI: Thank you. So as we came 11 out of subcommittee two weeks ago as most of you know 12 since I think you were all there, we had a really in-13 depth briefing from the staff on this topic. And I 14 said that I would put together a couple slides, that 15 the staff didn't have to give another summary here, 16 that I would put together a number of slides about why 17 I thought it was important that we write a letter.
18 And so I think I have a slide on sort of 19 why and then a little bit, I have a high level 20 conclusion and recommendations. And if the full 21 Committee agrees with the letter, I have that letter 22 ready to be worked on.
23 So, you know, I think as you all know, the 24 source term is really the raison d'tre for the NRC, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
99 right? If we didn't have radioactive material in a 1
nuclear system, what would we be regulating for?
2 Also I think it's important that being 3
able to develop a source term that can receive 4
regulatory approval is really critical to the success 5
of any of the new reactor design and licensing, 6
whether that be something like NuScale, which we had 7
seen had a slightly different approach to the advanced 8
reactor designs that are going to look very different 9
and have very different source terms.
10 Also on October 8, we had one of our 11 periodic meetings with the commissioners. And during 12 that meeting, we discussed our plans to perform an 13 integrated review of the source term activities. And 14 we stated that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 15 fit together would be worthwhile.
16 So it seems like, in my opinion, we need 17 to put a letter together to kind of, you know, close 18 on this issue A. B, the staff spent a lot of time on 19 it and felt it was important to give them the credit 20 here in this area.
21 Joy, your hand is up?
22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So I'd like to explore 23 this last bullet a bit more. It's true that there was 24 a slide in your presentation that said that we plan to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
100 perform an integrated review of source term 1
activities.
2 And it's true that there was a bullet that 3
said a roadmap showing -- I think it almost said we 4
recommended that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 5
fit together would be worthwhile. But was that last 6
statement ever in any of our letters?
7 MEMBER PETTI: Oh, I don't think so.
8 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis. And, Dave, if 9
I could.
10 MEMBER PETTI: Go ahead.
11 MR. BLEY: We did write a couple of 12 letters that referred to the source term. My memory 13
-- I don't have them out in front of me -- is we never 14 actually used the word roadmap here, but we said 15 guidance was really needed for these new ones. So we 16 said that multiple times.
17 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's true we said the 18 guidance was needed. But we never had in our letters 19 the word roadmap. And I remember discussing this, 20 Dave, a while ago with you before the presentation 21 because there were a lot of things that I said, hey, 22 that's not in the letter. We pulled it. And I let 23 this one go because your response was, well, I've been 24 talking to the staff and we both, the staff and I, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
101 came to the conclusion that a roadmap was needed.
1 And I just want to make sure that it's 2
clear in everyone's mind because, again, if we write 3
a letter, I don't want it to be implying that -- it 4
would be great for us to say better guidance or a 5
roadmap is needed on that web page, but I think we 6
need to be careful about what we've said in the past 7
in our letters.
8 And I wouldn't -- we actually should be 9
careful, too, about what we present and make sure it's 10 clear when it's a single member's opinion or it's a 11 paraphrasing and things like that. But I want to make 12 sure everyone understands that point. Okay?
13 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I think the staff --
14 and when we had the discussion with the staff, we 15 agreed that a presentation on this topic would be very 16 useful so.
17 Next slide, Mike. Oh, okay. So I move 18 in.
So here's the first conclusion and 19 recommendation. The regulatory basis for the source 20 term is widely disbursed -- I'm going to not read it 21 word for word -- in numerous documents focused on 22 LWRs. The dedicated website being developed by the 23 staff is designed as a one-stop shop to capture the 24 information and keep applicants up to date.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
102 The applicants and stakeholders would also 1
benefit from consolidated guidance to determining if 2
the acceptable attributes are suitable for a 3
particular design. And in particular if the staff 4
provides an overview on the website explaining how the 5
applicant can best use this information in concert 6
with pre-application consultations with the staff, 7
applicants will be better prepared to develop a high 8
quality submittal.
9 The next two -- the staff has expanded 10 significant effort evaluating system accident response 11 for the ranger technologies anticipated from future 12 applicants as described in the Non-LWR Vision and 13 Strategy, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, with computer code 14 development. The development of the computer codes 15 for confirmatory analysis of these non-LWR technology 16 should promote expeditious reviews of current and 17 future applications.
18 And the third was a
clear common 19 definition of maximum hypothetical and maximum 20 credible accident should be established along with 21 guidance on how it should be developed to assist 22 potential applicants that would use this concept in 23 their licensing strategy.
24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave, I do have some 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
103 questions or comments. First of all, a comment on --
1 you don't have to go back to the slide on C&R 1. And 2
I was going through -- again, I'm new at being 3
Chairman. And sometimes when there's these very 4
length C&Rs in some of the statements, it's hard to 5
tell what's a conclusion and what's a recommendation.
6 And we always have to figure whether it's plural or 7
singular on C&Rs.
8 Now there's enough here I don't think that 9
will be a problem with your letter. But be careful 10 because sometimes I think that some of this is almost 11 wishful thinking. But I'd like to go on to my real 12 point here on the next slide.
13 A big point that I was trying to make 14 during this meeting is that I do like the reference 15 plan evaluations. And I think the staff has done a 16 great job. But if we're going to commend them for it, 17 I really would like to see them go further because the 18 insights they are gaining about whether there is not 19 only gaps in the data, but the gaps are important is 20 an important thing that needs to be communicated to 21 the design developers with these new technologies 22 because, yes, there's a lack of data, but some data 23 isn't as important as other data.
24 And, of course, we're assuming that these 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
104 current models are correct for these technologies.
1 But if we're going to buy-in with that, then they 2
could really help with showing that this piece of data 3
is going to be very important. And if you don't have 4
it, you need to get it.
5 MEMBER PETTI: That's in the letter. And 6
if you want to --
7 (Simultaneous speaking.)
8 CHAIRMAN REMPE: That's the thing I would 9
put up because --
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I don't have a problem 12 with that at all.
13 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I think it's an 14 important thing. If we're going to do this, let's --
15 again, at the end of the meeting, I said, you know, 16 these are individual member's comments, and you can 17 take or leave them. But I feel important in this --
18 that this is important. But the staff did respond and 19 say, yes, we've got them. And so, you know, again, 20 the rules of the game have always been, well, if you 21 write the letter, let's make sure all the important 22 ones are highlighted in the conclusions and 23 recommendations. Okay?
24 And then the last thing, I thought Walt 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
105 and other folks -- it was on the Part 50 and 52 1
discussion where it came across, and it was actually 2
a staffer, Michelle Hart, who came up with what her 3
opinion was about the difference between a maximum 4
credible accident versus a maximum hypothetical 5
accident and that there is a difference.
6 And so I would make this that there's two 7
definitions, one for each of these things if we're 8
going to do this because I think that there is --
9 perhaps there is a difference of opinion on what the 10 difference between a maximum hypothetical accident is 11 or a maximum credible accident and that needs to be 12 documented by the staff.
13 So anyway, if we're going to do this, I 14 would change this last bullet to be the fact that 15 there are two things that need to be defined. Or if 16 they're the same thing, then staff should say they're 17 the same thing, and we're not going to distinguish 18 between them. But it's (simultaneous speaking).
19 MEMBER PETTI: I got confused. That's why 20 I asked the question in the context of 50 and 52 21 because I heard it put together, and I've heard them 22 separately. So it was very confusing to me whether 23 they were two separate things or the same thing. And 24 I think it maybe might depend on the context.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
106 (Simultaneous speaking.)
1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 2
Walt. Part 52 is pretty explicit. It's a maximum 3
hypothetical accident is what is required in using the 4
52 process.
5 MEMBER PETTI: Okay.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: It's not an or.
7 Now the applicant may define, well, for my system this 8
is the most maximum credible accident, but at least 52 9
requires that you postulate a maximum hypothetical 10 accident.
11 MEMBER PETTI: Right. And Part 53 --
12 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I just say that 13 as a clarification.
14 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. Part 53 --
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Walt and Dave, 16 didn't we just discuss this morning credible as a part 17 of alignment between 50 and 52 for like a half hour?
18 And then they never said hypothetical. They said 19 credible. So I am not sure that's really 52 means 20 hypothetical if now we just discussed credible today.
21 Remember this morning that we were discussing credible 22 23 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, yes, yes, yes.
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- actually.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
107 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: No, I do, Vesna, 1
yes, thank you. I'm not sure what the staff's intent 2
is on changing the language. But I was just making 3
the distinction that 52 asks you, as an applicant, to 4
postulate a maximum hypothetical accident. I don't 5
think it uses the terminology credible accident.
6 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah. This is Greg. I 7
thought that the staff -- and I have to go back and 8
look at the transcript. One gentleman jumped in and 9
said they were actually writing a definition in one of 10 the draft documents that from what I heard made them 11 equate them as probably the same interchangeable. But 12 I got to go back and look at the transcripts to be 13 sure. So just to add to the confusion, I think that 14 or should be an and.
15 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, yes, no, that's fine.
16 Yes, I agree. No, I'm not sure that's right, Greg, 17 because that was exactly my question, and I thought 18 they answered it as no. They are two different 19 things. And it certainly was in Michelle's mind. She 20 had two different ideas. So, yes, I think a little 21 bit of clarity here would help.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, I think so.
23 DR. BLEY: Dave?
24 MEMBER PETTI: Yes?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
108 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis. Certainly 1
historically there's been a difference if you go all 2
the way back to the 50s and come from then. There 3
have been times over the history of the AEC and NRC 4
where the same initials, acronyms, have changed actual 5
word meaning so that might be where the staff is 6
headed to bring them together, but historically they 7
were different.
8 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. I think that's all 9
I have for the slides. I think it's -- oh, no, it 10 isn't. There it is. Okay. So here's just to give 11 you an idea of what the letter looks like. There's a 12 background, about 15 lines. I tried to summarize the 13 regulatory basis and discuss all the documents that 14 touch on source term that kind of show that it is 15 somewhat distributed and sets the stage.
16 Observation on source term development, 17 these are sort of -- it's a real technical meet.
18 These are basically things I gleaned from all the 19 presentations, or a number of the presentations, and 20 just try to put a focus on them because I thought they 21 were the important things and then talk about the work 22 on the website and then a summary. So it's not a very 23 long letter. It depends on what font you use, I 24 guess.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
109 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So at one point you were 1
going to say more than the website is needed, like 2
guidance is needed. And I'm not sure that you are 3
still feeling that way because I guess, again, another 4
point I tried to make during the meeting is as I 5
recall, the person sending it said, oh, there's a typo 6
on this website, and we're going to fix it. And that 7
happens a lot with websites. it's not like a document 8
that gets reviewed,and it's there. Even if you give 9
it, and there are still errors in the document. It's 10 issued. The website you fix it and you update, you 11 know, last modified date at the bottom, and you go on.
12 And are you going to try and recommend 13 that they do something a little more concrete? Are 14 you going to say, no, it's changing so fast this is 15 the best I can do?
16 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I think I moved away 17 from more guidance at least in the near-term just 18 because I think they've got so much on their plate.
19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So not even some sort of 20 roadmap is needed anymore?
21 MEMBER PETTI: I think that the website 22 fulfills that function. Hold on. No, I do. I'm 23 sorry. I wrote this. I do say that the benefit from 24 consolidated guidance to aid in determining acceptable 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
110 applicants. What I didn't say is what that guidance 1
should look like. Should it be something that's on 2
the website? Should it be a separate document? I 3
leave that up to them. I'm kind of silent on that.
4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, again, I think as we 5
decide to do a letter that some acknowledgment of the 6
fact that websites are temporal and can easily be 7
fixed. I think a website is great as a way to start.
8 But I'm wondering if maybe something a little more 9
concrete is needed or something or at least we should 10 acknowledge that websites are not the same, you know, 11 firmness. And given that the landscape is changing so 12 fast this is probably the right level to hit on it, 13 but acknowledge that something -- that it is very 14 easily changed.
15 DR. BLEY: Joy, this is Dennis again.
16 Maybe somebody on the staff could help. But over the 17 last up to 10 years, the staff has put a number of 18 tools for themselves and other kinds of information 19 into websites that are well controlled.
20 And I think if you folks do write a 21 letter, and I would recommend you do because we've 22 raised this issue so many times -- where was I going?
23 With the website, maybe somebody from the staff can 24 talk about the kind of control they will have on that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
111 and if they've got examples where in fact guidance is 1
presented on the NRC website and is under the same 2
kind of control that you have on a document.
3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dennis, you know, even if 4
it's controlled, when I do references to a website and 5
publications that are archival, you always put last 6
access, whatever date, because it's recognized that 7
websites can change their information. I mean, that's 8
(simultaneous speaking).
9 DR. BLEY: That's very reasonable because 10 you put revision numbers on your documents. But I 11 think rather than speculating if the staff can address 12 that, I think it would be helpful. And it doesn't 13 sound like they are ready to do that so I withdraw 14 that recommendation.
15 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala, Chief of 16 the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch and NRR. You know, 17 we put this website together, you know, to serve as a 18 roadmap and to provide easy access to anybody who is 19 interested in terms of where to find, you know, 20 information on source term.
21 Even as a result of the subcommittee 22 meeting that we just had on source term, we went in, 23 and we added some information on NUREG-1537, you know, 24 the guidance that is there for non-power reactors, you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
112 know.
1 So we definitely plan to keep that website 2
up-to-date. And that website references official, you 3
know, NRC documents. So even as we update, you know, 4
the text on the website, it's still going to be 5
referencing official ADAMS, you know, documents that 6
are in our agency-wide document management system.
7 So, you know, we have been -- you know we 8
created our advanced reactor public website back in 9
2016. And we've been updating it on a regular basis.
10 And so we do put a conscious effort into keeping the 11 advanced reactor related websites up-to-date. And 12 this source term website is a page off of our advanced 13 reactor overall web page. I don't know if that --
14 DR. BLEY: Hey, John?
15 MR. SEGALA: -- answers your questions or 16 not.
17 DR. BLEY: John? It's Dennis. I think 18 so. And I played around on the website and found 19 things that I wouldn't have been able to find without 20 it, I think.
21 The website itself is not guidance. It 22 points you to the guidance, correct?
23 MR. SEGALA: Yes.
24 DR. BLEY: Dave, I didn't have anything 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
113 else.
1 MEMBER PETTI: Oh, okay. Thanks.
2
: Members, any other comments?
: Well, as the 3
subcommittee chair, I'd like --
4 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave?
5 MEMBER PETTI: Yes?
6 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 7
Walt. If I might ask John, who is with us, the 8
intention is to have Draft Guide 1389 as the next 9
revision to Reg. Guide 1.183. That's really LWR 10 specific. Is there any one stop shop place for a non-11 LWR to develop its source term? What would be the 12 last Reg. Guide that you would refer someone to?
13 Would it be 1.183 and then modify it for non-LWR 14 technology?
15 MEMBER PETTI: John, you're muted.
16 MR. SEGALA: Yes. thank you. I don't 17 know if maybe Michelle Hart can add. I think there is 18 general information in Reg. Guide 1.183 on how to 19 develop a source term so a non-light water reactor 20 developer can start with that information, you know, 21 to develop either their design specific source term or 22 even scenario specific source term.
23 So there's a lot of good information in 24 there even though it's light water reactor specific 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
114 for the majority of the Reg. Guide. And then we have 1
other information, you know, that's on the website 2
that non-light water reactor developers could use.
3 We also have, you know, the licensing 4
modernization project in our Reg. Guide 1.233 that 5
endorses that document, the non-light water reactor 6
PRA standard. You know, there's lots of the melt core 7
scale workshops that we've done and whatnot.
8 Michelle, are you on?
9 MS. HART: I'm here. Yes, I don't think 10 that there's anything additional to add to that. I 11 will say that we do not have a plan to provide a 12 source term for the reactors like we do in Reg. Guide 13 1.183.
14 The other features of a consequence 15 assessment you can use the information in there, you 16 know, pretty easily. But the development of the 17 source term, maybe you can look at the basis for the 18 source term that's in Reg. Guide 1.183 for light water 19 reactors and you, as a non-light water reactor 20 applicant, would be able to figure out, well, what 21 information do I need to come up with similar types of 22 information for my reactor is kind of the thought 23 behind that.
24 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: You know, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
115 reason I asked this was because it seems to me that 1
it's very useful to have all of this information on 2
a website and such. But it seems to me, Dave, right 3
now that rather than use the term roadmap, that 4
suggests one -- it goes through all these documents to 5
figure out what your source term should be.
6 It seems to me right now that 1.183 as 7
revised in DG-1389 is the latest and greatest 8
resource, so to speak, that an applicant should look 9
at. And then if that applicant is a non-LWR 10 technology, then one is going to have to supplement 11 accordingly to develop a mechanistic source term.
12 Does that make any sense? I mean, rather than ask the 13 staff to develop a roadmap, I'm a little -- I guess I 14 shared Joy's concern as well.
15 I think rather than a "roadmap", one 16 should be pointing specifically to a Reg. Guide that 17 provides an acceptable approach for developing a 18 source term --
19 MEMBER PETTI: (Simultaneous speaking.)
20 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: -- supplemented 21 by the Sandia and INL Reports, et cetera, et cetera.
22 MEMBER PETTI: There's an appendix in one 23 of these documents. And I keep getting confused. I 24 thought it was in 1.183. But maybe it's in the -- I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
116 not exactly sure. But it kind of provides sort of an 1
overview of what it takes to put together a source 2
term. Michelle, do you know which Reg. Guide that's 3
in?
4 MEMBER HALNON: Dave, that's in the EP --
5 well, the Appendix B in the new EP?
6 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. That's what I was 7
remembering. That was maybe the one so.
8 MEMBER HALNON: I think it's 1.242, I 9
think.
10 MS. HART: Yes. It's Reg. Guide 1.242.
11 It has a discussion on considerations for source 12 terms, how to develop source terms. And that is for 13 the emergency preparedness rulemaking.
14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I haven't checked this 15 website recently. But is Reg. Guide 1.242 pointed to 16 in the website as it is configured today?
17 MS. HART: I don't think so.
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE:
Because that was 19 something that I thought we did review this EPZ 20 rulemaking that was a good source. So that might be 21 something you might want to add to this slide.
22 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala. I was 23 just going to say that I think we were trying to point 24 to documents that are out there. I think that guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
117 is -- you know, with the rulemaking package is up in 1
front of the Commission right now to vote on that 2
rulemaking. So once the Commission votes on that 3
rulemaking, that Reg. Guide will be issued final. And 4
then we'll add the reference to that onto our website.
5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Actually, I just checked 6
the website. It's on there pointing to 1.242, Rev. C, 7
July 2021. So you do have it, I think, actually.
8 Sorry. Just to correct the record.
9 MR. SEGALA: No, that's okay. I was just 10 saying we won't have a reference to the final version 11 until it's issued, and the Commission approves it.
12 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. So maybe in the 13 letter, I've noticed I have a paragraph about that is 14 arguing that appendix may be a good entry point for 15 applicants thinking about a source term, that and 16 1.183 probably together.
17 So I guess the question in front of the 18 Committee is do we want a letter? I recommend that we 19 do. And it's --
20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Do we need to have a 21 vote? And do you want me to lead the vote, Dave, or 22 how do you want to go forward here?
23 MEMBER PETTI: I don't how we -- I mean, 24 if anyone disagrees maybe we should just, you know, by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
118 acclimation, only if you don't agree.
1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: The last time it was 2
about half and half so why don't we just go through 3
it. Okay?
4 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. That's fine.
5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So let's call for a vote.
6 I'm going to say a yes means a letter, no means not a 7
letter. And in the past, I learned that some members 8
are undecided. So an undecided is also a legal vote 9
here. And I've got my pen to take down the votes.
10 Ron Ballinger, how do you vote?
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Vicki Bier?
13 MEMBER BIER: Mostly undecided, but slight 14 yes.
15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So now I don't know how 16 to record you. Should I put a yes or a U, Vicki?
17 MEMBER BIER: Oh, I don't know. We'll see 18 how it works out at the end. But I'm fine being a U.
19 I'm not super informed on this topic so.
20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Charlie Brown, a 21 yes, an undecided or a no.
22 MEMBER BROWN: Undecided, but I'll cancel 23 out Vicki's and say the other way.
24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I'm putting both 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
119 of you as U's. Vesna Dimitrijevic?
1 MEMBER BROWN: As what, U's?
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. Undecided.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. All right.
4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I've got to keep track of 5
this. Okay?
6 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. Thank you. I'm 7
like Vicki. I'm not as versed in this. So I'll 8
defer.
9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Vesna, how do you 10 vote?
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Greg, how do you vote?
13 MEMBER HALNON: Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Walt Kirchner, how 15 do you vote? Walt, are you on mute?
16 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Yes. I couldn't 17 find the mute.
18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Jose, how do you 19 vote?
20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, write the 21 letter.
22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I bet, Dave, 23 that's a yes. Matt, how do you vote?
24 MEMBER SUNSERI: Yes.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
120 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. And I'm an 1
undecided, but I don't see any no's. So we are going 2
to do a letter. Are you ready to switch to having --
3 do we need five minutes for -- do we want to take a 4
break. It's only been 30 minutes since we started.
5 So should we just go ahead and ask Sandra to bring up 6
the screen again?
7 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I think she's ready, 8
yes.
9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Sandra, are you 10 ready out there?
11 SANDRA: I'm ready.
12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Go ahead and bring 13 up and share your screen, and we'll let Dave start 14 reading. And thank you to the staff who -- I'm sorry.
15 Court reporter, I need to say we're going to go off 16 the record. Thank you for reminding me.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 1:32 p.m.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
 
