ML22095A106: Difference between revisions

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


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==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
 
1 1
2 3
4                              DISCLAIMER 5
6 7  UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8        ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11          The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17          This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
1 1                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                + + + + +
4                            693RD MEETING 5            ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6                                    (ACRS) 7                                + + + + +
8                                WEDNESDAY 9                            MARCH 2, 2022 10                                + + + + +
11                  The      Advisory            Committee  met        via 12 teleconference at 8:30 a.m., Joy L. Rempe, Chairman, 13 presiding.
14 15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
16            JOY L. REMPE, Chairman 17            WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Vice Chairman 18            DAVID A. PETTI, Member-at-Large 19            RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 20            VICKI M. BIER, Member 21            CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 22            VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 23            GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 24            JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 25            MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Chairman 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 1 ACRS CONSULTANT:
2            DENNIS BLEY 3
4 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
5            QUYNH NGUYEN 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 1                          C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 3            Opening Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        4 4            Agenda and Items of Current Interest                  . . .        7 5 Proposed Draft Rulemaking 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 6            Remarks from the Subcommittee Chairman                    . .      8 7            Presentations and discussion with 8            representatives from the NRC staff 9 Integration of Source Term Activities in Support of 10            Advanced Reactor Initiatives                . . . . . .        100 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 1                        P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                                    8:30 a.m.
3                    CHAIRMAN      REMPE:            So,      good  morning, 4 everyone.        This meeting will now come to order.                      This 5 is the first day of the 693rd meeting of the Advisory 6 Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
7                    Because    of    the    COVID        19  outbreak      and 8 current        health  precautions          this      meeting    is    being 9 conducted remotely.              I'm Joy Rempe, Chairman of the 10 ACRS.        I want to now call roll to verify a quorum, and 11 that clear communications exist.                      Ron Ballinger.
12                    MEMBER BALLINGER:            Here.
13                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Vicki Bier.
14                    MEMBER BIER:        Here.
15                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Charles Brown.
16                    MEMBER BROWN:          Here.
17                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Vesna Dimitrijevic.
18                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Here.
19                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Greg Halnon.
20                    MEMBER HALNON:          Here.
21                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Walt Kirchner.
22                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                Here.
23                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Jose March-Leuba.
24                    MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Here.
25                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Dave Petti.
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 1                MEMBER PETTI:          Here.
2                CHAIRMAN REMPE:            And Matthew Sunseri.
3                MEMBER SUNSERI:            I'm here.
4                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Great.        Everyone's here.
5 I note we have we have a quorum.
6                The ACRS was established by the Atomic 7 Entity Act, and governed by the Federal Advisory 8 Committee Act.      The ACRS section of the USNRC public 9 website provides information about the history of this 10 Committee, and documents such as our charter, by law, 11 Federal Register notices for meetings, letter reports, 12 and transcripts of all full and Subcommittee meetings, 13 including all slides presented with the meetings.
14                This Committee provides its advice on 15 safety matters to the Commission through its publicly 16 available letter reports. The Federal Register notice 17 announcing this meeting was published on February 18 14th, 2022.
19                This announcement, providing a meeting 20 agenda as well as instructions for interested parties 21 to submit written documents or request opportunities 22 to address the Committee.                The designated federal 23 officer for this meeting is Mr. Quynh Nguyen.
24                A communications channel has been opened 25 to allow members of the public to monitor the open 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 1 portions of this meeting.              The ACRS has just started 2 inviting members of the public to use the MST, the MS, 3 Microsoft      Teams  link      to    view      slides  and    other 4 discussion materials during these open sessions.
5                  If you're a member of the public who does 6 not yet have the link, please email Lawrence Burkhart 7 at lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov. So, I'm going to repeat 8 this email address, just to make sure that everyone 9 got it that needs it. It's lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov.
10                  In  the      future        this      MS  Teams      link 11 information will be placed in the Federal Register 12 notice and agendas on the ACRS public website.
13                  We've received no written comments or 14 requests to make oral statements from members of the 15 public regarding today's sessions.
16                  Periodically the meeting will be open to 17 accept comments from participants listening to our 18 meeting.      Written comments may be forwarded to Mr.
19 Quynh Nguyen, the designated federal officer.
20                  During today's meeting the Committee will 21 consider      two  technical          topics,        proposed      draft 22 rulemaking on 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, and integration 23 our      source  connectivities          in    support    of  advanced 24 reactor initiatives.
25                  A transcript of the open portions of the 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 1 meeting is being kept.                  And it's requested that 2 speaker identify themselves, and speak with sufficient 3 clarity and volume, so that they can be readily heard.
4                  Additionally,        participants      should      mute 5 themselves when not speaking.                    And I'd note that if 6 participants are not muting themselves our staff will 7 mute you.
8                  Before we begin today's meeting I have two 9 items of current interest that I'd like to share.
10 First,        on February      9th    the      National  Academy        of 11 Engineering issued an announcement that they have 12 elected ACRS Member David Petti as one of their 13 members, because of his outstanding contributions in 14 the areas of field development and reactor safety.
15                  So, I'd like to ask members to unmute 16 themselves, and join me in congratulating Member Petti 17 for this accomplishment.                I'll start clapping.            And 18 hopefully other folks are also clapping out there.
19                  MEMBER:      Congratulations, Dave.
20                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Okay.
21                  MEMBER PETTI:          Thank you.
22                  CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          Great. Okay.          So, 23 second, on a more somber note I'd like to acknowledge 24 that some of us have worked with or are currently 25 working with colleagues in the Ukraine that support 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 1 their current operating lease for the Chernobyl site.
2                And today I'd like to acknowledge that our 3 thoughts and prayers are with these colleagues as they 4 continue to perform their duties during this difficult 5 time.
6                So, at this time I'd like to ask other 7 Members if they have any opening remarks. And hearing 8 none, I'd then like to ask Member Bier to lead us 9 through our first topic for today's meeting.                      Vicki.
10                MEMBER BIER: Thank you very much. Let me 11 pull up my notes here quickly.                    First, as we move 12 forward on the topic of Part 50 and 52 alignment that 13 the staff has been working on, I want to begin by 14 thanking the staff for all their efforts in the past 15 two briefings on this topic. I think the interactions 16 so far have been very constructive and informative for 17 the Committee.
18                Today I would emphasize a few topics that 19 the Committee has identified as being of particular 20 interest for today. One is how the Agency will assess 21 the cumulative effects of any changes during the 22 construction process for Part 52 licensees.
23                Second of all, ensuring that there is 24 sufficient      flexibility          for        INC    upgrades        and 25 modernization in the new process.
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 1                    Third, how the staff is defining various 2 design concepts, such as essentially complete design, 3 or preliminary design, et cetera.
4                    And finally, any lessons learned from 5 recent        applications,          or    anticipated        near        term 6 applications, what things are on the minds of industry 7 in this process as they go forward.
8                    I'd like to begin by calling on Brian 9 Smith, Director of the Division of New and Renewed 10 Licenses in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for 11 any opening remarks.
12                    MR. SMITH:        All right.          Thank you, Member 13 Bier. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Rempe and 14 other Members of the ACRS.                    My name is Brian Smith.
15 And I'm the Director of the Division of New and 16 Renewed Licenses in NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 17 Regulation.
18                    The  purpose        of    today's      meeting    is      to 19 finalize        our  discussions          related        to  the    staff's 20 rulemaking efforts to align Parts 50 and 52 licensing 21 processes.            And      specifically            to  address        any 22 Subcommittee members' follow-up questions that were 23 raised during the previous two Subommittee briefings, 24 as well as the issues that Member Bier just discussed.
25                    In  our      previous        briefings      the      staff 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 1 described in detail the scope of the rulemaking, 2 focusing on the alignment areas between Parts 50 and 3 52, the proposed changes to the rule language, and the 4 basis for proposing the changes.                            The staff also 5 summarized the public comments that we received in 6 each alignment area.
7                    Please remember that the draft proposed 8 rule      and    the  associated          draft      revised    guidance 9 documents are still under NRC management review. They 10 have not yet been reviewed by the NRC's Office of the 11 General Counsel.            As such, the content of the draft 12 Federal Register notice should not be interpreted as 13 NRC's official agency positions.
14                    I'll    be    listening          to    the  discussions 15 today.          And my staff will be attending the letter 16 writing session to ensure that you have the resources 17 available to you to finalize your review and your 18 subsequent letter.
19                    My thanks to you, the Members of the full 20 Committee, for your time today.                      The staff is looking 21 forward to having another productive meeting with you 22 today.        With that I turn it back over to you, Member 23 Bier.
24                    MEMBER BIER:            Thank you very much for 25 those remarks.            And I would like to now turn the 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 1 meeting        over  to    the      NRC    staff        presenters,        Jim 2 O'Driscoll and Omid Tabatabar, for their presentation.
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Thank you.        My name is, 4 hello, everybody. My name is Jim O'Driscoll. I'm the 5 lead rulemaking project manager on this effort.                              I'm 6 in      the    Office    of      Nuclear        Material      Safety        and 7 Safeguards        within      the    Division          of  Rulemaking, 8 Environmental and Financial Support, known as, we 9 know, known as REFS.
10                  So,    also      joining        me    today    is      Omid 11 Tabatabar from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 12 Regulation, Division of New and Renewed Licenses. And 13 we have several other NRC staff on the call as well.
14                  So, I want Slide 6, and we'll talk about 15 this meeting.        The purpose of today's meeting is to 16 provide the ACRS an update on the staff's efforts 17 since the last ACRS full Committee meeting the NRC 18 staff held on this topic, which took place almost 19 exactly a year ago on March 4th, 2021.                        You can find 20 a summary of that meeting in ADAMS under Session 21 number ML21075A211.
22                  This meeting will provide an opportunity 23 to discuss the purpose of the rulemaking with the full 24 Committee.        The staff provided the ACRS a preliminary 25 draft proposed rule, Federal Register notice earlier 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 1 last month.        This document is publicly available, and 2 can be found under ADAMS Session number ML22020A002.
3                    This meeting will also allow the ACRS to 4 further discuss items of interest to the Committee 5 from the ACRS Subommittee meetings held last month.
6 So, last month the staff briefed the ACRS Subommittee 7 on regulatory practices, sorry, regulatory policies 8 and practices on two occasions.
9                    The first took place in February 1st, 10 2022.          The staff briefed the Subommittee on the 11 purpose of the rule, provided an overview of its 12 contents,        and  discussed          several        aspects    of      the 13 proposal.
14                    You  will      find,      you'll      soon  find      the 15 transcript and slides on the ACRS public website.
16 It's under the 2022 ACRS meeting schedule page and 17 related documents page.
18                    So, in the meantime the meeting slides and 19 preliminary draft proposed Federal Register notice 20 that was made available to the ACRS are available in 21 ADAMS.          And I'll go into where, I won't say the 22 number.          But I'll tell you how to find that in a 23 minute.
24                    On February 18th the staff briefed the 25 Subommittee in a follow-up meeting that provided an 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 1 opportunity to continue a discussion on several topics 2 that we covered at the February 1st meeting.
3                That meeting also allowed an opportunity 4 for staff to discuss specific changes and several 5 guidance documents that are necessary to implement 6 those rules.
7                Again, you'll find the transcript and 8 slides on the ACRS public website, on the same page.
9 In the meantime the meeting slides and the preliminary 10 draft guidance documents that were made available to 11 the ACRS are available in ADAMS.
12                We will pause for questions and answers as 13 we go on any topics of ACRS interest.                Finally, we 14 will provide you an update on the next steps for the 15 project.
16                So, we hope this interaction will provide 17 additional detail on the contents of the preliminary 18 draft proposed rule and the associated guidance that 19 is under staff management review, and the status of 20 the rulemaking.
21                We'll respond to the Committee's written 22 comments that we receive.              Also, please note that a 23 list of the abbreviations used in the slides is at the 24 end of the presentation.              I'll try to say the full 25 term at least once to help folks follow along.
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 1                  Also note that a list of the ADAMS session 2 numbers to the documents referenced in the NRC staff's 3 presentation can be found at the end of the staff's 4 slide presentation.
5                  Please    be    careful        to    not  discuss        any 6 safeguards,        security        related,            classified,          or 7 proprietary information during this meeting. Although 8 we intend to have an open dialogue, please note that 9 the NRC staff will not make any regulatory commitments 10 during this meeting.
11                  So, go on to the next slide.                  So, we are 12 on Slide 7. So, the staff is engaging in a rulemaking 13 to better align portions of the regulations in 10 CFR 14 Part 50 and 52 in four areas, as described in the 15 preliminary draft proposed rule.
16                  The staff will also address items derived 17 from      lessons  learned        from      previous      new    reactor 18 licensing activities described in the preliminary 19 draft proposed rule.
20                  Activity        implements          the    Commission's 21 direction in SRM SECY 150002.                  Our goal is to better 22 align the Part 50 and Part 52 licensing processes such 23 that equivalent design submitted for NRC review under 24 each licensing process are assessed against consistent 25 technical        standards        that        yield      outcomes        with 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 1 equivalent          demonstrations            of      adequate      safety, 2 security, and environmental protections.
3                    In SECY 150002, issued on January 8th, 4 2015, the staff made several recommendations to the 5 Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 6 ensure consistency in new reactor licensing review.
7                    The staff also made recommendations to 8 address staff identified lessons learned, obtained 9 through the licensing reviews completed up to July 10 2019.        These changes are intended to improve clarity, 11 and reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff.
12                    As well as these, the staff has addressed, 13 or intends to address editorial and administrative 14 changes as well.          Go on to the next slide.                We're on 15 Slide 8.
16                    So, there's 61 items discussed in seven, 17 excuse, and 11 general technical areas in the scope of 18 the proposed rule.            This is up from the 50 items we 19 had in the scope of the regulatory basis that was 20 issued for public comment, as briefed at the time of 21 our last ACRS full Committee meeting.
22                    The  preliminary            draft      proposed      rule, 23 Federal Register notice preamble, discusses how the 24 staff        dispositioned        each      item        that  the      staff 25 communicated in the regulatory phases.
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 1                    Among    the    61    items      discussed    in      the 2 Federal        Register      notice        preamble        the  staff        is 3 recommending rulemaking for 60 of them.                        This is up 4 from the 43 items we recommended for rulemaking in the 5 regulatory phases.            So, the staff added a few items 6 based on public feedback and additional staff input.
7                    Of these 60 items 18 of them will also 8 require the staff to develop guidance updates for 9 noticing comment with the proposed rule. There are no 10 new guidance documents proposed.
11                    In the proposed rule the staff identified 12 13 different guidance documents that will be issued 13 for comment with the proposed rule.                          Specifically, 14 seven regulatory guides, and six revised sections of 15 NUREG 0800, the standard review plan, or SRP.
16                    The staff also identified the need to 17 update one technical report with this rulemaking.
18 This rule spans a large number of CFR parts besides 19 Parts 50 and 52, to make informing changes and to 20 address        other  lessons        learned          from  new    reactor 21 licensing.        These parts are Part 2, 21, 26, 51, 55, 22 70, and 73.        Going on to Slide 9.
23                    MEMBER PETTI:            Yes.        Hold on. This is 24 Dave.        I have a question.            Unfortunately I want to 25 take you back to seven, Slide 7 for a minute.
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 1                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.        Please go ahead.
2                    MEMBER PETTI:          The scope of this 50 52 3 alignment, you know that we are also hearing about 4 Part 53 in parallel.                And there's lots of ideas in 5 Part 53 that are risk informed and performance based.
6                    I  understand          this        alignment      won't 7 necessarily be technology inclusive. But is it out of 8 bounds to take some of that though process in Part 53 9 and put it into 50 and 52?                Is the SRM, and I'll give 10 you some pretty bright lines that you got to stay in 11 firmly, if you understand what I'm saying.
12                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            So, yes.        I can talk a 13 little bit about that, Dave.                        So, the way we do 14 rulemakings, we try to, we need to have, ensure that 15 we have a clearly defined scope that has been agreed 16 to by management.          And we try to stick to that scope 17 as we proceed, unless there's a, you know, a need to 18 change it, or something comes up.
19                    So, what we have is, we set up a group 20 called        the  Steering        Committee          that,  of    senior 21 management that makes sure that --
22                    (Audio interference) 23                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:              -- so, the rulemaking 24 path's scope.        And so, in this particular rule we are 25 well aware of Part 53, and the schedule of Part 53.
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 1 But we had to establish essentially lines where we 2 would operate and Part 53 would operate.
3                    And generally speaking we, we're, this 4 rulemaking is a retrospective approach, looking back 5 on lessons learned and alignment issues that we've 6 identified from past licensing reviews.
7                    So, those things are going to require 8 changes in the regulations. Or we're going to propose 9 changes in the regulations.
10                    So, the way Part 53 comes in is, we want 11 to make sure that for the sections we're touching that 12 we're staying as technology neutral as we can.                              So, 13 we'll go, you know, in the course of responding to 14 SECY 150002 we will write whatever regulation such 15 that        it  should    not      pose      a    hindrance      to      new 16 technologies.            And    it's      also      risk    informed        and 17 performance based as much as possible.                          Does that 18 make, does that answer your question?
19                    MEMBER PETTI:        Yes, no.        I think it does.
20 Thanks.        That helped.
21                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.        All right.      I'll 22 move back to Slide 9.            So, we're back on Slide 9.                So, 23 the scope includes six items in four areas, meant to 24 better align Parts 50 and 52.
25                    The proposed rule Federal Register notice 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 1 includes a detailed discussion of these items in 2 Preamble Sections 3.A through 3.D. These are the same 3 areas that are identified in the originating SECY.
