ML21341B451
| ML21341B451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/2021 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Tartal G | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21341B449 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1732, NRC-2020-0036, RIN 3150-AK71 | |
| Download: ML21341B451 (67) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking on Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Thursday, November 4, 2021 Work Order No.:
NRC-1732 Pages 1-66 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON 4
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONEMERGENCY EVENTS AT 5
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 6
+ + + + +
7 THURSDAY 8
NOVEMBER 4, 2021 9
+ + + + +
10 The meeting convened via videoconference, 11 at 2:00 p.m. EDT, Dan Doyle, Facilitator, presiding.
12 PRESENT:
13 DAN DOYLE, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 14 MIKE KING, NRR 15 LISA REGNER, NRR/DRO/IOEB 16 GEORGE TARTAL, NMSS/REFS/MRPB 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 ALSO PRESENT:
1 2
WILLIAM FREEBAIRN, S&P Global Platts 3
ANTHONY LESHINSKIE, State of Vermont Nuclear 4
Engineer 5
EDWIN LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists 6
BRIAN MAGNUSON, Exelon 7
ALYSE PETERSON, New York State Energy Research 8
and Development Authority 9
TOM PRICE, Environmental Review, Inc.
10 JEFFREY SEMANCIK, Connecticut Department of 11 Energy and Environmental Protection 12 JAMES SLIDER, Nuclear Energy Institute 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 CONTENTS 1
Meeting Logistics and Opening Remarks......
4 2
Overview of Rulemaking
............. 12 3
Open Discussion/Q&A (NRC/Public)
........ 20 4
Closing Remarks................. 61 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
2:00 p.m.
2 MR. DOYLE: Good afternoon and welcome, 3
everyone.
4 My name is Dan Doyle, and I will be 5
supporting today's meeting as the facilitator.
6 Before I turn it over to the NRC Project 7
Manager, George Tartal, I just have a few logistical 8
items to go over to help the meeting go more smoothly.
9 Please note, first of all, that we're 10 recording this meeting. If you don't consent to being 11 recorded, you may disconnect at this time.
12 We are also creating a transcript of the 13 meeting, which will become part of the record for this 14 rulemaking activity. We ask for your help in ensuring 15 an accurate transcript by speaking one at a time, and 16 please identify yourself when you start speaking and 17 try to speak clearly.
18 The presentation slides are being shown 19 via Microsoft Teams. If you connected using the link 20 in the meeting notice, then you should see the slides 21 now that I'm sharing. You can also access the slides 22 in our ADAMS system at Accession No. ML21295A293.
23 That's ML21295A293. The slides have also been posted 24 to the meeting notice, which is on the NRC's public 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 website. We will periodically say the slide number 1
that we're on, so that attendees that aren't viewing 2
in Microsoft Teams can follow along more easily.
3 At the appropriate time during the NRC 4
staff presentation, we will open it up for members of 5
the public to share their views on this topic. So, 6
here's how that will work:
7 All attendees have been muted, but you do 8
have the ability to unmute yourself. To cut down on 9
background noise, please do try to stay on mute when 10 you're not speaking, or we may place you on mute.
11 But, again, you have the ability to unmute yourself.
12 When we do get to the public input portion 13 of the meeting, we'll ask you to raise your hand if 14 you'd like to speak, and then, we will call on you and 15 you can unmute yourself. To raise your hand, you can 16 click the hand icon in Microsoft Teams. You should 17 see that near the top of the window. If you're 18 joining us today by phone, then you can raise your 19 hand by pressing *5. When we call on you, you can 20 unmute by clicking the microphone button in Microsoft 21 Teams, or if you're on the phone, you can unmute by 22 pressing *6. You may also need to unmute your handset 23 if you pressed the mute button there.
24 So, again, just for callers, that's *5 to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 raise your hand and *6 to unmute. You can remember 1
which one is which because the hand has five fingers; 2
- 5 for the hand and *6 to unmute.
3 So, we won't be able to see your names, 4
for the people that are calling in on the phone. So, 5
we will just identify you by the last four digits of 6
your phone.
7 And the chat feature is disabled in 8
today's meeting. We want to be able to focus on the 9
person who is speaking. We'll be taking everything 10 verbally today, so it's captured in the transcript.
11 So, again, just please raise your hand to ask 12 questions or make comments as we go along.
13 And one more quick note. For those of you 14 on the phone, to be included in the list of attendees 15 today, or if you'd like to be included, please send an 16 email to the meeting contact, George Tartal. His name 17 is on the meeting notice and the email address is 18 george.tartal@nrc.gov,
- George, G-E-O-R-G-E,
- dot, 19 T-A-R-T-A-L @nrc.gov. If you could just provide your 20 name and if you have an affiliation that you'd like to 21 have listed there.
22 So, those are my opening remarks. Thank 23 you very much.
24 And I will now turn it over to George 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 Tartal. Thank you.
1 MR. TARTAL: Thanks, Dan.
2 Can you go to slide 2, please?
3 Good afternoon, everyone.
4 I'm George Tartal. I'm a Senior Project 5
Manager in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 6
Safeguards. I'm the Project Manager for this 7
rulemaking, which will consider changes to reporting 8
requirements for nonemergency events at nuclear power 9
plants.
10 For our agenda, we'll start with the 11 purpose of the meeting. We'll have some opening 12 remarks. We'll give you some background information 13 on the project. We'll describe the status of the 14 rulemaking and give you a short description of the 15 rulemaking process. Then, we'll summarize the 16 questions that we would like to discuss in the 17 meeting, and then, we'll ask for members of the public 18 to provide feedback on those questions or on any 19 matter pertaining to nonemergency event notifications.
20 That's where we'll be spending the 21 majority of our time today, as this is largely a 22 listening session on our part and we want to hear from 23 you.
24 So, we plan to take a short break during 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 the public feedback portion of the meeting at an 1
appropriate time. And then, after that, we'll go over 2
next steps and high-level milestones for the projects, 3
and then, we'll conclude the meeting.
4 I'd like to add here that the NRC staff 5
has not decided yet what to propose to do with the 6
nonemergency event notifications. We're open to any 7
and all suggestions, opinions, or other feedback in 8
this meeting. What we hear in this public meeting 9
will inform our development of the regulatory basis 10 that we're working on, and we'll be describing that in 11 just a few minutes. So, we encourage you to provide 12 your feedback to us at the designated time, and thank 13 you in advance. And I note that we will issue a 14 meeting summary within 30 days.
15 Slide 3, please.
16 The purpose of this meeting is to provide 17 information to the public about this NRC rulemaking 18 activity that involves reporting requirements for 19 nonemergency events at nuclear power plants. And 20 we'll do that through the upcoming slides on 21 background, rulemaking process, and project status.
22 We'll provide an opportunity for the 23 public to express views on this topic, and that 24 opportunity is this public meeting, and to receive 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 feedback on the topics and information presented and 1
other insights. As I mentioned on the last slide, 2
this is where we'll be spending the majority of our 3
time in this public meeting, and the feedback that we 4
receive will inform the staff's decisionmaking as we 5
go forward through the rulemaking process.
6 Slide 4, please.
7 And at this time, we have some opening 8
remarks. I'd like to introduce Mr. Mike King. He's 9
the Deputy Office Director for Reactor Safety Programs 10 and Mission Support in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 11 Regulation.
12 Mike?
13 MR. KING: Thanks, George.
14 And welcome, everybody, to this important 15 meeting. And the staff and myself look forward to 16 engaging with you to receive feedback from all 17 participants.
18 Hopefully, you recognize the NRC has been 19 working hard to become a more modern, risk-informed 20 regulator. And as part of that, this effort includes 21 reducing potentially unnecessary administrative 22 burden. So, this effort is the first phase of our 23 assessment of the requirements associated with 24 nonemergency reporting for nuclear power plants.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 So, the rule is intended to ensure the NRC 1
receives important nonemergency information that we 2
need to conduct our safety mission without unnecessary 3
and distraction to those who we regulate. So, to 4
achieve the important balance and provide transparency 5
in our rulemaking process, we can benefit from 6
everyone's input. So, we appreciate you taking the 7
time to provide the feedback here today to us.
