ML22277A000
ML22277A000 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 03/21/2022 |
From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
To: | |
Doyle, Daniel | |
References | |
NRC-1890, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59 | |
Download: ML22277A000 (78) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking on "Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning" Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Monday, March 21, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-1890 Pages 1-77 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 4
ON "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PRODUCTION AND 5
UTILIZATION FACILITIES TRANSITIONING TO 6
DECOMMISSIONING" 7
+ + + + +
8
- MONDAY, 9
MARCH 21, 2022 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting convened at the Commission 12 Hearing Room, NRC One White Flint North, 11555 13 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and by video 14 teleconference, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, Lance Rakovan, 15 Meeting Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18 DANIEL DOYLE, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 19 SOLY SOTO LUGO, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 20 LANCE RAKOVAN, NMSS/REFS/ERLRB 21 PATRICIA K. HOLAHAN, NMSS/REFS 22 VINCE WILLIAMS, NSIR/DPCP/MSB 23 HOWARD A. BENOWITZ, OGC/LRAA/RASFP 24 25
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 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Welcome and Logistics..............................3 3
Opening Remarks....................................6 4
Background Status..................................9 5
Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................15 6
Tips for Preparing Comments.......................56 7
Next Steps........................................60 8
Break.............................................61 9
Public Feedback and Questions.....................62 10 Closing Remarks...................................74 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
1:01 p.m.
2 MR. RAKOVAN: Hello, everyone. My name is 3
Lance Rakovan. I'm a senior environmental project 4
manager at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or 5
NRC as you'll hear it called today, and I'm sure you 6
already know.
7 It's my pleasure to help facilitate 8
today's meeting, along with the staff, who are in the 9
Commissioner's hearing room at NRC Headquarters.
10 We're going to try to make this meeting worthwhile for 11 everyone. And we hope you'll give us a hand with 12 that.
13 Go ahead to the next slide. So again, our 14 purpose today is to provide information to help you 15 make more educated comments on the proposed 16 decommissioning rule and draft regulatory guidance.
17 We'll be going through the various ways you can 18 participate in this commenting process as part of our 19 presentation.
20 Slide 3. So here is our basic agenda for 21 today. After we go over some logistics we'll have 22 some opening remarks. And then we'll provide our 23 presentations, which will include details on 24 background and status, an overview of the proposed 25
4 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 rule, tips for preparing comments and next steps.
1 After a short break we'll then open the floor to 2
feedback and questions.
3 Slide 4 please. Please note that today's 4
meeting is being recorded and transcribed. We ask 5
that you help us get a full, clear accounting of that 6
meeting by staying on mute if you are on the phone or 7
on Teams and are not speaking. Or keeping your 8
electronic devices silent and keeping side discussions 9
to a minimum if you're in the room.
10 Also, it would help us out greater if 11 speakers can identify themselves and any group they 12 are with when they first talk.
13 When we do move to the Q&A portion of the 14 meeting, those of you on Teams can raise your hand 15 using that feature, if you have a question. Those on 16 the phone can hit *5.
17 When you are being called to ask a 18 question, those of you on Teams can use your unmute 19 button. And those on the phone can use *6. Please 20 note that the chat feature on Teams has been disabled.
21 Oh, and the slides that are going to be 22 shown, the Microsoft Team slides can be found in the 23 NRC ADAMS library at ML22059A016.
24 Any phone attendees, please email 25
5 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 dan.doyle@nrc.gov if you'd like us to make sure that 1
we are aware that you attended the meeting.
2 I'll go into some details about our public 3
meeting feedback forum later on in the meeting. For 4
those of you who are with us in the room today, 5
emergency exists are at all four corners of the 6
Commissioner's hearing room. Restrooms are out the 7
main entrance and then to your left.
8 With that, if you'd like to go to Slide 5.
9 I'd like to introduce Trish Holahan who is a special 10 assistant in the NRC's division --
11 DR. HOLAHAN: Before you do that --
12 MR. RAKOVAN: Oops. Trish, please?
13 DR. HOLAHAN: Before you do that, there is 14 a question I think from Steven Dolley.
15 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes. I was going to IM him 16 directly but we can go ahead and take it. Steven?
17 MR. DOLLEY: Yes, hi. Can you hear me 18 okay?
19 MR. RAKOVAN: We can. Please.
20 MR. DOLLEY: Sorry to interrupt so early.
21 Thanks for the introductory remarks. We're not 22 seeing the slides that you're calling to be shown one 23 after another, just a link to a ppt file. So if you 24 can get the slides up that would be helpful, but of 25
6 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 course we can get them off ADAMS. Thanks.
1 MR. RAKOVAN: I appreciate that, thank 2
you. We'll get to work on that.
