ML22201A017
| ML22201A017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/2022 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Joseph, Stacy | |
| References | |
| NRC-2005, NRC-2020-0034 | |
| Download: ML22201A017 (49) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking on Increased Enrichment of Conventional and Accident Tolerant Fuel Designs for Light-water Reactors (Corrected)
Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-2005 Pages 1-45 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 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 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON INCREASED ENRICHMENT OF CONVENTIONAL AND ACCIDENT TOLERANT FUEL DESIGNS FOR LIGHT-WATER REACTORS
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY JUNE 22, 2022
+ + + + +
The Public Meeting met via Video Teleconference, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, Daniel Mussatti, Facilitator, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT DANIEL MUSSATTI, Facilitator JOSEPH DONOGHUE, NRR/DMLR JACKIE HARVEY, NRR/DORL KEVIN HELLER, NRR/DSS STACY JOSEPH, NMSS BO PHAM, NRR/DORL JASON PIOTTER, NMSS FRED SCHOFER
2 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 ALSO PRESENT JAN BOUDART, Nuclear Energy Information Service ALADAR "AL" CSONTOS, NEI ED LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists SCOTT MURRAY, GE Hitachi LON PAULSON, GE Hitachi FRED SMITH, Electric Power Research Institute
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1:00 p.m.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Dan Mussatti, and Im your facilitator for the day. Before we get started, please check to make sure that your phone --
microphone is on mute, please and thank you.
Now I would like to introduce you to Bo Pham, the Director of the Division of Operating Reactors and Licensing, DORL, and the Office of New Reactor Regulation, NRR.
He joined the U.S. NRC Regulatory --
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002 and has held a number of positions in NRC, including Licensing Project Manager, several branch chief positions, and most recently Deputy Director for the Division of Decommissioning Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.
Mr. Pham served as a submarine officer in the United States Navy and has degrees from the U.S.
Naval Academy and the University of Maryland.
Bo, are you there?
MR. PHAM: Yes. Can everybody hear me?
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. MUSSATTI: I can hear you fine.
MR. PHAM: All right, thank you, Dan. And welcome, everyone. As Dan said, my name is Bo Pham.
As the Director of the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, I thank you for your participation in this public meeting, which is intended to gain feedback and insights on the rulemaking to address use of fuel-enriched above 5.0 weight percent uranium-235.
As many of you may know, this is part of the broader (audio interference) effort of the NRC to be prepared to license accident tolerant fuel technologies, including increased enrichment and higher burnup fuel technologies.
This meeting here today is specifically focused on discussing the potential need for rules and regulations for one of those specific areas, and thus the use of increased enriched fuel.
As we proceed with the meeting this afternoon, Im sure that there will be statements or reference to the broader effort about ATF. To help you be more familiar with that, please take a look at our public website, which has additional information on the NRCs plans and activities contained in the ATF project plan.
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com With the industrys increased interest in use of this fuel technology, NRC staff is assessing rulemaking as a possible alternative to the use of exemptions for licensing the use of increased enriched fuel. While the current regulatory framework does allow for such exemptions, pursuing rulemaking could potentially allow for increased efficiency in the licensing process.
An important part of the rulemaking process is external stakeholder engagement through public meetings and comment periods, and todays meeting is one of many interactions with stakeholders, including federal agencies and the public when the --
where the NRC staff is seeking feedback on our efforts to develop the specific.
Whats that? I ask those not speaking to mute, and I thank you all again for being here. I look forward to hearing your comments today.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, thank you, Bo. As facilitator, I want to welcome you to this public meeting of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This is a comment-gathering meeting to report on the use of increased enrichment of conventional and accident tolerant fuels designs for light-water
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com reactors.
Comment-gathering meetings are designed to accommodate technical exchanges -- what happened here?
Accommodate technical exchanges and comments from stakeholders and the public related to a specific topic. There will be two presentations, the first from the NRC and the second from the Nuclear Energy Institute.
We have allocated time at the end of the presentations for group discussions and for the public to ask questions. Next slide, please.
Id like to take a few minutes to introduce a few staff members who are here with me today. In addition to Bo Pham, we also have from DORL Jackie Harvey and Daniel King. The technical leads from the Division of Safety Systems are Charlie Peabody and Kevin Heller. And the Division of Fuel Management lead is Jason Piotter. Stacy Joseph is the Project Manager for this rulemaking effort.
My role is to help ensure that this meeting is informative, productive, on-topic, and on time. Of these four tasks, the most important is keeping the meeting on topic.
We have a lot to do and only a short time
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to do it. If you planned on speaking to something other than the use of increased enrichment on conventional and accident tolerant fuel designs, please hold those comments for a more appropriate venue.
Most of us have participated in many public meetings, but some things have changed. So to make sure everyone knows how our -- how our meeting process has changed, Id like to go over some housekeeping items before we get started.
In case of a fire or any other emergency, your route is through the meeting room door. Turn right and take the stairs to the first floor, where you will proceed outside and gather for a roll call to ensure we have left no one behind. Well gather by Rockville Pike, the big six-lane highway right out in front of the building.