4                      Going on to Slide 10.              So, the scope also 5 includes          54  lessons        learned        items.        The      staff 6 organized          these    in      general        areas    of    operator 7 licensing,          physical      security,          fitness    for      duty, 8 emergency          planning,        Part      52    licensing      process, 9 environmental          protection,          applicability          of    other 10 processes to the Part 52 process, and miscellaneous 11 topics.
12                      Move on to the next slide. We're on Slide 13 11.      And this is estimated costs and savings.                        So, as 14 part of the development of the proposed rule the staff 15 considered the potential costs and savings for both 16 the industry and the NRC.
17                      These    estimates            are      preliminary        and 18 subject to change as we further develop the regulatory 19 solutions in the final rule.                    In the proposed rule we 20 intend        to  make    available        a    separate    draft        cost 21 estimate document that will have more details on this.
22                      We evaluated the proposed changes against 23 the      regulatory      baseline,          that      is,  what    we      are 24 currently doing right now.                    We analyzed savings for 25 the next ten years where it was applicable.
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 1                  So,    the      total      net      savings  could        be 2 anywhere        from  $16    million        to    about  $26    million 3 dollars, depending on the discount rate used in the 4 estimate calculation.
5                  The corresponding sensitivity study, our 6 analysis concluded there is a very, very high chance 7 of obtaining a cost savings from proceeding with this 8 rulemaking.        Of course, the rulemaking also achieves 9 unquantified benefits, such as regulatory efficiency 10 and public confidence.
11                  So, the biggest items that avert costs in 12 this        rule  are    the      items        related    to  security 13 requirements for the storage of unirradiated fuel, the 14 elimination        of  the      need      for      DC  renewals,        the 15 clarification of scope of Tier 1 information, the 16 elimination of information requirements related to 17 conformance        to    the      standard        review    plan    in      an 18 application, enabling a construction permit applicant 19 to reference a reviewed environmental assessment.
20                  So, there were several items where the 21 changes increased costs.                These, the major ones are 22 the evaluation of severe accidents earlier in the Part 23 50 process, the items related to probabilistic risk 24 assessment, or PRA, requirements for new Part 50 25 licenses, the application of Three Mile Island, or TMI 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 1 requirements        for  future        Part      50    applicants,        and 2 operator licensing continuing training requirements 3 for plants undergoing construction.
4                  Next slide.
5                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          This is Joy.
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
7                  CHAIRMAN REMPE: I have a question. I was 8 going to bring it up later.                    But I think this last 9 slide's a good place to bring it up.                      I just want to 10 make sure, because I didn't see it in the slides 11 anywhere about, there had been a lot of discussion 12 with the stakeholders about allowing --
13                  Well, first of all, you have provided 14 definitions for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2* in this 15 rulemaking        effort.          And    those      definitions        were 16 designed      to  provide        more    clarity,        and  to      help 17 applicants better select what to designate as wet.
18                  But the staff did not change any of the 19 positions about whether Tier 1 information could be 20 used for 5059 changes. The staff kept the policy that 21 had been in place before.
22                  And I just wanted you to confirm that on 23 the record here today.                Because not everyone who's 24 listening in might have been listening in to our 25 Subommittee meetings.              Tier 1 as well as Tier 2*,
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 1 right, has not been --
2                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      So --
3                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          -- changed?
4                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Yes.        So, I can answer 5 that one.        We're not changing, that's a fundamental 6 principle that we're not changing in this rule.                              So, 7 we are not changing what is subject, as far as the 8 tiers go, tiered information, to 5059.                        That is not 9 being changed.
10                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:              And I personally as a 11 single member agree with that.                    But I just wanted to 12 make sure that everyone who's here today gets that 13 point.        So, thank you.
14                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:                Sure.      Any      other 15 questions?
16                    DR. BLEY:        Yes, Jim.          It's Dennis Bley.
17                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Hey, Dennis.
18                    DR. BLEY:        You said I think that the TMI 19 lessons learned changes raised the costs.                              But I 20 thought anybody new coming in under Part 50 still had 21 to do those before they could be an operating plant.
22 Am I wrong on --
23                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          No, no, they don't.              If 24 you look at the beginning of 5034F there's a preamble.
25 That, those, all that stuff is applicable to a very 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 1 small scope, basically a bunch of activities going on 2 or around 1979 or 1980.
3                    So, if you read that to, you know, letter 4 of, you know, exact, the regulation, it doesn't apply 5 to a new Part 50 plant.                    So what, so this is the 6 problem. So, when we went and made Part 52, you know, 7 I think what we were thinking was, nobody's ever going 8 to use Part 50 again.              So, we don't need to fix that 9 now.
10                    So, we just took those TMI requirements 11 and made them a requirement for new Part 52 plants, 12 okay.          But now, you know, of course we know that 13 there's a possibility of Part 50 applications coming 14 in.
15                    So, we want to make sure that, you know, 16 that obviously, you know, you need to address those 17 requirements,          you    know,        in      a    future,    in      any 18 application.        So that's, I think that answers your 19 questions.
20                    DR. BLEY: Yes, it does. And I'm a little 21 surprised by that.              But I, that slid by me in the 22 past.        Thanks.
23                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.        Okay. I'll move 24 on to Slide 12 if there's no other questions.                                So, 25 we're on Slide 12.          So, from the last two Subommittee 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 --
2                  DR. BLEY:        I'm sorry, Jim.
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Go ahead.
4                  DR. BLEY:        Yes. I had one other.
5                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
6                  DR. BLEY:        You said the PRA raised the 7 costs.        But this is something we've gotten into in 8 other cases. PRA raises the costs if you just look at 9 the cost of doing the PRA.
10                  But if you look at the benefits that 11 accrue from doing the PRA I think it usually turns out 12 the other way.        But I think all this analysis does is 13 say, well, we have to pay so much to get a PRA done.
14 Am I right about that one?
15                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I whole heartedly agree 16 with      you. We  talked        about      how      to quantify      the 17 benefits on the end.                And we found that it's too 18 speculative.        So, it goes under that unquantified 19 benefit efficiency, et cetera.
20                  So, we're really trying to be conservative 21 when we do these estimates, and not over sell or 22 under, you know, under sell things here.                        Does that 23 answer your question?
24                  DR. BLEY: It does. It's unfortunate that 25 it gets presented that way.                But it's what I thought 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 1 you were going to say.              Thanks.
2                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.        Okay. Any other 3 questions?        I'll continue on Slide 12.                So, from the 4 last two Subommittee meetings we noted several items 5 where you wished for more discussion.                      Several items 6 stood out.        And we have a slide or two on each.
7                  So, these are further discussion on the 8 relationship of this rulemaking to other activities 9 the staff is engaged that are associated with non 10 light water reactor technology.
11                  The issue of cumulative effects on safety 12 changes to the design made during construction. There 13 was interest in further discussion on the details on 14 how PRA is to be used in the design phase.
15                  There  was      also    some      interest    in    more 16 discussions        on  the    concept        of    credible    accident, 17 specifically, how it should or could be defined as a 18 design goal objective in a PRA.
19                  There was interest in further discussion 20 on specifics regarding future licensing reviews of 21 digital instrumentation and control systems, and how 22 the ongoing rulemakings affect these reviews.
23                  Finally,      the    Subommittee        also    desired 24 further        discussion    on    the    concept      of  essentially 25 complete design, and how the staff plans to carry 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 1 forth this concept in future licensing.
2                    So, I'm going to go ahead and briefly 3 discuss each of these.                So, we're on Slide 13.                  So, 4 this is on relationship to non light water reactors.
5 So, based on public comments on the regulatory basis 6 the staff added a cross cutting item to the scope.
7 The      relationship      of      this    rulemaking        activity        to 8 advance reactors.
9                    And the Federal Register notice covers 10 this topic in Section 2.1.2 of the preliminary draft 11 of the Federal Register notice.
12                    So, the purpose of that discussion is to 13 explain how the reader should put the rulemaking 14 activity, or this rulemaking activity in context with 15 other NRC license process efforts and rulemakings that 16 relate to non light water reactor technology.
17                    The  commenter          commented        that  the      NRC 18 performed a comprehensive review of Parts 50 and 52 to 19 evaluate        each    provision        of      the    regulations        with 20 respect        to  the  applicability            to    non  light      water 21 reactor technology.
22                    The    staff      partially          agreed    with      the 23 comment.        I think I mentioned this earlier.                    I know I 24 did.        However, the effort to conduct such a review 25 would        be  outside    the    scope        of    the  Commission's 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 1 direction on this activity, in the SECY I mentioned.
2                Nevertheless, the staff agreed to evaluate 3 the applicability to non light water reactors in those 4 areas where we are already proposing to change the 5 regulations,    to  ensure      that      the    recommended      rule 6 language is as technology neutral as possible.                          Any 7 questions on that?
8                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Well, this is Joy.            And 9 again, this is one where I couldn't figure out where 10 to bring up a point during your presentation.                          So, 11 I'll bring it up here.
12                Let  me      just      say,      from  all    of      the 13 discussions and the responses that we heard back from 14 the staff, that when we look at the broad spectrum of 15 ongoing rule activities and the guidance available, 16 that it's not going to be very easy for someone who 17 wants to bring in a mobile reactor with a loaded core 18 to figure out what the rules will be at this time.
19                Is that perhaps a true statement? I mean, 20 they're going to have to have exemptions.                      They're 21 going to have to take something from Part 70, from 22 this that and the other.                And maybe Part 53 will 23 address it.
24                But in the near term, I mean, we've also 25 been told that it's not clearly focusing on, Part 53 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 1 is also not focusing on it.                    So that there's maybe 2 that needs to be done in that area too.
3                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:              Well, I can only, you 4 know,        what  I  remember        was      what    we, we    briefly 5 discussed this on the February 18th meeting, Chairman.
6                  And we basically described a situation 7 where, we basically described it as we don't think 8 that the regulations as they are, or as they're going 9 to change is going to be a, you know, make that 10 impossible to approve.
11                  I mean, we mentioned, we always have the 12 ability to do exemption requests, and to look at 13 things on a case by case basis.                    And the thing is is 14 that, and I think this was the message, was that 15 there's lots of different technologies out there.
16                  And you, it becomes hard to, you know, to 17 write regulations, you know, to something that is not 18 quite defined yet, as far as its design concept.                          So, 19 we think that that, the possibility of mobile reactors 20 right now is, we're in a position where we can manage 21 to license them.
22                  But we would, as you said, would have to 23 do some exemption type of work.                          And I think if 24 there's anybody from DANU that would like to chime in 25 on this I can turn the mic over.
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 1                    MS. CUBBAGE:            Yes, Jim.        This is Amy 2 Cubbage from DANU.            Dr. Rempe, I just would like to 3 clarify.        Are you speaking about reactors that are 4 fueled in factor and transported to a fixed location, 5 or reactors that could be rapidly deployed to multiple 6 locations?
7                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            I'm thinking about the 8 first        alternative.          And      I    realize  there's          no 9 manufacturing facility that's currently capable of --
10                    MS. CUBBAGE:        Right.
11                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          -- making a reactor with 12 a loaded core.        But yet, I think you're probably more 13 aware        that  I  am  that      there's        ongoing  regulatory 14 engagement interactions on someone who thinks they're 15 going to do this.            And I'm just thinking that it's 16 going to be a difficult, yes, it's not going to be 17 easy for them.
18                    MS. CUBBAGE:        Absolutely, Dr. Rempe.              So, 19 I'd like to explain that we have had engagements with 20 developers        who    are      contemplating          fueling      micro 21 reactors        in  factory      and    transporting      to    a    fixed 22 location.
23                    We believe that we do have the regulatory 24 infrastructure in place to support that.                      We produced 25 a white paper talking about micro reactor licensing 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 1 strategies that goes through all of the scenarios, and 2 the different licenses and permits that would be 3 required.
4                    There's the potential under Part 53 that 5 that        would    be,    could      be      consolidated        into        a 6 manufacturing license if the developer chose to go 7 that route.        However, we do believe that it could be 8 accomplished from the current requirements.
9                    You    would      need        various      permits        and 10 licenses to possess the material, and to transport the 11 material, similar to how an operating license for a 12 large reactor would be today, to have licenses under 13 Parts 30, 40, 70, for possession of nuclear materials, 14 and transport of nuclear materials.                        So, we don't see 15 this as a significant impediment.
16                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Yes.      I just think some 17 guidance        might  be    helpful.            But    that's  just        my 18 personal opinion.            I also would suggest --
19                    MS. CUBBAGE:          Yes.      So, if I --
20                    (Simultaneous speaking) 21                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Excuse me for a minute.
22 Let me finish, and I'll let you come back. Okay, Amy?
23 But      I    think  the      preamble          for      this  particular 24 rulemaking ought to say clearly, it doesn't consider 25 this case.        Go ahead, Amy.
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 1                  MS. CUBBAGE:        Well, this rulemaking does 2 not make any changes to make it any easier or harder.
3 However, the current rules do permit this.                          And I 4 would refer the Committee to the staff white paper.
5 If you don't have it, I can make it available through 6 your staff. That explains the different licenses that 7 would be required.
8                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So, the white paper was 9 provided to, it was mentioned during the February 18th 10 meeting.      And it was provided to us.                Or somehow or 11 other, a member of our staff sent us a copy of it, 12 because they were aware of it.                And so, we do have it.
13                  I guess, well, your comment about this 14 doesn't make it any harder.                  Well, there's a lot of 15 guidance that does say that it's specific about prior 16 to fuel loading.
17                  So, this particular rulemaking, because 18 some      of  these  changes        have      been    made,  which        I 19 understand why those changes were made, doesn't make 20 it any easier.        Because it, again, I think we were 21 told, well, we'll consider fuel loading the minute it 22 hits the site.      I don't think it makes it any easier.
23                  MS. CUBBAGE: Right. So, you'd be talking 24 about fuel load in the context of the COL, which would 25 need to be when the fuel arrives on site, yes.                            So, 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 1 any of this, a larger conversation perhaps we could 2 have separately.        But I think we can take the thought 3 back.        Right, Jim?
4                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
5                  MS. CUBBAGE:        All right.
6                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Absolutely.
7                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Thank you.
8                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:              All right.      Any other 9 questions on this topic?                All right.        I'm going to 10 move on to Slide --
11                  MEMBER PETTI:          Yes.      I just --
12                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.
13                  MEMBER PETTI: This is Dave. Just for the 14 other members, this is not in my opinion a big issue.
15 Some      of  these  micro      reactors          want  to  move        an 16 irradiated core after life.                    That's a much bigger 17 challenge.
18                  But people are looking at it.                And again, 19 I don't think, I think as Amy said, the rules are all 20 there.        And they're trying to make sure that the 21 design meets all the requirements.                        It's certainly 22 challenging.        But I don't think it's, you know, it 23 can't be done sort of thing.
24                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          I'm not saying it can't 25 be done, Dave.          I'm just, I think some guidance or 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 1 something sure would help the situation.
2                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Dave, this is 3 Walt.
4                    MEMBER PETTI:          Yes.
5                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                I think, Joy, we 6 really need to be careful on the language too.                                  We 7 don't,        these    are      not    mobile          reactors.          And 8 conceptually, Amy, thank you for the white paper.                                I 9 looked at it carefully.
10                    I don't see any impediments to doing this.
11 I think the rule, you're right in suggesting that 12 perhaps a little further guidance might help someone 13 navigate the rules.
14                    But    if      someone        is      taking    on      this 15 challenge, my review of what's out there suggests that 16 this can be done within the existing regulations.                                I 17 think Dave hit on the most challenging part.
18                    And that is designing to take out an 19 irradiated        core,    and      having      a  shipping    container 20 that's certified to do it.                  And having a core design 21 that meets all those requirements.
22                    Both    shipping          a    fresh      core    and      an 23 irradiated core will be quite a challenge.                              A few 24 examples are things like the drop test.                        That imposes 25 a structural load on that intact core, whether it's 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 1 fresh or irradiated, that may prove rather challenging 2 in terms of design requirements and cost.
3                    But having looked at this 30 odd years 4 ago, I don't see any impediment, so to speak, for 5 someone        to  do  this.          Yes,      it    may  be  less      than 6 straightforward.              But    conceptually,          I  think      it's 7 doable.
8                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Looks like Ron Ballinger 9 has his hand up.
10                    MEMBER BALLINGER:                Yes. You know, the 11 Navy has been effectively doing this for the last 30 12 years.        So, I don't, I think I agree with, well, I 13 agree with Walt as well as Dave.                            But moving an 14 irradiated core has been happening for a long time.
15                    CHAIRMAN REMPE: But in this case they are 16 not, it's going to be shipped.                      It's not going to be 17 defueled on the site, is the difference.                        And anyway, 18 I just think some guidance could be helpful here.
19 It's not the Navy doing it, or the Army this time.
20                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Okay.      There's a couple 21 of hands still raised.
22                    MEMBER BIER:              Yes.        Ron or Amy, any 23 further --
24                    MS. CUBBAGE:          I just wanted to add that 25 the staff stands ready to support the Department of 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 1 Defense Strategic Capabilities Office, Project Pele, 2 which is contemplating the mobile, the truly mobile 3 reactor concepts. And we are prepared to support them 4 in the review of transportation aspects, both with 5 fresh and irradiated fuel.
6                CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          But      there's  also      an 7 organization that's not the Army or the Navy, engaged 8 with your office right now too.                And that's where I'm 9 coming from, right.
10                MS. CUBBAGE:          Understood.          And we stand 11 ready and prepared to support that with our existing 12 regulations for transport.            So, I think, that's about 13 all I can say right now.
14                MEMBER BIER:          Are we ready to move on?
