ML19340A073
| ML19340A073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/2019 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Cruz-Perez Z | |
| References | |
| NRC-0729 | |
| Download: ML19340A073 (51) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Best Practices for Community Advisory Boards at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: webinar Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 Work Order No.: NRC-0729 Pages 1-51 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 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
+ + + + +
BEST PRACTICES FOR COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARDS AT DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
+ + + + +
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2019
+ + + + +
WEBINAR
+ + + + +
The Webinar commenced with Neil Sheehan, Facilitator, presiding.
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 P R O C E E D I N G S 1:00 p.m.
MR. SHEEHAN: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. My name is Neil Sheehan. I'm in the Office of Public Affairs in the NRC's Regional Office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
I'm joined today by several of my colleagues from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material, Safety and Safeguards, or NMSS.
We are here today to conduct a webinar to present information on the decommissioning process for commercial nuclear power plants and to obtain feedback from you on decommissioning community advisory boards.
We will try to avoid inundating you with acronyms during this presentation, but some are unfortunately inescapable. One you will hear repeatedly today is NEIMA, or N-E-I-M-A. This stands for the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.
This legislation was passed by Congress in late December 2018 and signed into law by President Trump on January 14 of this year.
NEIMA has several requirements for the NRC, one of which is why we are here today with this webinar.
Section 108 of NEIMA requires the NRC staff to prepare 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 a report to Congress on best practices for commissioning advisory boards in the communities around decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The legislation also required the staff to hold a minimum of 10 public meetings in the vicinity of decommissioning plants.
In fact, we conducted a kickoff webinar on August 8 and had 11 public meetings at locations around the country between late August and mid-October.
Since we cannot hold meetings at every plant presently decommissioning or those that have announced their intention to permanently shut down, we are conducting this second webinar to reach those who have an interest in decommissioning and community advisory boards and who were unable to provide comments at those earlier sessions.
One goal is to provide an overview of the NRC's activities to date associated with NEIMA Section 108 and again provide another opportunity for public comment.
Along those lines, the deadline for public comments will remain open until December 6. And this represents a slight change. We had earlier said that the deadline would be November 15, but that has now been extended until December 6. And in fact, you can 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 find a Federal Register notice to that effect that was published earlier this week.
We'll be answering questions at the end, both online and verbally. And, in fact, you have the opportunity to begin posting questions using this Webex technology as we go. And we would also like to point out that a transcript will be made.
Next slide, please. I'm joined today by Bruce Watson, who is Chief of the NRC's Reactor Decommissioning Branch. Bruce has been with the NRC since March 2004 and managed both the decommissioning of reactors and nuclear material sites.
He was the lead technical reviewer for the termination of the Trojan, Maine Yankee, Rancho Seco and Big Rock Point reactors as well as the Cornell University Research reactor.
In May 2010, he was appointed to his current position as Branch Chief, responsible for power and research reactor decommissioning.
He has a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech and is certified by the American Board of Health Physics. He has more than 35 years of experience in the field of health physics.
I would now like to turn it over to Bruce to get the presentation fully underway.
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 MR. WATSON: Thank you, Neil. To start today's discussion, let's review the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, Section 108 assignments and the actions the NRC staff has taken to comply with the law.
The NEIMA legislation was issued on January 14, 2019, as Neil mentioned. Section 108 requires a report identifying best practices for the establishment and operation of local community advisory boards, or CABs, for decommissioning nuclear power reactors, including the lessons learned from such organizations.
The NRC owes a report to the Congress by July 14, 2020. Internally at the NRC, it was assigned to the Reactor Decommissioning Branch in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
We published a Federal Register Notice soliciting requests for public meetings to discuss CAB best practices on March 18, 2019. We determined the public meeting locations in June 2019.
Since then we have held 11 public meetings and one webinar from August to October, 2019 to obtain public comments.
As I mentioned, we held 11 public meetings between August and October of this year. These meetings were held in geographically diverse locations 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 throughout the United States, and all of the meetings were very well attended.
We received input representing various members of the public, including private citizens, former and existing CABs, citizen advocacy groups, local, state and federal government agencies and non-government organizations.
Next slide. Before we get into the details of NEIMA Section 108 and CABs, I wanted to take a moment to share a bit about our experience in decommissioning.
The NRC's current decommissioning regulations are performance based and risk informed.
And we have extensive decommissioning experience.
A total of 10 power reactor sites have completed decommissioning and had their licenses terminated for unrestricted use. That is the rate loss from clean-up to the sites meet the criteria for them to be used without any restrictions going forward.
This is more than the rest of the world combined. We also expect to terminate the licenses at four more nuclear power plants next year. They are La Crosse, Humboldt Bay and Zion 1 and 2.
This slide shows two examples of power reactors that have completed the decommissioning process. At the top of the slide, you can see the before 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 and after photos of Maine Yankee.
At the bottom of the slide is a photo that was taken at Rancho Seco in California. The plant was permanently shut down in 1989, and this area of the site was released in 2009.