ACRS Briefing:
Content of Proposed Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing 1
March 2, 2022 ADAMS Accession No. ML22059A040
 
2 Joy Rempe - ACRS Chairman Lawrence Burkhart - ACRS Technical Support Branch OPENING STATEMENT AGENDA
 
3 PROPOSED DRAFT RULEMAKING
 
4 Vicki Bier - ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices Chairman Brian Smith - Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REMARKS
 
5 NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Omid Tabatabai, NRR Senior Project Manager
 
6 Todays Meeting
* Discuss the purpose and content of the proposed rule
* Discuss items of interest from the February subcommittee meetings
* Provide an update on next steps and the rulemaking schedule
* Receive ACRS members perspectives
 
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 Parts 50 and 52 reactor licensing processes
- Improve clarity
- Incorporate lessons learned in recent licensing proceedings
- Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff
 
8 Scope of the Proposed Rule
* Number of technical areas: 11
* Number of items in scope: 61
* Items with rulemaking recommendation: 60
- Number of items with rulemaking and guidance development or revision: 18
- Number of guidance documents with rule: 13
* Number of 10 CFR parts affected by rulemaking: 9
 
9 Alignment of Parts 50 and 52
* The proposed rule addresses four areas where the NRCs policies and direction for new reactors have resulted in requirements and guidance for Part 52 applicants only:
- Application of Severe Accident Policy Statement (1)
- Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (3)
- Three Mile Island Requirements (1)
- Fire Protection Design Features and Plans (1)
 
10 10 Lessons Learned from Recent Experience
* The proposed rule covers topics for which the NRCs recent experience with new light water reactor licensing has resulted in lessons learned Operator Licensing (5)
Physical Security (2)
Fitness For Duty (4)
Emergency Planning (7)
Part 52 Licensing Process (21)
Environmental Protection (1)
Applicability of Other Processes to the 10 CFR Part 52 Process (5)
Miscellaneous Topics (9)
 
11 11 Estimates of Costs and Savings
* Total net averted costs to industry and the NRC between $16.1 million and $25.5 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 unquantified benefits as well (regulatory efficiency, public confidence)
 
12 12 Topics for Further Discussion
* Relationship to non-LWRs
* Cumulative effects of changes to the design when the plant is built
* Use of probabilistic risk assessment in design
* Cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents
* Flexibility for changes related to digital I&C
* Definition of essentially complete design
 
13 13 Relationship to Non-LWRs
* Cross-cutting item
* The item was added in response to public comments on the regulatory basis
* The goal of the discussion and proposed changes is to explain how this rulemaking activity fits with other licensing process efforts and rulemakings that relate to non-light water technology
 
14 14 Cumulative Effects of Changes During Construction
* Part 50 and Part 52 remain distinct processes
* Part 52 is based on:
-Essentially complete nuclear plant design
-Final design information
-Resolution of all safety issues
-Finality for resolutions in subsequent proceedings
 
15 15 Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Design
* Change: Extend the current PRA requirements in Part 52 to apply to Part 50 power reactor license applicants Affected regulations:
§50.34(a), Preliminary safety analysis report
§50.34(b), Final safety analysis report Aligns Parts 50 and 52 on the use of PRA in the design of the facility and ensures that similar risk information is supplied in applications for new power reactor CPs or OLs under Part 50 Public comments:
- Ten comments; expressed concern over changes and need for clarification on how to meet requirements
- In response to comments, NRC changed the cost model to reflect the significant effort required to complete an upgrade prior to loading fuel Cost/benefit: Development of PRA, rulemaking; qualitative
 
16 16 Cutoff Accident Frequency for Credible Accidents
* A discrete cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents is not defined
* The changes to 10 CFR 50.59(c) would align the Part 50 change process with Part 52 with regard to consideration of severe accidents
* This rulemaking does not further define credible or what is substantial
 
17 17 Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C
* Endorsement of NEI 96-07 Appendix D unaffected
* RG 1.187 unaffected
* Current interim staff guidance unaffected
* No changes to 10 CFR 50.55a(h) in this rulemaking
 
18 18 Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C (contd)
* Staff will ask for the level of detail necessary to meet a safety finding
* Design acceptance criteria are not needed
* Proposed change process for standard design approvals would use current methods
 
19 19 Clarify the Phrase Essentially Complete Design
* Change: Add standardized definition of essentially complete design to Part 52
* Affected regulations:
* §52.1, Definitions
* Add clarity and efficiency; reduce scope of information needed for review
* Public comments:
- Review September 24, 2021 NEI letter to NRC
* Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial
 
20 Questions
 
21 21 Recap and Next Steps
* Complete concurrence on draft proposed rule
* Submit the proposed rule to the Commission
* Plan for additional public meeting(s) during the public comment period for the proposed rule
 
22 22 Rulemaking Schedule Issue final rule October 2024 Submit proposed rule to the Commission May 2022
 
23 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 Omid Tabatabai, Senior Project Manager Division of New Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Omid.Tabatabai@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-6616 Contact Information
 
24 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
 
25 25 Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL Combined License CP Construction Permit DAC Design Acceptance Criteria DC Design Certification DG Draft Regulatory Guide ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EP Emergency Planning ESP Early Site Permit FFD Fitness For Duty FRN Federal Register Notice FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report I&C Instrumentation and Controls ISG Interim Staff Guidance ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria LAR License Amendment Request LWR Light-Water Reactor ML Manufacturing License NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEIMA Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OL Operating License PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment RG Regulatory Guide SDA Standard Design Approval SECY Office of the Secretary SRP Standard Review Plan SSC Structure, System, and Component STP South Texas Project TMI Three Mile Island
 
26 26 References Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, dated November 1978 ML011340122 SECY-90-241, Level of Detail Required for Design Certification Under Part 52, dated July 11, 1990 ML003707877 IEEE Std. 603-1991, Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, dated December 31, 1991 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/159411 NEI 01-01/EPRI TR-102348, Revision 1, Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades, dated March 2002 ML020860169 NEI 00-04, Revision 0, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline, dated July 2005 ML052910035 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Revision 1, Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated May 2006 ML061090627 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 13.3, Revision 3, Emergency Planning, dated March 2007 ML063410307 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.1, Revision 3, Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated September 2012 ML12193A107 Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, dated March 2014 ML12188A053 NEI 96-07, Appendix C, Revision 0 - Corrected, Guideline for Implementation of Change Processes for New Nuclear Power Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated March 2014 ML14091A739 Results of Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.201, dated April 23, 2015 ML15091A788
 
27 27 References (contd)
Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-025, Changes During Construction Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated July 2015 ML15058A377 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.0, Revision 3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors, dated December 2015 ML15089A068 International Atomic Energy Agency, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR 2/1, Revision 1, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design, dated February 2016 https://www.iaea.org/
publications/8771/
safety-of-nuclear-power-plants-design NRC Letter to NEI Related to the Public Meeting of March 28, 2018, Regarding Avoiding Delays in Issuance of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined Licenses, dated May 9, 2018 ML18123A245 Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-22, Supplement 1, Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems, dated May 31, 2018 ML18143B633 Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, dated October 2018 ML18131A181 DI&C-ISG-06, Revision 2, Licensing Process, dated December 2, 2018 ML18269A259 NEI 18-04, Revision 1, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, dated August 2019 ML19241A472 NEI Letter to the NRC, Part 50/52 Lessons Learned Rulemaking, dated March 9, 2020 ML20108F543 NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications, dated May 2020 ML20135H168
 
28 28 References (contd)
Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66] held April 29, 2020, dated May 26, 2020 ML20141L609 Regulatory Guide 1.233, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors, dated June 2020 ML20091L698 NRC Letter to NEI, Part 50/52 Lessons-Learned Rulemaking: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement, dated September 8, 2020 ML20156A308 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated December 2020 ML20238B871 Regulatory Guide 1.237, Revision 0, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Being Constructed Under a Combined License Referencing a Certified Design Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated February 2021 ML20349A335 Design Review Guide (DRG): Instrumentation and Controls for Non-Light-Water Reactor (Non-LWR)
Reviews, dated February 26, 2021 ML21011A140 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, last reviewed/updated March 9, 2021 https://www.nrc.gov/reading
-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr08 00/index.html NEI, Industry Comments on the Regulatory Basis for Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0196), dated May 14, 2021 ML21144A164
 
29 29 References (contd)
Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 3, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, dated June 2021 ML21109A002 NUREG-1021, Revision 12, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, dated September 2021 ML21256A276 Draft Interim Staff Guidance; Request for Comment, Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications, dated December 14, 2021 86 FR 71101 Draft FRN to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting - 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated January 27, 2022 ML22020A002 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 1, 2022 ML22020A001 Draft Guidance Documents to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Part 50/52 Proposed Rulemaking, dated February 15, 2022 ML22040A074 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 18, 2022 ML22046A035
 
ACRS ITAAC PRESENTATION MARCH 2, 2022
 
Atomic Energy Acts ITAAC Requirements Section 185b. (42 U.S.C. 2235(b)) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA),
and 10 CFR 52.97(b) require that the Commission identify within the combined license the Inspections, Tests, and Analyses (ITAs), including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the AEA, and the Commissions rules and regulations. To fulfill this requirement, the Commission included ITAAC in Appendix C to the combined license (COL) for VEGP Units.
Following issuance of the combined license, Section 185b. requires that the Commission ensure that the prescribed ITAs are performed and, before operation of the facility, find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met. The NRC codified the requirement to ensure completion of the ITAs in 10 CFR 52.99(e) and codified the requirement to find that the acceptance criteria are met in 10 CFR 52.103(g).
In the July 19, 2013, Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-13-0033, Staff Requirements - SECY-13-0033 - Allowing Interim Operation Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 52.103 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13200A115), the Commission delegated the responsibility for the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding to the staff.
 
Staffs two-pronged approach to fulfill the requirements
* First, the staff reviews 100 percent of the licensees ITAAC Closure Notifications (ICNs) submitted under 10 CFR 52.99(c)(1). These reviews verify that the licensee provided a sufficient basis to demonstrate that the ITAs were performed as required and that the results met the prescribed acceptance criteria. The staff also reviews 100 percent of the ITAAC Post Closure Notifications (IPCNs) submitted under 10 CFR 52.99(c)(2) to verify that the ITAAC are still satisfied notwithstanding new, material information.
* Second, the staff performs independent inspections of a carefully selected sample of ITAAC to independently verify (1) the licensees performance of the ITAs and (2) that the obtained results met the prescribed acceptance criteria.
* Additionally, these inspections also verified that the licensee (1) had quality construction programs, processes, and procedures; (2) provided adequate quality assurance (QA) oversight of construction activities; and (3) identified and corrected conditions adverse to quality.
* Moreover, a sample of the ICNs were inspected against their associated closure packages to verify the accuracy of the information reported in the ICNs.
 
ITAAC Prioritization Process While the scope of the NRCs inspection programs is comprehensive, 100-percent inspection is neither necessary nor efficient when evaluating licensee performance. For this reason, the NRC historically has relied on a risk-informed sample-based inspection program. For VEGP, the Construction Inspection Program (CIP) focused on a select sample of predefined inspection targets (i.e., targeted ITAAC).
The methodology for prioritizing the ITAAC for inspection was based in part on a quantitative process called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a method of comparison used to reduce the subjectivity in prioritization and provide structure to the decision-making process.
The prioritization process was managed such that the rating given each ITAAC correlated to the amount of assurance one could obtain from inspecting that ITAAC. In this way, it was not the ITAAC that was prioritized, but rather the value of inspecting that ITAAC, to maximize the agencys ability to detect any significant construction flaw.
The Technical Report on the Prioritization of Inspection Resources for Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060740006), contains further detail on the AHP process.
The process for prioritizing the ITAAC for inspection is described in OI NRR-LIC-210, Prioritization of Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for Inspection (ADAMS Accession No. ML20057D521).
 
ITAAC Prioritization Process (contd)
The first step in the prioritization process classifies and groups the ITAAC into families to facilitate ITAAC inspection sampling within each family. ITAAC are classified based on (1) the activities performed to implement it, and/or (2) its acceptance criterion. The ITAAC Matrix (see next slide) establishes a logical way to group the ITAAC into families for inspection sampling purposes, but it does not provide directions on what ITAAC to inspect.
ITAAC are grouped by selecting the single best combination of a matrix column (i.e.,
construction program) and a matrix row (i.e., construction process or system, structure, or component) that best covers the ITAACs construction activities. For example, all ITAAC for the as-built inspection of instrumentation and control components will be binned in the matrix family
[A10] formed by the intersection of column (A) and row (10).
The use of the ITAAC Matrix provides a consistent framework for developing the inspection program for each new or advanced reactor design and establishes a sound, efficient, inspection sampling approach. Because the ITAAC within a family are similar, an equivalent licensee performance can be expected for each of them.
 
ITAAC Prioritization Process The second step involves rank-ordering the ITAAC based upon certain defined attributes that make one ITAAC more or less important to inspect. The defined attributes are:
(1) safety significance, (2) propensity for making errors, (3) construction and testing experience, (4) the opportunity to verify ITAAC completion by other means, and (5) licensee (applicant) oversight. {Not used}
Each attribute is weighted based on its importance in achieving the overall objective of detecting significant construction flaws.
 
ITAAC MAINTENANCE RULE 10 CFR 52.99(c)(2)
ITAAC post-closure notifications. Following the licensees ITAAC closure notifications under paragraph (c)(1) of this section until the Commission makes the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the licensee shall notify the NRC, in a timely manner, of new information that materially alters the basis for determining that either inspections, tests, or analyses were performed as required, or that acceptance criteria are met. The notification must contain sufficient information to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the new information, the prescribed inspections, tests, or analyses have been performed as required, and the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.
 
10 CFR 52.103(g) vs. ITAAC MAINTENANCE What does ITAAC are met mean in 10 CFR 52.103(g)?
At the time of the 52.103(g) finding the staff will consider all acceptance criteria are met if both of the following conditions hold:
All ITAAC were verified to be met at one time; and The licensee provides confidence, in part through the notifications in 10 CFR 52.99(c), that the ITAAC determination bases have been maintained and the ITAAC acceptance criteria continue to be met, and the NRC has no reasonable information to the contrary.
This approach will allow licensees to have ITAAC-related structures, systems, or components, or security or emergency preparedness related hardware, undergoing maintenance or certain other activities at the time of the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, if the programs credited with maintaining the validity of completed ITAAC guide those activities and the activities are not so significant as to exceed a threshold for reporting.
 
ITAAC MAINTENANCE THRESHOLDS Material Error or OmissionIs there a material error or omission in the original ITAAC closure notification?
Post Work Verification (PWV)Will the PWV use a significantly different approach than the original performance of the inspection, test, or analysis as described in the original ITAAC notification?
Engineering ChangesWill an engineering change be made that materially alters the determination that the acceptance criteria are met?
Additional Items to Be VerifiedWill there be additional items that need to be verified through the ITAAC?
Complete and Valid ITAAC RepresentationWill any other licensee activities materially alter the ITAAC determination basis?
 
Post 10 CFR 52.103(g) Finding Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(h), after the Commission makes the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion in the combined license, constitute regulatory requirements for the licensee.
While ITAAC are no longer requirements after the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, subsequent changes to the facility or procedures described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 52.98(e) or (f), as applicable.
The technical specifications in the combined license NPF-91, Appendix A, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Technical Specifications, become effective upon a finding that the acceptance criteria in the license (ITAAC) are met in accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g).
 
Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors
* Source Term is the raison detre of the NRC
* Development of a source term that can receive regulatory approval is critical to the success of the new reactor design and licensing
* On October 8, 2021, we had one of our periodic meetings with the Commissioners
* During that meeting we discussed our plans to perform an integrated review of source term activities. We also stated that a roadmap showing how all the pieces fit together would be worthwhile.
 
Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors: C&R - 1
* The regulatory basis for the radiological source term is widely dispersed among numerous documents largely focused on light water reactors. The dedicated website for source term related documents being developed by the staff is designed as a one stop shop that will capture this information and keep potential applicants up to date on latest developments in this area. Non-LWR applicants and stakeholders would also benefit from consolidated guidance to aid in determining the acceptable attributes of the source term suitable for a particular design. In particular, if the staff provides an overview on the website explaining how an applicant can best use the available information in concert with pre-application consultations with the staff, applicants will be better prepared to develop high quality submittals.
 
Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors C&R-2 and 3
* NRC staff has expended significant effort evaluating system accident response for a range of technologies anticipated from future applicants as described in their non-LWR vision and strategy Volumes 1, 2 and 3 related to computer code development. Development of the computer codes for confirmatory analysis of non-LWR technologies should promote expeditious staff reviews of current and future applications.
* A clear, common definition of maximum hypothetical or maximum credible accident should be established along with guidance on how it should be developed to assist potential applicants that would use this concept in their licensing strategy.
 
Source Term Letter: Contents
* Background (15 lines)
* Regulatory Basis - discuss all documents that touch on source term, largely LWR based and very distributed - sets the stage on the need for consolidated guidance (40 lines)
* Observations on Source Term Development - key aspects of source term that should be considered (40 lines)
* Recent NRC focus - website and computer code development and application to advanced reactors; significant NRC effort and should promote expedited reviews of future submissions (35 lines)
* Summary (10 lines)}}

Latest revision as of 02:57, 7 February 2025

Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 693rd Full Committee Meeting, March 2, 2022, Pages 1-166 (Open)
ML22095A106
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/02/2022
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Burkhart, L, ACRS
References
NRC-1869
Download: ML22095A106 (166)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Docket Number:

(n/a)

Location:

teleconference Date:

Wednesday, March 2, 2022 Work Order No.:

NRC-1869 Pages 1-120 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433

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

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

1 2

3 DISCLAIMER 4

5 6

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8

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

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

19 20 21 22 23

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + + + +

3 693RD MEETING 4

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5

(ACRS) 6

+ + + + +

7 WEDNESDAY 8

MARCH 2, 2022 9

+ + + + +

10 The Advisory Committee met via 11 teleconference at 8:30 a.m., Joy L. Rempe, Chairman, 12 presiding.

13 14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

15 JOY L. REMPE, Chairman 16 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Vice Chairman 17 DAVID A. PETTI, Member-at-Large 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 VICKI M. BIER, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 21 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 23 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 24 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Chairman 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

2 ACRS CONSULTANT:

1 DENNIS BLEY 2

3 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

4 QUYNH NGUYEN 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 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

3 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1

Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 2

Opening Statement.............

4 3

Agenda and Items of Current Interest 7

4 Proposed Draft Rulemaking 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 5

Remarks from the Subcommittee Chairman 8

6 Presentations and discussion with 7

representatives from the NRC staff 8

Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of 9

Advanced Reactor Initiatives 100 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

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

8:30 a.m.

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, good morning, 3

everyone. This meeting will now come to order. This 4

is the first day of the 693rd meeting of the Advisory 5

Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

6 Because of the COVID 19 outbreak and 7

current health precautions this meeting is being 8

conducted remotely. I'm Joy Rempe, Chairman of the 9

ACRS. I want to now call roll to verify a quorum, and 10 that clear communications exist. Ron Ballinger.

11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Here.

12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Vicki Bier.

13 MEMBER BIER: Here.

14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Charles Brown.

15 MEMBER BROWN: Here.

16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Vesna Dimitrijevic.

17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Here.

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Greg Halnon.

19 MEMBER HALNON: Here.

20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Walt Kirchner.

21 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Here.

22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Jose March-Leuba.

23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Here.

24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave Petti.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

5 MEMBER PETTI: Here.

1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And Matthew Sunseri.

2 MEMBER SUNSERI: I'm here.

3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Great. Everyone's here.

4 I note we have we have a quorum.

5 The ACRS was established by the Atomic 6

Entity Act, and governed by the Federal Advisory 7

Committee Act. The ACRS section of the USNRC public 8

website provides information about the history of this 9

Committee, and documents such as our charter, by law, 10 Federal Register notices for meetings, letter reports, 11 and transcripts of all full and Subcommittee meetings, 12 including all slides presented with the meetings.

13 This Committee provides its advice on 14 safety matters to the Commission through its publicly 15 available letter reports. The Federal Register notice 16 announcing this meeting was published on February 17 14th, 2022.

18 This announcement, providing a meeting 19 agenda as well as instructions for interested parties 20 to submit written documents or request opportunities 21 to address the Committee. The designated federal 22 officer for this meeting is Mr. Quynh Nguyen.

23 A communications channel has been opened 24 to allow members of the public to monitor the open 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

6 portions of this meeting. The ACRS has just started 1

inviting members of the public to use the MST, the MS, 2

Microsoft Teams link to view slides and other 3

discussion materials during these open sessions.

4 If you're a member of the public who does 5

not yet have the link, please email Lawrence Burkhart 6

at lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov. So, I'm going to repeat 7

this email address, just to make sure that everyone 8

got it that needs it. It's lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov.

9 In the future this MS Teams link 10 information will be placed in the Federal Register 11 notice and agendas on the ACRS public website.

12 We've received no written comments or 13 requests to make oral statements from members of the 14 public regarding today's sessions.

15 Periodically the meeting will be open to 16 accept comments from participants listening to our 17 meeting. Written comments may be forwarded to Mr.

