ML20079H441
| ML20079H441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/2019 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Hamdan L | |
| References | |
| NRC-0691 | |
| Download: ML20079H441 (159) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Issues Contained in PRM-72-7 and Additional Staff-Identified Changes to 10 CFR Part 72 Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 Work Order No.: NRC-0691 Pages 1-156 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
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES CONTAINED IN PRM-72-7 AND ADDITIONAL STAFF-IDENTIFIED CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72
+ + + + +
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2019
+ + + + +
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
+ + + + +
The Public Meeting convened at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Three White Flint North, Rooms 1C03 and 1C05, 11601 Landsdown Street, Rockville, Maryland, at 9:00 a.m., Carla Roque-Cruz, Facilitator, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
CARLA P. ROQUE-CRUZ, NRR/DRO/IQVB LATIF S. HAMDAN, NMSS/DFM/MCAB YOIRA K. DIAZ, NMSS/DFM/CTCFB ZHIAN LI, NMSS/DFM/NARAB TIMOTHY J. MCCARTIN, NMSS/DFM MERAJ RAHIMI, NMSS/DFM/MSB 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 CHRISTOPHER M. REGAN, NMSS/DFM JAMES L. RUBENSTONE, NMSS/DFM/MCAB DAVID T. TANG, NMSS/DFM/MSB TRAVIS L. TATE, NMSS/DFM/NARAB JOHN P. WISE, NMSS/DFM/MSB THOMAS F. YOUNG, NMSS/REFS/MRPB ALSO PRESENT:
MIKE CALLAHAN, GSI AL CSONTOS, EPRI BRADY HANSON, PNNL GARY HEADRICK, San Clemente Green*
DONNA GILMORE*
BRIAN GUTHERMAN, GTS ADAM LEVIN, AHL Consulting ROD McCULLUM, NEI PAUL PLANTE, 3 Yankees*
MARK RICHTER, NEI JEREMY RENSHAW, EPRI DON SHAW, TN Americas KAYLEEN WALKER*
- present via telephone 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 CONTENTS Welcome and Opening Remarks........................4 PRM-72-7 Issues....................................8 Staff-Identified Changes..........................60 Defining Spent Fuel Performance Margins (White Paper by NEI)........................90 Closing Remarks..................................156 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 9:02 a.m.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Good morning. I think we are ready to start. Thank you so much for being here this morning. This is the public meeting to discuss the issues contained in PRM-72-7 and additional staff-identified changes to 10 CFR Part 72.
Before we really get started, there's always some items that we like to go over in the beginning. Bathrooms are, you come out of this door, you take a left, and then, you take another left.
And then, you're going to find the restrooms.
If there is an emergency, we'll come out of this building, and our assembly point is that street behind us. We'll just follow everybody else.
So that will be okay.
We have an operator-assisted line. So we will be listening for the operator, and she is going to tell us what we need to do for the people on the phones, if they want to ask a question.
Elaine?
OPERATOR: And at this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1. Please enter your phone and record your name clearly when 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 prompted. To ask a question, press *1.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you.
For those of you here in the room, if you have a question/comment, please wait for the microphones. That way, people on the phone can hear you. We have two microphones that I will be passing around. So, please wait for the microphones before you speak.
There are sign-up sheets. So, please, if you haven't done so, do it at some point during the meeting. We also have handouts. So, if you don't have the material, if you want to read it, we have it all right there.
The agenda today, we're going to have some opening remarks and message from the NRC and NEI. And then, we'll go straight to the topics that we want to discuss today.
And with that, I'm going to leave you with Chris Regan for some opening remarks.
MR. REGAN: Good morning. Thank you all for coming.
This all-day meeting we are having I think has significant value in the area of -- basically, what it comes down to is efficiency.
So, we have some items to talk about today that were 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 broached with us, petitioned for rulemaking some time ago. We're looking to assess whether or not this rulemaking is still warranted. We also received a White Paper from NEI that has a fair number of common threads or common areas to the original Petition for Rulemaking.
So, I think it's good to really assess what is the most efficient and effective way to address the areas of interest and to determine whether or not we should continue with the rulemaking, given the level of effort, the timeframe, and the resources we might expend on something like that.
Again, thank you all for coming. I look forward to the discussions and items that we're going to talk about today.
And with that, I'll offer the floor for NEI, if they have any opening remarks. Thank you.
MR. McCULLUM: Thank you, Chris. Yes, right, we really appreciate the NRC holding this meeting, this engagement. And you've come in here with not only a good summary, I note in the materials of our petition, but some ideas of your own.
As you noted, we filed a White Paper recently which has 16 recommendations where we can accomplish some of those same objectives, 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
7 without rulemaking.
We filed the rulemaking, the Petition for Rulemaking, in 2012. We're here in 2019. We need to be transformative real time here. The need for efficiency in our industry is urgent. Obviously, we are trying to compete in very competitive electricity markets, and a big part of our value chain is becoming the back end.
As decommissioning business models evolve to decommission plants faster, meaning moving fuel out of pools faster, making the licensing of dry casks more efficient is key to the success of those decommissioning business models. And certainly, we are also preparing to be transporting fuel in 2023.
So, we're only four years out from that. I was just at a tabletop exercise conducted by the Midwestern States. I can report the Midwestern States are ready.
So, there's a lot of reasons to be more efficient that probably can't wait for the pace of rulemaking. We also have a decommissioning rulemaking that the staff was directed to conduct by the Commission in 2014. Here in 2019, the Draft Rule is still with the Commission.
So, we can talk about whether proceeding 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 with rulemaking is still necessary. Maybe it's a parallel path; maybe it's we can do things instead.
I will say that we have no wasted the five years. We have made some of the improvements.
Don Shaw is sitting here. We did do a pilot of a Regulatory Issue Resolution Protocol where we were able to make a significant improvement in one of the TN Certificates of Compliance.
So the recommendations that we're going to talk about in our White Paper, when we get to that, I think they're consistent and complementary to some of the staff's ideas here. And we look forward to taking this into not a rulemaking that's out there somewhere in the distant future, but to transformative change that we can implement now, while the industry needs the transformative change.
Thanks.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you. And now we're going to Latif.
MR. HAMDAN: Good morning. My name is Latif Hamdan. I am the Technical Lead for the rulemaking plan on this petition. And Tom Young here is the Project Manager. He has done much work on that. And Don Chung, he's a member of the Working Group and he's about to make a presentation, also, 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 with me during this meeting.
Before we go to the petition issues, I thought I'll give you a little bit of background that you see on the screen here. Some of the stuff has already been mentioned.
We received this petition in October of 2012. Four months later, the staff announced a rev and requested comments from stakeholders. And we received comments from five parties. All of the comments were supportive of the amendments requested in the petition.
In 2014, on the 8th of July, we announced the staff determination that the petition would be accepted and that we would proceed to initiate or recommend to the Commission the initiation of a rulemaking.
Some things happened since that time.
One important activity that took place is the pilot study to grade the activities and requirements in the CoC, and this effort is maturing now. The report should come out, my understanding, it will come out at the end of December, next month. And there is also recommendations there that have to do with the recommendations that are in the petition. That's why the idea of going rulemaking or non-rulemaking comes 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 into play.
The other thing that happened is that, while we were working on the rulemaking plan in the past year, the staff, the Working Group, the Branch Chiefs, and we even had the same committee, identified and vetted 10 additional revisions that the staff decided to include in the rulemaking, should the rulemaking take place. And we'll have a discussion of those today as well.
As far as meeting expectations, I think it has already been covered. Let me just add to what has been said. It is that in that rulemaking process, which goes through like four or five phases -- we have the receipt of the petition that was received.
We have the rulemaking plan. We have the reg basis.
We have the proposed rule, and we have the final rule.
If we go that route, you know, that's what will happen.
But the point I want to make is that the rulemaking process requires that in every step of the way we get stakeholders' input. So, we don't make any decision without considering input by the stakeholders -- the rulemaking plan, the reg basis, the proposed rule. So, that's why we are here and that's why a meeting like this is important.
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 Okay. I just want, also, to add that, because of the pilot study, and because we added these additional items, this input has special significance because in the five years or seven years since the petition was received, you know, we have things happen. That's a long time. And so, we really are delighted to have everybody here because we do want to hear and see what your current position with the issues is, and we need your input and your perspective on the method.
Very quickly, the meeting agenda, we'll do the petition issues. Then, we'll have the White Paper, discussion of the White Paper by NEI. We'll talk about the staff-initiated changes and all of that before lunch. And after lunch, actually, the whole discussion will be about the alternatives we have and the options we have going forward. I'm not saying that we are going to take really just the stakeholder input, but stakeholder input is going to be a very, very important component of the information that we are going to use to make a determination and recommendation to the Commission.
Does anybody have any question for me on the background?
Okay. Let me move now into the petition 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 issues. You know, you have them right there. In this presentation, I'm going to address the requested amendments to the rule. And we are going to tell you about the guidance documents that could be impacted by this rule or by any changes we make in the regulations.
The first issue is the most important issue of all discussed in the petition, and it has to deal with the format and content of the CoCs and the technical specifications. We did a lot of preliminary work on that, and we found out that, should this issue be resolved, there would be significant savings in time and money and a lot of efficiencies that can be realized just from resolving that one issue.
And basically, what the change is, in the current rule and current practice, it appears that the licensees do not have a specific or centralized format and content requirements that they can follow, which results in a lot of diversity in the content of the CoCs and the technical specifications, which makes it difficult for licensees and the reviewers from NRC alike, and result in inefficiencies in the process.
So, what the petition requested is 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
13 we amend and clarify and centralize the content and format of the CoC in the regulations, so that we resolve these problems.
The second request is about the backfitting rule, and it's a very simple request, I thought, in 72.62. The licensees, general licensees and specific licensees, have this protection from the backfitting rule that, for some reason, is not extended to the CoC holders. So, whatever it says, not only is it not fair, but it's not sensible; it doesn't make sense. And I think that could be an easy decision, and it's straightforward, and that's all there is to it.
The third request by the petition is something about having the general licensees do a review of the NRC's SER. And my understanding is that they want this before the CoC is issued.
Frankly, the Working Group went over this and we reviewed the information, including information of some determination made by the senior staff and the Commission. And the Working Group reached a determination that we don't think this requirement is necessary because, between the CoC, the technical specification reviewers, and the SER, we should have enough information to issue or not issue the CoC.
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 I might say, in the 2014 announcement, as I'm sure you know, that all of these issues were accepted, even at that time. What we did in the Working Group is to make sure that we still agree with what we have announced in 2014, and we did in the end reach the same agreement and determination that was announced in 2014. So, don't be surprised if we are going to go not only on the first three requests, but also on 4, 5, and 6 we have the same thing.
So, I think the request there is about, there is something about in the current rule that, if something changes, so that there's impact on the safety requirements in the CoC, that the licensee would have to change their program to mitigate the impact, the negative impact, of such change. And we are going to stick with that.
The petition is not saying change that.
The petition is saying stick with that. However, we want to make the point that we already have in Part 50 mechanisms and procedures to make this change.
So, we just want to clarify that we are not asking for licensees to do new things and come up with new programs that we tell you. We are saying the programs are already there, and their petition wants 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
15 regulations to clarify that programs do exist already and make use of them, and not create new things.
The fifth petition request is about -- a simple, I thought, request, and we will not spend too much time on this, but we did spend time trying to figure out why we need the empty weight marking on the storage cask. And basically, what the petition is requesting is that's not necessary and it's cost that we can do away with.
But I think your input here may help us because we really did not have much in the Working Group at the staff level to say -- you know, we said, why not? And so, your feedback on this will help the Working Group.
And the sixth and last amendment request is to expand the scope of activities for which criticality monitoring is not required -- not required. And the idea is that the cask design, the specifications are supposed to be non-critical.
Critical conditions are not going to materialize if all the requirements are met on the design of the cask. And therefore, this continuing the monitoring and frequent monitoring of the criticality of the cask may be not necessary or it can be reduced.
All I want to say about the second part 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 of this handout is potentially impacted guidance, and frankly, the Working Group came to the conclusion that the first two, this NUREG-1745 and NUREG-1536, are the ones that probably have the most impact by the rulemaking or any changes to the rules. But we cannot rule out that the other guidance listed here, be it the standard format and content and the inspection procedures used, may not be impacted some.
So, I thought I'll throw that in.
As we do in every rule, in every rulemaking we don't just change the rule. What we do is we change the rule and we make conforming changes to the rule. And I just want you to know that this was really for rulemaking, when, frankly, rulemaking or not, whatever option or alternative we use, chances are some of these guides, guidance documents, are going to be fixed, modified as well.
Yes, sir?
MR. McCULLUM: Rod McCullum, NEI.
On the guidance, you have the draft of NUREG-2215 out there, which I think is going to supersede certainly the Standard Review Plan, if not the format and guidance as well. When we last met on 2215, I think the NRC was indicating that they were going to simply roll up the existing guidance 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 that they weren't going to issue new things, but that we all recognized that this exercise would lead to new things.
So, I think that in terms of those, I would look to codify the improvements in guidance to the extent they needed to be in 2215. We would have expected 2215 would have been issued by now, but it hasn't. Some of these other things are moving along.
For example, the RIRP is complete. And it's probably warranted to have a conversation about the timing of NUREG-2215's finalization vis-a-vis the timing of implementation of some of these things. Because, really, it would be confusing to amend outdated guidance and, then, come up with new guidance that supersedes it.
MR. HAMDAN: I'm glad you mentioned that.
I agree. And frankly, we had that also on a rulemaking for Part 71. And in Part 71, we spent a lot of time in 2215 and we know it's in the works, taking more time than we should.
When we developed this list, as has been discussed, this list came late, and we did not deliver it on the list. And I decided to throw it in, just to let you know what it is, and to be frank with you, we overlooked 2215 and maybe that's my fault.
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 MR. McCULLUM: That's understandable.
So, just to clarify, you indicated that 2215 cannot be finalized until the Part 71 rulemaking is finalized?
MR. HAMDAN: No.
MR. McCULLUM: Okay.
MR. HAMDAN: No. What I'm saying, you know, we have cited there that, just like we do here --
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: -- we cite it in the reg basis that, if the rulemaking goes through, there will be modifications, and that many of these modifications are already incorporated into 2215. My point was we cited to 2215 there. That's all.
MR. McCULLUM: Oh, okay. Understand.
Thank you.
MR. HAMDAN: Yes. But thank you for that.
Now it's all questions/discussion because that's all what I had to say in this session from my side. And the question came at the right time.
And, Chris, yes?
MR. REGAN: Yes, so this is Chris Regan, NRC.
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 Rod, you are correct, the timing becomes one of the considerations. When we reviewed guidance 2215, it was one where, yes, had we issued it a couple of months ago, we may not have even had this question to answer.
There are two things to be aware of, though. We are actually moving into the publication process with that document. So, it's not really a case of any more work on it. It's just administrative as far as moving it forward.
The other piece to it is a lot of the justification that we provided to get it to this point was that we were not making any technical changes.
It was just a consolidation effort. If we start making technical changes, we're in a completely different process that involves a different kind of technical review, a different kind of steps in the process that require additional effort beyond just what we are doing for this particular revision.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, and that's a very useful clarification. So, what you're telling me is we are where we thought we would be, basically, which is we issue 2215 simply to consolidate. And then, any additional changes would be a rev to 2215. We're okay with that process. I was just wondering, since 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 we hadn't seen 2215, but I certainly don't want to throw you back into a new process here.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: We want to go see if people on the line have any questions/comments to what we have discussed so far.
So, Operator, do we have any questions or comments?
OPERATOR: I'm showing no questions at this time. As a reminder, *1 if you would like to ask a question.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: No questions?
OPERATOR: I have no questions at this time.
MR. HAMDAN: No questions.
I think I wanted to have, if you don't mind, I would like very much to have a discussion of the changes one-by-one. We'd be delighted to hear from you because we, ourselves, the Working Group, we did as much as we can, and then, the purpose of this meeting is to hear from the stakeholders. And if you don't mind, I would like, because we have time, if you can go through the petition issues one-by-one and see if anybody has any insights or comments. How would you be impacted if this request is adopted via the rulemaking and some guidance? Would it impact 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 your operation? What is the impact it would impose?
Would it impact safety?
So, I'm going to start with the first petition, which is, frankly, as I mentioned, it is probably the most consequential amendment in the petition. Can we talk about just that one issue first? We'll go through the issues one-by-one.
We'll take them one-by-one. So, what is the feedback or the input or the perspective of the stakeholders on the first amendment in the petition?
Yes, sir?