8 So, as part of this effort, and with all 9
the things we do, we're committed to principles of 10 good regulation. And for those of you unfamiliar with 11 what they are, independence, openness, efficiency, 12 clarity, and reliability. Those five key aspects are 13 what we consider the principles of good regulation.
14 So, our experts, as we're going through 15 and evaluating this rulemaking effort, will apply 16 these principles and the principles associated with 17 risk-informed decisionmaking in their assessment of 18 what it takes for the NRC as part of this effort. And 19 so, what sort of information do we need in the area of 20 nonemergency reporting?
21 So, along with your input from today's 22 meeting, the staff will prepare a Draft Regulatory 23 Basis that will be shared with the Commission and 24 yourself, the public, for comment sometime this spring 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 or summer. So, it's a relatively tight timeline and 1
there's a lot of work that needs to be done between 2
now and then to develop the regulatory basis. So, the 3
staff is appropriately prioritizing the effort and we 4
appreciate your efforts to do the same, to provide us 5
timely input and feedback.
6 So, we're going to walk through what the 7
rulemaking process looks like. But you'll see this is 8
only the first stage of the rulemaking effort, and you 9
will have several opportunities to provide your input 10 to us and help us make an informed decisions on any 11 changes to the rule.
12 And we've heard you, or a subset of you, 13 during previous public meetings, that you have a 14 preference for a followup meeting perhaps in the 15 December timeframe. I just wanted to share the staff 16 is open to that, but we would like to understand if 17 you're still interested in that and what we could 18 expect to see in terms of the outcome of that followup 19 meeting.
20 So, with that, there's a lot to be 21 discussed in a short amount of time. So, I'll turn it 22 over. Thanks.
23 MR. TARTAL: All right. Thanks, Mike.
24 Slide 5, please.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 The next two slides of background on this 1
topic will be presented by Lisa Regner. She's the 2
Chief of the Generic Communications and Operating 3
Experience Branch in the Division of Reactor Oversight 4
in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
5 Lisa?
6 MS. REGNER: Thank you, George.
7 Good afternoon.
8 I'd like to provide a high-level overview 9
and background of the rule we're considering for this 10 effort. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.72(b) provides 11 requirements for operating nuclear power plants to 12 quickly report -- that is, within hours -- to the NRC 13 any significant nonemergency events.
14 The purpose of this rule is to ensure the 15 NRC has timely and accurate information to take 16 immediate action to protect public health and safety 17 and to respond to heightened public concern.
18 I'd like to emphasize, or reemphasize, 19 that what we are considering in this rulemaking are 20 potential changes to nonemergency reports. These are 21 only a portion of the event notifications that the NRC 22 receives. So, to be clear, any potential changes do 23 not include emergency reports or other reports covered 24 under different regulations, like security reports or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 fitness-for-duty reports.
1 So, as background, in 1980, following the 2
Three Mile Island accident, the NRC determined that 3
certain significant events were important for 4
monitoring nuclear safety and for the NRC's 5
situational awareness. Thus, the NRC added reporting 6
requirements for these events under 10 CFR 50.72.
7 In 1983, the NRC revised the reporting 8
requirements rule to separate emergency events in 9
paragraph (a) from nonemergency events in paragraph 10 (b). And paragraph (b) is what we are assessing.
11 The NRC last updated this regulation in 12 October 2000 to better align reporting requirements 13 with NRC needs and to reduce unnecessary reporting 14 burden, consistent with NRC needs. Examples of 15 changes we made then were to extend the required 16 initial reporting times for some of events and to 17 eliminate certain reporting requirements, like design 18 and analysis defects with little to no risk or safety 19 significance.
20 Slide 6, please.
21 More recently, in 2018, the Nuclear Energy 22 Institute, or NEI, submitted a Petition for Rulemaking 23 requesting the NRC remove the current requirements for 24 licensees to immediately report nonemergency events.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 As part of the NRC's review of the Petition for 1
Rulemaking, the NRC published the petition to The 2
Federal Register for public comments, and we received 3
16 comment submissions.
Most were industry 4
commenters, generally agreeing with the petition; 5
others opposed, claiming the nonemergency events are 6
still significant information that NRC should know and 7
share with external stakeholders.
8 The NRC closed the petition in 2021 to 9
consider in its rulemaking process whether the current 10 nonemergency reporting requirements create an 11 unnecessary reporting burden without a commensurate 12 safety benefit. Ultimately, however, the NRC must 13 preserve the ability to maintain situational awareness 14 of significant events at nuclear power plants and the 15 visibility and openness of event notifications to 16 public stakeholders.
17 An important point that's worth repeating 18 is that the Commission directed the staff not to 19 consider any shift in reporting responsibilities to 20 the NRC Resident Inspectors. Their focus is to remain 21 on oversight of the operating reactor site to which 22 they are assigned.
23 Slide 7, please.
24 And back to you, George.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 MR. TARTAL: Thanks, Lisa.
1 The NRC staff is developing a Regulatory 2
Basis Document. A regulatory basis provides a sound 3
foundation for informed decisionmaking throughout the 4
rulemaking process. More specifically, it discusses 5
the regulatory issues and alternatives to resolve 6
those issues. In other words, describes what the 7
problem is that we're trying to solve and what 8
alternative solutions there are.
9 It considers legal policy and technical 10 issues related to the regulatory issue, and those are 11 straightforward.
12 It considers the costs and benefits of 13 each alternative that it's identified, not just to the 14 licensee, but also to the government, which could 15 include federal, state, or otherwise; to industry, and 16 to other members of the public, as applicable.
17 It identifies the NRC staff's recommended 18 alternative, which is based, in part, on the cost and 19 benefits of each.
20 For this rulemaking, some possible 21 alternatives might include:
22 Maintaining the status quo, and this is 23 the do nothing alternative that we include in most 24 rulemakings.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 It could include revising regulations.
1 And that could take on a lot of different forms, 2
including doing exactly as the petitioner requested by 3
removing all of the nonemergency event notifications, 4
or removing some of them, or modifying some, or 5
possibly changing the notification timeframes. There 6
are a number of possible alternatives here.
7 It could include revising guidance. Would 8
improving the guidance solve the problem without 9
changing the existing regulations?
10 And what other options might there be?
11 For example, could we consider using new technologies, 12 such as the Mission Analytics Portal, or MAP-X, to 13 reduce the regulatory burden for these notifications?
14 Slide 8, please.
15 On this
- slide, you see a
typical 16 rulemaking process map. This map shows the four 17 phases for many rulemakings we do here at NRC, that 18 being: need for rulemaking; regulatory basis; 19 proposed rule, and final rule.
20 The need for rulemaking began with the 21 Petition PRM 50-116, and that was completed when the 22 Commission directed the staff to proceed with the 23 rulemaking and we closed the petition earlier this 24 year.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 The regulatory basis is the phase that 1
we're in now. Should the regulatory basis show that 2
rulemaking is the preferred alternative, the staff 3
would proceed with developing a proposed rule. If the 4
Commission approves that proposed rule, and after a 5
formal public comment period, the staff would develop 6
a final rule. If the Commission approves the final 7
rule, those proposed amendments would become final and 8
effective regulations.
9 Note on this diagram that there are 10 several opportunities for public participation 11 throughout the rulemaking
- process, including 12 commenting on the petition, public meetings such as 13 today's meeting, commenting on the Draft Regulatory 14 Basis, and commenting on the proposed rule.
15 Slide 9, please.
16 And, Lisa, back to you.
17 MS. REGNER: Thank you, George.
18 As we deliberate and develop the 19 regulatory basis, your specific information on how 20 these event notifications are useful and used by you 21 and your organization is vital. For licensees, we're 22 interested in the specific hardships and costs 23 associated with required reporting. We publish 24 detailed questions in The Federal Register and in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 public meeting notice on the nrc.gov website. Both 1
slides 9 and 10 paraphrase our interests.
2 For many of the nonemergency reporting 3
requirements criteria, there is an associated Licensee 4
Event Report that must be submitted in accordance with 5
10 CFR 50.73. These are more detailed reports, but we 6
do give the licensees 60 days to complete them.
