ML18129A185
| ML18129A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/2018 |
| From: | Thomas Taylor Spent Fuel Licensing Branch |
| To: | |
| Taylor T | |
| References | |
| NRC-3662 | |
| Download: ML18129A185 (119) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Office of the Inspector General Audit Recommendation Certificate of Compliance Expiration Term Docket Number:
N/A Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
April 26, 2018 Work Order No.:
NRC-3662 Pages 1-98 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE OFFICE OF THE 4
INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT RECOMMENDATION CERTIFICATE 5
OF COMPLIANCE EXPIRATION TERM 6
+ + + + +
7 CATEGORY 3 PUBLIC MEETING 8
+ + + + +
9 THURSDAY 10 APRIL 26, 2018 11
+ + + + +
12 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 13
+ + + + +
14 The meeting convened at the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 16 T2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 1:30 p.m., Torre 17 Taylor, Moderator, presiding.
18 19 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
20 TORRE TAYLOR, Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel 21 Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, 22 Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 23 (NMSS), Moderator 24 JOHN
- McKIRGAN, Branch
- Chief, Spent Fuel 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, 1
NMSS 2
BERNARD WHITE, Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel 3
Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, 4
NMSS 5
6 ALSO PRESENT:
7 ALICE CARSON, EnergySolutions 8
MICHAEL CONROY, US Department of Transportation 9
WREN FOWLER, NAC International
- 10 ALEKSANDR GELFOND, EnergySolutions
- 11 TIMOTHY LLOYD, Westinghouse Electric Company
- 12 GLENN MATHUES, TN Americas 13 ROD McCULLUM, Nuclear Energy Institute 14 SCOTT MURRAY, GE Hitachi
- 15 LORI PODOLAK, QSA Global
- 16 JANET SCHLUETER, Nuclear Energy Institute 17 TONYA SLOMO, Daher/TLI
- 18 RANDY STRADER, National Institute of Standards and 19 Technology 20 GERARD Van NOORDENNEN, EnergySolutions 21 PETER VESCOVI, TN Americas
- 22 23 24
- Present via telephone 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 C O N T E N T S 1
Page 2
Call to Order..................
4 3
Opening Remarks.................
6 4
Discussion of the Office of the Inspector 5
General Report
................. 12 6
Question and Answer............... 18 7
General Discussion
............... 29 8
Factors to Consider............... 30 9
Risks...................... 59 10 Implementation Nationally/Internationally.... 70 11 Implementation Challenges............ 84 12 Closing Remarks................. 95 13 Adjournment................... 98 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:34 p.m.
2 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Let's get started 3
then. So, if you could open up the lines. And I'll 4
start the intros.
5 Our moderator went through the process for 6
you on the line. We'll intermittently stop and make 7
sure anyone has any comments or questions, queue in 8
with the moderator. And then she'll know to let you 9
all in.
10 So welcome to our meeting. We do have a 11 court reporter. So I would ask that you identify 12 yourself and your organization for the record on the 13 transcript.
14 I have given him a list of the people I 15 knew were going to be here. So, he'll have the 16 correct spelling and what have you. But if you didn't 17 let me know, be sure and make sure we can get the 18 correct spelling for him.
19 And before we start, I need to inform you 20 of the security requirements. If you're not an NRC 21 employee, you have to be escorted, of course, off 22 whenever you want to leave this floor.
23 Just make sure an NRC employee is with 24 you. So, Bernie or I, depending on who's talking, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 there's a gentleman in the back that maybe willing.
1 And at the end of the meeting someone will 2
take you down so you can turn your badge into the 3
guards. And we will have a break. So we'll need to 4
escort you down for that.
5 The purpose of the meeting, we want to 6
discuss the expiration term of the certificates of 7
compliance for transportation packages. The plan is 8
for us to gain some insights from those affected, 9
members of the public.
10 And to develop a regulatory basis for the 11 expiration term. And I'll get into more discussion 12 when we talk about it. But this is related to an 13 Office of Inspector General audit.
14 For those, like I said, the slides are in 15 the back of the room. For those on the phone, they 16 are linked on the meeting notice. I know I've sent 17 them to a couple of people.
18 It's a category three meeting. So, this 19 is held with representatives and non-government 20 organizations, private citizens or interested parties, 21 various businesses or industries, to fully engage them 22 in a discussion of regulatory issues.
23 And we want to maximize the discussions 24 with the public to ensure that their issues and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 concerns and presented, understood, and considered by 1
the NRC.
2 If you haven't signed in on the sign in 3
sheet, I appreciate you doing that at some point 4
during the meeting. And then for those on the phone, 5
if you'd send me an email at Torre, T-O-R-R-E 6
.Taylor@NRC.gov. And then I can have a record of who 7
attended and at least a number of people as well.
8 We do like to inform people about our 9
safety culture policy statement. I do have a brochure 10 in the back.
11 We want to make sure we run the meeting 12 and establish and maintain a positive safety culture 13 so that everyone can speak freely, and professionally.
14 And be able to have their say.
15 Please turn off or mute your phones. And 16 restrooms are out the door to the left and the right.
17 You don't need an escort for that. But when we do 18 have a break, if you want to go downstairs to the 19 coffee kiosk or snack shop, we'll have to go down with 20 you.
21 I'll turn the meeting over to John now, 22 and he'll make some opening remarks.
23 MR. McKIRGAN: Great. Thank you Torre.
24 Thanks everybody who is on the line. And thanks to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 everyone who is here.
1 I do -- I appreciate very much you all 2
taking your time. I know we're all leading very busy 3
lives. And workload seems to be quite high. And 4
staffing seems to be quite tight.
5 And so I do appreciate you all taking the 6
time to help us out here. And I say that quite 7
specifically, because we do need your help.
8 We are going to talk about the term of --
9 the expiration term for these certificates of 10 compliance for the transportation packages.
11 We're going to need your input to help us 12 construct a meaningful basis for what that term should 13 be. I'll talk in just a minute about the genesis of 14 this activity which came from an Office of Inspector 15 General audit.
16 But principally we really need the input 17 of the impacted community. We sit here at the NRC and 18 we have this practice of issuing these terms for five 19 years.
20 And we really need to get the impacts from 21 you all to understand before we make any decisions, we 22 need to make sure we understand what the drivers are 23 and what the issues are. And so we'll be talking 24 about that a fair bit as we go forward.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 So the genesis for this initiative that 1
we're taking to kind of relook at this term really 2
comes from one of Office of Inspector General audits.
3 The OIG here at the NRC serves a very important role.
4 They are yet another kind of independent 5
check on our independent agency.
And they 6
periodically look at items across the spectrum of the 7
agency and makes sure we're following our processes or 8
looking for enhancements.
9 And it was just one of those audits that 10 came upon this -- the practice of issuing these 11 certificates for five years.
12 And it was in their independent look at 13 our activities that they came to realize that we had 14 not fully documented, or not well documented our 15 regulatory basis for this staff practice of five 16 years.
17 And they eloquently, and hopefully you all 18 have had a chance to look at the report, they point 19 out that absent that basis, there is no regulatory 20 clarity as to whether that term is appropriate.
21 Whether the term is too short, or too long, or just 22 right.
23 And so they rightly point back to the 24 staff that hey, you guys need to figure this out. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 document it. And communicate it. So, it was a very 1
well thought position.
2 Now, the OIG, they are auditors. They 3
look at our processes and practices. They did not do 4
an in-depth cost benefit analysis. That's certainly 5
not their role. That's certainly our role. And we 6
look for your input.
7 Many of you appreciate that the renewals 8
that we go through for transportation certificates, 9
it's not a very labor intensive activity. It's a 10 relatively simplified activity.
11 Many of the community here know that 12 international organizations do often re-review the 13 entire safety basis when they do renewals. That's not 14 been the practice here at the NRC.
15 We do have a very good safety record. The 16 industry has managed to transport millions of packages 17 every year with a very good safety record.
18 And we need to bear that in mind as we 19 think about this activity. And I'm sorry, I've gone 20 a little off script.
21 Torre has developed a wonderful set of 22 talking points for me. And I've just ad-libbed there 23 a little bit. So my apologies.
24 And we did -- I talked about the OIG, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 OIG audit. If you do look at that report, there were 1
actually a total of four recommendations.
2 Two of them had to do with our Part 72 3
activities. And some of the community here might have 4
both interests in Part 72 and Part 71. And you can 5
look at the OIG report. We're acting on all of those 6
recommendations of course.
7 Today we really want to focus on the Part 8
- 71. The purpose of our discussions is to get to a 9
basis for this term, this expiration term.
10 I'm going to stay off script for just a 11 moment. This is not transformational. The agency has 12 been talking a lot lately.
13 And there will be more to come about truly 14 transformational activities that the agency needs to 15 undertake to move into the next century. To be 16 adaptive to new technologies.
17 We do want to continue to take advantage 18 of incremental enhancements as we come to them. And 19 this maybe one.
20 But, I didn't want to give any false 21 impression that changing the term on compliance will 22 be a truly transformational item. But we do need to 23 continue to take advantage of opportunities to have 24 incremental efficiencies when we can find them. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 this maybe one.
1 With that I will turn it back over to 2
Torre, I think, if I'm correct. And Torre, you'll 3
forgive me if I pipe in every now and then, because 4
there are a few other things that I -- as I've 5
prepared for this, there's some thoughts that have 6
occurred to me that I want to make sure we get out.
7 And so you'll -- if you'll bear with me as 8
you go through your presentation, that would be 9
fabulous.
10 MS. TAYLOR: Sure.
11 MR. McKIRGAN: And so I'm going to pipe in 12 right now.
13 (Laughter) 14 MR. McKIRGAN: For those at the table, if 15 I could ask you, you have little mics in front of you.
16 And there's a little button that says push.
17 You push it once to turn it on. And you 18 push it again to turn it off.
19 UNKNOWN: Don't demonstrate the turning 20 off the mic.
21 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. It was a good 22 demonstration. And so I would ask that you leave it 23 off if you're not speaking.
24 But when you do speak, please turn it on.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 They're very good mics. And they will aid our 1
reporter to make sure we get all the comments down.
2 Because we desperately need your input. And so want 3
to thank you all for that.
4 And with that I'll turn it over.
5 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. That's a good point.
6 Make sure my mic's on.
7 So, at time we're just -- generally the 8
outline, we'll go through the OIG report and 9
recommendation at a high level and what our response 10 was, what process we're going to follow to develop the 11 appropriate expiration term and a regulatory basis of 12 that.
13 We'll have a general discussion with some 14 subtopics there. And Bernie will lead that. And I'll 15 go through the next steps in the schedule. You'll be 16 the contacts. And throughout we'll have time for 17 comments and questions and such.
18 So, what we're talking about is an OIG 19 audit back in August 2017. The number is OIG 17-A-21 20 for those on the phone that may not have the slides 21 up. And that's on the public website under the OIG 22 Office page.
23 The objective of the audit was to 24 determine if NRC's processes for issuing the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 certificates of compliance and then reviewing the 10 1
CFR part 72.48 changes provide adequate protection for 2
public health safety and the environment.
3 They found, OIG found that our processes 4
for issuing our certificates of compliance are 5
adequate. But they thought opportunities existed for 6
improvement within our internal processes.
7 And they determ -- they want us to 8
determine and provide the basis for an appropriate 9
term for Part 71 certificates of compliance for 10 transportation packages.
11 And then to establish sufficient controls 12 for the 72.48 reviews. I'll go into a little bit more 13 detail under our recommendation discussion.
14 So the recommendations, there were four of 15 them, as I said, conducting the analysis to develop 16 the regulatory and technical basis for the certificate 17 of compliance term for Part 71 packages documents.
18 And communicate to the stakeholders our 19 results in identifying the basis for an appropriate 20 term. The last two are handled by other staff.
21 But it's to establish sufficient internal 22 controls by updating our guidance related to Part 23 72.48 review procedures. And then to establish 24 sufficient internal controls by developing and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 implementing training for the review process for the 1
Part 72.48.
2 Our focus is going to be in recommendation 3
one. Recommendation two will follow that once we've 4
developed that basis.
5 So, as a background, I just got the 6
recommendation up there just so you can read it. But, 7
the background is that OIG noted that our regulations 8
are supposed to be clear and risk informed.
