ML21193A201
| ML21193A201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/2021 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Neal R. Gross & Co. |
| To: | |
| Carrera, Andrew | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21142A003 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1526, NRC-2017-0214 NRC-2017-0214 | |
| Download: ML21193A201 (84) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements Public Meeting Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 Work Order No.: NRC-1526 Pages 1-84 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 5 PUBLIC MEETING 6 + + + + +
7 WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 30, 2021 9 + + + + +
10 The meeting convened via Videoconference, at 10:04 a.m.
11 EDT, Brett Klukan, Regional Counsel, presiding.
12 13 PANELISTS PRESENT:
14 ERIC BENNER 15 THERESA BUCHANAN 16 ANDREW CARRERA 17 KEVIN COYNE 18 NATHAN GAGEBY 19 JEREMY GROOM 20 SHAWN HARWELL 21 MABLE HENDERSON 22 BRETT KLUKAN 23 JOHN LUBINSKI 24 MIKE MAHONEY 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 FRED MILLER 2 KEVIN RAMSEY 3 LYNN RONEWICZ 4 SOLOMON SAHLE 5 JILL SHEPHERD 6 GEORGE SMITH 7 JOHN TAPPERT 8 MINH THUY NGUYEN 9 BOOMA VENKATARAMAN 10 11 ATTENDEES PRESENT:
12 ADAM GOODMAN 13 ANDREW MAUER 14 ANDREW ZACH 15 ANGEL WANG 16 ANGELLA LOVE BLAIR 17 ANTHONY de JESUS 18 BEZA ALEMU, NRC 19 BRETT TITUS 20 BRIAN GREEN 21 CAMERON GOODWIN 22 CARLOS SISCO, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 23 CATY NOLAN 24 CHRIS MARKLEY 25 CHRIS SPEER 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 1 CHRISTEPHER McKENNEY, US NRC 2 CHRISTOPHER REGAN, US NRC 3 CINDY BLADEY 4 CINDY ROSALES COOPER, USNRC 5 CONNOR McCUNE 6 DAVID BEAULIEU 7 DAVID CROWLEY, NC DHHS DHSR RPS 8 DAVID CULLISON 9 DAVID GUDGER 10 DAVID GULLOTT, Exelon Nuclear 11 EANN RALEIGH 12 ERNEST BATES, Southern Nuclear 13 HILARY LANE 14 ILKA BERRIOS 15 JAMES PAK, Dominion Energy 16 JAMES SLIDER, NEI 17 JAMES UHLEMEYER, KDHE 18 JANET SCHLUETER, SENIOR ADVISOR 19 JERE JENKINS 20 JOHN CONLY, CERTREC CORP 21 JONATHAN WALLICK, USGS 22 JUSTIN VAZQUEZ 23 JUSTIN WEARNE 24 LES FOYTO 25 MARLONE DAVIS 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 1
2 MARTIN PHALEN, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 3 MONICA FORD 4 NICOLE GOOD, STARS 5 PAM NOTO 6 PAUL HARRIS, NRC 7 PRIYA YADAV, NRC 8 ROBERT KAHLER 9 ROBIN RITZMAN 10 SABRINA ATACK 11 SABRINA KAHLER, NRC 12 SHAKUR WALKER 13 SILAS KENNEDY 14 STEVE REESE 15 SUZANNE DENNIS 16 TANIA MARTINEZ 17 THERESA CLARK 18 THOMAS BASSO, Exelon 19 TIM RITI 20 TONY ZIMMERMAN 21 TRAVIS JONES 22 23 ALSO PRESENT:
24 LYNN RONEWICZ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 Introduction and Opening Remarks 7 3 Objectives and Scope 9 4 Background 11 5 Retrospective Review of Administrative 6 Requirements (RROAR) strategy 13 7 Question and Answer 20 8 Part II Discussion 45 9 Question and Answer 55 10 Closing Remarks 82 11 Adjourn 84 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:04 a.m.)
3 OPERATOR: Welcome and thank you for 4 standing by for today's conference. All participants 5 will be in listen-only mode until the question and 6 answer session. At that time, to ask a question, press 7 star one. I would now like to turn the call over to 8 Brett Klukan. Thank you. You may begin.
9 MR. KLUKAN: Good morning, everyone. I 10 would like to welcome you today and thank you for 11 participating in this meeting to discuss the results 12 of the NRC's Retrospective Review of Administrative 13 Requirements and the path forward. Again, my name is 14 Brett Klukan. I am the Regional Counselor f or Region 15 1 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; however, 16 today, I will be serving as your meeting facilitator.
17 So this is an information meeting with two 18 question and comment sessions. The purpose of this 19 meeting is for the NRC staff to meet directly with 20 individuals to discuss regulatory and technical issues.
21 And you will have an opportunity to ask questions of 22 the NRC staff and to make comments about the issues 23 we discuss during the meeting. However, to be clear, 24 the NRC is not actively soliciting comments towards 25 the development of any further regulatory decisions 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 1 at this time.
2 In addition to speaking during the question 3 and comment session, you will also have the opportunity 4 to pose questions during Webex question and answer 5 feature. During those sessions, I will read the 6 questions out loud.
7 Again, the audio for today's meeting is 8 only through the telephone bridge. You must call into 9 that bridge in order to participate in the added 10 function. Granted, if you're hearing this, that means 11 you're already dialed into the audio function, but I 12 don't know how much help that is for those who (audio 13 interference). But, again, the information for the 14 audio bridge, if you know anyone who is having trouble 15 joining the audio bridge, it is included in the login 16 or when you enter into the Webex application. Okay, 17 next slide, please.
18 So, again, this meeting is being 19 transcribed. During, when it is your turn to speak, 20 I would ask that you please identify yourself, including 21 any organizational affiliation at the start of your 22 opportunity.
23 Slides are available for download from 24 ADAMS, so those of you on the bridge, the Accession 25 Number is ML21164A007, and the Comment Evaluation 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 1 Summary is also available on ADAMS and the ML for those 2 of you just on the phone or the ADAMS Accession Number 3 is ML21012A439.
4 And now finishing my quick introduction, 5 I would like to turn it over to John Lubinski, the 6 Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 7 Safeguards. Thank you.
8 MR. LUBINSKI: Thank you, Brett. And good 9 morning. And thank you, everyone, for attending this 10 morning. I appreciate you attending the US NRC's 11 meeting and the Retrospective Review of Administrative 12 Requirements, and you'll hear us refer to that as RROAR 13 this morning.
14 As Brett already said, I'm John Lubinski, 15 and I'm the Director of NMSS within the NRC. As part 16 of the RROAR effort, we had asked stakeholders to help 17 us identify potentially outdated or duplicative 18 administrative requirements in 10 CFR, in Title 10 CFR 19 the code, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 20 I'm sorry.
21 Our goal was and is to examine regulations 22 for administrative requirements that could be either 23 eliminated or modified without having any adverse 24 effect on public health or safety, common defense or 25 security, protection of the environment, or regulatory 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 1 efficiency or effectiveness. This activity supports 2 and aligns with our agency focus on transforming our 3 processes to be both more effective and efficient.
4 While the review generally indicated that 5 the NRC's administrative regulations are reasonable 6 and adequate, there are a number of areas where we can 7 make our requirements probably more clear, current, 8 and overall, more efficient.
9 At today's meeting, the NRC staff will 10 present the results of our analysis of the comments 11 we received. In addition to examining the outcome of 12 our analysis and answering questions, the staff will 13 provide our plans on how we are implementing regulatory 14 changes to certain administrative requirements and how 15 that's going to move forward.
16 Also, we would like to hear from you today.
17 As Brett said, there are a number of opportunities 18 to ask questions. We would like to hear your questions 19 that you have on what our plans are, what the details 20 of our review. We would like to hear and understand 21 any recommendations you have about how we handled 22 certain questions that came in or certain 23 recommendations and understand from you your thoughts 24 on how that could be more effective or efficient as 25 we continue to move forward.
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 1 So, again, my thanks for everyone attending 2 today, and I would now like to turn the meeting over 3 to Kevin Coyne.
4 MR. COYNE: Thanks very much, John. As 5 John said, I'm Kevin Coyne, and I'm the Deputy Director 6 of the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and 7 Financial Support. And I want to provide a little more 8 detail on the RROAR effort to help tee up the discussion 9 today.
10 In early February of 2020, the NRC 11 requested public input on any potentially outdated or 12 duplicative administrative requirements that may be 13 modified or eliminated. At the close of the comment 14 period, the NRC had received 100 individual comments.
15 The staff applied the Commission-approved 16 evaluation criteria described in the February 2020 FRN, 17 it's programmatic experience and the "Be riskSMART" 18 decision-making framework to review the comments 19 received. The staff finalized the review of 20 stakeholder comments and recommended 44 comments to 21 be further evaluated in a new RROAR-related rulemaking 22 effort. Ten additional items will be addressed in 23 other ongoing rulemaking activities.
24 So the comments that need further 25 evaluation within the context of the new RROAR-related 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 1 rulemaking effort, we plan to submit one or more 2 coordinated rulemaking plans to the Commission for 3 review and approval.
4 The NRC documented the comment review 5 results of the RROAR effort in SECY-21-0056. There's 6 a link to that SECY on the public meeting announcement 7 and available on the NRC's public website.
8 Just a couple of quick, really quick 9 reminders. As Brett mentioned, there will be two Q&A 10 portions during this informational meeting; one to 11 discuss the staff comment disposition and another 12 focusing on the path forward. Also, in addition to 13 not accepting official comments during this meeting, 14 we will not be making any regulatory decisions today.
15 We look forward to an informative meeting 16 with you today. We very much appreciate your 17 participation in the meeting. And now I will hand the 18 meeting over to Andy Carrera, who is the project lead 19 for this effort.
20 MR. CARRERA: Thank you. Good morning, 21 everyone. Thank you, Kevin, and thank you, John and 22 Brett. So welcome, again, to the public meeting on 23 the NRC's Retrospective Review of Administrative 24 Requirements initiative. So I will also use the term 25 RROAR to denotes the initiative from now on. So 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
12 1 you know, as Kevin and John mentioned, we want to thank 2 you for the comment, and input, and feedback that you 3 provided to us on this very unique initiative.
4 So in today's meeting we're providing 5 overview of the RROAR initiative and the comment 6 evaluation process, the result of our analysis of a 7 comment we receive, and the next steps for this effort.
8 So we break in between to take questions 9 related to the project's path forward as well and 10 adjourn the meeting by hopefully noon today. Oh, and, 11 I forgot to introduce myself. My name is Andy Carrera.
12 I'm one of the project leads for this initiative.
13 So, before we begin, I just want to 14 reiterate what Kevin had just mentioned. You know, 15 it's very important to note that we are not here today 16 to solicit for new input or feedback on administrative 17 requirements for consideration of RROAR initiative, 18 nor do we plan to issue any additional responses to 19 the inputs and feedbacks provided in the past other 20 than what was provided in SECY-21-0056.