MR. McCULLUM: I guess I will start because we wrote those. Those, you're right, that was the meat of the petition. When we designed the petition, it was because of those criteria for format and content, and everything else, we said, well, since we're going to do a rulemaking, what else do we need to fix? And then, you further extended that with your ideas here today.
So, this is the meaty issue. And I will tell you it is not necessary to do this by rule.
Really, the issue was that the CoCs are way too voluminous. They have way too much detail in them.
They just evolved by practice. Reviewers asked for things. CoC applicants put them in. And so, we 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
22 a lot of information in there. They are more detailed than reactor tech specs, even though reactors are a higher-risk activity than dry cask storage. You know, dry cask storage has no moving parts; reactors have a lot of moving parts. So, why do we have more detail in a dry cask storage CoC?
So, we wanted to get to a more risk-appropriate level of detail. We recognized at the time that rulemaking wasn't the only way to get there.
But we felt that, because both on the CoC holder side and on the reviewers' side there was this just expanding territory, we thought maybe by putting it in the rule we could limit that. We could enforce discipline on the system on both sides to simply stick to the information important to safety.
Since we proposed those criteria, we have run the RIRP pilot on the TN-1004 CoC. And so, that tested those criteria. NRC had a chance to react to the criteria. We, I believe, modified the criteria and resolved that discussion.
So, I will suggest we have a better set of criteria now. Do we want to codify those by rule?
I mean, maybe there's a parallel approach. But when we get to the part of the discussion where we talk about our recommendations, we already have one 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 example of how we can implement those criteria without rulemaking. So, any other applicant is free to follow that precedent.
So, we've done by precedent what we could have done by rulemaking, and we did it faster. I mean, well, yes, the RIRP we did in three years, and the rulemaking is not done in seven years. So, yes, we did it more than twice as fast.
I'm willing, and when we get into the discussion, because the importance is being transformative in the near term. And I'm not going to suggest that, okay, we did that; we've transformed.
That may be just a first step when we look at all 16 recommendations.
But we have proven we can implement these criteria. So, if we want to get to a standard form -- because where we drifted to with all that stuff we put in the CoCs was not conducive to the most safety-focused approach -- if we want to get to a standard form, we have a template; we have a process.
Does the NRC need to codify that in guidance? Another thing I would not want to throw into this is where we propose an NEI guide, and although that was originally part of the RIRP, we 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 might want to reconsider that. We propose an NEI guide, and then, it takes the NRC several years to endorse. Again, we have the history with NEI 12-04 that was a 2012 document that I'm sure we'll have endorsed by 2020. So, that's eight years.
And again, we'll get into this when we explore the recommendations, but this is a great example. To the extent where we can use that precedent now and make changes now that support the faster decommissioning, you know, that support being ready for transportation in 2023 -- and I know we're in storage, but we've got to make sure everything is compliant in storage before we send it on the road.
And making it complicated doesn't help figuring that out.
So, I think whether we want to codify these in rule or not, we certainly should use the lessons learned from the pilot if we do that. But I would say if we do that, that's a parallel path. I think industry should move on the precedent that we've just established there.
And, Brian, you were instrumental in the criteria. Good. Okay. So, that's our perspective.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Anybody on the line have any question or comment on the first issue?
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 OPERATOR: As a reminder, *1 if you would like to ask a question.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay. Anybody in the room has other perspectives on this issue?
Okay. Let's go to the backfitting issue, which is a request to make 72.62 in the regulations apply to the CoCs as it applies to the general licensees and the specific licensees. Any perspective, insight, comments? Frankly, what is the impact? Like what the gentleman just did on the first issue, if it is a positive impact, we want to hear it. We are not just looking for something negative.
So, I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Thank you. Brian Gutherman, consultant.
The genesis of this item was to acknowledge that the Certificates of Compliance for the cask designs include requirements for both the CoC holder and the licensees. And if new requirements for operation of the casks are imposed in the CoC, the licensee is who absorbs the cost and burden of implementing those new changes. But, without a backfit, applicability to the CoC holder, 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 there's no recourse to say, no, that the cost of that implementation does not have a commensurate safety benefit. So, that's the genesis of that one.
Now we did not do a deep dive, I don't believe, into the difference between licensees and CoC holders in this regard. That's something that will evolve over time. But that was just the 20,000-foot genesis of that particular proposed change.
MR. HAMDAN: Yes, thank you.
Any other comments on that? Yes?
MR. REGAN: Chris Regan.
So, real quick, given the fact that that initial perspective was developed in the 2011-2012 timeframe, do you still see that as being as significant an issue or concern as it was back in 2012? Or where are you guys on this one?
MR. McCULLUM: Oh, it's absolutely as significant an issue. If anything, it's more pressing.
What I'm saying is the issue is still important, but is rulemaking necessary to address it?
We wanted to force the issue with rulemaking. We've succeeded in accomplishing at least part of what we set out to accomplish in the first RIRP. So, I don't give the impression the issue is not significant, 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 but -- we're staying on backfit, right? Sorry, I went back to the first issue.
Brian, why don't you answer that one?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes, it is still the same concern because it's an open door. And we think that we need that surety of this rule to make sure that we know what the rules are for backfitting. And there is some protection there for this backdoor of new requirements on the licensees that come through the Certificate of Compliance.
MR. REGAN: Have you see any examples where this particular concern has been manifested?
Or is this, like you said, you want to provide some surety of this backdoor will not exist moving forward?
Has it actually been an exercise? Or have you seen it actually become an issue?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes. ISG-22 is one example where -- and for those who are not familiar, that's the one that the staff decided that you should never put air in contact with fuel cladding in the spent fuel cask. Several utilities -- or I beg your pardon -- several CSCs did permit it without event over time. And that evolved through the ISG and became requirements in the Certificate of Compliance.
It required the licensee users to change their 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 operations, use more helium instead of air. And at the time, we didn't think that that had the appropriate analysis of the cost versus the safety benefit. So, that's one example.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay. Any questions?
People on the line, any questions on topic or issue No. 2 about backfitting?
OPERATOR: As a reminder, *1 if you would like to ask a question. One moment, please.
(Pause.)
And I'm showing no questions at this time.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay. Thank you, and thank you, Chris. I think Chris reminds me that on these issues, ultimately, we want your perspective and we want your input, but we also, on all of these issues, want to see if each one of these issues is still valid from your standpoint. So, thanks, Chris.
The third amendment request, the review of the NRC SER. And basically, let me repeat that, that the petition requested that such review by the general licensee is not necessary and not required.
And based on what the rule did, what we did do, we found that it is consistent, the request is consistent 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 with the actual practice.
So, what is your perspective now on that issue? Yes?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes, this is Brian.
Before people get tired of me, I'll probably be speaking on each of these, since I was involved in writing them.
This one comes from the writing of many 212 reports. 212(b)(6) requires you to document your review of the SER for the cask system in the 212 report. And it's our point of view that the licensing basis for the cask system is in the CoC and the FSAR.
The SER is good information. It's valuable to know what the safety basis was for the NRC's approval of the cask system, but it doesn't include any additional requirements. It's not permitted to do so. So, we didn't find much value in reviewing the SER and documenting that review in the 212 report. And we still think that.
MR. REGAN: So the million dollar question, then, is -- is this sufficient to warrant going through the rulemaking process to change this requirement?
MR. GUTHERMAN: I'll be very candid and say these reviews of the SER are very perfunctory as 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 they're documented in the 212 report. They're not a large burden, to be fair, but it's still in the regulations. We have to comply with the regulation.
So, there it is.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, and another thing -- Brian just said "perfunctory". And we all know what that means. That means something you're really kind of just going through the motions because you have to. That's not important to safety, and that does take time and you've got to see it coming back on the other end.
So, that's what I'm talking about when I say transformative here. Whether we actually undertake a rulemaking to do just that, probably not.
If it can find its way into another ongoing rulemaking, great. But what we really want to do is change the culture where that's the expectation. We want to get the focus on what's important to safety here. This transaction, that's all it's about. And so, let's think about that, but, yes, I would not want to turn up the rulemaking machinery just for that.
MR. REGAN: So, this is an important perspective to keep in mind. So, as Latif walks through these, we are looking to make an informed 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 decision on moving forward with the rulemaking. So, asking the question -- you know, it's somewhat targeted on this one -- asking a question, would this one be sufficient to warrant a rulemaking? Well, maybe not alone, but you've reached critical mass -- no pun intended -- with several of them.
So, that's what we're looking for from you. We have a petition for rulemaking on the books.
Some of the issues have been moving forward, being addressed through guidance. But we still have the question on our plate as to whether or not to move forward with the rulemaking. And we're looking for feedback from you on helping us understand where you are on the need or your request to move forward with rulemaking on these particular items.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, in my answer I'm being pragmatic here, because in a perfect world, yes, we would snap our fingers and these would be easy changes to make in rule. In reality, a priority for industry is the pending decommissioning rule that's been sitting on the Commissioners' desk for almost two years now. It's sitting there because there is a backlog of rules in front of the Commission right now.
I can't honestly say that I'm helping 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 make things more efficient if I make that backlog bigger. Maybe there's a rulemaking out there that comes along. You know, I would not just throw this out. I would keep this petition alive, so that if there is another rulemaking to which you can add this, you know, a rulemaking that's related enough -- I don't know what your rules are for -- I know you make rules that affect multiple parts of the regulation.
And I don't want to slow up another rulemaking, either. So, maybe that's not practical.
But the pragmatic view -- and we will get to the discussion of our recommendations in the recent letter that came out a week or so ago -- the pragmatic view is, if we're really going to be transformative, we can't do it at the pace of rulemaking. And if you strip the rule down to its bare essentials, the rule is not the problem. It is the way we have implemented the rule that is the problem.
Now, in this case, I mean, these are things where, yes, the rule is the problem, but I'm talking about the bigger picture. And I don't want to again have another senior moment and slip back into my one talk. But that's really what it is.
So, pragmatically, I would keep these issues alive for rulemaking, but I am not interested 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 in making the Commission's backlog deeper at this point. I don't think that helps us, and it certainly doesn't help us with some of the other changes that we do need to make in the near term.
MR. HAMDAN: Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. WISE: John Wise, NRC staff.
And I'm sorry, I don't kind of want to derail this conversation, but the question that Chris raised is the -- I don't know -- is the meaningful impact of each of these proposed changes and whether they're worth proceeding.
And I apologize for wanting to jump back one. The example that Mr. Gutherman gave regarding the application of ISG-22 was an example of a potential backfit. Was ISG-22 applied to existing amendments or only the review of new amendments? I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes, when amendment requests came in, in several cases I could cite that had nothing to do with this issue, there were RAIs posed and new requirements added to invoke ISG-22, that no air would be put into the cask, completely unrelated to the original basis for the amendment request.
MR. WISE: Okay. So, it was a new 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 amendment, but the change regarding the amendment wasn't regarding this ISG-22 issue?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes.
MR. WISE: So, when you envisioned a change to the backfit rule, I kind of would envision that the rule would apply to new amendments. Or would you imagine having language there that would protect against changes to which an amendment wasn't addressing?
MR. GUTHERMAN: That's why I --
MR. McCULLUM: No, I think that is the very definition of a backfit. Because the change was unrelated to that issue, the staff expectation was that, whenever you came in for any change, you would become compliance with ISG-22. Now I said compliant with an ISG, and I should slap myself because it is guidance, but it doesn't contain requirements. So, the expectation that at any update you're going to update to bring back in ISG-22, that is the very definition of a backfit, regardless of how you parse the words there.
MR. McCULLUM: Did that answer your question, John?
MR. WISE: Yes, I think so.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Okay.
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. WISE: I think so. I just personally am just trying to wrap my head around how that will be interpreted going forward when a new amendment comes in, and how it's perceived, whether it's a backfit or not when you're reviewing a new amendment.
MR. GUTHERMAN: And as a practical matter, I'll add this: if I'm a CoC holder in a competitive business, and a new requirement on my certificate doesn't burden me, it's going to be a burden on my users. And I know that all the CoCs are going to eventually have the same thing. It's really easy to say yes to get my amendment done.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other question/comments here on the floor before we go to the phone lines?
Elaine, do we have any questions/comments on the phone?
OPERATOR: I'm showing no questions at this time. As a reminder, *1 if you would like to ask a question.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Go ahead, here in the room.
MR. LI: All right. This is Zhian Li.
I just want to follow up with the question, the discussion.
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 My question is to Brian. Do you have any particular example for this ISG-22 backfitting issue?
Or was this amendment involved in some kind of a change, like from low burnup fuel or to high burnup fuel? I just want to have an idea of what specifically we're talking about, if you could give that.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes. I'd have to do my research, but I do know that several CoC amendments included a new requirement that operations had to be modified to not allow air in the cavity where the fuel is. That came from ISG-22.
I could get to those details and get back to you on that. But having done the 212 reports to adopt those later amendments, those became apparent to me, that that's where that came from.
I hear what you're saying about the high burnup fuel. Okay? And I'd have to do my homework on that. In our view, I guess this goes back to the ISG itself. And we had problems with how that process took place. Because once that was memorialized in the ISG, well, that's what the staff reviewers are going to use. So, we didn't think the ISG had enough technical rigor behind it before it was approved.
But, then, once that began rolling, it had a lot of 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 momentum.
MR. LI: Sure. I think that would be very helpful to us to have some examples, and, also, your rationale why the ISG itself is kind of our -- I mean, yes, I think that would be helpful.
MR. HAMDAN: I also have a question for Rod, your earlier comments, if I can. Did I hear you say that the rule, some of these items would require a rule still, but that the rule need not be done now?
MR. McCULLUM: What I was saying was there is no way the rule can be done now because it would just go into the Commission's backlog and it would sit there. The fact that we are having this discussion -- and this has been a very good discussion; I thank John and Zhian for raising their issues here -- means we still lack clarity on backfit in Part 72. And that's important because these CoC holders had to spend real money to bring their CoCs up to guidance that was issued subsequent to the CoC when they were going in under unrelated issues.
I do not have the patience, is what I am saying, to wait for a rulemaking to fix that problem.
So, let's talk constructively how about we can take this discussion and get clarity on this in a way that makes sense, in a way that is transformative.
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 You know, over in NRR space, we've revised the backfit rule. In NRR, the backfit rule had kind of gone dormant, and the Commission gave some direction to the staff. And the CRGR, the Committee to Review Generic Regulations, got new life. And we tout that in industry as a success story, that we are now applying the backfit rule effectively in NRR space.
That doesn't mean in this lower-risk area of dry cask storage we should ignore that success.
We just have to figure out how to do it. And rulemaking isn't going to help us. Again, I don't have the patience for just putting something behind the backlog and expecting that to solve the problem.
MR. HAMDAN: So, NEI -- this is the point, so make sure we get this right -- so, NEI and the industry is amenable to expedite what we can expedite and get the considerations up and do it right now outside of rulemaking, and what was left over can be lumped into rulemaking at some time in the future?
MR. McCULLUM: Amen.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay. That's clear. Thank you.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Chris?
MR. CALLAHAN: Mike Callahan from GSI, 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 on behalf of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition.
And I just want to expand upon what Rod just said. He's heard me say, and I know Mark's heard me say, and I think others here have heard me say, if you want something solved through NRC rulemaking right now, it has to be really, really big. Because even the simplest of rulemakings are taking so much time through the process. It's not a quick process, not intended to be.
My favorite example recently has been it took the Agency, I think, well over a year to polish up its fitness-for-duty regulations simply to conform with new HHS guidelines for drug testing. I mean, as I say, it just takes so long.
So, one, I think Rod's exactly right; it doesn't help to enter into rulemaking again when there are some ways in which you could possibly get to the same place. I would think that the sooner we get to the recommendations that the White Paper has, the better you can go sort through these to see their relative importance and whether or not we figure out a way to hold them in abeyance for a different rulemaking while we look at the recommendations that may not require rulemaking.
I mean, I think we can talk all morning 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 about going through these individually, but I think it needs to be -- you know, I don't want to try to change the agenda, sitting here, but I think the recommendations would be illuminating to answer the questions we're going through right now.
Thanks.
MR. HAMDAN: Thank you, Mike. I think that's very, very clear and it makes a lot of sense, as far as I'm concerned.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Chris?
MR. REGAN: So, in the interest of time, I'll just say a couple of quick things -- again, I apologize -- on the backfitting question. The principle is appropriate. I'll just go on the record in saying that. The principle of the backfitting application is appropriate. And I see that as being reasonable.
But I've heard, I think, several different questions or concerns embedded in that.
The first one I think is easily resolved by guidance.