15 Any further comments?
16                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          I see Vesna's hand up.
17                MEMBER BIER:        Oh, thanks.
18                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Hi. Yes. I just 19 want to point something out, to which in my previous 20 discussions I wasn't aware, I mean, I had time to look 21 more and think about that.
22                The    actually          changes        in  the        PRA 23 requirements    are  all      related        to    the  light    water 24 reactors. So, you know, like 50.69 is only applicable 25 to light water reactors.              So, you know, the older 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 1 guidance and the things that also related to the light 2 water reactors.
3                  So, that some new thing which I sort of 4 like to have the time to think about.                      So, I bring it 5 this      up  to  see  do    you    sort      of    agree  with      that 6 statement?
7                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      Well, I think, do 8 I agree with the fact that 50.69 applies only to light 9 water reactor technology? The answer is yes. It was, 10 that      rule  was,  that      rule      only      applies    to      that 11 technology. We thought about it. And that's how it's 12 written.
13                  And  in    this      rulemaking          we,  you    know, 14 identified it as clearly out of scope trying to expand 15 the applicability of 50.69.                But we did, you know, to 16 non light water reactor technologies.
17                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                  Yes. But also, 18 okay.        So, this is abuse in that degree.                    But also, 19 the older PRA, you know, the using PRA design, what is 20 required to report, you know, to the Reg Guide 1206, 21 the 19.0, the core damage frequency, larger frequency.
22                  These things are all related to the light 23 water reactor.        So, I will have to say that the new 24 requirements of the PRA related things are the light 25 water reactors based.
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 1                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.        Amy, you're --
2                    MS. CUBBAGE: Yes. I just wanted to point 3 out that 50.69 is generally targeted towards operating 4 reactors who would like to make changes to risk inform 5 their facilities.
6                    For new reactors we do both, especially 7 for non light water reactors, we have approved Reg 8 Guide 1.233, the licensing modernization project, 9 which        has  a  risk      informed          approach      to    system 10 structures and component classification.
11                    And  also,      under      Part      53  we  will        be 12 incorporating in risk conformed licensing approaches 13 that would obviate the need for 50.69.
14                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Yes. I understand 15 that. But the level of the changes, important changes 16 you are proposing, is this is to allow to use the 17 50.69 for non operating reactors, you know, in the 18 design        specification        phase,        in      the,  you      know, 19 construction permit, and so, meaning applications for 20 the new license.
21                    MS. CUBBAGE:          Right.        And I would just 22 offer that the licensing modernization project, where 23 eventually Part 53 would provide that alternative to 24 50.69 for non light water reactors.                        It would be --
25                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Yes. This is when, 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 1 you know, you also hear our, regularly hear our 2 comments that those two applications, you know, that 3 these two upgrades somehow have to, you know, somehow 4 have      to  have  some,      not    merger,        but,  you    know, 5 adjustment to the alignment.                  If you align 50 and 52, 6 come finally they will have to be aligned with 53.
7 Okay.        Thanks.
8                  MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Is there any other 9 questions on this topic?              Okay, I'll move on to Slide 10 14.        So, this one is cumulative effects of changes 11 during construction.
12                  So,  at    the    February          1st  Subommittee 13 meeting Chairman Rempe asked a question about this 14 during our discussion on the Part 52 change process 15 topic. So, other members of the ACRS also raised this 16 issue of cumulative effects in earlier meetings.
17                  So, I want to summarize the response I 18 gave at the February 18th Subommittee meeting, and 19 provide the opportunity for further discussion on the 20 topic.
21                  So, this rulemaking is not changing a 22 fundamental difference between Part 50 and Part 52 23 processes.          Part    52    continues          to  serve    as      the 24 standardization rule.
25                  The foundation of the standardization rule 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 1 remains the principle of one design, one review.                            The 2 aim of which is the final resolution of all common 3 safety issues in the standardized design early in the 4 licensing process.
5                    The  main        features          remain    a    design 6 certification that has finality through the Commission 7 and      the  Atomic    Safety      and      Licensing      Board      panel 8 hearing.        The design certification is codified as a 9 regulation.          And the design can be referenced by 10 multiple applicants in the future.
11                    The design certification includes those 12 inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria 13 that when met provide assurance that the affected 14 plant        meets  the    safety        performance        requirements 15 specified in the certification.                    There is no need for 16 an additional final check because of the existence of 17 ITAAC.
18                    The  process        for      the    NRC  review        of 19 exemptions        from    the      requirements          of  a    design 20 certification rule, and departures of the plant's 21 final safety analysis report from the standard design 22 control document are reviewed by the NRC, such that 23 there is no residual accumulation of unresolved safety 24 issues.
25                    The Part 52 process also requires ITAAC 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 1 maintenance.        So, ITAAC maintenance is important.                      In 2 light of the sometimes lengthy construction schedules 3 this rulemaking strengthens that idea.
4                  Specifically, the rule includes an item 5 discussed in Section 3.K.7 of the preliminary draft 6 Federal Register notice that helps ensure that the 7 ITAAC        were  not    just      met      at    one  point    during 8 construction, but must continue to be met.                      That is, 9 ITAAC are met.
10                  We  continue          to      believe    that      these 11 requirements are sufficient to ensure that the Part 52 12 process does not need an additional step of a final 13 check of the as built design.
14                  At the February 18th meeting Member Bier 15 asked for more details on the process by which ITAAC 16 are selected for inspection.                  We have added a set of 17 supporting        slides      on      this        subject    to      this 18 presentation, which I think will help answer your 19 question.
20                  Member Bier also asked, what would be a 21 good reference that explains the process of ITAAC 22 selection for inspection? This would be NRC Procedure 23 OINRR-LIC-201,        which      it  titled        Prioritization        of 24 Inspections Tests Analyses and Acceptance Criteria for 25 Inspection.
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 1                  And the ADAMS session number for that is 2 ML20057D521.        And that's the best reference I think 3 for further information on that process of selection.
4                  So, also a reminder.                  Aside from Item 5 3.K.7 in the preliminary draft proposed rule, we are 6 not      making    any  changes        to    the      ITAAC  selection, 7 maintenance, or reporting processes.                        Are there any 8 questions on this item before I go on?
9                  MEMBER BIER:        Yes.      Jim, I would like to 10 follow-up just briefly.              Thank you, first of all for 11 the additional reference material.                      And I'm not sure 12 if my comment reflects a philosophical disagreement, 13 or just a lack of understanding still on my part.
14                  I  understand          the      idea    about    design 15 finality.        But there are many details that will be 16 worked out during the construction process that are 17 not part of the previously approved design, spatial 18 interactions, which things are located where, and how 19 they      might  interfere        with    each      other,  the    exact 20 details of, you know, power supply, and wiring, and, 21 you know, which components --
22                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.      I --
23                  MEMBER BIER:          -- get powered from which 24 busses. And that would not have been priorly approved 25 in the --
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 1                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Right.
2                    MEMBER BIER: -- original design. But can 3 still be important for risk. So, where is all of that 4 handled?
5                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So, that's a very 6 good question.          So, I can answer that.
7                    MEMBER BIER:          Great.
8                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:                So,    obviously        the 9 fundamental philosophy behind Part 52, that it is 10 possible        to  provide        information          in  advance      of    a 11 construction of a plant if it's detailed enough for 12 the staff to resolve all safety issues prior to its 13 being built.
14                    So, we do acknowledge, we knew that back 15 then, you know, when we wrote this regulation in the 16 '80s, you know, or '89 and updated '07, that there's 17 going to be things like, you know, as, you know, skill 18 of the craft, you know, fit ups, things like that 19 that's        going  to    change,        and      not    necessarily        be 20 reflected in the, in what we reviewed.
21                    But we believe that because the PRA has 22 got to be basically updated, that action in Part 52 23 will cover that residual issue.                          So, there's a few 24 folks on the line I think that may want to speak about 25 this more, or chime in, or counter my statement.                                Is 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 1 there anybody?          Anybody?          Does that answer your 2 question, Chairman?
3                  MEMBER BIER: not quite. Because it looks 4 to me like the licensee has a requirement to maintain 5 and update the PRA.            But there is not a place where 6 whether they do that is assessed, from what I can see.
7                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I don't know if Malcolm 8 Patterson is on the line, that can basically explain 9 the, this process.          Oh, there's, somebody's hand is 10 up.      Whose hand is up?        Malcolm, please go ahead.
11                  MEMBER BIER:        Yes, great.
12                  MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
13 There is no requirement for the staff to assess the 14 PRA. However, if the applicant chooses to use the PRA 15 for any risk informed application the staff will do 16 so.
17                  Inspectors      of    course      will be  able      to 18 observe how the licensee uses the PRA in normal 19 operation.      And as you pointed out the PRA must be 20 maintained and updated.
21                  It will also have to be upgraded as new 22 operating modes or initiating events are addressed by 23 consensus standards that the staff endorses.                    It must 24 also be upgraded at least once prior to fuel load.
25                  This is the opportunity for the licensee 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 1 to ensure that the PRA accurately reflects the as 2 built plan, including spatial details, wiring details, 3 normal arrangement of the electrical plant, how the 4 electrical plant would be rearranged under casualty 5 conditions.
6                  So, the PRA gets the updates required.
7 The fact that the staff doesn't have a milestone that, 8 in the regulations where the staff will inspect, 9 doesn't appear to me to be a fatal problem.
10                  When the licensee wants to use the PRA for 11 whatever reason, whether it's categorization of SSCs, 12 or    risk    informing,      in    service        tests,  controlling 13 surveillance frequencies, completion times, any of 14 those activities would make it necessary for the staff 15 to confirm that the PRA was adequate for the intended 16 application.
17                  MEMBER BIER:          Okay.        I mean, I think I 18 understand it.          I'm not sure I like it.                  That's a 19 tough question.        So, Joy, I think you have your hand 20 up.
21                  CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          Sure.      I  have      two 22 questions. The first one I think is best discussed if 23 you could bring up Slide 38, Jim. And I do appreciate 24 you guys providing this extra information. Okay, yes.
25 This one about prioritization process.                    And I thought 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 1 it was Slide, oh, excuse me, it's 36.                        I apologize.
2                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Okay.      I'm sorry.      These 3 ones are, let me see.                Which one is this?
4                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            It's one more previous.
5 Well, in my, it's 36 out of 40 is the -- There, you 6 got it.
7                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Okay.        Oops, I'm sorry.
8 Oops.
9                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            It flashed up at least.
10 Okay.          So, during our meeting I got, I thought, 11 anyway, it was someone, my mind though someone had 12 said from the staff that we prioritize, which I 13 (Telephonic interference.) we inspect.                        Because only 14 a sample are inspected based on risk.
15                    But I was wondering later, because of the 16 risk assessment wouldn't necessarily help one think 17 about which ones to prioritize. And it looks now like 18 it's not really a risk assessment, that it's a safety 19 significance, some sort of extra assessment. It's not 20 the PRA.        What is it that you're, is this the staff 21 who      does    this  rank      ordering?            Or  who  does      this 22 prioritization?
23                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:            So, I'd like to see if 24 Chris Welch on the staff could answer that question.
25 Chris, your hand is up.                Please go ahead.
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 1                  MR. WELCH: Yes. This is Chris Welch with 2 VPO.      And I've been heavily involved in the targeting 3 of    ITAAC.      The  targeting          of    ITAAC    utilized      the 4 analytical hierarchy process, where we weight the 5 ITAAC on the significance of preventing a flaw from 6 not being recognized.
7                  And the safety significance is the first 8 attribute.        And in all honesty it really is the 9 driving attribute in the targeting process.                        And      it 10 utilized a limited PRA scope that was performed for 11 the design prior to the full PRA.
12                  And    it      involved          a    team  of      three 13 individuals that looked at each of the ITAAC, and 14 designed a level of significance to that ITAAC.                            And 15 then the results went through the weighting process.
16                  So, it is driven based off of the limited 17 PRA that the designers perform and then weighted. And 18 it is performed by the staff.                  And there's one --
19                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            It's just by the staff.
20 No one from the licensee gets to participate?
21                  MR. WELCH:          That is correct.              That's 22 correct.
23                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            So, would you, you know, 24 there was the design acceptance criteria that, a 25 subset of ITAAC.        Are they automatically included in 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 1 the prioritization, especially on, you know, ones for 2 the I&C system, the control room, et cetera?                      Do they 3 get in the high priority rank?
4                  MR. WELCH:        Right.        When ITAAC, when you 5 look at the table I think, it is comprised of the 6 design commitment, the inspection test analysis, which 7 is the activity that's taken to demonstrate the design 8 commitment has been met, and then the acceptance 9 criteria,        which  is    the    criteria          that has    to      be 10 demonstrated to prove or demonstrate that you have met 11 the design commitment.
12                  So, the design commitment is in fact part 13 of the whole process of ranking the ITAAC.                                For 14 example, when we do the ranking we sit down, we look 15 at what the design commitment is, what is the ITA, 16 inspection test analysis, and the acceptance criteria?
17 And based off --
18                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:              So, excuse me for a 19 minute.        But I'm not, do you know what I'm mentioning 20 when I'm saying that there were DAC that were a subset 21 of ITAAC?
22                  MR. WELCH:        Yes.        And all the DAC were 23 required to be targeted for inspection by policy.
24                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So, that helps me.            The 25 other thing was, I came away from the meeting, the 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 1 Subommittee        meeting        with    the,        I was  a    little 2 concerned.
3                    I mean, I came away with the impression 4 the staff said we are standing by our policies on 5 ITAAC.        We think that's enough for having confidence 6 in a Part 52 evaluation.
7                    And I am, you know, when I think back 8 about some of the history of this ITAAC and DAC 9 situation, I know that the ACRS has historically said, 10 are you going to have the folks from headquarters 11 involved in the I&C?
12                    And we call it an inspection.                But it's 13 really more of an evaluation.                    It has to be more in 14 depth.        And my takeaway from the, looking through the 15 history of what happened in the past, there was some 16 concern about who would be doing it.
17                    Are you just going to have the regional 18 office do it?        Or did you bring in, have you done the 19 inspection I guess is the first question, on the I&C 20 system with the ongoing Votgle Plant, for example?
21 Has that been done yet?
22                    MR. WELCH:        Part of it has been.                And 23 those inspections were conducted both by headquarters 24 and region staff during the factor acceptance testing 25 and the development.            There still remains outstanding 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 1 ITAAC that are really just the testing of the as 2 built/installed components down in the plant.
3                  CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          You      know,  there      are 4 actually, from March 21st, 2011 there was an SRM from 5 the Commissioners that, to the staff, and said the 6 staff should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 7 review.        And is that going on right now?                Are you guys 8 planning to come back to us?
9                  MR. WELCH: I cannot answer that question, 10 ma'am.
11                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Is there anyone else on 12 the staff that could answer that question?
13                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:              What was, I'm sorry, 14 Chairman.        What was the SRM?            Do you have the actual 15 number?        We can, I --
16                  CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. I believe it's, it 17 was dated March 21st, 2011.                      It was not after a 18 meeting with the Commissioners and ACRS.                          So, it's 19 made it a bit harder to find it.
20                  But I believe it's 2010-0140.                And it was 21 an SRM.        And actually I can send it to Quinn, and he 22 can provide it to you.            But anyway, it has a note that 23 staff should provide the pilot --
24                  It's    talking        about        the  options        for 25 revising the construction reactor oversight process 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 1 assessment program.          And it talks about the ITAAC and 2 PR graph.        Above this direction it says the staff 3 should provide the pilot results to the ACRS for 4 review.
5                  This was like back when I first started on 6 ACRS.        And I remember Member Bley constantly talking 7 about, or not constantly, but regularly talking about 8 this SRM.        And apparently it was more related to the 9 South Texas project that got cancelled with ESBWR.
10 And there was a meeting set up that got cancelled.
11                  But    nevertheless,                the    SRM      refers 12 generically to ITAAC, not just South Texas project.
13 And it does say that the staff's supposed to come back 14 with the pilot results to the ACRS for review 15                    And I think that, you know, if we learn 16 more about how carefully you are doing these ITAAC we 17 might have more confidence in how this interaction is 18 proceeding.
19                  And that's why I brought up this question 20 about        the  cumulative        effect        of    changes      during 21 construction, is that maybe, at least I was not aware 22 of how well this is being performed in accordance with 23 the understanding that ACRS had with the staff.
24                  There    was      actually,          there  were      some 25 letters where this was mentioned from ACRS.                        And the 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 1 staff did come back and say, yes, we'll share this 2 too.      But of course the Commission direction has more 3 weight.        And that's why I'm bringing it up today.
4                  MR. WELCH:      I vaguely recall something on 5 that line.        And I guess I was thinking that that was 6 past.        But ESBWR would make a lot of sense.                  Because 7 ESBWR had a tremendous number of DAC.
8                  MS. CUBBAGE:          Well actually that was a 9 ABWR plant in South Texas.
10                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Oh, I'm sorry.          You're 11 right, Amy.        I said the wrong thing.                I was in ABWR 12 instead of ESBWR -- because of -- Thank you.
13                  MS. CUBBAGE:          Yes.      I would guess that 14 this is a very interesting topic.                      And we definitely 15 need to follow-up with the Committee on that SRM item.
16 But it's outside the scope of this rulemaking.
17                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So, I would take you at 18 your word if you will follow-up with this, and it 19 doesn't get lost.          I will forward the SRM to Quinn.
20 And he can forward it to Jim.                    But I'll take you at 21 your word, and I'll drop the subject on it for this 22 rulemaking then.
23                  But I just wanted to make sure.                  Because 24 I, that's why I have been concerned about this, is 25 that I don't perhaps share this understanding the 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 1 staff has on it.      Okay.
2                MEMBER BIER:        Great.        Vesna, do you have 3 a follow-up?
4                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Yes. I would like 5 to bring something here.              When we stop mixing this 6 design finality ITAAC in the PRA, there is a lot of 7 sort of, like, you know, the mixed responses.
8                So, for example, that we just got response 9 there could not be changes during construction that 10 are captured by PRA, right?              That's what with the we 11 hear as the question, it was the response.