21 We will use the term inputs, feedbacks, 22 and comments interchangeably throughout the meeting 23 today, so and we also use the word we, and NRC staff, 24 and management interchangeably throughout the meeting 25 as well. Next slide, please.
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 1 By way of background and overview of the 2 RROAR initiative in late 2017, the NRC issued a press 3 release to announce that the Agency would be initiating 4 a retrospective review of administrative regulations 5 to identify those rules that are outdated or 6 duplicative. Next slide, please.
7 And the goal of the review was to optimize 8 the management and administration of the regulatory 9 activities and to ensure that Agency's regulations 10 remains current and effective. And review was intended 11 to identify regulatory changes that are administrative 12 in nature and that will make information submission, 13 recordkeeping, and recording processes more efficient 14 for the NRC, the applicant, and the regulated entities.
15 And once identified, the administrative regulations 16 will be evaluated to determine whether they may be 17 eliminated or modified without impacting the Agency's 18 mission.
19 So in this context, administrative 20 regulations means recordkeeping of reported 21 requirements of regulations that addresses areas of 22 the Agency's organization procedural practice.
23 So in late of 2019, the Commission issue 24 was set up by evaluation criteria to serve as factors 25 for consideration to guide the NRC staff's evaluation.
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 1 So the Commission also directed staff to request 2 stakeholders and NRC staff's input on any outdated or 3 duplicative administrative requirements in the 10 CFR 4 that may potentially be eliminated or modified to reduce 5 regulatory burdens to licensees and NRC as well.
6 Furthermore, and this is important, all 7 the criteria serve as useful guidelines in identifying 8 administrative requirements that should be considered 9 for modification or elimination.
10 The Commission also directed the staff to 11 consider its programmatic experience. The intent of 12 the requirement, and the effect of elimination or 13 modification of a requirement on NRC mission, and that 14 is, I mean, that is the, you know, the focus of our 15 effort is the NRC's not, you know, to do no harm to 16 the NRC's mission. So I need you to understand that 17 and the overall effect on resources when determining 18 whether to pursue a change in our regulations.
19 And in February of 2020, the NRC published 20 a Notice in the Federal Register. I believe it was 21 Volume 8, Page 6103, seeking public input on any 22 administrative requirements that may be outdated or 23 duplicative of nature. The five evaluation criteria 24 were also provided in the Federal Register Notice.
25 And, so the NRC conducted several public 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 1 meetings over the course of the RROAR initiative, and 2 the meeting in May of 2018 to discuss the RROAR 3 initiative and the draft evaluation criteria meeting 4 on March 5th and March 24th of 2020, to facilitate public 5 comments. Additionally, the NRC also conducted public 6 meeting on August 27 of 2020, to discuss the comments 7 received.
8 And at the end of the public comment period, 9 the NRC received a total of a hundred individual 10 comments. Where multiple comments provided with 11 similar precision or rationale, the NRC staff blend 12 them together and consider them as a group and count 13 them as one individual comment.
14 So the comment impacted five NRC offices 15 and 17 NRC divisions. The NRC staff established an 16 agency-wide working group of approximately 40 staff 17 to evaluate the comments and to ensure consistency in 18 evaluation of the comments, including those that have 19 implication to cross, you know, with cross-cutting 20 issues among different NRC programmatic areas, for 21 example, licensing basis, tech specs, radiological 22 effluent reports, security clearance reports, 23 emergency preparedness, and so on and so forth.
24 The comments that we received span across 25 many of the Agency's programmatic areas and affect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 regulations in 14 different parts of the 10 CFR. And 2 at the end of the comments evaluation process, the NRC 3 staff determined 54 comments fall within the scope of 4 RROAR.
5 And, as you know, in SECY-21-0056, we 6 recommend the following path forward for these 7 recommended comments, you know, either to be further 8 evaluated in a new RROAR-related rulemaking, or to be 9 incorporated in an annual administrative correction 10 rulemaking, or to be further evaluated in an ongoing 11 rulemaking activity outside of the RROAR-related 12 rulemaking. Now, next slide, please.
13 So this slide shows various factors in 14 processes enhancement that inform the RROAR comment 15 evaluation process. We applied, as you know, we 16 applied five Commission-approved evaluation criteria 17 as described in the February 2020 FRN. And in order 18 to be considered for elimination, potential elimination 19 or modification through the rulemaking process, a 20 comment must meet at least one of the first four criteria 21 and not meet Criterion 5, with that being excluding 22 that criterion.
23 Also, per COMSECY-18-0027, the Commission 24 directed the staff to also rely on the NRC staff's 25 programmatic experience, look at the intent 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
17 1 requirement, the effective elimination modification 2 requirement on the NRC's mission public health and 3 safety, and overall effect on resources when applying 4 the criteria.
5 We also applied the "Be riskSMART" 6 decision-making framework to the comment evaluation 7 process by considering the intent of the requirements, 8 the risk of eliminating a modification requirement on 9 the NRC mission. For example, we started reporting 10 requirements that may look to be administrative in 11 nature; however, upon consideration of these comments 12 or requirements, we determined they are more than 13 administrative in nature. They are in place to provide 14 reasonable assurance of adequate protection, in place 15 to support programmatic needs. They're in place to 16 provide regulatory efficiency and transparency. And 17 by applying "Be riskSMART" decision-making framework, 18 we determined that modifying or eliminating the 19 requirements would impact the NRC's mission and the 20 benefit would not justify the risk. That is why we 21 screened these requirements out from the way we did.
22 The majority of these comments are found 23 in Section II of the Comment Evaluation Summary, which 24 is, I believe, Enclosure 1 to SECY-21-0056. So these 25 items are items Number 55 to 100 in Enclosure 1.
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 1 Now we also spotted requirements that are 2 borderline administrative in nature. By applying "Be 3 riskSMART" decision-making framework, we determined 4 that we still need the requirements to be submitted 5 to maintain the NRC's mission; however, there may be 6 regulatory burden reductions or efficiency gain 7 opportunities dependent upon how we modify the 8 requirements so that the risk would be minimal and the 9 benefit would outweigh the risk.
10 So for these requirements we determined 11 the benefit may outweigh the risk if we do it right.
12 And we like to explore them further in the rulemaking 13 process to allow ample opportunities for stakeholders 14 to be engaged and provide feedback. So the majority 15 of these comments are found in Section I of the Comment 16 Evaluation Summary.
17 Now we also spotted requirements that are 18 administrative in nature and modifying or eliminating 19 these report requirements would represent minimal risk 20 to the NRC's mission. We also apply improvement 21 identified from the Process Simplification 22 Transformation Initiative such as we establish an 23 Agency side division office-level committees to 24 facilitate coordination and communication and to ensure 25 the consistency in the Comment Evaluation process, 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 1 including those with cost-cutting issues among 2 different NRC programmatic areas.
3 We also make use of modern information 4 technology in the document development and concurrence 5 process for the SECY paper. Next slide, please.
6 So this slide shows the end result for the 7 100 comments received on the administrative 8 requirements. According to our evaluation, 54 9 comments met at least one of the Commission-approved 10 criteria and did not meet Criterion 5 and should be 11 considered further consideration in the rulemaking 12 process for potential elimination or modification.
13 So these comments are divided into the following 14 categories.
15 Forty-four comments to be further 16 evaluated in a new RROAR-related rulemaking effort.
17 Five comments to be incorporated in an annual 18 administrative correction rulemaking. And five 19 comments to be further evaluated as part of the ongoing 20 rulemaking activities outside of the RROAR-related 21 rulemaking.
22 Just a quick note here, on the five comments 23 to be incorporated in an annual administrative 24 correction rule, the NRC is in the process of publishing 25 a rule for those administrative correction, and I 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 1 believe we are expecting to see the rule sometime later 2 this fall.
3 So these comments I mentioned, we are in 4 Enclosure 1 to SECY 21-0056. And as mentioned before 5 the comments that need further evaluation within the 6 context of a new RROAR-related rulemaking effort, we 7 plan to submit one or more coordinated rulemaking plans 8 to the Commission for review and approval. And we 9 discuss more on these rulemaking steps later in the 10 second of today's meeting.
11 Now we also identified 46 comments that 12 did not meet the Commission-approved Criteria of 1 13 through 4 or didn't meet Criterion 5. These comments 14 can be found in Section II of Enclosure 1 to 15 SECY-21-0056. These are items 5 to 100. And of those 16 46 comments, the NRC has taken no further action for 17 44 comments; however, in accordance with Commission 18 direction in SRM to SECY 17-0119, we have also 19 identified two comments in this category. I believe 20 these are items on the table as Items Number 87 and 21 Items Number 94 Enclosure 1 that may be considered by 22 a process outside the RROAR initiative as appropriate.
23 And we have provided these comments to those conducting 24 the Agency's innovation and transformation efforts for 25 consideration. Next slide, please.
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 1 So we are going to stop here to take 2 questions from meeting participants. With that, I will 3 turn the floor over to, back to Brett to start this 4 up. Brett, I believe you will calling on NEI's 5 delegation to see if they would like to make a statement 6 at this time.
7 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, Andy. Thank you very 8 much. So I'm going to explain the process, and then 9 I will turn it over to NEI. So if you would like to 10 ask a question or to make a comment, please press star 11 one on your phone to enter into the queue, and then 12 the operator will take your information and then place 13 you in line to speak; however, as an alternative to 14 that, if it's a quick question or comment, please feel 15 free to add that to the question and answer function.
16 When you put the question into the question and answer 17 box, I will read it out loud, and then we will address 18 it verbally as, you know, time permits.
19 So, again, there are two options to 20 participate. You can verbally ask your question, as 21 well as your comment by pressing star one, or you can 22 directly enter your comment into the question and answer 23 function of the Webex, and then we'll go through them.
24 So with that, I'd like to get, if the NEI 25 delegation would please press star one on their 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
22 1 at this time to be entered into the queue, we will go 2 from there. So once they are in line and ready to go, 3 Operator, if you could please unmute them.
4 OPERATOR: We will take questions at this 5 time. One moment, please. This question is from 6 Justin Wearne. Your line is open, sir.
7 MR. WEARNE: Thanks. I did have a couple 8 of questions on the slides, but Jim Slider from NEI 9 has some comments that we'd like to go through. Do 10 you want to go through Jim Slider's questions or 11 comments first, and then questions on the slides, or 12 how would you guys like to do that?
13 MR. CARRERA: Good morning, Jim. So let's 14 go through your comment, your question on the slide, 15 and then we'll provide the time to Jim for his comment.
16 MR. WEARNE: Thanks, Andrew. This is 17 Justin Wearne, I'm from PSEG, and I've been helping 18 Jim Slider at NEI work through these, work through this 19 issue.
20 The first question I had was on Slide 4, 21 and I'm interested in how -- yeah, that slide right 22 there -- interested in how the regions were involved 23 looking at the five offices impacted and the 17 24 divisions involved. Can you talk through how the 25 regions were engaged on this process?