To make that work, please make sure you have filled out the sign-in sheet by the door, especially if you are a non-NRC participant.
If you need to use the restrooms, theyre on the window side of the elevator bay, men on the left and womens on the right as you face the windows.
This meeting is also being provided to
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com external participants via Teams. Most of you will be listening in through Teams, but if you are listening in through our NRC campus -- with -- through our private phone lines on the NRC campus, you will be attending live, but you will not be able to make your comments for the record because we do not have any sort of an operator to be able to handle your discussions and to provide management for the queue of people.
But Teams has a wonderful process for chats, and if you provide us a public question through the chat function, well be able to take advantage of a lull in the public speakers towards the end of this to be able to ask some of those additional questions.
We have a court reporter transcribing this meeting. His name is Troy Ray. So if youll be speaking today, be sure to speak slowly, clearly, and directly into your telephone or microphone, starting with your name and affiliation, even if you have spoken before.
As much as possible, please minimize any background noise, such as pets and children, while you are speaking on the record. And again, when you are not on the record, please mute your microphones.
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com We want to ensure everyone who wants to speak gets a chance to speak, so please make your comments as brief as possible, say, no more than maybe two or three minutes. Lets stay on topic, and please, one speaker at a time.
Finally, our opinions may differ, but we are all colleagues here, so lets invoke the Aretha Franklin rule and have a little respect for our fellow participants.
Do you have any questions for me? If you do, at the top of the Teams feature youll see a reactions with a picture of a guy with his hand raised. You can click on that and let me know that you would like to speak a few words.
All right, sensing none, lets get started. We will start with Stacy Joseph. Shes a Project Manager leading this rulemaking effort for the NRC and will be our first presenter of the day.
Stacy.
MS. JOSEPH: Thanks, Dan. The purpose of todays meeting is to engage with the members of the public on the regulatory issues associated with the rulemaking on the use of fuel enriched to greater than 5.0 weight percent U-235.
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the rulemaking plan described in SECY 21-0109, Rulemaking plan on the use of increased enrichment of conventional and accident tolerant fuel designs for light-water reactors and the Commissions response to that plan.
Finally, well provide an update on the rulemaking schedule and conduct an open discussion on specific topics identified by the staff and any additional topics that are of stakeholder interest specific to this rulemaking.
Although we intend to have an open dialog, please note that the NRC will not make any regulatory commitments during this meeting. Additionally, were currently in the evaluation phase of this rulemaking, known as the regulatory basis, and will not be discussing any pre-decisional information. Next slide, please.
All right, well roll now into the staffs presentation and discuss the rulemaking process and the status of the rulemaking.
This slide, were on slide 8, I believe, shows our typical rulemaking process. Rulemaking is how the NRC develops its regulations. We are in the
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com second box, denoted by a star, where our current task is to develop the regulator basis. Ill go into a bit more detail on the contents of a regulatory basis on the next slide.
The staff laid out a plan to evaluate regulations and guidance affected by a change in enrichment limit, and right now were working on identifying those regulations and preparing the regulatory basis for revision -- for those revisions.
After we develop and publish the regulatory basis, there will be a 75-day public comment period. The written comments that we receive during that comment period will go on the docket for the rule.
The next two major steps are the publication of the proposed rule and the publication of the final rule. In the proposed rule, well include a summary of the stakeholder interactions, comments, and key messages that we receive from the public on the regulatory basis.
Well continue to provide opportunities for public comment during this process. Upon publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, youll have an opportunity to review the
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com proposed rule and provide your written comments to the NRC. We expect to hold a public meeting during that public comment period as well. Next slide.
The NRC requires a regulatory basis for most of its rulemakings, and in order to ensure sound and informed decisionmaking throughout the rulemaking process. Regulatory basis documents the options to address the regulatory issue and provides a
justification for why the staff-recommended option is the best way to resolve the regulatory issue.
Some of the options may include maintaining the status quo, revising regulations via rulemaking, or just revising guidance for example.
The regulatory basis also describes the technical, legal, and/or policy information that would support the content of the rule.
The regulatory basis will include a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the staff-recommended alternative and any other alternatives identified by the staff.
Dan, back to you. Next slide, please.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, thank you, Stacy. Our next speaker is Jackie Harvey, the DORL lead on this project.
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Jackie, can you hear me?
MS. HARVEY: I can hear you. Can you hear me?
MR. MUSSATTI: I can hear you.
MS. HARVEY: All right, well, thanks, Dan.
Now that weve provided an overview of the rulemaking process, lets discuss how we got here with regard to this rulemaking.
Throughout the last few years, staff has seen an increased interest from industry for use of fuel enriched above 5.0 weight percent U-235. The NRC noted that although the current regulatory framework allows for licensing of fuel above 5.0 weight percent U-235, the use of this fuel may result in numerous exemption requests from licensees. And this is currently what the staff is defining as the regulatory issue to address.
