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