7 What's the impact -- so, those in No. 2 here, we are 8
interested in whether these reports would be adequate 9
for your needs. What's the impact if you didn't 10 receive the event notifications or you didn't receive 11 the information in an LER, a Licensee Event Report, 12 for several weeks?
13 Slide 10, please.
14 It's been 21 years since we completed an 15 evaluation like this, and not only have there been 16 amazing advances in technology, as George mentioned, 17 but there have also been changes in the way we 18 communicate and do business. Let's leverage those 19 changes.
20 Would the online reporting format that 21 George mentioned be beneficial? What if we provided 22 more time for these initial notifications? And if you 23 think we haven't asked the right questions, please let 24 us know.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 Slide 11, please.
1 And back to you, George.
2 MR. TARTAL: All right. Thank you.
3 So, this is the part of the meeting that 4
you all have been waiting for. It's your turn to tell 5
us what you think about the questions we've asked in 6
the previous slides or whatever input you have for us 7
on nonemergency event notifications.
8 Prior to the meeting, we were contacted by 9
a few individuals, as you see listed on slide 11, who 10 informed us that they wanted to provide some remarks, 11 and we're going to start with them and call on them 12 one at a time. Once those persons have had their 13 chance to speak, we'll ask who else wants to speak.
14 If you want to speak, please raise your 15 hand, as Dan indicated earlier in the meeting, using 16 either the "Raise Your Hand" button in the Microsoft 17 Teams application or by pressing *5, if you're calling 18 in using a phone line.
19 When called on to speak, unmute yourself 20 and begin your remarks. You can unmute yourself by 21 using the "Unmute" button in Teams or by pressing *6, 22 if you're calling in using the phone line. And please 23 mute your line when you've concluded your remarks.
24 In fairness to others at the meeting, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 please keep your initial remarks to about five minutes 1
and no more than 10 minutes. If we have time at the 2
end, if you had more you wanted to say, we will come 3
back to you. We want to try to get to as many members 4
of the public as possible. So, thank you for your 5
cooperation.
6 As a reminder, we'll be taking a break at 7
approximately 3:15 p.m. Eastern Time, and we'll let 8
you know when it's time for that break.
9 So, without further ado, our first member 10 of the public who has asked to provide some views is 11 Mr. Jeffrey Semancik. He's the Director of the 12 Radiation
- Division, Bureau of Air Management, 13 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 14 Protection. He is also the Chair of the Conference of 15 Radiation Control Program Directors' E-47 Committee on 16 Commercial Nuclear Power. Mr. Semancik previously 17 sent us slides that I think Dan is going to be showing 18 on the screen.
19 Mr. Semancik, you can unmute and begin 20 your remarks.
21 MR. SEMANCIK: Yes, I want to thank you, 22 thank the staff for their time and this opportunity to 23 address this topic of interest to our members, state 24 and local radiation control program officials.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 Next slide, please.
1 As state officials, we thank the NRC for 2
its oversight over the nation's nuclear power plants.
3 While we recognize the NRC has sole regulatory 4
authority for production and utilization facilities, 5
as the representatives of those who live near and 6
around the nuclear power plants across this country, 7
state officials share a vested interest in ensuring 8
the health and safety of the public and protection of 9
the environment. Our interests also include ensuring 10 regulatory matters are conducted in an open and 11 transparent environment.
12 Next slide, please.
13 CRCPD is a
registered nonprofit 14 organization of
- state, local, and territorial 15 radiation control professionals. While we have 16 collaborated with the NRC in the past, we recently --
17 from feedback received by our Chairs in meeting with 18 the Commissioners -- formed a working group to explore 19 topics related to commercial nuclear power that may be 20 of interest to our members. This Committee has 21 explored the Petition for Rulemaking, as well as the 22 staff information, and would like to provide comments 23 as they relate to state officials.
24 Next slide.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 Overall, the Committee identified that 1
prompt nonemergency reports required pursuant to 2
10 CFR Part 50.72(b) are important to states by 3
providing notification of potentially significant 4
events to offsite stakeholders, providing risk-5 significant information that can inform offsite 6
officials, and by demonstrating a commitment to 7
transparency.
8 Next slide, please.
9 In the notice to this meeting, the NRC 10 requested responses to several additional questions, 11 which CRCPD would like to present from the state 12 program perspective.
13 Next slide.
14 You, first, asked whether organizations 15 regularly review these event notifications to describe 16 how information is used and to explain how the 17 elimination of all nonemergency event notification 18 requirements would affect the organization.
19 Many state radiation control and emergency 20 management organizations receive notifications 21 directly because state statute and/or regulation 22 requires state notification when a report is made to 23 the NRC, while others periodically review the event 24 pages. We do this in order to be informed about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 issues that may affect public health and safety of the 1
environment or that may inform our decisionmaking, 2
should a subsequent emergency event occur. We also 3
may take the opportunity to engage with the NRC 4
through Resident Inspectors or through the Liaison 5
Officers to express the interests of the state.
6
- Moreover, many programs conduct 7
independent offsite environmental sampling, and 8
assessment of these results could be skewed by plant 9
events. Without the information, we would not have 10 the opportunity to take offsite actions, such as 11 surveys or sampling, or for meaningful engagement with 12 the NRC, such that action is taken.
13 Next, please.
14 Next, you asked if the public release of 15 Licensee Event Reports alone meets our needs. Because 16 we are using these reports to inform decisions, state 17 directors believe timeliness is important. Waiting 60 18 days denies us the opportunity to take offsite actions 19 that we may deem prudent to protect or reassure the 20 public, such as determining if we need to take 21 environmental samples or if the risks may be higher in 22 an event.
23 Next, please.
24 The petitioner asserts that the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 nonemergency notifications create unnecessary burdens.
1 You requested information on particular reporting 2
aspects that may be deemed burdensome. CRCPD believes 3
the threshold for immediate reports is commensurate 4
with their safety significance. CRCPD also believes 5
that these represent rare events, such that reporting 6
does not representing a cumulative burden. In fact, 7
we believe that notification of the NRC, and thereby, 8
other entities, to be a nuclear safety obligation.
9 In my personal experience as a former 10 Senior Reactor Operator and Shift Manager who has made 11 these reports, the NRC has made communication of such 12 reports efficient with a single phone call to the 13 Headquarters Operations Officer, so that impact on 14 licensees is minimized. We do not see any excess 15 burden that is not justified by the safety 16 significance of the events.
17 Next, please.
18 In response to the proposal to notify 19 Resident Inspectors, we would like to emphasize that 20 any alternatives should ensure full transparency to 21 the public. In addition to promoting trust in 22 regulatory agencies, public accountability does create 23 results.
24 For example, one site reported multiple 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 outages of an effluent radiation monitor as a 1
significant degradation of emergency response 2
capabilities. Public concerns and reactions were 3
articulated. In order to resolve the issue, the 4
licensee developed preplan backup means to classify 5
events based on releases. This resulted in both 6
increased public confidence as well as ensuring that 7
the site had the tools needed to properly classify 8
events in an emergency.
9 In another case, multiple reports were 10 issued for the loss of safety function related to 11 failures in a control room door. The licensee 12 modified station design to provide a diverse barrier 13 that maintained safety function when control room door 14 hardware failed. Again, this reduced the probability 15 of failure of the control building boundary; thus, 16 improving protection of the operations, while 17 enhancing both public trust and confidence.
18 Next, please.
19 I would also like to directly address one 20 of the petitioner's claims; specifically, that some 21 notifications, those related to press releases and 22 notification of other government agencies, are merely 23 courtesy calls. In viewing the language of this 24 particular reporting criteria, CRCPD notes that the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 immediate report, pursuant to Part 50.72, is only 1
required for those press releases or government 2
notifications related to health and safety of the 3
public or onsite personnel or protection of the 4
environment.
The reporting guidance provides 5
- examples, including inadvertent release of 6
radioactivity or fatality.
7 As state radiation control program 8
directors, we need timely notification of any 9
inadvertent release of radioactivity. We make 10 decisions through independent sampling or prepare 11 answers to questions from the concerned local 12 officials or the public. Likewise, fatalities 13 represent an immediate concern from the public which 14 state and local officials need to be prepared to 15 address. As such, we believe such reports are 16 commensurate with their safety significance and in the 17 best interest of the public health and safety.