9 And they noted that our principals of good 10 regulation states that the regulation should be 11 coherent, logical, and practical. And there needs to 12 be a clear nexus between the regulations and the 13 agency goals and objectives.
14 And a risk informed approach ensures 15 regulatory burdens imposed by an individual regulation 16 or processes appropriate to its importance in 17 protecting public health and safety and the 18 environment.
19 So regarding the term for Part 71 20 certificates of compliance, the OIG found that we're 21 relying on an informal practice used by staff instead 22 of a formal determination.
23 The regulations in Section 71.38 say that 24 each certificate of compliance expires at the end of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 the day in the month and year stated on the approved 1
certificate. But Part 71 doesn't set a standard term 2
for the transportation certificate.
3 So the only reference that was found in 4
the audit is our internal guidance. But we didn't 5
have any justification for that term that they could 6
find.
7 So, they said without having the 8
regulatory and technical basis to justify the five-9 year term that we're imposing a requirement without 10 establishing the importance to safety or the 11 regulatory burden.
12 And since we don't have the basis to 13 support that, it's not clear what the appropriate term 14 should actually be. And they questioned if it should 15 be shorter then five years, we could potentially be 16 risking public health and safety not having it 17 shorter.
18 But they said it could be longer. Because 19 maybe we're imposing a regulatory administrative 20 burden on both parties, staff and the certificate 21 compliance holders and vendors.
22 And so they want us to develop this 23 regulatory basis. And this is part of the first steps 24 with that.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 So we are looking for your thoughts about 1
what the appropriate term should be and why. And 2
we'll discuss that in more detail during the general 3
discussion.
4 So, our response back to the OIG was that 5
we would consult with the Department of 6
Transportation. Because they work closely on all this 7
with us as well.
8 And we'll conduct a technical regulatory 9
analysis. And we also committed to considering risk 10 insights from existing studies that have been 11 performed on transportation risks of spent fuel.
12 And that we would solicit stakeholder 13 input. Which is what this meeting is for.
14 So, this is the formal response. Again, 15 we've been through that first bullet already about 16 developing a basis to establish an appropriate term.
17 And we will document the results that will 18 be publically available. And then we'll communicate 19 the results to the stakeholders.
20 So, it will be on our public website. And 21 we'll obviously communicate directly to stakeholders 22 and look at presenting at the Regulatory Conference, 23 the Spent Fuel Regulatory Conference. I guess you all 24 know what it as Reg Con.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 And I've listed the existing studies. For 1
reference they're in the slides. I have ML Numbers 2
for this one, 0170. It's not on the public website, 3
but it is publically available.
4 This is a final environmental statement on 5
the transportation of radioactive material by air and 6
other modes. And this was done back in 1977.
7 And again, if anyone would like me to send 8
a link to these risk studies, I can. They're all 9
publically available. And it might be easier then 10 going into ADAMS 11 The next study was a study by Fisher, et 12 al. And this was shipping container response to 13 severe highway and railway accident conditions. This 14 was back in '87.
15 This one can be found on the website. If 16 you just go to the NRC library tab and document 17 collections and the NUREG series. This will be under 18 the NRC contractor section. And they're listed in 19 number order.
20 And then the remaining two, we have 21 NUREG/CR-6672, which we examined. Spent fuel shipment 22 risk estimates. This was done in 2000.
23 And then we have NUREG-2125, which was 24 another
- study, spent fuel transportation risk 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 assessment. That was done in January 2014.
1 And again, these are under the document 2
collections and under the NUREG series. Anything with 3
a CR is under the contractor. And any -- well NUREG-4 2125 is under the NRC staff. They're the ones that 5
fell with that.
6 So as we've discussed, we're going to have 7
this process to develop an appropriate expiration term 8
and a regulatory basis for it. So we have consulted 9
with DOT.
10 We're having this meeting to consult with 11 stakeholders. We'll use the information from the risk 12 studies. And then we'll develop this basis and go 13 from there.
14 And we'll next go into general discussion.
15 But I'd like to see if there's anyone on the phone 16 that has any comments or questions. If you could open 17 the line?
18 OPERATOR: And if you would like to ask a 19 question or make a comment, please press star one and 20 record your name and organization at the prompt.
21 Again, press star one to ask a question or 22 make a comment. Please be sure that your line is 23 unmuted, and record your name and organization, or 24 indicate if you are a member of the public at the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 prompt.
1 One moment.
Timothy Lloyd with 2
Westinghouse Electric, your line is open.
3 MR. LLOYD: Hi, this is very brief. But 4
Torre, I would certainly love to get the list of 5
references that you're talking about.
6 And if there's a shortened, you know, set 7
of links to get to the things that would be great too.
8 MS. TAYLOR: A link to which one?
9 MR. LLOYD: Well, I mean, you had 10 mentioned the NUREG document.
11 MS. TAYLOR: Right.
12 MR. LLOYD: Which I can find. But also 13 the other OIG documents.
14 MS. TAYLOR: Oh, the OIG document. Okay.
15 MR. LLOYD: Yeah. Thank you.
16 MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, I didn't get your 17 name.
18 MR. LLOYD: It's Timothy Lloyd. I'm with 19 Westinghouse Electric. Okay. Tim Lloyd.
20 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. And do you want to --
21 what's the best way to --
22 MR. LLOYD: I've sent you an email 23 already.
24 MS. TAYLOR: Oh, okay. Have your email.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 Okay.
1 MR. LLOYD: Yeah.
2 MS. TAYLOR: I'll do that.
3 MR. LLOYD: Thanks.
4 OPERATOR: Next we have Randy Strader with 5
NIST. Your line is open.
6 MR. STRADER: Yes. Hey Torre, this is 7
Randy. I'm in the lobby if you guys -- if somebody 8
could come get me.
9 (Laughter) 10 MS. TAYLOR: Oh my goodness. Okay.
11 MR. McKIRGAN: I'll go get him.
12 MS. TAYLOR: You'll go get him? Okay.
13 (Laughter) 14 MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. They were supposed to 15 call the backup person to come get people that came a 16 little bit later. Thank you for calling in.
17 MR. STRADER: All right.
18 MS. TAYLOR: Oh my goodness. Poor guy.
19 OPERATOR: Okay. There are no other 20 participants in the queue at this time.
21 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
22 MR. WHITE: Go ahead, Janet.
23 MS. TAYLOR: Oh, Janet, sorry.
24 MS. SCHLUETER: Yeah. Janet Schlueter 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 from NEI. This might become more obvious as we talk 1
this through.
2 But a couple of your slides of course 3
discuss the process that you'll use to develop the 4
draft reg basis and tech basis. And it will be 5
discussed at Reg Con.
6 But what I'm not seeing is that is there 7
actually a public comment period associated with the 8
draft versions of those documents?
9 MS. TAYLOR: No. We're taking the 10 comments from this meeting and considering them in the 11 development. And so we're not going to be going out 12 with an FRN for public comment.
13 And that's my understanding of that.
14 MR. WHITE: That's my understanding as 15 well. But we will be -- I'm sorry, this is Bernie 16 White, NRC.
17 We will be taking comments. If you think 18 of something tomorrow, next week, next month, email 19 Torre or I and we'll make sure it gets considered.
20 MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. I was going to -- I 21 have that at the end where if you wanted to submit 22 comments, we could take them.
23 MS. SCHLUETER: Right. Well, we 24 appreciate this opportunity certainly. But, you know, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 I don't -- speaking just for myself maybe, I don't 1
think I can make real informed comments other then 2
some general ones that others will probably be chiming 3
in with until I see what the regulator has on paper 4
with regard to a draft technical or regulatory basis.
5 In other words, we're not going to know 6
exactly what information you've compiled and 7
considered to get to that point. So I was just trying 8
to figure out from a process perspective, do 9
stakeholders have another opportunity as you go 10 through this to provide input on those draft 11 documents.
12 Maybe you call can quick think that.
13 MR. McKIRGAN: I'm sorry. Was there a 14 question?
15 MS. SCHLUETER: Do you want me to repeat 16 it?
17 MR. McKIRGAN: My apologies' Janet. If 18 you could.
19 MS. SCHLUETER: Okay. Well, sorry.
20 MR. McKIRGAN: I just -- if you could.
21 MS. SCHLUETER: Just looking at the slide 22 and looking at the process for development of the 23 draft regulatory basis and technical basis, I see 24 where it will be discussed at Reg Con this fall.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 MR. McKIRGAN: Yes.
1 MS. SCHLUETER: But, during the process of 2
developing it, do you anticipate providing a public 3
comment period as you move through the development of 4
those technical and regulatory basis?
5 Because after all, it will be the basis 6
for your decision of the terms.
7 MR. McKIRGAN: Yeah. So, it is not 8
currently the plan to put that out for public comment.
9 And let me take a comment to explain why.
10 We are trying to develop a basis. This is 11 not a rule making as -- and I think many of our 12 stakeholders appreciate that.
13 The actual, the term itself is not 14 required in the reg. The regulations require that 15 there be a term. But it doesn't establish what the 16 term should be.
17 It has been a staff practice for the five 18 years we -- and I think we'll talk more about how 19 broadly held that practice is.
20 And so I'm still trying to get some 21 calibration at today's meeting to figure out the 22 significance of this action. And then we will use 23 that significance to determine the extent of the 24 document that we will be preparing.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 And the document could have been as simple 1
as a note to file. Could technically have satisfied 2
the OIG basis.
3 This is not a full-blown rule making. If 4
it were an SRP input, certainly an ISG would warrant 5
public or stakeholder interaction.
6 And so I'm still trying to get my arms 7
around the scope and nature, the extent of the 8
document before we decide. I think if it does become 9
a more voluminous document or one that we think would 10 benefit from a public comment period, we will 11 certainly do that. We're not prohibited.
12 I personally am mindful, and I think many 13 of our stakeholders are mindful of all of these 14 activities cost time and money. And I wanted to right 15 size the effort.
16 You all appreciate, when we put documents 17 out for public comment, it requires staff time, it 18 requires industry time. And I want to make sure that 19 time is commensurate with the benefit that we would 20 achieve.
21 So, we would almost ask for your feedback 22 on that principal by itself. But that's really where 23 we are.
24 So we have not planned for a formal public 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 comment period is the short answer to that question.
1 Sorry I belabored it so much.
2 MR. McCULLUM: This is Rob McCullum, NEI.
3 We've recently gone through an exercise where NRC 4
provided a draft regulatory basis for comment on the 5
decommissioning rule that's in process.
6 That was an extra step they took. And we 7
felt it was a very valuable step. We gained a lot of 8
insight from that.
9 We commented extensively. And we see in 10 the responses and what, you know, staff says 11 publically to date that there's been, you know, good 12 reflection on those comments.
13 In this case, and I was thinking, you 14 know, about what you said at the beginning, John, 15 that, you know, every five years you're not doing an 16 extremely extensive review. And the reason for that 17 is, is because you're not seeing a lot between five 18 years.
19 I mean, the notion it could be shorter or 20 it could be longer goes to, well, if it needs to be 21 shorter, we'd probably be seeing some problems. And 22 we're not. Because there's an extensive experience 23 basis.
24 And that's really my point here. Is that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 the basis for anything you do here would have to be 1
rooted in operating experience.
2 And I think you can see where I'm leading.
3 And I know the discussion will get here later.
4 We're kind of thinking we haven't reviewed 5
the operating experience our self in great depth yet.
6 We just found out about this meeting a few weeks ago.
7 So, we would tend to think that the 8
operating experience would point you towards the 9
longer term. You were just not seeing it. We're just 10 not seeing things.
11 And we've got a lot of operating 12 experience out there. But, the reason I think the 13 public comment is, granted the decommissioning thing 14 is a rule making.
15 This isn't necessarily a rule making, is 16 you see sitting around the table and on the phone 17 here, the people who actually have the operating 18 experience.
19 So, if you're going to make a
20 determination of term based on operating experience, 21 I think giving an opportunity to somehow get input 22 from, whether it's putting a draft regulatory basis 23 out for comment or whatever. And when you look at a 24 time frame, it goes to Reg Con that's in the fall, I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 think you can do this without extending your time 1
frame.
2 But I really think you should be making 3
this determination based on what the operating 4
experience is telling you. And in doing that you 5
should somehow interact with the people who have the 6
operating experience.