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 1 MR. CARRERA: Yes, thank you for that 2 question, Justin. So the regions were engaged through 3 the programmatic reviewing staff, the 40 staff 4 participated in the review. These staff would reach 5 out to the regions, the partner that they have and work 6 with them to provide a directional path forward or 7 recommendation on how to proceed forward with that 8 particular comment.
9 MR. WEARNE: Thanks, Andrew. On Slide 5, 10 the next slide, the, kind of the bottom bullet there, 11 talks about a process simplification. Can you explain 12 a little bit more on that? I didn't quite get 13 everything you said. Can you just kind of go through 14 that one more time?
15 MR. CARRERA: Yes. So process 16 simplification that we use is really we request and 17 receive support from high-level NRC management, and 18 we have access to management to help us making decision 19 throughout the review process, provide input, provide 20 additional direction for us. So that is something that 21 we believe is a bulk of the arm or the typical project 22 case.
23 And also other process simplification in 24 terms of trying to, you know, gaining working product, 25 as you know, with the SECY paper and the Enclosure out 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 1 in a timely manner, we do things like concurrence, or 2 parallel concurrence process to help facilitate, you 3 know, getting the process, the product out faster.
4 MR. WEARNE: And thanks. So this was 5 really, this is a process that you put together. Is 6 this just for the RROAR, or is it going to be part of 7 the rulemaking effort as well, and is it part of any 8 other Agency efforts?
9 MR. CARRERA: It is, yes. It is a process 10 that we are starting to use, starting to really lean 11 on and rely on to get, to be more efficient in terms 12 of, you know, getting management buying in as well as 13 getting documents through the process faster. And that 14 is something that we have been using and are repurposing 15 that for the RROAR comment evaluation.
16 MR. WEARNE: Thanks. I have one more 17 question, and then I'll kick it over to Jim for our 18 comments. On Slide 9, if you can go there, Andrew.
19 MR. CARRERA: Slide 9.
20 MR. WEARNE: I guess we haven't gotten 21 there yet. I'll hold off for the next Q&A session then.
22 MR. CARRERA: Okay. Thank you, Justin.
23 MR. WEARNE: For the Operator, can I just 24 hold on. Can you give Jim Slider access, and then I 25 might have some back-up for Jim as he's going through 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 1 his comments?
2 OPERATOR: Thank you. Jim Slider, your 3 line is open as well, sir.
4 MR. SLIDER: Thank you. This is Jim 5 Slider from NEI. Andy, I appreciate the part of the 6 briefing you've gone through this morning, and we 7 appreciate this opportunity to participate in this 8 public meeting. We think it's a vital effort to bring 9 the NRC's reporting requirements into the 21st century.
10 It's been a long process to get here, and part of our 11 frustration is over the pace.
12 The project is coming up on four years old 13 now, and we have yet to see true relief or improvement 14 in the regulations. And we would urge that as you go 15 forward with this that you do everything possible to 16 expedite, and we are quite willing and eager to work 17 with the staff to make sure that we do our part to support 18 efforts to streamline and prioritize the 19 recommendations and actions.
20 We're particularly frustrated at this 21 point that only now are you talking about a rulemaking 22 plan by the end of the year, and you've outlined some 23 steps that sound like they are promising this morning, 24 but again, we haven't seen any concrete results yet.
25 And we're eager to see 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
26 1 We think it's vital to streamline and 2 modernize these reporting requirements so that the 3 plants and facilities can continue to focus on what 4 matters most to safety. And streamlining these 5 reporting requirements, bringing them into the 21st 6 century through use of technology, through innovation, 7 through transformative thinking and so forth are vital.
8 And we don't see that in the SECY paper 9 that has been provided. The word transformation 10 doesn't appear. We don't see innovation in there.
11 No mention of the EMBARK Studio, and we're just eager 12 as we can be to see the staff embrace innovation and 13 transformation throughout these reporting 14 requirements.
15 And I hope that as you go through this 16 presentation you'll be able to show us where you have 17 because this presentation today is the first time we've 18 seen mention of use of the "Be riskSMART" framework 19 and simplifying your concurrence process and so forth.
20 So we're absolutely eager to see concrete results and 21 eager to see the RROAR project embrace transformation 22 and transformational thinking. We just don't see it 23 so far, and we're eager for the staff to get through 24 this and get through it as quickly as possible.
25 That's all I have to say right now, Andy.
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 1 And I'll have some other things to say later after 2 we talk about the path forward. But thank you, and 3 I look forward to your response.
4 MR. CARRERA: Thank you, Jim. So I just 5 want to bring this back to why we're doing this in the 6 first place, right? We're, you know, people don't 7 understand that we are not in the rulemaking process 8 yet. We are in the exploratory stage where we are 9 trying to identify any potential requirements, 10 administrative requirements that may be eliminated or 11 modified.
12 Once we have those information, those 13 requirements together, it's something that we can pass 14 forward and make recommendations to the Commission and 15 the Commission approves. That's one we're going to 16 start doing, you know, getting to the rulemaking 17 process, which I will be talking a little bit later 18 on today.
19 You know, you mentioned EMBARK. We did, 20 you know, reach out to EMBARK, and we do share 21 information with EMBARK during the process. It's 22 unclear to me what your thoughts on EMBARK's role in 23 rulemaking is. Right now we're trying to identify 24 requirements that we can do rulemaking on. You know, 25 of course, we continue to engage EMBARK and, 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
28 1 recently we did engage EMBARK.
2 Now we're going to be talking about what 3 we're considering revising or modifying, you know, 50.4 4 Communications section. We did reach out to EMBARK 5 regarding the portal, and we got some good information 6 on that.
7 But I, you know, and maybe you can elaborate 8 a little bit on what you're expecting EMBARK or the 9 transformational innovation effort in the rulemaking 10 process. So that's all I have, Jim. Thank you.
11 MR. KLUKAN: Thanks, Andy. Would you like 12 me to open it up to other, potential other speakers 13 at this time?
14 MR. CARRERA: Yes, please, Brett.
15 MR. KLUKAN: Okay, thank you. So, again, 16 if you would like to ask a question or post a comment 17 regarding the material that's already discussed, please 18 press star one on your phone. Again, that is star one 19 to be entered into the queue.
20 As an alternative to that, you can also 21 directly enter your question into the question and 22 answer function within the Webex portal. So I will 23 give individuals there a moment to enter themselves 24 into the queue at this time. Operator, it looks like 25 we have one individual in the queue, if you could unmute 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 1 them, please.
2 OPERATOR: Thank you, Justin. NEI, your 3 line is open.
4 MR. WEARNE: Yes, again, this is Justin 5 Wearne from PSEG, and I've been working with NEI on 6 this topic. Andrew, I just wanted to, kind of, address 7 your comment about the role that EMBARK and innovation 8 might play in this. So recently some of the power 9 reactor light reviews have received requests from the 10 region to establish SharePoint sites for posting the 11 UFSAR for common use by the regional staff and the 12 project manager and other NRC staff.
13 But what's confusing to us is that the 14 response in SECY 21-56 indicate that that's the, that's 15 the reason why these things need to be sent to the 16 Document Control Desk is so that that can get 17 distributed out to the NRC stakeholders that need copies 18 of a document.
19 And so now the practice that we're going 20 to have is sending the reports to the Document Control 21 Desk, and then updating this SharePoint site, as well 22 as providing inspectors that come on site with the 23 selective chapters of the UFSAR that they're interested 24 in. And in so much that not duplicative but a 25 triplicative practice here of reporting.
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 1 And I'd also like to note that Manual 2 Chapter 0620 indicates that the inspectors should not 3 be asking for duplicative or copies of information 4 that's already publicly available. And we really see 5 the EMBARK's NDOs as being able to, you know, create 6 a web portal or some sort of cloud, a system where this 7 free flow of information could take place. And that's 8 really the role that we see here of the EMBARK Studios.
9 Does that make sense to you, Andrew?
10 MR. CARRERA: It does. Thank you, Justin, 11 for clarifying it.
12 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. Again, I'm not seeing 13 anyone in the queue. If you'd like to ask a question 14 or further comment at this time, please press star one 15 on your phone. Again, that is star one, or, again, 16 enter your question into the question, question or 17 comment into the question and answer function, and I 18 will read that out loud. So I'll give individuals a 19 moment or two to see if they would like to pose any 20 questions and comments at this time.
21 And we actually have one from Janet 22 Schlueter, S-C-H-L-U-E-T-E-R. To elaborate on Jim 23 Slider's remarks, industry does not see evidence that 24 the NRC relied on data (e.g., inspection results) to 25 identify low-risk items where the administrative 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 1 requirement could be modified or deleted. To say the 2 NRC will address stakeholder input during the 3 rulemaking, it has already dismissed, it dismissed over 4 50 percent of comments.
5 Let me read that again because I had a 6 pop-up break up my comment, so, and also just to give 7 additional people any time to enter into the queue.
8 So, again, this is from Janet Schlueter. To elaborate 9 on Jim Slider's remarks, industry does not see evidence 10 that the NRC relied on data (e.g., inspection results) 11 to identify low-risk items where the administrative 12 requirement could be modified or deleted. To say that 13 the NRC will address stakeholder input during the 14 rulemaking dismisses the fact that the NRC has already 15 dismissed over 50 percent of comments. Again, thank 16 you for that comment.
17 Again, give people here another minute or 18 two to ask any questions or comments. If not, we will 19 proceed forward. Okay, Andy, I'm not seeing any 20 additional individuals in the queue --
21 MR. LUBINSKI: Hey, Brett?
22 MR. KLUKAN: -- at this time, so -- yes?
23 MR. LUBINSKI: John Lubinski here, how are 24 you?
25 MR. KLUKAN: Good.
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 1 MR. LUBINSKI: Can I just, can I jump in 2 and ask a quick question here?
3 MR. KLUKAN: Absolutely, of course.
4 MR. LUBINSKI: Okay. Thanks. Hey, Jim, 5 I really appreciate your question and the further, or 6 your comment about EMBARK. And Janet, thanks for your 7 further clarification, so I appreciate that.
8 Can I ask, I heard two things there, and 9 I just want to make sure I fully understand as we 10 continue to move forward because of your comment you 11 mentioned use of EMBARK a couple of times. And I think 12 what I heard was two things so far, and I just want 13 to make sure we fully capture them.
14 Number one is the use of something or the 15 idea of using something like a SharePoint site or a 16 web portal to capture the information that currently 17 is recorded under the regulations vice having it be 18 provided to us in writing under the current regulations.
19 And I heard you say, Jim, that that's one of the areas 20 where you felt EMBARK could provide further in sights.
21 And then, so I think I understand that and that's really 22 just putting something on a web portal vice setting 23 something in writing.