18 Quynh Nguyen, the designated federal officer.

19 During today's meeting the Committee will 20 consider two technical

topics, proposed draft 21 rulemaking on 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, and integration 22 our source connectivities in support of advanced 23 reactor initiatives.

24 A transcript of the open portions of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

7 meeting is being kept. And it's requested that 1

speaker identify themselves, and speak with sufficient 2

clarity and volume, so that they can be readily heard.

3 Additionally, participants should mute 4

themselves when not speaking. And I'd note that if 5

participants are not muting themselves our staff will 6

mute you.

7 Before we begin today's meeting I have two 8

items of current interest that I'd like to share.

9 First, on February 9th the National Academy of 10 Engineering issued an announcement that they have 11 elected ACRS Member David Petti as one of their 12 members, because of his outstanding contributions in 13 the areas of field development and reactor safety.

14 So, I'd like to ask members to unmute 15 themselves, and join me in congratulating Member Petti 16 for this accomplishment. I'll start clapping. And 17 hopefully other folks are also clapping out there.

18 MEMBER: Congratulations, Dave.

19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay.

20 MEMBER PETTI: Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Great. Okay. So, 22 second, on a more somber note I'd like to acknowledge 23 that some of us have worked with or are currently 24 working with colleagues in the Ukraine that support 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

8 their current operating lease for the Chernobyl site.

1 And today I'd like to acknowledge that our 2

thoughts and prayers are with these colleagues as they 3

continue to perform their duties during this difficult 4

time.

5 So, at this time I'd like to ask other 6

Members if they have any opening remarks. And hearing 7

none, I'd then like to ask Member Bier to lead us 8

through our first topic for today's meeting. Vicki.

9 MEMBER BIER: Thank you very much. Let me 10 pull up my notes here quickly. First, as we move 11 forward on the topic of Part 50 and 52 alignment that 12 the staff has been working on, I want to begin by 13 thanking the staff for all their efforts in the past 14 two briefings on this topic. I think the interactions 15 so far have been very constructive and informative for 16 the Committee.

17 Today I would emphasize a few topics that 18 the Committee has identified as being of particular 19 interest for today. One is how the Agency will assess 20 the cumulative effects of any changes during the 21 construction process for Part 52 licensees.

22 Second of all, ensuring that there is 23 sufficient flexibility for INC upgrades and 24 modernization in the new process.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

9 Third, how the staff is defining various 1

design concepts, such as essentially complete design, 2

or preliminary design, et cetera.

3 And finally, any lessons learned from 4

recent applications, or anticipated near term 5

applications, what things are on the minds of industry 6

in this process as they go forward.

7 I'd like to begin by calling on Brian 8

Smith, Director of the Division of New and Renewed 9

Licenses in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for 10 any opening remarks.

11 MR. SMITH: All right. Thank you, Member 12 Bier. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Rempe and 13 other Members of the ACRS. My name is Brian Smith.

14 And I'm the Director of the Division of New and 15 Renewed Licenses in NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation.

17 The purpose of today's meeting is to 18 finalize our discussions related to the staff's 19 rulemaking efforts to align Parts 50 and 52 licensing 20 processes.

And specifically to address any 21 Subcommittee members' follow-up questions that were 22 raised during the previous two Subommittee briefings, 23 as well as the issues that Member Bier just discussed.

24 In our previous briefings the staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

10 described in detail the scope of the rulemaking, 1

focusing on the alignment areas between Parts 50 and 2

52, the proposed changes to the rule language, and the 3

basis for proposing the changes. The staff also 4

summarized the public comments that we received in 5

each alignment area.

6 Please remember that the draft proposed 7

rule and the associated draft revised guidance 8

documents are still under NRC management review. They 9

have not yet been reviewed by the NRC's Office of the 10 General Counsel. As such, the content of the draft 11 Federal Register notice should not be interpreted as 12 NRC's official agency positions.

13 I'll be listening to the discussions 14 today. And my staff will be attending the letter 15 writing session to ensure that you have the resources 16 available to you to finalize your review and your 17 subsequent letter.

18 My thanks to you, the Members of the full 19 Committee, for your time today. The staff is looking 20 forward to having another productive meeting with you 21 today. With that I turn it back over to you, Member 22 Bier.

23 MEMBER BIER: Thank you very much for 24 those remarks. And I would like to now turn the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

11 meeting over to the NRC staff presenters, Jim 1

O'Driscoll and Omid Tabatabar, for their presentation.

2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you. My name is, 3

hello, everybody. My name is Jim O'Driscoll. I'm the 4

lead rulemaking project manager on this effort. I'm 5

in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 6

Safeguards within the Division of Rulemaking, 7

Environmental and Financial Support, known as, we 8

know, known as REFS.

9 So, also joining me today is Omid 10 Tabatabar from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 11 Regulation, Division of New and Renewed Licenses. And 12 we have several other NRC staff on the call as well.

13 So, I want Slide 6, and we'll talk about 14 this meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to 15 provide the ACRS an update on the staff's efforts 16 since the last ACRS full Committee meeting the NRC 17 staff held on this topic, which took place almost 18 exactly a year ago on March 4th, 2021. You can find 19 a summary of that meeting in ADAMS under Session 20 number ML21075A211.

21 This meeting will provide an opportunity 22 to discuss the purpose of the rulemaking with the full 23 Committee. The staff provided the ACRS a preliminary 24 draft proposed rule, Federal Register notice earlier 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

12 last month. This document is publicly available, and 1

can be found under ADAMS Session number ML22020A002.

2 This meeting will also allow the ACRS to 3

further discuss items of interest to the Committee 4

from the ACRS Subommittee meetings held last month.

5 So, last month the staff briefed the ACRS Subommittee 6

on regulatory practices, sorry, regulatory policies 7

and practices on two occasions.

8 The first took place in February 1st, 9

2022. The staff briefed the Subommittee on the 10 purpose of the rule, provided an overview of its 11 contents, and discussed several aspects of the 12 proposal.

13 You will find, you'll soon find the 14 transcript and slides on the ACRS public website.

15 It's under the 2022 ACRS meeting schedule page and 16 related documents page.

17 So, in the meantime the meeting slides and 18 preliminary draft proposed Federal Register notice 19 that was made available to the ACRS are available in 20 ADAMS. And I'll go into where, I won't say the 21 number. But I'll tell you how to find that in a 22 minute.

23 On February 18th the staff briefed the 24 Subommittee in a follow-up meeting that provided an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

13 opportunity to continue a discussion on several topics 1

that we covered at the February 1st meeting.

2 That meeting also allowed an opportunity 3

for staff to discuss specific changes and several 4

guidance documents that are necessary to implement 5

those rules.

6 Again, you'll find the transcript and 7

slides on the ACRS public website, on the same page.

8 In the meantime the meeting slides and the preliminary 9

draft guidance documents that were made available to 10 the ACRS are available in ADAMS.

11 We will pause for questions and answers as 12 we go on any topics of ACRS interest. Finally, we 13 will provide you an update on the next steps for the 14 project.

15 So, we hope this interaction will provide 16 additional detail on the contents of the preliminary 17 draft proposed rule and the associated guidance that 18 is under staff management review, and the status of 19 the rulemaking.

20 We'll respond to the Committee's written 21 comments that we receive. Also, please note that a 22 list of the abbreviations used in the slides is at the 23 end of the presentation. I'll try to say the full 24 term at least once to help folks follow along.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

14 Also note that a list of the ADAMS session 1

numbers to the documents referenced in the NRC staff's 2

presentation can be found at the end of the staff's 3

slide presentation.

4 Please be careful to not discuss any 5

safeguards, security

related, classified, or 6

proprietary information during this meeting. Although 7

we intend to have an open dialogue, please note that 8

the NRC staff will not make any regulatory commitments 9

during this meeting.

10 So, go on to the next slide. So, we are 11 on Slide 7. So, the staff is engaging in a rulemaking 12 to better align portions of the regulations in 10 CFR 13 Part 50 and 52 in four areas, as described in the 14 preliminary draft proposed rule.

15 The staff will also address items derived 16 from lessons learned from previous new reactor 17 licensing activities described in the preliminary 18 draft proposed rule.

19 Activity implements the Commission's 20 direction in SRM SECY 150002. Our goal is to better 21 align the Part 50 and Part 52 licensing processes such 22 that equivalent design submitted for NRC review under 23 each licensing process are assessed against consistent 24 technical standards that yield outcomes with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

15 equivalent demonstrations of adequate

safety, 1

security, and environmental protections.

2 In SECY 150002, issued on January 8th, 3

2015, the staff made several recommendations to the 4

Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 5

ensure consistency in new reactor licensing review.

6 The staff also made recommendations to 7

address staff identified lessons learned, obtained 8

through the licensing reviews completed up to July 9

2019. These changes are intended to improve clarity, 10 and reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff.

11 As well as these, the staff has addressed, 12 or intends to address editorial and administrative 13 changes as well. Go on to the next slide. We're on 14 Slide 8.

15 So, there's 61 items discussed in seven, 16 excuse, and 11 general technical areas in the scope of 17 the proposed rule. This is up from the 50 items we 18 had in the scope of the regulatory basis that was 19 issued for public comment, as briefed at the time of 20 our last ACRS full Committee meeting.

21 The preliminary draft proposed rule, 22 Federal Register notice preamble, discusses how the 23 staff dispositioned each item that the staff 24 communicated in the regulatory phases.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

16 Among the 61 items discussed in the 1

Federal Register notice preamble the staff is 2

recommending rulemaking for 60 of them. This is up 3

from the 43 items we recommended for rulemaking in the 4

regulatory phases. So, the staff added a few items 5

based on public feedback and additional staff input.

6 Of these 60 items 18 of them will also 7

require the staff to develop guidance updates for 8

noticing comment with the proposed rule. There are no 9

new guidance documents proposed.

10 In the proposed rule the staff identified 11 13 different guidance documents that will be issued 12 for comment with the proposed rule. Specifically, 13 seven regulatory guides, and six revised sections of 14 NUREG 0800, the standard review plan, or SRP.

15 The staff also identified the need to 16 update one technical report with this rulemaking.

17 This rule spans a large number of CFR parts besides 18 Parts 50 and 52, to make informing changes and to 19 address other lessons learned from new reactor 20 licensing. These parts are Part 2, 21, 26, 51, 55, 21 70, and 73. Going on to Slide 9.

22 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. Hold on. This is 23 Dave. I have a question. Unfortunately I want to 24 take you back to seven, Slide 7 for a minute.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Please go ahead.

1 MEMBER PETTI: The scope of this 50 52 2

alignment, you know that we are also hearing about 3

Part 53 in parallel. And there's lots of ideas in 4

Part 53 that are risk informed and performance based.

5 I

understand this alignment won't 6

necessarily be technology inclusive. But is it out of 7

bounds to take some of that though process in Part 53 8

and put it into 50 and 52? Is the SRM, and I'll give 9

you some pretty bright lines that you got to stay in 10 firmly, if you understand what I'm saying.

11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, yes. I can talk a 12 little bit about that, Dave. So, the way we do 13 rulemakings, we try to, we need to have, ensure that 14 we have a clearly defined scope that has been agreed 15 to by management. And we try to stick to that scope 16 as we proceed, unless there's a, you know, a need to 17 change it, or something comes up.

18 So, what we have is, we set up a group 19 called the Steering Committee that, of senior 20 management that makes sure that --

21 (Audio interference) 22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: -- so, the rulemaking 23 path's scope. And so, in this particular rule we are 24 well aware of Part 53, and the schedule of Part 53.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

18 But we had to establish essentially lines where we 1

would operate and Part 53 would operate.

2 And generally speaking we, we're, this 3

rulemaking is a retrospective approach, looking back 4

on lessons learned and alignment issues that we've 5

identified from past licensing reviews.

6 So, those things are going to require 7

changes in the regulations. Or we're going to propose 8

changes in the regulations.

9 So, the way Part 53 comes in is, we want 10 to make sure that for the sections we're touching that 11 we're staying as technology neutral as we can. So, 12 we'll go, you know, in the course of responding to 13 SECY 150002 we will write whatever regulation such 14 that it should not pose a hindrance to new 15 technologies. And it's also risk informed and 16 performance based as much as possible. Does that 17 make, does that answer your question?

18 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, no. I think it does.

19 Thanks. That helped.

20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. All right. I'll 21 move back to Slide 9. So, we're back on Slide 9. So, 22 the scope includes six items in four areas, meant to 23 better align Parts 50 and 52.

24 The proposed rule Federal Register notice 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

19 includes a detailed discussion of these items in 1

Preamble Sections 3.A through 3.D. These are the same 2

areas that are identified in the originating SECY.

3 Going on to Slide 10. So, the scope also 4

includes 54 lessons learned items. The staff 5

organized these in general areas of operator 6

licensing, physical security, fitness for duty, 7

emergency planning, Part 52 licensing process, 8

environmental protection, applicability of other 9

processes to the Part 52 process, and miscellaneous 10 topics.

11 Move on to the next slide. We're on Slide 12

11. And this is estimated costs and savings. So, as 13 part of the development of the proposed rule the staff 14 considered the potential costs and savings for both 15 the industry and the NRC.

16 These estimates are preliminary and 17 subject to change as we further develop the regulatory 18 solutions in the final rule. In the proposed rule we 19 intend to make available a separate draft cost 20 estimate document that will have more details on this.

21 We evaluated the proposed changes against 22 the regulatory baseline, that is, what we are 23 currently doing right now. We analyzed savings for 24 the next ten years where it was applicable.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

20 So, the total net savings could be 1

anywhere from $16 million to about $26 million 2

dollars, depending on the discount rate used in the 3

estimate calculation.

4 The corresponding sensitivity study, our 5

analysis concluded there is a very, very high chance 6

of obtaining a cost savings from proceeding with this 7

rulemaking. Of course, the rulemaking also achieves 8

unquantified benefits, such as regulatory efficiency 9

and public confidence.

10 So, the biggest items that avert costs in 11 this rule are the items related to security 12 requirements for the storage of unirradiated fuel, the 13 elimination of the need for DC renewals, the 14 clarification of scope of Tier 1 information, the 15 elimination of information requirements related to 16 conformance to the standard review plan in an 17 application, enabling a construction permit applicant 18 to reference a reviewed environmental assessment.

19 So, there were several items where the 20 changes increased costs. These, the major ones are 21 the evaluation of severe accidents earlier in the Part 22 50 process, the items related to probabilistic risk 23 assessment, or PRA, requirements for new Part 50 24 licenses, the application of Three Mile Island, or TMI 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

21 requirements for future Part 50 applicants, and 1

operator licensing continuing training requirements 2

for plants undergoing construction.

3 Next slide.

4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: This is Joy.

5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.

6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I have a question. I was 7

going to bring it up later. But I think this last 8

slide's a good place to bring it up. I just want to 9

make sure, because I didn't see it in the slides 10 anywhere about, there had been a lot of discussion 11 with the stakeholders about allowing --

12 Well, first of all, you have provided 13 definitions for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2* in this 14 rulemaking effort. And those definitions were 15 designed to provide more clarity, and to help 16 applicants better select what to designate as wet.

17 But the staff did not change any of the 18 positions about whether Tier 1 information could be 19 used for 5059 changes. The staff kept the policy that 20 had been in place before.

21 And I just wanted you to confirm that on 22 the record here today. Because not everyone who's 23 listening in might have been listening in to our 24 Subommittee meetings. Tier 1 as well as Tier 2*,

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

22 right, has not been --

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. So --

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: -- changed?

3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. So, I can answer 4

that one. We're not changing, that's a fundamental 5

principle that we're not changing in this rule. So, 6

we are not changing what is subject, as far as the 7

tiers go, tiered information, to 5059. That is not 8

being changed.

9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And I personally as a 10 single member agree with that. But I just wanted to 11 make sure that everyone who's here today gets that 12 point. So, thank you.

13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Any other 14 questions?

15 DR. BLEY: Yes, Jim. It's Dennis Bley.

16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey, Dennis.

17 DR. BLEY: You said I think that the TMI 18 lessons learned changes raised the costs. But I 19 thought anybody new coming in under Part 50 still had 20 to do those before they could be an operating plant.

21 Am I wrong on --

22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, no, they don't. If 23 you look at the beginning of 5034F there's a preamble.

24 That, those, all that stuff is applicable to a very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

23 small scope, basically a bunch of activities going on 1

or around 1979 or 1980.

2 So, if you read that to, you know, letter 3

of, you know, exact, the regulation, it doesn't apply 4

to a new Part 50 plant. So what, so this is the 5

problem. So, when we went and made Part 52, you know, 6

I think what we were thinking was, nobody's ever going 7

to use Part 50 again. So, we don't need to fix that 8

now.

9 So, we just took those TMI requirements 10 and made them a requirement for new Part 52 plants, 11 okay. But now, you know, of course we know that 12 there's a possibility of Part 50 applications coming 13 in.

14 So, we want to make sure that, you know, 15 that obviously, you know, you need to address those 16 requirements, you know, in a future, in any 17 application. So that's, I think that answers your 18 questions.

19 DR. BLEY: Yes, it does. And I'm a little 20 surprised by that. But I, that slid by me in the 21 past. Thanks.

22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay. I'll move 23 on to Slide 12 if there's no other questions. So, 24 we're on Slide 12. So, from the last two Subommittee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

24 1

DR. BLEY: I'm sorry, Jim.

2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.

3 DR. BLEY: Yes. I had one other.

4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.

5 DR. BLEY: You said the PRA raised the 6

costs. But this is something we've gotten into in 7

other cases. PRA raises the costs if you just look at 8

the cost of doing the PRA.

9 But if you look at the benefits that 10 accrue from doing the PRA I think it usually turns out 11 the other way. But I think all this analysis does is 12 say, well, we have to pay so much to get a PRA done.

13 Am I right about that one?

14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I whole heartedly agree 15 with you. We talked about how to quantify the 16 benefits on the end. And we found that it's too 17 speculative. So, it goes under that unquantified 18 benefit efficiency, et cetera.

19 So, we're really trying to be conservative 20 when we do these estimates, and not over sell or 21 under, you know, under sell things here. Does that 22 answer your question?

23 DR. BLEY: It does. It's unfortunate that 24 it gets presented that way. But it's what I thought 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

25 you were going to say. Thanks.

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay. Any other 2

questions? I'll continue on Slide 12. So, from the 3

last two Subommittee meetings we noted several items 4

where you wished for more discussion. Several items 5

stood out. And we have a slide or two on each.

6 So, these are further discussion on the 7

relationship of this rulemaking to other activities 8

the staff is engaged that are associated with non 9

light water reactor technology.

10 The issue of cumulative effects on safety 11 changes to the design made during construction. There 12 was interest in further discussion on the details on 13 how PRA is to be used in the design phase.

14 There was also some interest in more 15 discussions on the concept of credible accident, 16 specifically, how it should or could be defined as a 17 design goal objective in a PRA.

18 There was interest in further discussion 19 on specifics regarding future licensing reviews of 20 digital instrumentation and control systems, and how 21 the ongoing rulemakings affect these reviews.

22 Finally, the Subommittee also desired 23 further discussion on the concept of essentially 24 complete design, and how the staff plans to carry 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

26 forth this concept in future licensing.

1 So, I'm going to go ahead and briefly 2

discuss each of these. So, we're on Slide 13. So, 3

this is on relationship to non light water reactors.

4 So, based on public comments on the regulatory basis 5

the staff added a cross cutting item to the scope.

6 The relationship of this rulemaking activity to 7

advance reactors.

8 And the Federal Register notice covers 9

this topic in Section 2.1.2 of the preliminary draft 10 of the Federal Register notice.

11 So, the purpose of that discussion is to 12 explain how the reader should put the rulemaking 13 activity, or this rulemaking activity in context with 14 other NRC license process efforts and rulemakings that 15 relate to non light water reactor technology.

16 The commenter commented that the NRC 17 performed a comprehensive review of Parts 50 and 52 to 18 evaluate each provision of the regulations with 19 respect to the applicability to non light water 20 reactor technology.

21 The staff partially agreed with the 22 comment. I think I mentioned this earlier. I know I 23 did. However, the effort to conduct such a review 24 would be outside the scope of the Commission's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

27 direction on this activity, in the SECY I mentioned.

1 Nevertheless, the staff agreed to evaluate 2

the applicability to non light water reactors in those 3

areas where we are already proposing to change the 4

regulations, to ensure that the recommended rule 5

language is as technology neutral as possible. Any 6

questions on that?

7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Well, this is Joy. And 8

again, this is one where I couldn't figure out where 9

to bring up a point during your presentation. So, 10 I'll bring it up here.

11 Let me just say, from all of the 12 discussions and the responses that we heard back from 13 the staff, that when we look at the broad spectrum of 14 ongoing rule activities and the guidance available, 15 that it's not going to be very easy for someone who 16 wants to bring in a mobile reactor with a loaded core 17 to figure out what the rules will be at this time.

18 Is that perhaps a true statement? I mean, 19 they're going to have to have exemptions. They're 20 going to have to take something from Part 70, from 21 this that and the other. And maybe Part 53 will 22 address it.

23 But in the near term, I mean, we've also 24 been told that it's not clearly focusing on, Part 53 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

28 is also not focusing on it. So that there's maybe 1

that needs to be done in that area too.

2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I can only, you 3

know, what I remember was what we, we briefly 4

discussed this on the February 18th meeting, Chairman.

5 And we basically described a situation 6

where, we basically described it as we don't think 7

that the regulations as they are, or as they're going 8

to change is going to be a, you know, make that 9

impossible to approve.

