ML21341B452
| ML21341B452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/2021 |
| From: | George Tartal NRC/NMSS/DREFS/MRPB |
| To: | |
| Tartal G | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21341B449 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2020-0036, RIN 3150-AK71 | |
| Download: ML21341B452 (7) | |
Text
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting Summary
Title:
Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants Rulemaking Meeting Identifier: 20211342 Date of Meeting: November 4, 2021 Location: Webinar Type of Meeting: Comment-Gathering Category Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting was to engage with the public regarding the issues to consider during the development of the Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants rulemaking.
General Details: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted an online public meeting on November 4, 2021, to discuss issues related to the development of a regulatory basis for the Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants rulemaking. The meeting started at 2:00 p.m. ET and concluded at 3:30 p.m. ET. There were approximately 100 participants, including NRC staff and management, congressional staff, State representatives, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear power industry, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and other members of the public.
Dan Doyle from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) started the meeting by welcoming all attendees and describing the meeting logistics. George Tartal from NMSS then provided a quick overview of the agenda and stated that the purpose for the meeting was to provide an opportunity for members of the public to express their views on the topic and any other insights. Mike King from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) provided opening remarks for the meeting, welcoming attendees, and describing the NRCs goal of risk-informing its regulations and minimizing regulatory burden, while also providing transparency in its rulemaking process by conducting public meetings and listening to public input. Mr. King also stated that the staff plans to request public comments on the draft regulatory basis in spring or summer of 2022. Mr. King noted a previous request for a follow-up meeting, perhaps in December 2021.
Lisa Regner from NRR presented background on the history of nonemergency event notification regulations and the related petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by NEI. Mr. Tartal described the status of the rulemaking activity by describing the purpose of a regulatory basis document. Mr. Tartal then provided a brief overview of the rulemaking process, including the several opportunities for public participation throughout the process. Ms. Regner presented seven questions as topics for discussion, which covered how organizations use event notifications, what is burdensome about event notifications, and whether other alternatives such as changing timing requirements or guidance could potentially resolve the petition concerns.
Eight attendees presented feedback on the presented material: Jeff Semancik of the State of Connecticut; Alyse Peterson from the State of New York; Tom Price of Environmental Review, Inc.; Brian Magnuson; Ed Lyman of UCS; William Freebairn of Platts; Anthony Leshinskie of the State of Vermont; and James Slider of NEI.
Public Participation Themes:
States:
Mr. Semancik, Ms. Peterson, and Mr. Leshinskie each provided the views of their respective States on the need to retain the requirements for nonemergency event notifications. They stated that States share a vested interest in ensuring the health and safety of the public and protection of the environment. They added that these notifications are important and of great interest to States, as they provide notification of potentially risk-significant information that can inform offsite officials. These events are an important part of a State liaisons duties, and any changes to these requirements make the liaison job more difficult. States need to be informed about issues that may affect public health and safety or the environment or that may inform decision making, should a subsequent emergency event occur. This is especially true with an incident that affects system reliability, plant emergency core cooling systems, reactor protection systems, or public safety in any way. Without such notifications, States would not have the opportunity to take offsite actions or meaningfully engage with the NRC. The State representatives added that the timeliness of these notifications is important, and that waiting 60 days for a license event report is unacceptable and denies the States of the opportunity to take actions they deem prudent. States also added that because these represent rare events, that reporting does not represent a cumulative burden, but rather is a nuclear safety obligation.
Such notifications can result in increased public confidence. Any change to these requirements requires close scrutiny. Ms. Peterson added that the NRC staff should consider including additional notification requirements for events such as physical and cybersecurity and other new threats that were not considered previously.
Non-Governmental Organizations:
Dr. Lyman of UCS agreed with the comments from prior speakers during the meeting. He added that the PRM should have been denied, and that there is no compelling reason to go forward with this action. Dr. Lyman stated UCS uses the event notification on a daily basis. He agrees that nonemergency events can have potentially significant safety consequences and that the members of the public in the vicinity of those plants should be aware. Dr. Lyman shares these notices on social media and sees significant public interest in the information. Anything of relevance to public health and safety should be reported in a timely way, and members of the public can then make their own decisions about how significant these events are and respond accordingly.
Other Members of the Public:
Mr. Price stated that NEI failed to present a cost-benefit analysis to support the assertion in its PRM that there would be cost savings to consumers of energy. Mr. Price also stated that he would be particularly concerned if the NRC no longer required notifications related to health and safety of the public or onsite personnel, protection of the environment, onsite fatalities, or release of radioactive materials. These public notifications are important and should continue.
He added that the NRC should not delay these notifications to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (rather than the current reporting time requirement).
Mr. Magnuson opposes changing the reporting requirements. He stated that the assertion that these nonemergency notifications distract key plant staff appears misleading at best. If such a 4-or 8-hour notification for a nonemergency event is distracting, what assurances are there that the licensee can make a 1-hour notification for an emergency event? This is a contradiction.
The proposal is contrary to the principles of good regulation and to the stated purpose of the regulation.