So, as a proposed solution, NRC staff began pursuing rulemaking as an option to provide a standard communication informed by public input rather licensing by individual exemptions. And in December of last year, the (audio interference) provided to the Commission SECY 21-0109, requesting permission to begin this rulemaking process. Next slide.
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And in March of this year, the Commission granted permission to begin the rulemaking process, as described in the staff requirements memorandum, or SRM, for SECY 21-0109.
The purpose of this rulemaking effort is to provide a comprehensive review of regulations and guidance that may specify or assume a specific enrichment limit to assess if those would be impacted by the use of fuel enriched above 5.0 weight percent.
The Commission also specified several considerations to evaluate in addition to what was requested in the rulemaking plan. These are shown here on the slide. So specifically, our rulemaking should apply to fuel enriched up to 20 weight percent, for HALEU.
But staff should address fuel fragmentation, relocation, and dispersal and take a risk-informed approach.
We should also engage stakeholders to develop regulatory guidance and should evaluate to see if our schedule can be expedited by leveraging ongoing efforts.
So really, the takeaway here is that the staff was given to start this comprehensive evaluation of regulations and guidance as detailed in the SRM to
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com determine the best option to address the regulatory issue. Next slide.
So going forward, the staff will finalize and issue the regulatory basis for public comments.
This is planned for 75 days. as Stacy mentioned, we also plan to hold a public meeting approximately 30 days after the comment period. And then in order to be more efficient with our review, the staff will address the public comments when we draft the proposed rule.
The staff plans to issue the regulatory basis for comment in September of next year. However, I would like to highlight that throughout this entire process we are continuing to look for opportunities to potentially expedite the schedule.
The proposed rule is expected to be issued for public comment no later than March 25, 2025 --
sorry, March 2025. And the final rule is expected to be with the Commission June in 2026.
And with that, back to you, Dan, and the next slide.
MR. MUSSATTI: Well, thank you for that.
At this time, well have our last presenter. That would be Aladar Csontos from the Nuclear Energy
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Institute. After Aladars presentation, we will have a short break, and then well start taking comments from the audience.
Aladar.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes, so this is Al Csontos, NEI Fuel Director for leading the ATF higher enriched higher burnup topic. So lets go to the next slide.
This is a video, so if you can click it one more time.
Historically over time, the U.S. industry has improved efficiency with its fuel utilization --
you have to hit the bottom left, yeah. So this is a video showing the improved efficiencies over time.
MS. HARVEY: I apologize. We absolutely tested this before hand, so its a little awkward. If you -- Al, if you -- maybe if you could keep talking, well stop sharing and reopen the document.
MR. CSONTOS: Okay.
MS. HARVEY: And go from there.
MR. CSONTOS: So yeah, basically what we wanted to show there was that this is a video of 1968 to 2013 fuel utilization, meaning enrichment and burnup and what the utilities around the country have used. And what you see there is that theres a trend for the fuel utilization where theres been efficiency
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com gains over time.
And we have reached a limit now in the 5.0 percent enrichment and going up to the 62, and youll see that --oh, there it is.
MS. HARVEY: Sharing.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes. So but you can loop it if you want though, so if people missed it. But as you can see, were seeing the blue is the current and red is the past, and youre seeing the current meeting of the year thats up there.
Yes?
MR. MUSSATTI: Al, I dont think were seeing your screen. There you go, now its up.
MR. CSONTOS: Okay, well go ahead and loop it again. But as you can see there, as you get to 2013, you can see more and more blue dots, more and more red dots going closer to the 5.0 percent enrichment limit, okay.
And what thats showing is that, you know, in the industry the trends for fuel utilization efficiency gains with increasing enrichment up to the allowed 5.0 percent limit, okay. So you want to loop it again? Or okay. Lets restart it, yeah. So you can see again.
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And so although this video shows that theres a correlation between enrichment and burnup, we really to make a case that this rulemaking should be solely based on the enrichments above 5.0 percent, okay. Meaning that burnups are usually taken care of in vendor topicals and also license -- site-specific license amendment request.
So in that way, those -- the higher burnup issues in FFRD should be addressed in those areas like we normally we. But the rulemaking should be focused in on solely on the -- greater than 5.0 percent enrichment, okay. We shouldnt conflate ATF higher burnup with higher enrichment. Thats what were trying to say, okay.
The rulemaking that we see here will reduce the number of exemptions to the current rules and improve regulatory efficiencies, clarity, and predictability with regards to what is needed for licensing enrichments greater than 5.0 percent.
So okay, so we can go -- were good there?
You want to go? So this is to show as Bos started off the discussion today about the ATF higher enrichment, higher burnup strategic aspirations of the U.S. industry, one of the -- and I highlighted the
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com bullet here.
One of the key strategic aspirations that we have in the industry for this -- this topic is that, one, we have the, also the same thing where were trying to support the rulemaking for greater than 5.0 enrichment.