The owner has not demolished any of the structures and has built two combined cycle generating units at the sites to take advantage of the transmission lines, switch yard and the availability of a source of cooling water.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the NEIMA legislation was issued on January 14, 2019. Section 108 states, "The Commission shall submit to Congress a report identifying best practices with respect to the establishment and operation of a local community advisory board, again (CAB) to foster communication and information exchange between a licensee planning for and involved in decommissioning activities and members of the community that decommissioning activities may affect, including lessons learned from any boards in existence."
We're here today to obtain feedback regarding those best practices. We have extended our deadline so comments may be submitted to the NRC until 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 December 6, 2019, through the NEIMA Section 108 website, the regulations.gov website, by letter or by email.
And we'll give you all that information on a slide later on.
Which brings us to the topic at hand for today's webinar, best practices and lessons learned from community advisory boards at decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
So what is a community advisory board?
Well, there's no one size fits all model for decommissioning CABs. Some of the general tenets of such organizations are listed on the slide.
We would also point out that CABs may have differing names such as community engagement panels or citizen advisory boards or something similar.
As I mentioned, while the NRC does not have the authority to direct anyone but the NRC to participate in the decommissioning process, for many years we have recommended that the power reactor licensees involved in decommissioning activities consider forming a community committee or other advisory organization aimed at fostering communication information exchange between the licensees and members of the community that the decommissioning may affect.
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 Just as there's no one size fits all composition for decommissioning CABs, neither is there a single set of topics for which a board -- each board to consider as part of its associated progresses through the decommissioning process.
Instead our observations and experience have been that each decommissioning CAB adapt to the specific concerns of the community and region where the decommissioning is taking place.
Topics whose level of interest varies between the sites include transportation of radioactive waste, the socioeconomic impact of the plant being permanent shut down and the interim and long-term plans for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.
By actively engaging the community in obtaining local citizen views and concerns regarding the decommissioning process and spent fuel storage issue, plant owners can better understand and consider these views, maintain better relations with the local citizens and local communities can be informed of the decommissioning activities.
If the CAB is formed early in the decommissioning process, the CAB provides an organized forum in which the licensee serves the community by providing information on the decommissioning plans and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 activities. And the local community can provide feedback to a licensee and state officials on the plans for dismantling, demolition, those criteria and waste transportation.
While site restoration is not an NRC concern, once the license is terminated, the CAB can provide input to the owner on what the site should look like after all of the radioactive material is removed on the future reuse of the site.
NEIMA directs the NRC to submit a report to the Congress identifying the best practices for establishment and operation of local community advisory boards associated with power reactor decommissioning activities, including those lessons learned from existing boards.
Through the public meetings and webinars, we have consulted with host states, communities with emergency planning zones within the emergency planning zone of the decommissioning nuclear power reactors in former and existing local CABs.
The results of these meetings along with any data received as a result of the NRC's other collection information activities will be captured in the best practices report.
The contents of this report will include 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 a description of the type of topics that would be brought before a CAB, how the board's input could inform the decision-making process of stakeholders for various decommissioning activities, how the board could interact with the NRC and other federal regulatory bodies to promote a dialogue between the licensee and affected stakeholders and how the board could offer opportunities for public engagement throughout all phases of the decommissioning process.
The report will also include a discussion on the composition of existing community advisory boards and best practices identified during the establishment and operation of such boards, including logistical considerations, frequency of meetings and the process for selection of board members and other things.
These topics are captured in the questionnaire that is available electronically, and we will provide a link on the next slide.
So now that we've talked through the topics required to be in the NRC's best practices report and gone over the specific questions we came up with to try and capture the information for the decommissioning CABs, all that remains is for you to provide feedback to us on these issues.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 Obviously, we will be taking notes and soliciting feedback during today's webinar, but there are also several other ways to provide comments as outlined on this slide. As a reminder, we have extended the comment period to December 6, 2019.
Additional information about our NEIMA Section 108 activities are available on the NRC website at the link on this slide. You could also get there from the main NRC page at www.nrc.gov and clicking on the community advisory board meetings link in the spotlight section. We've included a screenshot that shows where the spotlight section is located.
With that, I'll turn it over to Neil.
Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: All right. Thank you, Bruce. Should you have any further questions or comments on the NEIMA Section 108 webinar, please do not hesitate to contact our public affairs office.
And you can see the contact information is listed on this slide.
The NEIMA Section 108 working group is also available via the listed resource email. We've been receiving questions and comments electronically throughout this presentation, and we will get to those in just a moment.
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 However, before we do that, there is another separate request we want to make sure that you know about. We want your feedback on the webinar itself.
There will be an easy way to do that if you go to the meeting notice for this session on the NRC public website. There is a simple form you can fill out to provide feedback about how we've done communicating during this webinar. The comments will help us to improve the use of webinars going forward.
Next slide, please. Thank you for your interest and participation in this presentation. Now, let's get to your questions.
Based on previous interest in NEIMA Section 108 public meetings, we expect to receive a number of comments today. We appreciate your understanding as we attempt to prioritize those who have not had the opportunity to speak in one of our earlier public meetings or the webinar.
We would also like to point out that it would be very helpful if you could be concise when offering your comments. Please try to avoid repeating points that have already been made. And please identify yourself and, if it applies, any organization or governmental entity with which you are involved.
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 With that, let's get going. And, again, we're going to start with some written comments that we received throughout the presentation. And I'd like to start with one that asks why does the official comments public website not yet include the comments?