7 So, we would appreciate you know, how you 8
structure that through the most efficient means 9
possible. I think everybody would appreciate that.
10 But, we'd like to participate in that, is 11 what I'm saying.
12 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you Rod. I think I 13 resonate with much of what you said. I think that is 14 good.
15 I will commit to interacting further with 16 the stakeholder community as we move forward. And 17 certainly I think you've made a lot of good points 18 about putting the document out for public comment.
19 So, I do appreciate that input. So, Torre 20 if you could help keep me honest and make sure we 21 reflect on that and then engage back with how we want 22 to proceed there.
23 And there is probably a very expedited way 24 we -- that we could put a document out for comment.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 Now, and so Rod not to put you back on the spot, but 1
I will, then we would probably want -- and hopefully 2
if the document is of a reasonable size, then we might 3
want to keep the comment period of a reasonable size.
4 And I think if we communicate clearly, 5
early and often as to when it's coming that would 6
enable all the stakeholders to turn too, if you will, 7
fairly quickly to get comments. So that we have 8
those.
9 MR. McCULLUM: If we know it is coming and 10 the period it's coming is not a comment period that's 11 45 days that includes Thanksgiving, Christmas, New 12 Years and Boxing Day, not that you'd ever do that.
13 (Laughter) 14 MR. McCULLUM: But, yeah. If we knew when 15 it was coming and the comment period included a fair 16 number of working days, we would welcome a short 17 comment period.
18 I think these people here are already 19 thinking about their operating experience. And they 20
-- I think they've had an idea where it might point to 21 them.
22 So, yeah knowing the period, knowing when 23 it's going to be would be -- I think that would be 24 great.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 MR. McKIRGAN: Great, thank you. Thank 1
you. Where were we?
2 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Okay, so next we'll go 3
to the general discussion. We're going to talk about 4
several different topics.
5 What factors should we consider. How we 6
should factor in risk. And looking at domestic and 7
international impacts. As well as just implementation 8
challenges to the change in the expiration term.
9 So, we'll go through the different sides.
10 And Bernie will lead this discussion. And I guess at 11 each subsection we'll break to see if anyone on the 12 phone has a comment or questions.
13 MR. WHITE: Yeah.
14 MS. TAYLOR: Okay.
15 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thanks Torre. We agree 16 with you Rod, that the people we need to be hearing 17 for are the people with the operating experience.
18 And that's why we're here. We have zero 19 operating experience when it comes to packages.
20 So, one of the big things you had 21 mentioned Rod, is that, you know, this stuff is, you 22 know, transportation is done safely. Radioactive 23 materials and transport is done safely.
24 And it's because the fact of the way it's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 regulated and used, you know, regulated by us, used by 1
you all, in a safe manner. We look at design reviews.
2 We issue the certificates.
3 Fabrication, you guys to accept this 4
testing to make sure that it meets the design.
5 Maintenance, operating procedures, you know, you're 6
making sure the package is in good condition each time 7
it's used in accordance with our requirements.
8 And so all of those roll into, you know, 9
safe shipments over the last 50, 60 years. And in 10 looking at how we were thinking about this.
11 So, you know, we thought about what 12 factors should we consider? So we thought, what we're 13 thinking is stability to the regulatory environment.
14 We've been using very similar big picture 15 regulations. You think about how it's tested, normal 16 conditions of transport, hypothetical accident 17 conditions.
18 The testing criteria, been in place for 19 the last 35, 40 years. A lot longer then I've been 20 here. Institutional stability, you know with both us 21 and the people doing the operating.
22 You know, it seems like year after year 23 after year, a decade, you know, we're talking to the 24 same people out there. Not exactly always. But very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 similar. And then there's a lot of good turnover on 1
your side of the sheet.
2 Technological stability. I think we've 3
improved how we do analysis from say when NUREG 0170 4
was done in 1977. You know, looking at computing 5
capabilities then to what they are now, and I think, 6
you know, the improvement has helped how we regulate 7
and how you guys actually use the packages.
8 So then there's the other, the other 9
things that we haven't thought of because we're not 10 the ones using the packages. And that's where, you 11 know, you guys come in and tell us what are we 12 missing? What else needs to be included in each of 13 these items?
14 You know, briefly and I'm going to talk a 15 little bit more about the risk studies later. But, 16 probably in the next slide actually, or next, next 17 slide.
18 But NUREG 0170, you know, basically laid 19 out kind of, I'll use -- people on the phone can't see 20 me using the air quotes around the work risk of 21 transportation. And they found that it was low. That 22 it was very low.
23 We did subsequent studies to the risk. We 24 did the modal study, which was the Fischer study that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 she talked about.
We did NUREG
- 6672, the 1
reexamination that was for spent fuel. We looked at 2
the spent fuel risk assessment.
3 So about every 10 or 15 years we're 4
relooking at how we -- at the risk basis that we 5
establish in NUREG 0170. And each of those studies 6
has indicated that the risk basis that we established 7
in NUREG 0170 is low. And if -- and probably very 8
conservative in some areas.
9 So now is the point at which we open up 10 the, you know, the flood gates for comments, right.
11 So really, so the question is now, kind of given these 12 big picture factors, what do you see out there as the 13 others, or something we missed or didn't talk about in 14 the regulatory environment?
15 MR. McKIRGAN: And so thank you. This is 16 John McKirgan again for those on the phone. You'll 17 probably come to recognize my voice.
18 And so I think everybody in the room and 19 everybody on the phone recognizes that the primary 20 driver here has to be safety. And we do have a very 21 safe condition.
22 We have a stable condition with respect to 23 transportation of these materials. And the primary 24 goal is to maintain that. That's first and foremost.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 And as we think about different factors 1
that would weigh in, I think that has to be the 2
overarching theme that we start with. Is how would 3
that factor adjust the term? And how would that 4
relate to safety?
5 And there are some factors that might 6
detract from safety. And we need to be mindful of 7
those factors. And there's some factors that might 8
enhance safety.
9 And there are some factors that might be 10 safety neutral, but still be relevant because they 11 have business implications or afford flexibility. And 12 so we need to be mindful of all of those.
13 But I just wanted to make sure I got that 14 safety driver out first. Because that will be, of all 15 the factors, factors that influence safety are going 16 to have the highest weighting factor in our overall 17 assessment.
18 And so I'd ask that as we think about this 19 and reflect on that, it's that nexus to safety that 20 has to be the first driver. And so I'll pause at that 21 moment and let others start to chime in.
22 And Torre, I see you've got one person 23 queued up already. But maybe you can help lead us 24 through and get some good input.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah, Rod McCullum, NEI.
1 I don't want to -- I just spoke so, if I jumped in 2
front of somebody I apologize.
3 But, I absolutely agree safety should be 4
the primary driver. And we need to look at the 5
experience we have assuring safety and transportation.
6 One thing that isn't up there though is 7
cost. And you know, there are cost benefit analysis 8
that are applied to safety.
9 You do not want to spend an infinite 10 amount of money to achieve a minuscule safety benefit.
11 So, and the reason for that is really quite simple.
12 If you are devoting your safety resources 13 to things that aren't important to safety, that means 14 you're not devoting them to things that are important 15 to safety. Both the NRC and industry are looking at 16 limited resources here.
17 So, I would not say that cost by itself 18 should be on this list, because I wouldn't want to 19 lose that nexus of safety. But I would absolutely say 20 cost benefit should be on this list.
21 And if it did become a longer term, and 22 you lowered the cost, then you're thinking about well, 23 okay now, what does that freed up my resources to 24 provide additional benefits for safety?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 MR. McKIRGAN: Rod, thank you actually.
1 And so that's a great comment, that cost benefit.
2 Because that touches on another area of input that the 3
staff would likely seek from the stakeholders.
4 I know what it costs us to do a renewal 5
every five years on those terms. But I do not know 6
what it costs industry to do that.
7 And so that would be a very relevant and 8
useful information as we think about that. Cost 9
estimates are very difficult.
10 The agency has had challenges in the past 11 in developing accurate cost estimates for some of our 12 activities. And we need to reflect on that.
13 And that's where the stakeholder community 14 could really benefit this activity by providing that 15 kind of information.
16 Torre, so take us to another commentor.
17 MS. TAYLOR: Anyone else?
18 MS. SCHLUETER: Well just -- yeah, Janet 19 from NEI. I mean, I figured you might get there in 20 your logic flow.
21 But the cost issue is exactly one of the 22 reasons why I think maybe you'll find a way to provide 23 some visibility and comment opportunity for 24 stakeholders.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Anyone else in the 1
room?
2 (No response) 3 MS. TAYLOR: No? You want to check on the 4
phone to see if there's anyone there with a comment?
5 OPERATOR: If you would like to ask a 6
question or make a comment on the phone, please press 7
star one and record your name and organization at the 8
prompt. One moment.
9 We've got Scott Murray from GE Hitachi.
10 Your line is open.
11 MR. MURRAY: Okay. Hi John. This is 12 Scott Murray. I have to come back to, I guess, a 13 previous commentor.
14 I too have many years of operating 15 experiences with certificates of compliance. Probably 16 decades between GE Hitachi and Global Nuclear Fuel, we 17 are the certificate holder of three separate 18 certificates, package certificates.
19 And I could comment that, you know, we're 20 involved heavily with renewals and the DOT re-21 validation from foreign competent authority 22 certificates on a variety of package certificate 23 holders.
24 So, we're heavily involved in this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 process. I've been involved, like I said, for many 1
years.
2 Two observations I would make. If the 3
term from five years is changed, either shorter or 4
longer, there are at least a couple of what I would 5
call unintended consequences should be considered.
6 The first is the international community 7
to the best of my knowledge, does use a five-year 8
term. And because we do validations and use those 9
packages for import and export into the U.S., if we do 10 change the term from something different then five 11 years, and the international community does not, it 12 creates kind of a conundrum.
13 Because we've disconnected the term from 14 the foreign competent authorities if there's also an 15 NRC endorsement. And it becomes very confusing and 16 difficult for us to maintain the current status if 17 there are two separate terms that we're involved for 18 the same package.
19 The second unintended consequence I would 20 mention is extending the term. I mean, I love 21 efficiencies and I love having longer terms for 22 licenses in a variety of other things.
23 But extending the term for a package 24 certificate say beyond eight or ten years, I'll just 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 throw those two numbers out, also significantly 1
increases potentially the burden and difficulty on the 2
certificate holder. And for that matter, the NRC 3
staff, for renewals.
4 And by that what I mean, the information 5
in a safety analysis report for our packages anyway, 6
is very large. They are five to six hundred page 7
documents.
8 And if the term increases and there is 9
updates or changes, it's a significant amount of work 10 to bring that document to current. And then what we 11 find, most of our technical staffs are very different 12 after a ten-year period.
13 So oftentimes we have to kind of re-14 validate and reconfirm the information. And 15 oftentimes NRC staff has to re-validate and reconfirm.
16 It's just one of those things that happens 17 when people leave and the continuity is no longer 18 there.
19 That's the end of my comments. Thank you.
20 MR. McKIRGAN: Scott -- I'm sorry, Scott.
21 If you could stay on the line for just a second.
22 Because this is a Category Three meeting. So it's a 23 free exchange.
24 And I -- you said something that really 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 hadn't occurred to me. And I wanted to make sure I 1
understood it correctly.
2 It was, should I interpret that second 3
comment that if the term gets too long, the costs can 4
go up? Did I understand you correctly there?
5 MR. MURRAY: Very much so. I was involved 6
recently with a package that we had that the 7
certificate of compliance actually had expired.
8 We were in timely renewal. It took us 9
several years to consolidate the SAR and to get it 10 approved. And it was a very expensive process.
11 We spent well over a million dollars 12 getting that package re-validated.
13 MR. McKIRGAN: So thank you for that.
14 That's something that would not have occurred to me.
15 And so, you know, I'm a scientist and 16 engineer, many of us might be. And so I'm trying to 17 graft this in my head.
18 And it sounds like there might be a sweet 19 spot somewhere in cost benefit space as to where an 20 appropriate term might fall out. And quite frankly, 21 it just hadn't occurred to me that cost would go up as 22 that term got too long.
23 So, thank you very much for that comment.
24 MR. MURRAY: Sure.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 MR. McCULLUM: John, yeah on the first 1
part of Scott's comment, and I would invite, if it's 2
appropriate for a Category Three meeting, I would 3
invite Scott to answer on this if he could.