One of the key aspirations, strategic aspirations, is to achieve the fuel licensing infrastructure to support burnup and enrichment extensions beyond legacy limits in the mid 2020s, okay. Now, again, lets not conflate higher burnup with higher enrichment. Higher enrichment stands alone as well as with ATF. Just higher enrichments stand alone.
And so let me -- okay, and that was the key issue, key point for that one. Next slide. Okay, so rule -- this rulemaking is needed to reduce the number of future exemptions to current rule and provide the expectations for the data, codes, and methods needed for licensing greater than 5.0 percent enrichment.
This rulemaking would improve, like I said before, the regulatory efficiencies, clarity, and predictability when it comes to licensing the LEU,
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com plus greater than 5.0 percent enrichment.
Now, we believe the industry request that the rulemaking be extended to limits up to 20%. Since the advance reactor concepts out there will also be licensed with enrichments to 19.75 or 20% depending upon the, you know, what the uncertainty that you have there.
And some of the light-water reactor fuel concepts that have been proposed also are using enrichments up to 20%, okay. So we propose to go and extend to the enrichment limit to, for the rulemaking, to the maximum 20%.
Industry also -- lets see here. Although the current ATF LEU-plus and higher burnup industry initiative is expected to be less than 10% enrichments levels, the still that we -- we still recommend going to the 20%, okay.
And we also believe that the current licensing activities for ATF, LEU-plus, LTAs that are underway right now -- we had two public meetings on that recently since May. We believe that that provides a
excellent opportunity for gaining operational experience for the proposed rulemaking, okay.
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com The proposed 2026 schedule also meets --
it shouldnt impact our current licensing of those ATF, LEU-plus, LTA submittals. But also, the proposed schedule, the June 2026 schedule that you have there, supports the future batch reload quantities, you know, activities that were looking for to meet our strategic objectives and aspirations. So the timeline is a good one for us.
So next slide. This is slide -- yeah, 5.
So I brought this up before, we really want to have the rule provide better regulatory clarity and efficiencies, not be prescriptive to one technology, okay. And thats another big, big comment here, is that we want to allow for additional fuel innovations, especially light-water reactor and others, okay.
We do not want to limit the enrichment limits to a mid-tier limit, but we want to go directly to 20%. We also want it to be technology and fuel-form neutral, okay. Thats a big one because there are many different concepts that are out there.
This fuel innovation is ongoing. And so metallic fuels, UO2, dopings, things along those lines that go in the future. We want this, the rule, to be more technology neutral, okay.
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com A great example right now is 10 CFR Part
- 71. That is an example regulation that provides the -
- that type of consideration. Okay, being fuel -- in that case, just being form-neutral. You have a variety of different materials that are being licensed for transportation today. And so, but the issue there is still K effect, it has to equal a certain amount, okay.
So and that is a great example of where a proposed rule could, I think, leverage off of. So two things. I think the current LTA submittals the activity thats going on there for the licensing, as well as Part 71, are great data points for your future rulemaking.
So again, you know, I think that we have an opportunity here to really enhance the regulatory efficiencies across the board. This could also be, you know, looking at it holistically. When you have this opportunity now to look at this rulemaking and make it so that you can get other efficiencies beyond just what were talking about here with more than 20%
enrichment.
You know, there may be ways to code methods as well and data needs that could be there to
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com help us get those efficiencies. Knowing that ahead of time would be very helpful. Okay, next slide.
So this slide is also talking about the advanced reactors, okay. And so we met with the advanced reactors folks. And again, here, the same thing. The new rule really needs to be set to 20%,
okay. There are advanced reactors that will be using enrichments up to 20%, maybe 19.75 based on the -- on the uncertainty.
But again, those fuel forms are very different as well. And so in this case, having a technology-neutral rulemaking that can be like Part 71 can then lead to this kind of fuel innovation thats across the whole spectrum from existing light-water reactors all the way to advanced reactors.
One other thing we just want to point out, that some of the requirements in 10 CFR 50.68 specifically to storage racks, borated water, 5.0 percent enrichment, those are all focused in on the UO2 zirc system and the current LWR system. And so that one in particular, the future for advanced reactors out
- there, were looking at storage configurations, storage designs that are very different than the current spent fuel pools.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So just wanted a little bit of a word on that one specifically, that there are going to be changes, you know, thats one of the areas that you probably need to look at.
So with that Ill take questions.
MR. MUSSATTI: No, were going to take questions after the break, Al. Lets look at the room here.
MS. HARVEY: No, actually, Dan, so it looks like were a little bit ahead of schedule. What do you think about kind of a last-minute change here and just we could start rolling into questions if youre all right with that.
MR. MUSSATTI: I have no problem with that. This is your meeting. All Im here to do is make sure we stay on time and on topic.
MS. HARVEY: All right, appreciate it.
MR. MUSSATTI: So do we have any questions?
MR. DONOGHUE: Al, on your video, what was each data point there? Was that like a reload, or?
MR. CSONTOS: That was, individual, yes.