3 All right, with that I'll go ahead and 4
introduce Trish. Trish Holahan is a special assistant 5
in the NRC's Division of Rulemaking Environment and 6
Financial Support.
7 Trish is going to give some opening 8
remarks and we'll see if we can fix the slide issue.
9 Trish.
10 DR. HOLAHAN: Thank you, Lance. And 11 welcome, everybody. Good afternoon. I'm Trish 12 Holahan. As Lance already mentioned, I'm the special 13 assistant in the NRC's Division of Rulemaking 14 Environmental and Financial Support Division.
15 And I want to thank you for joining us 16 today to talk about the NRC's decommissioning 17 rulemaking. The NRC's goal for this rulemaking are to 18 maintain a
safe effective and efficiency 19 decommissioning process, incorporate lessons learned 20 from the decommissioning process and support the NRC's 21 principals of good regulations. Including openness, 22 clarity and reliability.
23 The proposed rule would implement specific 24 regulatory requirements for different phases in the 25
7 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 decommissioning process consistent with a reduced risk 1
that occurs overtime while continuing to maintain 2
safety and security. The proposed rule would 3
incorporate lessons learned from plants that have 4
recently transitioned to decommissioning and improve 5
the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 6
framework while protecting public health and safety.
7 Public comments has twice played an 8
important role in the development of this proposed 9
rule. When we published an advance notice of proposed 10 rulemaking, and later with a draft regulatory basis.
11 We are seeking public input on the 12 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 13 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 14 addresses several regulatory areas which you will hear 15 about in more detail during this meeting.
16 We hope today's meeting will help you 17 better understand the proposed rule. We look forward 18 to your feedback and your questions today.
19 But please note that the NRC will not be 20 responding in writing to verbal comments from today's 21 meeting. Comments must be submitted in writing 22 through the methods described in the federal register 23 notice to receive formal consideration in the 24 rulemaking.
25
8 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 This is the first public meeting on the 1
proposed rule. We will be having another meeting 2
following the same format on March 31st.
3 We're also planning to hold additional 4
meetings in April in various locations around the 5
country. With the option of virtual participation.
6 Please check the NRC's public website for additional 7
details about upcoming public meetings and for other 8
resources to help as you receive reviews of proposed 9
rule.
10 Thank you. And I'll turn it back to 11 Lance.
12 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Trish. Can we get a 13 reading, either a thumbs up or something from someone 14 to make sure that we did fix the issue with the 15 slides, if at all possible?
16 Steve, can you --
17 MR. DOYLE: I think attendees are only 18 able to actually raise their hands. I don't think --
19 MR. RAKOVAN: Oh, okay. All right.
20 MR. DOLLEY: Yes, chat is disabled. We 21 can now see the slides. Thank you.
22 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay.
23 MR. DOLLEY: But chat is disabled, so if 24 you're asking us for some direct response you need to 25
9 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 enable chat. Thank you.
1 MR. RAKOVAN: All right, thank you, Steve.
2 All right, glad we got that fixed. With that, I will 3
go ahead and turn things over to Dan Doyle who has the 4
lead for the initiative.
5 Dan has a fairly lengthy presentation so 6
we're hoping that Dan can get through his 7
presentation. We'll take a quick break so folks can 8
stretch their legs and then we'll go ahead and up 9
things up for Q&A. So, Dan, please take it away.
10 MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you very 11 much, Lance. So this is, as Lance said, our first 12 meeting of several that we have planned on the 13 decommissioning rulemaking.
14 You can go to the next slide, Soly. But I 15 just wanted to point out that we're emerging from 16 COVID-19. This is kind of new for me and for several 17 of us. Hopefully it goes smoothly.
18 It seems to be okay so far except for that 19 one little glitch with the slides. But I appreciate 20 everyone's patience with adjusting to using some of 21 this new equipment being in-person. It is nice to do 22 the in-person. And also allow people to be able to 23 attend remotely if possible. So fingers crossed on 24 everything continuing to go smoothly.
25
10 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 But please raise your hand. And thank 1
you, Mr. Dolley, for doing that. Please raise your 2
hand if there is something disrupting your ability to 3
follow the meeting so thank you. Please feel free to 4
raise your hand and we'll try to address that.
5 Otherwise, as Lance said, we do have time 6
reserved for after the staff's presentation for Q&A 7
session on this. So please hold other comments until 8
that time. Thank you.
9 Okay, we can go to the next slide. So, 10 this is a very brief background and status of this 11 rulemaking activity.
12 There was an increase in, oh yes, I'm 13 sorry, can you go back on please. I should, you know, 14 I should point out one other thing is that we are 15 using Microsoft Teams for this meeting today.
16 And for those who are attending, you 17 should see on the bottom of your screen to see the 18 arrows to click back and forth through the, actually, 19 you know what, because we just switched it, actually I 20 think they don't have that feature. I'm not sure. I 21 don't know actually because we had to flip, I'm 22 sharing the screen now.