4 I would think that if you were going to 5
extend the period, and you weren't going to force the 6
internationals to change their practices. Lots of 7
luck with that.
8 That you might want to consider multiples 9
of five years so that you wouldn't be, you know, in 10 renewal in off -- you could see a scenario if you were 11 at seven and a quarter years or something where you'd 12 almost always be working on a renewal somewhere.
13 So I would be very sensitive to Scott's 14 concern. And I think that the extension might look at 15 the -- at multiples of five years then.
16 MR. McKIRGAN: No, thank you. Thank you, 17 Rod. I think that's a good thought to offer.
18 I want to be careful about how finely we 19 can tune that parameter. I don't know that our 20 assessment will be sophisticated enough to resolve it 21 down to the months.
22 I think in some number of years would be 23 appropriate. And five might be that.
24 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah. I don't know. A 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 hypothetical, even if it was six, you'd have a, you 1
know, years that only matched up every like, you know, 2
30 years. So, --
3 MR. McKIRGAN: Yeah. Yeah.
4 MS. TAYLOR: Did you have a counter 5
response to that? Scott?
6 MR. McKIRGAN: Scott's gone. Do you want 7
to see if there are any other comments on the line?
8 MR. WHITE: Yeah.
9 MS. TAYLOR: Oh, he's off. Okay. Are 10 there any other comments on the line?
11 OPERATOR: Next we have Peter Vescovi from 12 TN Americas. Your line is open.
13 MR. VESCOVI: Yeah. I just wanted to 14 comment on the relationship between the industry 15 standards and the renewal period.
16 I think that one of the things that ought 17 to be considered is how often are the standards, the 18 ANSI standards, the ASME standards, how often are 19 those reviewed and subject to change?
20 And I think that relates also to the 21 safety. I mean, normally these standards, or 22 sometimes these standards will change and have some 23 sort of safety intent or implication.
24 So, I would just request that you look at 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 the different standards and things that we cite in our 1
applications. And maybe look at the frequency of 2
which those are revised when you consider the new 3
whole term.
4 MS. TAYLOR: Thank you for that. Okay.
5 OPERATOR: There are no other participants 6
in the queue at this time.
7 MS. TAYLOR: No one else? Okay. So, 8
anyone else in the room? Yeah?
9 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Hello, it's -- my 10 name is Gerry Van Noordennen. And I'm from 11 EnergySolutions.
12 And a little bit about EnergySolutions, 13 we're the largest supplier of Type B casks in the U.S.
14 Richly supply, support every nuclear plant in the 15 country.
16 One of the -- we also have a lot of 17 involvement, our casks are used extensively with DOE, 18 Department of Defense and they're also used in Canada.
19 And we have certificates there with the Canadian 20 Nuclear Safety Commission. And also some European 21 countries.
22 One of the comments that was just made by 23 TN, I agree that we should look at the frequency of 24 updates on ANSI standards or International Atomic 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 Energy standards, which would also be considered by 1
the NRC in doing a major update to the standards. I 2
think the last one was like DASH-96.
3 And if you look at that frequency, which 4
is maybe roughly every ten years standards get 5
updated, that might be a good regulatory basis to look 6
at for renewal terms. And so that's why I would say, 7
you know, ten years maybe makes more sense if you look 8
at that as a tenable basis.
9 And then the other comment on cost, cost 10 benefits, one of the charts that was in the OIG report 11 showed about a third of the NRC resources is devoted 12 to renewals. And that's kind of reflected too on our 13 end.
14 That you know, we spend significant 15 resources doing renewals. And if -- that's keeping 16 the status quo. So, if a third seems like a lot of 17 time spent on keeping the status quo.
18 It seemed like if we went to ten years, 19 that would, you know, enable you, the NRC and the 20 users to be more efficient.
21 And a final comment is even though it's 22 not stated, but other agencies look to the NRC as the 23 lead federal agency in this area. And so if the NRC 24 switched to ten, I would assume that the DOT and DOE 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 would also seriously consider switching to ten. As 1
well as some of the other international agencies.
2 So, just keep that in mind. Thank you.
3 MS. TAYLOR: Thank you.
4 MR. McKIRGAN: So, thank you for that. I 5
did want to make sure I understood the comment with 6
respect to the OIG table on resources.
7 And I'm wondering if that might have been 8
slightly misinterpreted? And Gerry, maybe we can talk 9
offline.
10 Because I don't think the resources, and 11 I'm very attuned to resources and budgets and staffing 12 levels. I don't think that chart should be 13 interpreted to say that the staff is spending a third 14 of its resources on renewals.
15 And maybe I'll have to go back and look at 16 how it is. Because I can share with you all that the 17 resource burden on the staff's part for renewals is 18 relatively slight.
19 It's a very straightforward review. And 20 I do -- I contrast it with some of our international 21 regulators who do do a very comprehensive rereview.
22 Ours is not that. We believe we have good 23 oversight and other mechanisms that enable us for a 24 very streamlined renewal.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 And so maybe I'll have to take another 1
look at that report myself to make sure I've captured 2
it right. But, I do agree with all of your comments, 3
Gerry. So thank you. Thank you very much for that.
4 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Okay. Thanks.
5 MR. STRADER: So that was the question I 6
was going to ask. Oh, sorry, Randy Strader, NIST.
7 The question I was going to ask, because 8
I think I'm looking at the same chart that he was 9
talking about. Was how much of the res -- how much 10 resources do you guys spend on amendments versus 11 renewals versus a new?
12 Because it shows here 62 percent over the 13 past four and a half years is amendments that you guys 14 have gone through. And I'm sure that's a pretty quick 15 renewal for review process.
16 MR. McKIRGAN: And so thank you for that.
17 Could you tell me what page you're on? I'm not --
18 MR. STRADER: I'm on page two.
19 MR. McKIRGAN: Page two.
20 MR. STRADER: Yes.
21 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. Thank you. And 22 so for those on the phone. And so I believe this is 23 in number of cases.
24 MR. STRADER: Right.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 MR. McKIRGAN: And which I differentiate 1
from staff hours for example. So, this isn't a 2
resource, this is just an accounting. And so help me 3
4 MR. STRADER: So which one of these are 5
more intensive as far as resources?
6 MR. McKIRGAN: So that I can provide some 7
additional insights. And, I'm sorry, it's a shameless 8
plug for our website.
9 We recently went through an activity where 10 we did try to provide our estimates for most of the 11 very common activities, amendments and renewals. It's 12 on the website.
13 And it's not perfect information. These 14 are estimates. But it is -- it's useful. And it very 15 much speaks to this issue.
16 So renewals is a relatively -- I'm also 17 another shameless plug for high quality applications.
18 I'll never miss an opportunity to emphasize the need 19 for high quality submittals.
20 But a good high quality renewal can be 21 done in 10 to 20 staff hours. It can be a relatively 22 straightforward activity.
23 Amendments vary based on the complexity of 24 the change. And that can be anywhere from 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 thousands of hours depending on the nature and 1
complexity of the change.
2 A new package also. There the driver is 3
on the quality and comprehensiveness of the 4
application. But certainly a new package would be, 5
you know, five hundred hours would not be uncommon.
6 And I have a review here in the room who 7
will correct me if he thinks I'm mischaracterizing 8
that.
9 MS. WHITE: Well, I think it depends upon 10 the case for a new case. You know, we have packages, 11 everything from radiography cameras to spent fuel 12 packages.
13 So I don't think we get a spent fuel 14 package and review and it took five hundred hours.
15 But, some of the smaller cases, absolutely.
16 I think that's probably about an average.
17 So, you know, if you've got a relatively simple 18 package, don't think it's going to cost five, six 19 hundred hours just for something.
20 But it really depends upon the change and 21 the complexity of your package.
22 MR. STRADER: So, would you say in this 23 case, if you're looking at this pie chart here, right?
24 Because if you do an amendment, right, it restarts 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 your clock five years after the amendment, right?
1 Is that correct?
2 MR. McKIRGAN: Not for transportation.
3 MS. WHITE: For the term?
4 MR. STRADER: Yes.
5 MS. WHITE: No. The term is five years.
6 And if you get an amendment, we issue the amendment 7
and the term is still -- the expiration date is still 8
the expiration date.
9 MR. STRADER: It's still with the 10 amendment.
11 MR. WHITE: Absolutely. We don't notch it 12 up five years every amendment.
13 MR. STRADER: Okay.
14 MR. WHITE: Typically.
15 MR. McKIRGAN: And if I could, this is 16 John McKirgan again. Bernie touched on an important 17 point that I'd like to reemphasize. And that has to 18 do with the breadth of the packages that are covered 19 under Part 71.
20 And so as Bernie mentioned, you've got a 21 broad spectrum of packages to which this same standard 22 applies. And as we go through this exercise, we need 23 to be mindful of that.
24 And it likens back to some of the criteria 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 that we were talking about with respect to 1
technological stability. For example, in spent fuel 2
storage, these are large packages.
3 And you don't see technological 4
obsolescence very often in spent fuel. New materials 5
do come, which can enhance safety. And that is a 6
factor. New joining techniques or new fabrication 7
techniques can come. And that can be a factor.
8 The other thing I will reemphasize to 9
everyone, it goes back to regulatory stability, we do 10 not change our safety standard as these new 11 technologies come to bear. We have a defined safety 12 standard that the regulations are promulgating.
13 And we need to be mindful that we are not 14 changing that standard as we bring about new 15 technologies that can enhance safety.
16 Torre, I'll turn it back to you.
17 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Any more discussions 18 on the factors that we should consider?
19 MR. STRADER: I'm sorry.
20 MR. McKIRGAN: Please.
21 MR. STRADER: So, I mean, really looking 22 at this, you're looking at the renewals as being the 23 factor. Because amendments you're not going to get 24 rid of right?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 MR. McKIRGAN: No.
1 MR. STRADER: Those are always going to 2
interfere.
3 MR. McKIRGAN: Right.
4 MR. STRADER: And then the new ones you're 5
not going to get rid of. Those are always going to be 6
here. You're always going to have new ones.
7 So, if the renewals, it's a very little in 8
comparison to everything else.
9 MR. McKIRGAN: Um-hum. Um-hum.
10 MR. STRADER: Very little as far as 11 resources on you guys' end of it. It's more of our --
12 well, we need the renewals that it would be an impact.
13 MR. McKIRGAN: Yes. And that is a piece 14 of the -- an important piece of the puzzle that we 15 actually don't have a good data on.
16 Is what is it costing industry to develop 17 these renewal packages? So that would be valuable 18 information.
19 MS. WHITE: So if you think about though, 20 you know, the certificates we have. We have about 90 21 some certificates.
22 So if we say 90, it's sort of because it's 23 easily divisible by five. In five years we get about, 24 what 15 renewals a year or something. Not even.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 Nineteen renewals a year.
1 So, it is a small number of cases in 2
comparison. But, not inconsequential.
3 MR. McKIRGAN: So, let's keep going.
4 MS. WHITE: Any further comments? Any 5
comments from the phone?
6 MR. MATHUES: Yeah. This is Glen Mathues, 7
TN Americas. And I noticed a couple of slides down 8
Bernie, I know we've talked a lot off line earlier on 9
about things to address.
10 And I think you've got some of it. Peter 11 Vescovi who I work with extensively, and I work 12 together on talking about this.
13 And one of the things that I did not 14 mention to Peter and I thought about is, what's some 15 of the international competent authorities, do they --
16 what kind of checklist do they have?
17 Because some of them are -- as we know, 18 with one of our certificates that's used 19 internationally, quite a few countries are taking 20 upwards of a year to completely review the whole 21 package.
22 Are there some indicators or some things 23 that they're reviewing that, you know, if you change 24 the time frame, and as we look at safety, safety being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 number one, is there something that they're looking at 1
something that maybe you should look at that you may 2
not have considered?
3 Not that you have not in any way, shape, 4
or form. Because the regulations to an extent already 5
have that, i.e., the 7195 report as an example.
6 That's my comment.
7 MS. WHITE: Thanks Glenn. I don't know 8
that we can comment on what international regulators 9
are doing, because honestly, we don't interact with 10 them very often.
11 I know my colleague Dave Pstrak goes, you 12 know, is involved with Mike in trends. But that's a 13 little different venue, and a little different purpose 14 over there.