We have a fundamental principle that an amendment application that's received by the staff, we limit the review to just those areas that are changed, not those areas outside that. That's in our guidance right now. So, if there is an issue that the staff 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 wishes to pursue that's outside the scope, we have to ask ourselves that question: is that appropriate for that particular amendment request?
The second point I wanted to make is -- and this goes to the applicability to licensees in implementation of a CoC -- a cask that's already loaded and sitting on the pad already has an approved amendment request on the books. A new amendment request does not have to be adopted by the licensee that has that change in it. They can still use the existing amendment request. So, there's no backfit implementation or requirement for a licensee to change their existing CoC as loaded on the pad. If they choose to adopt the new amendment with the change in it, that's their decision.
So, imposing a new requirement on a licensee from a newly-approved amendment isn't, in and of itself, a requirement. Only if they choose to adopt that new amendment would it need to be implemented by the licensee. So, okay, enough on that one for me.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I just want to note for the folks on the phone that industry agrees with your position, as Brian said. And great transition, great segue, as Mike suggested, to 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
42 recommendations, because, yes, you can do that. And as we've mentioned in our letter submitting the recommendations, you have sites out there that have as many as seven different amendment versions for the identical casks that are sitting on their pad. That is confusing. That is inefficient. So, yes, I can go back to a previous amendment, but what I want to do is get into a world where I don't have to have so many amendments, where I have only a few amendments and they're simple.
And our recommendations get us there.
So, you're right, we don't have that problem. I mean, yes, that's absolutely how you address that, is you go back to a previous amendment. So, I've got Amendments 9 through 16 of the TN-1004 cask on my site. And so, in Amendment 16, or probably in this case it would be 15, I committed to something new and I want to get that ready. So, before I ship that off and store it in interim storage, that cask is under Amendment 15. But that is a panoply of paperwork that, as we look to moving these things, as we look to managing them for decades into the future, you know, somebody is going to have track all those separate amendments.
So, you're right, I have that tool now, 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 and that's the way it should be dealt with. What I'm trying to do is transform to a world where I don't need to do that, where I have something that's very simple for my system that has no moving parts.
MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Mike Callahan again.
While we certainly hope we don't get there, there is the prospect that some older ISFSIs might have to decommission and rebuild their ISFSIs, et cetera. What amendment is going to apply, you know, as we go through that process? These are murky questions that you get into. And how much paperwork do we want to have as we take a canister and put it in a new overpack, et cetera?
That's it.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other questions/comments here in the room?
If not, I want to go one more time to the phone lines.
Elaine, do we have any questions or comments?
OPERATOR: I do have one question.
MR. PLANTE: Paul Plante, 3 Yankees.
OPERATOR: Sir, your line is open.
MR. PLANTE: Yes, I hope I'm not echoing too much because it does seem to echo when you're 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 listening to it on the phone. Am I coming across okay?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Yes. Yes, sir, we can hear you clearly.
MR. PLANTE: I thought I just heard a comment about putting new requirements into amendments. As an end-user, we usually try to stay current to the latest amendment. And usually, a cask vendor amends the CofC, it has a very specific scope or reason for making those amendments. You don't just willy-nilly add requirements to amendments, and then, expect the users to adopt them. And I'm not saying "willy-nilly". That's probably kind of a lose term. But you wouldn't add a requirement for something that a cask vendor didn't want to have in their CofC.
And a user, usually the users sponsor these amendments. So, to add a requirement for this ISG-22 and imply that it doesn't really affect users, and we don't have to adopt them, that's not really true. Many of us are trying to adopt them because there are other reasons to upgrade our amendment status.
So, I don't know if that made any sense, but the point I was trying to make is to get at a 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 comment that was made in the room a little earlier about you didn't have to use them if you didn't want to.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you for that comment.
We have a comment here in the room.
MR. TANG: David Tang from NRC.
What Mike mentioned a while back was a real situation for, say, moving spent fuel to new places. So, for that matter, often I think our understanding was there would be new overpacks to be built. Now an amendment, say, for the user to build this, that is something I don't know whether, from a practical matter, it will warrant some kind of a Topical Report kind of approach for individual cask vendors to summarize what they have had with their amendments dealing with various aspects, especially in this case overpack. I don't know whether that is something you can consolidate your thoughts and, then, make some kind of evaluation and recommendations on how to look into that.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other questions/comments?
MR. CALLAHAN: That is a topic that we can probably spend a whole day on, and I don't 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
46 we want to wander there today.
It certainly has been addressed early on, as you know, in some of the applications and in the SARs, et cetera. But, as I say, broader scale, another day, please.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: If we can go to Latif?
MR. HAMDAN: If you don't mind, we have a few other issues. We can go through them quickly.
So, let's do that.
Let's go to No. 4. There's a change that needs to be made. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. You go to the program change protocols in Part 50 and use that. That seems to me to be straightforward, unless you think what we have in Part 51 doesn't apply.
Any comments on that? Okay, Brian.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Brian Gutherman.
This one, in particular, has actually a contradiction with the Part 50 language for control of one of these programs. And that is QA programs.
For a general licensee, the Part 50 regulations govern those programs and the change criteria. For QA in part 50, the term of art is "reducing the level of commitment". The regulation in Part 72.212(b)(10) says decreasing the effectiveness of the program, 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 which is inconsistent with what Part 50 says.
So, that's something that, again, are we dealing with this and wringing our hands over this?
No, we're using the Part 50 criteria because of the Part 50 program. But there is a disconnect in the rules.
MR. HAMDAN: Any other insights on this?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any insights, people on the phone, for Issue No. 4?
MR. HAMDAN: Okay. Let's go to Issue 5.
Do you mind?
And that's the empty weight marking on the storage cask, and if that's important to keep it there, and how important that would be?
Any comments on that? Anybody? Yes?
MR. McCULLUM: It is what it is. I can't see that mark being on the cask being important to anybody on down the road. I mean, what's relevant, if somebody's going to lift it 40 years from now, is how much it weighs loaded. And I assume we know that by a matter of record. So, this is just a simple thing. If they have to do it, they have to do it, but it's a meaningless task.
MR. GUTHERMAN: And it cost the CoC holder money.
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 MR. McCULLUM: Yes. Yes. I mean, I don't know. This was definitely one, okay, let's get rid of this. This requirement makes no sense. So, let's get rid of it while we're doing a rulemaking.
But, boy, this definitely doesn't warrant making the Commission's backlog longer.
MR. HAMDAN: I think that was it. Let's go to No. 6 about reducing the frequency of monitoring for criticality in the storage cask. That's an intriguing thing for me because I'm not into this whole thing, to be honest with you. But I would like to hear about that as much as I can.
MR. GUTHERMAN: This is Brian. I'll give you a little background on this one.
The cask systems are designed to be subcritical under all operating conditions, and that includes when the cavity is full of water and if there are more critical configurations when it's less than full of water. Of course, the CoC holder would be obligated to look at those conditions.
The regulation, as I recall, has an exemption for when the cask is underwater and when the cask is in its fully storage-ready configuration.
So, that leaves a gap from when the cask is pulled out of the pool until the when the cask or canister 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 is in its storage-ready configuration and ready to go to the pad, where criticality monitoring is required.
There's a letter from NRC staff to me in 2000 explaining all of this, and I'd be glad to give you the Accession Number for that.
So, what this does is it has the licensees having to find some sort of monitor during that window of operations to meet the criticality monitoring function by this regulation, when it really has no safety benefit because the analyses cover the most reactive condition for the fuel in the cask. So, it doesn't add any safety value to us.
That said, there's one wet ISFSI, right, in the country where that does apply. So, the language of the rule makes sense, but it has to be applied properly.
MR. RAHIMI: Meraj Rahimi, NRC.
Brian, as you noted, yes, back in 2000, we exchanged a number of letters on this issue. The applicants wanted clarification.
And you noted correctly, in the regulation it specifically exempts. You know, you don't need a criticality requirement while underwater. I think the rationale back in 2000, it was after sort of a change of the letter. And during 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 the loading operation, that's under Part 50, which really Part 50, the requirement really comes from the Part 70 for criticality safety monitoring. That is the genesis of the criticality safety requirement, which Part 50 references Part 70.
So, at that time the rationale was that the loading operation is under Part 50, and the Part 50 has a criticality monitoring system. And certainly, while on the pad, you know, because of the confinement, there is sort of -- the staff accepted there is no requirement for the criticality monitoring. So, that was the rationale back in 2000, sort of accepting that the loading operation is done under Part 50, which there is a criticality safety requirement under Part 60.68, actually. It goes through all the gyration process.
But, yes, it is nice if sort of explicitly you make the connection because 72.50 and 70, they need to be connected and harmonized.
MR. GUTHERMAN: I agree, Meraj. I would just add that, in Part 50, 50.68 was amended to say you can have monitoring or show by analysis it's subcritical. So, we're just looking for that same thing in Part 72, right? Because 50.68(c) says, if you've got a cask in the pool, go to Part 72. So, 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 Part 50 doesn't apply. It sends you to 72, and then, you get back into the criticality monitoring circling. "Circling?" Is that a word?
MR. RAHIMI: Yes, and in 50.68, you're right. I mean, we did the rulemaking, I think, in 2002 because industry were complaining quite a bit they had to do two sets of the criticality safety analysis. You know, if the fuel is in the cask, the cask is in the pool, one for the Part 50, one for the Part 72. And we did the rulemaking 50.68.
So, yes, with the boron credit, that was kind of our way of no requirement for the criticality monitoring safety. Yes, I mean, I agree in terms of it would be nice to make it clear and the connection between all three parts of the regulation with respect to the criticality monitoring system.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes, and this has real field consequences. I mean, the licensees have to find a monitor of some sort that can detect the criticality if it were to occur, make sure it's operable, make sure it's maintained. All these things cost money. And if it's not necessary because the analysis shows it's impossible, then we need to address that.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay. I just want 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
52 go to the phone lines. We discussed Issues 4, 5, and
- 6. Any questions or comments on those issues, people on the phone lines?
OPERATOR: And I am showing no questions.
As a reminder, *1.
MR. HAMDAN: Yes, thanks. I want to just take five minutes, at the most, five minutes, two minutes, to make sure I capture what I heard, and then, we'll take a break. And if you don't mind, Rod, we'll do the discussion of the White Paper right after the break. And then, we can do the staff proposed revisions right after lunch maybe. I think we have plenty of time to begin.
But what I want to do in these two minutes, if I may, I don't have a transcript, but this suits me fine because I understand what I hear you are saying.
So, on these six issues, I have three buckets. I want to make sure that we can do that quickly. Did I hear that all of the six issues still need to be addressed one way or the other?
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: All right. Any exceptions?
MR. McCULLUM: The first two issues absolutely have to be addressed one way or the 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
53 MR. HAMDAN: Okay. How about two?
Let's go through --
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: -- down the list.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, we would like to -- I mean, it's really a matter of degree. The first two are absolutely must address. The others all have utility. So, we still stand behind these, whether this petition wants to exist in the background. So, that if in a future Commission some years down the road there is not a backlog, we can pick up some of these other things. So, we're not abandoning any of these positions, but the relative significant of them to industry varies.
We could take an action to prioritize them, I suppose.
MR. HAMDAN: Yes, we won't do that yet, but thanks.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: I just want to summarize --
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: -- what we've discussed here, but definitely, also, whatever else, we will do that. That's great.
So, since we have them all and we know 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 those two are the most significant, the next thing I want to know, which of these issues one-by-one can be addressed right away, just back to my point, in a short time through guidance without a rulemaking?
I mean, the request No. 1? Can we do that by guidance? Do you see that?
MR. McCULLUM: You can do it by guidance, and in some ways you can do it even with existing guidance. That's, again, what we'll say in our recommendations. We've got 16 things in our recommendations that address that first issue, and not all of them require guidance. So, I would say there ways to otherwise address them which may or may not include guidance.
No. 2, that's kind of the sticky one right now. And I'll let Brian speak to that.
MR. GUTHERMAN: I would say 2 through 6, the rule is -- I hate to use "broken" -- it's difficult to comply with in some cases, unnecessary in others. Whether you can make your way through the guidance process to make it work better is up to you really. We would do whatever works out for you because we understand what the intent is.
I mean, taken together, the benefit, the cost/benefit here is difficult to put a finger on 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 because it's not big in any particular respect. It's just an improvement over time that would be a good idea.
MR. HAMDAN: For all of these, 2 through 6?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Two through 6, yes. I mean, the rule, the language in the rule is not right in our view. If you can fix that with guidance somehow, that would be great, and we certainly would get done more quickly. We could also use the exemption process on our side, right, in some of the cases? Right?
MR. HAMDAN: What I meant is not rulemaking actions or tools, if you will. If you don't mind, Brian, let's go through one-by-one, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I mean if you think we can be at this point no rulemaking, please let me know. If there's something that can only be addressed, like changing in 72.62, you are saying change that in the rule.
So, if we can go through them, whether it's guidance or some other one, a rulemaking activity, let's go through 2 through 6 quickly, if we can.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes. Yes, on No. 2, well, on 2 through 6, I just want to be clear. Industry will not be proposing any guidance on those. We're 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 standing on this position. It's up to NRC to, absent a rulemaking, make the changes.
On 2 -- and I'm going to do what you said -- we're on 2 now. You know, Chris already alluded to your existing review guidance takes care of part of that. But the practice, we've seen a different practice. And Brian did call up a specific example on his screen as we were sitting over here, and he can talk to you about that separately.
So, you already have part of the answer.
I think, on 2, what we need to do is look at what's been accomplished on backfitting on the Part 50 side, the NRR side. And I think the question I would put to NRC is how can NRC function so that they're consistent across those regulations without a rulemaking in this specific recommendation?
MR. HAMDAN: So, this is backfit? You are talking No. 2, backfitting?
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: So, what are you saying?
Are you saying that it can be handled outside the rule?
MR. McCULLUM: I'm saying there are ways 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 to handle it outside the rule, some of which you already have in place.
MR. HAMDAN: Very good.
How about the third one, which is the SER, the review of the SER by the general licensee?
I suppose that can be handled --
MR. GUTHERMAN: The rule's pretty clear in this case. It says the licensees are to review the SER and document that review in the 212 report.
It's pretty black and white.
Could you do anything other than that? I don't know. I could tell you that, over the 20 years, I don't remember seeing any inspection concerns that nobody's done this, that a licensee hasn't done this properly. So, it might not be necessary as far as improvement of the process on the whole or saving licensees a huge amount of money. You know what I mean?
MR. HAMDAN: Very good. Okay, Item 4, about the programs and using Part 50?
MR. GUTHERMAN: I would say the same thing here that I said on 3. You know, there's a bit of common sense being applied here, that the licensees have Part 50 programs. So, they use the Part 50 criteria, notwithstanding the disconnect in the two 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 rules. And again, I don't remember anybody having a problem in enforcement space on this issue.
This one, in particular, could probably be addressed with a word or two in guidance that recognizes the Part 50 control process.
MR. HAMDAN: So, it doesn't have to wait for --
MR. GUTHERMAN: I don't think so, no.
MR. HAMDAN: Very good. How about the fifth one?
MR. LEVIN: Yes, I'm sorry. This is Adam Levin.
Just to jump on top of Brian's position here, I think anything where we can defer to or point to the licensing basis in Part 50 space that has certain requirements that you need to meet that will cover you for what you're intending or would like to do in Part 72, it really is helpful to the licensees to have one place to go to, to make sure that they're within their licensing basis.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay. The last two items is the empty weight -- that's in the rule. So, you want to take it out, right?
MR. GUTHERMAN: Yes, I would like to defer to any CoC holders that are either here or on 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 the phone. How big a deal is this? I mean, this is something that they have to create a nameplate for and affix it to the cask. I don't know what kind of burden that creates.
MR. HAMDAN: The question is, does it have to wait for the rule or we can --
MR. McCULLUM: Well, the question is really, the question of whether it has to wait for a rule is absolutely yes because it says, the rules says so, and it's pretty clear. The question is how important is that rulemaking to us really.
And Don Shaw, a CoC holder, is about to speak.
MR. HAMDAN: Very good.
MR. SHAW: Don Shaw with TN Americas, CofC holder.
We looked into the cost of this, and it is not really significant at all. It would be convenient not to have to do this. It's not extremely costly.
MR. HAMDAN: Very good. Thank you.
The last item is the criticality monitoring. Is it something that has to wait for the rule or can it be addressed before the rule comes in?