24 But then I heard Janet go a little further 25 in use of information in an inspection report. 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
33 1 if I could understand more on that because many of the 2 reporting requirements that we're talking about may 3 be how they were used on the front end to improve our 4 efficiency in preparing for inspections vice what 5 resulted in may be findings in an inspection report 6 or documentation of how we actually use that information 7 when we did our inspections.
8 So I'm trying to understand is that also 9 related to EMBARK, where you're questioning our use 10 of whether we have specific data that would support 11 the efficient and effective use of information that 12 was provided through reporting and how it came out on 13 the back end because I think a lot of our discussion 14 when Andy felt about "Be riskSMART" model was looking 15 at the benefits from a cost standpoint of having this 16 information and being able to review it electronically, 17 either in writing vice having to wait to go out to the 18 site and not be prepared and have to review it at a 19 later time even if it doesn't result in any type of 20 finding or issue, but it's still a verification that 21 we believe was done more effectively and more 22 efficiently by having information beforehand.
23 So can either Jim or Janet maybe expand 24 on if there's more use that you saw at EMBARK that would 25 help in coming up with a disposition of comments?
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 1 MR. KLUKAN: Melinda, I think we have both 2 James and Janet on the line, so why don't we start with 3 James, or Janet first, and then, oh, it looks like Janet 4 is now the person in the queue, so why don't we open 5 up her line and go forward with that. So thank you 6 very much.
7 MS. SCHLUETER: Okay, can you hear me?
8 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, we can, thank you.
9 MR. LUBINSKI: Yes, Janet, thanks.
10 MS. SCHLUETER: Okay. All right. I'll 11 let Jim Slider talk about the EMBARK Studio because 12 that's not really my area of experience. John, so I 13 was coming at my comment more from the fuel cycle side 14 of the world, and one where, you know, NRC has 15 successfully, in the last couple of years, used 16 inspection results and their own experience in the 17 Oversight Program to risk-inform the Inspection Program 18 at the fuel facilities by relying on existing 19 inspections data findings violations. You know, to 20 be able to use less resources to focus on those low-risk 21 program areas that are stable, for example, that don't 22 change a lot, that aren't high-risk operational areas, 23 and then shift the resources more into those program 24 areas that are a higher risk area with regards to safety 25 and security.
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 1 So when I looked at the whole RROAR results 2 and the Enclosure to the SECY paper, which was very, 3 very useful, thank you for the attachments, I had to 4 kind of just stop and think. Well, how is NRC using 5 your own data, your availability of information that 6 you have from your licensing experts and inspectors 7 to risk-inform this effort.
8 And so I didn't really see any evidence 9 to say, yes, we stopped, and we paused, and we've looked 10 out there. And we've said, hey, this is a really 11 low-risk, stable program, and we're not getting any 12 violations in this area, so what's the harm in modifying 13 a reporting requirement. Whether that's a change in 14 frequencies? How, you know, the periodicities, 15 whether it comes into you at all or could be reviewed 16 on a site visit basis.
17 And I just don't see any of that. So my 18 comment is coming from the positive experience that 19 we've had with NRC in the fuel cycle industry through 20 the Smarter Program initiative.
21 And I think that's what, you know, I was 22 looking to see some data-based evidence of change here, 23 and I'm just not seeing that. That's all.
24 MR. LUBINSKI: Thanks, Janet. I 25 appreciate that for the clarification, thanks. 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
36 1 Jim, did you have some thoughts?
2 MR. SLIDER: I do, John. Can you hear me?
3 I don't know if my line is open or not.
4 MR. LUBINSKI: I can here you fine, thank 5 you.
6 MR. SLIDER: Great. Thank you. John, I 7 really appreciate your question. And Janet really hit 8 on one of the key points that struck us. The Enclosure, 9 which summarizes the stash rationale for accepting or 10 rejecting various comments is qualitative, and we don't 11 know the entire analysis that the staff put into its 12 examination of each of those comments.
13 So we don't know what consideration 14 might've been given to creative ways to meet those 15 reporting requirements that need to be retained or 16 which, as Janet said, which could be eliminated on a 17 risk-informed basis, or whatever. We just don't know 18 that rationale. We don't know the details of the 19 analysis. We don't know how much consideration was 20 given to really creatively thinking how could we use 21 technology and the innovative approaches being 22 pioneered by EMBARK right now. We don't know any of 23 that.
24 The communications on the project have been 25 fairly closed to our examination throughout this past 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 1 year and over the life of the project. And so it's 2 been deeply frustrating. We have no idea how this 3 project has been plugged into the efforts of the 4 Commissioners to transform the NRC.
5 And these administrative reporting 6 requirements are just emblematic of legacy obligations 7 that we're all still adhering to, even to the point 8 of, as Justin said in his example, having to submit, 9 change pages to FSARs, and so forth, only so that we 10 then later upload an electronic copy to a SharePoint 11 site.
12 It's just maddening redundancy and inefficiency 13 and so forth. And that's what we were trying to get 14 at by using EMBARK as a symbol of the opportunity and 15 the resources within the Agency to use technology to 16 solve some of these administrative problems.
17 And to the earlier point about addressing 18 these things through rulemaking, this project has been, 19 in terms of public communications, the project has been 20 handled with the formality of rulemaking. And so there 21 hasn't been a lot of interaction that could help us 22 to see the progress, see what's coming, help have the 23 back and forth that we're used to in other areas where 24 regulatory requirements are being reconsidered or 25 considered for modification.
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 1 And so at this point, we don't know what 2 lies ahead. And as Janet said, if our only opportunity 3 to discuss these options occurs under the rigors of 4 rulemaking, it's going to be three, four, five years 5 before we get through all of that. And that would be 6 just a waste of public resources and a waste of industry 7 resources to take that long to address some of these 8 technology challenges, or technology solutions that 9 we know are available in business today.
10 So that's my vent, John, and I appreciate 11 you being on the call today to hear us out.
12 MR. LUBINSKI: Hey, Jim, thanks for that.
13 Can I ask one more follow-up on that because I think 14 it was a good question you brought up, and it's a 15 question I had along related to some of the comments 16 I've heard from the industry.
17 All the requirements we're talking about 18 right now are requirements during the regulation. And, 19 therefore, the only way to change those requirements 20 is either to go through rulemaking, issue an order, 21 use enforcement discretion, or some other vehicle that, 22 you know, specific exemptions.
23 So I would ask, when you're looking at 24 vehicles, if we were to agree, and I'm using the if 25 there, if we were to agree that some requirements 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
39 1 be modified earlier and maybe codified later through 2 rulemaking, what are you seeing as the vehicle, and 3 what are you seeing as the real cost benefits associated 4 with doing that through process that's outside of 5 rulemaking?
6 MR. SLIDER: John, I'm not sure I can 7 answer your question as you asked it. Let me try to 8 address it in the following way. We're not suggesting 9 at all that the Commission should bypass the rulemaking 10 process. We understand you're obligated by the 11 Administrative Procedures Act to go through that legal 12 process, fair and open public comment, and so forth.
13 We get that, and we're not suggesting at all doing 14 anything contrary to that.
15 But at this point, what we have available 16 to us is a set of recommendations for the disposition 17 of public comments and no idea, we've had no opportunity 18 to dialogue with the staff about brainstorming creative 19 solutions that we then could take into that rulemaking 20 process.
21 And the brainstorming on creative 22 alternatives might even lead to a shared understanding 23 that some of these rules are outdated enough, simple 24 enough, or the options today because of technology are 25 straightforward enough that we can use within 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
40 1 rulemaking process. We can use accelerated means to 2 accomplish these changes.
3 At this point, we have no hope, no optimism 4 that that actually, that sort of prioritization, that 5 sort of let's work out the what looks like an improved 6 situation before we go into the formality of rulemaking.
7 And we just don't see any of that forthcoming.
8 What we see is a product that says here's 9 where we are. A year from now we'll be starting 10 rulemaking, and we don't know when that's going to 11 happen. Does that answer your question, John?
12 MR. LUBINSKI: Thanks, Jim. I appreciate 13 that clarification, thank you.
14 MR. CARRERA: Hi, this is Andy. If I can 15 start for a minute. I heard EMBARK mentioned a lot, 16 so if I may, I'd like to call on Jeremy Groom, who is 17 the Director of EMBARK at the time, maybe to chime in 18 on his perspective on this.
19 MR. GROOM: Yes, great, great. Thanks, 20 Andrew. Can everybody hear me?
21 MR. CARRERA: Yes.
22 MR. GROOM: Great. So, Jim, appreciate 23 your comments and the rest of the comments from NEI.
24 I think you've got a good perspective on EMBARK's role.
25 And I can tell you, we have reviewed, you know, 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
41 1 SECY and the various administrative requirements that 2 were captured in RROAR and the staff screening.
3 Just a little bit of clarity on how EMBARK 4 fits into this. My staff is not experts in the various 5 administrative requirements and how they're used. And 6 so the respective screening Criterias 1 through 4, and 7 5, you know, we didn't, we weren't in a place to 8 necessarily challenge those and say to the staff you 9 did the right job in screening those. You know, the 10 individual members who use these various administrative 11 reports are the ones that have the expertise to do that.
12 And as you heard earlier in the presentation, the NRC 13 assembled a, you know, a skilled panel of subject matter 14 experts to perform that task.
15 (Audio interference.)
16 Jim, is exactly what you said. You know, 17 we're an innovation accelerator, and we're a group that 18 can help, you know, leverage technology, find better 19 ways to do things, and to that end, I think if you go 20 through the document it's probably not as overt as what 21 you're looking for.
22 But if you go through the SECY attachment, 23 there are various places where we talk about enabling, 24 you know, electronic submissions, looking at ways to 25 replace outdated processes. I'd call your attention 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 1 to items like 31, 32, 33, 34. Thirty-four, in 2 particular, talks about written communications, and 3 it talks about the staff considering alternatives, you 4 know, use of current technology and whatnot.
5 You know, it's a small line item in the 6 SECY attachment, but it's a big impact. It could be 7 one that, you know, really could have widespread 8 implications. I think Item Number 44 in the SECY 9 attachment also could have widespread implications.
10 It talks about submitting written documents into ADAMS, 11 and maybe there's a better way through a portal or 12 whatnot to perform that task.
13 So I can assure you that EMBARK is engaged 14 on this. Your perspective on our role is correct.
15 You know, we're not rulemaking experts. We're not 16 experts on administrative requirements. We're a group 17 that can help leverage technology and, you know, even 18 if there are certain specific line items that talk about 19 maybe enabling some electronic technology, so that's 20 really where we fit in. I just wanted to clarify 21 EMBARK's role in this process.
22 MR. CARRERA: Thank you so much, Jeremy.
23 And Greg, if I may just get back a little bit on the 24 Commission-approved, the five Commission-approved 25 evaluation criteria. So, as you remember, early 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
43 1 the RROAR initiative process, we did, a large portion 2 of those at that time was to, you know, commission the 3 regular staff to go ahead and develop these, you know, 4 develop these evaluation criteria. And the NRC staff 5 has did a significant outreach to the public at that 6 time to engage the public on developing and finalizing 7 that evaluation criteria.