15 I don't know if you have any insights 16 Mike?
17 MR. CONROY: Not in particular. This is 18 Mike Conroy at the DOT, Department of Transportation 19 PHMSA.
20 But Glenn is correct. We do see other 21 competent authorities following different practices.
22 And some of those have changed over time as well.
23 So, I don't know if -- and I think you're 24 dealing just with some of the major competent 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 authorities. There's a lot that simply are re-1 validating what come from the major players.
2 So, it's -- there's a mixed bag of things 3
there.
4 MS. WHITE: Okay.
5 MR. CONROY: But as long as I have the 6
microphone, --
7 MR. WHITE: Please.
8 MR. CONROY: I did want to follow up on 9
the discussion about amendments versus renewals.
10 And that's one factor I think to think 11 about in terms of looking at the regulatory basis, is 12 if you change the certificate expiration period, what 13 impact is that going to have in terms of what you're 14 going to see coming in for your action?
15 I took a look back at my data over the 16 certificates that I've looked at that we've done 17 competent authority certificates on top of NRC 18 certificates over the past 12, 13 years that I had 19 data easily available for.
20 And the average time period between 21 applications that we saw comes out to two and a half 22 years per certificate. So, that says on average, 23 we're seeing an amendment request at the half way 24 point of, if you will, of an expiration period.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 So, you know, again whether the clock 1
resets or not, there is a separate question. But, if 2
you just say well, I'm going to extend from five years 3
to ten years, if they're still coming in every two and 4
a half years, I'm not sure how much difference you're 5
going to see in workload given that the renewals are 6
fairly straightforward.
7 I then, I took a look at 37 different 8
packages on this list that I looked at. And I didn't 9
this is,
- again, just ones that had NRC 10 certificates.
11 There were about three out of those 37 12 that ran basically the full five years. That didn't 13 come in for some either packaging change or content 14 change or some other correction in that time period.
15 So, the vast majority of what we're 16 seeing, of things that are crossing my desk are not 17 because they've timed out at five years.
18 But, a small example of all the NRC 19 certificates, I'll caveat that.
20 MR. WHITE: Thanks Mike. And I would 21 agree with what Mike says. In terms of what we see, 22 I can think of probably a handful of those 90 some 23 certificates that we don't see amendments on over the 24 course of five years.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 You know, and I'm not -- and there are 1
some that we haven't seen an amendment on in 10 or 15 2
years, except for the renewal.
3 But that's by in large the outlier or the 4
downside. Most packages are in here fairly routinely 5
for amendments, so.
6 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. We should check on the 7
phone one more time before we go to the risk 8
discussion.
9 OPERATOR: On the phone we've got Wren 10 Fowler with NAC. Your line is open.
11 MR. FOWLER: Thanks. Hey John and Bernie, 12 I just a really kind of one comment here I'd like to 13 add.
14 As far as the impact from domestics with 15 the five-year term, I'd say the biggest thing for us 16 is really the international shipments.
17 While we'll have a timely renewal for the 18 NRC certificate, and obviously the existing 19 certificate doesn't expire while it's under timely 20 renewal, we have to worry about the expiration dates 21 of the downstream documents.
22 For instance the DOT certificate and any 23 foreign validations that we have at that time. They 24 all have their own individual expiration dates. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 they're typically, in our experience, tied exactly to 1
the NRC expiration.
2 So, as when it gets close to those 3
expiration dates, we're kind of thrown into a little 4
bit of a limbo from the standpoint of continuing the 5
DOT validation along with any international ones.
6 And for a package like our LWT cask that's 7
very active both domestically and internationally, and 8
as you know, our NRC certificate, we're at revision 68 9
of that certificate. And the DOT is Rev 61.
10 Now that's just some food for thought 11 there. Is that every five years when we get close to 12 this, we have to worry about the time frames on those 13 expiration dates and the recertification and 14 validations internationally.
15 MS. WHITE: Thank you for that comment 16 Wren. And I think that's something that we thought a 17 little bit about in developing our slides.
18 And we'll continue to think about that as 19 we're moving forward. But that's something we don't 20 have experience with the international community 21 because we issue the NRC certificates and then we're 22 done until the next time you come in for an amendment 23 or a renewal.
24 MR. FOWLER: Right.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 MS. WHITE: Which is my date.
1 MR. FOWLER: And like I said, typically 2
for us the DOT will follow the NRC one. And then any 3
international ones will follow the DOT.
4 So they all go downstream with the five-5 year term.
6 MR. WHITE: Okay. And I will also say 7
that one thing that we did commit to, to the OIG when 8
we responded back is discussions with the 9
international community.
10 So, we'll have to figure out the best way 11 for us to that. A little hard to have a conference 12 call around the world.
13 So, just moving on. I'm sorry, any more 14 comments on the phone?
15 OPERATOR: Yes. We have Lori Podolak with 16 QSA Global. Your line is open.
17 MS. PODOLAK: Good afternoon. I just 18 wanted to kind of comment back to the things that Mike 19 Conroy had said about renewal versus amendments.
20 Our packages are a little bit different 21 from a number of other transport packages. Because 22 they are not only a transport package, but they're 23 also a functional radiographic device. So, we may 24 make changes to the functioning design, which then 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 affect the transport approvals.
1 So, whether the five-year term increases 2
from, you know, five to ten or eight, I don't think 3
that's going to make a huge difference on our program, 4
just because natural amendments tend to bring us in a 5
lot more frequently then, you know, going a full five-6 year term without seeing any kind of a need to amend 7
or touch that certificate.
8 MS. WHITE: Thank you Lori. I appreciate 9
that. Any other comments on the line?
10 OPERATOR: Yes. We've got Tanya Slomo 11 with Daher/TLI. Your line is open.
12 MS. SLOMO: Hello. This is Tanya. I was 13 just curious, along with these last three comments, is 14 that when we submit these amendments, and often times 15 we are doing consolidated amendments, is why -- what's 16 preventing us from at that moment asking for an 17 extension of the renewal?
18 So whether it's three years or five years.
19 Because most of us are coming in at this two and a 20 half year mark with revisions. And it does definitely 21 impact the trickle down of the foreign amendments, or 22 validations.
23 That's my comment.
24 MS. WHITE: Yes. Thank you Tanya. There 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 is nothing preventing you from requesting renewal at 1
any point during the five-year term.
2 Typically we don't see people coming in 3
after a year requesting another five years, you know, 4
for a nine-year term. But we do have people -- we do 5
have certificate holders that come in six months to a 6
year in advance because of the international impact.
7 So that's not an uncommon -- I wouldn't 8
say it's common, but it's not uncommon either for us 9
to have these discussions.
10 So, I mean, if you were coming in at year 11 four and you want to ask for renewal as well, by all 12 means.
13 Okay. Any other --
14 OPERATOR: And there are no other 15 participants on the phone queue.
16 MR. McKIRGAN: I love risk. It's all 17 risk.
18 MR. WHITE: Risk. Risk. So, and we went 19 back and took a look at the four major, I'll use the 20 air quotes around the word risk again, studies that 21 we've done.
22 NUREG-0170, the Modal Study that Lawrence 23 Livermore did. NUREG-6672, and again, NUREG-2125, 24 I'll talk a little bit more about theses as we move 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 on.
1 NUREG-0170 as Torre said, is our final 2
environmental impact statement on transport of 3
radioactive materials. And it covers everything.
4 Essentially everything at the time. It 5
wasn't limited to any particular type of package. And 6
it wasn't limited to any particular mode of transport.
7 I found that the environmental impacts to 8
both people and the environment were low. The primary 9
function of that was to determine -- for the NRC to 10 determine what the impact was for future regulations 11 moving forward.
12 And what the projected impact of 13 transportation would be in the 1985 time frame. And 14 I think it did that. It focused on normal conditions 15 of transport and accidents.
16 Looked at radiation exposure of transport 17 workers. And people along the route. It took various 18 routes and it evaluated normal doses incident to 19 transport. And then accidents.
20 It was a pretty conservative study back 21 then in terms of what it assumed for releases. It 22 didn't do much in the way of evaluating the structural 23 impact of some of these packages.
24 It made more assumptions then anything.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 Compared to later studies, which they actually took 1
some representative packages and evaluated the 2
structural and thermal impacts of that.
3 The conclusion was that the radiation 4
exposure of individuals from normal transportation is 5
well within the recommenced limits for exposure to 6
members of the public. The average radiation dose to 7
populace and at risk from normal transportation is 8
small.
9 There is a small fraction of the limits 10 for them. The background -- is small -- and it's even 11 for small -- blah, my mouth's not working. I probably 12 should have brought something to drink.
13 Small fraction of the natural background 14 dose that people receive every year. So, one of the 15 things that we know from 0170 and future studies, is 16 it is considered to be a conservative evaluation.
17 Even this day. Future studies that we've done have 18 shown that.
19 The Modal Study looked at mainly spent 20 fuel packages shipped by rail and truck. It was 21 conducted to estimate the responses of spent fuel 22 packages to severe highway accidents.
23 I know for a lot of you people who don't 24 have spent fuel packages, you kind of sit back and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 kind of yawn at this one. And I don't blame you.
1 It looked at highway and rail accidents 2
that fall with the Part 71 hypothetical accident 3
conditions. And then for accidents that have higher 4
responses to those -- or accidents that have higher 5
loads on the package then those.
6 It concluded that the radiological impacts 7
from spent fuel under severe highway and rail 8
accidents were less then what we had previously 9
evaluated in NUREG-0170.
10 Later one NUREG-6672 reexamination of 11 spent fuel shipment risk estimates, it focuses on 12 truck and rail transport. And it evaluated four 13 generic Type-B packages.
14 It evaluated incident free doses and 15 accident doses. Again, the results show that NUREG-16 0170 is extremely conservative.
17 It confirms that the trans -- the spent 18 fuel transport regulations adequately protect the 19 public health and safety.
20 And then finally back in 2014 we finished 21 the spent fuel risk, transportation risk assessment.
22 That was a big multi-year project that we did.
23 The purpose was to reproduce and in some 24 cases extend the risk of analysis that were previously 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 considered in NUREG-0170. So it looks like about 1
every 10 to 15 years we're evaluating 0170 just to 2
make sure that there isn't anything that is deviated 3
or has increased from them to ensure that our baseline 4
is still a reasonable baseline.
5 Again, this study shows that the risk from 6
radiation emitted from packages during normal and 7
accident conditions is low. It indicates that NUREG-8 0170 maybe four or five orders of magnitude higher 9
then what current estimates in terms of your current 10 calculational capability show.
11 So, you know, I talked a little bit about 12 why we think packages are safe from, you know, from a 13 regulatory point of view. And how they're used. The 14 risk studies that we've done have shown that the risk 15 is low.
16 And so now we come to the things that we 17 don't consider in these studies. For example, human 18 error, human factors, errors related to the -- and how 19 they might relate to the expiration term.
20 And then any other risk contributors that 21 we haven't thought of outside of the ones in those 22 studies. Some of those fac -- quite a mouthful.
23 And I probably went through it probably 24 too fast. But, I think most of you are fairly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 familiar with the big conclusions in those studies, 1
so.
2 MR. McKIRGAN: So, John McKirgan again.
3 Thanks for that Bernie. I think, you know, I think 4
about this very simplistically.
5 In 1970 we did a fairly comprehensive 6
look. Found that this was being done safely. We have 7
periodically checked and continually reaffirm that 8
look.
9 And further refine our understanding of 10 how conservative that early study was. And it's 11 interesting, the risk as low, it's actually creating 12 a challenge for me in this particular instance, in 13 that I'm struggling on to how to factor that into the 14 expiration term.
15 The nexus between that very low risk, it 16
-- we were in a period in the agency where we want to 17 continue to use risk and we want to move towards risk 18 informed evaluations.
19 But here the risk is so low, I'm 20 challenged to think of a way where it would be a 21 dominant factor in changing from five years to three 22 years or five years to ten years.
23 And so, we would welcome comments from all 24 the stakeholders to, you know, bring a perspective to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 this low risk activity and its nexus to the term of 1
the expiration term that we're talking about.
2 So, I'll pause there and see if anybody 3
can help us out on this topic.