MR. GUTHERMAN: I would throw that back 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 you for this one, Latif, and here's why: because there was already a position written down in a letter from the staff to a CoC holder, perhaps that could be brought up-to-date with more current thinking on the matter. But, as the rule is written now, it could be interpreted that the criticality monitoring is not required, I think. If you wanted to rethink how that letter was put together 19 years ago now, and perhaps put a different piece of guidance together in 2215 or somewhere else in your guidance infrastructure -- this doesn't necessarily have to be a rule change, I don't think. It would be helpful, but I don't think it's necessary.
MR. HAMDAN: Very good. Thank you so much. This has been -- I learned a lot from this session, and I appreciate your time.
And we'll take a break for 15 minutes.
Then, we'll discuss, if you don't mind, Rod, we'll discuss the White Paper after the break.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: So, as my job is to keep the meeting on time, I'm taking away five minutes.
I'm sorry. You can blame it on me. We're a little bit behind. So, if you can be back here at 10:35, that would be great. Thank you so much.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 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 went off the record at 10:24 a.m. and resumed at 10:39 a.m.)
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: I was informed that we -- I shouldn't be so harsh with the time. And I also understand that we're changing the agenda a little bit and we are going to staff-identified changes portion of the agenda. And then after this, we're going to go to lunch, and then everything else stays for the afternoon.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, Carla, thank you for that agenda change. I just want to point out that we're very enthusiastic about talking about our recommendations. We just have some people that have to step out of the room that need to be part of that conversation. I don't want to lose the momentum we had there for a while, but thank you.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay, and with that, we are ready to begin.
Don?
MR. CHUNG: Good morning. My name is Donald Chung. As part of the effort for rulemaking for Part 72, the staff looked at this as a possible opportunity to make some corrections. I think I heard Brian Gutherman use the term the language in the rule is not correct. Well, the staff also 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 identified a number of places where the language in the rule is not correct.
In our discussion, we identified ten places where changes could be made or should be made to make things more correct and more uniform. And so after a number of meetings and discussions, we basically got that large list that we had down to ten items that we think are more critical.
I assume all of you have the handout and this has a list of those ten items. Let me just go through them and if you have questions, feel free to bring them up.
The first one is basically asking to add a paragraph in Part 72 that would reference a location in 10 CFR Part 21. I'm not going to read this to you. I'll just tell you what it says here.
Basically, in Part 21, there is a couple of paragraphs that specifically refer to ISFSIs. This is the reporting of defects and non-compliance. And it specifically mentions ISFSIs. Yet, if you're looking at Part 72, currently, there's no reference to that section, Part 21. So it makes sense to have a reference to that section and pointed to that section, Part 21. And that's the first of the ten recommendations.
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 In the second staff proposed changes, changed the wording used for the specific license continuing provision in 72.54(c) so that it conforms to plain language used for the license continuation provision in the 50.51. It's intended to provide consistency between 72.54 and 50.51(b). Both use continue inspect. The section stated the requirements differently. And so to be consistent, we were basically proposing to make the language consistent in both parts.
The third one is clarifying that specific license in Part 72.212(a)(1) is a license issued under 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 so that it is not confused with specific license issued under Part 72. Again, if you read the wording, the wording is not entirely clear.
And the next one is a change to Part 72.234(e) to remove the wording requiring that licensee using the spent fuel storage cask ensure that a composite record required by the paragraph 72.254(d) is available to the Commission for inspection for 72.13(c) and (d). Paragraph 10 CFR 72.234(d) and (e) only apply to CoC holders. The requirements requiring records that apply to general licensees are provided in 72.212(b)(12) and (14).
The proposed change will remove internal 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 inconsistencies in these regulatory provisions.
The fifth one is increase in time when an application for renewal of the design of a spent fuel storage cask must be submitted from less than -- not less than 30 days to not less than 2 years before expiration date of the CoC. The 30 days is not consistent with the time required for the staff to perform the review of the new applications. These days, we're looking at something like 18 months. So the 30 days doesn't really make sense.
Any questions? All right.
Item six, this is to change the 72.240(c) to modify the requirement that spent fuel storage cask for new applications include a safety analysis report and the subpart requires that the applicant must include the item described in 72.240(c)(1), (2),
and (3). This language change will avoid confusion.
Application for CoC includes an SAR which is updated and finalized as the final FSAR, FCAS design has been approved. Updates to the FSAR are required as detail and is spelled out in the 72.248. There is no new SAR. It's basically updated. And currently, the language doesn't make that clear.
Item number seven is basically a requirement to -- currently that the requirement 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 basically requires that current storage operations need to be compatible with disposition plants by Department of Energy. Since DOE doesn't really have a clear path forward, we really can't have that language in there because it doesn't make any sense.
So we're proposing to restate that language or remove that language.
Item eight, item eight is kind of similar to one of the six items that was in the petition of rulemaking. It has to do with 10 CFR 72 subpart G to allow licensee and CoC holders to make changes to their NRC approved quality assurance program that are administrative in nature and do not reduce for commitment. Currently, Part 72 and Part 50 and Part 51 aren't consistent in this area. I guess the language right now is more restricted in Part 72.
What's in Part 50 basically says the quality assurance program can be changed provided the changes are administrative in nature and there's no reduction in commitment. I think that's something that you guys brought up as well and we think that could be made consistent through these three parts.
Item number nine is the change definition of spent nuclear fuel. Currently, if you look in Part 71 and 72, their definition is different 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
66 Part 73. The definition of spent nuclear fuel in Parts 71 and 72 has a requirement of cooling off for 12 months. Whereas, Part 73 is anything that's been irradiated, any fuel that's been irradiated, it's spent fuel. So that's an inconsistency and needs to be corrected. That's what staff is proposing.
Item number ten, update 72.13, applicability to ensure the requirements and Part 72 applies appropriately to CoC holders, specific general licensees, and applicants for CoC and specific licenses. The intended updates better align the applicability of the requirements.
If you look at Part 72.13, 72.13 is kind of unique. Part 50 doesn't have this here. It specifically lists the parts of 72 that are applicable to each licensee. Over time, the question of whether the applicability is clear and if we go forward and make some of the changes that have been proposed in the previous nine items, we need to go revisit 72.13 and be sure the applicability listing for each type of license, licensee is correct.
So those are the ten items. If you have questions, comments, please go forward here.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, I think the first thing I would do is open a discussion on item number 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 seven here and I certainly rely on my other industry colleagues. To us, NRC has already done this in ISG-2 Rev 2 when you've defined retrievability on a per canister basis. That, to me, addresses what happens after it's done being in storage and transportation in Part 71 and 72 and back to 72 again, the question of handling it.
The Part 63 facility would then have to pick up on that or Part 60 facility or whatever part we end up with in final disposal. So that being said, you know, we sometimes criticize NRC when you guys go out of process. And here's a case where it is a little bit awkward that we have a regulatory definition, a regulatory clarification, and a guidance document. So I could see if this is to codify ISG-2 Rev 2 as a rule, I guess that would make some sense to us. We'd have to ask the question of can that be done in a timely manner.
But I would not want this to be something that goes back and revisits that definition of retrievability because when we get into our recommendations, that's key to us. This gets into this, okay, well, what is a gross rupture? What should define a gross rupture? And you know, we're going to be addressing that in our recommendations 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 because that's something that we feel is important, based on our understanding of retrievability as it's defined in ISG-2 Rev 2.
So I guess the question is is the intent here to reopen this issue or is the intent here to codify ISG-2 Rev 2?
MR. CHUNG: Currently, this here is one of the items that lists that we propose to look at.
We haven't gone through the rulemaking process. We haven't come out with a new language. We recognize that this here is problematic and it's something that needs to be looked at first.
MR. RAHIMI: Meraj Rahimi, NRC. I think this part of the regulation is just more than that.
It's not just the fuel. It's about the system. And I mean to be honest with you from the regulatory view because there are some words in their considerations, from our point of view that's why we've been kind of reluctant to fully enforce this.
And what this goes to in terms of a system, when a system comes in, you know, for application and is consideration given to transportability. Let me give you an example. For example, there are a number of systems, canisters have been deployed, criticality, safety, the basis 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 has been during loading boron credit and moderate exclusion on the pad. But when it comes to transportability, it's a flooded condition. You've got to analyze. It hasn't been analyzed. So that's one example of the consideration for transportability. So it's just more than that.
I think on the fuel side, in terms of handling, no, the intent is not to open the fuel Part ISG-2, but looking at broadly in the application that's coming in. Because we did have -- I remember, you know, I think it was 16 years ago, we had a system coming in and that was a question of criticality safety. And at that time, we were sort of starting granting burnup credit for transportation and we brought up that issue, hey, for transportability, how are you addressing this, and the answer I guess from the applicant was hey, you know, I'm licensing this under Part 72 storage. And this part of the regulation wasn't strong enough, you know, for us to push for that. So you do have a number of systems deployed now that there needs to be looked at, examined, and analysis needs to be done for transportability.
MR. McCULLUM: Okay, because I want to directly want to respond.
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 Meraj, that was extremely helpful and I would agree with you that criticality in transportation is the only issue here. And I think what you've done is you've confirmed my belief that we're not trying to reinvent the wheel on the fuel side here, but you do want to address that issue.
That issue and my EPRI expert on this has left, but that's why we deferred the agenda. That issue is something we specifically want to take on in going down these PIRT processes that we're recommending because it is our belief that the gross rupture criteria is really to protect against criticality.
And so what does that mean?
And we've laid out a process where I think we can address that on a very near-term basis or more near-term. This is not one of our most near-term recommendations, but we can certainly fly faster than the speed of rulemaking.
So what I would ask there is on this issue that let's go through the dialogue we're asking for in our recommendations and Al Csontos will speak to that a little this afternoon, and before we try to launch a rulemaking on this topic.
MR. CALLAHAN: Mike Callahan. I want to get back to focus on 72.236(m). The key word -- it 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 seems to me that in our current situation, both NRC, licensee, and especially DOE, the key phrase in this is to the extent practicable. And we've raised in a different rulemaking that it's not practicable right now to expect licensees to predict what the Department will eventually want with respect to compatibility.
We can't develop a plan for removal until the Department develops a plan for removal. So in the interim, we have plenty of space by virtue of that first phrase to maneuver without going in -- not maneuver, but to operate without having to engage in rulemaking it seems to me.
Secondly, with respect to the systems that you point out, I'm well aware, because some of them are at a couple of our DPC sites, those are issues that we're going to be able to engage and solve when the time comes when the Department says this is what we're going to do, because in a lot of those cases we can sit here and solve them. If the Department doesn't say yes, we agree, and follows through, we can solve it a thousand times and they'll come up with a thousand and one for a solution.
So again, I think that that first phrase gives us the operating space to not be overly concerned about this at this time and again, it's not 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 the first time we've had to encounter it in the rulemaking space. That's it.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Brian Gutherman, Meraj, I wanted to ask a clarifying question with respect to item seven. I understood what you were saying about the boron in the water that's usually used for storage criticality analysis. Are you suggesting that those dual-purpose systems would need to have a freshwater criticality analysis as part of the Part 72 licensing processing?
MR. RAHIMI: Well, we don't specifically require that, but this is something that the applicant needs to address. But before I go there, I want to respond to Mike's comment. Yes, that was exactly what we were considering with respect to the alternate disposition. You are absolutely right that the system is not defined, but what we were focusing on removal of the system from the site. Is it transportable? That part we're focusing on that when these applications were coming in. It was in the Part 72, you know, applicability, actually speaks specifically to removal of the system, you know, for further processing. I mean that's the language they use. So that's what we were focusing on.
But in terms of, Brian, yes, I remember 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 that was specifically the issue came up or was it criticality safety, and since this part of the regulation, it wasn't really very strong, so on our part the staff was a little bit hesitant to really require the applicant to come in and address. But right now there are actually some systems even from structural point of view, they cannot meet the transportation, you know, 30-foot drop test. There are some systems out there that they can't do that.
Very few, you know. I can tell you specifically because the applicant came in for an exemption, actually, for those systems. And criticality safety, they don't even have a poison in there (phonetic),
you know, let alone address -- you know, the first question we ask, okay, let's look at the structure.
This thing in there, over packed, that you are proposing to transport, can is survive a 30-foot drop?
And they had difficulty meeting the structural requirement. So there are some few systems in there that they cannot meet.
So is there sort of on our part this part of the regulation is not strong enough that we can enforce it. And on your part, I understand that at this time, your focus in storing. But consideration needs to be given to removing this system, being able 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 to remove it off site.
MR. GUTHERMAN: So the systems that you alluded to that aren't qualified, are they dual-purpose systems? Or were they originally intended to be dual-purpose systems?
MR. RAHIMI: No.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Okay.
MR. RAHIMI: That's right. Originally intended was storage only but they came in --
MR. GUTHERMAN: Understood.
MR. RAHIMI: -- wanted to transport. We said, look, are you meeting this structural criticality -- right. That particular system was not designed because it didn't have a poison in there.
MR. GUTHERMAN: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: Right.
MR. GUTHERMAN: And I'm going to follow up on my other question. When you say they need to consider it, are you saying that they're going to have to come in with transportation structural analysis and transportation criticality analysis with their Part 72 application?
MR. RAHIMI: Well, this is the regulation, right? So this is -- you tell me what does consideration mean? How would you define 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 consideration to the transportability?
MR. GUTHERMAN: It's your rule.
MR. RAHIMI: Well, that's what we said.
We said about transportability? I mean they said well, it is a dual purpose when the time comes, you know, we will get a Part 71 certificate. That was the answer. We'll get a Part -- and on our end, this wasn't strong enough. We could say no, you have to do it. As Mike pointed out, consideration to the extent practicable, those were some. From the regulatory point of it, those are not -- this is not a very strong rule.
MR. REGAN: This is Chris Regan. Just one more perspective to help illustrate the challenge that we are facing. With plants that are decommissioning, issuing just a Part 72 license, we get the question are you then storing fuel in a de facto permanent site? If you've eliminated your spent fuel pool, you decommission the site, and that cask is sitting there with a Part 72 only license that can't be transported, then what?
So answering that question on our behalf when it comes to licensing becomes the challenge.
And you've seen that, especially with one site out on the West Coast where the decommissioning of the spent 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 fuel pool is the question of what's the assurance, regulatory assurance regarding this storage site is only interim and not permanent?
MR. McCULLUM: Mike, before you go, I just want one clarification because the question that Brian asked Meraj was very important. When he was saying there are casks that couldn't meet that requirement for the drop, you were talking about systems that weren't originally designed as transportable systems that are trying to be grandfathered in. Those are a very small percentage of our inventory. I'd say less than one percent of the casks out there fall into that category. So and again, I'm getting to an industry that's getting ready to move by interim storage by 2023 here.
And Chris, to your point, the casks in California are all not in that category. Those casks are all transportable. So I'll let Mike -- I just wanted to make that clarification and I'll let Mike say his peace on it. And I want to follow up after that.
MR. CALLAHAN: No, again, I agree. The question is when? And the when will be when the Department is ready with a program that's funded and defined to take this stuff or just to transport this 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 stuff to disposition.
In the meantime, we don't have a practicable extent. So to make a licensee go through this right now is a burden that shouldn't be theirs to carry. So until that happens -- now when that happens, well, now it's practicable. And those non-conforming cans are going to have to be handled either by corrective action program or interaction with the Department. We're going to have to do something for them that varies from the ones that are already in MPCs or suitable for transport.
But I still say we have -- we can't dump this on a licensee right now because there is no practicable plan on the part of the Department on which to face that retrievability and transport, retrievability for transport determination. I don't think we're -- I think we're in violent agreement.
My only question -- I hope we can agree that it's not now. It's when that this has to come up.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: I know we have more questions and comments here, but I'm going to go to the phone lines for a moment.
Elaine, do we have any questions, comments on the phone?
OPERATOR: A reminder if you would like 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 to ask a question, please press *1.
MR. McCULLUM: Yes, and this is Rod, again. I just want to circle back. Mike is talking about what happens at the other end of this.
Certainly, industry's transportation to interim storage may occur in the very near term and that's why Mike came back to what we're really concerned about is transportability here, not about what DOE does when they open it up.
If you go the Yucca Mountain license application, they have facilities there that can handle any form of damaged fuel in terms of opening a cask up. They meet Part 63. And that's why I think it's appropriate that NRC defines ISG-2 Rev 2 to retrieve on a canister basis. And then Mike is correct, if you go anywhere beyond that, you're putting a burden on a licensee to which the licensee can never answer because we just don't know what else would be out there on the back end.
In terms of the transportability requirement, it becomes very simple as Meraj said before, it's really all about criticality and that's where we are intending to go with our recommendation.
So I will circle back to what I said on this one.