12                And then the question was, well how is 13 that PRA reviewed?      So, which is correct, the request 14 for PRA review is only if applicant's interested in 15 the risk inform application?
16                So,  that      means,        if    applicant    is      not 17 interested in risk inform application we never really, 18 we review cumulative changes from design during the 19 construction. See, the requirement to PRA review is 20 related to the applicant's volunteering to use the 21 risk inform application.
22                But we also say the cumulative changes in 23 design during the construction are captured by PRA.
24 Well, and then we don't really ever review that if 25 applicant does not really have to go on to have some 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 1 risk inform application.
2                    So, I just want to point that this is out.
3 And this is sort of like contradictory in my opinion.
4 So, I mean, not contradictory.                      But this open ended 5 thing again.
6                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
7                    MS. CUBBAGE:        Okay.
8                    MEMBER BIER:          Okay.        I see no further 9 hands.        So, maybe we can move on.
10                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.      I'll move back to 11 -- so I think we're done with this topic so I'm going 12 to move on to the next one, which is a great segue, 13 use of probabilistic risk assessment design.                            So we 14 can talk more.
15                    We're on Slide 15 now.                The proposed rule 16 would amend 5034 to require applicants for future Part 17 50 power reactor construction permits and operating 18 licenses to submit a description of the plant specific 19 PRA      and    its  results        in    a    construction        permit 20 application.
21                    In addition, the purpose of the change is 22 to encourage the use of PRA methodology in the design 23 phase of the project.                The existence of a PRA also 24 would allow the NRC staff and applicant a better basis 25 to risk inform the review.                A risk-informed review is 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 1 much more efficient than a deterministic review and 2 should result in decreased burden in the licensing 3 phase.
4                  The NRC, you know, received 10 comments on 5 this item as it was discussed in the regulatory basis.
6 So I'll discuss some of these comments.
7                  One commenter expressed the concern that 8 the addition of a description of a PRA and its results 9 to the Part 50 licensing process would make that 10 process        a  less    attractive            option    for      future 11 applicants.          And    the    PRA      would      create  finality 12 requirements similar to Part 52.
13                  The NRC disagreed with the comment because 14 the construction permit PRA would be preliminary, just 15 like the rest of a construction permit information.
16                  The mere requirement to submit the results 17 of a PRA would in no way reduce the flexibility of the 18 construction permit holder to further develop the 19 design during the construction.                    The issues of use of 20 PRA and finality are unrelated.
21                  Another commenter stated that the review 22 of the summary of the PRA and its result is not 23 necessary for the NRC to come to a safety finding for 24 the construction permit.                The commenter stated that 25 instead        of  a    PRA,      the    NRC      should    require          a 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 1 "preliminary risk assessment," but the commenter also 2 recommended the development of guidance that explains 3 the expectations for the PRA in the construction 4 permit phase for an advanced plan.
5                    The commenter further recommended that 6 non-power        reactors      should      not      be  subject    to      the 7 proposed requirement.
8                    The  NRC      agreed        in    part  with      these 9 comments.          The NRC agrees that non-power reactors 10 should not be subject to the requirement, and the 11 staff further developed the proposed rule language in 12 consideration of that comment.
13                    The NRC disagrees with the argument that 14 because a PRA is not necessary for a safety finding in 15 the construction permit phase, a construction permit 16 application should not include a summary and a result 17 of a PRA.
18                    One purpose of the proposed change is to 19 encourage the use of PRA in the design phase in 20 accordance with the Commission's policy statement on 21 PRA, which was made, I think, in the 90s.                            Another 22 purpose        of  the  proposed        change        is  to  eliminate 23 differences in the licensing processes that would 24 result        in  differing      design      bases      information        for 25 equivalent designs, not addressing that issue would 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 1 result in differing future regulatory outcomes and 2 would not fulfill the Commission's direction for this 3 rulemaking.
4                    The NRC also disagrees with comments that 5 state that new or revised regulatory guidance is 6 needed        for  advanced      plants        because    the  existing 7 guidance would cover the development of a PRA for an 8 advanced plant license under Part 50 as well as it 9 currently does for one developed                      under Part 52.
10                    Another commenter stated that the needed 11 information to complete a PRA may not be available at 12 the construction permit stage and requested that the 13 NRC clarify what information the application needs 14 with respect to PRA that would address the TMI-related 15 requirements in 10 CFR 5034.
16                    The commenter recommended that the NRC 17 should only require the applicant to submit a summary 18 and the result of a PRA at the operating licensing 19 stage.        The NRC agrees in part with this comment.
20                    If the construction permit and operating 21 license applicant submitted a summary and results of 22 a PRA that the applicant developed in accordance with 23 NRC's guidance on PRA, which is Reg. Guide 1.200, then 24 yes, many of the TMI items would be met.                          And that 25 would        obviate    some      of      the      specific    analyses 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 1 requirements in 10 CFR 34.
2                    For that reason, the NRC is also proposing 3 to      eliminate      many        TMI      requirements        with        the 4 understanding that instead, the applicant would have 5 developed a PRA and its results.
6                    One commenter recommended that the use of 7 a    PRA      should  complement          the      NRC's  deterministic 8 approach, quoting language from the NRC's PRA policy 9 statement.            The      commenter          recommended      that        a 10 construction permit applicant supply a preliminary 11 risk analysis only and use deterministic analyses to 12 demonstrate          that      the      design          meets  regulatory 13 requirements.
14                    The NRC agrees in part with this comment.
15 As      previously    stated,        the    NRC      disagrees    that        a 16 submittal of the summary and results of a PRA at the 17 construction permit stage should be voluntary.
18                    The NRC agrees that it is up to the 19 applicant to determine the degree of which it uses PRA 20 to    demonstrate      conformance          with      regulations.          As 21 before, future Part 50 applicants are free to use 22 deterministic methods for this purpose.
23                    Two commenters requested the NRC clarify 24 how the new requirement for a Part 50 PRA would work 25 with existing requirements of Part 51 for applicants 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 1 to develop severe accident mitigation alternatives, 2 otherwise called SAMDAs, and applicants should use PRA 3 to support these alternatives.
4                  The NRC agrees in part with the comment.
5 The NRC agrees that if the PRA was of sufficient 6 quality, an applicant could use it for that purpose.
7 However, the NRC disagrees that a PRA should be the 8 only      method  to  do    so.        And      if    appropriate,        an 9 applicant can use other methods to develop the SAMDAs.
10                  One commenter asked the NRC to confirm 11 that the PRA submitted at the construction permit 12 stage would be based on preliminary design information 13 and need not be complete as one submitted at the 14 operating license stage.                The NRC agrees with that 15 comment as previously discussed.
16                  One commenter disagreed with the NRC's 17 assessment with the cost benefit of developing the 18 PRA.        They just stated that the development of a 19 preliminary PRA at the construction permit stage would 20 cost the same as one that is done at the final stage.
21                  The NRC agreed with this comment because 22 the NRC expects that an applicant would upgrade the 23 PRA at the operating license stage prior to loading of 24 fuel.
25                  The NRC added additional industry cost to 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 1 the cost benefit calculation to account for this. The 2 proposed change would result in additional cost to the 3 industry to develop a PRA at the construction permit 4 stage, but would result in some cost savings for the 5 NRC and the applicant later on.                  And that's, again, 6 unquantified as I mentioned earlier.
7                Are there any questions on this topic 8 before I go to the next topic?                I don't think there's 9 questions. All right.        I'm going to move on.
10                MEMBER BROWN:        Yes, there was.        I thought 11 I raised my hand.      This is Charlie.
12                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Oh, go ahead.
13                MEMBER BROWN:            It didn't show up.                I 14 obviously don't know how to do that yet.                  I lost the 15 bubble through that long discourse.
16                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I'm sorry.
17                MEMBER BROWN:          I'm not criticizing.            I'm 18 just -- it's me.      Okay?      The PRA at the construction 19 -- if you do a PRA at the construction permit phase, 20 I mean, that's very, very early in the whole process.
21                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
22                MEMBER BROWN:            And to me, most of the 23 design details aren't even available, large changes.
24 I've been involved in seven different projects in the 25 Navy, eight maybe if I count them properly.
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 1                  And doing stuff when we're doing those 2 very preliminary evaluations and then we get into the 3 design details would have required extensive revisions 4 to PRAs if we had been under that particular manner of 5 doing business.
6                  So I really don't totally understand how 7 doing        a construction        permit        PRA    then  does      not 8 constrain making appropriate design changes subsequent 9 when you're actually doing the design details. I just 10 have a hard time walking my way through that.
11                  That's just a comment.                I have no idea.
12 I'm just very concerned that industry is right and 13 that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with 14 this, and it's just not a simple thing of not having 15 to redo the PRA when you start changing design details 16 that were preliminary in the beginning part of the 17 construction      permit      process.            So  I  just      don't 18 understand that, and I probably never will.                        That's 19 where I am right now.
20                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          So it looks like Malcolm 21 Patterson has his hand raised.                  Malcolm, go ahead.
22                  MEMBER BROWN:        I'd like my hand unraised.
23                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:              Okay.      Just click it 24 again.
25                  MR. PATTERSON:          This is Malcolm Patterson 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 1 of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A PRA at the 2 construction permit phase is not early enough.                            The 3 Commission has made it clear they expect the PRA to be 4 used during design.
5                  In fact, when I was in the Office of New 6 Reactors, we were looking at the PRAs being used as 7 vendors were developing their designs.                    And they made 8 significant design changes as a result of the results 9 of their PRAs.        So we've seen how important it is to 10 be using PRA from the very beginning.
11                  Using    the      PRA    that's      based  only        on 12 preliminary information is still very useful.                        And so 13 I push back against those who say, oh, it's too early 14 to do the PRA.      Changes to the details of the design, 15 even significant changes during construction, are 16 expected      using    a    two-step          construction        permit 17 operating license process, the Part 50 process.
18                  Well, we think that's a problem that we've 19 already learned how to solve.                      We know that during 20 construction as changes are made that have an impact 21 on the PRA, licensees are monitoring that.                        They're 22 looking at the cumulative effect of design changes on 23 risk.
24                  So you can't have it both ways.                    If you 25 have a useful PRA in the design phase, you should be 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 1 using it to full advantage at the construction permit 2 phase during construction, and you need to have it 3 ready for operations and maintenance before you load 4 fuel.
5                    MEMBER BROWN: Let me just respond. There 6 are systems -- for instance when we did the design 7 phase in the initial application for a number of new 8 designs as they came along, the I&C was very well 9 defined via the framework of independence redundancy, 10 deterministic behavior, control of access and on and 11 on.            There's    definitely            a    configuration        and 12 architecture that is very well described within the 13 Reg. Guides and some of the preliminary documents as 14 you get started with the licensing process.
15                    And a PRA doesn't really fit with that 16 framework        approach    to    doing      business.      You      need 17 multiple channels.            You need independence.              You need 18 watchdog timers if you're going to use computer-based 19 stuff.        And if somebody comes along and would tell me 20 they've done their PRA and they don't need a watchdog 21 timer to make sure processors are working, I would 22 tell them to pound sound.                Okay?        There's just no --
23                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:              So I think there's a 24 difference -- and Malcolm, maybe I'm just taking your 25 thunder,          but  we're        still        doing    risk-informed 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 1 regulation.        So, and I think Malcolm you can take it 2 over, but, you know, if there's deterministic -- you 3 know, it's supposed to work with certain, you know, 4 deterministic requirements.                And if we choose, if we 5 think for I&C, whatever, this architecture, you know, 6 adherence, you know, is key to safety, then we would, 7 you know, adhere.          You know, the PRA wouldn't trump 8 that.        Malcolm, I'm sorry if I misspoke.              Go ahead.
9                  MR. PATTERSON:          I'm afraid I'm in violent 10 agreement with both of you.                I was principal engineer 11 for instrumentation and control at a utility.                      I know 12 whereof you speak.
13                  PRA isn't the answer to every question.
14 In fact, even taking a look at the AP1000 design 15 certification amendment, the major I&C components were 16 created as a black box.              There was no effort to get 17 into the details of a PRA even at the channel level of 18 the reactor protection system.                    That didn't mean the 19 PRA wasn't useful. It meant that the PRA didn't model 20 that with the level of fidelity that we would expect 21 in the operating phase.
22                  MEMBER BROWN:          So I can understand that.
23 In other words, you would tell me you've put a --
24 there was a black -- I actually reviewed that, okay, 25 years ago since I came on the committee back in 2008.
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 1                      MR. PATTERSON:          Mm-hmm.
2                      MEMBER BROWN:            And I went through that 3 design in spades along with the APR1400 NuScale after 4 that, et cetera, et cetera.
5                      So if I'm interpreting what you're saying 6 properly, while we went through the framework, laid 7 out      the      architecture,        the    independence,        how      the 8 detectors were connected internally to that big black 9 box, you looked at that as a block box, not what was 10 inside        of  it. Am    I  interpreting          what  you      said 11 correctly?
12                      MR. PATTERSON:            That's the way the PRA 13 looked at it.
14                      MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. I'm very 15 worried about somebody coming in and trying to extend 16 that. But if what you're saying that's the case, then 17 I guess I can quietly go away and retire to my 18 quietness again.            But I get pretty protective of the 19 reactor trip and safeguard systems relative to the 20 overall methodologies we've developed with ISGs and 21 frameworks          and  everything          else.        They're    getting 22 defined although slowly in the various NRC documents.
23                      All right.        I think you've answered my 24 question.
25                      MEMBER BIER:        Dennis?
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 1                    DR. BLEY: Yes. I kind of want to support 2 the staff and a little bit Charlie.                      But for Charlie 3 I would point out that there's more to a power plant 4 than the I&C although it's a crucial integrating 5 aspect.
6                    MEMBER BROWN:          I know that.
7                    DR. BLEY:      The idea of the black box kind 8 of works okay, especially with those basic criteria 9 for the architecture Charlie has talked about many 10 times.        On the other hand, we have not lived yet to 11 see that that leads us to a final design that it 12 really works well.          We have a couple that are getting 13 close, but we haven't been there yet.
14                    I would also point out that at least, and 15 maybe more, of the design certs that have happened in 16 the last 10 years, 15 years, used the PRA throughout 17 their design to make improvements in many of the 18 systems and locations of equipment and the like.                              So 19 it's proved itself very useful.
20                    And if we go back to the construction 21 permit stage, at that stage you won't have everything 22 worked out, of course.                You're not even close.                But 23 the first element of the PRA is to find out what can 24 go wrong, what are the initiating events and scenarios 25 that can lead to releases.                And that needs to be done 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 1 thoroughly at the design stage to support the PRA, and 2 it needed to be done, even if you weren't doing a PRA 3 to    define  what  would      be    included      in  any    safety 4 analysis.
5                And  I  think      both      the  staff  and      the 6 committee have been pretty clear in the couple of 7 construction permits that were looked in recent years 8 that identification of the scenarios that could lead 9 to damage needs to be done well early on at that 10 stage.
11                So I think the staff is right.                      And I 12 don't disagree with Charlie on detail, but overall 13 maybe a little.      Thanks.
14                MEMBER BROWN:          I expected that.
15                MEMBER BIER:        Yes.
16                MEMBER BROWN:          Thanks, Dennis.
17                MEMBER BIER:          So we are kind of behind 18 relative to finishing at 10 o'clock, and I don't know 19 whether we should race through or whether we have a 20 little bit of flexibility on the timing.                  But, Jim, I 21 --
22                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I'm fine.      I can go.          I 23 mean, it's really -- I think we could just continue.
24 And I'll --
25                MEMBER BIER:        Okay.
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 1                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:            All right?
2                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            So, Vicki, this is Joy.
3 And although we have a little bit of flexibility, 4 let's try and adhere to it as closely as we can.
5                  MEMBER BIER:          Yes.
6                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Thank you.
7                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:            So I'll move on to the 8 next topic.          So this one is about cutoff accident 9 frequency for credible accidents.                      So we're on Slide 10 16.
11                  So there was some discussion during the 12 Part 50 and 52 change process subcommittee discussion 13 regarding the proposed addition to 50.59C(2)(9) and 14 (10).        These paragraphs would require licensees of 15 power plants that are licensed under Part 50 after the 16 effective date of the final rule to seek amendment to 17 the operating license if a proposed change, test or 18 experiment          would        significantly            increase        the 19 probability or consequence of an ex-vessel severe 20 accident.
21                  Chairman Rempe asked how would one know if 22 a postulated accident is credible?                      That is, is there 23 such a thing as a cutoff accident frequency below 24 which such accidents need not be considered?
25                  At the meeting, the staff stated that what 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 1 would be a credible versus incredible is not defined.
2 And such a definition is the prerogative of the 3 Commission to determine.
4                  We clarified at the last meeting that the 5 new      provisions  would        only      require  analyses        on 6 previously identified ex-vessel severe accidents, not 7 newly defined ones.
8                  The staff agreed that the proposed changes 9 don't resolve the ambiguity of the terms substantial 10 and credible.      But they do align the Part 50 language 11 -- sorry the Part 50 change process to the current 12 requirements in Part 52 with regard to the impact of 13 changes, tests and experiments on the probability and 14 consequences of a severe accident.
15                  So from my read of the February 1 meeting 16 transcript, there was agreement that the staff and the 17 ACRS discussion of this concept of a cutoff risk 18 frequency will continue but would not be carried 19 forward in this rulemaking.
20                  And so here's some additional points that 21 the staff would like to make on this topic.
22                  The NRC staff recognizes the term credible 23 is used in slightly different contexts in various NRC 24 regulations and guidance documents, but it is not 25 defined. However, the staff is taking several actions 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 1 to ensure that the guidance is clear for defining 2 accident sequences, including appropriate controls to 3 prevent and mitigate potential accident consequences 4 and taking probabilistic considerations into account 5 as appropriate.
6                In most cases the term credible is used to 7 ensure that requirements are not imposed to protect 8 against non-physical or obviously very unlikely events 9 or phenomena. The definition of the term "impossible 10 demarcations"    of  what      may    or    may  not  be    deemed 11 credible can differ based on how a specific design and 12 licensing methodology incorporate the concept.
13                As such developing generic definitions of 14 credible may not present the most technology inclusive 15 approach and could unintentionally limit the ability 16 of applicants to propose reasonable alternatives, 17 methods for determining what is credible for their 18 designs.