18 Next slide, please.
19 Finally, CRCPD believes consideration of 20 any proposed alternatives to the petitioner's proposed 21 changes should be vetted through state and local 22 officials that use these reports and that are directly 23 accountable to the public to ensure that they can 24 realistically provide timely event information to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 NRC, to state and local officials, and to the public.
1 The CRCPD Committee on Commercial Nuclear 2
Power or the Governor-appointed State Liaison Officers 3
are potential conduits to provide perspective from 4
their respective states and to ensure that actions do 5
not result in unintended consequences.
6 Last slide, please.
7 I thank you for listening to the states' 8
interests in this matter and look forward to working 9
with the NRC on these important issues. Thank you.
10 MR. TARTAL: Thank you very much for that.
11 Our next member of the public providing 12 views is Alyse Peterson, a Senior Advisor for Nuclear 13 Coordination and Radioactive Waste Policy, the New 14 York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
15 Ms. Peterson, you can unmute and begin 16 your remarks.
17 MS. PETERSON: Thank you.
18 And good afternoon to everyone.
19 In addition to the title that you very 20 accurately portrayed for me, I also serve as New 21 York's Designated State Liaison Officer with the NRC.
22 That's a title that Jeff referenced several times in 23 his remarks a few minutes ago.
24 I also just wanted to say, Jeff, those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 were excellent comments, very detailed, and I agree 1
with everything Jeff said, as usual.
2 But, moving on to my remarks, as a State 3
Liaison, any changes to communications, content, 4
pathways, or timely are of a great interest. This 5
rulemaking, in which NRC will assess possible 6
elimination of immediate notification requirements for 7
nonemergency events is no exception to that.
8 I'd like to thank NRC for its early 9
engagement of stakeholders in this initiative.
10 Efficient, timely, and clear information flow to 11 states and the public, whether it's about emergency or 12 nonemergency events, is vital, and any changes to 13 notification requirements deserve very close scrutiny.
14 The fact that an event doesn't rise to the 15 level of a formal emergency declaration does not mean 16 that the state and public have no interest or are 17 unaffected. Working together in the early stages of 18 consideration of any changes is key to ensuring that 19 the resulting product serves the needs of all 20 stakeholders.
21 Nonemergency events do have the potential 22 to change plant conditions and power output to the 23 electrical grid. Any nuclear power plant incident 24 with the potential to impact system reliability, plant 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 emergency core cooling systems, and reactor protection 1
systems, or public safety in any way, is of great 2
interest to the state and local communities.
3 The nuclear industry is pushing for these 4
notifications to be made as part of NRC's License 5
Event Report process, which involves a 60-day delay in 6
notification of such events to the public. This is 7
simply unacceptable and would represent truly an 8
after-the-fact notification, rather than one which 9
enables us to develop our own independent 10 understanding of the ongoing conditions at the 11 facility and to appropriately respond to the event.
12 We do agree with NRC that these 13 notification requirements deserve a close look, as it 14 has been almost 20 years since the last meaningful 15 update. But industry has proposed a broad, sweeping 16 elimination of notifications that would severely 17 curtail public access to information on incidents at 18 the plants. While we agree with reconsideration of 19 truly duplicative or unnecessary notifications, we 20 urge NRC staff to guard against acquiescing to greater 21 reductions than would be prudent.
22 Additionally, the world is a
very 23 different place than it was when the current 24 requirements were put in place decades ago. New York 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 recommends that NRC staff consider including 1
additional notification requirements for physical and 2
cyber
- security, such as attempted intrusions; 3
telecommunications incidents which impact emergency 4
communications or plant operating systems; preparation 5
and response to increasing severe weather events, and 6
other new threats that were not considered previously.
7 We agree with the NRC position that the 8
burden of classifying notification requirements should 9
not be pushed to the NRC Resident Inspectors. This 10 should remain the responsibility of the licensee.
11 NRC's Resident Inspectors are certainly exemplary and 12 are clearly dedicated to their important roles at the 13 plants, but the current process that channels required 14 notifications through NRC's 24/7, on-duty staff 15 provides a stability and a certainty in communications 16 that may be lost if that is shifted to Resident 17 Inspectors. Late-hour and weekend notifications can 18 be received and processed far more efficiently by 19 NRC's on-duty staff than by an off-duty inspector.
20 We also agree with the NRC position that 21
- informal, voluntary communications between NRC 22 Resident Inspectors and the licensee should not 23 replace the current required notification process.
24 NRC staff stated this quite effectively in its 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 November 30th, 2020 Petition for Rulemaking saying, 1
"If the NRC relies on voluntary practices alone to 2
maintain awareness of nonemergency events, there is an 3
increased risk of loss of situational awareness and 4
the ability to make timely decisions with adequate 5
information. Voluntary practices can be changed or 6
eliminated by licensees without NRC awareness or 7
approval, and they cannot be enforced if not carried 8
out in accordance with their original intent.
9 In summation, this initiative by the 10 nuclear industry would, essentially, eliminate all 11 nonemergency event notifications made to the NRC.
12 Right now, these reports are made publicly available 13 by the NRC on its website and are the timeliest 14 information provided to the public about what's 15 happening at America's nuclear plants. Removing this 16 transparency works in direct opposition to NRC's 17 openness principles from its Principles of Good 18 Regulation which states, in part, "Nuclear regulation 19 is the public's business and it must be transacted 20 publicly and candidly. The public must be informed 21 about, and have the opportunity to participate in, the 22 regulatory processes, as required by law."
23 As proposed, the industry's requested 24 elimination of the event notification process would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 prevent the public from being adequately informed 1
about nonemergency issues at nuclear power plants 2
until 60 days following the event. Publicly available 3
event notification reports serve as a window into the 4
operations of nuclear generation plants. That window 5
must be kept open.
6 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 7
speak.
8 MR. TARTAL: Thank you for your remarks.
9 The next member of the public providing 10 views is James Slider from the Nuclear Energy 11 Institute.
12 Mr. Slider, you can unmute and begin your 13 remarks.
14 MR. SLIDER: Thank you very much.
15 I would like to continue hearing from 16 other public stakeholders, if I may, and speak after 17 others have had a chance to speak. I appreciate the 18 remarks that have been shared so far, and I would love 19 to hear more from other stakeholders before we speak.
20 MR. TARTAL: Okay, Mr. Slider, we'll come 21 back to you a little later then.
22 MR. SLIDER: Thank you.
23 MR. TARTAL: Sure.
24 Next, we'll go with our next member of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33
- public, who is going to be Tom Price from 1
Environmental Review, Incorporated.
2 Mr. Price, you can unmute and begin your 3
remarks.
4 MR. PRICE: Okay. Thank you very much.
5 The Nuclear Energy Institute, in its 6
petition to amendment 10 CFR 50.72, asserts that the 7
nonemergency notifications are contrary to the best 8
interest of the public. However, the petitioner 9
failed to present information that would support that 10 assertion and feed into the NRC's evaluation for a 11 regulatory basis to support their proposal.
12 It may be that there is some cost savings 13 perhaps to the consumers of energy. However, I feel 14 it's incumbent upon the petitioner to present a cost-15 benefit analysis, if it's going to make this kind of 16 generalization and sweeping, unsupported assertion.
17 To answer the question posed by the NRC as 18 to, if I did not receive the information which was 19 required under the nonemergency notification 20 requirements, I would have concerns that the public 21 was not informed about specific situations which the 22 Nuclear Energy Institute failed to discuss in their 23 p e t i t i o n,
i n c l u d i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n 24 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi) related to health and safety of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 the public or onsite personnel or protection of the 1
environment; onsite fatalities, or release of 2
radioactive materials. Nor did they discuss specific 3
situations cited in 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) regarding 4
emergency assessment capabilities; offsite response 5
capabilities.
Nor did they discuss 6
10 CFR 50.72(a)(1)(i) regarding situations involving 7
notifications to state and local officials. It's my 8
opinion that these public notifications are 9
significant and important, and should continue in the 10 interest of the health and safety of the public.