Those were the individual reloads. In terms of the --
yeah the enrichment limits and what was in place at
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the time.
MR. DONOGHUE: And then -- and then, you know, asking us to consider up to 20% and all the wide range of -- theres a possible cost in time and effort related to threshold. Not that were going to try address it here. But I think in the state that its -
MS. HARVEY: Hey, Joe, can you introduce yourself since youre talking.
MR. DONOGHUE: Joe Donoghue.
MR. MUSSATTI: Ray, have you -- youre flapping your hands. Can you hear us, can you hear whats going on? Yes, you can hear us.
MS. JOSEPH: He wants introductions.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, I just wanted to make, because you looked like you were in distress there, and we really dont want you to be in distress because youre taking the official record here.
MS. JOSEPH: Just a reminder, speakers, to introduce yourself before you speak.
MR. MUSSATTI: Thank you very much.
MR. DONOGHUE: My apologies, Troy. Joe Donoghue from the NRC. And just making the point that, you know, that the more ground we try to cover
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with the rulemaking, complicated things get, right.
MR. CSONTOS: We understand.
MR. DONOGHUE: Yes. And its one of those where the efficiencies here, if -- we would have to be back here again for another rulemaking, you know, if we wanted -- you know, mid-term. So its more forward efficiencies that can -- might as well get it all done at one time rather than piecemeal it.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, thank you. For everybody else thats listening in, please remember if you would like to speak, the process is, is to go to the top of the Teams bar where you see the hand-raising tool and raise your hand so that I know that you want to speak and I can introduce you.
MR. HELLER: So if I could ask a question.
Im Kevin Heller, Im within the Division of Safety Systems in the Nuclear Methods and Fuel Analysis Branch.
Al, I had a quick clarification question on one of your points in the presentation. You made a statement along the lines of knowing data needs ahead of time would be helpful. But I wasnt able to capture the context of that particular statement. Can you go over that again?
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. CSONTOS: Well, as part of your regulatory basis developed, it would be nice to hear about what are the expected data needs to, lets say for example if you want to go and validate new, you
- know, methods, codes and
- methods, to higher enrichments. Those are the types of things we would like to know ahead of time so that we can get our folks, you know, our work going as well on that.
So having those types of data needs or data requests type of, you know, while youre doing a rulemaking would be very helpful for us to get that information in parallel while youre doing your work.
MR. HELLER: Is that in anticipation of demonstrating compliance with a new rule, or in the development, in support of the development of the new rule?
MR. CSONTOS: As were looking at the time tables for the ATF, LEU-plus, LTAs, and you take a look at the dates that were looking at putting in, you know, potentially reload batches, we really need to know this ahead of time so that we can get our ducks in a row to support those types of submittals going forward.
MR; HELLER: So in other words, if we were
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to decide that a change to the regulatory framework is appropriate, that you would like to be in a position to hit the ground running as soon as that rule is published, okay.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes.
MR. HELLER: Thanks.
MS. HARVEY: Not necessarily a question but a comment. And this is Jackie Harvey, one of the DORL leads for this. Just so Al, you made a specific comment about 50.68.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes.
MS. HARVEY: And you know, the purpose of this meeting is to bring up those specific regulations and guidance documents, so I really, you know, I appreciate that and encourage you if you have other specific regulations --
MR. CSONTOS: Sure.
MS. HARVEY: And other participants as well, please dont -- please, thats the purpose of this meeting. So yeah, feel free to bring those up.
MR. CSONTOS: Yes, 50.68 was one that was identified specifically for the advanced reactors and you know, it has a role. I mean, obviously it has a hard 5.0 percent limit in it. So thats for the
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com existing light-water reactor fleet going to LEU-plus would also need that to be rectified.
But specifically, when it comes to the advanced reactors, the storage configurations or designs are very different than a traditional spent fuel pool. And when you take a look at that, if there could be some way to look -- make that technology-neutral and not be so prescriptive in 50.68 as it is today, thats what were trying to say.
MS. HARVEY: Okay.
MR. CSONTOS: Thank you.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, do we have any other questions at this time? Okay, weve got a hand raised. Lon, Lon Paulson.
MR. PAULSON: Yeah, Lon Paulson, Global Nuclear Fuel. I just, in order to make ATF fuel, one must be able to transport the feed stock. This has been a special topic in consideration for GNF. Weve done some studies, theres been publications from Oak Ridge and we just recently presented a paper at the recent ANS NCSD 2022 topical in Anaheim.
Are there considerations? I didnt hear it spoken to explicitly, for not only for not only NRC rulemaking, but U.S. DOT changes that will be
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com necessary in order to transport LEU-plus feedstock to the fuel fabricators. Thank you.
MS. HARVEY: Thank you for the question there, Lon. So I dont have anything specific to provide you right now as were still in the development of the regulatory basis. But I do know that that is on our radar to communicate and coordinate with DOT as we are making any changes or as we are recommending any changes.
I believe we may have one of our transportation specialists on the line, so Ill pause here and see if there are any additional insights that, I dont know, Jason, if youre on the line, if youd like to make.