19                The current regulations under 10 CFR Part 20 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 provide a regulatory framework 21 that if met ensures that there is adequate protection 22 of public health and safety, including appropriate 23 defense and depth.
24                The SRP provides guidance on establishing 25 the plant transients and accidents for light water 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 1 reactors      that  should      be    analyzed        to  represent        a 2 sufficiently        broad        spectrum          of    transients        and 3 accidents or initiating events.
4                  As required by NIMA, the Nuclear Energy 5 Innovation        and    Modernization              Act,    the  NRC        is 6 developing a technology-inclusive risk-informed and 7 performance based regulatory framework, which is Part 8 53 rulemaking for any new reactor applicant.
9                  As part of this rulemaking activity, the 10 NRC staff is developing flexible options for selecting 11 licensing      basis    events.            One      approach  for      the 12 licensing basis event selection is described in NEI 13 18-04, Revision 1, titled, Risk-Informed Performance-14 Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light 15 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, which was 16 issued in August 2019.
17                  The NRC endorsed Regulatory Guide -- we 18 endorsed that document in Regulatory Guide 1.233, 19 which is titled, Guidance for Technology Inclusive 20 Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Methodology to 21 Inform the Licensing Basis and Content Applications 22 for Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Non-23 Light Water Reactors and that was issued in June of 24 2020.
25                  So this approaches PRA as an enhanced role 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 1 for the selection of licensing basis events.                              By 2 following this approach, an applicant can establish 3 the event sequences for which its proposed design must 4 include prevention and mitigation measures while the 5 embedded methodology considers frequency, engineering 6 judgment remains an important part of the process.
7 The methodology does not address credible but instead 8 includes      a  determination          of    what  sequences        are 9 specifically considered in the design and programmatic 10 controls and those that contribute to the residual 11 risk associated with a facility.
12                  Without using insights from a full scope 13 PRA in a holistic fashion, it's more difficult and can 14 be even more subjective to define what constitutes 15 credible for a given plan.
16                  So in response to stakeholder feedback on 17 the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking and to avoid -- excuse 18 me, and to afford applicants additional flexibility in 19 defining and evaluating licensing basis events without 20 using PRA in an enhanced role, the staff is also 21 developing two additional approaches.
22                  One of these approaches uses PRA in a 23 traditional role that is intended to better align NRC 24 requirements with the International Atomic Energy 25 Agency, IAEA, Specific Safety Requirements Number 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 1 SSR2/1, which is titled, Safety of Nuclear Power Plant 2 Design.
3                  This    traditional              approach    includes 4 defining design rules and allowing the use of stylized 5 events to establish a design basis for the associated 6 structure systems and components.
7                  While not meant to include physically 8 impossible      events    or    phenomena,          the traditional 9 approach      introduces      intentional          conservatisms        to 10 account for uncertainties or limitations in testing 11 and analyses data in the credible accidents that the 12 applicant is required to analyze and address in the 13 design.
14                  The other option under development would 15 provide an alternative approach to selecting licensing 16 basis events by establishing a maximum credible or 17 hypothetical accident.              All three approaches would 18 provide acceptable means of identifying the spectrum 19 of credible events to support the safety case.                            The 20 staff continues to encourage prospective new reactor 21 license applicants to engage the NRC staff as early as 22 practicable to discuss topics such as licensing basis 23 event selection and what approaches they propose to 24 identify credible accident scenarios for their design.
25                  So at the February 18 meeting, Mr. Bley 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 1 commented that we should avoid future use of the term 2 credible by the staff because of the uncertainty of 3 what the term means. Member Petti asked if we checked 4 if we consistently use the term in our regulations and 5 if this term -- if the term's maximum hypothetical 6 accident and maximum credible accident mean the same 7 thing.
8                  By my read of the transcript, I believe we 9 satisfied the ACRS with our discussions on this item.
10 Are there any questions on this item before I go on?
11                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, this is Vesna.
12 I would like just to make some comments here that, you 13 know, I was thinking of making on the earlier slides.
14                  You know, these statements also rely on 15 the      lessons  learned.        And      we    have the  numerous 16 advanced reactor applications that went through the 17 NRC.        So there should be numerous data on what the 18 applicant selected as a credible accident, right?
19 What are the alternatives to the regulations?                          Why 20 wasn't this used in here or even quoted here?
21                  I mean, why we are saying with this sort 22 of like, you know, the not well-defined definition if 23 we have experience, you know, we have a lessons 24 learned in this area.              Why I wanted to make this 25 earlier because I was sort of curious how were the 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 1 lessons learned?
2                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Right.      So I think I can 3 answer that question.              So this is the alignment in 4 lessons learned rulemaking.                But we're not addressing 5 all lessons learned in all areas.                      We were tasked in 6 SECY 15.00.02 to address lessons learned from recent 7 large light water reactor reviews.                        So I think the 8 experiences        you  describe        have      to  do  with      other 9 technologies.        Is that right?
10                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:              Why would that mean 11 other technologies? I mean, this applies also for the 12 large advanced light water reactor with very low 13 frequency of core damage in the large release, you 14 know?        So how do they select the credible accidents?
15 So it doesn't have to be new technology.
16                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:            Okay.      I can just talk 17 from my history on this is that, you know, we asked 18 the staff in the process of developing the scope for 19 items.        So I kind of, you know, can't say why we 20 didn't pick this.          But we did have the opportunity, 21 the staff and the public, to propose areas that we 22 should focus on.
23                  And we had to then go through a process of 24 scoping.        I don't believe in my recollection, and 25 Malcolm you can correct me, if this issue of defining 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 1 what is credible ever came up in the scoping process.
2 Amy, you have your hand up.                Do you want to go ahead?
3                  MS. CUBBAGE:          Yes.        So I'd just like to 4 say that's a very substantial issue that was more 5 appropriate        for  handling        under        Part  53  with      the 6 development of a new technology inclusive regulatory 7 framework.
8                  A lot of the work we're doing over there 9 is      speaking    to    what      events        would    need    to      be 10 considered.          I  think      under      50    and  52    currently 11 particularly through the design basis accident dose 12 calculations, there's an expectation that there would 13 be a substantial core melt accident that's assumed.
14                  This is a more deterministic approach 15 under the existing 50 and 52 and to have taken that on 16 under        this  rulemaking        would        have    been    a    major 17 undertaking and is more appropriate to be handled 18 under the Part 53 development of a new regulatory 19 framework.
20                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Okay.
21                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:                Okay.        Any      other 22 questions on this topic?
23                  MEMBER BIER:          Joy, do you have your hand 24 up?
25                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Yes, I do.        And I know 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 1 I'm the one who is saying, no, we need to be done at 2 10:00.        But, Jim, you always have so much information 3 that if you -- I may have missed something.
4                    And so your response back with the IAEA 5 and the MHA issue and all of those things at a high 6 level, it's mentioning that there's many options. And 7 some of them are going to be addressed under Part 53.
8 And I think that's where Amy's comments are coming 9 back to.
10                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
11                    CHAIRMAN        REMPE:                Is  there        any 12 consideration -- one am I correct in my high level 13 interpretation?
14                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:              Yes.      Basically that 15 discussion I gave were, you know, along the lines of 16 what Amy just mentioned.
17                    CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. So if that's true, 18 I guess I'm still wondering about a point that we 19 raised previously that, gee, there's a lot of spectrum 20 of PRAs and that what was going on in 53 might make it 21 a little more -- a better approach for what's being 22 proposed here for the alignment in lessons learned 23 because not all PRAs are done at the same level as a 24 graded approach.
25                    And is staff going to have any sort of 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 1 pointer or they're still thinking about it, but they 2 haven't currently in what we've seen, clearly pointing 3 to what's being developed under the Part 53 of the 4 spectrum of what a PRA could be?
5                MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I'm going to ask folks 6 in DANU to answer that one.            But I know there's folks 7 in my group that are the same folks on 53.                    But I'll 8 let, Boyce -- if you don't mind, Boyce, can you just 9 chime in on this one?
10                MR. TRAVIS:        Yes, Jim.          And this is Boyce 11 Travis for the record.          With regards to pointers back 12 between 50 and 52 and 53, the staff's intent with the 13 Part 53 rulemaking is to create an option or set of 14 options for a regulatory framework that stands on its 15 own.
16                That    doesn't          necessarily        mean      it's 17 independent of 50 and 52, but Parts 50 and 52 would 18 present their own licensing pathway based on a more 19 traditional approach. And the regulatory framework in 20 Part 53 will have options available to applicants that 21 will in effect be their own standalone regulatory 22 frameworks.
23                We do not expect there to be pointers in 24 50 or 52 back to 53 except for conforming changes for 25 licensing processes and administrative requirements.
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 1 Does that answer your question or are you looking for 2 something more specific?
3                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Not where I particularly 4 wanted to go.          It's more the guidance.                  I said it 5 poorly.        It's not your fault.              But what I'm going to 6 is      the    Marty  Stutzke        paper        that's    still      under 7 development so of course you can't have any sort of 8 acknowledgment of it yet.
9                  But the question is is that, jeepers, I 10 think it would help if one could have some sort of 11 acknowledgment        that      a  PRA    might      include    a    very 12 simplistic -- based on the fact that you have a 13 systematic approach for looking at all the different 14 types of events, you might bound it with NMHA.                          And I 15 guess I don't see that anywhere in the guidance or the 16 language changes.            And as you go forward with this 17 effort, it might be worth considering it is where I'm 18 going.
19                  MR. TRAVIS:        I think we understand where 20 you're coming from.                As you said, you know, we're 21 still in the process of developing those options.                                I 22 will say that what you just discussed, I mean, the use 23 of a bounding event is not just going to be dependent 24 on simplicity and PRA. It's going to inherit a lot of 25 the      characteristics          and    performance        aspects        of 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 1 whatever the reactor design is, i.e. its size, its 2 radionuclide inventory, et cetera.
3                    And so what the entry conditions are for 4 using that approach is still being explored by the 5 staff.        And I guess I'll leave it there for now if 6 that's all right.
7                    CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          Yes.      I  think      it's 8 something that in the future that maybe should be 9 considered -- might be worthwhile considering.                            But, 10 of course, one has to look at the size of the reactor 11 as to how well the applicant looks at the various 12 types of challenges, too, so the selection of the 13 events would have to occur, too.
14                    But if you did some sort of a risk matrix 15 like we're seeing in some of the input applications, 16 that might work for something like this.                      But anyway, 17 it's just a thought. And I think you understand where 18 I'm going.
19                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Amy, your hand is up?
20                    MS. CUBBAGE: That is from before. Sorry.
21                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. Any other 22 comments on this topic before I go on to the next one?
23 All right.        I'll move on.
24                    So we're on Slide 17.                  So the issue at 25 digital instrumentation control, or I&C, licensing 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 1 reviews came up at the February 1 meeting during our 2 discussion on Part 52 change process topic.
3                    So Member Brown described an experience 4 last year where the staff at ACRS worked with industry 5 to obtain some additional flexibility in the use of 6 the 10 CFR 5059 change process for the application of 7 digital I&C.
8                    This work resulted in consensus on an 9 industry        standard    NEI    96-07,        Appendix    D,  titled, 10 Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 11 to digital modifications.
12                    The main objective of that guidance is to 13 provide        all  stakeholders          a    common    framework        and 14 understanding of how to apply the 10 CFR 50.59 process 15 to activities involving digital modifications.                              The 16 new guidance superseded 10 CFR 50.59 related guidance 17 contained in NEI-01-EPRI TR-102348, which is titled, 18 Guidelines on Licensing Digital Upgrades.
19                    And the new guidance incorporates 10 CFR 20 50.59 related guidance contained in Regulatory Issue 21 Summary        2002-22,    Supplement            1,    which  is    titled, 22 Clarification          on    Endorsement            of    Nuclear    Energy 23 Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in 24 Instrumentation and Control Systems.
25                    Member Brown's questions were, does that 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 1 work get affected or carried forward with the changes 2 that the staff is proposing in this rule to the 10 CFR 3 50.59 process?        Will it be applicable to the Part 52 4 process and other licensing processes?
5                  The answer is that there are no changes 6 being proposed in this rule to the 10 CFR 50.59 change 7 process or any other change process that would undo 8 the consensus we obtained in NEI 96-07, Appendix D.
9 So to be clear, the proposed rule does not contain any 10 changes that would constitute backfitting in this 11 technical area.
12                  Current licensees can continue to perform 13 digital upgrades and modernize their I&C systems using 14 existing applicable regulations and related guidance 15 documents.
16                  Current licensees can continue to perform 17 screening      and  evaluation          of    digital    upgrades        in 18 accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 rule using NEI 96-07, 19 Appendix      D,  guidance        as    endorsed        by the    current 20 revision and proposed revision of Reg Guide 1.187.
21                  Current licensees can continue to use the 22 interim staff guidance DI&C-ISG-06, Rev. 2, to inform 23 preparation of license amendment request for digital 24 upgrades.
25                  The changes to Reg Guide 1.187 from the 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 1 proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 2 do not impact the endorsement of any NEI 96-07, 3 Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for 4 Application of 10 CFR 50.59 Digital Modifications.
5                  Therefore, future licensees can perform 6 digital upgrades using the current guidance.                                The 7 proposed 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 alignment rulemaking 8 does not have any impact on 10 CFR 50.55 -- I'm sorry, 9 50.55a,        Paragraph    (h),    rule      that      incorporates        by 10 reference IEEE Standard 603-1991.
11                  The staff will review I&C system design 12 submitted under the alignment, aligned Part 50 and 52 13 rule,        using  current      applicable            review    guidance 14 documents, that is NuScale, DSRS's, that's Design 15 Specific Review Standard, Chapter 7, Design Specific 16 Re Review Guidance for Non-LWR Designs and Modernize 17 Standard Review Plan, Chapter 7.
18                  So I'm going to go on to Slide 18 and then 19 I'll take questions if you guys don't mind.
20                  MEMBER BROWN:          I think I've got my hand 21 up.      I just spoke.
22                  MR. O'DRISCOLL:          All right.        Go ahead.
23                  MEMBER    BROWN:          This      is  Charlie      Brown 24 again.        I think I remembered asking one additional 25 question when we, I don't want to say terminated, 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 1 when we finished this discussion in the subcommittee 2 meeting.
3                You went through all the same comments 4 during our discussion in the subcommittee meeting.
5 And you've highlighted it here, I think, correctly, 6 based on that memory. Anyway the one question I think 7 I did ask that I'm not sure you addressed was in the 8 process of doing -- this had to do with a severe 9 accident.      I think it was Items 9 and 10 --
10                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
11                MEMBER BROWN:          -- in the listing.                And 12 while you're saying all these things don't affect 13 anything, did industry have any comment on this?                            Do 14 they agree with you?
15                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          We have yet to put this 16 proposed rule out for public comment.
17                MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So we will find out.
18 That's okay.
19                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Absolutely, yes.
20                MEMBER BROWN:          Okay.        All right.      I will 21 remain silent for now.
22                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
23                MEMBER BROWN:          And then we'll see how it 24 goes when it goes for public comment.                    Okay?
25                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Sure.        And -- sure.
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 1                    MEMBER BROWN:          Go ahead.
2                    MR. O'DRISCOLL: So we're on Slide 18. So 3 for the I&C system designs in future applications 4 submitted for design certifications or standard design 5 approvals, the staff will continue to ask for the 6 level        of  detail    necessary          to    make  a  reasonable 7 assurance of safety finding.                    That is the changes we 8 are making to the definition of essentially complete 9 design are not intended to affect these reviews.
10                    The use of design acceptance criteria, 11 DAC, for an I&C design is not needed.                        For example, 12 NuScale and the APR1400 reactor designs have been sort 13 of fine without using I&C DAC.
14                    So at the February 18 Steering Committee 15 meeting, there was a lengthy discussion on the issue 16 as      we    said. Member      Brown        requested    additional 17 information          on  this      item    at      the  full  Committee 18 meeting.          Specifically, Member Brown requested an 19 explanation of exactly why the new Criteria 9 and 10 20 in Section 50.59C(2) would not impact operating plants 21 today or how the criteria would impact the future 22 digital I&C upgrade or change a new plant design --
23 excuse me, or change a new plant license under Part 24 50.
25                    Mr. Bley      asked    if      the  staff    had      any 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 1 discussions or open meeting with stakeholders on how 2 these        two new  criteria      would        be    interpreted        and 3 requested that the staff describe them at the full 4 Committee meeting.
5                  So I think I answered that question.                        Is 6 there any other questions on this?                      Okay. I'm going 7 to move on.
8                  So we're on -- we're almost done.                          So 9 we're on Slide 19.            The proposed rule would add the 10 definition      of  essentially          complete        design    in    the 11 definition section of Part 52.                    The added definition 12 would provide more clarity regarding the information 13 needed in the design certification application.
14                  Improved clarity on what it means for a 15 design to be essentially complete should better focus 16 the applicant and the staff to address matters that 17 relate to safety.
18                  The NRC received one comment on this item.
19 The commenter requested the NRC review a letter sent 20 to the NRC from the NEI on September 24, 2020.                            That 21 letter had several recommendations on the subject.
22 The staff partially agreed with that comment.                              The 23 staff is not proposing any further changes to the 24 regulations as a result of that comment and also the 25 proposed changes are cost beneficial to both the 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 1 industry and the NRC.
2                    So at the February 1 subcommittee meeting, 3 there was some discussion on the aspects of what an 4 essentially complete design should mean.                        These came 5 up during our discussion of the design scope and 6 sanitization of the technical area.
7                    The first question was from Chairman Rempe 8 where we asked if we considered adding a definition 9 for an essentially complete conceptual design on the 10 Part 50 construction permit process.
11                    Member Sunseri and Mr. Bley commented that 12 the      proposed    definition          still        leaves    much        to 13 interpretation and the scope of the information that 14 meets the definition is unavoidably a function of the 15 staff's review of what is initially provided to them.
16                    Member Kirchner commented that there seems 17 to    be    a  break  point      in    Part      52    where  the      term 18 essentially complete design seems to apply only to 19 evolutionary        light    water      reactor        designs    and      not 20 designs        with  advanced      or    inherent        passive    safety 21 features.