They were submitted back on August 27.
So I guess I would turn that to you, Bruce.
MR. WATSON: Yes, I guess the simple question is that we had to wait on our contractor to provide the transcription services so we could review those. And we also had to put together a meeting summary, which most of those are now available in ADAMS.
And so, yes, I agree. It's taken a little longer than we'd like. But we just concluded all the meetings in mid-October. And I think we've got all but maybe one or two of the three of the site summaries posted.
And we have to deal with a variety of different transcription services from around the country through our contracts. So we are trying to get the remaining comments in the meeting summaries posted on ADAMS on our website.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Thank you. By the way, we're using a new platform for this webinar. It's Webex type technology. And one of the things it allows 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 you to do is raise your hand electronically to let us know if you have a verbal question. Of course, you can continue to send us questions electronically, and we'll try to get to as many as we can.
And so with that, Bruce, we'll go to another written question. The question is the Federal Advisory Committee Act includes the gold standard for the creation, membership and operation of advisory boards.
Even community advisory boards can benefit from these principles. Will you use them for the NEIMA report?
MR. WATSON: We'll review that report, but right now I don't think that we're going to be necessarily following that particular federal guidance because we're not sure it applies. That's the short answer. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: And one other -- there's a question. We would like to know what is your definition of success and/or success criteria when it comes to decommissioning and when is your work considered complete?
MR. WATSON: Well, I think from our perspective in the decommissioning branch, when we actually terminate a license, we consider that success.
But I'll caveat that with we want to make sure that the decommissioning is completed safely.
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 And it's done with the proper security in place and that site is safely decommissioned, meaning decontaminated to meet our unrestricted release criteria, which is 25 millirem per year plus the implementation of ALARA.
And so for the 10 power reactors that have been decommissioned to date, the actual dose has been a very, very small fraction of that limit.
And so I say I would describe success as the safe completion of the decommissioning that meets the unrestricted release criteria so the property can be reused for whatever purpose the owner wants. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, we're going to try --
we'll see we have any verbal questions here. I'm going to open a line for this caller. Go ahead if you have a question. Please go ahead. I guess not. Well, we'll go back to a verbal question here, a written question, Bruce.
If the charter of a panel specifies that it is only for public information and education, how can it be considered to be an advisory board? Shouldn't such panels be excluded from the NEIMA report because they are not advisory boards?
MR. WATSON: Well, I guess, we're not in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 a situation to really comment on that. I mean, the local community decides for themselves what their functions are going to be and how they're going to interact with the licensee.
So if it's just an education process, I assume that in this particular case the licensee is helping to provide information, possibly the state also. Then I would see that as some benefit for at least a knowledge management issue with the local population.
But if they're not providing advice back to the licensee, then I guess I would have to agree that it's a questionable practice and what the value is. But I don't remember that not being in any of the chapter -- yes, it's still a means of public engagement though. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: So, again, you should be able to let us know if you have a verbal question. There should be -- if you go to the software on the right, you should have the ability to do that.
Okay. We'll try another caller. If you have a question, please go ahead. Okay. Hold on one second. Somebody is asking for -- okay. Please go ahead. Mr. LaForge? Okay. All right. While we're trying to get that straightened out, we're going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 go to another written question.
This is from Victoria Leung -- I apologize if I'm mispronouncing -- from Riverkeeper. I was wondering if the NRC had examined various funding sources for community advisory boards while developing this report to Congress?
And going to that, has the NRC considered using independent facilitators, administrators or CABs or community advisory boards?
MR. WATSON: We have not begun to look at how the CABs are funded. I know the NRC does not fund them just to be very clear. Normally, they're either funded by the state or the licensee who sponsors them.
But we've heard comments about the need for funding for CABs and the ability to somewhat do independent things.
Now I say recommendations not necessarily a good practice, but it's something to consider.
If you have the second half of the question.
PARTICIPANT: Have we considered independent facilitators.
MR. WATSON: Well, since we don't regulate or have any requirements for what the CAB constituency or membership is, how the meetings are facilitated are really up to the local community and the sponsor.
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 I know, I think Southern California Edison and their citizens engagement panel has Dr. Victor from, I guess, it's UC Cal, anyway the university there, who is the chairman. And I think he's fairly independent.
But it's really up to the local community how they want to structure the CAB and how they want to facilitate meetings.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. I'm going to try to go to a verbal question from John LaForge. Mr. LaForge, can you hear us?
MR. LAFORGE: Yes, I can.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Please go ahead.
MR. LAFORGE: You mentioned a standard of contamination for unrestricted release. And I'm wondering is that a volumetric standard or a surface contamination?
MR. WATSON: The standard is a dose standard. It includes all pathways. So it would include direct radiation from any residual activity on, say, a building surface, any activity left in the soil.
It would include any crops that were grown in the soil that could absorb that contamination or residual activity. It would also include the dose from groundwater sources, such as drinking water.
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 And so it's considered an all pathways analysis. So it takes into consideration all the media and all the environmental pathways which could reach human consumption or exposure.
MR. LAFORGE: But unless I'm mistaken, there's reference to unrestricted release has to do with scrap metal, doesn't it?