MR. PIOTTER: Yeah, thanks, Jackie. And this is Jason Piotter with the Division of Fuel Management. I just wanted to point out just to reiterate what Jackie, we are going to be in some capacity interfacing with DOT if we find that theres a potential conflict with any rulemaking that we might do and what DOT regulations are.
The only thing that I would point out is that if youre -- if referencing, you know, 71.55g specifically related to uranium hexafluoride or UF-6,
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com you know, thats an exception to the actual regulation of 71.55d, which allows for the transport. It doesnt have any specific limitations on the enrichment of the material.
So again, 71.55g is an exception to a different part of the regulation thats specifically related to that UF-6.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, we have Fred Smith with his hand in the air. Fred, are you there?
Youre on mute.
MR. SMITH: Can you hear?
MR. MUSSATTI: I can hear you now.
MR. SMITH: Can you hear me now?
MR. MUSSATTI: I can hear you now.
MR. SMITH: Yes, yes, so this is Fred Smith from EPRI. So Al mentioned 50.68 and 70.24 are both companions regulations, and theres an opportunity to perhaps simplify the regulatory framework if you look -- if you consider how they can be integrated together. I dont know if thats part of the scope of your licensing basis evaluation or not.
MS. HARVEY: Fred, we appreciate the feedback, and that is something that we will take
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com under consideration.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, great. Does anybody else have a comment? I dont have any hands raised.
Stacy, do you want to go to that break now or what?
MS. HARVEY: Looks like we do have another question. And then maybe after this question we could roll right in -- we have a few topics that we were hoping to discuss.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right, Scott, you have the floor.
MR. MURRAY: I have maybe a clarification question. On one of the presentations, I think it was the second one NRC gave, there was a bullet on there thats a little confusing, and I think this may be simply a terminology question.
But I notice in the approval SECY or staff requirements memorandum, excuse me, of SECY 21-0109, theres a statement that says that provisions of this rule should only apply to high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel.
Now, many of us take that to be
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com enrichments between 10-20%. Because we have a slightly different term, LEU-plus, for enrichments between 5-10%. I hope the intent of this is not simply to apply it only to enrichments between 10 and
- 20. Can somebody clarify that maybe?
MS. HARVEY: Thats a good -- good comment. The intent is to apply this to above --
above 5.0 weight percent. Above what the current regulations require, up to 20. So that is seen more as the cap, as opposed to the, you know, as opposed to just looking between 10 and 20 weight percent.
Does that answer your question, Scott?
MR. MURRAY: Yes, thank you. Like I said, it was troubling because I saw the statement in the SRM that was issued back in March, and then I saw it again on a slide that I think it was somebody from NRC presented today this morning.
MR. PIOTTER: Yeah, and this is Jason Piotter again, Ill just weigh in really quickly. We do use 5-20% as the definition of HALEU at the NRC currently. And we understand that there potentially is some confusion with that with respect to where LEU-plus falls into this. But the consideration, again, is 5-20.
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com I think the distinction that we need to make here, at least going forward, is that, you know, the 5-10% range is expected for LWR fuels, while the 10-20% range is expected for advanced reactor fuels.
And I think Als presentation sort of hit on that, that there might also be sort of an intermediate range for LWR fuels or another category for LWR fuels in the 10-20% range.
But I think that ones, as Al sort of pointed out, is a potential, or more speculative. So in considering how we look at
- this, those considerations should be taken in mind too.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, where are we headed to now?
MS. HARVEY: Again, if everyones amenable here, just keep on rolling through and move on to the topics for.
MR. MUSSATTI: Yeah, the nice thing about having an online meeting like this is that you can sneak away and you dont disrupt the room. So if you need to take a break, lets do so. But Im in favor of efficiency.
So according to my notes, from after the
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com break, its time for the purpose of the meeting, gathering information from you, the public. Again, we ask you to keep your comments short and to the point, no more than a minute, couple of minutes.
And we want to hear from as many people as possible, so please hold off on any followup questions until Ive asked for them towards the end of the session when it looks like everybody that has wanted to speak has had -- spoken at least once.
And one more thing. If you have any questions about the presentations or a need for clarification, please direct your comment to the NRC through Teams. If anyone has a comment or feedback, please direct your comments to the NRC. The NEI can address any questions if they choose to do so, but the NEI is not required to respond.
We have three discussion topics the staff considers to be the most important for this rulemaking, and Stacy, what are those three topics?
MS. JOSEPH: All right, thanks, Dan. In the meeting notice, we provided several discussion topics for the public on this activity. Ill start the discussion by reading through the three discussion topics and then turning it back over to Dan to man the
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com phone lines, I guess.
So the first topic is Title X of the Code of Federal Regulations and associated guidance documents that should be evaluated in this rulemaking.
Were looking to hear back from you of what you think the NRC should be evaluating during this process.
The next topic is regulations that will likely require a licensee to request an exemption if they chose to pursue fuel enriched above 5.0 weight percent U-235.