Mr. Freebairn, a journalist in the nuclear business, looks at these event reports daily in trying to cover nuclear news responsibly. These reports provide useful, important information that they publish on their website and in subscriber publications.
Nuclear Industry:
Mr. Slider of NEI stated he appreciated the content of others remarks, including how important these notifications are to them and the opinions to retain the requirements. He added that the PRM was submitted in the spirit of transformation and focusing on the most safety-significant items. He also added that the rule was promulgated for the purpose of timely notification of items that were of potential safety significance, and that based on the 40 years of experience since that time, prompt notification of the nonemergency events is insignificant from a safety point of view. Mr. Slider stated that over the last 3 years, it appears to be relatively uncommon for any prompt NRC follow-up to nonemergency event notifications, which reinforces the perspective that they do not rise to the level of safety-significance assumed in the initial development of the rule. Mr. Slider also added that it is common practice for licensees to reach out to State and local representatives regardless of the NRC process. He stated that NEI is not proposing to shift burden to resident inspectors. Rather, it is common practice for plant staff to reach out to resident inspectors to apprise them of the situation in parallel with the process of formal NRC notification, if required. In some cases, the licensee will communicate with the resident inspectors, as well as NRC regional office staff.
Mr. Slider then addressed earlier remarks regarding a near-future follow-up public meeting. He proposed further discourse on the following topics:
the impact of the decision-making process that precedes formal NRC notification the relationship between nonemergency event notification and subsequent NRC actions the unfortunate consequences of nonemergency notification to the public by unduly alarming the public for risk-insignificant items Next Steps:
The NRC plans to issue a draft regulatory basis document for comment in June 2022. The staff also noted that the NRC will consider the request for a near-term follow-up meeting.
Attachments:
11/04/2021 Public Meeting Notice - Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking on Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants, October 15, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21288A427) 11/04/2021 - NRC Presentation for Public Meeting Re: Reporting Requirements for 10 CFR 50.72(b) Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants, November 4, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21295A293) 11/04/2021 - Public Meeting Presentation from Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Committee on Commercial Nuclear Power Comments on Proposed Rulemaking, Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants, November 4, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21307A101)
Transcript of 11/04/2021 Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking on Reporting Requirements for Nonemergency Events at Nuclear Power Plants December 7, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21341B451)
ML21341B452 (Meeting Summary) ML21341B449 (Package)
OFFICE NMSS/REFS/MRPB/PM NMSS/REFS/MRPB/RS NMSS/REFS/RRPB/BC NRR/DRO/IOEB/BC NAME GTartal LRonewicz IBerrios LRegner DATE 12/07/2021 12/07/2021 12/09/2021 12/13/2021 Enclosure MEETING ATTENDANCE PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONEMERGENCY EVENTS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WEBINAR NOVEMBER 4, 2021, 2:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. (Eastern Time)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jo Ambrosini Victoria Mitlyng James Anderson Sara Mroz Howard Benowitz Caty Nolan Peter Boguszewski John Pelchat Scott Burnell Jenifer Phyllis Mat Burton Bo Pham Caroline Carusone Christopher Regan Daniel Collins Lisa Regner David Cullison Eric Schrader Dan Doyle Christian Scott Dawn Forder Diane Screnci Russell Felts Muzammil Siddiqui James Gaslevic Rebecca Sigmon Antonio Gomez Micheal Smith John Grasso Chris Speer John Hughey Andrew Siwy Phyllis Jenifer John Tappert Catherine Kanatas George Tartal Mike King Shakur Walker Paul Laflamme Doug Tifft Bill Maier Jenny Weil Philip McKenna Public Name Affiliation (if provided)
DA Adams Patrick Joseph Asendorf Ernest F. Bates Jerry Bingaman Patrick Blake DPS Danielyn Bock Stephen J. Burdick Steve Catron Allegra Chilstrom Neal R. Gross & co. (Court Reporter)
Caleb Cobb Sen. Cornyn Charlene N. Chotalal DEV Generation - 3 John Conly Certrec Corporation Phil Couture Luis Falcon Havillyn Felder William Freebairn Bridget Frymire DPS Adam Goodman David M. Gullott Exelon Nuclear Clarence Gum Dominion Energy Services William Jeffries Anthony Leshinskie Vermont PSD Edwin Lyman Brian Magnuson Nicholas Malatesta Hassan Neil Moseman Martin C. Murphy Xcel Energy Mary Owen CRUZ Hannah E. Pell Gary Peters FRA-CORP Alyse L. Peterson NYSERDA Tom Price Stephenie Pyle Deann Raleigh Tim Riti Kate Rohrer Coons Brad Schexnayder Jeff Seiter Entergy Regulatory Assurance Jeffrey Semancik Geri Shapiro Carlos Sisco Winston & Strawn LLP James Slider NEI Grace VanDeGrift Jessica Walker Roger C. Wink Tony Zimmerman Jason C. Zorn Exelon Nuclear Note: Attendance list based on Microsoft Teams participant list. This list does not include individuals who did not provide their last name either in registering for the meeting or by a follow-up email.