10 I mean, we mentioned, we always have the 11 ability to do exemption requests, and to look at 12 things on a case by case basis. And the thing is is 13 that, and I think this was the message, was that 14 there's lots of different technologies out there.

15 And you, it becomes hard to, you know, to 16 write regulations, you know, to something that is not 17 quite defined yet, as far as its design concept. So, 18 we think that that, the possibility of mobile reactors 19 right now is, we're in a position where we can manage 20 to license them.

21 But we would, as you said, would have to 22 do some exemption type of work. And I think if 23 there's anybody from DANU that would like to chime in 24 on this I can turn the mic over.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

29 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes, Jim. This is Amy 1

Cubbage from DANU. Dr. Rempe, I just would like to 2

clarify. Are you speaking about reactors that are 3

fueled in factor and transported to a fixed location, 4

or reactors that could be rapidly deployed to multiple 5

locations?

6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I'm thinking about the 7

first alternative. And I realize there's no 8

manufacturing facility that's currently capable of --

9 MS. CUBBAGE: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: -- making a reactor with 11 a loaded core. But yet, I think you're probably more 12 aware that I am that there's ongoing regulatory 13 engagement interactions on someone who thinks they're 14 going to do this. And I'm just thinking that it's 15 going to be a difficult, yes, it's not going to be 16 easy for them.

17 MS. CUBBAGE: Absolutely, Dr. Rempe. So, 18 I'd like to explain that we have had engagements with 19 developers who are contemplating fueling micro 20 reactors in factory and transporting to a fixed 21 location.

22 We believe that we do have the regulatory 23 infrastructure in place to support that. We produced 24 a white paper talking about micro reactor licensing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

30 strategies that goes through all of the scenarios, and 1

the different licenses and permits that would be 2

required.

3 There's the potential under Part 53 that 4

that would be, could be consolidated into a 5

manufacturing license if the developer chose to go 6

that route. However, we do believe that it could be 7

accomplished from the current requirements.

8 You would need various permits and 9

licenses to possess the material, and to transport the 10 material, similar to how an operating license for a 11 large reactor would be today, to have licenses under 12 Parts 30, 40, 70, for possession of nuclear materials, 13 and transport of nuclear materials. So, we don't see 14 this as a significant impediment.

15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I just think some 16 guidance might be helpful. But that's just my 17 personal opinion. I also would suggest --

18 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. So, if I --

19 (Simultaneous speaking) 20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Excuse me for a minute.

21 Let me finish, and I'll let you come back. Okay, Amy?

22 But I think the preamble for this particular 23 rulemaking ought to say clearly, it doesn't consider 24 this case. Go ahead, Amy.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

31 MS. CUBBAGE: Well, this rulemaking does 1

not make any changes to make it any easier or harder.

2 However, the current rules do permit this. And I 3

would refer the Committee to the staff white paper.

4 If you don't have it, I can make it available through 5

your staff. That explains the different licenses that 6

would be required.

7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, the white paper was 8

provided to, it was mentioned during the February 18th 9

meeting. And it was provided to us. Or somehow or 10 other, a member of our staff sent us a copy of it, 11 because they were aware of it. And so, we do have it.

12 I guess, well, your comment about this 13 doesn't make it any harder. Well, there's a lot of 14 guidance that does say that it's specific about prior 15 to fuel loading.

16 So, this particular rulemaking, because 17 some of these changes have been made, which I 18 understand why those changes were made, doesn't make 19 it any easier. Because it, again, I think we were 20 told, well, we'll consider fuel loading the minute it 21 hits the site. I don't think it makes it any easier.

22 MS. CUBBAGE: Right. So, you'd be talking 23 about fuel load in the context of the COL, which would 24 need to be when the fuel arrives on site, yes. So, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

32 any of this, a larger conversation perhaps we could 1

have separately. But I think we can take the thought 2

back. Right, Jim?

3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

4 MS. CUBBAGE: All right.

5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Absolutely.

6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you.

7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Any other 8

questions on this topic? All right. I'm going to 9

move on to Slide --

10 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I just --

11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.

12 MEMBER PETTI: This is Dave. Just for the 13 other members, this is not in my opinion a big issue.

14 Some of these micro reactors want to move an 15 irradiated core after life. That's a much bigger 16 challenge.

17 But people are looking at it. And again, 18 I don't think, I think as Amy said, the rules are all 19 there. And they're trying to make sure that the 20 design meets all the requirements. It's certainly 21 challenging. But I don't think it's, you know, it 22 can't be done sort of thing.

23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I'm not saying it can't 24 be done, Dave. I'm just, I think some guidance or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

33 something sure would help the situation.

1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 2

Walt.

3 MEMBER PETTI: Yes.

4 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I think, Joy, we 5

really need to be careful on the language too. We 6

don't, these are not mobile reactors.

And 7

conceptually, Amy, thank you for the white paper. I 8

looked at it carefully.

9 I don't see any impediments to doing this.

10 I think the rule, you're right in suggesting that 11 perhaps a little further guidance might help someone 12 navigate the rules.

13 But if someone is taking on this 14 challenge, my review of what's out there suggests that 15 this can be done within the existing regulations. I 16 think Dave hit on the most challenging part.

17 And that is designing to take out an 18 irradiated core, and having a shipping container 19 that's certified to do it. And having a core design 20 that meets all those requirements.

21 Both shipping a fresh core and an 22 irradiated core will be quite a challenge. A few 23 examples are things like the drop test. That imposes 24 a structural load on that intact core, whether it's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

34 fresh or irradiated, that may prove rather challenging 1

in terms of design requirements and cost.

2 But having looked at this 30 odd years 3

ago, I don't see any impediment, so to speak, for 4

someone to do this. Yes, it may be less than 5

straightforward. But conceptually, I think it's 6

doable.

7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Looks like Ron Ballinger 8

has his hand up.

9 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes. You know, the 10 Navy has been effectively doing this for the last 30 11 years. So, I don't, I think I agree with, well, I 12 agree with Walt as well as Dave. But moving an 13 irradiated core has been happening for a long time.

14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: But in this case they are 15 not, it's going to be shipped. It's not going to be 16 defueled on the site, is the difference. And anyway, 17 I just think some guidance could be helpful here.

18 It's not the Navy doing it, or the Army this time.

19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. There's a couple 20 of hands still raised.

21 MEMBER BIER: Yes. Ron or Amy, any 22 further --

23 MS. CUBBAGE: I just wanted to add that 24 the staff stands ready to support the Department of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

35 Defense Strategic Capabilities Office, Project Pele, 1

which is contemplating the mobile, the truly mobile 2

reactor concepts. And we are prepared to support them 3

in the review of transportation aspects, both with 4

fresh and irradiated fuel.

5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: But there's also an 6

organization that's not the Army or the Navy, engaged 7

with your office right now too. And that's where I'm 8

coming from, right.

9 MS. CUBBAGE: Understood. And we stand 10 ready and prepared to support that with our existing 11 regulations for transport. So, I think, that's about 12 all I can say right now.

13 MEMBER BIER: Are we ready to move on?

14 Any further comments?

15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I see Vesna's hand up.

16 MEMBER BIER: Oh, thanks.

17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Hi. Yes. I just 18 want to point something out, to which in my previous 19 discussions I wasn't aware, I mean, I had time to look 20 more and think about that.

21 The actually changes in the PRA 22 requirements are all related to the light water 23 reactors. So, you know, like 50.69 is only applicable 24 to light water reactors. So, you know, the older 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

36 guidance and the things that also related to the light 1

water reactors.

2 So, that some new thing which I sort of 3

like to have the time to think about. So, I bring it 4

this up to see do you sort of agree with that 5

statement?

6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Well, I think, do 7

I agree with the fact that 50.69 applies only to light 8

water reactor technology? The answer is yes. It was, 9

that rule was, that rule only applies to that 10 technology. We thought about it. And that's how it's 11 written.

12 And in this rulemaking we, you know, 13 identified it as clearly out of scope trying to expand 14 the applicability of 50.69. But we did, you know, to 15 non light water reactor technologies.

16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. But also, 17 okay. So, this is abuse in that degree. But also, 18 the older PRA, you know, the using PRA design, what is 19 required to report, you know, to the Reg Guide 1206, 20 the 19.0, the core damage frequency, larger frequency.

21 These things are all related to the light 22 water reactor. So, I will have to say that the new 23 requirements of the PRA related things are the light 24 water reactors based.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

37 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Amy, you're --

1 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. I just wanted to point 2

out that 50.69 is generally targeted towards operating 3

reactors who would like to make changes to risk inform 4

their facilities.

5 For new reactors we do both, especially 6

for non light water reactors, we have approved Reg 7

Guide 1.233, the licensing modernization project, 8

which has a risk informed approach to system 9

structures and component classification.

10 And also, under Part 53 we will be 11 incorporating in risk conformed licensing approaches 12 that would obviate the need for 50.69.

13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. I understand 14 that. But the level of the changes, important changes 15 you are proposing, is this is to allow to use the 16 50.69 for non operating reactors, you know, in the 17 design specification phase, in the, you know, 18 construction permit, and so, meaning applications for 19 the new license.

20 MS. CUBBAGE: Right. And I would just 21 offer that the licensing modernization project, where 22 eventually Part 53 would provide that alternative to 23 50.69 for non light water reactors. It would be --

24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. This is when, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

38 you know, you also hear our, regularly hear our 1

comments that those two applications, you know, that 2

these two upgrades somehow have to, you know, somehow 3

have to have some, not merger, but, you know, 4

adjustment to the alignment. If you align 50 and 52, 5

come finally they will have to be aligned with 53.

6 Okay. Thanks.

7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Is there any other 8

questions on this topic? Okay, I'll move on to Slide 9

14. So, this one is cumulative effects of changes 10 during construction.

11 So, at the February 1st Subommittee 12 meeting Chairman Rempe asked a question about this 13 during our discussion on the Part 52 change process 14 topic. So, other members of the ACRS also raised this 15 issue of cumulative effects in earlier meetings.

16 So, I want to summarize the response I 17 gave at the February 18th Subommittee meeting, and 18 provide the opportunity for further discussion on the 19 topic.

20 So, this rulemaking is not changing a 21 fundamental difference between Part 50 and Part 52 22 processes. Part 52 continues to serve as the 23 standardization rule.

24 The foundation of the standardization rule 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

39 remains the principle of one design, one review. The 1

aim of which is the final resolution of all common 2

safety issues in the standardized design early in the 3

licensing process.

4 The main features remain a

design 5

certification that has finality through the Commission 6

and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel 7

hearing. The design certification is codified as a 8

regulation. And the design can be referenced by 9

multiple applicants in the future.

10 The design certification includes those 11 inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria 12 that when met provide assurance that the affected 13 plant meets the safety performance requirements 14 specified in the certification. There is no need for 15 an additional final check because of the existence of 16 ITAAC.

17 The process for the NRC review of 18 exemptions from the requirements of a

design 19 certification rule, and departures of the plant's 20 final safety analysis report from the standard design 21 control document are reviewed by the NRC, such that 22 there is no residual accumulation of unresolved safety 23 issues.

24 The Part 52 process also requires ITAAC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

40 maintenance. So, ITAAC maintenance is important. In 1

light of the sometimes lengthy construction schedules 2

this rulemaking strengthens that idea.

3 Specifically, the rule includes an item 4

discussed in Section 3.K.7 of the preliminary draft 5

Federal Register notice that helps ensure that the 6

ITAAC were not just met at one point during 7

construction, but must continue to be met. That is, 8

ITAAC are met.

9 We continue to believe that these 10 requirements are sufficient to ensure that the Part 52 11 process does not need an additional step of a final 12 check of the as built design.

13 At the February 18th meeting Member Bier 14 asked for more details on the process by which ITAAC 15 are selected for inspection. We have added a set of 16 supporting slides on this subject to this 17 presentation, which I think will help answer your 18 question.

19 Member Bier also asked, what would be a 20 good reference that explains the process of ITAAC 21 selection for inspection? This would be NRC Procedure 22 OINRR-LIC-201, which it titled Prioritization of 23 Inspections Tests Analyses and Acceptance Criteria for 24 Inspection.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

41 And the ADAMS session number for that is 1

ML20057D521. And that's the best reference I think 2

for further information on that process of selection.

3 So, also a reminder. Aside from Item 4

3.K.7 in the preliminary draft proposed rule, we are 5

not making any changes to the ITAAC selection, 6

maintenance, or reporting processes. Are there any 7

questions on this item before I go on?

8 MEMBER BIER: Yes. Jim, I would like to 9

follow-up just briefly. Thank you, first of all for 10 the additional reference material. And I'm not sure 11 if my comment reflects a philosophical disagreement, 12 or just a lack of understanding still on my part.

13 I understand the idea about design 14 finality. But there are many details that will be 15 worked out during the construction process that are 16 not part of the previously approved design, spatial 17 interactions, which things are located where, and how 18 they might interfere with each other, the exact 19 details of, you know, power supply, and wiring, and, 20 you know, which components --

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. I --

22 MEMBER BIER: -- get powered from which 23 busses. And that would not have been priorly approved 24 in the --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

42 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.

1 MEMBER BIER: -- original design. But can 2

still be important for risk. So, where is all of that 3

handled?

4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So, that's a very 5

good question. So, I can answer that.

6 MEMBER BIER: Great.

7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, obviously the 8

fundamental philosophy behind Part 52, that it is 9

possible to provide information in advance of a 10 construction of a plant if it's detailed enough for 11 the staff to resolve all safety issues prior to its 12 being built.

13 So, we do acknowledge, we knew that back 14 then, you know, when we wrote this regulation in the 15

'80s, you know, or '89 and updated '07, that there's 16 going to be things like, you know, as, you know, skill 17 of the craft, you know, fit ups, things like that 18 that's going to change, and not necessarily be 19 reflected in the, in what we reviewed.

20 But we believe that because the PRA has 21 got to be basically updated, that action in Part 52 22 will cover that residual issue. So, there's a few 23 folks on the line I think that may want to speak about 24 this more, or chime in, or counter my statement. Is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

43 there anybody? Anybody? Does that answer your 1

question, Chairman?

2 MEMBER BIER: not quite. Because it looks 3

to me like the licensee has a requirement to maintain 4

and update the PRA. But there is not a place where 5

whether they do that is assessed, from what I can see.

6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't know if Malcolm 7

Patterson is on the line, that can basically explain 8

the, this process. Oh, there's, somebody's hand is 9

up. Whose hand is up? Malcolm, please go ahead.

10 MEMBER BIER: Yes, great.

11 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.

12 There is no requirement for the staff to assess the 13 PRA. However, if the applicant chooses to use the PRA 14 for any risk informed application the staff will do 15 so.

16 Inspectors of course will be able to 17 observe how the licensee uses the PRA in normal 18 operation. And as you pointed out the PRA must be 19 maintained and updated.

20 It will also have to be upgraded as new 21 operating modes or initiating events are addressed by 22 consensus standards that the staff endorses. It must 23 also be upgraded at least once prior to fuel load.

24 This is the opportunity for the licensee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

44 to ensure that the PRA accurately reflects the as 1

built plan, including spatial details, wiring details, 2

normal arrangement of the electrical plant, how the 3

electrical plant would be rearranged under casualty 4

conditions.

5 So, the PRA gets the updates required.

6 The fact that the staff doesn't have a milestone that, 7

in the regulations where the staff will inspect, 8

doesn't appear to me to be a fatal problem.

9 When the licensee wants to use the PRA for 10 whatever reason, whether it's categorization of SSCs, 11 or risk informing, in service tests, controlling 12 surveillance frequencies, completion times, any of 13 those activities would make it necessary for the staff 14 to confirm that the PRA was adequate for the intended 15 application.

16 MEMBER BIER: Okay. I mean, I think I 17 understand it. I'm not sure I like it. That's a 18 tough question. So, Joy, I think you have your hand 19 up.

20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Sure. I have two 21 questions. The first one I think is best discussed if 22 you could bring up Slide 38, Jim. And I do appreciate 23 you guys providing this extra information. Okay, yes.

24 This one about prioritization process. And I thought 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

45 it was Slide, oh, excuse me, it's 36. I apologize.

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I'm sorry. These 2

ones are, let me see. Which one is this?

3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's one more previous.

4 Well, in my, it's 36 out of 40 is the -- There, you 5

got it.

6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Oops, I'm sorry.

7 Oops.

8 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It flashed up at least.

9 Okay. So, during our meeting I got, I thought, 10 anyway, it was someone, my mind though someone had 11 said from the staff that we prioritize, which I 12 (Telephonic interference.) we inspect. Because only 13 a sample are inspected based on risk.

14 But I was wondering later, because of the 15 risk assessment wouldn't necessarily help one think 16 about which ones to prioritize. And it looks now like 17 it's not really a risk assessment, that it's a safety 18 significance, some sort of extra assessment. It's not 19 the PRA. What is it that you're, is this the staff 20 who does this rank ordering? Or who does this 21 prioritization?

22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I'd like to see if 23 Chris Welch on the staff could answer that question.

24 Chris, your hand is up. Please go ahead.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

46 MR. WELCH: Yes. This is Chris Welch with 1

VPO. And I've been heavily involved in the targeting 2

of ITAAC. The targeting of ITAAC utilized the 3

analytical hierarchy process, where we weight the 4

ITAAC on the significance of preventing a flaw from 5

not being recognized.

6 And the safety significance is the first 7

attribute. And in all honesty it really is the 8

driving attribute in the targeting process. And it 9

utilized a limited PRA scope that was performed for 10 the design prior to the full PRA.

11 And it involved a

team of three 12 individuals that looked at each of the ITAAC, and 13 designed a level of significance to that ITAAC. And 14 then the results went through the weighting process.

15 So, it is driven based off of the limited 16 PRA that the designers perform and then weighted. And 17 it is performed by the staff. And there's one --

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's just by the staff.

19 No one from the licensee gets to participate?

20 MR. WELCH: That is correct. That's 21 correct.

22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, would you, you know, 23 there was the design acceptance criteria that, a 24 subset of ITAAC. Are they automatically included in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

47 the prioritization, especially on, you know, ones for 1

the I&C system, the control room, et cetera? Do they 2

get in the high priority rank?

3 MR. WELCH: Right. When ITAAC, when you 4

look at the table I think, it is comprised of the 5

design commitment, the inspection test analysis, which 6

is the activity that's taken to demonstrate the design 7

commitment has been met, and then the acceptance 8

criteria, which is the criteria that has to be 9

demonstrated to prove or demonstrate that you have met 10 the design commitment.

11 So, the design commitment is in fact part 12 of the whole process of ranking the ITAAC. For 13 example, when we do the ranking we sit down, we look 14 at what the design commitment is, what is the ITA, 15 inspection test analysis, and the acceptance criteria?

16 And based off --

17 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, excuse me for a 18 minute. But I'm not, do you know what I'm mentioning 19 when I'm saying that there were DAC that were a subset 20 of ITAAC?

21 MR. WELCH: Yes. And all the DAC were 22 required to be targeted for inspection by policy.

23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, that helps me. The 24 other thing was, I came away from the meeting, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

48 Subommittee meeting with the, I was a little 1

concerned.

2 I mean, I came away with the impression 3

the staff said we are standing by our policies on 4

ITAAC. We think that's enough for having confidence 5

in a Part 52 evaluation.

6 And I am, you know, when I think back 7

about some of the history of this ITAAC and DAC 8

situation, I know that the ACRS has historically said, 9

are you going to have the folks from headquarters 10 involved in the I&C?

11 And we call it an inspection. But it's 12 really more of an evaluation. It has to be more in 13 depth. And my takeaway from the, looking through the 14 history of what happened in the past, there was some 15 concern about who would be doing it.

16 Are you just going to have the regional 17 office do it? Or did you bring in, have you done the 18 inspection I guess is the first question, on the I&C 19 system with the ongoing Votgle Plant, for example?

20 Has that been done yet?

21 MR. WELCH: Part of it has been. And 22 those inspections were conducted both by headquarters 23 and region staff during the factor acceptance testing 24 and the development. There still remains outstanding 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

49 ITAAC that are really just the testing of the as 1

built/installed components down in the plant.

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: You know, there are 3

actually, from March 21st, 2011 there was an SRM from 4

the Commissioners that, to the staff, and said the 5

staff should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 6

review. And is that going on right now? Are you guys 7

planning to come back to us?

8 MR. WELCH: I cannot answer that question, 9

ma'am.

10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Is there anyone else on 11 the staff that could answer that question?

12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: What was, I'm sorry, 13 Chairman. What was the SRM? Do you have the actual 14 number? We can, I --

15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I believe it's, it 16 was dated March 21st, 2011. It was not after a 17 meeting with the Commissioners and ACRS. So, it's 18 made it a bit harder to find it.

19 But I believe it's 2010-0140. And it was 20 an SRM. And actually I can send it to Quinn, and he 21 can provide it to you. But anyway, it has a note that 22 staff should provide the pilot --

23 It's talking about the options for 24 revising the construction reactor oversight process 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

50 assessment program. And it talks about the ITAAC and 1

PR graph. Above this direction it says the staff 2

should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 3

review.

4 This was like back when I first started on 5

ACRS. And I remember Member Bley constantly talking 6

about, or not constantly, but regularly talking about 7

this SRM. And apparently it was more related to the 8

South Texas project that got cancelled with ESBWR.

9 And there was a meeting set up that got cancelled.

10 But nevertheless, the SRM refers 11 generically to ITAAC, not just South Texas project.

12 And it does say that the staff's supposed to come back 13 with the pilot results to the ACRS for review 14 And I think that, you know, if we learn 15 more about how carefully you are doing these ITAAC we 16 might have more confidence in how this interaction is 17 proceeding.