The last topic is the rulemaking schedule and impact on stakeholders. As mentioned in the regulatory basis, reg basis includes a cost-benefit assessment to inform the staffs recommendations. And any insights on schedule or impact from stakeholders will be extremely helpful in developing a cost assessment.
So with that, Dan, please let us know if theres someone waiting to provide a comment on these three topics.
MR. MUSSATTI: Yes, we do. We have Ed Lyman. If you would unmute your phone, the floor is yours.
MR. LYMAN: Hi, yes, Ed Lyman from the
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Union of Concerned Scientists. Can you hear me?
MS. JOSEPH: Yes.
MR. LYMAN: Yeah, thanks. I have a question for the NRC staff. So regarding NEIs proposal to increase the scope with the enrichment limit, is it your -- Im not really an expert on the -
- on the state of the criticality benchmarks between 5 and 10 and then going higher.
So I was just wondering if anyone at the NRC could comment on whether, you know, the database for doing that expansion would make any kind of generic rulemaking more uncertain in that higher enrichment category.
What would be the burden, if -- and wouldnt the applicant be required to provide all the data necessary to demonstrate that anyway?
And how would that burden be much different than an exemption if -- if the NRC itself doesnt have enough information to make any kind of really generic rules regarding alternatives to the criticality monitoring requirements. Thats my question.
MS. HARVEY: Thanks, Ed. This is Jackie Harvey again with DORL. So Ill take a first response
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on Kevin if I could send it to you. So thats a great question. As Stacy mentioned, there is a cost-benefit analysis associated with this regulatory basis.
So the additional work, both on the NRC side and on industrys side to provide those analyses would come into account -- or come in, you know, come into play or be considered during the cost-benefit analysis.
And then Kevin, I dont you if have any additional insights on what analyses you might need.
MR. HELLER: So this is Kevin Heller again with Division of Safety Systems Nuclear Methods and Fuel Analysis Branch. Ed, I think I caught the scope of your question, so Ill try to answer it. If Ive forgotten anything, apologize. Still feel free to speak up about it.
But I cant directly speak to the breadth of the database that currently exists simply because thats one of the things that were exploring, is the breadth of that database that happens to exist. And in
- part, we have ongoing collaboration with individuals in the Office of Research, in part to update our codes and methods.
And certainly when it comes to the
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com criticality codes, if generally a licensee seeking to utilize any sort of fuel with an enrichment beyond 5.0 weight percent would have to make use of an approved methodology, one thats been reviewed and approved by the NRC, so it had to have been validated using data that would support that increased enrichment range.
MS. HARVEY: And also our Cost Analyst, Fred Schofer, is on the line too, so Fred, if theres any additional information that you wanted to add as well.
MR. SCHOFER: Yes, this is Fred Schofer, Office of NMSS in the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental and Financial Support. And Im a team lead for regulatory analysis.
And Ed, I want to thank you for that question, its very insightful. In fact, thats something that were evaluating currently in terms of the level of confirmatory analysis that would be required to support a license amendment versus that which would be required if the licensee -- if there was no rulemaking and would be coming in for an exemption.
So you know, thats something were trying to work through right now. And you know, if NEI or
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com any licensee could indicate whether and their justification for why rulemaking would be much more effective than exemption requests in this area, were certainly interested in their input. Thank you.
PARTICIPANT: Thank you.
MR. CSONTOS: For your A, or for your first bullet, 50.68, its --
MS. HARVEY: Introduce yourself.
MR. CSONTOS: Oh, sorry, this is Al Csontos, NEI. So we talk about 50.68 and then Jason also alluded to it, 71.55 Gulf, 4, I believe is another one. And like Fred said, 70.24.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, anybody else? Okay, three discussion topics again, just to keep you reminded, are on your screen. 10 CFR associated guidance documents that should be evaluated.
Regulations that will likely require a license to request an exemption. And rulemaking schedule and impact. Are there any questions on that?
I see I have a hand raised. That would be Jen Boudart. I hope I didnt mess up your name.
Youre on mute.
MS. BOUDART: I wonder if the person --
you know, Im -- lets see. Im not sure that Im on
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com one of these three rules, but I did have a question for the person that talked about not confusing the difference between higher assay and burnup.
And I wonder if that could be elaborated.
Id like to hear who gets those two things confused, what the confusion is, and you know, just talk about it a little bit. And I appreciate your letting me ask a question Im not sure its on topic. Thats always my problem.
MR. MUSSATTI: No problem, youre close enough on topic. Al, was that you that was talking about the confusion?
MR. CSONTOS: Yes, I think that in the SRM that came down they talked about FFRD. And we wanted to make it very clear that this rulemaking we believe should just be focused on enrichment. How a utility wants to utilize that enriched fuel will be dependent and also brought in for separate submittals separately.
So the rulemaking is, you know, thats another vendors submittals, topicals. And then the site-specific LARs. And so those are activities that go on, you know, that shouldnt be changed.