11 My second comment that I'd like to make is 12 that there is some redundancy that has been discussed.
13 Specifically, there are three kinds of notifications 14 required by 10 CFR 50.72 where there is no 15 corresponding requirement in 10 CFR 50.73. Those 16 involve 50.72(b)(3)(xii) and (b)(2)(xi), including the 17 release of radioactive materials to the environment, 18 transport of radioactive-contaminated person, and news 19 releases to government agencies. My opinion is that 20 these are important reporting requirements that should 21 not be discontinued.
22 It is important to note that the Nuclear 23 Energy Institute in its petition failed to spell out 24 those situations that included release of radioactive 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 materials to the environment. Since there are 1
currently no other reporting requirements for these 2
situations under 10 CFR 50.73 for these situations, 3
it's my opinion that these reporting requirements 4
should continue.
5 I'd also like to make an additional 6
statement regarding the redundancy of these reporting 7
requirements. It's important to note that safety 8
systems, in general, have built-in engineering 9
controls that include redundancy. And so, I would 10 like to pose a question to the NRC to evaluate the 11 intention of the framers of these regulations if those 12 redundancies were intentionally built in as a safety 13 measure. And if those purposes are identified and are 14 considered significant, it's my opinion that they 15 should continue.
16 My third comment is that I'd like to 17 address the question which is a new question that NRC 18 posed, or I should say the followup questions 19 regarding the public comment period questions, 20 regarding, specifically, what change of notifications 21
-- if there was a change in immediate notifications to 22 a change to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, what impact that would have.
23 And I personally disagree that a delay of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 24 should be approved because that would put the NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 response time 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> behind schedule and could make 1
it more difficult to address important topics, 2
including plant shutdown; deviation from authorized 3
activities under the license; notification of degraded 4
conditions, for example, safety barriers and system 5
actuation; for example, boiling water, pressurized 6
water reactors, emergency feedwater, containment 7
spray, emergency electric systems, system isolation 8
status. It is important that these notifications 9
continue because the seriousness of some conditions 10 may not be readily apparent, and it is important to 11 document an unanalyzed situation. Therefore, it's my 12 opinion that immediate notifications should continue 13 and should not be postponed for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
14 That's all I have for you today. Thank 15 you.
16 MR. TARTAL: Okay. Thank you for your 17 remarks.
18 The next member of the public that is not 19 on this slide, but let us know this morning that he 20 would like to provide some views is Mr. Brian 21 Magnuson. And I see he has his hand up as well.
22 So, Mr. Magnuson, you can unmute and begin 23 your remarks at this time.
24 MR. MAGNUSON: Hi. This is Brian, Brian 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 Magnuson. I am a Lead Emergency Management Specialist 1
at Exelon Corporation and a former Shift Manager at 2
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant. I am speaking 3
expressly as a member of the public.
4 To begin, I echo what the other public 5
speakers said. I am not in favor of changing any of 6
the reporting requirements, and as I put in my public 7
comments, I think it's important for everybody to 8
understand --
9 I'm getting a lot of feedback on this 10 phone. I don't know if somebody can help me with 11 that.
12 MR. DOYLE: Mr. Magnuson, this is Dan 13 Doyle.
14 I just went ahead and muted all of the 15 attendees. If you could just please unmute yourself.
16 Press *6, please, and see if that sounds better.
17 MR. MAGNUSON: Is that any better?
18 MR. DOYLE: Yes, I can hear you.
19 MR. MAGNUSON: Okay. I think it's 20 important to understand the difference between 21 emergency reporting and nonemergency reporting. As a 22 few of these speakers have stated, the nonemergency 23 are still rather significant events -- significant 24 events that it's important for stakeholders and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 public to know.
1 The NRC brought up -- and I think these 2
speakers brought up -- transparency. And I think 3
that's the key when we are looking at this particular 4
regulation because it is how the public gets 5
information from the nuclear industry, one of the 6
primary methods and one of the first notifications.
7 With that said, this regulation, it's been 8
stated several times it has not been changed, but the 9
NUREG-1022 is, basically, how this regulation is 10 implemented. That document has been revised, and I 11 couldn't tell you when, but I was involved when it was 12 being revised at Quad Cities. You know, I think it 13 was within the last 10 years. So, changes have been 14 made -- and some of them have been worthwhile changes 15 to minimize the impact to stations -- just going 16 through the NUREG-1022, as opposed to changing the 17 regulation.
18 With that said, I think the transparency 19 and the other stated reasons for having the immediate 20 notification, I think it stands for themselves. If 21 you go back to NUREG-1022, Rev. 1, it expounds upon it 22 a little bit more, better than I can.
23 I believe it was Jeff that mentioned, in 24 the NEI petition, it says, 10 CFR 50.72, "Nonemergency 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 notifications distract key plant staff when they are 1
addressing events." Okay?
2 As I stated, I was a former Shift Manager, 3
and likewise, made similar calls. This assertion 4
appears misleading at best. If a four-hour or eight-5 hour notification truly distracts key staff when they 6
are addressing nonemergency events, what assurance is 7
there that licensees can make one-hour notifications, 8
required by 10 CFR 52, without distracting key plant 9
staff when they are addressing emergency events with 10 minimum staffing?
11 So, I think this is a key. In an actual 12 emergency event, if you have a loss of offsite power, 13 if you have a containment failure, any number of 14 actual accident scenarios, the site, the station EROs 15 can perform the state and local notifications within 16 15 minutes and the NRC notification within one hour.
17 And that is tested and evaluated at each site multiple 18 times a year. So, it's contradictory to say that the 19 staff, the operating staff at the plant, would be 20 distracted during a nonemergency event and would not 21 be during an emergency event. That's a contradiction.
22 In fact, NEI published a document. It's 23 called Assessment of On-Shift Emergency Response 24 Organization Staffing and Capabilities, NEI-10-05, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 Rev. 0, which describes the methods that may be used 1
to comply with 10 CFR 50.47, Appendix E to Part 50, 2
and other requirements that relate to 10 CFR 72.
3 So, it's a contradiction to say, "I can't; 4
I'm distracted or our station would be distracted in 5
making a four-hour or an eight-hour call," when, in 6
all likelihood, even if it was minimum staffing in the 7
middle of the night, they would bring other resources 8
into the plant and have sufficient time to do it.
9 It's just a contradictory statement to say that it's 10 a distraction in four hours, but, no, they're required 11 to do it in one hour and they can't.
12 Furthermore, NRC asserts "are contrary to 13 the principles of good regulation; contrary to the 14 best interest of the public, and contrary to the state 15 approved of the regulation." Somebody else mentioned 16 this.
17 If you look at NRC Inspection Manual 9000, 18 Operations, Safety, and Compliance, it says, "Safety 19 is a fundamental regulatory objective, and compliance 20 with NRC requirements plays a fundamental role in 21 giving the NRC," and the public -- I'm adding that --
22 "confidence that safety is being maintained. NRC 23 requirements, including technical specifications, 24 other license conditions, orders, and regulations, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 have been designed to ensure adequate protection --
1 which corresponds to `no undue risk to public health 2
and safety' through acceptable
- design, 3
construction, operation, maintenance, modification, 4
and quality assurance measures."
5 "Adequate protection is presumptively 6
assured by compliance with NRC requirements."
7 Immediate notification of nonemergency 8
events described in NUREG-1022, Rev. 3, specifically 9
applies to
- design, construction, operation, 10 maintenance, modifications, and quality assurance of 11 nuclear plants that are unacceptable and noncompliant 12 with NRC requirements.
13 So, when you're not in compliance, 14 obviously, these events specifically affect the health 15 and safety of the public, and the requirements for the 16 immediate notification would, obviously, be in the 17 best interest of the public.
18 Then, to touch on, one of the speakers 19 talked about redundancy. In nuclear power, we talk 20 about defense-in-depth. If you go on the NRC website, 21 defense-in-depth, there's more than one component. It 22 is lines of redundancy, such that, you know, a single 23 failure will not result in an accident or unsafe 24 conditions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 In NUREG-0578, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task 1
Force," they brought recommendations here that are 2
applicable to 10 CFR 50.72. So, "The accident at 3
TMI-2 emphasized a previously recognized need to 4
significantly increase operations reliability. The 5
undetected existence of closed isolation valves in the 6
aux feedwater system us exemplary of a kind of human 7
error in reactor operations that must be prevented.