8 So, you know, I just want to stress that 9 those criteria is not something that no one ever mind.
10 It's heavy. It has weight, and it has gravity because 11 of those, you know, action the staff engaged the public 12 and public comments on, and finally the Commission 13 reviewed the staff's propose based on public comment 14 and approve those criteria. So that's all I want to 15 bring up. Brett, back to you. Thank you.
16 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, Andy. So it looks 17 like we have one additional speaker in the queue.
18 Again, if you'd like to ask a question or comment, please 19 press star one or enter it into the question and answer 20 box. So could you unmute in the queue, please.
21 OPERATOR: Justin Wearne, your line is 22 open.
23 MR. WEARNE: Yes, thanks. Again, this is 24 Justin Wearne from PSEG. John, I just wanted to, I 25 wasn't fast enough on the unmute to get ahold of 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
44 1 during some of that discussion. But, you know, you're 2 kind of mentioning, you know, hey, we have to do 3 rulemaking or enforcement discretion or orders as the 4 vehicles to modify the regulations, right?
5 And I just wanted to point out that, oh, 6 boy, about 10 years ago, right, we did an enforcement 7 discretion to alleviate the need to deal with porting 8 of emergency plan implementing procedures. And that 9 was a very quick win for us, right? That was a large 10 burden for the stations, and by doing it, kind of, in 11 that expedited process, you know, that was a big win.
12 So that might be something we want to keep on our radar 13 screen as something to kind of model going forward.
14 And then the other comment I had for you, 15 John, was we kind of talked about like the risk ranking 16 of these reports. And, so if you take the popula tion 17 of event follow-up reports, you know, there's an event 18 that happens at the station, and then you have to do 19 a written follow-up to the Agency. Those timeframes 20 very from 30 days up to 18 months, and it's not clear 21 to us why some of those are at 30 days and why some 22 of them are at 18 months. And I think we all know that 23 licensing event reports, you know, for the power 24 reactors, are at 60 days.
25 So that's kind of one of the things we 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
45 1 hoping to see was some sort of, kind of harmonization 2 or understanding of why these reporting frequencies, 3 and let's just take the event follow-up, why they are 4 at that different timeframes. So I just wanted to add 5 those two comments. Thanks, John.
6 MR. LUBINSKI: Yes, John Lubinski here.
7 Thanks for that additional clarification. I 8 completely understand your second point about the event 9 reporting. On the first part, what else I'm not 10 familiar exactly what was accomplished under the, you 11 know, the enforcement discretion we used under for 12 emergency plans and how big an impact that was. And 13 so I can't really compare it since I was not involved 14 with that and don't have the awareness.
15 And in looking at what we saw today though, 16 I do believe folks looked at whether or not we saw 17 something significant enough in that area that would 18 really say that the costs to NRC and the industry, you 19 know, is such a burden that it would, you know, benefit 20 from as you said a minute ago, a big win, if you will, 21 of having something change much sooner through 22 enforcement discretion. If there was something like 23 that, we would certainly want to hear that, and I think 24 our initial look did not necessarily show that. Thanks 25 for that further information. I greatly appreciate 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 1 it.
2 MR. KLUKAN: Okay, and this is Brett. If 3 you would like to ask a question or comment, please 4 enter star one. Again, that is star one, or otherwise 5 type your comment into the question and answer feature 6 of the Webex portal. And I'll give individuals a minute 7 or two to do that if there are any additional questions 8 and comments at this time.
9 Okay. Andy and NRC staff, I'm not seeing 10 any additional questions or comments either in the 11 question and answer box or on the, or in the Verizon 12 queue. So if you'd like to, know, proceed forward, 13 please.
14 MR. CARRERA: Yes. Thank you, Brett, and 15 thank you, everyone for the discussions. And so let's 16 continue on, moving on. May I have next slide, please?
17 All right. So we resume this meeting. You know, we 18 discussed some of the past reviews and looked at the 19 administrative requirement looking in the rearview 20 mirror retrospectively, but I also want to discuss, 21 you know, look prospectively into the future towards 22 development of rulemaking plans for the requirement 23 based on, you know, based on your inputs as well to 24 recommend for consideration in the rulemaking process.
25 Now, in developing the rulemaking plans, 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 1 moving forward we will leverage some of the new 2 rulemaking decision guidance and rulemaking approach 3 tools to identify effective and efficient options to 4 address the rulemaking needs.
5 Now we'll continue to apply the "Be 6 riskSMART" decision-making framework and other process 7 enhancements. We also consider your input and feedback 8 today that you provided, you know, in the previous Q&A 9 session, and as well as in the upcoming Q&A session 10 to inform our, you know, decision-making process and 11 how we're going to move forward. Next slide, please.
12 So this slide shows some of the factors 13 that we really think about, need to think about in order 14 to identify and compose an effective decision and 15 appropriate options and recommendations to address our 16 rulemaking needs. And I'm saying our rulemaking needs, 17 and then there'd be a, you know, we touch a little bit 18 on what things that we can do outside of rulemaking 19 that John Lubinski has touched a little bit on.
20 But I'm talking about, you know, looking 21 at the rulemaking portion of this now. So first and 22 foremost, the majority of requirement, as you know, 23 that we recommended, you provided, and we recommended 24 consideration of rulemaking process involve 25 information collection clearance changes and 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
48 1 require the Office of Management & Budget, OMB, to 2 review these associated changes to the information 3 collection clearance. And it's going to be for 4 multiple tangible parts and related information 5 collection.
6 Now this requirement would add additional 7 time, complexity level, and uncertainty to the 8 rulemaking process when compared to the rulemaking 9 process that do not involve these type of information 10 collection clearance changes. So that's one of the 11 factors that we need to consider how we're going to 12 slice and dice it, and, you know, do it in a way that 13 would be most efficient.
14 In addition, OMB process is also only 15 allowed a submission of one action per OMB control 16 number at a time. So the schedule for issuing the rule, 17 you know, we would have to be really think about it 18 and be careful about this and think it broadly in terms 19 of, you know, what rules that we have out there. So 20 the schedule of issuing the rule may be negatively 21 impacted if one or more of the rule related OMB control 22 numbers is blocked by prior submission.
23 So there is other slides are good examples 24 of where we can apply the "Be riskSMART" decision-making 25 framework as well as spot the risk, manage the risk 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 1 and act on that decision.
2 Another area that we need to look at as 3 well as agreement states involvement, right? RROAR 4 evaluation identified administrative regulation in 5 Parts 20, Parts 37, Parts 70, and that would be in the 6 scope of RROAR and also have compatible agreement state 7 regulations. So we have to consider the impact on the 8 rulemaking process and determine what rulemaking 9 approach is appropriate and will be supported by our 10 agreement states partner. So we need to think about 11 that, you know.
12 So we'll also consider complexity of 13 revision, right? Whether the change is 14 straightforward and do not require compilation of, you 15 know, a regulatory basis, or something more complex 16 that, you know, when do it, you know, make a wrong 17 change, we don't think it really through, it may produce 18 unintended consequences that, you know.
19 And, so you know, those items would benefit 20 from additional stakeholders input, Jim, during the 21 rulemaking phase talking about regulatory basis.
22 That's where we would love to have additional, you know, 23 communication/dialogue with you just to really hammer 24 it out and get it right. You know, we don't want to 25 go back and change it later.
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 1 And also, could changes be addressed 2 through rulemaking process because if no, never mind 3 type of changes or, you know, it could be it needs to 4 be addressed through conventional notice and comment 5 rulemaking process because we want your input. We want 6 your, you know, Commission input as well before we make 7 it final.
8 So also considering the priority of 9 rulemaking and our desire to make tangible progress 10 given that these changes will be very broad and would 11 impact resource from programs across Agency, you know, 12 what are we going to do if we have a large portion of 13 technical staff who are working on Part 53 rulemaking 14 right now who also are working rulemaking for RROAR?
15 Are we going to reassign them back to RROAR? It's 16 something that we really need to think about and, you 17 know, and discuss. So that's part of what I'm talking 18 on the slides about.
19 And lastly, you know, we really appreciate 20 your feedback, Jim, Justin, and Janet. And, you know, 21 further discussion on your recommendation is part of 22 this meeting. So we will use your feedback from our 23 discussions to inform the rulemaking plan development 24 for revisions of these administrative requirements.
25 Next slide, please.
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 1 Okay so some of you spotted that we're 2 missing an "R" in the ROAR Rulemaking Plan. So we would 3 drop the two R's as in retrospective review because 4 we've reached an important milestone in the project 5 where we stop looking to the past despite managed 6 questions relating to this administrative requirements 7 and regulatory burden reduction. We now look into the 8 future where we can act on our decision and we realize 9 the results through the rulemaking process.
10 Now the new R you see now in RROAR stands 11 for revisions of administrative requirements, which 12 is the title of future rulemaking.
13 So that aside, for comments that need 14 further evaluation within the context of the new 15 RROAR-related rulemaking effort, we plan to submit one 16 or more coordinated rulemaking plan to a SECY for review 17 and approval by, you know, late 2021 timeframe. And 18 if the Commission approved the rulemaking plans, we 19 will conduct further stakeholder engagement during the 20 rulemaking process that I mentioned earlier.
21 I just want to stress this again. It is 22 important to know that the RROAR initiative was part 23 of a, you know, dialogue and exploratory phase that 24 we have not yet reached or entered the rulemaking 25 process.
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 1 On the right-hand side of the slide shows 2 the steps in the rulemaking process. And we are working 3 to develop one or more coordinated rulemaking plans 4 for those administrative requirement changes needing 5 Commission approval to pursue. And once the Commission 6 approves, the staff will be making plan the process 7 officially, the NRC rulemaking process officially 8 starts.
9 So the next step after the rulemaking plan 10 is to declare a separate regulatory basis document that 11 we identified as a clear need and benefit for those.
12 So the regulatory basis document, as you know, provide 13 NRC scope and objective rulemaking with the "Be 14 riskSMART" decision-making framework option including 15 rulemaking and non-rulemaking and, you know, 16 preliminary analysis, including cost and benefit 17 analysis, back fitting analysis, schedule and estimate 18 of resource. So with the regulatory basis, we have 19 an option of publishing it for comment and get your 20 feedback and input on the direction of the rule at that 21 time, although not required by the Administrative 22 Procedure Act of 1946 as amended. Public comments can 23 sometimes be, you know, in this phase, I believe, is 24 going to be beneficial in getting the rulemaking 25 approach, in particular rulemaking issue or a path 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 1 forward for complex and regulatory changes. However, 2 if the staff believes the regulatory changes are 3 straightforward and may, may not need to prepare a 4 separate regulatory basis document after we request 5 the Commission's approval to skip the step in the 6 rulemaking plan.