Before NRC would entertain any rulemaking and I'm 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 kind of confident here we can beat the rulemaking clock anyway, but before NRC would even propose any rulemaking on this, let's go down the journey that we're going to start recommending, we start on a response to this white paper. And Al Santos will be back. That's why I rearranged the agenda again. Al Santos will talk about how we're going to use the PIRTs to answer Meraj's question, essentially, Meraj is seeing a lack of clarity again specific to transportability and interim storage, not all the things Mike was alluding to. And I think we can get that if we follow it down the path that we've actually already started on with PIRTs. The work so far for those of you who have been involved in them has been encouraging. But I think the industry's strong response to number seven here and maybe on some of these others as well as -- let's see what we can accomplish outside of rulemaking before we go down a rulemaking path.
I think overall, other than seven, which is just because we don't know where it's going to go, and Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, I mean, there's not a lot in here that we consider onerous. Is that correct? Yes, so I mean then again, I put the same question to staff that you put to our proposed 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 rulemaking which is to what extent do you consider these significant? Do you consider these things that need to be done in rulemaking or they can be done outside of rulemaking? So I'd like to hear you go down just as Latif asked me, I'd like to hear you go down and comment on how staff sees the significance and how staff sees the position as to whether there might be opportunities to address these before you can get rulemaking.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: And before we hear from people here, I want to make sure if there's any comments, questions on the phone. Elaine?
OPERATOR: I do. I have a question from Kayleen Walker.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Go ahead on the phone.
MS. WALKER: Hi. I have a comment from a common sense perspective. I'm wondering why the NRC is not abiding by the Department of Energy's requirement that the fuel -- I have a big echo. I'm sorry. The fuel is not being stored and they monitored retrievable matter. It just seems like the NRC isn't even following the DOE's requirements to be able to abide by the Nuclear Reg. Policy Act to be able to take the fuel. So I see a fundamental problem with that. And then if the NRC tries to redefine 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 what retrievability means, I feel like you're moving in a backward direction. That's just kind of a question about path forward, how this is going to be dealt with, if that makes sense.
MR. RAHIMI: Meraj Rahimi, NRC. So I don't think that that requirement is actually under Part 72. It is enforced without the retrievability, removal of the system. I don't think that is the issue because even under Part 72, they have to demonstrate that they can retrieve and of course, Rod alluded on ISG-2 Revision 2, we sort of have revised the definition of the retrievability, could be assembly based, canister based, cask based, so those are the three options.
So that particular requirement still is in force. I think what I kind of was alluding to is it wasn't the fuel. It was the other system under transportation no requirement. And at this time, most of the systems of the vendors or the applicants have chosen when it comes to transport to submit the analysis such as criticality safety under Part 71, but by far, most of them are dual purpose. The only thing is they have to do the analysis, for example.
They have to do a criticality safety base and put in a credit now if it is flooded, the condition which 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 they haven't analyzed before. And that's what I was really talking about. But in terms of the fuel retrievability, I think we enforce that under Part 72 and they continue to meet that.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you. Any other questions coming on the phone?
OPERATOR: I do. Our next question is from Donna Gilmore.
MS. GILMORE: Hello, can you hear me?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Yes, we can hear you.
MS. GILMORE: You know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is very clear about defining monitored, retrievable fuel, not monitored, retrievable canisters. So the previous caller was correct and also thinking the only issue is criticality is not true because you do not know the condition inside those canisters. You never opened any of them up, so I totally get concerned about how the fuel is ever going to be moved anywhere, given the industry apparently wants to turn a blind eye to making sure this cask is kept in a condition to be actually stored, let alone transported. So I totally agree with the last caller. And I don't understand why the NRC person doesn't understand the Nuclear Waste Policy Act at decommissioning. What am I missing 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 here?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay. Thank you for that comment. We have a comment here in the room MR. TANG: David Tang from NRC. I just want to give my observation of the list, 72.236. Yes, all these applicants somehow had some statements in their applications, recognize these particular provisions. At that time it was say ten years ago or around that, there appeared to be some kind of hurdle to remove certain kind of fuel types and the fact that one of these transportation casks came in for renew certificate and we noticed that it was not going to meet whatever said the requirements. So one thing after another, for instance, if you're looking to say NUREG-2224 and some other companion NUREGs in some of these discussions and presentations we had, the subject appeared to be addressed including this ISG-2 Rev 2. So I will say that yes, it's being addressed and we know that for all these fuels to be moved to the interim storage facility, they all have transportation casks certificates available. So it's encouraging from my perspective.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other questions or comments here in the room? Yes.
MR. GUTHERMAN: I'm going to switch gears 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 a little bit, Latif. I've just got two modest comments on a couple of other items.
Item five, just bear in mind that if this were to move forward, we have to be careful that it accommodates those certificates that are around two years when the rule is finalized so that they don't get into a compliance jam right away.
I also would say that someone said 18 months as well as two years. Think about that. The two years is for the specific license which have a lot more moving parts than a certificate of compliance, but also certificates of compliance have all those active amendments as well. So perhaps two years is the right time frame. I'll leave that to you.
The other one was on item eight. Subpart G, of course, does apply to general licensees, but keep in mind those QA programs are administered under Part 50 for a general licensee and they have the controlled requirements that they need to control changes to the QA program. So I would say any changes there would be simply to point at the Part 50 regulations.
Item nine is the last one I had. Do you have any more insight on exactly what the changes 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
85 the definition of spent nuclear fuel would be to align it with Part 73?
MR. CHUNG: No, we don't. This is one of the items that has been identified by the staff that there's an inconsistency. As part of the rulemaking, we would be looking at what would the correct language be.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other questions or comments here in the room for the staff-identified changes?
MR. McCULLUM: I just want to go back to Donna Gilmore's comment on knowledge of what's going on inside the cask. There was a cask that had been in storage for 14 years that was opened in 2000-2001 time frame at Argonne National Laboratory. There are reports on that that document that the conditions of fuel came out as it went in. Obviously, there are other types of fuels that are being placed in casks.
We have a lot of analyses of those. We have received data on high burnup fuel already from the Used Fuel Demo Project which is telling us that temperatures that would make the storage and transportation of high burnup fuel any different than what we had when the casks we already opened, those temperatures were not challenging any temperatures that would cause 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
86 answer to be any different. Nevertheless, there is a confirmatory aspect of that demo project where we will open that cask up as well.
What it really comes down to is the question of what is a gross rupture in terms of is this fuel okay to transport and that's something that based on the analysis we've done and based on some of the work we've got in the PIRTs, we do want to talk to NRC about to make sure that we can answer that question very clearly because we should be able to answer that question very clearly. We think there's a good answer and we'll talk a little bit -- when Al gets back, we'll talk a little bit more about that after the break, but we definitely want to engage in that. The answer is -- I just want to say we do have a pretty well developed understanding of what's going on inside these casks, both from the one we opened in 2001 and from the extensive thermal data, as well as the data confirming that there was no damage to the gas sampling. We confirmed there was no damage to the high burnup rods during the drying process which is the most significant transient condition that it receives. So just wanted to recommend those reports for those interested in that.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you. Any 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
87 questions, comments here in the room?
We're going to go one more time to the phone lines. Any comments?
OPERATOR: I do. I have a question from Donna Gilmore.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Go ahead, Donna.
MS. GILMORE: In response to the last comment, I'm very familiar with the research and the inspection of the casks or cask which, of course, is nothing like the kind of fuel in containments we're using now.
I've submitted comments in NUREG 2224.
Hopefully, I'll get some response to that that basically counters a lot of the explanations given here for having this confidence. Thank you.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you for that comment. Any other feedback? Any other comment here?
Latif?
MR. HAMDAN: Thank you all very much.
Just to close this session, I heard what we're saying now is we need to scrub and vet a little more issues 5, 7, 8. Is that correct? Just to confirm?
Would you also say the other issues you are good 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
88 MR. McCULLUM: Right, at this time, I mean I haven't consulted the hold industry, but the group you see here at the table does not have any concerns with the other issues yet. I would want a chance to socialize this with industry before any rulemaking. I feel confident I have time.
I still would like to hear an answer to the questions that you've posed to me in terms of which of these issues does staff consider significant to move forward on the near term and also are there opportunities on each of these issues to make progress outside of rulemaking?
MR. CHUNG: This is Donald Chung. This is kind of a list that we put together based on staff input. We have not gone to rate these, nor have we considered how any of these would be addressed outside of rulemaking.
MR. McCULLUM: Okay, that's very helpful.
So basically, your answer is that there does need to be dialogue before we move forward on that and that's what we're proposing here is dialogue, so we're 100 percent aligned and I look forward to the dialogue.
MR. CHUNG: That's one of the reasons we presented here, so you have opportunities to see what are the issues that we're looking at and hopefully we 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 will get feedback from the industry on these items.
MR. HAMDAN: Rod, if I may, your earlier comments about the near term versus long term, is it for all the conditions or just the three that we mentioned?
MR. McCULLUM: I would be most interested in those three, but you know, I just want to make sure that NRC convinces itself if the others are either necessary or not addressable. And I think Donald said we just threw these out today. I have not had the chance to socialize them with the entire industry, so I'm satisfied at the point that we'll have opportunities to dialogue on these and I thank you for getting them out on the table now.
MR. HAMDAN: Thank you.
MR. McCARTIN: One question that I have that it might be helpful in terms of when -- oh, Tom McCartin, NRC staff.
When you prioritize some of these, we do have an option of a direct final rule that cuts through a lot of the processes that we have for a formal rulemaking. And for some of these, like I look at number nine, the definition of spent nuclear fuel, as well as the weight of a canister. There are some of these things that possibly could fall into a 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 direct final and could be done a lot quicker versus other changes that might require the more formal process of public comment, et cetera. And at least for some of those, it might be useful to have another category of direct final type changes.
MR. McCULLUM: As usual, I can count on Tim for good ideas. And I would just say if you do proceed with the direct final on any of these that first of all, we talk about first and I think we've got that commitment, but I would put our backfitting recommendation in that category as well, and maybe some of the other simpler ones. Obviously, the main one that we're going to discuss with the recommendations, that's not a direct final rule, but I think saying that the NRC will be consistent across Part 50 and Part 72 and Part 52 on backfitting, that should be -- that should also be able to be done by a direct final rule. So if you ever do that, I'm not saying you are, please don't just look at it for these things. Look at it for some on the other side, too, especial number two.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any other questions, comments here in the room? Any last words?
Any questions coming from the phone line?
OPERATOR: I'm showing no questions at 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 this time.
MR. HAMDAN: Thank you, Carla, great job.
So we'll break for lunch and after lunch, the white paper will be the subject of discussion along with alternatives, and we will look forward to that. It is better to go to lunch right now before the dining room is filled up. One o'clock.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Yes, please be back and ready to by 1 o'clock and have a good lunch.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 11:25 a.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay. It's 1:00 p.m.
and we are going to go ahead and start. We are going to discuss the NEI White Paper. I want to make sure the mic is on.
MR. MCCULLUM: Test. Okay, hi. I am Rod McCullum. I guess -- Does somebody need to officially say something over here?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Go for it.
MR. MCCULLUM: All right.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: The floor is yours.
MR. MCCULLUM: This is the item deferred from this morning. We're going to talk about the White Paper. I have no slides. The White Paper is 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 on the screen and by the White Paper I am specifically referring to a document that we submitted to NRC on November 8, 2019.
These are recommendations for improving the efficiency of the dry storage licensing process.
These are things that we feel can be done in the near term that as we said this morning that do not require a rulemaking and in some cases may not require guidance.
There may be things NRC would want to do in their review guidance, for example, there may be things we want to make guidance on, there may be things that get submitted in the form of topical reports or license amendments, but our goal here is to come up with a risk appropriate licensing framework for dry storage.
You know, we have three things you really need to get to a risk appropriate licensing framework and one of those is, you know, you have to have a mature industry.
When we started with -- When we wrote Part 72, and more importantly, as we said this morning, the problems aren't with Part 72. The problems are with everything we have done to implement those requirements.
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 We haven't done it in the most efficient way. The CoCs just kind of occurred based on the interactions between submitters and reviewers over the period of years. We haven't taken a systematic look at it.
So we didn't have a mature industry, but we have been loading casks since 1986. We have loaded 3000 of them. We now have a mature industry. So that's the first thing, we are there, and that's why it's appropriate to take this look, you know.
The second thing is is you need to have proven record. It's not just that if you have a mature industry that has a track record that's not so good that's probably telling you that, you know, maybe you need more, you need to do more, not less.
That's absolutely not the case with dry cask storage. We have loaded 3000 of these systems successfully. They have been in storage since 1986.
Things like the original, it wasn't called a demo, but the original cask that was opened in Idaho and the demo underway now have taught us a lot, you know.
Brady Hanson is here from the National Laboratory community. A lot of research has been done. So not only have we demonstrated safety in the field we have proven we understand why it's safe 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
94 the laboratory.
So we've got the first two boxes checked off, we've got the mature industry with a proven record. Now the reason we are still struggling with all the issues, the reason it's still taking years to approve CoC amendments, the reason there are so many amendments, and in the White Paper I think we itemize the really high numbers in terms of amendments and the reg kind of put some cost figures on this that were estimates but industry tells me I am in the ballpark.
And it's really not about money because you only have so many experts here in the NRC. You have consolidated both ends of the fuel cycle so your experts are all in one place, but you still only have so many of them.
If they are reviewing things in dry storage space that are not important to safety they are not reviewing necessarily things that are important to safety or that's taking them longer to get to those things, so we've got to focus our resources.
So the third component, which I the one we have not focused on, and I don't have it here today and it doesn't matter for the people on the phone 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 because they can't see the overheads anyway, but I guess we could have distributed it, but I have frequently shown what is called the spider diagram.
It shows those three things that you need to risk inform a regulatory framework in the first two, the mature industry and the proven record. And the third one is an understanding of margin, and we've tried to illustrate this in vague terms and I promised never to show my cartoons again so I didn't bring my cartoon.
But, you know, if the line for where we are safe is over here and the line for, you know, our conservative approximations, I'd say, you know, there is a lot of gaps between where safety is challenged is and where we are today.
But if you don't understand those how do you risk inform. How do you come up with a regulatory approach, a licensing approach, that only focuses on what's safe and focuses sharply on what is important to safety.
So this paper is an attempt to fill the gap. The paper does not completely fill the gap.
The paper does document in several key areas, and if you can scroll to the table of contents, you know, and you've got acknowledgment to risk insights.
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 We have margin in five different areas where we give an explanation of where the performance margin is in these dry storage casks, what makes them beyond safe. And at this point I must put my reading glasses on.
So the areas we are looking at are source terms, thermal parameters, radiological parameters, fuel requalification, and criticality. These are the areas where we have sharpened our understanding in all these years.
These are the areas where we have considerable margin, and some of these relate to each other, and certainly the margin we have in source term gets translated into margin and thermal and radiological parameters as well.
So you're going to see in the paper a discussion of the margin we believe we have in those areas and this discussion leads to 16 different recommendations.
We have categorized those recommendations, and you actually scroll to the page where it shows the categories of recommendations.
That's the first page. It's the abstract right there in the lower middle part of the abstract.
These recommendations, I'll go ahead 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
97 read them, they fall under three categories, the actions industry can take within the confines of existing regulations in guidance, an example there is the precedent we set with the RIRP pilot, and one of our recommendations is, in fact, to follow that precedent.
So I would think since NRC has already approved that, and, you know, we want to make sure you acknowledge this, and we'll talk about how as we go forward, but if you have approved one of those you would have no problem approving one of those for every other CoC.
So, you know, that's one example, and there are four recommendations of the 16 in that category. Then the Category 2 recommendations, of which there are three, are recommendations the NRC can take on their own.
These largely revolve around things you can do with your review guidance. I mean Chris already alluded to it. We were having questions about whether a certain change in guidance applied to new amendments and, you know, it turns out NRC's review guidance is fairly clear on that yet we still had questions.
So does it need to be more clear, I don't 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 know, but there is a lot that can be done with NRC's review guidance. One of those recommendations that I will highlight is a recommendation we picked up from NOC, NRC. Who is NOC? They're not even here.
NRC in the REG CON conference that was held in King of Prussia, which we thought was a good conference, by the way, and we thought it was very good to involve the regions, and I think there is going to be more involving the regions in this dialogue because when there are different perceptions on how something should be implemented sometimes they can be different in different geographic locations, so we need to make sure everybody is on board with this, but, anyway, one of the recommendations was for NRC to grade the review guidance.
Certain reviews are a Grade 1 through 5, was the example that was given at the REG CON, so how much review, what you have to check, what you have to look for, is less in the lower grade, you know.