The rule itself, as long as it opens the
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com door up and gets you up to 20% and they are separated.
And we dont want the rulemaking to be confusing the two. And so thats why said focus on the enrichment only.
The basically higher burnup and associated FFRD considerations, as was identified in the SRM, that should be tied to the individual licensee submittals that we do well right now, and the process is set up to do that.
MR. MUSSATTI: Does that answer your question?
MS. BOUDART: Yeah, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
MR. MUSSATTI: Youre most welcome. All right, please raise your hand if you want to speak so that I know that youre prepared. All right, I do not have any hands raised at this moment.
Do the project leaders from this endeavor here have anything that they would like to say at this time?
MS. HARVEY: Im just looking through the chat, I dont see any questions in the chat either.
Again, I dont -- just like to encourage early communication as we go through this process. And as
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com we pointed out, that theres going to be numerous different opportunities for engagement with external stakeholders.
So you know, wed just like to say thank you for your engagement today, and then forthcoming engagement as well as we move through the rulemaking.
MR. MUSSATTI: All right.
MR. CSONTOS: One thing out there about the schedule, I know thats up there, no one talked about that. So I just want to say, you know, doing one rulemaking I think is really key to the efficiency here. We really think one rulemaking is the key aspect here to meet our timelines. And thats the key there.
So I hinted at it in my slide -- slide 4, about the, you know, our plans and what is going there with the batch reload -- you know, schedules here. So you know, having one rulemaking and having it focus on 20% being devoid of the FFRD high burnup issues, that I think would keep us in step to meet those schedules and goals.
So thats -- that was the, I guess, the crux of everything. And thank you for the opportunity to speak on this because this has been very helpful.
And this is going to be a large -- this will be --
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com this will be a very important step for new nuclear --
new advanced nuclear.
MR. MUSSATTI: And we do have a comment in the chat asking who that was because Al Csontos did not introduce himself.
MR. CSONTOS: Oh, Al Csontos, NEI. And also existing reactors too, the existing fleet too.
So existing fleet, new nuclear, and advanced nuclear.
MR. MUSSATTI: Very good. Does anybody else have anything that theyd like to add? Yes, we got a comment here that says thank you. Camera is not showing who is speaking. Sometimes a camera gets confused with Teams, especially when youve got like a half a dozen people in the room.
It sometimes cant track down who it is.
And there are some people that are just abnormally shy and they dont have their cameras on in the first place. So we try to do the best we can, hold on there, and well talk about how you can critique us towards the end of the meeting here.
But Id like to go back to our two people that are in charge of this meeting and find out if they have a sense of where we are in the process.
Stacy and --
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. JOSEPH: Yes.
MR. MUSSATTI: And Jackie, where are we?
MS. JOSEPH: Well, if there are no other comments or feedback, then we can move on. So Ill guess Ill open it one more time if there are any other comments related to the rulemaking, to the rulemaking process, to the schedule. We welcome those comments now outside of the discussion topics that weve already discussed.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, Im hearing crickets.
MS. HARVEY: Wait a minute first, maybe.
Im not seeing anything in the chat.
MR. MUSSATTI: No, theres nothing in the chat either. All right --
MS. JOSEPH: Well go to the next slide, please. You can find information about this rulemaking activity on regulations.gov. The meeting materials and a meeting summary will be posted soon after this meeting. Just search for the docket ID, NRC-2020-0034.
Next slide please, and Ill turn things back over to Dan.
MR. MUSSATTI: Okay, youre ready to adjourn. And Id like to, on behalf of the NRC staff,
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Id like to comment -- commend you guys on how smoothly this meeting went. Its been a real pleasure working with you, and please take a moment to go online at the NRC public website, NRC.gov, and fill out a feedback form to help us make future public meetings on Teams even better.
The
- form, again, is at https://www.NRC.gov. And type NRC form 659 in the search window in the upper right side of that, the home page and follow the links. Once youve filled out the form, just fold it up and pop it in the mailbox.
Its a double-sided print that turns into a self-stamped mailer. It doesnt cost you anything but one piece of paper to tell us what were doing and help us to make things better.
Having said that, Id like to invite Bo Pham back to the floor to formally close the meeting.
Bo, are you there?
MR. PHAM: Yes, can you hear me Dan?
MR. MUSSATTI: I can hear you fine.
MR. PHAM: Thank you. This is Bo Pham from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission again. I wanted to extend my thank you to, for everyone.
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Despite that fact that we were very efficient and swift with it, there were good questions for clarification that we understood.
And I hope the audience got a good understanding of where we are in the process and the next steps ahead with respect to the schedule. I mean, I do believe that the staff did a fairly good job in identifying the potentially affected regulations as part of its rulemaking plan.
I hope thats a -- thats a good roadmap to pursue what we need to look at. Theres lots of work there. But for the fact that, you know, we didnt get any new information coming out of this gives me some assurance that I think were on a good path ahead for that.
So with that, I thank you, everyone, and would like to close it out.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:58 p.m.)