MR. WATSON: No. Actually the unrestricted release criteria are for the site. So depending on how the licensee leaves the site as left is how it's applied.
For example, we were just up at the Zion Plant, which is basically a field. And so the actual residual radioactivity levels are based on the residual activities from the soil that were left behind as part of the regrading and restoration of the site.
So it pertains to the entire site. We have a no activity release criteria for the release of materials such as scrap metal to enable them to be recycled. It's a separate standard.
MR. LAFORGE: No activity standard?
MR. WATSON: It's a no detectable standard, which means we measure it the best we can to make sure there's no activity there, which is done very well.
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 MR. LAFORGE: I'm just wondering who is speaking here. Now, there's a question about -- hello?
MR. WATSON: This is Bruce Watson. I just answered your question.
MR. LAFORGE: All right. And are you the person who mentioned unrestricted release at the opening?
MR. WATSON: Yes.
MR. LAFORGE: Okay. So what does the word "release" mean in this context?
MR. WATSON: It means that the site has been evaluated, and, basically, we are terminating the license. And so the site is now available for the licensee or the owner -- at this point it would be the owner of the property. It's released from all regulatory control so that they can use the site for whatever purpose they want.
So unrestricted release from regulatory control, from radiological control from the NRC means that it meets our residual dose activity requirements to have the license terminated.
MR. SHEEHAN: All right, Mr. LaForge.
We're going to try to move on to the next question here just to keep things moving along and give others an opportunity to weigh in.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 So thank you. If we have an opportunity, we'll circle back to you if you have more questions.
So, again, you should be able to raise your hand electronically. I see some people have done that.
You know, feel free to do that. Or, again, you can ask questions electronically.
We have a question, let's see. Let's go back to a verbal question if others want to raise their hands, they can do that. Okay. Here's a question, why isn't a review of the audit by the CAB required?
MR. WATSON: An audit of the CAB. I don't understand that context. We don't audit or inspect the CABs because we don't sponsor them. So I'm trying to understand the real rationale behind the question.
So can we get a clarification?
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. So if the individual who posed that question doesn't mind fleshing that out a little bit more, we'll try to give you an answer on that.
All right. Let us know if you have any questions you would like to pose verbally as well, and we'll do our best to try to answer those.
Okay, Bruce, here's another question.
It's what incentive is it for the utilities to invest time and money into the CAB, the community advisory 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 board?
MR. WATSON: It's the NRC's position that we recommend the CAB so that they can, you know, communicate with the local community so there's a process going on where they share the information on the decommissioning.
It could be as simple as knowing when radioactive shipments are being transferred, what the progress of the decommissioning is. It could be a number of different topics that they would be interested in.
So, you know, like I said, from our perspective, it's really just like when the plant is in operation. It's a good thing to communicate with the local population and maintain good relations with the local community. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: All right. Question. The NRC unrestricted release standard is 25 millirems per year. Can states impose more restrictive radiological standards?
MR. WATSON: And the answer to that is yes and they have. For Maine Yankee, they imposed a 10 millirem per year standard. I think Connecticut had a 19 millirem per year standard for Connecticut Yankee.
And I think Massachusetts had a lower dose limit, maybe 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 15 for Yankee Rowe. And New Jersey has also 15.
As long as they meet the NRC criteria, you know, which is below 25, we will terminate the license so. It's really up to the states to negotiate or advise the licensee on their criteria for license termination and for unrestricted use.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Here's another one that's from, I believe this is from Riverkeeper.
Question is, can we be sure that Holtec and SNC-Lavalin will be good stewards of the decommissioning trust fund?
It doesn't specify which plant they're referring to, I'm going to assume it might be Indian Point here, but I can't be sure.
Why aren't financial guarantees from the parent company required? And we already answered this one, but what about a review of the audit by the CAB required? But maybe if you could answer those first two, Bruce. Why are financial --
MR. WATSON: Well --
MR. SHEEHAN: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WATSON: Yes. Well, first of all, the decommissioning fund is held by an independent trustee and by a bank, in probably New York, since that's most of them are there. So, the trustee is responsible for ensuring that, when the funds are removed or requested 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 from the trust fund, they are being used for decommissioning activities.
Now, the NRC will continue to monitor those activities and, obviously, inspect the plant, but we will also require that the licensee supplies to us, once they're in decommissioning, a report every March on the previous year's status of the decommissioning funds. And so, we have to -- we will do our financial evaluation to ensure there's reasonable amount of money to complete the decommissioning.
As far as performance bonds or other bonding of the licensees, obviously we can't speak about Indian Point, because we don't have an application in yet to transfer that one, or request to process that application, nor can we approve it until we actually review it and get to that point.
But I can tell you that, in other facilities that have had license transfers, for Zion, there was a requirement for the Zion, EnergySolutions, which became ZionSolutions, was required to put up a $200 million performance bond for the decommissioning there, to ensure there was adequate or reasonable funding assurance for the decommissioning of the two units there.
I think Vermont Yankee, that the company 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 NorthStar also put up performance bonds, I think in excess of $140 million, as part of a license transfer agreement.
So, depending on the actual, I guess I'll call it financial situation associated with the decommissioning fund, there may be a requirement from the NRC, or it may be a voluntary thing on the applicant to provide bonding.