If it's a one there is probably a few things that have been done before and you want to make sure that they are done the same way. Follow-ons to the pilot might be Grade 1 type applications.
I mean if it's something completely new that brings in a lot of new technical issues, it's a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 whiz-bang of a new invention for how to do dry storage it might get a Level 5, and articulating that and making that transparent to industry so that when we were thinking of doing something, gee, you know, this issue if we can get a Level 1 review it might be worth doing, but, you know, if it's going to take a Level 5 review, you know, we might want to think about doing it differently.
So we think that is a good recommendation. So there is three of those that are totally -- And NRC can do that. We would recommend you make it transparent to us because it doesn't do any good for you to grade your review guidance and us not know what the grades are.
And then the third category are things we believe require dialogue between NRC and industry, and not surprisingly those are the most numerous.
There is nine of those and those you can kind of see scrolling through here a lot of them involve the PIRT process.
I am going to ask Al Csontos to talk about that here in a little bit, but, you know, those are also things that shouldn't require I guess what I call the hard paper transactions.
You know, we have submitted NEI guidance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 documents and they take years to endorse. Rulemaking takes even more years. But if there are ways we can get to the answers quicker, because as I said at the outset the timing is important here.
We are deploying new decommissioning business models that are critically important to our industry's future and those succeed if we have an efficient -- because dry storage is a huge part of that and maybe moving dry storage to other locations is a huge part of that, and these business models aren't waiting for DOE, you know.
What has changed in the modern world is we were waiting for DOE before we had to worry about any of these issues of like maybe the storage moves and we're not there anywhere. These business models can succeed.
They can restore land to communities that have shut down plants and now that land can be used for other purposes. They can address community concerns about the used fuel still being there.
You know, there is talk of consent-based siding, well did the people of Vermont and Southern California consent to be interim storage facilities.
I think we're hearing a lot that they don't want to be interim storage facilities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 But these business models are dependent on having an efficient dry storage regulatory framework. So a lot of these ones here, these are where the biggest value is. Fortunately we are already on our way on some of those.
I think the NRC has engaged with industry and through EPRI on some PIRT work already and we are already starting to see fruit for these. So we want to get out of the transactional world where I throw hard paper at you guys and you review it for years or we put a rulemaking in the queue and it takes even more years.
And we want to get into what can we do within the framework of the existing regulations, perhaps even the existing guidance. Some of these Category 3 recommendations may require guidance, but it might be pretty simple guidance.
If we've already gone through this process and have a good agreement of what it is it's different than when we throw something brand new at you that now you have to review it.
If it's a -- I don't know whether it becomes an NEI document you endorse or an NRC document I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter. So in the cases we need guidance we should look for ways to, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 reach agreement, reach the end of these processes like the PIRTs and get the guidance out there.
And if we can get the near term efficiency improvements we can be successful in our new business models and I think also it says a lot of new nuclear because the big issue when I talk to new nuclear people is well, yes, our investors are a little nervous about the costs on the back end, you know, so that's -- and that goes to clean air, that goes to carbon-free energy.
I would tell you that having carbon-free energy is probably a bigger safety issue than some of the things that we kind of get tied up in knots in when we don't factor margin into processes, and that's really what it is about.
But let me give you a couple of examples.
I do not have -- I may have on the phone every author of this White Paper, but I'm not sure that I do and I haven't given them the expectation that I would be calling on them, but I am going to run through a couple examples, one of which I already cited.
I cited the recommendation NRC made, which is Recommendation 2-1. If you go to Page 28 that's where the recommendations start, and you might want to go there anyway because you might 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
103 questions about any of them.
You know, that's the one for the graded approach and then that's one the NRC can do. And then you see Recommendation 6-1, that's one industry can do. That's just following on Don Shaw's excellent precedent just directly above that.
Now if you go to Recommendation 6-2 that takes us a step beyond. I think that while we are very appreciate of what we gained in the pilot I don't think we believe we got all the way there, and we're going to take the gains we made in the pilot, absolutely.
That's going to be an efficiency improvement and then, therefore, it's going to be a safety improvement. I should definitely never say that this is about money. I should say the reason we want to be efficient is so we can sharpen our focus on safety.
And then you look at the recommendation which is one of these Category 3's, we can build on that pilot. It's at the very bottom, Recommendation VI-2, Roman Numeral VI, that one is, you know, we debated the fuel qualification table.
The fuel qualification table is what triggers a lot of these amendments, you know. When NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 I have as many as seven amendments on a single site for the same cask a lot of it has been because every time they want to put a different type of species of fuel in there they've got to amend the CoC.
Well what we did in Don's pilot is we came up with a bounding parameter and we put that in the CoC. What Recommendation 6-2 would pretend to do would, portend, not pretend, and even if that's the right English, but what it would do is, you know, it would go a step farther and get the fuel qualification information completely out of the CoC by doing what they do.
You know, one of the reasons we had that negotiation that led to that compromise is because there is no COLR for dry cask storage, core operating limits report.
Well, what we want to do is engage the NRC as a Category 3 recommendation and let's create that concept in dry storage space. You know, with what Don has in his CoC he's going to have to amend it a lot less times because he's got that bounding thing.
Anything within the bounds, well, you know, we're pushing the envelope on accident tolerant fuels now and you guys already have some NMSS activity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 on that.
Eventually he's going to find something that is outside his bounding, but if it's not in the CoC at all he still doesn't amend. Paul Plante, who spoke earlier, you know, he's kind of the gold standard in the industry by keeping everything up to the latest REV.
Not everybody does that, but, you know, that's going to make a lot less work for Paul then when you are not constantly amending his CoCs, and he hasn't loaded fuel in many years, so he's just doing paperwork that doesn't add anything to safety when he does that, although he is keeping himself current and he is putting himself in a simpler posture when he has to move the fuel or when you have to, and his immediate concern when you do aging management.
The more complicated we make this licensing framework the harder it is to do aging management, the harder it is to assure we're ready for transportation.
And so we would like to take what Don accomplished, what you accomplished, NRC accomplished with Don, and move that on into the next step which would be to come up with something like a COLR that we could then submit.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 Now the first time we submit one of those that's probably not a Category 1 review. You know, that's probably one of the higher categories. If we just want to go as far as the TN precedent that's -- So that tells you how these recommendations can work in concert with each other.
That is three different recommendations in three different categories but they all work together. And so, you know, that's just one example.
Another example, and, Al, be ready, this is where I am going to report things over to you, if you go to Recommendation 4-2 that's another one that the NRC can do.
You could revise your review guidance that when we have a PIRT, which means we have all agreed to a common understanding of the margin, when we have a PIRT that NRC would have in its review guidance, which they might do as part of this graded approach, so now I've married four recommendations together, and this thing it really does take a holistic approach.
That can be one of the lower grade reviews. You don't have to review everything if you have already got the answer through the PIRT and you're just making sure that what the submittal is is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 consistent with the results of the PIRT.
And these PIRTs might be institutionalized, Al can talk about what they would be institutionalized in. I will before I turn it over to you Al I will say that we also have several recommendations stemming, other recommendations in Category 3 that tie to the PIRTs, Recommendation 4-1 on thermal modeling, Recommendations 4-4 and 4-5, and this gets to this question that we raised with NRC's Number 7 for rulemaking which is, you know, why do we need to know what about the fuel.
And one of these would go through a PIRT to define better what we mean by gross rupture. Why do we care about gross rupture? It's not because we want DOE to have only pristine fuel when they open, and I'll use Yucca Mountain since that's still the repository and has a license, or has an SER.
When they open at Yucca Mountain we all know under Part 63 the Yucca Mountain service facilities can handle damaged fuel. So they are in compliance with Part 63, we're in compliance with Part 72.
I am not going to stand up here and say I have the answer to that question and I am still going to turn it to Al to talk about what we 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
108 done so far with PIRTS, and he is going to need a microphone, and where we intend to go.
So three of our Category 3 recommendations would take us to through PIRT process and we have already found that to be more efficient than this thing where we throw a guidance document at you and you review it.
In the PIRT you are together in I guess like an expert elicitation almost.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes. This is Al Csontos, EPRI. So, yes, the PIRTS that we discussed were three of them for fuel performance, thermal modeling, and decay heat modeling.
And what we found there was that something that is similar to I think a lot of these areas where we are trying to determine safety, you know, we're trying to evaluate safety and we're trying to evaluate safety margins as opposed to licensing margins.
And in that way what we did there was to take a look from an expert group of folks in their technical disciplines and why did we do three at one time.
The reason for it is because you have the disciplines where you have a silo, siloing of safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 margins, if you want to call that where the reviewers or the people who are involved in that general area they are looking at the all the technical information and they are looking at it from a perspective of, well, how does this impact one technical area, but also how does it couple between all the different technical areas because the coupling effects of uncertainty as it propagates from one to the next to the next what you come up with at the end and what we were looking was really thermal modeling, okay, and why did we find that the results so different in the analysis at the high burnup demo, okay, and it was that we are looking at apples and oranges comparison, okay.
We were looking at a licensing calc, okay, versus a best estimate calc and when you take a look at both of them and you go through and you do kind of a deconstruction of how did we end up where we ended up, the PIRT provided that basis to say, well the technical experts, well no wonder we're here, okay.
Decay heat folks showed where all the, I don't like to use the word conservatism, but uncertainty biasing on one side, okay, and then you looked at the thermal folks and we looked at all 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
110 inputs and they were all, all the uncertainties were biased to one side, okay.
The fuels folks opened the door up to say, wait a second, what do we mean by gross rupture, okay. And so that also requires us to go across the different technical disciplines. It's not just the materials folks talking to that, okay.
So in this way when you are looking at this it's not enough to just be siloed and it's not enough just to be, you know, looking at it from one perspective.
If you are going to really look at it from risk-informed safety perspective taking it across all the disciplines, and so two of the biggest recommendations coming out of all three PIRTs, in fact all three PIRT teams brought it up, was, one, look at gross rupture.
What do mean by gross rupture? What are we trying to prevent? What's that safety implication? What are we trying to prevent? Okay.
And then from there, right now it's a certain guidance and a certain, you know, size, but that was based on, you know, 20 years ago information, and so, you know, maybe we should look into this again, okay, what do mean by gross rupture.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 Thirty years ago it was failure of the entire, like unzipping of all the cladding, okay.
Then 15, 18 years ago it turned out to be a one millimeter by one millimeter flaw size, okay.
The second big recommendation that came out was a synergy PIRT, meaning that these three disciplines get together again but as one team, not three individual teams.
And to come into well what do mean by safety for this piece and how do we ensure from a technical perspective we could meet that. And what this was was a really good exercise to look at the technical, to look at the operational constraints, because one of the things what the group talked about was for the gross rupture point of view was that one millimeter flaw size was -- it's unachievable.
It's -- you can't -- there is nothing operationally that you can do to ensure that, okay, so why have an unachievable metric as your guidance.
MR. MCCULLUM: Al, can you give any background at all into how we got from unzipping to one millimeter, what drove that?
MR. CSONTOS: I believe -- I don't want to get into that. That was more of a I think an NRC perspective.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 I think I would leave that to one of the NRC folks to talk about how that transition -- I think, Meraj, maybe you have an understanding of that, but I believe it was a transition from, you know, in the past of -- so what happened was that the vendors were there to talk about their licensing constraints, so how we created these PIRTs was, to get the holistic picture the whole idea of these PIRTs was to create a holistic picture to try to get to safety, okay, and for the different perspectives.
The perspective we are looking at here was how do we stop gross rupture or how we prevent gross rupture from happening, and then the question came up, well, what do you mean by gross rupture.
And then that came into a whole discussion about this, about, well, from the licensing constraints the vendor said, well, you know, 25 years ago that was more of a gross rupture of all the cladding at one time from one event.
Then it transitioned to this temperature limit and to a one millimeter flaw size about 20 years ago and -- Roughly, somewhere in that neighborhood.
And so that came up and that was a discussion between all the parties about what that meant.
But question is is that the group said, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 well, yes, this is a ripe area to talk about because what do we mean by this because what are we trying to prevent, is it for criticality, is it for shielding, is it for a materials perspective, what is it that we are trying to -- is it for retrievability?
And in that way getting a better, you know, picture there would lead the technical experts to provide a better approach to ensuring you don't get that. So, Meraj, I mean didn't want to --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, if anyone from the NRC, because it's curious that, you know, I think if we are creating a new basis for gross rupture we should understand what the old one was.
MR. RAHIMI: No, Al, I mean you're right.
The whole genesis -- Oh, I'm sorry, Meraj Rahimi, NRC. The whole genesis of this, there had to be a quantitative definition because normally we would get an application and the cask designer would assume, you know, if the fuel is intact, meaning definition.
There is no, you know, gross rupture hairline crack, pinholes, that is not considered and they were clear on that in the definition that those are not considered gross rupture and that's how they base their safety analysis, and safety analysis being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 the criticality safety assessment.
Their shielding 72.122(h) handling, you know, in terms of not exposing dose, that is the assumption that the cask designer make and so they have really assigned a safety function to that fuel.
So, for example, we certify, you know, failed fuel, gross rupture, right, and what is the design around it, you know, they'll put it in the failed fuel can, which addresses this 72.122 the handling part, and for the criticality and shielding they do the analysis.
If all the, you know, source term is in the bottom, criticality, different pitch, so they address it. So it's not that we don't approve fuel with gross rupture, we do, because all the time every cask, I know it's about four corners (phonetic) for the damaged fuel can and those are with gross rupture.
But now if the entire cask you want to design it for the fuel could be a gross rupture, you know, meaning that you could have the fuel pellets, you know, larger than one millimeter, you know, come out.
You know, they haven't done that assessment. I mean they could, you know, they could do the assessment. I agree that for some of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 we're going to go back to the safety basis. I mean we're going to look at these safety basis, what are these requirements.
And if you can address the regulatory safety requirement with those main three safety functions, confinement, criticality safety, shielding, I will say four, handling a 70.124 --
MR. CSONTOS: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: That's where you can really map it, you now, to those safety requirements. That should be -- That's the approach we should be --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. CSONTOS: And that was the really -- I got to tell you, I learned a lot more out of the PIRTs, I got a lot more out of the PIRTs from listening to the discussion of the experts out there, and it was tied to exactly what you said, Meraj, which is the regulation.
The regulation was considered written in pen, okay. Guidance was considered written in pencil, okay. And the question there was how do we meet the safety criteria, okay.
And looking at it more holistically across the disciplines, looking at it from a safety function perspective and seeing what that role, 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
116 know, what that impact is and what are you trying to prevent and going through this in a very systematic way, yes, it really did open up a lot of eyes and it opened up what, I'll just say right now, numerous times I've heard graded approach, another, you know, like different ideas that would actually enhance safety, okay, but also giving more flexibility to the, you know, to the licensees and to the CoC holders and such.
And it was really one of those really unique times that I saw people thinking outside the box but thinking about it in a way where it was systematically done where people at the end of the day were saying, wow, we can have our cake and eat it, too, and improve safety, okay.
MR. MCCULLUM: Al, you had some, I think you had some specific examples on that approved safety. Is that --
MR. CSONTOS: Yes, so, for example, you know, we were looking at it from the point of view of, all right, what is going to impact, you know, in terms of the fuel, okay, in terms of gross rupture how do you prevent that.
Well, we looked at different metrics, okay, they discussed it all. That was one of 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
117 options that were on the table, okay, to say what are those metrics, and we knew one of the metrics, one of the recommendations there is to look at a different, you know, is PCT the right metric, and that was posed to the experts out there.
And, you know, they came up with several options to say, you know, these may be alternatives that we can think about because it actually is about, the key piece of information was, all right, well what do we do, how do we prevent gross rupture.
Well, we have to ensure that the peak cladding stress is below 90 megapascals, okay. Well, how do we do that? And they systematically went down and looked at all these reports and papers and other types of things and they said, well, look at this, we actually could probably do an average temperature instead of a peak clad temperature.
So if your average temperature was greater than 400 that may be one way to do it. Brady was on the panel, you know, for that. The thermal folks came up and thought outside the box and, you know, they were thinking, well, instead of a model-to-model analysis maybe it goes into just a sensor, okay.
And so you take a measurement as opposed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 to a model-to-model issue where you take it away from safety review in terms of, you know, a my model versus your model type of activity to more of an oversight where it's a licensing, you know, check, you know, inspection piece, okay.
And so it may then help you because now you have direct evidence of the temperature that you are getting to, but also you are getting a lot more flexibility and you take, you can maybe reduce the burden on NRC's behalf, the utilities, and the license, and the vendor's behalf, but then you also get an actual data point for you to point to, to say, yes, we're maintaining, you know, well below the 400 limit, okay.