22                    We brought these comments and questions to 23 the staff.        The staff disagrees that we should apply 24 the concept of essentially complete in any form to the 25 Part 50 process.          As I said earlier, the objective of 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 1 this rulemaking is not to make the Part 50 and Part 52 2 process the same but to make it such that equivalent 3 designs reviewed under each process yields similar 4 outcomes        with  regard        to      safety,      security        and 5 environmental protection.
6                  Part 50 affords a more relaxed requirement 7 for design information, maturity and changes during 8 the construction at the construction permit stage at 9 the cost of finality.            The staff acknowledges that in 10 the preliminary draft proposed rule FRN preamble when 11 characterizing a construction permit application, the 12 staff used the phrase essentially complete conceptual 13 design.
14                  This language appears in our response to 15 a comment summary and the language is not as precise 16 as it should be. Therefore, the staff plans to modify 17 the FRN preamble to use the phrase for preliminary 18 design        when    describing              construction        permit 19 applications and accurately align with the language 20 used in Part 50.
21                  The Part 50 regulations recognize that at 22 the      construction      permit        stage,        the  design        is 23 preliminary and subject to future changes unlike for 24 a design certification, combined license or operating 25 license where final design information is required and 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 1 all safety issues must be resolved.
2                  The guidance for meeting 50.34a and 50.35 3 is contained in the Standard Review Plan Regulatory 4 Guide 1.70.        And the staff is currently developing a 5 construction        permit        interim          staff    guidance        to 6 supplement        the    standard          review        plan  and      that 7 regulatory guide.
8                  So    with      regard        to    Member  Kirchner's 9 comment that there seems to be a technology breakpoint 10 built into Part 52 with respect to the requirements to 11 submit an essentially complete design for review, the 12 staff looked at this and notes that it is a good 13 comment.      It's a good observation.
14                  However, that was not the intent of the 15 original Part 52 rulemaking.                  Section 52.41, Scope of 16 Subpart, which it's titled, has a Paragraph B(1) and 17 (2).      B(1) says any person may seek a standard design 18 certification for an essentially complete nuclear 19 power plant design, which is an evolutionary change 20 from a light water reactor designs of plants which 21 have been licensed in any commercial operation before 22 April 18, 1989.
23                  Paragraph 2 says any person may also seek 24 a standard design certification for a nuclear power 25 plant design which differs significantly from the 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 1 light water reactor design described in Paragraph B(1) 2 of this section or used a simplified inherent passive 3 or other innovative means to accomplish its safety 4 functions.
5                  We believe that this apparent distinction 6 in technology was not intended.                          Specifically, we 7 believe that the phrase in Paragraph B(1), which is an 8 "evolutionary        change      from    a    light      water    reactor 9 design"        is  not  meant      to    qualify        what  Part        52 10 applicants must submit, designs that are essentially 11 complete.
12                  So why is that?              Because if you go to 13 52.47, Contents of Application, the purpose of which 14 that paragraph is to describe the information needed 15 for Part 52 license applications specifically does not 16 --      that    paragraph    specifically            does    not    make        a 17 distinction between these two classes of designs.
18                  That paragraph is divided into C(1) for 19 evolutionary designs, C(2) for designs that differed 20 significantly        from      light-water            reactor    designs 21 described in Paragraph C(1) or used as simplified and 22 inherent,        passive    or    other      innovative        means        to 23 accomplish safety functions and Paragraph C(3) for 24 modular nuclear reactor designs.                    Of note is that the 25 Paragraph C(1) and C(2) both specifically require an 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 1 essentially complete design.
2                Therefore, as a result of these comments 3 and this rulemaking, the staff plans to remove the 4 term "essentially complete" from 10 CFR 52.41B(1) and 5 ensure "essentially complete" is used consistently 6 within 10 CFR 52.47C(1) through (3).
7                Are there any questions on this topic?                        I 8 see one question.      Member Kirchner?
9                VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Yes, Jim.          I 10 agree with your -- just one member's opinion.                          Your 11 approach to 50, the use of the terminology preliminary 12 design I think is appropriate.
13                I was going to make the same points that 14 you just did about the content of application under 52 15 both in the content Section 52.40 -- I'm probably not 16 going to get the numbers right, but C(1) and (2) --
17                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes.
18                VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                -- both ask for 19 an essentially complete design.                      Are you actually 20 going to create a definition for essentially complete 21 design or are you just going to stand by -- I think 22 your preamble in 52.47 really suggests what you're 23 looking for because it suggests a design of such 24 maturity that you would be able to look at procurement 25 specs, installation specs and construction specs for 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 1 that design.
2                    So obviously in my experience, that's a 3 pretty        --  you're    pretty        advanced      in  the    design 4 process.        And also in 52 you ask for an FSAR.                So that 5 suggests a much more mature and complete design than 6 the 50 process does using the two steps of the CP and 7 OL, so as long as there is consistency in the 52 8 language.
9                    So if I understand you correctly then in 10 52.41, you're going to strike -- in B(1) you're going 11 to strike essentially complete and then just leave it 12 in the content of application section in C(1) and (2)?
13                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Yes, sir.
14                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER: Okay. Thank you.
15                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:              Okay. We're going to 16 move on to the next item.                Oh, we're done.
17                    MEMBER BIER:        We're done.
18                    MR. O'DRISCOLL:              So I've completed my 19 discussions?
20                    MEMBER BIER:          Yes.      I've been impressed 21 how intricate these discussions are that even after 22 two subcommittee meetings, there's still a lot of 23 details to go over.              So thank you for your patience 24 with this.
25                    In the interests of time, I'm thinking we 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 1 should just go to public comment now.
2                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          Okay.
3                MEMBER BIER:        Do we have any comments or 4 questions from members of the public who want to state 5 their views, either you can unmute yourself, which I 6 is, I think star 6 or just on Teams?                  And right now I 7 hear none.
8                So, Joy, I'm thinking this might be a good 9 time for a break?        I'm the sure the Committee will 10 have a lot of internal discussions but.
11                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So thank you, Vicki.              I 12 appreciate you leading us through this topic.                    And it 13 was a complex one, and I did let us go over.
14                We have to follow the agenda.                    And the 15 agenda did give us between 10:00 to 11:00 for letter 16 writing, but we're halfway through that period and 17 members haven't had a break all morning and some 18 members have puppy dogs that they need to walk is 19 something that a lot of times I hear.
20                So I'm to the point where I think we 21 should just break.        And we do have the subcommittee 22 for P&P that starts up at noon East Coast time.                        And 23 so how about giving everybody an extra half hour at 24 this point for their break or whatever.
25                And later this afternoon there is a time 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 1 that would start at 3:45 p.m.                    And at that time, we 2 would let you read in your draft letter and discuss it 3 after we get through the afternoon topic on source 4 terms.
5                    Did I correctly interpret the schedule on 6 the time because I'm looking at a computer that's 7 based in Idaho.        But I believe that I've got a handle 8 on where we are in this time frame and that's the best 9 approach.        Do I hear any concurrence from members or 10 disagreements?
11                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Joy, this is 12 Walt.        I kind of lost an hour in your scheduling.                      Are 13 you proposing that we -- we don't have P&P starting 14 until 12:00 Eastern time.                  It's 10:30 Eastern time.
15 Is that correct?
16                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Okay.      Right now it's 17 about 10:30 Eastern time.                  And at 11:00 was the in 18 time for our letter writing, which only give us a half 19 hour, and we've not had a break.
20                    So  I'm    proposing          we    defer  the    letter 21 writing and discussion of the draft letter until this 22 afternoon, which gives us a longer lunch hour, but we 23 didn't have a break.                And if I give us 15 minutes 24 break, there's not time to bring up the draft letter 25 and even read it let alone have comments.                            So why 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 1 don't we just wait is what I'm proposing, Walt. Okay?
2                VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                I'm just missing 3 the math here.
4                CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Maybe I've missed the 5 math.
6                VICE  CHAIRMAN        KIRCHNER:          The    P&P      is 7 scheduled for 12:00.
8                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Right now if we came in 9 15 minutes, Walt, we'd have 15 minutes until 11:00.
10                MR. MOORE:        This      is    Scott.      P&P      is 11 scheduled from noon to 1 o'clock East Coast time.
12                CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Right.        So if we came 13 back here at 10:45, if I gave us 15 minutes, we'd have 14 15 minutes before we were supposed to break according 15 to the agenda for lunch, which would be 11:00 to noon 16 East Coast time.
17                Now, yes, we could work through lunch but 18 I know we're not supposed to do that because of FACA 19 and the Federal Register Notice. And so I'm proposing 20 that we just take an hour and a half for "lunch."
21 We'll come back at noon, which I believe you're on my 22 time, Walt, which would be 10 o'clock Mountain Time, 23 right?
24                VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Correct.
25                MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: That's (simultaneous 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 1 speaking), right, Joy?            But everybody else comes back 2 at 1:00, right?
3                  CHAIRMAN REMPE: Right. Everyone else has 4 a very long lunch hour unless they want to come to the 5 -- everyone is invited to the subcommittee for P&P 6 also but that's what I'm proposing.
7                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Thank you.
8                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          And then for the staff, 9 I apologize that we ran over, but it was a worthwhile 10 discussion.        And I really appreciate you going into 11 these items we raised.            I hope you'll be able to come 12 back at 3:45 East Coast time.                  Is that okay with your 13 team, Jim?
14                  MEMBER O'DRISCOLL:              That's okay with me.
15 I leave it to ask Omid.              Are you good?
16                  MR. TABATABAI: Yes, 3:45 is good. I will 17 be attending the letter writing session, Chairman 18 Rempe.
19                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          I appreciate it.          Thank 20 you.        And, again, sorry we went over, but I allowed 21 it.
22                  MEMBER BIER: Joy, Dennis has his hand up.
23 I don't know if that's still from before?
24                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Who has their hand up?
25                  MEMBER BIER:        Dennis.
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 1                CHAIRMAN REMPE: Oh, Dennis. Did you have 2 a question or comment, Dennis?
3                DR. BLEY:        I just had a short comment.
4 This Committee doesn't advise the staff how to manage 5 their staff. But I've reflected several times over 6 the years on something I've noticed. And that is when 7 there is a successful project, be it a nuclear plant 8 or whatever kind of project and you dig into it, you 9 find somewhere there's a champion, a person highly 10 involved, principal investigator or something who 11 really knows everything that's going on.                  And I just 12 want to compliment Jim. He's a champion in this role.
13 And your ability to address almost every question that 14 was raised was very impressive.                  Thank you.
15                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          I agree.      Sometimes you 16 were so good that I have trouble processing.                    But you 17 did a great, Jim, and I appreciate it.
18                MR. O'DRISCOLL:          I'm blushing.
19                CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.      So, everyone, I 20 didn't hear any strong disagreement with what I've 21 proposed, a longer lunch hour.                  And those of us who 22 come back at noon for P&P, we'll be here.                    And it's 23 actually on the same link for Microsoft Teams.                        It's 24 an open public link. And I'll see everybody then that 25 wants to join us.      Okay?      Thank you.
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 1                  (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 2 off the record at 10:35 a.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)
3                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay, everybody.            It's 4 1:00 p.m. on the East Coast.                          And I'm going to 5 reconvene for the first day of the 693rd Meeting of 6 the ACRS to verify that we have a quorum and that 7 clear communications exist.                I'm going to again call 8 roll.        Vicki Bier?
9                  MEMBER BIER:        Yes.
10                  CHAIRMAN        REMPE:            Thank    you.          Ron 11 Ballinger?
12                  MEMBER BALLINGER:            Here.
13                  CHAIRMAN REMPE: Charles Brown? I'll come 14 back (simultaneous speaking).
15                  MEMBER BIER:          Joy, Charlie was going to 16 walk his dog and be back in a minute.
17                  CHAIRMAN      REMPE:            Oh,    okay.        Vesna 18 Dimitrijevic.
19                  MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                I'm here.
20                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Thank you.      Greg Halnon?
21                  MEMBER HALNON:          Here.
22                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Thanks.      Walt Kirchner?
23                  VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                Here.
24                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Thank you.        Jose March-25 Leuba?
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 1                MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:              Yes.
2                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Dave Petti?
3                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Yes.
4                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          And Matthew Sunseri?
5                MEMBER SUNSERI:          Here.
6                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So we have a quorum, and 7 Charlie will be joining us later.                  At this point, I'm 8 going to ask Member Petti to lead us through the topic 9 for this afternoon, which is the integration of source 10 term activities. And, Dave, I'll turn it over to you.
11                MEMBER PETTI:          Thank you.        So as we came 12 out of subcommittee two weeks ago as most of you know 13 since I think you were all there, we had a really in-14 depth briefing from the staff on this topic.                        And I 15 said that I would put together a couple slides, that 16 the staff didn't have to give another summary here, 17 that I would put together a number of slides about why 18 I thought it was important that we write a letter.
19                And so I think I have a slide on sort of 20 why and then a little bit, I have a high level 21 conclusion and recommendations.                      And if the full 22 Committee agrees with the letter, I have that letter 23 ready to be worked on.
24                So, you know, I think as you all know, the 25 source term is really the raison d'tre for the NRC, 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 1 right?        If we didn't have radioactive material in a 2 nuclear system, what would we be regulating for?
3                    Also I think it's important that being 4 able      to  develop    a    source      term      that can  receive 5 regulatory approval is really critical to the success 6 of any of the new reactor design and licensing, 7 whether that be something like NuScale, which we had 8 seen had a slightly different approach to the advanced 9 reactor designs that are going to look very different 10 and have very different source terms.
11                    Also on October 8, we had one of our 12 periodic meetings with the commissioners.                      And during 13 that meeting, we discussed our plans to perform an 14 integrated review of the source term activities.                          And 15 we stated that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 16 fit together would be worthwhile.
17                    So it seems like, in my opinion, we need 18 to put a letter together to kind of, you know, close 19 on this issue A.          B, the staff spent a lot of time on 20 it and felt it was important to give them the credit 21 here in this area.
22                    Joy, your hand is up?
23                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            So I'd like to explore 24 this last bullet a bit more. It's true that there was 25 a slide in your presentation that said that we plan to 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 1 perform        an  integrated          review        of  source      term 2 activities.
3                  And it's true that there was a bullet that 4 said a roadmap showing -- I think it almost said we 5 recommended that a roadmap showing how all the pieces 6 fit together would be worthwhile.                      But was that last 7 statement ever in any of our letters?
8                  MEMBER PETTI:          Oh, I don't think so.
9                  MR. BLEY:      This is Dennis.          And, Dave, if 10 I could.
11                  MEMBER PETTI:          Go ahead.
12                  MR. BLEY:          We did write a couple of 13 letters that referred to the source term.                      My memory 14 -- I don't have them out in front of me -- is we never 15 actually used the word roadmap here, but we said 16 guidance was really needed for these new ones.                        So we 17 said that multiple times.
18                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:              It's true we said the 19 guidance was needed.            But we never had in our letters 20 the word roadmap.            And I remember discussing this, 21 Dave, a while ago with you before the presentation 22 because there were a lot of things that I said, hey, 23 that's not in the letter.                We pulled it.        And I let 24 this one go because your response was, well, I've been 25 talking to the staff and we both, the staff and I, 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 1 came to the conclusion that a roadmap was needed.
2                  And I just want to make sure that it's 3 clear in everyone's mind because, again, if we write 4 a letter, I don't want it to be implying that -- it 5 would be great for us to say better guidance or a 6 roadmap is needed on that web page, but I think we 7 need to be careful about what we've said in the past 8 in our letters.
9                  And I wouldn't -- we actually should be 10 careful, too, about what we present and make sure it's 11 clear when it's a single member's opinion or it's a 12 paraphrasing and things like that. But I want to make 13 sure everyone understands that point.                      Okay?
14                  MEMBER PETTI:        Yes.      I think the staff --
15 and when we had the discussion with the staff, we 16 agreed that a presentation on this topic would be very 17 useful so.
18                  Next slide, Mike.              Oh, okay.      So I move 19 in.            So  here's        the      first        conclusion        and 20 recommendation.        The regulatory basis for the source 21 term is widely disbursed -- I'm going to not read it 22 word for word -- in numerous documents focused on 23 LWRs.        The dedicated website being developed by the 24 staff is designed as a one-stop shop to capture the 25 information and keep applicants up to date.
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 1                  The applicants and stakeholders would also 2 benefit from consolidated guidance to determining if 3 the      acceptable    attributes            are      suitable    for        a 4 particular design.          And in particular if the staff 5 provides an overview on the website explaining how the 6 applicant can best use this information in concert 7 with pre-application consultations with the staff, 8 applicants will be better prepared to develop a high 9 quality submittal.
10                  The next two -- the staff has expanded 11 significant effort evaluating system accident response 12 for the ranger technologies anticipated from future 13 applicants as described in the Non-LWR Vision and 14 Strategy, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, with computer code 15 development.        The development of the computer codes 16 for confirmatory analysis of these non-LWR technology 17 should promote expeditious reviews of current and 18 future applications.
19                  And  the      third        was      a  clear    common 20 definition      of  maximum        hypothetical          and    maximum 21 credible accident should be established along with 22 guidance on how it should be developed to assist 23 potential applicants that would use this concept in 24 their licensing strategy.
25                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Dave, I do have some 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 1 questions or comments.              First of all, a comment on --
2 you don't have to go back to the slide on C&R 1.                            And 3 I    was      going  through      --  again,        I'm  new  at    being 4 Chairman.          And sometimes when there's these very 5 length C&Rs in some of the statements, it's hard to 6 tell what's a conclusion and what's a recommendation.
7 And we always have to figure whether it's plural or 8 singular on C&Rs.
9                    Now there's enough here I don't think that 10 will be a problem with your letter.                        But be careful 11 because sometimes I think that some of this is almost 12 wishful thinking.            But I'd like to go on to my real 13 point here on the next slide.
14                    A big point that I was trying to make 15 during this meeting is that I do like the reference 16 plan evaluations.            And I think the staff has done a 17 great job. But if we're going to commend them for it, 18 I really would like to see them go further because the 19 insights they are gaining about whether there is not 20 only gaps in the data, but the gaps are important is 21 an important thing that needs to be communicated to 22 the design developers with these new technologies 23 because, yes, there's a lack of data, but some data 24 isn't as important as other data.