7 And the preparation of regulatory basis, 8 I have in a slide, it's in quotation in parenthesis 9 optional. It's optional insofar as the staff request 10 to skip step in the rulemaking plan and the Commission 11 approved the rulemaking plan. And if the Commission 12 approves to skip the preparation of separate regulatory 13 basis for regulatory changes we believe to be 14 straightforward, we will draft the changes in the 15 preamble of the Notice in the Comment Report.
16 The after Commission approved the 17 rulemaking plan, we develop adequate regulatory basis 18 if one is needed. We can proceed forward with 19 development of proposed rule. The proposed rule 20 notifies the public that NRC is considering amending 21 its regulation and would include description of how 22 Agency proposes to amend its regulations. The preamble 23 would provide the Agency's rationale for proposal and 24 the proposal would then list regulatory text that if 25 adopted would be codified in the Code of Federal 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 1 Regulations.
2 And if the Commission approves the proposed 3 rule, the proposed rule is published in the proposal 4 section of Federal Register Notice and request public 5 comment on the proposal. Typically the public comment 6 period is 75 days. Also, typically, we would conduct 7 public meetings in comment period of the proposed rule 8 to facilitate information to inform stakeholders 9 comments on the proposed rule.
10 And at the end of public comment period 11 for the proposed rule, the NRC would consider the 12 comments we see in finalizing and issue the rule in 13 accordance with APA, final rule is the official Agency 14 statement of law or policy includes important dates 15 such as effective days and sometimes, you know, 16 implementation or compliance dates, and provides a 17 summary of public comment and NRC's response to each 18 of those comments.
19 So it is important to stress again that 20 the RROAR initiative was part of, you know, a phased 21 exploration, if you will, effort, and that we have not 22 yet entered the rulemaking process that I just 23 mentioned.
24 I believe that's all I want to touch on 25 the rulemaking process. I believe there was much more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 than what anyone wanted to know. So may I have the 2 next slide, please?
3 So we, again, going to take a, you know, 4 stop here and take questions from the meeting 5 participants on the path forward for this initiative.
6 And to facilitate the Q&A session this time we have 7 three questions, some of which John has previously 8 touched on, but we're interested in hearing your 9 thoughts on; however, we are not requesting for or 10 requiring any of the comments to be submitted based 11 on these questions following this meeting, and that's 12 because of the Paperwork Reduction Act where we need 13 information clearance from OMB to receive submittal 14 of your comments.
15 So the first question is: What are your 16 thoughts on how the RROAR initiative has applied the 17 "Be riskSMART" decision-making framework to the 18 evaluation process? We touched a little bit on that.
19 The second question is: What does the 20 industry see as ways for more timely and efficient 21 regulatory burden relief? I think we touched a little 22 bit on that as well.
23 And the third question that we'd like to 24 get your thoughts on or pick your brains on: What are 25 the appropriate means to communicate project status 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 1 with the industry?
2 So with that, Brett, I will kick this 3 meeting back to you and tee us off for the Q&A session.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much, Andy.
6 So, again, if you would like to weigh in on any of these 7 questions, you see up here on the slide that Andy just 8 discussed, or if you have other questions (audio 9 interference), and it may be noted again, and I will 10 reiterate, we are not formally soliciting comments at 11 this time regarding these questions, or you can alw ays 12 write in the effort.
13 So with that said, the process is the same 14 as before. If you would like to speak, please press 15 star one at this time; again, that is star one. Or 16 feel free alternatively to enter your response or your 17 question or comment into the question/answer function 18 in the Webex portal. So with that said, I will give 19 people a few moments to queue up, and then we'll get 20 started. So, thank you.
21 All right, Melinda, it looks like we have 22 one individual, two individuals in the queue, so why 23 don't we get started and unmute Jim first. Thank you.
24 OPERATOR: You're welcome. Jim, your 25 line is open at this time.
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 1 MR. SLIDER: Thank you. Jim Slider from 2 NEI. Andy, I appreciate what you shared this morning.
3 I do want to respond to the example that Justin Wearne 4 mentioned about eQIP submittals. He found their 5 reference for that with, for John Lubinski's benefit 6 since John indicated he wasn't familiar with that 7 example, it involves risks 2015-14 and EGM15-003. So 8 those references can provide some useful background 9 on how the Agency handled the sort of opportunity to 10 provide prompt relief prior to getting through the 11 rulemaking process.
12 Andy, I understand and sympathize with all 13 of the constraints that you mentioned about the 14 rulemaking process and all the effort that has gone 15 in to producing the SECY paper that we now have. There 16 are parts of, there are entries in the SECY attachment 17 that explain the staff's rationale for dispositioning 18 various comments that are not clear to us. And I'm 19 wondering what our opportunity is to go through all 20 of those line items with you.
21 I'm wondering is it an option for you to 22 schedule a separate public meeting where we can get 23 into those details, and so we can better understand 24 what the staff's thinking is on each and every one of 25 the items in that attachment where I respect the fact 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 1 that you're not looking to change. You're not 2 soliciting comments today. You don't want to change 3 the staff's evaluation, but there are some that are 4 fairly obscure to us, and it would help us if we could 5 walk through them one at a time with you.
6 MR. CARRERA: Hi, Jim. This is Andy.
7 Thank you, thank you, again for that question. So at 8 this time, I hadn't planned to because the reason being 9 that these are recommendations that the Commission has 10 not seen yet, and the Commission will see it in the 11 rulemaking plan us moving forward.
12 And, I mean, we don't know what Commission 13 is going to approve or disapprove in the recommendations 14 that we're going to make. You know, in the En closure 15 I we provided, where we can, we can be specific on it.
16 Where we mention there are changes to periodicity or 17 frequency of document submittals, that's something that 18 we will intend to look at during the rulemaking phase, 19 you know, during the regulatory basis and discuss that 20 with you to make sure that we, you know, what the 21 frequencies are, what the right, correct frequency 22 would be.
23 So at this time, I cannot answer or give 24 you a definite answer whether we, you know, I will have 25 to check back with my management on that whether, 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
59 1 know, we're going to be open to a meeting, you know, 2 a sit down meeting or chat meeting on each of the items 3 that we are proposing to send in or recommend for 4 rulemaking.
5 MR. SLIDER: I hope you can persuade them, 6 Andy.
7 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
8 Next we are going to go to a question, well, I'm going 9 to read out loud a comment from Janet Schlueter in the 10 question and answer box. And Janet writes, assuming 11 the NRC decides to continue with this initiative ,
12 establishing a RROAR dedicated webpage would be 13 helpful. DFM established one for the -- that is very 14 helpful. That is from Janet Schlueter. Andy, or 15 anyone from the NRC staff, any response or comments 16 with respect to that?
17 MR. CARRERA: Hi, Brett. I apologize.
18 Could you please repeat Janet's comment?
19 MR. KLUKAN: Sure, of course. So assuming 20 the NRC decides to continue with this initiative, 21 establishing a RROAR dedicated webpage would be 22 helpful. DFM established one for the Smarter Program 23 initiative that is very helpful.
24 So Janet is asking if there's any 25 consideration with respect to creating a dedicated 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 1 webpage for RROAR.
2 MR. CARRERA: Yes, I do not have any 3 comment on that. Maybe someone else, you know, would 4 like to chime in there.
5 MR. LUBINSKI: Hey, this is John Lubinski.
6 Yes, in response to Janet's comment, and I'm going 7 to go back to Jim's as well, let me just say hey, Janet, 8 thanks for the comment. That is something we'll 9 definitely consider from a communication standpoint.
10 I was actually going to follow-up with it 11 on Jim's question is, you know, our question on the 12 slide right there is what are the appropriate means 13 to communicate project status with the industry?
14 And I assume, Janet, your response to that 15 is that the webpage similar to what we've done with 16 the one DFM would be appropriate. So thanks for that 17 recommendation, and we'll take that as a consideration 18 as we move forward. And, of course, respond publicly 19 to everyone letting them know we'll do that, if we do 20 that.
21 Hey, Jim, I think your comment was, or 22 question/recommendation to the same question was having 23 another public meeting where I'll say it's getting more 24 into detail of each of the recommendations and how they 25 reached this decision. So we'll, as Andy said, we'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 take that back as a request from to have another public 2 meeting and get back on that as well. So, you know, 3 I'm going to ask our folks to take those as two takeaways 4 that we'll definitely be communicating back to the 5 industry.
6 And let me add to that. You know, Jim, 7 I'll ask maybe Jim specifically since you brought up 8 that meeting. Are there other topics that you would 9 see that we're not covering in today's meeting besides 10 just going down a list by list item of the items that 11 you would want to see more engagement of before we move 12 forward?
13 MR. SLIDER: John, I don't know. Can you, 14 is my line open? I don't know if you can hear me.
15 MR. LUBINSKI: I can hear you. You're 16 open.
17 MR. SLIDER: Okay, great. Thank you.
18 Well, we also, yes, we'd like to go through the items 19 one by one if we can. And we understand that's a tedious 20 process, but it would really help us to understand the 21 staff's thinking about their requirements that they 22 chose to retain. Some of the narratives that's 23 provided in the Enclosure to the SECY are very thorough 24 and complete. Some look like they're just cut and 25 paste, boilerplate language, which isn't so helpful 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 1 as some of the lengthier detailed ones. So we'd like 2 to go through what's there.
3 We did identify one of our comments on 4 5071-Echo, which doesn't seem to appear in the staff's 5 response, and we wanted to discuss that as well, see 6 what happened to that comment.
7 And then just, the other issues, John, 8 nothing comes to mind other than helping us to 9 understand what the staff decided, the basis for the 10 decision, and then any opportunity to help that where 11 we can help to do anything at all to expedite the work 12 that we have to happen before you enter into the 13 formality of rulemaking.
14 Andy makes a pretty convincing case on the 15 rulemaking description slide that this effort, the 16 results of this effort are heading into a bog and none 17 of us, neither you all nor us have any idea how we're 18 going to get through all of that in a reasonably timely 19 way. So anything that we can do in that subsequent 20 meeting to talk about options or priorities or other 21 things, I think that would be helpful to us, John.
22 MR. LUBINSKI: Thank you for that 23 clarification, appreciate that.
24 MR. SLIDER: Thanks for the question.
25 MR. KLUKAN: Okay, Melinda, we'll go 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
63 1 to the phone. Could you please unmute our next speaker?
2 OPERATOR: Andrew Mauer, your line is 3 open.
4 MR. MAUER: Hi, good morning. Can you 5 hear me?
6 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, we can hear you. Thank 7 you.
8 MR. MAUER: Oh, great. Thank you. This 9 is Andrew Mauer from NEI, and I really just wan ted to 10 reinforce some of the comments that Jim had and also 11 appreciate the staff for holding this meeting today 12 and for their efforts on this.
13 As you know, we've gotten nearly 300 14 reporting requirements that the industry is faced with 15 submitting and the NRC effort on this project is only 16 a fraction of the effort that the industry expends 17 submitting the hundreds of reports to the staff each 18 year. And, obviously, we believe that time and 19 attention would be better spent focused on what's most 20 important to safety.