4 MS. SCHLUETER: Well, I'm going to deviate 5
just slightly. But, on that concept, I'm not sure 6
exactly what you would discover, but it might behoove 7
you to look across the agency.
8 And I know Torre was in the materials 9
program with me when we did this. But, when I worked 10 here. But, you know, they took just from a generic 11 basis all the byproduct materials licensees and they 12 extended the terms from five years to ten years, from 13 a risk perspective and from a resource perspective.
14 Just last fall the commission approved the 15 staff's recommendation to take uranium recovery 16 licensees from 10 years to 20 years. Fuel cycle 17 facilities license terms are going from 20 to 40.
18 Some are 40.
19 And now NRR is looking at the living 20 license for the research and test reactors with FSAR 21 updates every five years or so.
22 So, there's some other models out there 23 that have been done within the agency. And you know, 24 you might try to take a sneak peek at some of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 basis that they used for changing those terms.
1 Not quite the same thing. But, you know, 2
I hate to see you find yourselves somewhere down the 3
road and then someone in your food chain perhaps asks 4
you, did you look at, you know, within the agency to 5
what you could learn from other experiences, so.
6 MR. McKIRGAN: No, thank you. Thank you 7
Janet. I think we're aware of each of those.
8 And the trend is clear, and we will take 9
a more comprehensive look at those generically and 10 with respect to how they are factoring risk into those 11 terms.
12 MR. McCULLUM: and in the vein of -- oh, 13 I'm sorry, it's Gerry's turn. I forgot.
14 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Yeah. Gerry Van 15 Noordennen. I think risk is more tied to operational 16 use then to term limits.
17 Because take for example the Type-B casks, 18 prior to every use they are leak tested and inspected 19 when the shipment starts and when the shipment is 20 received. And it's also inspected for any damage and 21 repair.
22 So, it's, you know, if you're trying to 23 tie term to like age-related degradation or something, 24 well that would be picked up prior to every use. Say 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 there's a rubber seal that has failed, well that would 1
be replaced.
2 So, it's really not tied to term use.
3 It's tied to operational use.
4 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. I think we came 5
to that same kind of reevaluation. And it somewhat 6
decouples the term from that activity.
7 And maybe I could say that gives us some 8
greater latitude in what we do with the term because 9
of those facts. And so we are -- but thank you for 10 reminding us of that.
11 MR. McCULLUM: Well, I just want -- this 12 is Rod McCullum, NEI again. I just wanted to mention 13 that there is another precedent that's actually very 14 close to this that the renewal terms for dry cask 15 storage licenses went from 20 to 40 years in 2011.
16 And in the case of used fuel, these are 17 actually some of the same canisters. So, I would take 18 a look at the basis for that decision as well.
19 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. Thank you.
20 Yeah.
21 MR. WHITE: So, do we have any comments on 22 the phones?
23 OPERATOR:
Currently there are no 24 participants on the phone queue.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, you say that there 1
were none?
2 OPERATOR: There are no participants on 3
the phone queue.
4 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you. Anything 5
else from the room before we move on?
6 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah. I'm not sure this is 7
the right place to raise this, but I'm thinking about 8
I heard a 500, 600 page SAR.
9 I heard, you know, that there's so much 10 information that goes into some of these that you lose 11 so much institutional expertise. So, I'm being 12 sensitive to the unintended consequences that Scott 13 from GE raised here.
14 Another aspect to this equation, and it's 15 something we're looking at right now on the dry 16 storage, Part 72 side, and that's a level of detail.
17 So, I think the level of detail should also, and I 18 agree with Gerry, it's not necessarily in the renewal 19 that you pick up the reflection of risk.
20 And then there is an inspection regime out 21 there. I think that's one of the things we're 22 learning in dry storage, is that if you take credit 23 for that existing, does so much detail have to be in 24 the license?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 So, if you're looking at risk, I think you 1
need to also look at the level of detail question a 2
little bit too. Particularly if it would create 3
unintended consequences.
4 MR. McKIRGAN: Rod, thank you. Thank you 5
for that. I believe there is greater work that can be 6
done in Part 71 on that topic.
7 And again, I wish we had infinite 8
resources to -- there's a lot of things we could 9
tackle right now. And we have to keep nibbling away 10 where we can and find those opportunities.
11 But I do, I resonate with that completely.
12 In this particular exercise, we're going to focus on 13 the term.
14 But I do think there is more work that can 15 be done. I do look forward to more transformative 16 thinking.
17 And I think there is a lot of work we can 18 do in 72. And I think there's work we can do in 71 19 along that line.
20 So, thank you for that. Now let's see, so 21 with that are there any other comments in the room on 22 risk?
23 (No response) 24 MR. McKIRGAN: All right. Let's --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 MR. WHITE: I think I put them to sleep.
1 (Laughter) 2 MR. WHITE: So, I think this is a good 3
time, we'll take about a 15 minute break. It's -- I 4
didn't bring my watch.
5 MS. TAYLOR: It's ten til 3:00. So, about 6
five after 3:00. And then we'll come back and 7
continue talking about domestic international impacts 8
and implementation challenges, which we get into costs 9
for.
10 So, for those on the phone, we'll be back 11 in about 15 minutes.
12 MR. WHITE: So if somebody wants to go 13 downstairs, let me know. I'll be happy to take you 14 down.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 2:51 p.m. and resumed at 3:04 p.m.)
17 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. We're back. We're 18 ready to start in again. Okay. Oh, yes, next slide 19 there we go. Ready?
20 MR. WHITE: Yeah.
21 MS. TAYLOR: We're going to go onto the 22 impacts if there were a change in the certificate term 23 domestic/international. So Bernie?
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 MR. WHITE: So, touching this subject a 1
little bit, the impacts of, you know, the domestic the 2
cost to the certificate holders, licensees, the 3
international impacts based on DOT's Certificate of 4
Competent Authority and other re-validations by 5
foreign countries.
6 So if there's anything else, I mean, we're 7
opening the floor now for discussion on that. How, if 8
we were to change the certificate term, how would that 9
affect, you know, how you do business both with DOT 10 and internationally?
11 Would it negatively impact it? Would it 12 positively impact it? And the cost benefit if you 13 will, of that impact is kind of what we're looking for 14 here.
15 Okay. Ready to jump in John?
16 MR. McKIRGAN: Oh yeah. So, I can't 17 resist. So thank you. Because you know, we've had 18 good discussion on a number of factors.
19 To me I think this was we need stakeholder 20 input on all the factors. But this is probably the 21 biggest one where our stakeholders can help us.
22 Because we're not in your business. We're 23 not doing your day to day operations. And there's a 24 little bit of -- a few folks have come from industry 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 into the NRC, and they often bring valuable insights.
1 But by and large, we're not in your day to 2
day operations from the business perspective. And 3
there are -- we've talked a little bit about 4
unintended consequences that we want to avoid.
5 And so this is probably one of the largest 6
areas where we'd appreciate the most feedback.
7 Because the plus side of the equation here is, is that 8
this is not in regulations. So we don't have to go 9
through a rule making activity to change the term.
10 But, it is -- it's an important serious 11 consideration. And we don't want to go too far down 12 the wrong road.
13 And so finding the right term if we were 14 to change. And making sure we and you have the time 15 to think through the implications of that are 16 critically important to us.
17 And so I've talked here for a moment to 18 give everybody some time to start to gather their 19 thoughts. Hopefully we'll get some good input on 20 impacts and making sure we avoid any unintended 21 consequences.
22 And so with that pause.
23 MR. WHITE: And I'll open. I'll make one 24 more comment. John said, talked about, you know, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 think through.
1 And I made the comment earlier, as you're 2
thinking through it, if you come up with comments next 3
week, next month, that you think we should consider, 4
further back in the slide presentation is both Torre's 5
and my email address.
6 So, I want to stress it again, if you have 7
further comments after the meeting you want us to 8
consider, please by all means email one or both of us.
9 So, now I'll open up for comments in the 10 room.
11 MR. McKIRGAN: Come one guys let's do some 12 thinking.
13 MS. TAYLOR: Got to be some impacts.
14 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: All right. Gerry Van 15 Noordennen. For us again, taking a Type-B cask, going 16 through a renewal, because we're in the U.S. we do the 17 renewal through the NRC first.
18 Once we get that then we ask the DOT to 19 authorize that provide their authorization. And then 20 we go to the international, other countries that are 21 using that cask.
22 So, take for instance, Canada. Know the 23 NRC and CNSC has an MOU to, you know, kind of accept 24 each others reviews on Type-B casks.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 But, for example right now on our 8120B, 1
it's being reviewed. The five-year renewal is going 2
on at CNSC. And they're doing a complete review.
3 And so, you know, that takes some time.
4 And of course, some expense. So, you know, extending 5
that term period would make it easier on us. We'd 6
only have to go through that once instead of twice 7
every ten years.
8 So, there's some benefit to us for doing 9
that. So, you know, a typical example of what we go 10 through.
11 MR. WHITE: Okay. Any other comments in 12 the room? If not, then we'll let you think for a 13 minute.
14 Any comments on the phone?
15 OPERATOR: Yes. As a reminder, press star 16 one if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment.
17 We've got Wren Fowler. Your line is open.
18 MR. FOWLER: Yeah. Kind of tagging onto 19 Gerry here. One thing to keep in mind too, one of the 20 differences between the NRC and a lot of other 21 international regulatory bodies has to do with how 22 they charge fees.
23 So the NRC's an hourly rate, right? But, 24 some of the international countries we have to deal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 with, whether it takes them two days or two years, 1
it's a flat fee.
2 So for us extending the term on a lot of 3
our transportation casks would actually have a 4
financial benefit for us. Because we wouldn't have to 5
go in and get and pay these flat fees for something 6
that is just as simple as a renewal.
7 MR. WHITE: Okay.
8 MR. McKIRGAN: Thanks for that Wren. Any 9
other comments on the phone?
10 OPERATOR: One moment. Okay. There is a 11 participant. And your name was not recorded. Can you 12 check the mute on your line?
13 MR. VESCOVI: Peter Vescovi, TN Americas.
14 OPERATOR: Okay. Your line is open Peter.
15 MR. VESCOVI: Okay. Yeah, I just wanted 16 to comment on the validations in the other countries.
17 It's been my experience that there's really no set 18 time frame in the other countries for certificates 19 that come in for validation or re-validation.
20 But they generally will just follow the 21 time frame and the expiration that the DOT sets on the 22 certificate. And then likewise, you know, DOT follows 23 the NRC's duration on the certificates.
24 So, I'm not sure that increasing or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 decreasing the duration, especially increasing it, 1
would necessarily have an unintended consequence with 2
the foreign validations in the other countries.
3 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you for that 4
comment. Any other comments on the line, on the 5
phone?
6 OPERATOR: Okay. Next we have Abdulsalam 7
Shakhatreh from Robatel Technologies. Your line is 8
open.
9 MR. SHAKHATREH: Hello, this is Abdul from 10 Robatel Technologies. My question is, has the NRC 11 made any significant recommendations on any renewal 12 applications from your 40 to 50 years experience?
13 Or in other words, has the NRC rejected 14 any renewal application? And what was the most common 15 ground for rejection?
16 I'm saying this because previously you 17 mentioned you have a very good safety record, or the 18 industry has a very good safety record. And so what 19 prevents us from extending the term to ten years?
20 And what is the NRC take on this? That 21 would be the end of my comment.
22 MR. McKIRGAN: Why don't you start and 23 I'll chime in.
24 MR. WHITE: Okay. So, this is Bernie 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 White of the NRC. I've been doing this, I've been 1
here for 28 years and we've never rejected a renewal 2
application.
3 That doesn't say we -- I won't say we 4
haven't asked questions on them before. But, we 5
haven't rejected or denied a renewal that I'm aware of 6
at least in those 28 years.
7 It seems to be that we'll ask a round or 8
two of questions. And eventually will come to the 9
resolution that, you know, whatever question we ask 10 that it has sufficiently answered to ensure, you know, 11 public health and safety. And so we will do the 12 renewal.
13 What is preventing you from -- preventing 14 us for going to a ten-year term, nothing. It's not in 15 our regulations. So we wouldn't need to do a regulat 16
-- a regulatory change.
17 And that's kind of why we're seeking 18 feedback, is ten years the right term? Is it 15? Is 19 it five? Is it three?
20 And so we're, you know, trying to get 21 feedback on what should be the proper term and the 22 basis for that term. So, I hope that answers your 23 question.