8 Among the many human or operational errors annually 9
reported by the 70 plants now in operation, there are 10 only a few comparable in significance to the defeat of 11 an entire safety function." In this case, it was the 12 loss of aux feed. "The fact that operational errors 13 of this magnitude continue to occur at other plants 14 emphasizes the need for improvement. The Task Force 15 recommends prompt action to significantly change the 16 trend of reactor operating experience in this area."
17 And their recommendation was, "Require 18 that the Technical Specifications for each reactor 19 provide that the reactor be placed in a hot 20 shutdown...within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or in a cold shutdown...by 21 the licensee within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of any time that it is 22 found to be or have been in operation with a complete 23 loss of safety function."
24 So, the NRC did not implement that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 recommendation. But the important part here is, a 1
loss of safety function is a nonemergency reporting 2
event currently, and it should stay that way.
3 And I think what the people, particularly 4
the public, ought to look at, a loss of safety 5
function is, essentially, a loss of defense-in-depth, 6
such that in a particular accident -- and this is just 7
my perspective -- in a particular accident, if you've 8
lost a safety function, you, essentially, have no 9
design basis success path, which, obviously, could 10 result in a severe accident and a release to the 11 public and to the environment.
12 So --
13 MR. TARTAL: Mr. Magnuson, you're over 10 14 minutes. If you could conclude your remarks? Then, 15 we'll come back to you, if we have time later. Thank 16 you.
17 MR. MAGNUSON: Okay. Certainly.
18 So, I'll just finish by saying I second 19 the other public comments, and mine should be on the 20 website to read.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. TARTAL: Thank you very much.
23 So, just as a reminder, if you want to 24 speak, please raise your hand, either using the "Raise 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
44 Your Hand" button in Microsoft Teams or by pressing 1
- 5, if you're calling in using the phone line.
2 We're going to continue on with at least 3
a few more speakers at this time.
4 And the next speaker that I see with a 5
hand raised is Ed Lyman.
6 Ed, you can unmute and begin your remarks.
7 DR. LYMAN: Yes. Hi. Thank you.
8 How do I sound?
9 MR. TARTAL: Perfect.
10 DR. LYMAN: Great.
11 This is Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear 12 Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
13 I can hardly add to the very cogent 14 comments from the other speakers. I think they've 15 really said everything I was planning to say. So, I'd 16 just like to compliment that.
17 UCS believes the petition should have been 18 denied. We see no compelling reason for moving 19 forward with this, and therefore, we think no action, 20 at a minimum, is the correct outcome of this process.
21 In response to the question about how 22 organizations use this information, I'd say that we 23 refer to the event notifications on a daily basis; 24 that it provides an extremely useful and timely way to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
45 take the temperature of various nuclear plants, sites 1
around the country; that it is clear that, even on 2
emergency events, as the previous speaker just made 3
clear, that those nonemergency events can have 4
potentially significant safety consequences in 5
degrading defense-in-depth. And that is something 6
that the public in the vicinity of those plants simply 7
should be aware of.
8 So, we review those reports and I 9
circulate them on social media, and there is, very 10 often, a significant public interest in these reports.
11 For
- instance, one example is the Limerick 12 unavailability of HPCI, which occurred in September.
13 There was significant public interest in the 14 unavailability of that emergency core cooling system, 15 and it's something people should really know about in 16 real time.
17 And so, again, we shouldn't pretend what 18 this effort is really all about. It's about the 19 industry wanting less transparency, wanting to cloak 20 its mishaps and worse, to shield them from public 21 scrutiny. And that is exactly the wrong direction 22 that the NRC should be going in.
23 So, again, I concur with the previous 24 commenters opposing this rulemaking and would put in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
46 an additional plea on behalf of the public to make 1
sure that anything of relevance for public safety with 2
the nuclear fleet should be reported in a timely way, 3
so that the public can make their own decisions about 4
how significant these events are and respond 5
accordingly.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. TARTAL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lyman, 8
and you can unraise your hand at this time.
9 I don't see any other members of the 10 public with their hand raised.
11 Once again, please raise your hand if 12 you're interested in making some remarks.
13 Oh, Mr. Magnuson, you're back. Do you 14 want to continue on with your remarks?
15 MR. MAGNUSON: This is Magnuson. Can you 16 hear me?
17 MR. TARTAL: Yes. Yes, we can.
18 MR. MAGNUSON: I, basically, finished my 19 statements.
20 For those interested, you can look at them 21 posted on the NRC website, and I believe my email is 22 on there also. Feel free to contact me.
23 That's it. Thank you.
24 MR. TARTAL: Okay. Thank you very much.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 Other members of the public who would like 1
to speak, please raise your hand.
2 William Freebairn, you were first. Please 3
unmute and begin your remarks.
4 MR. FREEBAIRN: Thank you.
5 I'm William Freebairn. I'm a Senior 6
Managing Editor at Platts, where we run a series of 7
nuclear-power-related publications.
8 And while our company doesn't have any 9
official position on any rulemaking or regulatory 10 action that NRC might take, I do feel that, as a 11 journalist, I'm compelled to say, personally, the 12 public disclosure of some of this information is 13 entirely useful for us, and just to communicate to the 14 NRC that these documents and these event reports are 15 great fodder for journalists who are trying to cover 16 the nuclear beat responsibly, and that's what we do.
17 I have a team of reporters who look at 18 these reports on a daily basis, and they provide 19 important information which we subsequently publish, 20 both on our website and in our subscriber 21 publications.
22 And so, just to expand upon the idea of 23 who uses these reports and for what purpose, I just 24 wanted to mention that.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
48 And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
1 MR. TARTAL: Thank you very much.
2 I see another hand raised by Anthony 3
Leshinskie. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.
4 You can unmute and begin your remarks.
5 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay. Yes, you did 6
pronounce it correctly. I hope you folks can hear me.
7 MR. TARTAL: Yes, we hear you fine.
8 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay. Terrific. Thank 9
you.
10 My name is Tony Leshinskie. I am the 11 State of Vermont Nuclear Engineer and I am Vermont's 12 State Liaison Officer Designee. And I just have a few 13 quick comments here.
14 First of all, I would like to note my 15 support of the comments made by my counterparts in 16 Connecticut and New York earlier in this session.
17 Both Jeff Semancik and Alyse Peterson did provide 18 comments that I fully support.
19 And as I've been listening to this, I've 20 been really considering the notifications that I 21 receive from Vermont Yankee on a regular basis. And 22 what I just want to emphasize here is that, even the 23 nonemergency notifications -- and recognize that, 24 since I am focused on a decommissioning plant, many of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 the notifications I'm receiving right now really are 1
not emergency-related anymore. But, still and all, 2
these notifications do require some action on my part.
3 It may just simply be a brief, five-minute followup 4
with one of my points of contact, but, nonetheless, 5
these notifications, these nonemergency notifications 6
are a significant part of my daily duties. And any 7
changes to that notification process makes my job more 8
difficult.
9 I would note that the nonemergency 10 notifications, these still take time for the 11 notifications to get to offsite organizations. So, 12 you know, relaxing the times just makes my job harder.
13 And what can happen in the interim on this 14 is that there are other offsite organizations that can 15 find out that, hey, something's happening at Vermont 16 Yankee or some other nuclear facility. And if my 17 notifications are coming at a slower pace, the 18 questions from them are not coming at a slower pace.
19 And I may not have a forthright answer for them, which 20 is a problem for me, and ultimately, it makes the 21 NRC's job more difficult.
22 Because if I don't have an answer, I have 23 to go back to the utility -- well, Vermont Yankee --
24 and I have to go to my NRC contacts. So, if I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 notified upfront, hey, your job is done. But if I 1
have to start finding you guys, I may not select the 2
proper channel for the proper communication right 3
away. So, that's more work for you; that's more work 4
for the utility. It's not a good situation.
5 Now I've been trying to think of, well, 6
what was a truly nonemergency situation that I've had 7
to deal with recently? And the only thing I can think 8
of is, back in May 2019 or so, we had a case where a 9
brand-new radioactive material transfer canister was 10 being transferred to Vermont Yankee. It was in an 11 auto accident. It was in a rollover accident. There 12 was no radioactive materials involved. And it didn't 13 even occur at the site.