18 And that's why I brought up this question 19 about the cumulative effect of changes during 20 construction, is that maybe, at least I was not aware 21 of how well this is being performed in accordance with 22 the understanding that ACRS had with the staff.

23 There was actually, there were some 24 letters where this was mentioned from ACRS. And the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

51 staff did come back and say, yes, we'll share this 1

too. But of course the Commission direction has more 2

weight. And that's why I'm bringing it up today.

3 MR. WELCH: I vaguely recall something on 4

that line. And I guess I was thinking that that was 5

past. But ESBWR would make a lot of sense. Because 6

ESBWR had a tremendous number of DAC.

7 MS. CUBBAGE: Well actually that was a 8

ABWR plant in South Texas.

9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, I'm sorry. You're 10 right, Amy. I said the wrong thing. I was in ABWR 11 instead of ESBWR -- because of -- Thank you.

12 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. I would guess that 13 this is a very interesting topic. And we definitely 14 need to follow-up with the Committee on that SRM item.

15 But it's outside the scope of this rulemaking.

16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, I would take you at 17 your word if you will follow-up with this, and it 18 doesn't get lost. I will forward the SRM to Quinn.

19 And he can forward it to Jim. But I'll take you at 20 your word, and I'll drop the subject on it for this 21 rulemaking then.

22 But I just wanted to make sure. Because 23 I, that's why I have been concerned about this, is 24 that I don't perhaps share this understanding the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

52 staff has on it. Okay.

1 MEMBER BIER: Great. Vesna, do you have 2

a follow-up?

3 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. I would like 4

to bring something here. When we stop mixing this 5

design finality ITAAC in the PRA, there is a lot of 6

sort of, like, you know, the mixed responses.

7 So, for example, that we just got response 8

there could not be changes during construction that 9

are captured by PRA, right? That's what with the we 10 hear as the question, it was the response.

11 And then the question was, well how is 12 that PRA reviewed? So, which is correct, the request 13 for PRA review is only if applicant's interested in 14 the risk inform application?

15 So, that means, if applicant is not 16 interested in risk inform application we never really, 17 we review cumulative changes from design during the 18 construction. See, the requirement to PRA review is 19 related to the applicant's volunteering to use the 20 risk inform application.

21 But we also say the cumulative changes in 22 design during the construction are captured by PRA.

23 Well, and then we don't really ever review that if 24 applicant does not really have to go on to have some 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

53 risk inform application.

1 So, I just want to point that this is out.

2 And this is sort of like contradictory in my opinion.

3 So, I mean, not contradictory. But this open ended 4

thing again.

5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.

6 MS. CUBBAGE: Okay.

7 MEMBER BIER: Okay. I see no further 8

hands. So, maybe we can move on.

9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I'll move back to 10

-- so I think we're done with this topic so I'm going 11 to move on to the next one, which is a great segue, 12 use of probabilistic risk assessment design. So we 13 can talk more.

14 We're on Slide 15 now. The proposed rule 15 would amend 5034 to require applicants for future Part 16 50 power reactor construction permits and operating 17 licenses to submit a description of the plant specific 18 PRA and its results in a construction permit 19 application.

20 In addition, the purpose of the change is 21 to encourage the use of PRA methodology in the design 22 phase of the project. The existence of a PRA also 23 would allow the NRC staff and applicant a better basis 24 to risk inform the review. A risk-informed review is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

54 much more efficient than a deterministic review and 1

should result in decreased burden in the licensing 2

phase.

3 The NRC, you know, received 10 comments on 4

this item as it was discussed in the regulatory basis.

5 So I'll discuss some of these comments.

6 One commenter expressed the concern that 7

the addition of a description of a PRA and its results 8

to the Part 50 licensing process would make that 9

process a

less attractive option for future 10 applicants. And the PRA would create finality 11 requirements similar to Part 52.

12 The NRC disagreed with the comment because 13 the construction permit PRA would be preliminary, just 14 like the rest of a construction permit information.

15 The mere requirement to submit the results 16 of a PRA would in no way reduce the flexibility of the 17 construction permit holder to further develop the 18 design during the construction. The issues of use of 19 PRA and finality are unrelated.

20 Another commenter stated that the review 21 of the summary of the PRA and its result is not 22 necessary for the NRC to come to a safety finding for 23 the construction permit. The commenter stated that 24 instead of a PRA, the NRC should require a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

55 "preliminary risk assessment," but the commenter also 1

recommended the development of guidance that explains 2

the expectations for the PRA in the construction 3

permit phase for an advanced plan.

4 The commenter further recommended that 5

non-power reactors should not be subject to the 6

proposed requirement.

7 The NRC agreed in part with these 8

comments. The NRC agrees that non-power reactors 9

should not be subject to the requirement, and the 10 staff further developed the proposed rule language in 11 consideration of that comment.

12 The NRC disagrees with the argument that 13 because a PRA is not necessary for a safety finding in 14 the construction permit phase, a construction permit 15 application should not include a summary and a result 16 of a PRA.

17 One purpose of the proposed change is to 18 encourage the use of PRA in the design phase in 19 accordance with the Commission's policy statement on 20 PRA, which was made, I think, in the 90s. Another 21 purpose of the proposed change is to eliminate 22 differences in the licensing processes that would 23 result in differing design bases information for 24 equivalent designs, not addressing that issue would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

56 result in differing future regulatory outcomes and 1

would not fulfill the Commission's direction for this 2

rulemaking.

3 The NRC also disagrees with comments that 4

state that new or revised regulatory guidance is 5

needed for advanced plants because the existing 6

guidance would cover the development of a PRA for an 7

advanced plant license under Part 50 as well as it 8

currently does for one developed under Part 52.

9 Another commenter stated that the needed 10 information to complete a PRA may not be available at 11 the construction permit stage and requested that the 12 NRC clarify what information the application needs 13 with respect to PRA that would address the TMI-related 14 requirements in 10 CFR 5034.

15 The commenter recommended that the NRC 16 should only require the applicant to submit a summary 17 and the result of a PRA at the operating licensing 18 stage. The NRC agrees in part with this comment.

19 If the construction permit and operating 20 license applicant submitted a summary and results of 21 a PRA that the applicant developed in accordance with 22 NRC's guidance on PRA, which is Reg. Guide 1.200, then 23 yes, many of the TMI items would be met. And that 24 would obviate some of the specific analyses 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

57 requirements in 10 CFR 34.

1 For that reason, the NRC is also proposing 2

to eliminate many TMI requirements with the 3

understanding that instead, the applicant would have 4

developed a PRA and its results.

5 One commenter recommended that the use of 6

a PRA should complement the NRC's deterministic 7

approach, quoting language from the NRC's PRA policy 8

statement.

The commenter recommended that a

9 construction permit applicant supply a preliminary 10 risk analysis only and use deterministic analyses to 11 demonstrate that the design meets regulatory 12 requirements.

13 The NRC agrees in part with this comment.

14 As previously stated, the NRC disagrees that a 15 submittal of the summary and results of a PRA at the 16 construction permit stage should be voluntary.

17 The NRC agrees that it is up to the 18 applicant to determine the degree of which it uses PRA 19 to demonstrate conformance with regulations. As 20 before, future Part 50 applicants are free to use 21 deterministic methods for this purpose.

22 Two commenters requested the NRC clarify 23 how the new requirement for a Part 50 PRA would work 24 with existing requirements of Part 51 for applicants 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

58 to develop severe accident mitigation alternatives, 1

otherwise called SAMDAs, and applicants should use PRA 2

to support these alternatives.

3 The NRC agrees in part with the comment.

4 The NRC agrees that if the PRA was of sufficient 5

quality, an applicant could use it for that purpose.

6 However, the NRC disagrees that a PRA should be the 7

only method to do so. And if appropriate, an 8

applicant can use other methods to develop the SAMDAs.

9 One commenter asked the NRC to confirm 10 that the PRA submitted at the construction permit 11 stage would be based on preliminary design information 12 and need not be complete as one submitted at the 13 operating license stage. The NRC agrees with that 14 comment as previously discussed.

15 One commenter disagreed with the NRC's 16 assessment with the cost benefit of developing the 17 PRA. They just stated that the development of a 18 preliminary PRA at the construction permit stage would 19 cost the same as one that is done at the final stage.

20 The NRC agreed with this comment because 21 the NRC expects that an applicant would upgrade the 22 PRA at the operating license stage prior to loading of 23 fuel.

24 The NRC added additional industry cost to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

59 the cost benefit calculation to account for this. The 1

proposed change would result in additional cost to the 2

industry to develop a PRA at the construction permit 3

stage, but would result in some cost savings for the 4

NRC and the applicant later on. And that's, again, 5

unquantified as I mentioned earlier.

6 Are there any questions on this topic 7

before I go to the next topic? I don't think there's 8

questions. All right. I'm going to move on.

9 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, there was. I thought 10 I raised my hand. This is Charlie.

11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, go ahead.

12 MEMBER BROWN: It didn't show up. I 13 obviously don't know how to do that yet. I lost the 14 bubble through that long discourse.

15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm sorry.

16 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not criticizing. I'm 17 just -- it's me. Okay? The PRA at the construction 18

-- if you do a PRA at the construction permit phase, 19 I mean, that's very, very early in the whole process.

20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

21 MEMBER BROWN: And to me, most of the 22 design details aren't even available, large changes.

23 I've been involved in seven different projects in the 24 Navy, eight maybe if I count them properly.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

60 And doing stuff when we're doing those 1

very preliminary evaluations and then we get into the 2

design details would have required extensive revisions 3

to PRAs if we had been under that particular manner of 4

doing business.

5 So I really don't totally understand how 6

doing a construction permit PRA then does not 7

constrain making appropriate design changes subsequent 8

when you're actually doing the design details. I just 9

have a hard time walking my way through that.

10 That's just a comment. I have no idea.

11 I'm just very concerned that industry is right and 12 that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with 13 this, and it's just not a simple thing of not having 14 to redo the PRA when you start changing design details 15 that were preliminary in the beginning part of the 16 construction permit process. So I just don't 17 understand that, and I probably never will. That's 18 where I am right now.

19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So it looks like Malcolm 20 Patterson has his hand raised. Malcolm, go ahead.

21 MEMBER BROWN: I'd like my hand unraised.

22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Just click it 23 again.

24 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

61 of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A PRA at the 1

construction permit phase is not early enough. The 2

Commission has made it clear they expect the PRA to be 3

used during design.

4 In fact, when I was in the Office of New 5

Reactors, we were looking at the PRAs being used as 6

vendors were developing their designs. And they made 7

significant design changes as a result of the results 8

of their PRAs. So we've seen how important it is to 9

be using PRA from the very beginning.

10 Using the PRA that's based only on 11 preliminary information is still very useful. And so 12 I push back against those who say, oh, it's too early 13 to do the PRA. Changes to the details of the design, 14 even significant changes during construction, are 15 expected using a

two-step construction permit 16 operating license process, the Part 50 process.

17 Well, we think that's a problem that we've 18 already learned how to solve. We know that during 19 construction as changes are made that have an impact 20 on the PRA, licensees are monitoring that. They're 21 looking at the cumulative effect of design changes on 22 risk.

23 So you can't have it both ways. If you 24 have a useful PRA in the design phase, you should be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

62 using it to full advantage at the construction permit 1

phase during construction, and you need to have it 2

ready for operations and maintenance before you load 3

fuel.

4 MEMBER BROWN: Let me just respond. There 5

are systems -- for instance when we did the design 6

phase in the initial application for a number of new 7

designs as they came along, the I&C was very well 8

defined via the framework of independence redundancy, 9

deterministic behavior, control of access and on and 10 on.

There's definitely a

configuration and 11 architecture that is very well described within the 12 Reg. Guides and some of the preliminary documents as 13 you get started with the licensing process.

14 And a PRA doesn't really fit with that 15 framework approach to doing business. You need 16 multiple channels. You need independence. You need 17 watchdog timers if you're going to use computer-based 18 stuff. And if somebody comes along and would tell me 19 they've done their PRA and they don't need a watchdog 20 timer to make sure processors are working, I would 21 tell them to pound sound. Okay? There's just no --

22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I think there's a 23 difference -- and Malcolm, maybe I'm just taking your 24

thunder, but we're still doing risk-informed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

63 regulation. So, and I think Malcolm you can take it 1

over, but, you know, if there's deterministic -- you 2

know, it's supposed to work with certain, you know, 3

deterministic requirements. And if we choose, if we 4

think for I&C, whatever, this architecture, you know, 5

adherence, you know, is key to safety, then we would, 6

you know, adhere. You know, the PRA wouldn't trump 7

that. Malcolm, I'm sorry if I misspoke. Go ahead.

8 MR. PATTERSON: I'm afraid I'm in violent 9

agreement with both of you. I was principal engineer 10 for instrumentation and control at a utility. I know 11 whereof you speak.

12 PRA isn't the answer to every question.

13 In fact, even taking a look at the AP1000 design 14 certification amendment, the major I&C components were 15 created as a black box. There was no effort to get 16 into the details of a PRA even at the channel level of 17 the reactor protection system. That didn't mean the 18 PRA wasn't useful. It meant that the PRA didn't model 19 that with the level of fidelity that we would expect 20 in the operating phase.

21 MEMBER BROWN: So I can understand that.

22 In other words, you would tell me you've put a --

23 there was a black -- I actually reviewed that, okay, 24 years ago since I came on the committee back in 2008.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

64 MR. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.

1 MEMBER BROWN: And I went through that 2

design in spades along with the APR1400 NuScale after 3

that, et cetera, et cetera.

4 So if I'm interpreting what you're saying 5

properly, while we went through the framework, laid 6

out the architecture, the independence, how the 7

detectors were connected internally to that big black 8

box, you looked at that as a block box, not what was 9

inside of it. Am I interpreting what you said 10 correctly?

11 MR. PATTERSON: That's the way the PRA 12 looked at it.

13 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. I'm very 14 worried about somebody coming in and trying to extend 15 that. But if what you're saying that's the case, then 16 I guess I can quietly go away and retire to my 17 quietness again. But I get pretty protective of the 18 reactor trip and safeguard systems relative to the 19 overall methodologies we've developed with ISGs and 20 frameworks and everything else. They're getting 21 defined although slowly in the various NRC documents.

22 All right. I think you've answered my 23 question.

24 MEMBER BIER: Dennis?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

65 DR. BLEY: Yes. I kind of want to support 1

the staff and a little bit Charlie. But for Charlie 2

I would point out that there's more to a power plant 3

than the I&C although it's a crucial integrating 4

aspect.

5 MEMBER BROWN: I know that.

6 DR. BLEY: The idea of the black box kind 7

of works okay, especially with those basic criteria 8

for the architecture Charlie has talked about many 9

times. On the other hand, we have not lived yet to 10 see that that leads us to a final design that it 11 really works well. We have a couple that are getting 12 close, but we haven't been there yet.

13 I would also point out that at least, and 14 maybe more, of the design certs that have happened in 15 the last 10 years, 15 years, used the PRA throughout 16 their design to make improvements in many of the 17 systems and locations of equipment and the like. So 18 it's proved itself very useful.

19 And if we go back to the construction 20 permit stage, at that stage you won't have everything 21 worked out, of course. You're not even close. But 22 the first element of the PRA is to find out what can 23 go wrong, what are the initiating events and scenarios 24 that can lead to releases. And that needs to be done 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

66 thoroughly at the design stage to support the PRA, and 1

it needed to be done, even if you weren't doing a PRA 2

to define what would be included in any safety 3

analysis.

4 And I think both the staff and the 5

committee have been pretty clear in the couple of 6

construction permits that were looked in recent years 7

that identification of the scenarios that could lead 8

to damage needs to be done well early on at that 9

stage.

10 So I think the staff is right. And I 11 don't disagree with Charlie on detail, but overall 12 maybe a little. Thanks.

13 MEMBER BROWN: I expected that.

14 MEMBER BIER: Yes.

15 MEMBER BROWN: Thanks, Dennis.

16 MEMBER BIER: So we are kind of behind 17 relative to finishing at 10 o'clock, and I don't know 18 whether we should race through or whether we have a 19 little bit of flexibility on the timing. But, Jim, I 20 21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm fine. I can go. I 22 mean, it's really -- I think we could just continue.

23 And I'll --

24 MEMBER BIER: Okay.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

67 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right?

1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, Vicki, this is Joy.

2 And although we have a little bit of flexibility, 3

let's try and adhere to it as closely as we can.

4 MEMBER BIER: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you.

6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I'll move on to the 7

next topic. So this one is about cutoff accident 8

frequency for credible accidents. So we're on Slide 9

16.

10 So there was some discussion during the 11 Part 50 and 52 change process subcommittee discussion 12 regarding the proposed addition to 50.59C(2)(9) and 13 (10). These paragraphs would require licensees of 14 power plants that are licensed under Part 50 after the 15 effective date of the final rule to seek amendment to 16 the operating license if a proposed change, test or 17 experiment would significantly increase the 18 probability or consequence of an ex-vessel severe 19 accident.

20 Chairman Rempe asked how would one know if 21 a postulated accident is credible? That is, is there 22 such a thing as a cutoff accident frequency below 23 which such accidents need not be considered?

24 At the meeting, the staff stated that what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

68 would be a credible versus incredible is not defined.

1 And such a definition is the prerogative of the 2

Commission to determine.

3 We clarified at the last meeting that the 4

new provisions would only require analyses on 5

previously identified ex-vessel severe accidents, not 6

newly defined ones.

7 The staff agreed that the proposed changes 8

don't resolve the ambiguity of the terms substantial 9

and credible. But they do align the Part 50 language 10

-- sorry the Part 50 change process to the current 11 requirements in Part 52 with regard to the impact of 12 changes, tests and experiments on the probability and 13 consequences of a severe accident.

14 So from my read of the February 1 meeting 15 transcript, there was agreement that the staff and the 16 ACRS discussion of this concept of a cutoff risk 17 frequency will continue but would not be carried 18 forward in this rulemaking.

19 And so here's some additional points that 20 the staff would like to make on this topic.

21 The NRC staff recognizes the term credible 22 is used in slightly different contexts in various NRC 23 regulations and guidance documents, but it is not 24 defined. However, the staff is taking several actions 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

69 to ensure that the guidance is clear for defining 1

accident sequences, including appropriate controls to 2

prevent and mitigate potential accident consequences 3

and taking probabilistic considerations into account 4

as appropriate.

5 In most cases the term credible is used to 6

ensure that requirements are not imposed to protect 7

against non-physical or obviously very unlikely events 8

or phenomena. The definition of the term "impossible 9

demarcations" of what may or may not be deemed 10 credible can differ based on how a specific design and 11 licensing methodology incorporate the concept.

12 As such developing generic definitions of 13 credible may not present the most technology inclusive 14 approach and could unintentionally limit the ability 15 of applicants to propose reasonable alternatives, 16 methods for determining what is credible for their 17 designs.

18 The current regulations under 10 CFR Part 19 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 provide a regulatory framework 20 that if met ensures that there is adequate protection 21 of public health and safety, including appropriate 22 defense and depth.

23 The SRP provides guidance on establishing 24 the plant transients and accidents for light water 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

70 reactors that should be analyzed to represent a 1

sufficiently broad spectrum of transients and 2

accidents or initiating events.

3 As required by NIMA, the Nuclear Energy 4

Innovation and Modernization

Act, the NRC is 5

developing a technology-inclusive risk-informed and 6

performance based regulatory framework, which is Part 7

53 rulemaking for any new reactor applicant.

8 As part of this rulemaking activity, the 9

NRC staff is developing flexible options for selecting 10 licensing basis events. One approach for the 11 licensing basis event selection is described in NEI 12 18-04, Revision 1, titled, Risk-Informed Performance-13 Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light 14 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, which was 15 issued in August 2019.

16 The NRC endorsed Regulatory Guide -- we 17 endorsed that document in Regulatory Guide 1.233, 18 which is titled, Guidance for Technology Inclusive 19 Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Methodology to 20 Inform the Licensing Basis and Content Applications 21 for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Non-22 Light Water Reactors and that was issued in June of 23 2020.

24 So this approaches PRA as an enhanced role 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

71 for the selection of licensing basis events. By 1

following this approach, an applicant can establish 2

the event sequences for which its proposed design must 3

include prevention and mitigation measures while the 4

embedded methodology considers frequency, engineering 5

judgment remains an important part of the process.

6 The methodology does not address credible but instead 7

includes a determination of what sequences are 8

specifically considered in the design and programmatic 9

controls and those that contribute to the residual 10 risk associated with a facility.

11 Without using insights from a full scope 12 PRA in a holistic fashion, it's more difficult and can 13 be even more subjective to define what constitutes 14 credible for a given plan.

15 So in response to stakeholder feedback on 16 the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking and to avoid -- excuse 17 me, and to afford applicants additional flexibility in 18 defining and evaluating licensing basis events without 19 using PRA in an enhanced role, the staff is also 20 developing two additional approaches.

21 One of these approaches uses PRA in a 22 traditional role that is intended to better align NRC 23 requirements with the International Atomic Energy 24 Agency, IAEA, Specific Safety Requirements Number 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

72 SSR2/1, which is titled, Safety of Nuclear Power Plant 1

Design.

2 This traditional approach includes 3

defining design rules and allowing the use of stylized 4

events to establish a design basis for the associated 5

structure systems and components.