24 MR. SHAKHATREH: I just have a follow up 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 question if you don't mind.
1 MR. WHITE: Um-hum. No.
2 MR. SHAKHATREH: So, can you use 3
historical data to have the regulatory basis for 4
keeping or extending the current term? We have a good 5
safety records.
6 Is that something you can consider? Or --
7 MR. WHITE: Absolutely. And I think 8
that's something we will consider as we move forward 9
with our decision.
10 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah Bernie, this is Rod 11 McCullum, NEI. I think that's a powerful statement.
12 Is you haven't found a reason not to renew 13 one in 28 years. It really does beg the question of 14 why we have to renew them every five years.
15 And we look forward to helping you shape, 16 you know, construct a basis for that.
17 MR. McKIRGAN: Yes. Thank you.
18 MR. SHAKHATREH: Okay. Thank you.
19 MR. McKIRGAN: Did that answer your 20 question there?
21 MR. SHAKHATREH: Yes. Thank you.
22 MR. McKIRGAN: Yeah. But it did, and so 23 operating experience is a big factor. You know, 71.95 24 reports, I was talking to somebody during the break, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 looking at those and I'll share with everybody that, 1
you know, we've looked at some of those a little bit.
2 And as we start to think about the nexus 3
between that operating experience and the term, not 4
all of that operating experience would have been 5
impacted by a term of five years or ten years.
6 And so operating experiences is important.
7 And it does contribute to our thinking in that -- in 8
extending this term. And we'll think about that more 9
fulsomely as we go forward.
10 But I wanted to come back to this, those 11 other impacts. Those internal domestic/international 12 impacts. And especially any unforseen or unintended 13 consequences.
14 So, maybe we'll go back to the phone and 15 see if there's any further people queued up there.
16 OPERATOR: Yes. We've got Lori Podolak 17 from QSA Global. Your line is open.
18 MS. PODOLAK: Hi. I just wanted to touch 19 on the extending the time frame and the impact on, I 20 don't want to say just changes in standards, but 21 changes in maybe regulatory environment. How the 22 standards are applied.
23 We found even though we come in fairly 24 frequently, more often then the five-year renewal, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 that with staff turnover at NRC, people who maybe have 1
seen changes in the industry, changes in the way the 2
standards are applied, if you extend it too much 3
beyond like say, and maybe even pushing to ten years 4
might be pushing it, between the last renewal and the 5
next renewal, there could be a fairly substantial 6
change in what is considered acceptable or an adequate 7
level of detail or description or justification for 8
packages that have previously been approved.
9 So, I would just take care on, you know, 10 you don't want to go too far out. Because it makes it 11 difficult to -- especially if you haven't been in for 12 any kind of change between that ten-year period, it 13 could be kind of a culture shock when you try to get 14 it renewed again.
15 Because it can be a surprise that all of 16 a sudden things that were not an issue are now an 17 issue.
18 MR. McKIRGAN: Okay. Thanks for that 19 Lori.
20 MR. WHITE: Any other comments on the 21 phone?
22 OPERATOR: Yes. Next we've got Aleksandr 23 Gilfond from EnergySolutions. Your line is open.
24 MR. GELFOND: Hello everyone. Just a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 small comment from operational perspective. For 1
example as Gerry Van Noordennen, we've got a fleet of 2
Type-B casks, which is used by various CTOs just to 3
ship low level waste.
4 And in a lot of cases the requirements of 5
Chapter 7 of the Section Office Report as far as the 6
duration procedures, it's supposed to flow down to, 7
you know, point to specific procedures.
8 And you know, right now when we have 9
renewals of our casks, every time we have a renewal, 10 the regulators have to go through their procedures and 11 make necessary changes.
12 Even though there might be no changes in 13 application. But they still have to go and do this, 14 you know, due diligence process.
15 And we're talking about, you know, tests 16 of different shippers, tests of different companies 17 who use the casks.
18 So, from purely operational perspective, 19 if we extend the renewal, you know, time wise to let's 20 say from five to seven, eight, ten years, it would 21 decrease the burden from the, you know, utilities 22 shippers, the shipper from the review of the new, you 23 know, certificate division.
24 And basically I'm interested for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 potential impact. That's my comment.
1 MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you.
2 MR. WHITE: Thank you. Any other comments 3
on the phone?
4 OPERATOR: There are no other participants 5
on the phone queue.
6 MR. WHITE: Thank you very much. So one 7
of the other questions we wanted to bring up while 8
we're looking at, you know, the general discussion, 9
you know, we've had the discussion about, we see a lot 10 of amendments in between renewals.
11 Here at the NRC, you know, personally I 12 don't see a connection between the renewal term and us 13 getting more amendments. But I'm not on your side of 14 the house thinking about what your future work is, or 15 what your current work is in terms of what shipments 16 are going to be made.
17 Do you all see a nexus between the 18 certificate term and fewer or more amendments coming 19 in house?
20 (No response) 21 MR. WHITE: I see a lot of heads shaking 22 no.
23 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: All right. This is 24 Gerry Van Noordennen from EnergySolutions. No, I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 don't see any nexus at all.
1 MR. WHITE: Okay.
2 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Amendments are driven 3
by customer's needs. And so that's why we do 4
amendments.
5 MR. WHITE: And that's kind of what we 6
presumed.
7 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Yeah.
8 MR. WHITE: And I'll use the word presumed 9
because again, we're not in your shoes.
10 MR. VAN NOORDENNEN: Yep.
11 MR. WHITE: So, thank you.
12 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah. And Rod McCullum, 13 actually on behalf of the industry, we like the fact 14 that it's very competitive out there. That 15 competitive market drives our member companies to be 16 responsive to customer needs.
17 And yeah, that is independent of renewals.
18 And if less resources are being spent on renewals, 19 that gives everybody more resources to focus on 20 meeting customer needs by doing amendments.
21 So, yeah that sounds like a win/win.
22 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you.
23 MR. McKIRGAN: Any folks on the phone want 24 to chime in on that point?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 OPERATOR: Currently there's no one in the 1
phone queue.
2 MR. WHITE: Okay. Good.
3 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. So next we're going to 4
go to like implementation challenges, costs, revisions 5
to internal processes.
6 I think we've kind of touched on this.
7 But does anyone have anymore to add? Again, and 8
another chance about if we were to change this term 9
are there any implementation challenges we haven't 10 already talked about?
11 You've talked about costs a little bit.
12 MR. WHITE: And I will say, I do want to 13 bring up that a lot of times we get renewal requests, 14 and there's amendments within that renewal request.
15 We treat those separately when we do our reviews.
16 So, I want to make it clear that if we get 17 an amendment, we're not asking questions on the 18 renewal if it's on the amendment. So in terms -- so, 19 you know, thinking about that, I don't know if that 20 spurs anybody to, you know, to add any further 21 comments.
22 And I don't know why I thought of it here.
23 Probably the word revision stuck out at me. So, any 24 comments from the room?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 MR. MATHUES: This is Glenn Mathues, Trans 1
Nuclear, TN Americas. The only time we would, is if 2
we had to amend a client need that would be close to 3
the renewal period.
4 We would have a call with the NRC at that 5
time to try to ferret that out. To make sure that if 6
they were separated, we'd put them together. Because 7
we've had a couple of experiences where we had some 8
ongoing shipments and we needed the renewal for those 9
continued shipments.
10 That's the only case that we would be 11 close too. Is making sure that the existing 12 certificate is renewed.
13 And we know there's the timely renewal and 14 all that, so.
15 MR. WHITE: Yeah. And thank you for that 16 Glenn. And I realize that. And I've heard from a few 17 people over the last, I'll go say six months that I 18 didn't realize international competent authorities 19 didn't have time, you know, like we do.
20 And it's because we don't deal with them.
21 And so I appreciate the conversations that we have 22 with, you know, EnergySolutions, TN ORANO now? ORANO.
23 You know, and others in terms of, you 24 know, what your needs are when you do submit a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 renewal. You know, if you need that renewal by a 1
certain time because of international leads, please 2
let us know.
3 Otherwise, we will not know. And we'll 4
process it, you know, along with our normal case work.
5 But we want to make sure that we don't do something 6
that negatively impacts you just because we didn't 7
know about it.
8 So, please keep that in mind as you're 9
thinking about this. Okay?
10 Any other comments for the room? If not, 11 we'll go to the phone. Any comments from the phone?
12 OPERATOR: As a reminder, press star one 13 and record your name and organization at the prompt.
14 MR. WHITE: No comments on the phone?
15 OPERATOR: Oh, one moment, there's a -- we 16 do have a comment coming in. One moment.
17 MR. WHITE: Okay.
18 OPERATOR: Okay. Tim Lloyd with 19 Westinghouse. Your line is open.
20 MR. LLOYD: Okay. And this is just sort 21 of clarifying. And to hear what I think I'm hearing.
22 It sounds like there really have only been 23 kind of potentially three categories of reasons why it 24 would be a bad idea to increase it. Especially given 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 as Rod points out, the quite impressive track record 1
that there's been, and the lack of reasons for 2
rejecting.
3 But one is, you know, the possible specter 4
of new requirements having crept in. Another is that 5
you would have possibly lost expertise on the designer 6
or a CC license holder by waiting a longer period of 7
time.
8 And the third is maybe the NRC would have 9
lost expertise on reviewing a particular type of 10 package. I guess those are the three that I'm sort of 11 hearing.
12 On the other hand, doing a thing more 13 frequently might introduce errors. So there's also a 14 downside possibility there.
15 But, it seems like you do have to come 16 back to the fact that there's an awful lot of -- an 17 awful lot of good stories and good success, you know, 18 that are kind of counterbalancing.
19 But I don't think I'm really hearing any 20 other reasons that people think it would be a bad idea 21 to extend. And I can drop off.
22 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you.
23 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah, this is Rod McCullum.
24 I want to echo that. I mean, if the requirements 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 change that's -- or unless they just happen to 1
coincidentally change when you're going for renewal.
2 That's something you have to address real time.
3 And I also think that if you're in the 4
business of providing these packages, you always have 5
to have expertise on the stuff. And then I would hope 6
NRC maintains its expertise as well. And we want you 7
to use it as smartly as possible.
8 So, I guess I would agree that, you know, 9
look at the bigger picture those reasons for not 10 extending are kind of overcome by, you know, the 11 safety record, the operational experience.
12 MR. WHITE: Yeah. In thinking about NRC 13 regulations, you know, we -- you think about the last 14 several major role changes we've done.
15 We did one in '85. We did one in '96, 16 2004, 2015. And right now we're gearing up to do 17 another one. Which will finish in about 2020.
18 So, we're somewhere on the order of about 19 an eight to a ten year on average, you know, probably 20 closer to ten. Because the older ones took a lot 21 longer because they were much larger changes, you 22 know, based on with harmonizing with IAEA regulations.
23 They were, you know, they were on about a 24 ten -- 10 to 11 year time frame. And I will say that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 when we do rule changes like that we always put in 1
transitional arrangements for packages that are 2
already approved.
3 You'll find them in 71.19. And so we kind 4
of grandfather packages in. But, if you come in for 5
an amendment, depending upon what it is, you know, you 6
have to -- we have to figure out, you know, kind of 7
where you fit in the process in terms of the rules.
8 So, and while I'm on the subject of rule 9
change, John's always putting in a shameless plug.
10 So, I'm going to do the exact same thing.
11 I made mention that we're in the process 12 of doing a rule change. We are currently working on 13 the draft regulatory basis for that rule change.
14 Which we should issue sometime this 15 summer. It's pretty vague. I realize June, July, 16 August is summer. And even up to Labor Day. But 17 somewhere in that time frame.
18 So, keep an eye out for that draft 19 regulatory basis. It will be published in the Federal 20 Register. And we'll be looking for comments on that.
21 MR. McCULLUM: So you're into Labor Day, 22 you're not going to take credit for the autumnal 23 equinox. Which I believe is later in September.
24 MR. WHITE: It is. And actually that is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 closer to my birthday. So, we can.
1 (Laughter) 2 MR. WHITE: Any other comments on the 3
phone?