14 But, still, this was something that, 15 because it occurred, Vermont Yankee was required to 16 notify the NRC and they were required to notify me as 17 well. And this is something that getting all of the 18 information took several hours.
19 In the meantime, the State Police were 20 aware that this occurred because, hey, it was an auto 21 accident. Because it was an auto accident, and it 22 went out, I guess, on mobile scanners, whatever, 23 websites, whatever, we got press interest right away.
24 So, this is something it was a "No, never 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
51 mind" really. It was like, okay, it was a rollover 1
accident. We just make sure that the canister is 2
still usable. But, still, it was something that I 3
spent several hours working on, on a weekend, because, 4
you know, the information was out there. And the only 5
reason that I didn't spent much more time on it was 6
that I had prompt notifications.
7 So, please, keep the notifications as 8
prompt as they are. Echoing what Jeff Semancik said 9
every early on, the way the notification process is 10 set up, I don't see how this is overly burdensome to 11 any licensee at this point.
12 Thank you very much.
13 MR. TARTAL: Thank you for those remarks.
14 I still don't see anyone else with their 15 hand raised.
16 Again, we're largely in listening mode 17 here from the NRC's perspective. This is your 18 opportunity to tell us what you think and how you feel 19 about the proposal.
20 So, I have another taker from Mr.
21 Freebairn. You want a second?
22 You can unmute.
23 MR. FREEBAIRN: No. No, I don't. I don't 24 have anything.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
52 MR. TARTAL: Oh, sorry about that.
1 Well, seeing no other hands raised, Mr.
2 Slider from NEI, you wanted to wait until a number of 3
others got their chance to speak and come back to you.
4 Is this an appropriate time for you?
5 MR. SLIDER: It is, George, and I 6
appreciate you letting me go last. It has been very 7
helpful for me to hear the level of energy expressed 8
by the other commenters, as well as the content of 9
their remarks. I can appreciate how important these 10 notifications are to them and how much they want to 11 retain, want the NRC to retain the status quo.
12 When we submitted the petition in 2018, at 13 that time, the NRC was exploring, was in the early 14 stages of exploring transformation and was looking for 15 ways to ensure that the efforts put into reactor 16 operations and regulation were focused on the most 17 safety-significant items. And it was in that spirit 18 that we submitted the original petition, with the 19 understanding that this rule was originally founded 20 for the purpose of ensuring the plants timely notified 21 the NRC of items that were of potential safety 22 significance.
23 And it was our belief, based on the 40 24 years of experience since that rule was first 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
53 proposed, that the items that we were asking the 1
agency to eliminate from notification requirements, 2
prompt notification requirements, were insignificant 3
from a safety point of view. So, we were very much 4
grounded in the original intent of the rule. And I 5
would also note that at that time, in 1980, the NRC 6
did not have a website for posting of these 7
notifications.
8 And what I hear in the remarks expressed 9
today, and have seen in other comments on the 10 petition, is that a stakeholder group has developed 11 over the years that depends on these notices being 12 posted on the NRC website. And I can understand from 13 the energy that was expressed today how people have 14 found that to be very useful.
15 From our perspective, however, the rule is 16 grounded in the initial intent of the rule to ensure 17 NRC was timely notified of items of safety 18 significance, and that, potentially, required some 19 prompt NRC action. And when we have looked at the 20 records of NRC actions following these nonemergency 21 notifications over the last three years, we see that 22 it's relatively uncommon for there to be any evidence 23 in ADAMS of a prompt NRC followup to these 24 nonemergency notifications, which, from our point of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
54
- view, reinforces the perspective that these 1
nonemergency notifications are not -- they don't rise 2
to the level of safety significance that was 3
originally supposed when the rule was initially 4
developed.
5 That having been said, I very much 6
appreciate hearing the remarks from others who have 7
spoken today, and I am very grateful for hearing their 8
perspective.
9 So, we harken back to the original purpose 10 of the rule, and that was the context in which our 11 petition arose. There have been a number of detailed 12 remarks made today, and I can't even begin to address 13 all of them.
14 But I
- noted, particularly in Mr.
15 Leshinskie's remarks, he mentioned that in that 16 particular example of the rollover accident, that 17 there was both an NRC notification as well as, if I 18 heard him correctly, a notification directly to him 19 from the plant. And that's one of the pieces here 20 that has not been addressed explicitly.
21 And that is what the power plants 22 typically label as their good neighbor policy, where 23 they do make those courtesy calls to especially local 24 officials, but in some cases, also, state officials, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
55 to ensure that they maintain proper situational 1
awareness for state and local response, and so forth.
2 So, I would note that they do have that common 3
practice to reach out, regardless of what the NRC 4
notification process is.
5 The other critical thought I would add for 6
consideration is that we are not proposing to shift 7
burden to the Resident Inspectors. The reality of the 8
way the plants conduct business today is that, when 9
one of those potentially notifiable situations arises, 10 the plant staff, typically, besides handling whatever 11 that situation is, as soon as possible, they speak to 12 the Resident Inspectors and bring the Resident 13 Inspectors onboard with the circumstances that are 14 being addressed or evaluated, and so forth.
15 So, that begins a series of interactions 16 with the Residents that will proceed, in parallel with 17 the operations staff, addressing whatever that 18 emergent situation is. And our point in the petition 19 was that, given that the Residents are part of that 20 prompt communications protocol that the plants follow, 21 it seemed to us that it would be a simple matter for 22 that to be considered, notifying the NRC.
23 So, we begin that prompt involvement with 24 the Residents, and then, once the situation reaches 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 that point where the licensee feels that notification 1
is necessary in order to comply with the notification 2
requirements, that call to the NRC Operations Center 3
is, basically, a followup to a rich stream of 4
communications back and forth with the Residents, 5
sometimes with the NRC Regional Offices, and so forth.
6 So, it's a notice that follows rather than starts the 7
communications and interactions with the NRC. So, 8
that was our point.
9 And I would, respectfully, but very 10 strongly, disagree with Mr. Lyman's characterization 11 that the purpose of the petition was to hide industry 12 activities from the public. That's not at all the 13 case. And I would refer back to what I said a moment 14 ago regarding the courtesy notifications that are made 15 to state and local officials.
16 But no intent whatsoever to hide 17 notifications from the public, but simply to ask the 18 NRC to revisit the purpose of the rule, as we 19 understood it, and as we understand it today, and to 20 recalibrate the list of items that require prompt 21 notification of nonemergency events to reflect that 22 original intent of notifying the NRC of items that are 23 of safety significance, and so on.
24 So, that's my quick remarks on what I've 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
57 heard today. And I genuinely appreciate the remarks 1
of the other speakers. They're very helpful, and I 2
can appreciate the energy with which they spoke and 3
their sincerity and their desire to see the 4
notification requirements remain as is. I do 5
understand that.
6 And I would just say we are looking for a 7
rebalancing that reflects the 40 years of experience 8
since the notification requirements were first 9
promulgated.
10 I would also like to add that, in answer 11 to Mike King's remarks at the beginning, what we would 12 hope to bring to a December or early January second 13 meeting is additional information to paint a more 14 vivid picture for you on this question of the impact 15 of the decisionmaking process that precedes making the 16 formal notification.
17 Yes, as other speakers have said, we can 18 walk and chew gum at the same time, and we can do 19 these evaluations and manage the underlying events 20 safely. There's no question about that.
21 But, in this period in which we are all, 22 both NRC and industry are, striving to ensure a proper 23 balancing of focusing resources where they can do the 24 most good from a risk perspective, we think it's time 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
58 and timely to evaluate these notification requirements 1
and, as I said earlier, to fully understand what the 2
benefit of them is -- and we've heard some of that 3
today -- as well as the real-world impact that it has 4
on plant resources, and so forth. I think that's a 5
further conversation worth having, and we would like 6
to bring additional information on that to a second 7
public meeting.