6 While not meant to include physically 7

impossible events or phenomena, the traditional 8

approach introduces intentional conservatisms to 9

account for uncertainties or limitations in testing 10 and analyses data in the credible accidents that the 11 applicant is required to analyze and address in the 12 design.

13 The other option under development would 14 provide an alternative approach to selecting licensing 15 basis events by establishing a maximum credible or 16 hypothetical accident. All three approaches would 17 provide acceptable means of identifying the spectrum 18 of credible events to support the safety case. The 19 staff continues to encourage prospective new reactor 20 license applicants to engage the NRC staff as early as 21 practicable to discuss topics such as licensing basis 22 event selection and what approaches they propose to 23 identify credible accident scenarios for their design.

24 So at the February 18 meeting, Mr. Bley 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

73 commented that we should avoid future use of the term 1

credible by the staff because of the uncertainty of 2

what the term means. Member Petti asked if we checked 3

if we consistently use the term in our regulations and 4

if this term -- if the term's maximum hypothetical 5

accident and maximum credible accident mean the same 6

thing.

7 By my read of the transcript, I believe we 8

satisfied the ACRS with our discussions on this item.

9 Are there any questions on this item before I go on?

10 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, this is Vesna.

11 I would like just to make some comments here that, you 12 know, I was thinking of making on the earlier slides.

13 You know, these statements also rely on 14 the lessons learned. And we have the numerous 15 advanced reactor applications that went through the 16 NRC. So there should be numerous data on what the 17 applicant selected as a credible accident, right?

18 What are the alternatives to the regulations? Why 19 wasn't this used in here or even quoted here?

20 I mean, why we are saying with this sort 21 of like, you know, the not well-defined definition if 22 we have experience, you know, we have a lessons 23 learned in this area. Why I wanted to make this 24 earlier because I was sort of curious how were the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

74 lessons learned?

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So I think I can 2

answer that question. So this is the alignment in 3

lessons learned rulemaking. But we're not addressing 4

all lessons learned in all areas. We were tasked in 5

SECY 15.00.02 to address lessons learned from recent 6

large light water reactor reviews. So I think the 7

experiences you describe have to do with other 8

technologies. Is that right?

9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Why would that mean 10 other technologies? I mean, this applies also for the 11 large advanced light water reactor with very low 12 frequency of core damage in the large release, you 13 know? So how do they select the credible accidents?

14 So it doesn't have to be new technology.

15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I can just talk 16 from my history on this is that, you know, we asked 17 the staff in the process of developing the scope for 18 items. So I kind of, you know, can't say why we 19 didn't pick this. But we did have the opportunity, 20 the staff and the public, to propose areas that we 21 should focus on.

22 And we had to then go through a process of 23 scoping. I don't believe in my recollection, and 24 Malcolm you can correct me, if this issue of defining 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

75 what is credible ever came up in the scoping process.

1 Amy, you have your hand up. Do you want to go ahead?

2 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. So I'd just like to 3

say that's a very substantial issue that was more 4

appropriate for handling under Part 53 with the 5

development of a new technology inclusive regulatory 6

framework.

7 A lot of the work we're doing over there 8

is speaking to what events would need to be 9

considered. I think under 50 and 52 currently 10 particularly through the design basis accident dose 11 calculations, there's an expectation that there would 12 be a substantial core melt accident that's assumed.

13 This is a more deterministic approach 14 under the existing 50 and 52 and to have taken that on 15 under this rulemaking would have been a major 16 undertaking and is more appropriate to be handled 17 under the Part 53 development of a new regulatory 18 framework.

19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay.

20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Any other 21 questions on this topic?

22 MEMBER BIER: Joy, do you have your hand 23 up?

24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes, I do. And I know 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

76 I'm the one who is saying, no, we need to be done at 1

10:00. But, Jim, you always have so much information 2

that if you -- I may have missed something.

3 And so your response back with the IAEA 4

and the MHA issue and all of those things at a high 5

level, it's mentioning that there's many options. And 6

some of them are going to be addressed under Part 53.

7 And I think that's where Amy's comments are coming 8

back to.

9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN REMPE:

Is there any 11 consideration -- one am I correct in my high level 12 interpretation?

13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Basically that 14 discussion I gave were, you know, along the lines of 15 what Amy just mentioned.

16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. So if that's true, 17 I guess I'm still wondering about a point that we 18 raised previously that, gee, there's a lot of spectrum 19 of PRAs and that what was going on in 53 might make it 20 a little more -- a better approach for what's being 21 proposed here for the alignment in lessons learned 22 because not all PRAs are done at the same level as a 23 graded approach.

24 And is staff going to have any sort of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

77 pointer or they're still thinking about it, but they 1

haven't currently in what we've seen, clearly pointing 2

to what's being developed under the Part 53 of the 3

spectrum of what a PRA could be?

4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I'm going to ask folks 5

in DANU to answer that one. But I know there's folks 6

in my group that are the same folks on 53. But I'll 7

let, Boyce -- if you don't mind, Boyce, can you just 8

chime in on this one?

9 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, Jim. And this is Boyce 10 Travis for the record. With regards to pointers back 11 between 50 and 52 and 53, the staff's intent with the 12 Part 53 rulemaking is to create an option or set of 13 options for a regulatory framework that stands on its 14 own.

15 That doesn't necessarily mean it's 16 independent of 50 and 52, but Parts 50 and 52 would 17 present their own licensing pathway based on a more 18 traditional approach. And the regulatory framework in 19 Part 53 will have options available to applicants that 20 will in effect be their own standalone regulatory 21 frameworks.

22 We do not expect there to be pointers in 23 50 or 52 back to 53 except for conforming changes for 24 licensing processes and administrative requirements.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

78 Does that answer your question or are you looking for 1

something more specific?

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Not where I particularly 3

wanted to go. It's more the guidance. I said it 4

poorly. It's not your fault. But what I'm going to 5

is the Marty Stutzke paper that's still under 6

development so of course you can't have any sort of 7

acknowledgment of it yet.

8 But the question is is that, jeepers, I 9

think it would help if one could have some sort of 10 acknowledgment that a PRA might include a very 11 simplistic -- based on the fact that you have a 12 systematic approach for looking at all the different 13 types of events, you might bound it with NMHA. And I 14 guess I don't see that anywhere in the guidance or the 15 language changes. And as you go forward with this 16 effort, it might be worth considering it is where I'm 17 going.

18 MR. TRAVIS: I think we understand where 19 you're coming from. As you said, you know, we're 20 still in the process of developing those options. I 21 will say that what you just discussed, I mean, the use 22 of a bounding event is not just going to be dependent 23 on simplicity and PRA. It's going to inherit a lot of 24 the characteristics and performance aspects of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

79 whatever the reactor design is, i.e. its size, its 1

radionuclide inventory, et cetera.

2 And so what the entry conditions are for 3

using that approach is still being explored by the 4

staff. And I guess I'll leave it there for now if 5

that's all right.

6 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I think it's 7

something that in the future that maybe should be 8

considered -- might be worthwhile considering. But, 9

of course, one has to look at the size of the reactor 10 as to how well the applicant looks at the various 11 types of challenges, too, so the selection of the 12 events would have to occur, too.

13 But if you did some sort of a risk matrix 14 like we're seeing in some of the input applications, 15 that might work for something like this. But anyway, 16 it's just a thought. And I think you understand where 17 I'm going.

18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Amy, your hand is up?

19 MS. CUBBAGE: That is from before. Sorry.

20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. Any other 21 comments on this topic before I go on to the next one?

22 All right. I'll move on.

23 So we're on Slide 17. So the issue at 24 digital instrumentation control, or I&C, licensing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

80 reviews came up at the February 1 meeting during our 1

discussion on Part 52 change process topic.

2 So Member Brown described an experience 3

last year where the staff at ACRS worked with industry 4

to obtain some additional flexibility in the use of 5

the 10 CFR 5059 change process for the application of 6

digital I&C.

7 This work resulted in consensus on an 8

industry standard NEI 96-07, Appendix D, titled, 9

Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 10 to digital modifications.

11 The main objective of that guidance is to 12 provide all stakeholders a common framework and 13 understanding of how to apply the 10 CFR 50.59 process 14 to activities involving digital modifications. The 15 new guidance superseded 10 CFR 50.59 related guidance 16 contained in NEI-01-EPRI TR-102348, which is titled, 17 Guidelines on Licensing Digital Upgrades.

18 And the new guidance incorporates 10 CFR 19 50.59 related guidance contained in Regulatory Issue 20 Summary 2002-22, Supplement 1, which is titled, 21 Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy 22 Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in 23 Instrumentation and Control Systems.

24 Member Brown's questions were, does that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

81 work get affected or carried forward with the changes 1

that the staff is proposing in this rule to the 10 CFR 2

50.59 process? Will it be applicable to the Part 52 3

process and other licensing processes?

4 The answer is that there are no changes 5

being proposed in this rule to the 10 CFR 50.59 change 6

process or any other change process that would undo 7

the consensus we obtained in NEI 96-07, Appendix D.

8 So to be clear, the proposed rule does not contain any 9

changes that would constitute backfitting in this 10 technical area.

11 Current licensees can continue to perform 12 digital upgrades and modernize their I&C systems using 13 existing applicable regulations and related guidance 14 documents.

15 Current licensees can continue to perform 16 screening and evaluation of digital upgrades in 17 accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 rule using NEI 96-07, 18 Appendix D, guidance as endorsed by the current 19 revision and proposed revision of Reg Guide 1.187.

20 Current licensees can continue to use the 21 interim staff guidance DI&C-ISG-06, Rev. 2, to inform 22 preparation of license amendment request for digital 23 upgrades.

24 The changes to Reg Guide 1.187 from the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

82 proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 1

do not impact the endorsement of any NEI 96-07, 2

Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for 3

Application of 10 CFR 50.59 Digital Modifications.

4 Therefore, future licensees can perform 5

digital upgrades using the current guidance. The 6

proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 7

does not have any impact on 10 CFR 50.55 -- I'm sorry, 8

50.55a, Paragraph (h), rule that incorporates by 9

reference IEEE Standard 603-1991.

10 The staff will review I&C system design 11 submitted under the alignment, aligned Part 50 and 52 12 rule, using current applicable review guidance 13 documents, that is NuScale, DSRS's, that's Design 14 Specific Review Standard, Chapter 7, Design Specific 15 Re Review Guidance for Non-LWR Designs and Modernize 16 Standard Review Plan, Chapter 7.

17 So I'm going to go on to Slide 18 and then 18 I'll take questions if you guys don't mind.

19 MEMBER BROWN: I think I've got my hand 20 up. I just spoke.

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Go ahead.

22 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown 23 again. I think I remembered asking one additional 24 question when we, I don't want to say terminated, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

83 when we finished this discussion in the subcommittee 1

meeting.

2 You went through all the same comments 3

during our discussion in the subcommittee meeting.

4 And you've highlighted it here, I think, correctly, 5

based on that memory. Anyway the one question I think 6

I did ask that I'm not sure you addressed was in the 7

process of doing -- this had to do with a severe 8

accident. I think it was Items 9 and 10 --

9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

10 MEMBER BROWN: -- in the listing. And 11 while you're saying all these things don't affect 12 anything, did industry have any comment on this? Do 13 they agree with you?

14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We have yet to put this 15 proposed rule out for public comment.

16 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So we will find out.

17 That's okay.

18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Absolutely, yes.

19 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. I will 20 remain silent for now.

21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.

22 MEMBER BROWN: And then we'll see how it 23 goes when it goes for public comment. Okay?

24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. And -- sure.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

84 MEMBER BROWN: Go ahead.

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So we're on Slide 18. So 2

for the I&C system designs in future applications 3

submitted for design certifications or standard design 4

approvals, the staff will continue to ask for the 5

level of detail necessary to make a reasonable 6

assurance of safety finding. That is the changes we 7

are making to the definition of essentially complete 8

design are not intended to affect these reviews.

9 The use of design acceptance criteria, 10 DAC, for an I&C design is not needed. For example, 11 NuScale and the APR1400 reactor designs have been sort 12 of fine without using I&C DAC.

13 So at the February 18 Steering Committee 14 meeting, there was a lengthy discussion on the issue 15 as we said. Member Brown requested additional 16 information on this item at the full Committee 17 meeting. Specifically, Member Brown requested an 18 explanation of exactly why the new Criteria 9 and 10 19 in Section 50.59C(2) would not impact operating plants 20 today or how the criteria would impact the future 21 digital I&C upgrade or change a new plant design --

22 excuse me, or change a new plant license under Part 23 50.

24 Mr. Bley asked if the staff had any 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

85 discussions or open meeting with stakeholders on how 1

these two new criteria would be interpreted and 2

requested that the staff describe them at the full 3

Committee meeting.

4 So I think I answered that question. Is 5

there any other questions on this? Okay. I'm going 6

to move on.

7 So we're on -- we're almost done. So 8

we're on Slide 19. The proposed rule would add the 9

definition of essentially complete design in the 10 definition section of Part 52. The added definition 11 would provide more clarity regarding the information 12 needed in the design certification application.

13 Improved clarity on what it means for a 14 design to be essentially complete should better focus 15 the applicant and the staff to address matters that 16 relate to safety.

17 The NRC received one comment on this item.

18 The commenter requested the NRC review a letter sent 19 to the NRC from the NEI on September 24, 2020. That 20 letter had several recommendations on the subject.

21 The staff partially agreed with that comment. The 22 staff is not proposing any further changes to the 23 regulations as a result of that comment and also the 24 proposed changes are cost beneficial to both the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

86 industry and the NRC.

1 So at the February 1 subcommittee meeting, 2

there was some discussion on the aspects of what an 3

essentially complete design should mean. These came 4

up during our discussion of the design scope and 5

sanitization of the technical area.

6 The first question was from Chairman Rempe 7

where we asked if we considered adding a definition 8

for an essentially complete conceptual design on the 9

Part 50 construction permit process.

10 Member Sunseri and Mr. Bley commented that 11 the proposed definition still leaves much to 12 interpretation and the scope of the information that 13 meets the definition is unavoidably a function of the 14 staff's review of what is initially provided to them.

15 Member Kirchner commented that there seems 16 to be a break point in Part 52 where the term 17 essentially complete design seems to apply only to 18 evolutionary light water reactor designs and not 19 designs with advanced or inherent passive safety 20 features.

21 We brought these comments and questions to 22 the staff. The staff disagrees that we should apply 23 the concept of essentially complete in any form to the 24 Part 50 process. As I said earlier, the objective of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

87 this rulemaking is not to make the Part 50 and Part 52 1

process the same but to make it such that equivalent 2

designs reviewed under each process yields similar 3

outcomes with regard to

safety, security and 4

environmental protection.

5 Part 50 affords a more relaxed requirement 6

for design information, maturity and changes during 7

the construction at the construction permit stage at 8

the cost of finality. The staff acknowledges that in 9

the preliminary draft proposed rule FRN preamble when 10 characterizing a construction permit application, the 11 staff used the phrase essentially complete conceptual 12 design.

13 This language appears in our response to 14 a comment summary and the language is not as precise 15 as it should be. Therefore, the staff plans to modify 16 the FRN preamble to use the phrase for preliminary 17 design when describing construction permit 18 applications and accurately align with the language 19 used in Part 50.

20 The Part 50 regulations recognize that at 21 the construction permit

stage, the design is 22 preliminary and subject to future changes unlike for 23 a design certification, combined license or operating 24 license where final design information is required and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

88 all safety issues must be resolved.

1 The guidance for meeting 50.34a and 50.35 2

is contained in the Standard Review Plan Regulatory 3

Guide 1.70. And the staff is currently developing a 4

construction permit interim staff guidance to 5

supplement the standard review plan and that 6

regulatory guide.

7 So with regard to Member Kirchner's 8

comment that there seems to be a technology breakpoint 9

built into Part 52 with respect to the requirements to 10 submit an essentially complete design for review, the 11 staff looked at this and notes that it is a good 12 comment. It's a good observation.

13 However, that was not the intent of the 14 original Part 52 rulemaking. Section 52.41, Scope of 15 Subpart, which it's titled, has a Paragraph B(1) and 16 (2). B(1) says any person may seek a standard design 17 certification for an essentially complete nuclear 18 power plant design, which is an evolutionary change 19 from a light water reactor designs of plants which 20 have been licensed in any commercial operation before 21 April 18, 1989.

22 Paragraph 2 says any person may also seek 23 a standard design certification for a nuclear power 24 plant design which differs significantly from the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

89 light water reactor design described in Paragraph B(1) 1 of this section or used a simplified inherent passive 2

or other innovative means to accomplish its safety 3

functions.

4 We believe that this apparent distinction 5

in technology was not intended. Specifically, we 6

believe that the phrase in Paragraph B(1), which is an 7

"evolutionary change from a light water reactor 8

design" is not meant to qualify what Part 52 9

applicants must submit, designs that are essentially 10 complete.

11 So why is that? Because if you go to 12 52.47, Contents of Application, the purpose of which 13 that paragraph is to describe the information needed 14 for Part 52 license applications specifically does not 15

-- that paragraph specifically does not make a 16 distinction between these two classes of designs.

17 That paragraph is divided into C(1) for 18 evolutionary designs, C(2) for designs that differed 19 significantly from light-water reactor designs 20 described in Paragraph C(1) or used as simplified and 21 inherent, passive or other innovative means to 22 accomplish safety functions and Paragraph C(3) for 23 modular nuclear reactor designs. Of note is that the 24 Paragraph C(1) and C(2) both specifically require an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

90 essentially complete design.

1 Therefore, as a result of these comments 2

and this rulemaking, the staff plans to remove the 3

term "essentially complete" from 10 CFR 52.41B(1) and 4

ensure "essentially complete" is used consistently 5

within 10 CFR 52.47C(1) through (3).

6 Are there any questions on this topic? I 7

see one question. Member Kirchner?

8 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Yes, Jim. I 9

agree with your -- just one member's opinion. Your 10 approach to 50, the use of the terminology preliminary 11 design I think is appropriate.

12 I was going to make the same points that 13 you just did about the content of application under 52 14 both in the content Section 52.40 -- I'm probably not 15 going to get the numbers right, but C(1) and (2) --

16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.

17 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: -- both ask for 18 an essentially complete design. Are you actually 19 going to create a definition for essentially complete 20 design or are you just going to stand by -- I think 21 your preamble in 52.47 really suggests what you're 22 looking for because it suggests a design of such 23 maturity that you would be able to look at procurement 24 specs, installation specs and construction specs for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

91 that design.

1 So obviously in my experience, that's a 2

pretty -- you're pretty advanced in the design 3

process. And also in 52 you ask for an FSAR. So that 4

suggests a much more mature and complete design than 5

the 50 process does using the two steps of the CP and 6

OL, so as long as there is consistency in the 52 7

language.

8 So if I understand you correctly then in 9

52.41, you're going to strike -- in B(1) you're going 10 to strike essentially complete and then just leave it 11 in the content of application section in C(1) and (2)?

12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, sir.

13 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. We're going to 15 move on to the next item. Oh, we're done.

16 MEMBER BIER: We're done.

17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I've completed my 18 discussions?

19 MEMBER BIER: Yes. I've been impressed 20 how intricate these discussions are that even after 21 two subcommittee meetings, there's still a lot of 22 details to go over. So thank you for your patience 23 with this.

24 In the interests of time, I'm thinking we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

92 should just go to public comment now.

1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.

2 MEMBER BIER: Do we have any comments or 3

questions from members of the public who want to state 4

their views, either you can unmute yourself, which I 5

is, I think star 6 or just on Teams? And right now I 6

hear none.

7 So, Joy, I'm thinking this might be a good 8

time for a break? I'm the sure the Committee will 9

have a lot of internal discussions but.

10 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So thank you, Vicki. I 11 appreciate you leading us through this topic. And it 12 was a complex one, and I did let us go over.

13 We have to follow the agenda. And the 14 agenda did give us between 10:00 to 11:00 for letter 15 writing, but we're halfway through that period and 16 members haven't had a break all morning and some 17 members have puppy dogs that they need to walk is 18 something that a lot of times I hear.

19 So I'm to the point where I think we 20 should just break. And we do have the subcommittee 21 for P&P that starts up at noon East Coast time. And 22 so how about giving everybody an extra half hour at 23 this point for their break or whatever.

24 And later this afternoon there is a time 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

93 that would start at 3:45 p.m. And at that time, we 1

would let you read in your draft letter and discuss it 2

after we get through the afternoon topic on source 3

terms.

4 Did I correctly interpret the schedule on 5

the time because I'm looking at a computer that's 6

based in Idaho. But I believe that I've got a handle 7

on where we are in this time frame and that's the best 8

approach. Do I hear any concurrence from members or 9

disagreements?

10 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Joy, this is 11 Walt. I kind of lost an hour in your scheduling. Are 12 you proposing that we -- we don't have P&P starting 13 until 12:00 Eastern time. It's 10:30 Eastern time.

14 Is that correct?

15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Right now it's 16 about 10:30 Eastern time. And at 11:00 was the in 17 time for our letter writing, which only give us a half 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />, and we've not had a break.

19 So I'm proposing we defer the letter 20 writing and discussion of the draft letter until this 21 afternoon, which gives us a longer lunch hour, but we 22 didn't have a break. And if I give us 15 minutes 23 break, there's not time to bring up the draft letter 24 and even read it let alone have comments. So why 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

94 don't we just wait is what I'm proposing, Walt. Okay?