21 So this last discussion on the industry 22 comments, you know, we're faced with a situation today 23 where over half of the industry comments have been 24 dispensed with or taken off the table without 25 explanation. And so there's not really an opportunity 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 1 in the process, as we sit here today, to really have 2 the discussion that we think is warranted on those.
3 They simply have been dispensed and the rulemaking plan 4 is scheduled to follow in eight months with those taken 5 off the table. We don't know why those comments were 6 not addressed. We have a question on the slide in front 7 of us that asks about how the riskSMART decision-making 8 framework was applied and, hopefully, if we have a 9 follow-up meeting, as we hear the disposition of those 10 comments in a more wholesome way, we can actually 11 understand, I would offer from the NRC staff how that 12 riskSMART framework was applied in dispositioning those 13 comments and continuing on the path that you're on right 14 now. So we look forward to any potential meeting on 15 that.
16 But as we sit here today, with most of those 17 comments taken off table, we see this really as a missed 18 opportunity. What we, I guess I'm not clear on whether 19 this effort is part of the transformation effort or 20 not. Jim pointed out that the word wasnt used in the 21 paper. What we see before, what we see before us is 22 sort of a compilation that's incremental change.
23 So I guess I would just sit here maybe 24 asking the question, you know, is this intended to be 25 transformation and modernization or is it being looked 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 1 at as a complex set of incremental changes?
2 And then, you know, finally, I would ask 3 a question also on sort of the overall schedule. Andy 4 had a slide up that goes to the different parts of the 5 rulemaking process. And as we've heard today, we've 6 spent four years on this already. I would ask for, 7 what is the schedule that goes along with that process?
8 So they list, you know, a set of incremental change 9 here, you know, we've already invested four years.
10 What is the schedule going forward to continue on this 11 effort? So just a few questions there and some 12 comments. Thank you.
13 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you for that. I just 14 want to see if the NRC had any response before I go 15 to the next question. If not, I'll move forward.
16 Okay. While they're thinking about it, I'm going to 17 reiterate that if you would like to ask a question, 18 please press star one or a question will come up, please 19 press star one on your phone or enter the question or 20 comment into the question/answer function into the 21 Webex portal.
22 MR. LUBINSKI: Hey, Brett, I think you're 23 looking for questions and comments. I'm going to go 24 back to Andy's comment. This is John Lubinski. Not 25 Andy, sorry, Andrew Mauer, jumped in there, and 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
66 1 had a lot in there, Andrew. I think your big question 2 you had, most of them were comments, I think your 3 question was really how are we looking at this from 4 a transformation vice incremental changes is what you 5 referred to there.
6 And I think you're really hitting that in 7 a wide range of items. You know, transformation does 8 envelope many things we do. In looking at this, we 9 did step back and try to look at this across the board, 10 and that's why we had so many similar type comments 11 and it was based actually on recommendation from NEI 12 to look at similar type reporting requirements and 13 handle them in a similar type-way, so we are doing that.
14 We are doing that as part of this process.
15 Are we looking at every one of our reporting 16 requirements that we have in regulations beyond those 17 that were provided in comments? And the answer to that 18 is no. We're looking at comments that we received, 19 and how we can address those. We are going to look 20 as we move forward from the standpoint of how can we 21 be more effective and efficient if we were to change 22 some of the requirements that were listed here, and 23 most of these being reported in recordkeeping as we 24 continue to move forward to determine are there more 25 effective ways, and can we be more innovative 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
67 1 transformation in the way we do that?
2 I think just the fact that the word 3 transformation is missing from an information paper 4 that was sent to the Commission doesn't mean that we're 5 not continuing to look in innovative ways of doing 6 things, and we'll continue to do that.
7 So I just wanted to address that. Many 8 of our activities may not be captured under a, you know, 9 specific "transformation" item at the Agency level, 10 but this is clearly something we're continuing to look 11 at mindset to continue to be innovative, and we'll 12 continue to do that.
13 And I do appreciate your other comments 14 that you had as well, and many of those were reiterated 15 what was said earlier.
16 I would ask the NRC staff and maybe we might 17 have to get clarification back a minute ago from Jim's 18 comment on 5071-E being missing from the table. Can 19 I ask from the NRC folks, Andy Carrera, is that something 20 that was not included in there or was it included 21 somewhere else that was not easily identified? And 22 if there is a question about that specific one, we do 23 have time now, can we address it?
24 MR. MAUER: Hi, John. Yes, we do see the 25 5071-D, but we have not seen 5071-B in the submittal.
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 1 Perhaps we can go back and check on the original 2 submittal of that.
3 MR. LUBINSKI: Okay, so it sounds like the 4 response to the question is we'll have to follow-up 5 on that one. There was no intent to not include it 6 if it was part of the comments, correct?
7 MR. MAUER: That is correct, John.
8 MR. LUBINSKI: Okay, thank you.
9 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. Now I'm going to go 10 to, we have three questions or comments and questions 11 in the portal from Ernest Bates, B-A-T-E-S. I'm going 12 to go through them one by one. I'm not going to, so 13 I'm going to reach each one, wait for an NRC response, 14 and then move to the next one, and then we'll go back 15 to the people on the phone.
16 So the first comment and question by 17 Ernest: The nuclear industry participants prepared 18 a list of burdensome and unnecessary reporting 19 regulations. But I do not see the list that the NRC 20 staff itself prepared. Did the NRC staff perform a 21 review at all or did they completely rely on the 22 industry? And I'll turn it over to the NRC staff for 23 the response.
24 MR. CARRERA: I guess, this is Andy.
25 Thank you for that comment and question. So the 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
69 1 staff did their own review. We did solicit internal 2 reporting of staff input just as we did with external 3 stakeholders, and comments were provided. And if you 4 look at the Evaluation Summary that we published under 5 the submittal affiliation, you would see where it's 6 indicated that NRC, that would be the NRC staff, comment 7 and not NEI's.
8 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. Thank you, Andy. So 9 next from Ernest. As an example of Jim Slider's comment 10 on the need for input from the industry on the list:
11 Item 4 on the list, and that's Item 4 on the list 12 indicates that the NRC misconstrued the most common 13 comment made by the industry. The intent was not to 14 suggest a 60-day reporting period for a summary of 15 emergency plan changes. The intent was a) to eliminate 16 the nonessential reports; and b) to align the remaining 17 essential reports around a common reporting period or 18 deadline, which would point more to a 24-month period 19 applicable to FSARs and QA procedures.
20 Again, let me read that one more time just 21 for the sake of the staff. As an example of Jim Slider's 22 comment on the need for input from the industry on the 23 list: Item 4 on the list indicates that the NRC 24 misconstrued the most common comment made by the 25 industry. The intent was not to suggest a 60-day 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 1 reporting period for a summary of emergency plan 2 changes. The intent was to a) eliminate nonessential 3 reports; and b) to align the remaining essential reports 4 around a common reporting period or deadline, which 5 would point more to a 24-month period applicable to 6 FSAR and QA procedures.
7 Again, and I'll turn it over to the NRC 8 staff for a response or follow-up at this time.
9 MR. CARRERA: Hi, Brett. Thank you. So 10 I'm in communication with the organization who rev iew, 11 who was responsible for reviewing that 5054 -Q 12 requirement on Number 4 to see if they have any comment 13 or response on that.
14 MR. COYNE: Andrew, this is Kevin. So I 15 think while you're waiting for the Subject Matter Expert 16 to get queued up, I think one general comment we can 17 make is the staff did consider the suggestion to 18 eliminate reports or go to a much longer reporting 19 frequency in general, and the way the table is 20 structured, you know, if we said hey, we would put it 21 into the process or accept it into the process, and 22 we look at 60 days, that really should be interpreted 23 as we didn't look at whether we could eliminate the 24 report or go to a much longer reporting frequency and 25 the piece of the comment that the staff was going to, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 you know, put into the process for consideration of 2 rulemaking was the specific item that we had mentioned.
3 So, you know, I don't know that it's correct 4 to say we misconstrued it. We did consider it in the 5 way that many of the NEI comments were structured.
6 You know, it was can you do A? If not, can you do B?
7 If not, can you do C? And so we went through that 8 process and evaluated them in general, and I think for 9 this specific one we had to get the Subject Matter 10 Experts to speak. But I think when you see that in 11 the table, that's how they would interpret what the 12 table is trying to convey.
13 MR. CARRERA: Thank you, Kevin. And I 14 think Bob Kahler, who is the Subject Matter Expert for 15 this particular requirement will be chiming in.
16 MR. KAHLER: Yes, with regards to the 17 comment about the reporting requirements for EP changes 18 -- can everybody hear me, I guess?
19 MR. CARRERA: Yes, Bob.
20 MR. KAHLER: Okay. With that 21 requirement, that's 5054-Q5, it was suggested by NEI, 22 or it was a comment received that we either eliminate 23 the reporting requirement all together as it is 24 something that the residents could look at, or to extend 25 it to a 24-month period.
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 1 And it was, as we had discussed before, 2 it was something that we did look at quite extensively, 3 got our regions involved in it as it is part of 4 inspection to an annual inspection process, I should 5 say. And the evaluation was assessed against the 6 significance of the changes that have typically been 7 submitted to us and where that reporting requirement 8 fit into the inspection process.
9 And so we did evaluate it against other 10 type of change submittals, and it was decided that going 11 to 60 days could be something that could be done in 12 order to help reduce burden of submitting changes with, 13 rather than submitting changes in 30 days, and still 14 maintain our oversight capabilities and ensuring that 15 the emergency plan maintained effectiveness and being 16 able to be implemented.
17 But there was a lot of, I just wanted to 18 let everybody know that because the comment was 19 submitted with a recommendation as to what it could 20 go to, we looked at that first, and then we looked at 21 what could be, something we could recommend as far as 22 EP plan change. And that was the fallout on that one, 23 but we comment. Those are things that we look at going 24 into the future, that we're making process goes along, 25 and we have it out there so we can always take 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
73 1 feedback and ascertain again what our process was to 2 reach the conclusion of going from 30 to 60 days. Thank 3 you.
4 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. And the 5 last comment from Ernest: Eliminating the duplication 6 of requiring routine reports through all these 10 CFR 7 regulations to NRR and requiring the same routine 8 reports be provided to the Region again prior to 9 inspection would result in a "Big Win" in terms of 10 reducing regulatory burden, particularly when the same 11 records are already available to the NRC resident 12 inspectors in the plant recordkeeping system on an 13 ongoing basis every day.
14 And I'll read that one more time for the 15 sake of the staff, and this is from Ernest Bates.
16 Eliminating the duplication of requiring routine 17 reports through all these 10 CFR regulations to NRR 18 and requiring the same routine reports be provided to 19 the Region again prior to inspection would result in 20 a "Big Win" in terms of reducing regulatory burden, 21 particularly when the same records are already 22 available to the NRC resident inspectors in the plant 23 recordkeeping system on an ongoing basis every day.