8 And in addition, we would like to talk 9
further about the relationship between these 10 nonemergency notifications and subsequent NRC actions, 11 as I summarized a moment ago. And we are also 12 exploring the risk significance of the criteria that 13 trigger these nonemergency notifications, trying to 14 develop, from a risk practitioner's point of view, 15 what is the safety significance of the underlying 16 events.
17 And in addition, we'd like to address the 18 issue that has been spoken about in terms of what are 19 the unfortunate consequences of these nonemergency 20 notifications to the public. And that was the basis 21 for our earlier language about "contrary to the public 22 interest." And that is that, it is our view that some 23 of these nonemergency notifications unduly alarm the 24 public for what are, in fact, risk-insignificant 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
59 items. And we'd like to explore that further in a 1
December meeting with the NRC in a public setting.
2 MR. TARTAL: Okay. Mr. Slider, you're 3
over 10 minutes. If you could conclude, please?
4 MR. SLIDER: Thank you. I just did. So, 5
thank you very much for the opportunity, and I really 6
do appreciate what others have had to say and look 7
forward to continuing the discussion. Thank you.
8 MR. TARTAL: All right. Well, thank you 9
for those remarks.
10 At this time, I only see one more hand 11 being raised. This is about the time that I wanted to 12 take a short break, if we have a number of other 13 members of the public who are interested in providing 14 their remarks.
15 If you are interested in providing 16 remarks, either now or after a break, if we take a 17 break, then could you please raise your hand at this 18 time -- again, either using the "Raise Your Hand" 19 function on Teams or pressing *5 on your phone? So, 20 I can gauge how many more members of the public are 21 interested in speaking.
22 Thus far, I only have one more hand.
23 Okay. Well, I don't want too much dead 24 air here in this public meeting.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
60 Let's continue on with Mr. Semancik. You 1
have some followup remarks that you would like make.
2 And I think if we have no other members of 3
the public who would want to speak, we'll just go 4
through the rest of the slides at that time.
5 MR. SEMANCIK: Yes, I appreciate it. I 6
just want to follow up on one of the comments Mr.
7 Slider made.
8 He talked about the burden of making a 9
decision to report. I would just comment that it's 10 not a decision to report. It's a decision on whether 11 you meet a safety-significant criteria. In other 12 words, you're trying to decide whether you've lost 13 safety function. You're trying to decide whether 14 you're in an unanalyzed condition. You need to know 15 that. As soon as you know that, then the decision to 16 report is simple. So, I would just contend, for his 17 consideration, that, really, the decision you're 18 making is on whether you have a safety-significant 19 situation that needs to be corrected.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. TARTAL: Okay. Thank you.
22 And one more chance for members of the 23 public to raise your hand, if you want to make some 24 remarks.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
61 And seeing none, I think we'll continue on 1
with the presentation, and then, conclude.
2 So, Dan, if you could switch to slide 12, 3
please?
4 So, this slide talks about next steps in 5
the rulemaking process. You've heard we're developing 6
a Regulatory Basis Document and our current target for 7
publication of that Regulatory Basis Document is June 8
of 2022. We'll have a formal request for public 9
comments with a public meeting to describe the 10 regulatory basis and facilitate your providing public 11 comments on the document.
12 After receipt of the public comments on 13 the regulatory basis, and if the recommended option is 14 rulemaking, then the staff would develop a proposed 15 rule. Our current target for providing the proposed 16 rule to the Commission is April 2023. We would plan 17 to have one or more public meetings during the 18 development of the proposed rule and/or during the 19 public comment period. The public comment period 20 would happen after Commission approval of the proposed 21 rule and assuming that they approve.
22 After the public comment period on the 23 proposed rule, the staff would consider the public 24 comments in development of a final rule. Our current 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
62 target for providing the final rule to the Commission 1
is April 2024.
2 Note that these are estimated dates and 3
they may change as the project progresses.
4 Slide 13, please.
5 This slide shows you how to find more 6
information on this rulemaking. If you go to this 7
website, https://www.regulations.gov, and search for 8
Docket ID NRC-2020-0036, you'll find a number of 9
different documents, including Federal Register 10 notices, public meeting notices and summaries, public 11 comments, Commission papers, and more. You'll find 12 more information in here as the rulemaking progresses.
13 So, I encourage you to check back occasionally for 14 updates.
15 And also note that, if you're looking for 16 information on the Petition for Rulemaking that 17 initiated this rulemaking, you should search for 18 PRM-50-116. Those are two separate dockets in 19 regulations.gov.
20 Slide 14, please.
21 This slide contains a list of references 22 to documents that are relevant to this rulemaking.
23 You'll see here the PRM, the Commission papers, the 24 FRN Closure Notice, guidance documents, and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
63 regulation. We've added these in this slide for your 1
convenience.
2 Slide 15, please.
3 And as we do with all public meetings, 4
we're going to ask you to tell us how we did. On this 5
slide, you see the QR code you could use to get to the 6
public meeting feedback form. You can also find the 7
form on the meeting notice at the meeting details 8
page. You can access it and submit it at your 9
convenience, and thank you in advance.
10 Slide 16, please.
11 This final slide is a set of acronyms that 12 were used throughout the slides for your convenience 13 as well.
14 And that's the end of our prepared slides 15 for this public meeting.
16 Dan you can stop presenting now.
17 And I'd like to say thank you to all of 18 those who attended today, including members of the 19 public and the NRC staff and management.
20 And a special shoutout to Dan Doyle who's 21 been working the meeting behind the scenes. Thanks, 22 Dan.
23 And as a second reminder for those who are 24 participating by phone line, please send an email to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
64 me at george.tartal@nrc.gov. That's G-E-O-R-G-E, dot, 1
T-A-R-T-A-L @nrc.gov. So, we can include your name 2
and business affiliation, as applicable, in the 3
meeting summary. You can also find my email address 4
in the meeting notice.
5 And before we adjourn, Lisa Regner has 6
some final remarks.
7 Lisa?
8 MS. REGNER: Thank you, George.
9 I do want to express my thanks --
10 actually, before we continue, I see that Mr. Slider's 11 hand is back up.
12 Mr. Slider, did you want to provide any 13 concluding remarks?
14 MR. SLIDER: Yes, just a request. Lisa, 15 I didn't see Mr. Semancik's slides in the meeting page 16 on the website. I just want to ask if you could put 17 them up. I'd appreciate it.
18 MS. REGNER: Yes, sir. Those will be 19 referenced in our meeting summary that both George and 20 Dan talked about, yes.
21 So, again, thank you to those that 22 attended and those that provided feedback.
23 The information that we received today is 24 exactly what we're looking for. You provided well-25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 reasoned and strong arguments, and you provided 1
several ideas today that the working group will 2
consider.
3 Also, we heard you request for additional 4
outreach efforts to consider data that NEI, the 5
Nuclear Energy Institute, is gathering, and we'll take 6
an action to consider your request.
7
- Mike, would you like to make any 8
concluding remarks?
9 MR. KING: No. I just wanted to echo your 10 comments. This is an important part of any rulemaking 11 effort. So, appreciate your candid thoughts on how 12 the things being considered would impact you. Some 13 really good remarks there. We'll definitely take 14 those for consideration.
15 And we have an IOU to consider a followup 16 discussion in December. So, we're going to follow up 17 after this meeting here and talk about that meeting in 18 December and potential impacts to the schedule. We 19 shared with you the timeline is a bit tight. I think 20 June is the original goal for getting the draft reg 21 basis. So, introducing another opportunity for public 22 engagement could potentially impact that. So, we need 23 to regroup and understand what that would look like.
24 But it is very important to us to ensure 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 we're having thoughtful and transparent engagement all 1
along the way here. So, I'm confident we can work a 2
December opportunity in for a followup meeting, but 3
we'll confirm that and get back, and make sure we 4
appropriately notice the meeting, if it occurs.
5 So, that's it. Thanks, everybody.
6 MS. REGNER: Dan, did you want to conclude 7
the meeting? Do you want me to or are we --
8 MR. DOYLE: I didn't have anything else.
9 MS. REGNER: Okay.
10 MR. DOYLE: So, no. Any other closing 11 remarks that you have. Thank you.
12 MS. REGNER: Thank you, everyone. Have a 13 wonderful evening.
14 (Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the meeting was 15 concluded.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com