1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I'm just missing 2

the math here.

3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Maybe I've missed the 4

math.

5 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: The P&P is 6

scheduled for 12:00.

7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right now if we came in 8

15 minutes, Walt, we'd have 15 minutes until 11:00.

9 MR. MOORE: This is Scott. P&P is 10 scheduled from noon to 1 o'clock East Coast time.

11 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right. So if we came 12 back here at 10:45, if I gave us 15 minutes, we'd have 13 15 minutes before we were supposed to break according 14 to the agenda for lunch, which would be 11:00 to noon 15 East Coast time.

16 Now, yes, we could work through lunch but 17 I know we're not supposed to do that because of FACA 18 and the Federal Register Notice. And so I'm proposing 19 that we just take an hour and a half for "lunch."

20 We'll come back at noon, which I believe you're on my 21 time, Walt, which would be 10 o'clock Mountain Time, 22 right?

23 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Correct.

24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: That's (simultaneous 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

95 speaking), right, Joy? But everybody else comes back 1

at 1:00, right?

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right. Everyone else has 3

a very long lunch hour unless they want to come to the 4

-- everyone is invited to the subcommittee for P&P 5

also but that's what I'm proposing.

6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And then for the staff, 8

I apologize that we ran over, but it was a worthwhile 9

discussion. And I really appreciate you going into 10 these items we raised. I hope you'll be able to come 11 back at 3:45 East Coast time. Is that okay with your 12 team, Jim?

13 MEMBER O'DRISCOLL: That's okay with me.

14 I leave it to ask Omid. Are you good?

15 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, 3:45 is good. I will 16 be attending the letter writing session, Chairman 17 Rempe.

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I appreciate it. Thank 19 you. And, again, sorry we went over, but I allowed 20 it.

21 MEMBER BIER: Joy, Dennis has his hand up.

22 I don't know if that's still from before?

23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Who has their hand up?

24 MEMBER BIER: Dennis.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

96 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, Dennis. Did you have 1

a question or comment, Dennis?

2 DR. BLEY: I just had a short comment.

3 This Committee doesn't advise the staff how to manage 4

their staff. But I've reflected several times over 5

the years on something I've noticed. And that is when 6

there is a successful project, be it a nuclear plant 7

or whatever kind of project and you dig into it, you 8

find somewhere there's a champion, a person highly 9

involved, principal investigator or something who 10 really knows everything that's going on. And I just 11 want to compliment Jim. He's a champion in this role.

12 And your ability to address almost every question that 13 was raised was very impressive. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I agree. Sometimes you 15 were so good that I have trouble processing. But you 16 did a great, Jim, and I appreciate it.

17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm blushing.

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. So, everyone, I 19 didn't hear any strong disagreement with what I've 20 proposed, a longer lunch hour. And those of us who 21 come back at noon for P&P, we'll be here. And it's 22 actually on the same link for Microsoft Teams. It's 23 an open public link. And I'll see everybody then that 24 wants to join us. Okay? Thank you.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

97 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 1

off the record at 10:35 a.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay, everybody. It's 3

1:00 p.m. on the East Coast. And I'm going to 4

reconvene for the first day of the 693rd Meeting of 5

the ACRS to verify that we have a quorum and that 6

clear communications exist. I'm going to again call 7

roll. Vicki Bier?

8 MEMBER BIER: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN REMPE:

Thank you.

Ron 10 Ballinger?

11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Here.

12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Charles Brown? I'll come 13 back (simultaneous speaking).

14 MEMBER BIER: Joy, Charlie was going to 15 walk his dog and be back in a minute.

16 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, okay. Vesna 17 Dimitrijevic.

18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I'm here.

19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you. Greg Halnon?

20 MEMBER HALNON: Here.

21 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thanks. Walt Kirchner?

22 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Here.

23 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Thank you. Jose March-24 Leuba?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

98 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.

1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave Petti?

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: And Matthew Sunseri?

4 MEMBER SUNSERI: Here.

5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So we have a quorum, and 6

Charlie will be joining us later. At this point, I'm 7

going to ask Member Petti to lead us through the topic 8

for this afternoon, which is the integration of source 9

term activities. And, Dave, I'll turn it over to you.

10 MEMBER PETTI: Thank you. So as we came 11 out of subcommittee two weeks ago as most of you know 12 since I think you were all there, we had a really in-13 depth briefing from the staff on this topic. And I 14 said that I would put together a couple slides, that 15 the staff didn't have to give another summary here, 16 that I would put together a number of slides about why 17 I thought it was important that we write a letter.

18 And so I think I have a slide on sort of 19 why and then a little bit, I have a high level 20 conclusion and recommendations. And if the full 21 Committee agrees with the letter, I have that letter 22 ready to be worked on.

23 So, you know, I think as you all know, the 24 source term is really the raison d'tre for the NRC, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

99 right? If we didn't have radioactive material in a 1

nuclear system, what would we be regulating for?

2 Also I think it's important that being 3

able to develop a source term that can receive 4

regulatory approval is really critical to the success 5

of any of the new reactor design and licensing, 6

whether that be something like NuScale, which we had 7

seen had a slightly different approach to the advanced 8

reactor designs that are going to look very different 9

and have very different source terms.

10 Also on October 8, we had one of our 11 periodic meetings with the commissioners. And during 12 that meeting, we discussed our plans to perform an 13 integrated review of the source term activities. And 14 we stated that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 15 fit together would be worthwhile.

16 So it seems like, in my opinion, we need 17 to put a letter together to kind of, you know, close 18 on this issue A. B, the staff spent a lot of time on 19 it and felt it was important to give them the credit 20 here in this area.

21 Joy, your hand is up?

22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So I'd like to explore 23 this last bullet a bit more. It's true that there was 24 a slide in your presentation that said that we plan to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

100 perform an integrated review of source term 1

activities.

2 And it's true that there was a bullet that 3

said a roadmap showing -- I think it almost said we 4

recommended that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 5

fit together would be worthwhile. But was that last 6

statement ever in any of our letters?

7 MEMBER PETTI: Oh, I don't think so.

8 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis. And, Dave, if 9

I could.

10 MEMBER PETTI: Go ahead.

11 MR. BLEY: We did write a couple of 12 letters that referred to the source term. My memory 13

-- I don't have them out in front of me -- is we never 14 actually used the word roadmap here, but we said 15 guidance was really needed for these new ones. So we 16 said that multiple times.

17 CHAIRMAN REMPE: It's true we said the 18 guidance was needed. But we never had in our letters 19 the word roadmap. And I remember discussing this, 20 Dave, a while ago with you before the presentation 21 because there were a lot of things that I said, hey, 22 that's not in the letter. We pulled it. And I let 23 this one go because your response was, well, I've been 24 talking to the staff and we both, the staff and I, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

101 came to the conclusion that a roadmap was needed.

1 And I just want to make sure that it's 2

clear in everyone's mind because, again, if we write 3

a letter, I don't want it to be implying that -- it 4

would be great for us to say better guidance or a 5

roadmap is needed on that web page, but I think we 6

need to be careful about what we've said in the past 7

in our letters.

8 And I wouldn't -- we actually should be 9

careful, too, about what we present and make sure it's 10 clear when it's a single member's opinion or it's a 11 paraphrasing and things like that. But I want to make 12 sure everyone understands that point. Okay?

13 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I think the staff --

14 and when we had the discussion with the staff, we 15 agreed that a presentation on this topic would be very 16 useful so.

17 Next slide, Mike. Oh, okay. So I move 18 in.

So here's the first conclusion and 19 recommendation. The regulatory basis for the source 20 term is widely disbursed -- I'm going to not read it 21 word for word -- in numerous documents focused on 22 LWRs. The dedicated website being developed by the 23 staff is designed as a one-stop shop to capture the 24 information and keep applicants up to date.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

102 The applicants and stakeholders would also 1

benefit from consolidated guidance to determining if 2

the acceptable attributes are suitable for a 3

particular design. And in particular if the staff 4

provides an overview on the website explaining how the 5

applicant can best use this information in concert 6

with pre-application consultations with the staff, 7

applicants will be better prepared to develop a high 8

quality submittal.

9 The next two -- the staff has expanded 10 significant effort evaluating system accident response 11 for the ranger technologies anticipated from future 12 applicants as described in the Non-LWR Vision and 13 Strategy, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, with computer code 14 development. The development of the computer codes 15 for confirmatory analysis of these non-LWR technology 16 should promote expeditious reviews of current and 17 future applications.

18 And the third was a

clear common 19 definition of maximum hypothetical and maximum 20 credible accident should be established along with 21 guidance on how it should be developed to assist 22 potential applicants that would use this concept in 23 their licensing strategy.

24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dave, I do have some 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

103 questions or comments. First of all, a comment on --

1 you don't have to go back to the slide on C&R 1. And 2

I was going through -- again, I'm new at being 3

Chairman. And sometimes when there's these very 4

length C&Rs in some of the statements, it's hard to 5

tell what's a conclusion and what's a recommendation.

6 And we always have to figure whether it's plural or 7

singular on C&Rs.

8 Now there's enough here I don't think that 9

will be a problem with your letter. But be careful 10 because sometimes I think that some of this is almost 11 wishful thinking. But I'd like to go on to my real 12 point here on the next slide.

13 A big point that I was trying to make 14 during this meeting is that I do like the reference 15 plan evaluations. And I think the staff has done a 16 great job. But if we're going to commend them for it, 17 I really would like to see them go further because the 18 insights they are gaining about whether there is not 19 only gaps in the data, but the gaps are important is 20 an important thing that needs to be communicated to 21 the design developers with these new technologies 22 because, yes, there's a lack of data, but some data 23 isn't as important as other data.

24 And, of course, we're assuming that these 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

104 current models are correct for these technologies.

1 But if we're going to buy-in with that, then they 2

could really help with showing that this piece of data 3

is going to be very important. And if you don't have 4

it, you need to get it.

5 MEMBER PETTI: That's in the letter. And 6

if you want to --

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 CHAIRMAN REMPE: That's the thing I would 9

put up because --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I don't have a problem 12 with that at all.

13 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. I think it's an 14 important thing. If we're going to do this, let's --

15 again, at the end of the meeting, I said, you know, 16 these are individual member's comments, and you can 17 take or leave them. But I feel important in this --

18 that this is important. But the staff did respond and 19 say, yes, we've got them. And so, you know, again, 20 the rules of the game have always been, well, if you 21 write the letter, let's make sure all the important 22 ones are highlighted in the conclusions and 23 recommendations. Okay?

24 And then the last thing, I thought Walt 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

105 and other folks -- it was on the Part 50 and 52 1

discussion where it came across, and it was actually 2

a staffer, Michelle Hart, who came up with what her 3

opinion was about the difference between a maximum 4

credible accident versus a maximum hypothetical 5

accident and that there is a difference.

6 And so I would make this that there's two 7

definitions, one for each of these things if we're 8

going to do this because I think that there is --

9 perhaps there is a difference of opinion on what the 10 difference between a maximum hypothetical accident is 11 or a maximum credible accident and that needs to be 12 documented by the staff.

13 So anyway, if we're going to do this, I 14 would change this last bullet to be the fact that 15 there are two things that need to be defined. Or if 16 they're the same thing, then staff should say they're 17 the same thing, and we're not going to distinguish 18 between them. But it's (simultaneous speaking).

19 MEMBER PETTI: I got confused. That's why 20 I asked the question in the context of 50 and 52 21 because I heard it put together, and I've heard them 22 separately. So it was very confusing to me whether 23 they were two separate things or the same thing. And 24 I think it maybe might depend on the context.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

106 (Simultaneous speaking.)

1 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 2

Walt. Part 52 is pretty explicit. It's a maximum 3

hypothetical accident is what is required in using the 4

52 process.

5 MEMBER PETTI: Okay.

6 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: It's not an or.

7 Now the applicant may define, well, for my system this 8

is the most maximum credible accident, but at least 52 9

requires that you postulate a maximum hypothetical 10 accident.

11 MEMBER PETTI: Right. And Part 53 --

12 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: I just say that 13 as a clarification.

14 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. Part 53 --

15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Walt and Dave, 16 didn't we just discuss this morning credible as a part 17 of alignment between 50 and 52 for like a half hour?

18 And then they never said hypothetical. They said 19 credible. So I am not sure that's really 52 means 20 hypothetical if now we just discussed credible today.

21 Remember this morning that we were discussing credible 22 23 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- actually.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

107 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: No, I do, Vesna, 1

yes, thank you. I'm not sure what the staff's intent 2

is on changing the language. But I was just making 3

the distinction that 52 asks you, as an applicant, to 4

postulate a maximum hypothetical accident. I don't 5

think it uses the terminology credible accident.

6 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah. This is Greg. I 7

thought that the staff -- and I have to go back and 8

look at the transcript. One gentleman jumped in and 9

said they were actually writing a definition in one of 10 the draft documents that from what I heard made them 11 equate them as probably the same interchangeable. But 12 I got to go back and look at the transcripts to be 13 sure. So just to add to the confusion, I think that 14 or should be an and.

15 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, yes, no, that's fine.

16 Yes, I agree. No, I'm not sure that's right, Greg, 17 because that was exactly my question, and I thought 18 they answered it as no. They are two different 19 things. And it certainly was in Michelle's mind. She 20 had two different ideas. So, yes, I think a little 21 bit of clarity here would help.

22 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, I think so.

23 DR. BLEY: Dave?

24 MEMBER PETTI: Yes?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

108 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis. Certainly 1

historically there's been a difference if you go all 2

the way back to the 50s and come from then. There 3

have been times over the history of the AEC and NRC 4

where the same initials, acronyms, have changed actual 5

word meaning so that might be where the staff is 6

headed to bring them together, but historically they 7

were different.

8 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. I think that's all 9

I have for the slides. I think it's -- oh, no, it 10 isn't. There it is. Okay. So here's just to give 11 you an idea of what the letter looks like. There's a 12 background, about 15 lines. I tried to summarize the 13 regulatory basis and discuss all the documents that 14 touch on source term that kind of show that it is 15 somewhat distributed and sets the stage.

16 Observation on source term development, 17 these are sort of -- it's a real technical meet.

18 These are basically things I gleaned from all the 19 presentations, or a number of the presentations, and 20 just try to put a focus on them because I thought they 21 were the important things and then talk about the work 22 on the website and then a summary. So it's not a very 23 long letter. It depends on what font you use, I 24 guess.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

109 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So at one point you were 1

going to say more than the website is needed, like 2

guidance is needed. And I'm not sure that you are 3

still feeling that way because I guess, again, another 4

point I tried to make during the meeting is as I 5

recall, the person sending it said, oh, there's a typo 6

on this website, and we're going to fix it. And that 7

happens a lot with websites. it's not like a document 8

that gets reviewed,and it's there. Even if you give 9

it, and there are still errors in the document. It's 10 issued. The website you fix it and you update, you 11 know, last modified date at the bottom, and you go on.

12 And are you going to try and recommend 13 that they do something a little more concrete? Are 14 you going to say, no, it's changing so fast this is 15 the best I can do?

16 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I think I moved away 17 from more guidance at least in the near-term just 18 because I think they've got so much on their plate.

19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So not even some sort of 20 roadmap is needed anymore?

21 MEMBER PETTI: I think that the website 22 fulfills that function. Hold on. No, I do. I'm 23 sorry. I wrote this. I do say that the benefit from 24 consolidated guidance to aid in determining acceptable 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

110 applicants. What I didn't say is what that guidance 1

should look like. Should it be something that's on 2

the website? Should it be a separate document? I 3

leave that up to them. I'm kind of silent on that.

4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So, again, I think as we 5

decide to do a letter that some acknowledgment of the 6

fact that websites are temporal and can easily be 7

fixed. I think a website is great as a way to start.

8 But I'm wondering if maybe something a little more 9

concrete is needed or something or at least we should 10 acknowledge that websites are not the same, you know, 11 firmness. And given that the landscape is changing so 12 fast this is probably the right level to hit on it, 13 but acknowledge that something -- that it is very 14 easily changed.

15 DR. BLEY: Joy, this is Dennis again.

16 Maybe somebody on the staff could help. But over the 17 last up to 10 years, the staff has put a number of 18 tools for themselves and other kinds of information 19 into websites that are well controlled.

20 And I think if you folks do write a 21 letter, and I would recommend you do because we've 22 raised this issue so many times -- where was I going?

23 With the website, maybe somebody from the staff can 24 talk about the kind of control they will have on that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

111 and if they've got examples where in fact guidance is 1

presented on the NRC website and is under the same 2

kind of control that you have on a document.

3 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dennis, you know, even if 4

it's controlled, when I do references to a website and 5

publications that are archival, you always put last 6

access, whatever date, because it's recognized that 7

websites can change their information. I mean, that's 8

(simultaneous speaking).

9 DR. BLEY: That's very reasonable because 10 you put revision numbers on your documents. But I 11 think rather than speculating if the staff can address 12 that, I think it would be helpful. And it doesn't 13 sound like they are ready to do that so I withdraw 14 that recommendation.

15 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala, Chief of 16 the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch and NRR. You know, 17 we put this website together, you know, to serve as a 18 roadmap and to provide easy access to anybody who is 19 interested in terms of where to find, you know, 20 information on source term.

21 Even as a result of the subcommittee 22 meeting that we just had on source term, we went in, 23 and we added some information on NUREG-1537, you know, 24 the guidance that is there for non-power reactors, you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

112 know.

1 So we definitely plan to keep that website 2

up-to-date. And that website references official, you 3

know, NRC documents. So even as we update, you know, 4

the text on the website, it's still going to be 5

referencing official ADAMS, you know, documents that 6

are in our agency-wide document management system.

7 So, you know, we have been -- you know we 8

created our advanced reactor public website back in 9

2016. And we've been updating it on a regular basis.

10 And so we do put a conscious effort into keeping the 11 advanced reactor related websites up-to-date. And 12 this source term website is a page off of our advanced 13 reactor overall web page. I don't know if that --

14 DR. BLEY: Hey, John?

15 MR. SEGALA: -- answers your questions or 16 not.

17 DR. BLEY: John? It's Dennis. I think 18 so. And I played around on the website and found 19 things that I wouldn't have been able to find without 20 it, I think.

21 The website itself is not guidance. It 22 points you to the guidance, correct?

23 MR. SEGALA: Yes.

24 DR. BLEY: Dave, I didn't have anything 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

113 else.

1 MEMBER PETTI: Oh, okay. Thanks.

2

Members, any other comments?
Well, as the 3

subcommittee chair, I'd like --

4 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave?

5 MEMBER PETTI: Yes?

6 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Dave, this is 7

Walt. If I might ask John, who is with us, the 8

intention is to have Draft Guide 1389 as the next 9

revision to Reg. Guide 1.183. That's really LWR 10 specific. Is there any one stop shop place for a non-11 LWR to develop its source term? What would be the 12 last Reg. Guide that you would refer someone to?

13 Would it be 1.183 and then modify it for non-LWR 14 technology?

15 MEMBER PETTI: John, you're muted.

16 MR. SEGALA: Yes. thank you. I don't 17 know if maybe Michelle Hart can add. I think there is 18 general information in Reg. Guide 1.183 on how to 19 develop a source term so a non-light water reactor 20 developer can start with that information, you know, 21 to develop either their design specific source term or 22 even scenario specific source term.

23 So there's a lot of good information in 24 there even though it's light water reactor specific 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

114 for the majority of the Reg. Guide. And then we have 1

other information, you know, that's on the website 2

that non-light water reactor developers could use.

3 We also have, you know, the licensing 4

modernization project in our Reg. Guide 1.233 that 5

endorses that document, the non-light water reactor 6

PRA standard. You know, there's lots of the melt core 7

scale workshops that we've done and whatnot.

8 Michelle, are you on?

9 MS. HART: I'm here. Yes, I don't think 10 that there's anything additional to add to that. I 11 will say that we do not have a plan to provide a 12 source term for the reactors like we do in Reg. Guide 13 1.183.

14 The other features of a consequence 15 assessment you can use the information in there, you 16 know, pretty easily. But the development of the 17 source term, maybe you can look at the basis for the 18 source term that's in Reg. Guide 1.183 for light water 19 reactors and you, as a non-light water reactor 20 applicant, would be able to figure out, well, what 21 information do I need to come up with similar types of 22 information for my reactor is kind of the thought 23 behind that.

24 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: You know, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

115 reason I asked this was because it seems to me that 1

it's very useful to have all of this information on 2

a website and such. But it seems to me, Dave, right 3

now that rather than use the term roadmap, that 4

suggests one -- it goes through all these documents to 5

figure out what your source term should be.

6 It seems to me right now that 1.183 as 7

revised in DG-1389 is the latest and greatest 8

resource, so to speak, that an applicant should look 9

at. And then if that applicant is a non-LWR 10 technology, then one is going to have to supplement 11 accordingly to develop a mechanistic source term.

12 Does that make any sense? I mean, rather than ask the 13 staff to develop a roadmap, I'm a little -- I guess I 14 shared Joy's concern as well.

15 I think rather than a "roadmap", one 16 should be pointing specifically to a Reg. Guide that 17 provides an acceptable approach for developing a 18 source term --

19 MEMBER PETTI: (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: -- supplemented 21 by the Sandia and INL Reports, et cetera, et cetera.

22 MEMBER PETTI: There's an appendix in one 23 of these documents. And I keep getting confused. I 24 thought it was in 1.183. But maybe it's in the -- I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

116 not exactly sure. But it kind of provides sort of an 1

overview of what it takes to put together a source 2

term. Michelle, do you know which Reg. Guide that's 3

in?