25                    And, of course, we're assuming that these 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 1 current models are correct for these technologies.
2 But if we're going to buy-in with that, then they 3 could really help with showing that this piece of data 4 is going to be very important.                And if you don't have 5 it, you need to get it.
6                MEMBER PETTI:        That's in the letter.              And 7 if you want to --
8                (Simultaneous speaking.)
9                CHAIRMAN REMPE:          That's the thing I would 10 put up because --
11                (Simultaneous speaking.)
12                MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I don't have a problem 13 with that at all.
14                CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Yes.        I think it's an 15 important thing.      If we're going to do this, let's --
16 again, at the end of the meeting, I said, you know, 17 these are individual member's comments, and you can 18 take or leave them.          But I feel important in this --
19 that this is important. But the staff did respond and 20 say, yes, we've got them.              And so, you know, again, 21 the rules of the game have always been, well, if you 22 write the letter, let's make sure all the important 23 ones        are highlighted        in      the      conclusions        and 24 recommendations.      Okay?
25                And then the last thing, I thought Walt 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 1 and other folks -- it was on the Part 50 and 52 2 discussion where it came across, and it was actually 3 a staffer, Michelle Hart, who came up with what her 4 opinion was about the difference between a maximum 5 credible      accident    versus        a    maximum  hypothetical 6 accident and that there is a difference.
7                  And so I would make this that there's two 8 definitions, one for each of these things if we're 9 going to do this because I think that there is --
10 perhaps there is a difference of opinion on what the 11 difference between a maximum hypothetical accident is 12 or a maximum credible accident and that needs to be 13 documented by the staff.
14                  So anyway, if we're going to do this, I 15 would change this last bullet to be the fact that 16 there are two things that need to be defined.                      Or if 17 they're the same thing, then staff should say they're 18 the same thing, and we're not going to distinguish 19 between them.      But it's (simultaneous speaking).
20                  MEMBER PETTI: I got confused. That's why 21 I asked the question in the context of 50 and 52 22 because I heard it put together, and I've heard them 23 separately.      So it was very confusing to me whether 24 they were two separate things or the same thing.                      And 25 I think it maybe might depend on the context.
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 1                    (Simultaneous speaking.)
2                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Dave, this is 3 Walt.        Part 52 is pretty explicit.                  It's a maximum 4 hypothetical accident is what is required in using the 5 52 process.
6                    MEMBER PETTI:          Okay.
7                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                It's not an or.
8 Now the applicant may define, well, for my system this 9 is the most maximum credible accident, but at least 52 10 requires that you postulate a maximum hypothetical 11 accident.
12                    MEMBER PETTI:          Right.        And Part 53 --
13                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                I just say that 14 as a clarification.
15                    MEMBER PETTI:          Yes.      Part 53 --
16                    MEMBER    DIMITRIJEVIC:              Walt  and    Dave, 17 didn't we just discuss this morning credible as a part 18 of alignment between 50 and 52 for like a half hour?
19 And then they never said hypothetical.                          They said 20 credible.        So I am not sure that's really 52 means 21 hypothetical if now we just discussed credible today.
22 Remember this morning that we were discussing credible 23 --
24                    MEMBER PETTI:          Yes, yes, yes, yes.
25                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                -- actually.
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 1                  VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                No, I do, Vesna, 2 yes, thank you.        I'm not sure what the staff's intent 3 is on changing the language.                    But I was just making 4 the distinction that 52 asks you, as an applicant, to 5 postulate a maximum hypothetical accident.                          I don't 6 think it uses the terminology credible accident.
7                  MEMBER HALNON:          Yeah.        This is Greg.          I 8 thought that the staff -- and I have to go back and 9 look at the transcript.              One gentleman jumped in and 10 said they were actually writing a definition in one of 11 the draft documents that from what I heard made them 12 equate them as probably the same interchangeable. But 13 I got to go back and look at the transcripts to be 14 sure.        So just to add to the confusion, I think that 15 or should be an and.
16                  MEMBER PETTI:        Yes, yes, no, that's fine.
17 Yes, I agree.        No, I'm not sure that's right, Greg, 18 because that was exactly my question, and I thought 19 they answered it as no.                    They are two different 20 things. And it certainly was in Michelle's mind. She 21 had two different ideas.                So, yes, I think a little 22 bit of clarity here would help.
23                  MEMBER HALNON:          Yes, I think so.
24                  DR. BLEY:        Dave?
25                  MEMBER PETTI:          Yes?
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 1                    DR. BLEY:        This is Dennis.            Certainly 2 historically there's been a difference if you go all 3 the way back to the 50s and come from then.                            There 4 have been times over the history of the AEC and NRC 5 where the same initials, acronyms, have changed actual 6 word meaning so that might be where the staff is 7 headed to bring them together, but historically                          they 8 were different.
9                    MEMBER PETTI:          Okay.        I think that's all 10 I have for the slides.                I think it's -- oh, no, it 11 isn't.        There it is.        Okay.      So here's just to give 12 you an idea of what the letter looks like.                      There's a 13 background, about 15 lines.                I tried to summarize the 14 regulatory basis and discuss all the documents that 15 touch on source term that kind of show that it is 16 somewhat distributed and sets the stage.
17                    Observation on source term development, 18 these are sort of -- it's a real technical meet.
19 These are basically things I gleaned from all the 20 presentations, or a number of the presentations, and 21 just try to put a focus on them because I thought they 22 were the important things and then talk about the work 23 on the website and then a summary.                      So it's not a very 24 long letter.          It depends on what font you use, I 25 guess.
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 1                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So at one point you were 2 going to say more than the website is needed, like 3 guidance is needed.              And I'm not sure that you are 4 still feeling that way because I guess, again, another 5 point I tried to make during the meeting is as I 6 recall, the person sending it said, oh, there's a typo 7 on this website, and we're going to fix it.                        And that 8 happens a lot with websites. it's not like a document 9 that gets reviewed ,and it's there.                      Even if you give 10 it, and there are still errors in the document.                            It's 11 issued.        The website you fix it and you update, you 12 know, last modified date at the bottom, and you go on.
13                    And are you going to try and recommend 14 that they do something a little more concrete?                              Are 15 you going to say, no, it's changing so fast this is 16 the best I can do?
17                    MEMBER PETTI:        Yes.      I think I moved away 18 from more guidance at least in the near-term just 19 because I think they've got so much on their plate.
20                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So not even some sort of 21 roadmap is needed anymore?
22                    MEMBER PETTI:          I think that the website 23 fulfills that function.                Hold on.          No, I do.        I'm 24 sorry.        I wrote this.      I do say that the benefit from 25 consolidated guidance to aid in determining acceptable 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 1 applicants.        What I didn't say is what that guidance 2 should look like.            Should it be something that's on 3 the website?          Should it be a separate document?                      I 4 leave that up to them.              I'm kind of silent on that.
5                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          So, again, I think as we 6 decide to do a letter that some acknowledgment of the 7 fact that websites are temporal and can easily be 8 fixed.        I think a website is great as a way to start.
9 But I'm wondering if maybe something a little more 10 concrete is needed or something or at least we should 11 acknowledge that websites are not the same, you know, 12 firmness. And given that the landscape is changing so 13 fast this is probably the right level to hit on it, 14 but acknowledge that something -- that it is very 15 easily changed.
16                    DR. BLEY:        Joy, this is Dennis again.
17 Maybe somebody on the staff could help.                  But over the 18 last up to 10 years, the staff has put a number of 19 tools for themselves and other kinds of information 20 into websites that are well controlled.
21                    And I think if you folks do write a 22 letter, and I would recommend you do because we've 23 raised this issue so many times -- where was I going?
24 With the website, maybe somebody from the staff can 25 talk about the kind of control they will have on that 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 1 and if they've got examples where in fact guidance is 2 presented on the NRC website and is under the same 3 kind of control that you have on a document.
4                CHAIRMAN REMPE: Dennis, you know, even if 5 it's controlled, when I do references to a website and 6 publications that are archival, you always put last 7 access, whatever date, because it's recognized that 8 websites can change their information. I mean, that's 9 (simultaneous speaking).
10                DR. BLEY:      That's very reasonable because 11 you put revision numbers on your documents.                        But I 12 think rather than speculating if the staff can address 13 that, I think it would be helpful.                    And it doesn't 14 sound like they are ready to do that so I withdraw 15 that recommendation.
16                MR. SEGALA: This is John Segala, Chief of 17 the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch and NRR. You know, 18 we put this website together, you know, to serve as a 19 roadmap and to provide easy access to anybody who is 20 interested in terms of where to find, you know, 21 information on source term.
22                Even  as    a  result        of    the subcommittee 23 meeting that we just had on source term, we went in, 24 and we added some information on NUREG-1537, you know, 25 the guidance that is there for non-power reactors, you 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 1 know.
2                  So we definitely plan to keep that website 3 up-to-date. And that website references official, you 4 know, NRC documents.            So even as we update, you know, 5 the text on the website, it's still going to be 6 referencing official ADAMS, you know, documents that 7 are in our agency-wide document management system.
8                  So, you know, we have been -- you know we 9 created our advanced reactor public website back in 10 2016.        And we've been updating it on a regular basis.
11 And so we do put a conscious effort into keeping the 12 advanced reactor related websites up-to-date.                          And 13 this source term website is a page off of our advanced 14 reactor overall web page.                I don't know if that --
15                  DR. BLEY:        Hey, John?
16                  MR. SEGALA:        -- answers your questions or 17 not.
18                  DR. BLEY:        John?        It's Dennis. I think 19 so.        And I played around on the website and found 20 things that I wouldn't have been able to find without 21 it, I think.
22                  The website itself is not guidance.                    It 23 points you to the guidance, correct?
24                  MR. SEGALA:        Yes.
25                  DR. BLEY:        Dave, I didn't have anything 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 1 else.
2                    MEMBER      PETTI:            Oh,      okay.      Thanks.
3 Members,        any    other        comments?              Well,    as      the 4 subcommittee chair, I'd like                    --
5                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  Dave?
6                    MEMBER PETTI:          Yes?
7                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                    Dave, this is 8 Walt.          If I might ask John, who is with us, the 9 intention is to have Draft Guide 1389 as the next 10 revision to Reg. Guide 1.183.                          That's really LWR 11 specific. Is there any one stop shop place for a non-12 LWR to develop its source term?                        What would be the 13 last Reg. Guide that you would refer someone to?
14 Would it be 1.183 and then modify it for non-LWR 15 technology?
16                    MEMBER PETTI:          John, you're muted.
17                    MR. SEGALA:          Yes.        thank you.        I don't 18 know if maybe Michelle Hart can add. I think there is 19 general information in Reg. Guide 1.183 on how to 20 develop a source term so a non-light water reactor 21 developer can start with that information, you know, 22 to develop either their design specific source term or 23 even scenario specific source term.
24                    So there's a lot of good information in 25 there even though it's light water reactor specific 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 1 for the majority of the Reg. Guide.                      And then we have 2 other information, you know, that's on the website 3 that non-light water reactor developers could use.
4                    We also have, you know, the licensing 5 modernization project in our Reg. Guide 1.233 that 6 endorses that document, the non-light water reactor 7 PRA standard. You know, there's lots of the melt core 8 scale        workshops    that      we've        done    and    whatnot.
9 Michelle, are you on?
10                    MS. HART:        I'm here.          Yes, I don't think 11 that there's anything additional to add to that.                                  I 12 will say that we do not have a plan to provide a 13 source term for the reactors like we do in Reg. Guide 14 1.183.
15                    The  other      features          of  a  consequence 16 assessment you can use the information in there, you 17 know, pretty easily.                But the development of the 18 source term, maybe you can look at the basis for the 19 source term that's in Reg. Guide 1.183 for light water 20 reactors        and  you,    as    a    non-light        water    reactor 21 applicant, would be able to figure out, well, what 22 information do I need to come up with similar types of 23 information for my reactor is kind of the thought 24 behind that.
25                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                  You know, the 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 1 reason I asked this was because it seems to me that 2 it's very        useful to have all of this information on 3 a website and such.            But it seems to me, Dave, right 4 now that rather than use the term roadmap, that 5 suggests one -- it goes through all these documents to 6 figure out what your source term should be.
7                    It seems to me right now that 1.183 as 8 revised        in  DG-1389      is    the      latest      and  greatest 9 resource, so to speak, that an applicant should look 10 at.          And  then    if    that      applicant        is  a  non-LWR 11 technology, then one is going to have to supplement 12 accordingly to develop a mechanistic source term.
13 Does that make any sense? I mean, rather than ask the 14 staff to develop a roadmap, I'm a little -- I guess I 15 shared Joy's concern as well.
16                    I  think      rather      than      a  "roadmap",        one 17 should be pointing specifically to a Reg. Guide that 18 provides        an  acceptable      approach          for  developing          a 19 source term --
20                    MEMBER PETTI:          (Simultaneous speaking.)
21                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                -- supplemented 22 by the Sandia and INL Reports, et cetera, et cetera.
23                    MEMBER PETTI:        There's an appendix in one 24 of these documents.            And I keep getting confused.                    I 25 thought it was in 1.183.              But maybe it's in the -- I'm 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 1 not exactly sure.        But it kind of provides sort of an 2 overview of what it takes to put together a source 3 term.        Michelle, do you know which Reg. Guide that's 4 in?
5                  MEMBER HALNON:          Dave, that's in the EP --
6 well, the Appendix B in the new EP?
7                  MEMBER PETTI:          Okay.        That's what I was 8 remembering.        That was maybe the one so.
9                  MEMBER HALNON:            I think it's 1.242, I 10 think.
11                  MS. HART:        Yes.      It's Reg. Guide 1.242.
12 It has a discussion on considerations for source 13 terms, how to develop source terms.                      And that is for 14 the emergency preparedness rulemaking.
15                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            I haven't checked this 16 website recently.        But is Reg. Guide 1.242 pointed to 17 in the website as it is configured today?
18                  MS. HART:        I don't think so.
19                  CHAIRMAN        REMPE:            Because    that        was 20 something that I thought we did review this EPZ 21 rulemaking that was a good source.                      So that might be 22 something you might want to add to this slide.
23                  MR. SEGALA:        This is John Segala.              I was 24 just going to say that I think we were trying to point 25 to documents that are out there.                      I think that guide 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 1 is -- you know, with the rulemaking package is up in 2 front of the Commission right now to vote on that 3 rulemaking.          So once the Commission votes on that 4 rulemaking, that Reg. Guide will be issued final. And 5 then we'll add the reference to that onto our website.
6                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:          Actually, I just checked 7 the website. It's on there pointing to 1.242, Rev. C, 8 July 2021.          So you do have it, I think, actually.
9 Sorry.        Just to correct the record.
10                    MR. SEGALA:        No, that's okay.          I was just 11 saying we won't have a reference to the final version 12 until it's issued, and the Commission approves it.
13                    MEMBER PETTI:            Okay.        So maybe in the 14 letter, I've noticed I have a paragraph about that is 15 arguing that appendix may be a good entry point for 16 applicants thinking about a source term, that and 17 1.183 probably together.
18                    So I guess the question in front of the 19 Committee is do we want a letter? I recommend that we 20 do.      And it's --
21                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:              Do we need to have a 22 vote?        And do you want me to lead the vote, Dave, or 23 how do you want to go forward here?
24                    MEMBER PETTI:          I don't how we -- I mean, 25 if anyone disagrees maybe we should just, you know, by 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 1 acclimation, only if you don't agree.
2                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:              The last time it was 3 about half and half so why don't we just go through 4 it.      Okay?
5                  MEMBER PETTI:          Okay.        That's fine.
6                  CHAIRMAN REMPE: So let's call for a vote.
7 I'm going to say a yes means a letter, no means not a 8 letter.        And in the past, I learned that some members 9 are undecided.        So an undecided is also a legal vote 10 here.        And I've got my pen to take down the votes.
11 Ron Ballinger, how do you vote?
12                  MEMBER BALLINGER:              Yes.
13                  MEMBER REMPE:          Vicki Bier?
14                  MEMBER BIER: Mostly undecided, but slight 15 yes.
16                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            So now I don't know how 17 to record you.        Should I put a yes or a U, Vicki?
18                  MEMBER BIER: Oh, I don't know. We'll see 19 how it works out at the end.                  But I'm fine being a U.
20 I'm not super informed on this topic so.
21                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.        Charlie Brown, a 22 yes, an undecided or a no.
23                  MEMBER BROWN:          Undecided, but I'll cancel 24 out Vicki's and say the other way.
25                  CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.        I'm putting both 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 1 of you as U's.          Vesna Dimitrijevic?
2                    MEMBER BROWN:          As what, U's?
3                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Yes.      Undecided.
4                    MEMBER BROWN:          Oh, okay.        All right.
5                    CHAIRMAN REMPE: I've got to keep track of 6 this.        Okay?
7                    MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. Thank you. I'm 8 like Vicki.          I'm not as versed in this.                      So I'll 9 defer.
10                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.      Vesna, how do you 11 vote?
12                    MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC:                Yes.
13                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Greg, how do you vote?
14                    MEMBER HALNON:            Yes.
15                    CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Walt Kirchner, how 16 do you vote?        Walt, are you on mute?
17                    VICE CHAIRMAN KIRCHNER:                Yes. I couldn't 18 find the mute.
19                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.        Jose, how do you 20 vote?
21                    MEMBER      MARCH-LEUBA:                Yes,  write        the 22 letter.
23                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:                Okay.      I bet, Dave, 24 that's a yes.        Matt, how do you vote?
25                    MEMBER SUNSERI:            Yes.
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 1                    CHAIRMAN      REMPE:          Okay.      And    I'm      an 2 undecided, but I don't see any no's.                      So we are going 3 to do a letter.        Are you ready to switch to having --
4 do we need five minutes for -- do we want to take a 5 break.        It's only been 30 minutes since we started.
6 So should we just go ahead and ask Sandra to bring up 7 the screen again?
8                    MEMBER PETTI:          Yes, I think she's ready, 9 yes.
10                    CHAIRMAN REMPE:            Okay.      Sandra, are you 11 ready out there?
12                    SANDRA:      I'm ready.
13                    CHAIRMAN REMPE: Okay. Go ahead and bring 14 up and share your screen, and we'll let Dave start 15 reading. And thank you to the staff who -- I'm sorry.
16 Court reporter, I need to say we're going to go off 17 the record.        Thank you for reminding me.
18                    (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19 off the record at 1:32 p.m.)
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
 