So, I think I answered both of those. The NRC may do spot checks of the decommissioning fund and check with the trustee from time to time on the status of the funds also. So, that's it, thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. I'm going to try to go to a verbal question. Is Julie Massey (phonetic),
can you hear us?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, I can hear you, can you hear me?
MR. SHEEHAN: I can. Do you have a question?
MS. MASSEY: Actually, it did get answered with some of the other questions that were asked. I appreciate it.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MS. MASSEY: I didn't realize we were all on mute. But thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 MR. SHEEHAN: You're welcome, thank you.
Okay. We'll go to another written question, Bruce.
The NRC has recently eliminated the requirement for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant to have an emergency planning zone within ten miles of the plant. Is Massachusetts free to keep this requirement for the power plant?
MR. WATSON: I don't know who the requirement would be on. There's no requirement if we issued the exemption to the licensee to reduce the emergency planning zone. The State of Massachusetts is always welcome to do what they choose to do at any of the facilities, whether they're nuclear or not, in their state.
So, like I said, if the NRC authorizes that reduction, then we obviously can't force the utility or the licensee to maintain that emergency plan requirement.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. And I would add that, we did make publicly available the information when we issued the exemptions allowing for changes to the Pilgrim emergency planning zone, emergency planning requirements, as well as the related license amendment request. And you can find those in our electronic document system, ADAMS, which is easily accessible from 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 the NRC's main web page at www.nrc.gov.
Question, again, Bruce, on writing, is, where can we find a list of all of the community advisory boards?
MR. WATSON: Well, we know that in our report we'll be listing the ones that we visited. I don't know that there's any additional ones out there, unless they have formed since we did all the public meetings.
I think we went to all the existing community advisory boards. So, it was ten of them, that are in existence, not all the plants have community advisory boards. And there are presently 23 plants in decommissioning and only ten of those have community advisory boards.
So, based on the location and interest by the public, there's debate whether they need them or not, but some others do. Some other plants do have other means of communicating with the public. I know one utility holds a monthly meeting that they hold with their commissioners every month and they welcome any comments on the decommissioning of their nuclear plant.
I wanted to just close by saying that we listed all of the community advisory boards on the beginning of our slides, and they're also on the web page, which you can access.
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 PARTICIPANT: The August --
MR. WATSON: Okay.
PARTICIPANT: -- kickoff webinar.
MR. WATSON: Yes. And also, we listed them on the August webinar we conducted. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Next question is, can the NRC -- I'm sorry, give me one second here. Can the NRC require a decommissioning fund to be used to fund a decommissioning community advisory board?
MR. WATSON: The short answer is, no. We can't require them to extend the funds for the sponsorship of a CAB. That's -- the money is there for doing the decommissioning and I guess it's up to, really, the utility to use those funds effectively to complete the decommissioning. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Again, you have the ability to raise your hand electronically and let us know if you would like to pose a question verbally. I know this platform's a little foreign to a lot of us, so we're still trying to get used to it. But it does offer you that opportunity, so feel free to take advantage.
Another question in writing, Bruce, is, well, it says, can you repeat your answer about the CAB review of decommissioning fund every March? Indian Point is $1.7 billion. I guess they're talking about 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 the combination of the Indian Point decommissioning funds.
Does, for example, $200 million seem like an adequate amount of bond? I'm not exactly clear on what the questioner is getting at, but I don't know if you want to take a try at that.
MR. WATSON: Okay. By regulation, the plants in decommissioning are required to report to us each March, by the end of each March, the status of the decommissioning fund from the previous year.
So, they will provide to us any changes in that fund and, of course, obviously, the remaining work that needs to be done at the site, if there is any.
So, each year, we will get that report, it gets reviewed by our financial people and they will review it against the standard of reasonable assurance that there's adequate funding to complete the decommissioning. So, that's an annual report once they're in decommissioning.
As far as specifics on Indian Point, they have, I can just say that they have a fairly large decommissioning fund. The only report that we officially get in decommissioning is on Indian Point 1, since it's been in decommissioning status since, what, the late '70s? Yes, 1974.
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 So, but as far as the other two, we don't really look at the decommissioning fund on that in my branch at all, but the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation looks at it periodically.
Yes, now they're in -- yes, Kim (phonetic) just reminded me that the financial people were moved over to NMSS in our office, just a few weeks ago. So, they're now no longer in NRR, they're in NMSS, so they're part of our family now.
So, anyway, yes, they do periodic reviews of the status of the decommissioning funds when the plants are in operation, because there's a formula they have to meet, minimum funding requirements, and they ensure they meet that.
But, again, what I said, once they get into decommissioning, that's when we really look into the decommissioning fund and the standard is reasonable assurance of adequate funding to complete the decommissioning. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. I think we've addressed most of the questions. Again, if you have any questions you'd like to pose, you can do that electronically or you can let us know if you'd like us to unmute your phone to try to ask something verbally.
I will, while we're waiting on that, I'll 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 backtrack to a question that we received earlier, which is, what incentive is there for utilities to invest time and money into a CAB?
MR. WATSON: Well, I think we encourage them to form CABs and sponsor community groups. We think it's a good means to stay in communication with the local community on the activities that might affect them.