4 MEMBER HALNON: Dave, that's in the EP --

5 well, the Appendix B in the new EP?

6 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. That's what I was 7

remembering. That was maybe the one so.

8 MEMBER HALNON: I think it's 1.242, I 9

think.

10 MS. HART: Yes. It's Reg. Guide 1.242.

11 It has a discussion on considerations for source 12 terms, how to develop source terms. And that is for 13 the emergency preparedness rulemaking.

14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I haven't checked this 15 website recently. But is Reg. Guide 1.242 pointed to 16 in the website as it is configured today?

17 MS. HART: I don't think so.

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE:

Because that was 19 something that I thought we did review this EPZ 20 rulemaking that was a good source. So that might be 21 something you might want to add to this slide.

22 MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala. I was 23 just going to say that I think we were trying to point 24 to documents that are out there. I think that guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

117 is -- you know, with the rulemaking package is up in 1

front of the Commission right now to vote on that 2

rulemaking. So once the Commission votes on that 3

rulemaking, that Reg. Guide will be issued final. And 4

then we'll add the reference to that onto our website.

5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Actually, I just checked 6

the website. It's on there pointing to 1.242, Rev. C, 7

July 2021. So you do have it, I think, actually.

8 Sorry. Just to correct the record.

9 MR. SEGALA: No, that's okay. I was just 10 saying we won't have a reference to the final version 11 until it's issued, and the Commission approves it.

12 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. So maybe in the 13 letter, I've noticed I have a paragraph about that is 14 arguing that appendix may be a good entry point for 15 applicants thinking about a source term, that and 16 1.183 probably together.

17 So I guess the question in front of the 18 Committee is do we want a letter? I recommend that we 19 do. And it's --

20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Do we need to have a 21 vote? And do you want me to lead the vote, Dave, or 22 how do you want to go forward here?

23 MEMBER PETTI: I don't how we -- I mean, 24 if anyone disagrees maybe we should just, you know, by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

118 acclimation, only if you don't agree.

1 CHAIRMAN REMPE: The last time it was 2

about half and half so why don't we just go through 3

it. Okay?

4 MEMBER PETTI: Okay. That's fine.

5 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So let's call for a vote.

6 I'm going to say a yes means a letter, no means not a 7

letter. And in the past, I learned that some members 8

are undecided. So an undecided is also a legal vote 9

here. And I've got my pen to take down the votes.

10 Ron Ballinger, how do you vote?

11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.

12 MEMBER REMPE: Vicki Bier?

13 MEMBER BIER: Mostly undecided, but slight 14 yes.

15 CHAIRMAN REMPE: So now I don't know how 16 to record you. Should I put a yes or a U, Vicki?

17 MEMBER BIER: Oh, I don't know. We'll see 18 how it works out at the end. But I'm fine being a U.

19 I'm not super informed on this topic so.

20 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Charlie Brown, a 21 yes, an undecided or a no.

22 MEMBER BROWN: Undecided, but I'll cancel 23 out Vicki's and say the other way.

24 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I'm putting both 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

119 of you as U's. Vesna Dimitrijevic?

1 MEMBER BROWN: As what, U's?

2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Yes. Undecided.

3 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. All right.

4 CHAIRMAN REMPE: I've got to keep track of 5

this. Okay?

6 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. Thank you. I'm 7

like Vicki. I'm not as versed in this. So I'll 8

defer.

9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Vesna, how do you 10 vote?

11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Greg, how do you vote?

13 MEMBER HALNON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Walt Kirchner, how 15 do you vote? Walt, are you on mute?

16 VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Yes. I couldn't 17 find the mute.

18 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Jose, how do you 19 vote?

20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, write the 21 letter.

22 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I bet, Dave, 23 that's a yes. Matt, how do you vote?

24 MEMBER SUNSERI: Yes.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

120 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. And I'm an 1

undecided, but I don't see any no's. So we are going 2

to do a letter. Are you ready to switch to having --

3 do we need five minutes for -- do we want to take a 4

break. It's only been 30 minutes since we started.

5 So should we just go ahead and ask Sandra to bring up 6

the screen again?

7 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I think she's ready, 8

yes.

9 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Sandra, are you 10 ready out there?

11 SANDRA: I'm ready.

12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Go ahead and bring 13 up and share your screen, and we'll let Dave start 14 reading. And thank you to the staff who -- I'm sorry.

15 Court reporter, I need to say we're going to go off 16 the record. Thank you for reminding me.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 1:32 p.m.)

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ACRS Briefing:

Content of Proposed Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing 1

March 2, 2022 ADAMS Accession No. ML22059A040

2 Joy Rempe - ACRS Chairman Lawrence Burkhart - ACRS Technical Support Branch OPENING STATEMENT AGENDA

3 PROPOSED DRAFT RULEMAKING

4 Vicki Bier - ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices Chairman Brian Smith - Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REMARKS

5 NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Omid Tabatabai, NRR Senior Project Manager

6 Todays Meeting

  • Discuss the purpose and content of the proposed rule
  • Discuss items of interest from the February subcommittee meetings
  • Provide an update on next steps and the rulemaking schedule
  • Receive ACRS members perspectives

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 Parts 50 and 52 reactor licensing processes

- Improve clarity

- Incorporate lessons learned in recent licensing proceedings

- Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff

8 Scope of the Proposed Rule

  • Number of technical areas: 11
  • Number of items in scope: 61
  • Items with rulemaking recommendation: 60

- Number of items with rulemaking and guidance development or revision: 18

- Number of guidance documents with rule: 13

  • Number of 10 CFR parts affected by rulemaking: 9

9 Alignment of Parts 50 and 52

  • The proposed rule addresses four areas where the NRCs policies and direction for new reactors have resulted in requirements and guidance for Part 52 applicants only:

- Application of Severe Accident Policy Statement (1)

- Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (3)

- Three Mile Island Requirements (1)

- Fire Protection Design Features and Plans (1)

10 10 Lessons Learned from Recent Experience

  • The proposed rule covers topics for which the NRCs recent experience with new light water reactor licensing has resulted in lessons learned Operator Licensing (5)

Physical Security (2)

Fitness For Duty (4)

Emergency Planning (7)

Part 52 Licensing Process (21)

Environmental Protection (1)

Applicability of Other Processes to the 10 CFR Part 52 Process (5)

Miscellaneous Topics (9)

11 11 Estimates of Costs and Savings

  • Total net averted costs to industry and the NRC between $16.1 million and $25.5 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 unquantified benefits as well (regulatory efficiency, public confidence)

12 12 Topics for Further Discussion

  • Relationship to non-LWRs
  • Cumulative effects of changes to the design when the plant is built
  • Cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents
  • Flexibility for changes related to digital I&C
  • Definition of essentially complete design

13 13 Relationship to Non-LWRs

  • Cross-cutting item
  • The item was added in response to public comments on the regulatory basis
  • The goal of the discussion and proposed changes is to explain how this rulemaking activity fits with other licensing process efforts and rulemakings that relate to non-light water technology

14 14 Cumulative Effects of Changes During Construction

  • Part 50 and Part 52 remain distinct processes
  • Part 52 is based on:

-Essentially complete nuclear plant design

-Final design information

-Resolution of all safety issues

-Finality for resolutions in subsequent proceedings

15 15 Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Design

  • Change: Extend the current PRA requirements in Part 52 to apply to Part 50 power reactor license applicants Affected regulations:

§50.34(a), Preliminary safety analysis report

§50.34(b), Final safety analysis report Aligns Parts 50 and 52 on the use of PRA in the design of the facility and ensures that similar risk information is supplied in applications for new power reactor CPs or OLs under Part 50 Public comments:

- Ten comments; expressed concern over changes and need for clarification on how to meet requirements

- In response to comments, NRC changed the cost model to reflect the significant effort required to complete an upgrade prior to loading fuel Cost/benefit: Development of PRA, rulemaking; qualitative

16 16 Cutoff Accident Frequency for Credible Accidents

  • A discrete cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents is not defined
  • The changes to 10 CFR 50.59(c) would align the Part 50 change process with Part 52 with regard to consideration of severe accidents
  • This rulemaking does not further define credible or what is substantial

17 17 Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C

  • Endorsement of NEI 96-07 Appendix D unaffected
  • Current interim staff guidance unaffected

18 18 Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C (contd)

  • Staff will ask for the level of detail necessary to meet a safety finding
  • Design acceptance criteria are not needed
  • Proposed change process for standard design approvals would use current methods

19 19 Clarify the Phrase Essentially Complete Design

  • Change: Add standardized definition of essentially complete design to Part 52
  • Affected regulations:
  • §52.1, Definitions
  • Add clarity and efficiency; reduce scope of information needed for review
  • Public comments:

- Review September 24, 2021 NEI letter to NRC

  • Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial

20 Questions

21 21 Recap and Next Steps

  • Complete concurrence on draft proposed rule
  • Submit the proposed rule to the Commission
  • Plan for additional public meeting(s) during the public comment period for the proposed rule

22 22 Rulemaking Schedule Issue final rule October 2024 Submit proposed rule to the Commission May 2022

23 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 Omid Tabatabai, Senior Project Manager Division of New Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Omid.Tabatabai@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-6616 Contact Information

24 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

25 25 Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL Combined License CP Construction Permit DAC Design Acceptance Criteria DC Design Certification DG Draft Regulatory Guide ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EP Emergency Planning ESP Early Site Permit FFD Fitness For Duty FRN Federal Register Notice FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report I&C Instrumentation and Controls ISG Interim Staff Guidance ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria LAR License Amendment Request LWR Light-Water Reactor ML Manufacturing License NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEIMA Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OL Operating License PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment RG Regulatory Guide SDA Standard Design Approval SECY Office of the Secretary SRP Standard Review Plan SSC Structure, System, and Component STP South Texas Project TMI Three Mile Island

26 26 References Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, dated November 1978 ML011340122 SECY-90-241, Level of Detail Required for Design Certification Under Part 52, dated July 11, 1990 ML003707877 IEEE Std. 603-1991, Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, dated December 31, 1991 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/

document/159411 NEI 01-01/EPRI TR-102348, Revision 1, Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades, dated March 2002 ML020860169 NEI 00-04, Revision 0, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline, dated July 2005 ML052910035 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Revision 1, Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated May 2006 ML061090627 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 13.3, Revision 3, Emergency Planning, dated March 2007 ML063410307 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.1, Revision 3, Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated September 2012 ML12193A107 Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, dated March 2014 ML12188A053 NEI 96-07, Appendix C, Revision 0 - Corrected, Guideline for Implementation of Change Processes for New Nuclear Power Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated March 2014 ML14091A739 Results of Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.201, dated April 23, 2015 ML15091A788

27 27 References (contd)

Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-025, Changes During Construction Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated July 2015 ML15058A377 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.0, Revision 3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors, dated December 2015 ML15089A068 International Atomic Energy Agency, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR 2/1, Revision 1, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design, dated February 2016 https://www.iaea.org/

publications/8771/

safety-of-nuclear-power-plants-design NRC Letter to NEI Related to the Public Meeting of March 28, 2018, Regarding Avoiding Delays in Issuance of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined Licenses, dated May 9, 2018 ML18123A245 Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-22, Supplement 1, Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems, dated May 31, 2018 ML18143B633 Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, dated October 2018 ML18131A181 DI&C-ISG-06, Revision 2, Licensing Process, dated December 2, 2018 ML18269A259 NEI 18-04, Revision 1, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, dated August 2019 ML19241A472 NEI Letter to the NRC, Part 50/52 Lessons Learned Rulemaking, dated March 9, 2020 ML20108F543 NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications, dated May 2020 ML20135H168

28 28 References (contd)

Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66] held April 29, 2020, dated May 26, 2020 ML20141L609 Regulatory Guide 1.233, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors, dated June 2020 ML20091L698 NRC Letter to NEI, Part 50/52 Lessons-Learned Rulemaking: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement, dated September 8, 2020 ML20156A308 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated December 2020 ML20238B871 Regulatory Guide 1.237, Revision 0, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Being Constructed Under a Combined License Referencing a Certified Design Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated February 2021 ML20349A335 Design Review Guide (DRG): Instrumentation and Controls for Non-Light-Water Reactor (Non-LWR)

Reviews, dated February 26, 2021 ML21011A140 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, last reviewed/updated March 9, 2021 https://www.nrc.gov/reading

-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr08 00/index.html NEI, Industry Comments on the Regulatory Basis for Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0196), dated May 14, 2021 ML21144A164

29 29 References (contd)

Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 3, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, dated June 2021 ML21109A002 NUREG-1021, Revision 12, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, dated September 2021 ML21256A276 Draft Interim Staff Guidance; Request for Comment, Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications, dated December 14, 2021 86 FR 71101 Draft FRN to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting - 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated January 27, 2022 ML22020A002 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 1, 2022 ML22020A001 Draft Guidance Documents to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Part 50/52 Proposed Rulemaking, dated February 15, 2022 ML22040A074 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 18, 2022 ML22046A035

ACRS ITAAC PRESENTATION MARCH 2, 2022

Atomic Energy Acts ITAAC Requirements Section 185b. (42 U.S.C. 2235(b)) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA),

and 10 CFR 52.97(b) require that the Commission identify within the combined license the Inspections, Tests, and Analyses (ITAs), including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the AEA, and the Commissions rules and regulations. To fulfill this requirement, the Commission included ITAAC in Appendix C to the combined license (COL) for VEGP Units.

Following issuance of the combined license, Section 185b. requires that the Commission ensure that the prescribed ITAs are performed and, before operation of the facility, find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met. The NRC codified the requirement to ensure completion of the ITAs in 10 CFR 52.99(e) and codified the requirement to find that the acceptance criteria are met in 10 CFR 52.103(g).

In the July 19, 2013, Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-13-0033, Staff Requirements - SECY-13-0033 - Allowing Interim Operation Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 52.103 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13200A115), the Commission delegated the responsibility for the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding to the staff.

Staffs two-pronged approach to fulfill the requirements

  • First, the staff reviews 100 percent of the licensees ITAAC Closure Notifications (ICNs) submitted under 10 CFR 52.99(c)(1). These reviews verify that the licensee provided a sufficient basis to demonstrate that the ITAs were performed as required and that the results met the prescribed acceptance criteria. The staff also reviews 100 percent of the ITAAC Post Closure Notifications (IPCNs) submitted under 10 CFR 52.99(c)(2) to verify that the ITAAC are still satisfied notwithstanding new, material information.
  • Second, the staff performs independent inspections of a carefully selected sample of ITAAC to independently verify (1) the licensees performance of the ITAs and (2) that the obtained results met the prescribed acceptance criteria.
  • Additionally, these inspections also verified that the licensee (1) had quality construction programs, processes, and procedures; (2) provided adequate quality assurance (QA) oversight of construction activities; and (3) identified and corrected conditions adverse to quality.
  • Moreover, a sample of the ICNs were inspected against their associated closure packages to verify the accuracy of the information reported in the ICNs.

ITAAC Prioritization Process While the scope of the NRCs inspection programs is comprehensive, 100-percent inspection is neither necessary nor efficient when evaluating licensee performance. For this reason, the NRC historically has relied on a risk-informed sample-based inspection program. For VEGP, the Construction Inspection Program (CIP) focused on a select sample of predefined inspection targets (i.e., targeted ITAAC).

The methodology for prioritizing the ITAAC for inspection was based in part on a quantitative process called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a method of comparison used to reduce the subjectivity in prioritization and provide structure to the decision-making process.

The prioritization process was managed such that the rating given each ITAAC correlated to the amount of assurance one could obtain from inspecting that ITAAC. In this way, it was not the ITAAC that was prioritized, but rather the value of inspecting that ITAAC, to maximize the agencys ability to detect any significant construction flaw.

The Technical Report on the Prioritization of Inspection Resources for Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060740006), contains further detail on the AHP process.

The process for prioritizing the ITAAC for inspection is described in OI NRR-LIC-210, Prioritization of Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for Inspection (ADAMS Accession No. ML20057D521).

ITAAC Prioritization Process (contd)

The first step in the prioritization process classifies and groups the ITAAC into families to facilitate ITAAC inspection sampling within each family. ITAAC are classified based on (1) the activities performed to implement it, and/or (2) its acceptance criterion. The ITAAC Matrix (see next slide) establishes a logical way to group the ITAAC into families for inspection sampling purposes, but it does not provide directions on what ITAAC to inspect.

ITAAC are grouped by selecting the single best combination of a matrix column (i.e.,

construction program) and a matrix row (i.e., construction process or system, structure, or component) that best covers the ITAACs construction activities. For example, all ITAAC for the as-built inspection of instrumentation and control components will be binned in the matrix family

[A10] formed by the intersection of column (A) and row (10).

The use of the ITAAC Matrix provides a consistent framework for developing the inspection program for each new or advanced reactor design and establishes a sound, efficient, inspection sampling approach. Because the ITAAC within a family are similar, an equivalent licensee performance can be expected for each of them.

ITAAC Prioritization Process The second step involves rank-ordering the ITAAC based upon certain defined attributes that make one ITAAC more or less important to inspect. The defined attributes are:

(1) safety significance, (2) propensity for making errors, (3) construction and testing experience, (4) the opportunity to verify ITAAC completion by other means, and (5) licensee (applicant) oversight. {Not used}

Each attribute is weighted based on its importance in achieving the overall objective of detecting significant construction flaws.

ITAAC MAINTENANCE RULE 10 CFR 52.99(c)(2)

ITAAC post-closure notifications. Following the licensees ITAAC closure notifications under paragraph (c)(1) of this section until the Commission makes the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the licensee shall notify the NRC, in a timely manner, of new information that materially alters the basis for determining that either inspections, tests, or analyses were performed as required, or that acceptance criteria are met. The notification must contain sufficient information to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the new information, the prescribed inspections, tests, or analyses have been performed as required, and the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.

10 CFR 52.103(g) vs. ITAAC MAINTENANCE What does ITAAC are met mean in 10 CFR 52.103(g)?

At the time of the 52.103(g) finding the staff will consider all acceptance criteria are met if both of the following conditions hold:

All ITAAC were verified to be met at one time; and The licensee provides confidence, in part through the notifications in 10 CFR 52.99(c), that the ITAAC determination bases have been maintained and the ITAAC acceptance criteria continue to be met, and the NRC has no reasonable information to the contrary.

This approach will allow licensees to have ITAAC-related structures, systems, or components, or security or emergency preparedness related hardware, undergoing maintenance or certain other activities at the time of the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, if the programs credited with maintaining the validity of completed ITAAC guide those activities and the activities are not so significant as to exceed a threshold for reporting.

ITAAC MAINTENANCE THRESHOLDS Material Error or OmissionIs there a material error or omission in the original ITAAC closure notification?

Post Work Verification (PWV)Will the PWV use a significantly different approach than the original performance of the inspection, test, or analysis as described in the original ITAAC notification?

Engineering ChangesWill an engineering change be made that materially alters the determination that the acceptance criteria are met?

Additional Items to Be VerifiedWill there be additional items that need to be verified through the ITAAC?

Complete and Valid ITAAC RepresentationWill any other licensee activities materially alter the ITAAC determination basis?

Post 10 CFR 52.103(g) Finding Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(h), after the Commission makes the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion in the combined license, constitute regulatory requirements for the licensee.

While ITAAC are no longer requirements after the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, subsequent changes to the facility or procedures described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 52.98(e) or (f), as applicable.

The technical specifications in the combined license NPF-91, Appendix A, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Technical Specifications, become effective upon a finding that the acceptance criteria in the license (ITAAC) are met in accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g).

Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors

  • Source Term is the raison detre of the NRC
  • Development of a source term that can receive regulatory approval is critical to the success of the new reactor design and licensing
  • On October 8, 2021, we had one of our periodic meetings with the Commissioners
  • During that meeting we discussed our plans to perform an integrated review of source term activities. We also stated that a roadmap showing how all the pieces fit together would be worthwhile.

Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors: C&R - 1

  • The regulatory basis for the radiological source term is widely dispersed among numerous documents largely focused on light water reactors. The dedicated website for source term related documents being developed by the staff is designed as a one stop shop that will capture this information and keep potential applicants up to date on latest developments in this area. Non-LWR applicants and stakeholders would also benefit from consolidated guidance to aid in determining the acceptable attributes of the source term suitable for a particular design. In particular, if the staff provides an overview on the website explaining how an applicant can best use the available information in concert with pre-application consultations with the staff, applicants will be better prepared to develop high quality submittals.

Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of Advanced Reactors C&R-2 and 3

  • NRC staff has expended significant effort evaluating system accident response for a range of technologies anticipated from future applicants as described in their non-LWR vision and strategy Volumes 1, 2 and 3 related to computer code development. Development of the computer codes for confirmatory analysis of non-LWR technologies should promote expeditious staff reviews of current and future applications.
  • A clear, common definition of maximum hypothetical or maximum credible accident should be established along with guidance on how it should be developed to assist potential applicants that would use this concept in their licensing strategy.

Source Term Letter: Contents

  • Background (15 lines)
  • Regulatory Basis - discuss all documents that touch on source term, largely LWR based and very distributed - sets the stage on the need for consolidated guidance (40 lines)
  • Observations on Source Term Development - key aspects of source term that should be considered (40 lines)
  • Recent NRC focus - website and computer code development and application to advanced reactors; significant NRC effort and should promote expedited reviews of future submissions (35 lines)
  • Summary (10 lines)
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML22095A106&oldid=5454083"