24 And I'll turn it over to the NRC staff for any response 25 or comment.
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 1 MR. CARRERA: Hi, Brett. This is Andy.
2 Thank you so much for that comment. And so that's 3 something that we also discussed during the comment 4 evaluation process and, you know, we discussed that 5 when we looked at what are the ways that we can further 6 make comment submittal more efficient under 50.4, and 7 that's something that we, you know, that's something 8 that we like to, we are considering that in terms of 9 providing a central portal or a central place where 10 licensee would be submitting records. And from there, 11 NRC would take over and, you know, yes.
12 You know, the region would be able to come 13 to the central site and pull the information when they 14 need it without having to resubmit it to another place.
15 So that's something that we've been talking about amo ng 16 us as well.
17 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. Thank you very much, 18 Andy. And it looks like we have two speakers still 19 in the queue, so Melinda, could you unmute our next 20 speaker please?
21 OPERATOR: Next is from Justin Wearne.
22 Your line is open.
23 MR. WEARNE: Thanks. Andrew, I can 24 follow-up with you on the 5071-Echo disconnect that 25 we saw. I can just give you call after this and walk 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 1 you through that.
2 And then back to Ernest Bates' comments 3 on the inspectors requesting information that's alre ady 4 been provided to the Agency. In addition to it being 5 available in the public, or in our records management 6 system, it's also available in ADAMS, and again, Manual 7 Chapter 0620, so that the inspector shouldnt be asking 8 for information that's already publicly available.
9 But the reason I wanted to kind of jump 10 on here was, and it's a comment for John Lubinski, is 11 a little bit more detail on this kind of like a follow -up 12 discussion we would like to have is, you know, kind 13 of going through it line by line.
14 So kind of one item I've learned in the 15 review that we did of the SECY was that the drug and 16 alcohol reports that we give to the Agency are used 17 to help risk-inform the inspection process. And that 18 was a learning for me, and, kind of, a little bit of 19 sidebar, like understand how that occurs.
20 But on one that we don't understand, if 21 I could just take a minute here to just kind of walk 22 you through our kind of what we don't understand of 23 what we really want to understand from the staff is 24 take the example of licensing event reports.
25 The staff comments back, provided three 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 1 rationales for why licensing event reports need to be 2 submitted, and one was for event response. And we 3 really think that 5072 of the Event Notification System 4 covers the event response. So, again, don't want to 5 talk about it now, but we don't understand how an LER 6 is used for event response.
7 The second thing the staff of the three 8 items that is used for inspection planning, and, again, 9 that doesn't kind of jive with what's actually occurring 10 in that the inspectors in the region will call us up 11 and ask us, again, for a copy of the Licensing Event 12 Report. So we don't understand how the submittal to 13 Document Control Desk is satisfying that need when the 14 inspectors are calling and asking for copies of it.
15 And then the third thing is what the staff 16 said was that the LERs are used to maintain a record 17 of conformance with the facilities licensing basis.
18 And we don't understand that. We'd like to point out 19 that the LERs, if you're relying on LERs to maintain 20 a record of conformance with the licensing basis, LERs 21 may be kind of a faulty input and in that, you know, 22 5069 gives you an exemption to 5073. NUREG 1022 allows 23 engineering judgment to not do an LER, and then more 24 fundamental that not all nonconformances with current 25 licensing basis are documented in LER. So that's 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
77 1 what we don't understand.
2 And then what we kind of expected to see 3 was something about how the LERs are used to support 4 research done by our national labs. And so this is 5 the kind of follow-up discussion we want to have on, 6 and yes, we recognize it's going to be painful and 7 tedious, but we think we can learn things about like 8 why the staff thinks line items are important, and maybe 9 through this we co-understand, and we can help kind 10 of prioritize the subsequent rulemaking effort. Does 11 that make sense?
12 MR. LUBINSKI: This is John Lubinski.
13 Just for me, thanks for the clarification on what the 14 expectations would be if we have such a meeting, so 15 thank you.
16 MR. WEARNE: That's all I got. Thank you.
17 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. Melinda, it looks 18 like there is one final speaker in the queue, so if 19 we could unmute them, please. Thank you.
20 OPERATOR: Next is from Andrew Zach. Your 21 line is open.
22 MR. ZACH: Good morning. This is Andrew 23 Zach from the Senate Environment and Public Works 24 Committee. I'm just making sure you guys can hear me.
25 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, we can hear 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
78 1 MR. ZACH: Okay. Thanks, just wanted to 2 make sure. And as this tends to happen at th e end of 3 a two-hour meeting, I think some of my observations 4 are probably reflected in comments that were previously 5 stated.
6 First off, I just want to thank the NRC 7 staff. You know, almost four years across the whole 8 organization, you know 40 NRC staff working on this 9 or more, you know, there's obviously a lot of effort 10 that's gone into this process, and I think that really 11 underscores the importance of getting a good end product 12 done, you know, getting some good return on investment 13 for all of the work that you guys have done, for all 14 the work that industry has put forward.
15 And so I really, you know, appreciate what 16 you've done so far, and I really urge you to kind of 17 have to take this opportunity to lean forward to make 18 sure that the end product is meaningful.
19 John, I appreciated what you said that, 20 you know, something doesn't have to say transformation 21 for it to still be transformational as part of, you 22 know, what the Agency is looking at. But I think that 23 that's really important to keep in mind, and to take 24 this opportunity that's in front of you to reduce some 25 of this regulatory burden.
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 1 And when you look at other things that the 2 Commission has done before, for example, Project Aim.
3 You know, there was at least some cleaning up of low 4 priority items, and I really hope that this project 5 has a similar meaningful end.
6 I think that the question that I had, and 7 I kind of apologize because, again, some of the stuff 8 has been discussed already, it does feel as though 9 there's perhaps a little bit of lack of transparency 10 in what comments were screened in and what comments 11 were screened out, but I think my question is for both 12 what was proposed in the paper and the EDO Memo, as 13 well as going forward, what's the actual use of data 14 analysis to go through and actually say these are the 15 things that are productive and that we need to keep.
16 These are the sorts of things. How are you using your 17 experience and data thrashing to form this process?
18 MR. LUBINSKI: Hi, Andy. This is John 19 Lubinski. Thank you for participation today.
20 Appreciate your comments and on the question. With 21 the number of requirements that we have across the board 22 here that have been listed, as we said, there's over 23 a hundred different items listed in the table, some 24 of them have been qualitatively analyzed. Others, 25 where there is data on use of the reports where we tried 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 1 to collect that as we've gone forward, if we go forward 2 in the rulemaking with the ones we have, of course, 3 we would make use of that data that we did have in putting 4 that together in a regulatory analysis. And even if 5 not, even if we don't do a Reg basis document up front, 6 there will be a regulatory analysis that would collect 7 that information going forward.
8 Where there were quantitative items, 9 again, they would be captured in the Reg analysis as 10 well. We have not captured the process to document 11 items that would be screened out necessarily to say 12 what kind of analysis, what data was used on those.
13 In some cases, there was data, but in most cases it 14 was qualitative analysis that was performed.
15 MR. ZACH: Thanks, John. I think just the 16 last thing I would close on is, you know, again, the 17 amount of work that's gone in in the nearly four years 18 to look at administrative requirements, you know, and 19 I understand that you guys are starting the process 20 of putting together a rulemaking plan to go to the 21 Commission. My understanding is you're allowing about 22 eight months to develop that for the rulemaking plan, 23 and then you have the plan, the Reg basis proposed rule, 24 the final rule, all of this requires public comment.
25 I really urge you to look for ways to, again, 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
81 1 one, making sure that it's a meaningful end product 2 that has a tangible result that validates all the work 3 that you guys have put in and that the industry h as 4 put in, as well as ways to, you know perhaps accelerate 5 the process to get that sooner rather than later just 6 given the length of time and how much back and forth 7 has already gone on. So, thank you guys, and I look 8 forward to continuing to monitor this going forward.
9 MR. LUBINSKI: Thanks for that comment, 10 Andy. I appreciate it.
11 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you as well. Again, 12 at this point, I've read all the questions out loud 13 in the question and answer box, and I think we have 14 gone through our complete queue of speakers.
15 So with that, I'll turn it over to Andy, 16 but again, for me personally, thank you very much for 17 participating in the meeting today. So, with that, 18 I'll turn it over to Andy. Thank you.
19 MR. CARRERA: Thank you, Brett. And I 20 want to echo Brett. Thank you so much for our 21 discussion today. You know, we definitely take the 22 feedback and comments provided today to, you know, 23 consider that and inform our process moving forward.
24 And I think that's all I have. I would like to turn 25 this over to John to see if you have anything before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 we turn over to Kevin to close it off, John?
2 MR. LUBINSKI: Andy, thank you. I, you 3 know, I thank all the participants today. I appreciate 4 it. I appreciate the different dialogue. We do have 5 a couple of takeaways that we will get back to everyone, 6 so thank you for that. And I want to thank, Andy, I 7 want to thank you. I want to thank Brett. I appreciate 8 you running the meeting today. And I appreciate Lynn 9 Ronewicz and everyone else who supported the meeting 10 today and putting this together. So my thanks, and 11 we will be back in touch. So we can turn to Kevin to 12 close the meeting.
13 MR. COYNE: Okie doke. Thanks, thanks so 14 much Andy and John and Brett. And I want to thank 15 everyone for their participation and great discussion 16 today. And as John mentioned, we have a couple of 17 takeaways. You know, we look forward to getting the 18 details of the 5071-Echo issue, and we'll definitely 19 follow-up on that, and look at the request for a 20 subsequent meeting to provide a more detailed 21 background on the information in the table. On that, 22 I can just say there was a thorough evaluation made 23 by the staff, and I can understand a desire to get more 24 of the details, and that's something that we can likely 25 provide.
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 1 And just to wrap up, you know your feedback 2 is very important to us, and it will definitely inform 3 the development of one or more coordinated rulemaking 4 plan that the staff is going to be pulling together.
5 And I just want to close out with a reminder 6 to fill out the Public Meeting Feedback form. You can 7 find that on the Public Meeting Notification System 8 website, and we definitely use those to help improve 9 our future public meetings. So with that, thanks so 10 much for your participation, and I hope all have a great 11 day.
12 MR. CARRERA: Okay. Thank you, Kevin.
13 And I just one last one. Sorry I'm holding people up 14 here. But regarding 5071-Echo, those are being 15 addressed in Comment Item Number 31 and 32. As it turns 16 out, NRC staff had also submitted it in comment and 17 that's how and we indicated under the NRC staff's 18 comments rather NEI's comment. So that's all. Thank 19 you.
20 OPERATOR: Thank you. That does conclude 21 today's conference. We do appreciate you attending.
22 You may disconnect at this time.
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 12:06 p.m.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433