As we've noted before, in the Electric Power Research Institute, in some of their decommissioning lessons learned documents, from Maine Yankee and the Maine Yankee CAB, they listed that as a good industry good practice to have a CAB and to have the community, local community involved in the decommissioning process.
And the NRC management also agrees that's a good practice. And so, from our perspective, we encourage the licensees to form CABs. I think it's just a matter of being a good neighbor.
There may be some instances where local traffic could be affected by radioactive waste shipments, there's a number of different things, increased volume of traffic in the local community, with the different vendors coming in and out of the community to do the decommissioning.
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 There's a number of factors that could affect the local community. And of course, when the plant shuts down, there's always the issue with local loss of revenues and the economic impact on the local community, as well as the jobs associated with operating the nuclear power plant. So, thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. All right. We have this question, will your final report prioritize the best practices for community advisory boards?
MR. WATSON: I'm not going to say we're going to prioritize, I know we're going to be providing the best practices. I don't know that there's a means to weight them, to prioritize them, so I can't say we would be doing that definitively.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. So, we'll offer another reminder here that if you'd like to ask a question electronically, you can do that at any time.
If you'd like to pose a question verbally, please let us know using the panel and we'll unmute you and allow you to do that.
So, we did get some initial questions in writing, Bruce, so I'm going to ask you these other two questions. One of the questions is, does the decommissioning trust fund belong to the decommissioning contract?
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 And then, related to that, does any residual money go back to the rate payers? So, I guess you would have to define what they mean by, or what we mean by a decommissioning contractor.
MR. WATSON: Well, I guess, I'd have to say that it's really up to the individual states and their laws and requirements on the fund. There may be restrictions on who has access to those funds. The funds were put away to decommission the site by the licensee, whoever that is.
And since we don't always control that, but do approve the licensees, it would really be up to the individual states to determine that access, as well as what would happen if there were any funds left over and what would happen with the proceeds of any funds that were left over. It would be really specific to the state and the NRC would not be engaged in that particular decisions or requirements. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Here's a question, what criteria would you use to define best? And I guess they mean, what criteria would you use to define best practices as we're compiling this report on decommissioning community advisory board best practices?
MR. WATSON: I guess we would define best 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 practices as the -- I'll say, there's going to be commonality between the various citizens advisory boards and that seem to work for them very well. And also, what they see as best forums and topics that they review.
So, it's really going to be derived from the comments that we received, principally from the existing boards and the lessons learned from the previous boards. So, it's going to be basically a system of looking at the commonalities of the things that really work well for the CABs.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Question, your decommissioning exposure limit is a dose -- this is another question having to do with release criteria.
Your decommissioning exposure limit is a dose limit, how do you translate that into a radiological cleanup action level? For example, the action level established by the EPA for the cleanup of uranium mills?
MR. WATSON: Well, first of all, the EPA has its own set of standards for various facilities.
I can tell you that we have a memorandum of understanding with the EPA and that the basis for that is on the levels in which we approve the actual residual levels of individual radionuclides that may cause any dose in the future.
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 And so, we have a memorandum of agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and in that MOU, it lists specific radionuclides and their concentrations, whether it's in soil or on building surfaces.
Now, the way you can calculate a dose is based on the residual level that you actually measure in the field. And those may be in terms of microcuries per gram or picocuries per gram for soil, or they may be in levels of residual activity on the surfaces of structures and those would be in the limits of disintegrations per minute per hundred square centimeters.
So, it's really a conversion of those radiological measurements through the use of sophisticated computer programs, which will take and do the, what we talked about earlier, the all-pathway analysis for the actual migration of those type nuclides from the environment into the human, people doses that could contribute.
So, it's fairly complicated, there's some standardized computer codes which we use, along with the DOE and the EPA. We all use a common survey program called the Multi-Agency Site Radiological Investigation Manual, which is one of the, I guess I'll 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 call it, it's obviously multi-agency, because it's one of the few documents which the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the NRC, the Department of Defense, all agree on the standards for how we would do the measurement to determine the dose.
And so, that's how the process is followed. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. We're going to check again on the line and see if anybody has a question they'd like to pose verbally. Okay. I'm not hearing any at the moment. Okay.
So, question is, what is the expected outcome of Congress's review of the NEIMA Section 108 Report? Additionally, what is the time line for Congress's review and subsequent action, if any?
MR. WATSON: Well, the easy answer is, we're providing the report to the Congress for their use as they see fit. Obviously, they have a reason for it.
I think that, I can offer my personal opinion and that is, I think they wanted information on CABs to look into the future for any other plants that may shut down, as a means for knowing what a community advisory board is for, what are the attributes, obviously, of a good functioning CAB?
And as far as I know, they have not -- the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 Congress does as the Congress does. They have not provided us with any feedback on what they're going to do with the report or any time line for their review.
So, I'm sure the Congress will do as the Congress does, which is up to them.
So, sorry, I don't really have a definitive answer, but obviously they have some reasons for us to do the report in the first place. Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. So, we're getting some feedback that folks dialed in using the bridge line and they would like to ask questions. So, I'm just going to ask the folks at our headquarters if there's any way to provide access to them to ask questions verbally.