There are things that were out there and so what this did was a real, it was not only just brainstorming, but it actually came up with tangible activities and tangible benefits I think in terms of recommendations, in terms of other things to go after.
And that was done in a very short period of time and in a way, you know, I hate to say that, you know, what we could do is in terms of now the application or the implementation of what they found in the PIRT, the experts found in the PIRT, you know, it would be up to I think discussions between 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
119 vendors, the utilities, and others to figure out, you know, how does one go to NRC to show what they have done and has a, you know, you have to have a safety finding to something, and so you've got to figure out a way to -- and when I say "you" I mean the NRC, I am pointing to the NRC. The people on the phone don't see that I am pointing to the NRC.
The NRC needs a safety finding. So, therefore, you know, something needs to be documented, and the PIRT will be documenting a lot, okay, but there will also be needs and that's another part to the PIRT is to identify those potential areas that we need to go after so that the vendors or others can go in with either amendments or topicals or whatever.
And I think that's the path in terms of reducing burden on both sides, but also improving safety. That could be something that could be done and in a way to get at to those guidance that was written in pencil as what we were considering in the PIRT.
MR. HAMDAN: Yes, can I take --
MR. CSONTOS: Sure.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. HAMDAN: -- question? This type of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 discussion in terms of the methodologies and tools that you want to use is a great discussion and we need to have, but the main question -- one for me, is does the business model have the connotation around it -- does it include how this business model would interface with the regulations?
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: Because I know -- let me just finish my first --
MR. MCCULLUM: Okay.
MR. HAMDAN: I know that in the White Paper you have these guidance so I can see some answers there, but it seems to me the more fundamental question should be, it's like coming up with a new appliance and you have to teach people how to use it.
MR. MCCULLUM: Right.
MR. HAMDAN: We need a discussion in the White Paper or more importantly with this model on how this business model is going to interface with the rules in place, right --
MR. MCCULLUM: Right.
MR. HAMDAN: -- and if that's not there we're going to spend a lot of time talking about the things that the EPRI gentleman just talk about, so we're good with tools and it's because the tools --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 this out, but these are lingering questions how the government interact with NRC.
There's regulations; we have our own, you know, traditions and ways of doing things, so you need a section in the business model and maybe even here to address that --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I think you were using business model in a different context than I use business model. I was talking out how we decommission the plants faster and how you make a business case for doing that, which is what is happening out there.
I think you are talking more, the business model, the overall construct of how this fits into the regulations and, well, how it fits into the business model is they can actually get the job done and the decommissioned sites are decommissioned quicker.
The things I was referring to translate into operational improvements that save dose, that reduce loadings, you know, that have industrial safety implications because we're not, you know, putting so much shielding around something, for example.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 MR. CSONTOS: I think the key here is that we have a lot of research that's been going on.
We have a lot of work that has been going on, both DOE, EPRI, NRC, a lot of places, a lot of effort, okay, hybrid of demo, a lot of effort, lots of millions of dollars, okay.
The key there is how do we get that information into guidance more rapidly, okay, and can we wait seven years for rules, you know, can -- and that's an average number, okay.
So 7-1/2 years is an average rulemaking.
Tim got his through in like three years, so I don't know how he did it, but I bet you he didn't sleep, you know, for weeks on end, but you know the average is 7-1/2 years, okay.
Guidance out there, you know, to get through it's two, 2-1/2 years, okay, and that's not being pejorative at all. That is just how the process is because it's meant to be slow for reasons, okay.
But the question here is that how can we get that information into guidance to be safer and to be more efficient, and in this way the PIRT was one of the ways -- So the most classic example that came out of the PIRT, okay, was everyone got together and said, wait, wait, wait, this ISG-11 Rev 3, this delta NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 temperature limit, okay, meaning that you had to go through so many cycles, okay, you were limited in terms of a delta 65 degrees, okay, per cycle.
Everyone said wait a second, all that information that's based on old data. The latest, all the data that is out there now you disregard, that's old and obsolete, okay.
And so that is an example of something that everyone recognized right away, you know, and in a couple of weeks it was all, you know, identified, and so that's a suggestion and the question there is like what is the best way to take that information from technical experts and implement it faster.
And I think that's what you are trying to get at is how do we get this done faster but also to make sure that we're getting those safety benefits and the other benefits that the utilities will get and I think the way that we're talking about here is the vendors, utilities, whoever, going in with either an amendment or whatever to go forward to capture that.
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes, I would say that's the -- I would go back to your first question, I would say that's the third of three ways it connects to what you are calling the business model, what I would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 call the regulatory framework, but it is your business model because you are in the business of being a regulator.
That is the third way and that way really solidifies it and that way also does take time because you know have something to review. The first two ways are precedent and review guidance.
I think the recommendation that I cited earlier on graded review guidance, and, you know, that's something the NRC could do today. I mean you might want to think about it for more than a day, but those are the three ways they connect.
MR. HAMDAN: Rod?
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes?
MR. HAMDAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but all I am saying, we are -- I think I am with you on the same page. The only thing that is missing from this and I suspect from the -- is this very discussion that the gentleman discussed, what are the challenges, what are the risks, how we are going to do these things.
MR. MCCULLUM: Mm-hmm.
MR. HAMDAN: That's missing here because it -- all it does -- it just talks about the tools and yes, you say, because the guidance so there is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 clear. I think you need in whatever, call it framework, whatever, in that documentation we need to address these issues, how does it connect with how we do the work now -- how do you answer the question that he raised.
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes. I think --
MR. HAMDAN: But we need that.
MR. MCCULLUM: How does it connect to the work we do now, that --
MR. HAMDAN: No, the technical stuff surely I think we can sort out easily and what we want very quickly.
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes.
MR. HAMDAN: The more difficult question is the interface, the connections, the challenge, and how we do it and --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. MCCULLUM: Well let me start with the easiest one. Yes, I mean the easiest one is the graded review guidance because you guys, what you could do is you could convene a team of these people in the room and you could look at your review guidance and figure out how you would do a graded approach.
You could then make that available for comment publicly or even if you didn't you could, 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
126 know, we could see it and it would be visible to us, so that's one.
And, of course, a lot of the criteria for grading might depend on the things that don't exist yet, so that brings in some of the other recommendations, but that's how they connect in there.
For example, you've already got a pilot.
If you get several other pilot applications you know what to do with those. Those are already connected.
You've got a precedent and you can follow that.
If you get to the next level where we go to the COLR approach, okay, now that's new, so what do you need to review that. Well, again, that's -- If you have defined, if you have put together your committee of smart people inside the NRC and you've defined this graded approach to review guidance you'll know what grade to give a COLR and the risks are that, obviously, if you are wrong, so you want to have an approach for a COLR based submittal that addresses those risks which you then manage by making sure that the guidance for what a COLR should be is very clear and so that you can very clearly look at what that is and, you know, you can then base decisions to approve CoC applications that do not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 have any fuel qualification information in them whatsoever, you can base those on your understanding that that approach has been effectively implemented.
So, yes, we have to draw more than one connection there and that's why our proposal here is for a series of workshops in 2020. I think some of those things we'll find out we already have, and I would think, you know, us following Don's precedent I think we can do that today.
I think if another supplier wants to come in and submit an application that does exactly what Don's did I think you're ready for that. That should be a fairly straightforward review. It should not take the three years that Don's took because you had to negotiate the bounding approach.
In that case that's maybe -- The reason that's a Grade 1 review is because you look to see if their bounding approach is equally credible for their system and you don't have to RAIs and review questions about is that the right bounding approach.
You just have to make sure this bounding approach is as good as that bounding approach was.
So we've already got one thing connected there, that's just one recommendation.
And I think the one on the graded review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 approach is going to be key to reviewing all of this stuff because Al is going to want to submit topicals and license amendments that those things also connect it because now if we have agreed that gross rupture is something different than one millimeter by one millimeter and I think if you look at criticality safety it probably is different than that.
I mean what I heard Meraj say is we decided we needed to get more conservative back in those days.
MR. RAHIMI: Can I --
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes. When we went from unzipping to one millimeter, right?
MR. RAHIMI: Right.
MR. MCCULLUM: Yes.
MR. RAHIMI: Meraj Rahimi, NRC. Yeah, I mean, at some point, we had to define, you know, a quantitative value.
MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: I mean, that's what --
MR. McCULLUM: Right, so you picked a conservative number.
MR. RAHIMI: Well, yeah, we picked a number that the -- you know, at one millimeter, even if the fuel come out, it won't have a significant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 effect on criticality, safety, or dose, you know, during handling. That's what the, you know, the basis was.
MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: But, yeah, I mean, I agree that with the list that you've put out in the report, we really, as you said, we need to have a workshop because there's a lot of history, precedence.
We need to go into detail and talk about each one of those, but let me talk for a second regarding, I mean, these are the three, your three recommendations under category E, under category two, which is for NRC.
MR. McCULLUM: It's your stuff, yeah.
MR. RAHIMI: This is our stuff. So, for example, the first recommendation, as you will know, a few years ago, we did that in the SRP. We went through each section, each discipline, and let's say let's add a risk value, high, medium, and low. You know, and that's what we did a few years ago, we got like an expert solicitation.
We got all of the really technical experts together, went section by section. We said, okay, this part on the SRP, is it high, medium, low in terms of the probability, consequence?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 And we did that, and actually we presented that today in terms of the risk informing, that context, but I think the answer from SCRS was, "Well, this is not risk informing. This is you prioritized." You know, "This was you."
And so subsequently, in our, you know, updated SRP, now we took those out, but we currently have an initiative actually, you know, which I think once it gets to a point in Travis' branch, and Donald, you know, Donald has the lead on really going back to the fundamentals, the safety functions, you know, in terms of prioritizing how is it related? This particular change or component, how is it related to the main safety function? And we'll discuss that when we get at a point that we believe that there --
MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: -- is something to present.
We will share with the industry and we would like your feedback, so.
MR. McCULLUM: Okay.
MR. RAHIMI: But we'll work out something on that one. The second one, in cases where applicants have applied conservative source terms, conservative modeling, and source term uncertainty, burnup uncertainty in their application, NRC should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 conduct a much less detailed review.
Actually, we agree actually with your, I guess, earlier recommendation. We should go back to each of these source terms, for example. And if you look at the source term, I mean, the applicant, they submit an application.
You know, they say the heat source, let's talk about it, because under your document source, you talk about the heat source and the radiation source, both of them.
And let's say this design, it can, you know, reject 40 kilowatt. Okay, we don't question okay, how do you come up with 40 kilowatt, but that is the requirement, 40 kilowatt, and then at the signs, when the licensee uses that particular cask, 40 kilowatt, they use their tools, their own tools like a cask loader, following the Reg Guide 3.5 for method, which we have recently updated.
We cut out a lot of conservatism, you know, and they're the ones, the user, that they determine, okay, using burnup, enrichment, and cooling time, if that leads to 40 kilowatt.
So, I think it's not something that we dictate. It's something that the user of the cask, they calculate, you know, in order to meet the task.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 Okay, this cask, is this for 40 kilowatt, and they use their --
MR. McCULLUM: But are you comparing your model to their model?
MR. RAHIMI: Actually, the only thing we put out Reg Guide 3.5 for, now revision two, we've said that generally for calculating heat source, this is a method, a simplified method. If not, you have another option. Use a depletion code, ORIGEN code, and use that one.
And then Hatice last week was telling me it turned out that they looked into their tools, cask loader, and it was conservative, the way they were calculated.
MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: That's not -- we didn't dictate that. We said, okay, use the -- I mean, they used the reactor operating condition independent. I mean, they can use their site specific reactor operating condition for the depletion calculation to come up with the heat source, I believe. We don't have an objection to that because that's what we would put in the Reg Guide.
MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: So it's something sometimes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 that the, I mean, the owner, the licensees impose those conservative models.
MR. McCULLUM: No, and I think there are some things on our side here to, you know, to address that, and that's why we have recommendation 4-3, which is to come up with an industry consensus-based thermal modeling methodology and a best practices guide, and then that helps us stay within something where you feel comfortable not having to go run your own computer code.
Because I think, and someone from the industry can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's why some of these reviews become very lengthy and that's the source of a lot of our AIs, is that NRC's computer code and industry's computer code give different results, and there may be somebody out there that says, "Yeah, but the difference is so far below the margin of safety that it doesn't matter," but because we don't have our recommendation and your recommendation synced up here, you know, we go ahead and go through that process anyway --
MR. RAHIMI: Right.
MR. McCULLUM: -- when we don't need to.
So, yes, there is -- you're absolutely right. For the second NRC recommendation 3-3 to work, there needs NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 to be success on the industry corresponding recommendation 4-3, as well as 3-2 is in the same ball park.
So, yeah, there is work to be done on both sides, but the beautiful thing is in both of those cases, we can do that without having to spend six years negotiating over an industry guidance document, and seeking endorsement, and all of that.
And you were going to comment on the third NRC?
MR. RAHIMI: Yes, so the third recommendation for NRC, that in cases where applicants have applied the results of the PIRT recommendation 4-1, NRC should revise its internal review guidance to limit the review to verification that the results of the PIRT have been appropriately applied instead of trying to independently repeat the results. No, I agree. That's why we participated.
We are participating in PIRT.
MR. McCULLUM: Great, so we're already working on that recommendation?
MR. RAHIMI: We're already working on that, and that's why, you know, we want to be involved at the end, that we know what has been done. And we had started actually looking at, you know, revising ISG-11, Revision 11 --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 MR. McCULLUM: Right.
MR. RAHIMI: -- looking at the pages, and the productivity is started at the same time, so that's why we said, okay, whatever we are doing, let's inform what the industry is doing, and if some of the work is going to come out from the PIRT that we can use it, yeah.
MR. McCULLUM: So we're well underway on that recommendation.
MR. RAHIMI: Yeah.
MR. McCULLUM: And if, you know, industry submits something that's based on the result of a PIRT, now your review becomes much simpler. Now there are fewer RAIs. Now the time frame, the number of man hours you have to spend out of your consolidated staff that has twice as much to do now is all reduced, and the more sharper our focus is on the things that this staff needs to be focused on to ensure safety. Yoira?
MS. DIAZ: Sure, this is Yoira Diaz, NRC.
I just want to amplify a few things. So I read the white paper. I have a couple of thoughts. I appreciate I think we are aligned into some of these recommendations.
Some of these recommendations are things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 that we're already looking into or have looked into, but my question for the most part, with respect to what you're proposing here is what is the path forward and how all of these initiatives are connecting to each other?
Because we are getting from some applicants, vendors specifically, they're submitting topical reports, for example, and we don't know how that fits into the bigger picture, because to the extent that the industry can help us identify how all of these things connect to each other, the better and easier for us to allocate the resources.
If you can provide the priority of how you plan to submit various amendments or topical reports, that will be very beneficial and helpful for us to identify how to proceed on the path forward.
MR. McCULLUM: Absolutely, and that's why this letter ends with a request for workshops, because we -- and, you know, this is a general introduction to the paper, and thank you for reading it, and it seems like you have a good understanding of what we're trying to do, but, yes, we do need to set specific priorities for specific actions, and I would anticipate --
I mean, some of these things, we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 already doing, so I don't want to slow them down.
Don't wait for a workshop to keep going on the PIRTs, for example, or to update your review guidance to be more risk informed, but some of the things that we're going to propose, we do need to --
I think that sounds like a good topic for the first workshop is, you know, what submittals are we going to get from industry and what the priorities should be, and that's really a back and forth because, you know, we could submit the best product over here, but that's something that doesn't necessarily, you guys don't see that as that helpful, but if maybe our second priority is something over here that you guys do see as very helpful, now maybe that should be our first priority because if that's something you guys are ready to embrace more so than the other things.
So, yeah, I think maybe the first workshop, Al, could be a priority setting workshop.
MR. CSONTOS: Yeah, I think that, you know, some of the things that came out of the PIRTs were the synergy PIRT, this, you know, gross rupture PIRT, but those are all secondary, I think.
You know, I think we're focused on getting the report written, all three reports written, but I think that this -- and Rod, this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138 document was being written before, you know, we started the PIRTs, so, you know, so you can already check box some of these off, okay?
And I think to the point you're bringing up, you know, Yoira, is that the prioritization, and I think it kind of ties to what Latif was talking about, which is, you know, how do we get this? How do we go forward with this?
And that, I think, needs a discussion because we're looking at it from a perspective of how do we minimize burden on NRC and NRC staff, okay?