ADAMS Accession No. ML22059A040 ACRS Briefing:
Content of Proposed Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing March 2, 2022 1
 
OPENING STATEMENT Joy Rempe - ACRS Chairman AGENDA Lawrence Burkhart - ACRS Technical Support Branch 2
 
PROPOSED DRAFT RULEMAKING 3
 
REMARKS Vicki Bier - ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices Chairman Brian Smith - Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
 
NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Omid Tabatabai, NRR Senior Project Manager 5
 
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 6
 
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 7
 
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 8
 
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) 9
 
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      Physical        Fitness      Emergency Licensing      Security        For Duty        Planning (5)          (2)              (4)            (7)
Part 52                    Applicability of Environmental  Other Processes  Miscellaneous Licensing Protection    to the 10 CFR      Topics Process                  Part 52 Process (1)                            (9)
(21)                            (5) 10
 
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) 11
 
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 12
 
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 13
 
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 14
 
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 15
 
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 16
 
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 17
 
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 18
 
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 19
 
Questions 20
 
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 21
 
Rulemaking Schedule Submit proposed      Issue final rule to the      rule Commission May 2022      October 2024 22
 
Contact Information Jim ODriscoll, Project Manager Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, & Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: James.ODriscoll@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-1325 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 23
 
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 24
 
Abbreviations ACRS  Advisory Committee on Reactor        LAR  License Amendment Request Safeguards                            LWR  Light-Water Reactor ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and      ML    Manufacturing License Management System                    NEI  Nuclear Energy Institute AEA  Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended NEIMA Nuclear Energy Innovation and CFR  Code of Federal Regulations                Modernization Act COL  Combined License                      NMSS  Office of Nuclear Material Safety and CP    Construction Permit                        Safeguards DAC  Design Acceptance Criteria            NRC  Nuclear Regulatory Commission DC    Design Certification                  NRR  Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DG    Draft Regulatory Guide                OL    Operating License ECCS  Emergency Core Cooling System        PRA  Probabilistic Risk Assessment EP    Emergency Planning                    RG    Regulatory Guide ESP  Early Site Permit                    SDA  Standard Design Approval FFD  Fitness For Duty                      SECY  Office of the Secretary FRN  Federal Register Notice              SRP  Standard Review Plan FSAR  Final Safety Analysis Report          SSC  Structure, System, and Component I&C  Instrumentation and Controls          STP  South Texas Project ISG  Interim Staff Guidance                TMI  Three Mile Island ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria                                                            25
 
References ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear          ML011340122 Power Plants: LWR Edition, dated November 1978 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  https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
December 31, 1991                                                                                            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            ML061090627 in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated May 2006 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power                    ML063410307 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 13.3, Revision 3, Emergency Planning, dated March 2007 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power                    ML12193A107 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.1, Revision 3, Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated September 2012 Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, dated          ML12188A053 March 2014 NEI 96-07, Appendix C, Revision 0 - Corrected, Guideline for Implementation of Change Processes for            ML14091A739 New Nuclear Power Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated March 2014 Results of Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.201, dated April 23, 2015                                ML15091A788 26
 
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-025, Changes During Construction Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated July          ML15058A377 2015 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power                ML15089A068 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.0, Revision 3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors, dated December 2015 International Atomic Energy Agency, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR 2/1, Revision 1, Safety of    https://www.iaea.org/
Nuclear Power Plants: Design, dated February 2016                                                        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              ML18123A245 Issuance of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined Licenses, dated May 9, 2018 Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-22, Supplement 1, Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy        ML18143B633 Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems, dated May 31, 2018 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          ML19241A472 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, dated August 2019 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        ML20135H168 Modifications, dated May 2020 27
 
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons              ML20141L609 Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66] held April 29, 2020, dated May 26, 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.233, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based              ML20091L698 Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors, dated June 2020 NRC Letter to NEI, Part 50/52 Lessons-Learned Rulemaking: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                  ML20156A308 Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement, dated September 8, 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of                      ML20238B871 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated December 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.237, Revision 0, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power            ML20349A335 Plants Being Constructed Under a Combined License Referencing a Certified Design Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated February 2021 Design Review Guide (DRG): Instrumentation and Controls for Non-Light-Water Reactor (Non-LWR)                  ML21011A140 Reviews, dated February 26, 2021 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power          https://www.nrc.gov/reading Plants: LWR Edition, last reviewed/updated March 9, 2021                                                        -rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr08 00/index.html NEI, Industry Comments on the Regulatory Basis for Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons                ML21144A164 Learned from New Reactor Licensing (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0196), dated May 14, 2021 28
 
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 3, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and  ML21109A002 Experiments, dated June 2021 NUREG-1021, Revision 12, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, dated          ML21256A276 September 2021 Draft Interim Staff Guidance; Request for Comment, Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor          86 FR 71101 Construction Permit Applications, dated December 14, 2021 Draft FRN to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting - 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing        ML22020A002 Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated January 27, 2022 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align          ML22020A001 Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 1, 2022 Draft Guidance Documents to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Part 50/52 Proposed            ML22040A074 Rulemaking, dated February 15, 2022 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align          ML22046A035 Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 18, 2022 29
 
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)}}

Revision as of 07:12, 18 November 2024

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML22095A106&oldid=3730874"