Most of the folks who are accessing this webinar via the Webex software, which is why they're showing up on our screen here and we're able to unmute them and mute them, but if they called in on the bridge line, that's -- it would take a different method to unmute them. So, we do have any capability to unmute them?
MR. WATSON: We're not using -- are you talking about another bridge line? Because all they need to do on this one is raise their hand to ask a question, on this Webex.
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 MR. SHEEHAN: Right. Okay.
MR. WATSON: I mean, we're --
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, again, this is the first time we've used this software, this platform, so we're --
MR. WATSON: Yes.
MR. SHEEHAN: -- learning this as we go too, so our apologies if you're not able to ask a question via the bridge line. We'd ask that you pose it electronically and hopefully we can get that resolved before we use this again.
So, I'm going pose a question from, this is from Vermont, and it's a question that goes, the NEIMA web page list does not include boards where meetings weren't held, for example, near Maine Yankee or Connecticut Yankee. Can the NRC publish a full list of CABs or community advisory boards, including those for ISFSI-only sites, where decon, immediate dismantlement is otherwise complete?
MR. WATSON: I mean, I'm trying to figure out what the question really is. We know there was a CAB at Maine Yankee, I think his name was Mr. Hudson (phonetic), advised us that they were still going, they still meet, even though they're down to the ISFSI-only at Maine Yankee. We know that there was a CAB for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 Connecticut Yankee and Yankee Row --
PARTICIPANT: Those were actually captured in the Vermont Yankee.
MR. WATSON: Yes, all those comments on those previous CABs were captured in the Vermont Yankee transcript, which should be available now, either through ADAMS or on our website. So --
MR. SHEEHAN: It is --
MR. WATSON: -- those are the only three that I know of.
MR. SHEEHAN: It is in fact available on our website, I saw it this morning. So, if you go to the left-hand side of our main web page, and you'll see a link there for community advisory boards. You click on that, you'll be able to access all those meetings for which so far we've been able to get the transcripts posted and meeting summaries. So, I would urge you to take a look at that.
So, it's a little after an hour, so I don't know if you have a goal in mind, as far as how much longer you'd like to go, Bruce. We are -- it does feel like we're getting near the end of some of the questions, but I'm going to pose one more here that came in via writing. It says, did you say the Section 108 Report has a list of ten CABs you met with?
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 MR. WATSON: What was the question?
MR. SHEEHAN: Does our report have a list of ten CABs, that the meetings were --
MR. WATSON: Yes, we've --
MR. SHEEHAN: So, in other words, when we held those 11 public meetings, did we meet with ten community advisory boards in the course of --
MR. WATSON: Right. And we met at Crystal River, which does not have a CAB, but we did receive an invitation to hold a public meeting there. Also, Kewaunee doesn't have a CAB. Yes, not all the meetings we held have citizens advisory panels.
In some of them, like Palisades, we had an invitation to hold a meeting there, because there was community interest in learning about CABs, but they don't have one yet, because they haven't shut down yet.
They've announced, the utility's announced they're shutting down probably in 2022.
So, the listing on the slide we had is a listing of where we had the meetings, not all of them have CABs. We believe we went to all the sites that have CABs.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Maybe one or two more questions, Bruce? And then --
MR. WATSON: Sure. I mean, if we don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 questions, there's -- we'll go starting working on the report again.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. Here's one other question come in. The owner at the shut down Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant says it will take 40 years to decommission their reactor. TEPCO in Japan says it will take 40 years to decommission the Fukushima reactors. How can both estimates be true? It sounds like a case of apples and oranges to me, but I'll let you --
MR. WATSON: Yes. I think the owner of Kewaunee has chosen to wait 40 years to decommission the plant. The actual time to decommission the plant is typically anywhere from seven to ten years. So, that's the active decommissioning.
The NRC regulations, like for Kewaunee, they're allowed to go into a safe store period, which typically can be up to around 50 years, and then, they're allowed -- we typically would see them start decommissioning, so they can complete the decommissioning by Year 60, which is the requirement in the regulation.
The Japanese and other countries basically have their own requirements for decommissioning.
Typically, since many of those places, states, I think 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 are member states of IEA, but most of those countries do not have the low level waste storage or disposal capacity that we have in the United States, because we do have a number of commercial low level waste disposal sites, one in Utah, one in Texas, Washington State, and South Carolina.
We can -- decommissioning in the U.S. can be done, is done fairly quickly, if you want to call it that, seven to ten years. And so -- because we have that access to waste disposal sites. Whereas in, I'll say the other countries that were mentioned, Japan and others, generally take a long time to decommission the sites, because they do a great segregation of the materials, since they don't have much low levels disposal site capacity. I hope that answers the question.
MR. SHEEHAN: Now, I'm being reminded that participants can press the buttons for either chat or phone in order to communicate with us. So, again, I know this platform's new to us, and certainly to the people who are calling in, so please feel free to communicate with us that way. Okay. Let's do two more questions, Bruce, and then, we can wrap up, if that sounds okay to you.
MR. WATSON: Yes, that will be fine with 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 us. If there's no questions, then --
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MR. WATSON: -- we'll call an end to it.
Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. It says, earlier in the presentation, you noted that CABs present an opportunity for the licensee, the plant owner, to share information with the community and for the community to provide feedback to the licensee and state.