4 OPERATOR: Yes. Wren Fowler from NAC.
5 MR. WHITE: Okay.
6 OPERATOR: Your line is open.
7 MR. FOWLER: Yeah. Hey Bernie and John, 8
I was just going to let you know, I just flipped 9
through TSR-1 real quick. And I can't find anywhere 10 in there where there is any duration on the foreign 11 validation certificate.
12 The only thing I can find is that it 13 requires an issuance date and an expiration date.
14 MR. WHITE: Yeah.
15 MR FOWLER: So, kind of like I was saying 16 before, the downstream from the NRC to DOT is seen 17 from us on our validations with terms of expiration 18 dates.
19 So, even though SSR-6 is the latest one, 20 I just had TSR-1 handy. And I can't find any time 21 frame in there.
22 MR. WHITE: Do you want it?
23 MR. CONROY: This is Mike Conroy at DOT.
24 And Wren's right. SSR-6 says the same as TSR-1. It 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 just says there should be an expiration date.
1 Which is, I think what you said earlier 2
that's all that's in 10 CFR 71 as well.
3 MR. WHITE: Um-hum.
4 MR. CONROY: And in our DOT regulations 5
for 49 CFR, we don't have a time period in there 6
either. It's just been the practice to do five years 7
and to mirror what's in the NRC's certificates.
8 So then the question becomes, what, you 9
know, the foreign competent authorities do. And what 10 we see is almost all of them go with the five years.
11 Now, how many of those have those in their 12 regulations verses just staff practice, we'd have to 13 do some research on that.
14 MR. WHITE: And thank you Mike. And we 15 looked at the IAEA regulations just to make sure that 16 we weren't missing anything.
17 Because that's the basis to start since we 18 do harmonize with the IAEA. We're not identical. But 19 we're harmonized with them.
20 So, any other comments on the phone?
21 OPERATOR: No other comments on the phone.
22 MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you. Any further 23 comments on this slide from the room?
24 MR. STRADER: I would be a fan for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 increasing it to ten years. For one reason is that 1
it's our, as an entity, our responsibility to make 2
sure that the containers meet the SAR after each use.
3 And so we have to do whatever minor 4
maintenance to it to -- for any update to it.
5 MR. WHITE: Um-hum.
6 MR. STRADER: So, we do that every time.
7 And for example, ours we use our packages just about 8
once a month.
9 And so those are inspected and reviewed 10 every time they come in to look at them. And we 11 ensure they meet the SAR.
12 And so whether or not you renew it every 13 five or ten years, it wouldn't impact us at all.
14 MR. WHITE: Okay. Other then submitting 15 a letter or an application every five or ten years.
16 MR. STRADER: Right.
17 MR. WHITE: Okay. Good. Thank you.
18 Anything else from the room?
19 (No response) 20 MR. WHITE: If not I'll turn it over to 21 Torre.
22 MS. TAYLOR: All right. Okay. So our 23 next steps in our schedule, again, we'll have the 24 transcript. And we'll evaluate all the comments from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 this meeting.
1 And we do welcome comments that you might 2
have post this meeting. We ask that you provide them 3
by May 25'ish just to make sure we have time to fully 4
evaluate them as we put together our remaining steps 5
on this.
6 I'll have my email and Bernie's email at 7
the end too.
8 MR. McCULLUM: Torre, just a clarification 9
on that. I mean, we may very well write you a letter 10 between now and May 25.
11 But, just because we like doing that.
12 But, everything here is transcribed and on the record.
13 MR. WHITE: Um-hum.
14 MS. TAYLOR: Yes.
15 MR. McCULLUM: So we -- the things you've 16 been hearing around this table are now officially 17 comments?
18 MR. WHITE: Absolutely.
19 MS. TAYLOR: Yes. That's true too.
20 MR. McKIRGAN: And if I could just 21 reemphasize for everybody. John McKirgan again.
22 You know, if you do send further comments 23 and certainly Rod, if you send a letter, please make 24 sure they are -- you're making comments in support of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 this public meeting. So we don't get confused. And 1
we want to make sure we capture them.
2 MR. McCULLUM: We'll reference the ML 3
number on those.
4 MR. McKIRGAN: That would be flawless.
5 Thank you. And for those on the phone, Rod is holding 6
up the public meeting notice.
7 So that would be great. Because we want 8
to make sure we capture this.
9 We get a lot of letters here at the NRC.
10 We have a lot of friends that write to us. And I want 11 to make sure we get them channeled to the right source 12 there.
13 So, thank you.
14 MS. TAYLOR: Good point. Okay. Again, 15 we'll be working on developing our basis based on this 16 discussion, our interactions we've had with DOT and 17 these studies.
18 Our response to OIG is due September 2018.
19 And I don't -- I know we're recognizing the request 20 for some public interaction there. So, we'll 21 consider, continue deliberating the best ways to do 22 that.
23 The slide 18 has my name, phone number, 24 email, as well as Bernie's name and phone number and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 email. Reach out to either one of us with any 1
comments related to the meeting.
2 You can send them pdf by email. What have 3
you. And if you have any questions, just feel free to 4
call one of us.
5 Bernie can answer more of the technical, 6
type of questions. I can do a lot more on the process 7
of this.
8 And I guess last opportunity for comments 9
from anyone on the phone and in the room.
10 (No response) 11 MS. TAYLOR: All right.
12 MR. McKIRGAN: Anyone on the phone?
13 MS. TAYLOR: Anyone on the phone?
14 OPERATOR: No. There are no participants 15 in the queue.
16 MS. TAYLOR: And then so okay. We'll turn 17 it back to John for his closing.
18 MR. McKIRGAN: Great. So thank you Torre.
19 Thank you Bernie. And I want to thank everybody. I 20 do, I very much appreciate all those here in the room 21 and on the phone.
22 I know you all have work to do. And your 23 time is very valuable to you and to me. And so I do 24 appreciate you all coming out.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 You can see that, you know, we are trying to get 1
your inputs. We want to make sure we do this right.
2 We don't want unintended consequences.
3 We don't want to come in with a bunch of 4
make work, really. If we do this wrong, it could 5
generate a lot of challenges for us all.
6 So I do, I appreciate the comment -- the 7
comments that we've received today. And I also 8
welcome, in addition to your comments on the substance 9
of this, I welcome any thoughts or comments you had on 10 the meeting itself.
11 We always value feedback on our public 12 meetings. I myself particularly enjoy the Category 13 Three meetings where there is a very active dialog.
14 And I think we had a lot of that today.
15 And so I very much appreciate that.
16 I appreciate when the participants can ask 17 questions of each other. I think the NRC and perhaps 18 you all also benefit from hearing those exchanges.
19 And so I really appreciate everybody's 20 willingness to participate in those kinds of 21 exchanges.
22 And Torre's got another.
23 MS. TAYLOR: Let me add one thing about 24 the feedback. I do have feedback forms in the back of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 the room that you can take with and fill out. Or fill 1
out here and leave them with me.
2 But also, for those on the phone, we've 3
discovered that the feedback form is automatically 4
uploaded into the meeting notice. And there should be 5
a way to get to it there as well.
6 If you have trouble finding it and you 7
want to submit feedback, I can easily send you a pdf 8
of it. And you can fill out the feedback form and get 9
it back to the agency that way.
10 MR. McKIRGAN: Yeah. So, yeah, thank you.
11 Thank you Torre. And so we do appreciate feedback on 12 these meetings.
13 So again, my thanks to all of you here and 14 on the phone. And we would welcome any additional 15 comments that you'd like to provide.
16 And have a great rest of the day. It's a 17 beautiful day here in Washington. So, please get out 18 and enjoy it.
19 Thanks everyone.
20 MS. TAYLOR: Okay. And that issue --
21 OPERATOR: That will close today's 22 conference. You may disconnect your lines at this 23 time.
24 Torre, can you hear me?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry?
1 OPERATOR: Oh, you wanted a final line 2
count.
3 MS. TAYLOR: Oh yes. Thank you. I'm 4
sorry.
5 OPERATOR: There were 28 participants on 6
total today.
7 MS. TAYLOR: Twenty-eight participants.
8 Okay.
9 OPERATOR: All right. And thank you. And 10 I hope you have a wonderful afternoon.
11 MS. TAYLOR: Thank you so much for your 12 support and making it easy.
13 OPERATOR: All right. Thank you. Bye-14 bye.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 3:35 p.m.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
Certificate of Compliance Expiration Term Torre Taylor Sr. Project Manager Division of Spent Fuel Management
Outline of Presentation
- OIG report and recommendation
- Staff response
- Process for development of expiration term
- General Discussion
- Next steps/schedule
- Contacts
- Questions 2
OIG Audit
- OIG report
- Audit of NRCs Oversight for Issuing Certificates of Compliance for Radioactive Material Packages (OIG-17-A-21), dated August 16, 2017
- Objective of audit
- Determine if NRCs processes for issuing certificates of compliance and reviewing 10 CFR Part 72.48 changes provide adequate protection for public health, safety, and the environment 3
OIG Recommendations
- 1. Conduct an analysis to develop the regulatory and technical bases for the part 71 certificates of compliance term
- 2. Document and communicate to stakeholders NRCs analysis results identifying the bases for an appropriate term for Part 71 certificates of compliance
- 3. Establish sufficient internal controls by updating NRC guidance related to Part 72.48 review procedures
- 4. Establish sufficient internal controls by developing and implementing training for part 72.48 review process 4
OIG Recommendation 1
- Recommendation 1
- Conduct an analysis to develop the regulatory and technical bases for the Part 71 Certificates of Compliance expiration term
- Purpose of this meeting is to discuss Recommendation 1 5
Staff Response
- The staff, in consultation with the U.S.
Department of Transportation, will conduct a technical and regulatory analysis to develop a basis for the duration of NRC-issued certificates of compliance for radioactive material packages
- Staff will consider risk insights from existing studies performed on transportation risk of spent fuel and solicit stakeholder input, including input from international counterparts 6
Staff Response (continued)
- Will develop technical and regulatory bases to establish an appropriate term for certificates of compliance for transportation packages
- Document the results
- Communicate results to stakeholders
- Post on the NRC public web site
- Communicate to stakeholders, such as the DSFM regulatory conference (REG CON) 7
Staff Response (continued)
- Existing Studies and Risk Estimates
- NUREG-0170, Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, September 1977
- Vol. 1: ML022590265
- Vol. 2: ML022590511 8
Staff Response (continued)
- Fischer, L.E., et al., Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions, NUREG/CR-4829 (UCID-20733), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, February 1987 9
Staff Response (continued)
- NUREG/CR-6672, Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates - Main Report, March 2000
- NUREG-2125, Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment, January 2014 10
- Consulted with DOT
- Consult with stakeholders
- This public meeting
- Use information from risk studies to inform staff recommendations
- Develop a technical and regulatory bases for an appropriate expiration term Process for Development of Appropriate Expiration Term 11
General Discussion
- What factors should NRC consider as it evaluates a regulatory and technical bases for expiration term?
- Stability of regulatory environment
- Institutional Stability
- Technological Stability
- Other?
12
General Discussion
- How should we factor in risk?
- How does human factors/error relate to the expiration term?
- Are there other risk contributors that correlate to the expiration term?
13
General Discussion
- What are the impacts if there were a change in the certificate expiration term?
- Domestic
- International
- Impact on international transportation
- IAEA requirements 14
Items for Discussion General Discussion
- What are the implementation challenges if the NRC were to change the expiration term?
- Costs
- Revisions to internal processes 15
Next Steps/Schedule
- Evaluate comments from this meeting and internal evaluations
- We welcome comments related to this public meeting
- Please provide comments no later than May 25, 2018 16
Next Steps/Schedule (continued)
- Develop a regulatory and technical bases for the expiration term for certificates of compliance
- Based on discussions in this meeting
- Our interactions with DOT
- Review of existing studies and risk estimates
- Response due to OIG September 2018 17
Contacts Project Manager for the OIG Audit Recommendations Torre Taylor, Sr. Project Manager Phone: 301-415-7900 Email: Torre.taylor@nrc.gov Senior Project Manager for Technical Questions Bernie White, Sr. Project Manager Phone: 301-415-6577 Email: Bernard.white@nrc.gov 18
Questions 19
- DOT - Department of Transportation
- DSFM - Division of Spent Fuel Management
- IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency
- NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- OIG - Office of the Inspector General 20