Get the most efficiency out of this. How do we less burden the utilities or the vendors with applications coming in? Is there a beneficial way to get what we need to get and still have you have a review, a bite at the apple in terms of a safety review? Okay. So, Latif, that's to your point, okay. There needs to be some sort of review to ensure that there's a precedent that's being set as Rod was bringing up, okay.
So the point there is that we need to have some sort of, you can call it prioritization, or if you want to call it whatever, you know, a workshop where we talk about, well, here are the things that we found, the low-hanging -- I hate to say this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 I hate using that low-hanging fruit analogy, but it is something that was discussed, you know, during the PIRTs and afterward, which was, hey, there are opportunities here that are pretty quick, and then there are some opportunities that are much farther downstream.
And so how do we get those shorter term benefits now, but how do we work it through the vendor, you know, licensing approaches? Is it a topical? What is it and who does this?
All of that needs to come, I think, to a kind of a prioritizing, and also for you to plan out your budgets, and your planning, and your staff hours and all of that stuff because we know how limited you are with, you know, staff time with respect to initiatives.
We know that you're burdened to making sure that you do over 90 percent of your work with licensing actions, and so how we go forward with this is really tied to optimization between what your resources are and what the utilities and the industry resources are.
MR. McCULLUM: Yeah, Al, when is the ink going to be dry on your three PIRT reports?
MR. CSONTOS: So the draft reports are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 planning right now to be done by the end of this year, okay. There may be one that goes into the beginning of next year, but the goal here is to make them all public by March of 2020.
MR. McCULLUM: Okay.
MR. CSONTOS: Okay? The reports will be done and promulgated to the panelists to make sure that what we wrote in the report or what is written in the report, not we, not EPRI writing it, but what is written in the reports is the panelists, you know, opinions, okay.
So, between January and March is when they have that bite of the apple to review the report and make sure that it's reflecting their opinions properly, and so that will be made publicly available for comments in March.
MR. McCULLUM: So it sounds like during that comment window would be a good time to have a workshop to figure it out because that, you know, we can get real time input there.
MR. CSONTOS: Right, we'll have all of the basic information, I think, the agreed upon languages and agreed upon perspectives and points to get to one of the low-hanging fruits before the longer, you know, opportunities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 MR. McCULLUM: Yeah.
MR. CSONTOS: We'll have that pretty much established by January, so I think that we could have a dialogue starting next year if everyone --
MR. McCULLUM: So, yeah, I guess I would propose the first two workshops. One will be in January and another will be in March. I think in January, we want to get to Yoira's question which is for some of these simpler ones, some of these don't need PIRTs. Let's make sure we understand the connections.
I mean, Meraj, you say you're already committed to doing things with your review guide, and so let's get some visibility on that. Maybe I can get industry to talk about some of the things they intend to submit. Who is going to follow this precedent? Who is going to pioneer a colder approach? You know, what sort of an industry best practices guide might you see and when might you see it?
So, you know, what the letter asks for is a response by December 20. Your response could be, "We're just not ready to respond yet," but I hope it's a little more than that, and I do need it in writing because I have to tell my industry by the end NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 of the year, you know, are we, you know, are we at a place where we can work this or do we need to try something different?
You know, because my planning horizon comes to an end and I have to report to my membership, you know, so that's why I requested a response by December 20, but I'm not saying -- I mean, if you really want to say that you endorse the recommendations, that's fine, but, you know.
And then I think, so we would look at some of the nearer term recommendations and make sure we have a mutual understanding of where everything plugs in in the January workshop, and then in the March workshop, we can get into the meat of, you know, okay, how do we prioritize the results of these PIRTs?
Does that make sense?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: So we have a few comments here, but let's go to the phone lines, and Lynn, do we have any questions or comments?
OPERATOR: Please press star, one, if you would like to ask a question or make a comment at this time.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay, we're going to go here in the room.
MR. McCARTIN: Okay, the more I've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 listened this afternoon, I don't know if I'm confused or not, and let me explain why. And this is being done in the context of a petition for rulemaking, but I look at the white paper and a lot of the recommendations really don't relate very well to a petition for rulemaking in the sense of I see a lot of risk informing, and the graded approach, et cetera.
They all rely on information, and there's nothing in NRC's rules that forbids a licensee or an applicant to use the best information they have to come forward, and so, however, if we do a graded approach and we have a different view than you, you're not going to like the graded approach we come up with because we have a different view.
And I'll go back to what Al was talking about before, and this is part of it, maybe a silo nature of some of the review work where maybe criticality is done over here or thermal is done over here, but you talk about a lot of improved analysis, and moving away from conservative approaches.
There's nothing in our regulations that require you to do a conservative approach. That's a choice sometimes by an applicant that, rather than collect more data, I will do a conservative approach and I can do this quicker.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
144 Now, getting back to the information, what I hear is a discussion of we need to work on a more, I won't say agreed upon, but at least a common understanding of the types of information you have, be it industry, other stakeholders, NRC has that gives us our understanding of why dry cask storage is safe, and we can talk through that.
And, you know, where I'm struggling, I'm trying to understand, well, those are good workshops if those are some of those workshops. What are you headed towards in that? Improved understanding on all parties' parts is good. We can put that into our review any time and there's nothing precluding that.
And so I'm trying to get a sense of -- I think the white paper is a mixture of improving our understanding of different things, and there could be some additional things that are good to do from either guidance or regulation, but every, I'll say, five to 10 years, we're a bit smarter, and so you always want to be able to incorporate the best information you have to improve your review.
And it just -- like I said, I don't think I'm in disagreement with a lot of things, but I'm sort of with Latif and maybe a few others. I'm trying to understand, with respect to our rules, is there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
145 the urgency to change the rules?
And I understand there's a few pockets of things, or is it more on the side of improving our common understanding of the information supporting the safety of dry cask storage? And I'll leave it at that.
MR. McCULLUM: It's absolutely the latter. Tim, that was the best ever distillation of why industry has moved to a position that we don't need rulemaking now.
We were trying to force change by making the rules say you must change with that first item.
We realized, as you've pointed out, we don't have to do that. What we have to do is understand the information. We have to have that understanding.
You know, we initially were going to title this paper "Understanding Performance Margins."
I think the wordsmiths decided defining was a better term to submit to the regulator.
But, you know, that's really is what we're trying to do is reach a mutual understanding of the information and the expectations with which we implement the current rules.
So this meeting, to get to your confusion, this meeting collided with our white paper NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
146 in a fortuitous circumstance because you guys had reached the point where you needed to say something about our petition.
We had kind of given up on the petition after so many years, so we were working on the white paper, and when we got word that you were going to have this meeting on the petition, we said, oh, we're almost done with the paper.
So I went and put the screws to Mark and his team, and they finished the white paper up a couple of weeks early, so we got it in ahead of this meeting, and what we're telling NRC in a nutshell here is put the rulemaking aside for now. Let's work on making sure we have a common understanding and are using that common understanding.
The -- what we're trying to get to approach is a world in which we can do aging management, in which we can do interim storage and transportation to interim storage with much simpler, each to use licensing bases.
Because if these things are going to last 40 years and then maybe another 40 years, some have already been licensed up through year 60, you know, not everybody who created Amendment 6 of a cask for which there are Amendments 6 through 10 on site is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147 still going to be there.
And our ability to safely ensure both longevity and transportability, and something else in a different site, depends on us having a really good understanding of what's important in those CoCs.
So what we're trying to get to is a simpler CoC framework that doesn't take as much resources for you guys to review. You know, we shouldn't be taking three years for a review to get us to double-digit amendment space.
That's it in a nutshell, and if we have a common understanding, I think we have enough experience now we don't need to do that.
MR. SHAW: Don Shaw with TN Americas. My curiosity is about the regulatory issue resolution protocol, RIRP process, which my understanding is that's how the industry and NRC spends their time other than the real licensing actions that are ongoing. So is the vision part of it here that some of these items will result in new RIRP items, or how does that all work together in your understanding?
MR. McCULLUM: They very well could because an RIRP, unlike a rulemaking or a submittal of guidance for endorsement, you know, which also would be accompanied with a fee waiver, it's not -- a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
148 few waiver request -- it's not driven by those calendars. It's driven by what calendar we set. In the RIRP, we set a schedule, and you submit it in accordance with that schedule.
So we can take some of the simpler things, the things Al calls the low-hanging fruit, and we can put them in an RIRP process. The key document in the RIRP process, it's a very simple document.
It's a page, and sometimes if it's a long list of things we have to do, it's more than a page that says NRC will do this on this date and industry will do this on that.
Well, it starts with an industry action.
Industry will do this on this date and then NRC will do that on that date, and depending on the outcome of that, industry will either do this or this by this date or that date.
So, yes, we can put those in the RIRP and that's how we can drive them to closure without lengthy processes, and then we'll have more precedents like the one you set, and we'll have them in 2020 instead of, you know, again I'll go with NEI 12-04 which will be endorsed in 2020, so that would be 2028, you know.
I can guarantee you the world of defining NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149 decommissioning business models in the economic sense will have long passed us up by the time we get to 2028, so if we want to make an impact on that world, you know, we've got to do it in the near term, and yes, Don, RIRPs are a way of getting those changes into the near term.
MR. LI: This is Zhian Li from NRC. I just would like to follow up with Tim's comments. I agree with Tim. I did not really see anything in the proposal or in the white paper that really challenges the rules or makes us feel we need to change the rules.
I think all of the items we're talking about is how does the industry or the applicant present their information to the reviewers for them to make a judgment? And then if, for example, if the industry can clearly identify the safety margin, and then the reviewer could just, you know, make a quick call that says, "Yes, we feel this is the safety margin," with the clearer uncertainty in some aspect, we do not need to really dig into the details. That would actually help us. So, I think the industry and the NRC both are looking for efficiency in the review, in the process.
MR. McCULLUM: Yeah, I like that phrase NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
150 you said of safety, and I'm writing down, safety margin covering uncertainties, because it is too often that it's the uncertainties that hang us up, and every reviewer as well as every applicant is always afraid of what he doesn't know.
So, if we can -- and this might manifest itself in how you grade the review guidance. If we have a good understanding of the margin, then we treat uncertainties different. The review guidance might tell you to do that. And so, yes, that absolutely, that's something we'll build into this going forward.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: We have one last comment here in the room and then --
MS. DIAZ: Yoira Diaz, NRC. I think the uncertainty is going to be one of the areas that the PIRT is looking into, which we agreed from the demo that that's something that we need to evaluate, from the demo cask.
I have a question on, from the recommendations, and maybe it's something that I didn't see or hear, but do you have the linkage between licensing and inspections and operations in some of these recommendations?
MR. McCULLUM: Yes.
MS. DIAZ: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
151 MR. McCULLUM: Absolutely. When I show the full bubble chart that I just didn't bring with me today, I was going to talk to the white paper, but safety-focused inspection is the third thing on the other side, you know. There's three things you get.
Once you do those first three things on the one side, the industry maturity, the proven record, and the understanding of margin, the one missing piece right now, then you can disposition low safety significance items quickly. That's the discussion that we just had. You can do a graded approach like what we did in the TN case, and you have safety-focused inspections.
The licensing and the inspection piece have to fit together very well because when you say you're not going to review something in detail in licensing, you still have to know that your inspection program is going to be focused on the right things within that thing so that you assure that the judgment you made in licensing is this is safe because I have enough margin to counter the uncertainties. Then you go and inspect and you look inside that, so you can't be inspecting over in a completely different area.
So, yes, there is an inspection piece that goes with the graded approach piece, and the two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
152 have to work together.
MS. DIAZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. HAMDAN: Rod, this is -- we need to spend a few minutes focusing.
MR. McCULLUM: Well, my consultant left to catch his train, so I'm not able to answer any more questions.
MR. HAMDAN: Can you hear me now? Rod, this has been an excellent discussion. We've learned a lot, and hopefully we will give you some feedback that you can use.
MR. McCULLUM: Yeah, whatever you can say by December 20, then I really think I'd like you to reach to the possibility of a January and a March workshop. You know, I'm not expecting much more than that, but if I can get those, if I can get an initial, "Yeah, we want to engage in this discussion," and I think you can go ahead and recognize that, in your response, that we told you that the rulemaking isn't necessary.
MR. HAMDAN: And I think just with respect with the various comments, I think the workshop maybe a source of these questions.
MR. McCULLUM: It would be designed to.
We would come up with an agenda. We would come up NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153 with people, more than just me, to talk to it, and, yeah, we would make it work.
MR. HAMDAN: Okay, thank you so much. We appreciate your --
MR. McCULLUM: Thank you.
MR. HAMDAN: -- taking the time. And I would like to just spend as little or as much time until -- we need to finish before 3:00 because people have to catch trains and what have you. Just I want to spend maybe 15 or 20 minutes at the most to see if there are any other comments on alternatives and options.
I think I know what the options are, and I would be happy to share them with you, based on what I've heard already, but I don't want to take all of the time in this speaking by myself. So, are there any remaining comments on alternatives and options, if anybody wants to --
Let me summarize what I think maybe in one minute. I'm thinking about two buckets, one bucket for pressing issues that can't wait and high significance, safety issues and risk issues that we need to address to the extent we can outside a rulemaking, and the other bucket would have items from the petition maybe and items from staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 recommendations that will remain to be resolved by rulemaking when that time comes because they're not as pressing as the other ones.
And that's my take from what I heard earlier this morning, but, you know, I want to open the floor and hear what anybody else who may have some other things to add.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Any feedback, any comments here in the room?
MR. McCULLUM: I think that's a good goal. I mean, obviously the workshops are going to be about how we define the first bucket, but I think you've phrased that correctly.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Let's go to the phone lines. Any comments or questions, people on the phone?
OPERATOR: We have one from Kayleen Walker. Your line is open, ma'am.
MS. WALKER: Hi, thank you. I was wondering, is there going to be a transcript of this meeting?
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Yes, there will be a transcript of this meeting.
MS. WALKER: Great, thank you. I think that the paper makes two assumptions that I kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
155 question. One is that 30 years of loading canisters makes it a mature industry. I think that there is a lot of unanswered questions about what's going on inside those canisters and the canisters themselves.
The other assumption that there is no need to repackage the fuel for at least 100 years, I think, is completely unfounded, and I was wondering what your plan is for when the canister needs to be repackaged before that?
Looking at the bigger picture, I'd say this nuclear waste storage is basically in its infancy, so I think people should be humbled a little bit as they look at this instead of recommending that the NRC should conduct much less review, and simply check if sound methodologies have been applied.
I think that this is not the time to reduce the burden on the NRC, and the vendors, and the utilities. This is the time to increase the burden on the industry, and the utilities, and the NRC. We have a long future with this material. We should be getting all of the data as much as possible.
The fact that, you know, you're not even taking radiation readings from the external air vent valves of 15-year canisters, I think, is an egregious mishandling of the 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
156 MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Okay, thank you for that comment. Do we have any other comments or questions on the line?
OPERATOR: Yes, we have one from Gary Headrick. Your line is open, sir. Mr. Headrick, if you're on mute, you'll want to unmute your line.
MR. HEADRICK: Thank you, Gary Headrick with San Clemente Green. And I know the west coast has been mentioned before and we're living right near San Onofre, and we've experienced so many close calls and problems throughout the years leading up to the shutdown.
And then the acceleration of deregulation is just astounding when we're looking at Holtec, who kind of worked around the approval process for their design to the shim pins. That was inappropriate.
And when you leave so much up to the industry themselves instead of regulating them, they usually make the bad choice, so I would think we need to do more regulation and really hold their feet to the fire. And it sounded like to me that part of the problem is the backlog of all of the rules, and I think we should look at why that is. Is it because of a lack of investment into enough staff and is the staff overworked? Because rather than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157 disregard the regulations, we should be providing enough staff to do the job adequately. Thank you.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the line?
OPERATOR: We have no further questions or comments, ma'am.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Questions or comments here in the room? Latif?
MR. HAMDAN: Thank you so much. I am personally delighted that we had the chance to have this discussion because I think it's important to give the stakeholders input and perspective, and I will repeat what I started the day with.
The rulemaking process at the NRC has a constant activity that's done time, and again, and again, and again, and that's reaching all of the stakeholders and the public and getting their perspectives and their input before we make our decisions. We consider, frankly, the stakeholder reach out, and input, and perspectives, it seems to me the most important activity that we will do in the rulemaking.
Yes, we look at other information, and, yes, we discuss and we analyze, but the one constant that's in every phase of the rulemaking is this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158 interaction between the NRC staff and the stakeholders, and I think today went very well. We got a lot of information and we'll take it from there, and God bless.
MS. ROQUE-CRUZ: Thank you so much. If you did not sign up, please do that before you leave, and other than that, have a safe trip. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:21 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433