Has the NRC seriously considered CABs as a tool for the community to provide feedback to the NRC? This is especially important since the NRC is the final decision maker for nuclear safety issues at sites.
MR. WATSON: Well, I can tell you that the NRC has and does attend local CAB meetings, when invited. We generally are invited to speak on specific issues that the CAB has interest in. So, I would assume that we would welcome any comments from the local community board on any issues that they have concerns about.
I know we've gone to Vermont Yankee and spoke about the license transfer process. We also went up and spoke at Pilgrim about the decommissioning process and after the post-shutdown decommissioning 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 activities report, we went and specifically answered the CAB's questions on that particular submittal to the NRC.
And I know we've gone to Southern California Edison, to the citizens engagement panel there, to answer questions on the inspection program and the environmental assessment program and environmental review program over the years.
So, we try to make ourselves available for specific topics which the NRC has a role in, if the local community advisory boards extend an invitation.
Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. And I think you've already addressed this one before, but it's probably worth revisiting, considering there might still be some confusion about this, so, if you don't mind.
The question is, does the NRC establish a CAB or can a community establish its own? How so?
So, it's probably an appropriate way to wrap this up, given that there apparently is still some confusion about this.
MR. WATSON: Well, first of all, the NRC does not organize citizens advisory panels. In some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, the state has formed them through either their legislation or other 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 means, to form a CAB to provide input over the Vermont Yankee and the Pilgrim plant. Other local ones are sponsored by the licensee, because they think it's a good thing to communicate with the local community.
I would note that, in California, there was a CAB for Humboldt Bay that PG&E sponsored, and we got to hear from the local community leaders and university people that were on that board.
We attended a meeting at the, I attended a meeting, I should say, at the Diablo Canyon citizens advisory, I think they call them panel or board, to discuss the decommissioning process last year. And of course, as I mentioned, we've been to Southern California CEP meeting a couple of times to talk about specific issues.
So, it's really up to the local community.
I think at Indian Point, and I think it was Mayor Knickerbocker and County Supervisor Puglisi put together a charter to form their own community advisory board for Indian Point, which has a fairly diverse membership also. So, it's really up to the local community. You can probably find their CAB or talk to them about their charters and see how you can form your own, if there's an interest.
But the key thing, I guess, would be that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 it has to be really representing the community and have their agreement that it's representing the local community.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MR. WATSON: Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Thank you, Bruce. And then, there's an administrative question, which is, when and where will a webinar slides and transcript be available?
MR. WATSON: We will place everything on the website. It's going to take a while for the actual part of the meeting to be transcribed and provided to us, but we will put together a meeting summary of this webinar.
If you go back to the original slides we presented, if you go to the NRC website, www.nrc.gov, and go to that Spotlight section on the left-hand side of the web home page, you'll see Community Advisory Board Meetings.
If you click on that, it'll take you to the NEIMA Section 108 web page. And so, you'll be able to get all the materials that we've done, including all the meeting summaries, transcriptions, and comments that people asked to be specifically included in a meeting summary on that website.
So, like I said, we have about three more, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 two or three more to go, from the public meetings.
And then, we will do one for this particular webinar for everyone to look at, and it's going to be publicly available.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MR. WATSON: And I hope that it won't take too long, but we're mainly dependent on the contractor to get us the transcription, so we can review it and basically check it for spelling and other grammatical issues from the transcription process.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MR. WATSON: Anything else, Neil?
MR. SHEEHAN: No, I think with that, we're going to wrap things up. I don't know if you have any closing comments, Bruce?
MR. WATSON: Well, I wanted to thank everybody for their time. We decided to do a final wrap-up, so to speak, for the public meetings.
We had heard a few people say that they had questions, that either they wouldn't be able to make it to the public meetings or obviously we had over 300 people on the initial webinar, so not everyone got a chance to ask questions or provide comments.
So, that was the real purpose of today's webinar. I don't think there was any new information 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 provided in our slides, you basically saw the slides we did at most of the sites. I think some of them -- Palisades was a little more extensive, because they were kind of being also introduced to decommissioning, like we did in the initial webinar.
So, I wanted to thank everybody for their participation. I see we had a lot of questions today about CABs and, I guess, some of them on how we're going to proceed with the report. So, we'll take those all into account.
But it's now up to the staff, in particular the people in my branch, to begin writing the report so we can meet all the deadlines to get it through our management and through the Commission in time to meet the Congress's deadline of July next year.
So, other than that, I want to again thank you all for participating. I appreciate all the people participating at the public meetings, we had nearly 600 people at all the public meetings, and so, we had a very good turnout for this particular subject matter around the country. So, again, thank you very much, and back to you, Neil.
MR. SHEEHAN: Yes, I'll just conclude by saying, we greatly appreciate you taking the time from your day to join us for this webinar. Your feedback 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 has been and continues to be important as we compile our findings for this report that we're going to submit to Congress next year.
Our apologies if you had any challenges trying to communicate with us verbally today. We acknowledge the fact that we're still adapting to this new platform and we hope to do better the next time.
So, please provide us with any feedback and we will take it under consideration. And with that, I'd say, have a good rest of your day and thank you very much. That concludes today's webinar.
MR. WATSON: Thank you, goodbye.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433