23 But you might be able to advance and back 24 up the slides. I'm sorry, I'll have to circle back 25
11 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 and see how that went later. But if you can click 1
that then you would be able to advance and go back to 2
whatever slide you wanted to see. And that would be 3
affecting just your view. And then also, you can 4
click the slides.
5 I'm sorry, you would be able to click the 6
links. So if you see blue hyperlinks in the slides 7
you would be able to click that and open the documents 8
if you wanted to.
9 Okay, back to the slide. So there was an 10 increase in nuclear power plant shutdowns that kind of 11 focus the NRC's attention on making some changes to 12 the regulations that relate to decommissioning. We 13 refer to the transition to decommissioning process as 14 the plant is approaching and going into and completing 15 decommissioning.
16 So we, the NRC initiated rulemaking 17 December 2015 to make some changes related to that 18 transition. We have already completed some extensive 19 public outreach. We did solicit comments on advance 20 notice of proposed rulemaking.
21 And we also issued a regulatory basis 22 document. We had public comment periods on both of 23 those. And also public meetings. And there is 24 information, additional information about both of 25
12 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 those on our public website.
1 The proposed rule, so this is the recent 2
headline, the recent highlight and the reason we're 3
having this meeting today. We just published the 4
proposed rule in the federal register on March 3rd, 5
2022. There is the citation.
6 So we are in the comment period right now.
7 We have a 75-day comment period. And that ends on 8
May 17th, 2022.
9 Next slide please. For convenience we had 10 two slides that lists all of the key documents 11 associated with this proposed rule. So this is the 12 first slide. We have, again, the proposed rule.
13 There is that citation that is important 14 sometimes. 87 FR 12254. It was published March 3rd, 15 2022. Those two links, if you, I apologize if you're 16 not able to click it in this presentation right now, 17 you can download the slides.
18 We have, it is in ADAMS. We have the 19 accession number on the first slide. And also Lance 20 had mentioned that. Or you can email me and I will 21 get it to you.
22 So both of those links will open up the 23 proposed rule. One is the web version, and the other 24 one is a printed version. So it's the same thing, 25
13 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 just two different ways of viewing that, depending on 1
what you prefer. Those are both the federal register 2
versions of the proposed rule.
3 So some supporting and related documents.
4 We have a draft regulatory analysis, which discusses 5
costs and benefits associated with this action, a 6
draft environmental assessment for compliance at the 7
National Environment Policy Act, draft supporting 8
statements for information collections.
9 There are some changes to information 10 collections in this rule. And we have those discussed 11 in there for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 12 Act.
13 And we also have an additional document, 14 so I'll refer to that as the unofficial redline rule 15 text. There is introduction, kind of a disclaimer 16 that explains what this is. And I also have a slide 17 on it later.
18 This may be helpful if you are 19 particularly interested in the changes to the rule 20 language. The document shows the current rule 21 language as plain text. And then any changes that 22 this proposed rule would make to the rule, to the code 23 of federal regulations in a mark-up format. So, this 24 would be deleted, this would be added.
25
14 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 That can be helpful with maybe a more 1
understandable way then looking at the mandatory 2
instructions, which is that portion at the end of a 3
federal register notice that is really kind of 4
instructions for an editor. Add this word, delete 5
this word.
6 But you would have to do a little bit more 7
work to understand what that changes in context. So 8
feel free to take a look at that.
9 Next slide please. We also are updating 10 four guidance documents. We're issuing four guidance 11 documents for public comment in parallel with the 12 proposed rule. They are listed here on the slide.
13 The first one is related to emergency 14 planning for decommissioning nuclear power plants.
15 That would be a new regulatory guide.
16 The other three are updates to existing 17 regulatory guides that relate to decommissioning. So 18 the second one on the list would be an update to Reg 19 Guide 1.184, decommissioning nuclear power plants.
20 The next one would be an update to Reg 21 Guide 1.159. That would be Rev 3, showing the 22 availability of funds for decommissioning production 23 or utilization facilities.
24 And then the last one on the left would be 25
15 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 an update to Reg Guide 1.185, standard format and 1
content for post-shutdown decommissioning activities 2
report. So these three, four documents are also out 3
for public comment now. And so public comments would 4
be submitted on, if you have comments on the rule and 5
the guidance please submit it altogether. It all goes 6
to the same place. The same action.
7 Okay, the next slide please. Okay, so for 8
this part of the meeting we will be giving an overview 9
of the proposed rule.
10 I will start with a general discussion of 11 the graded approach. You can see me looking down, I 12 have my notes for this portion of the meeting here 13 that I'm going to try to follow.
14 So we're going to start with a general 15 discussion of what we call the graded approach concept 16 and how that has been applied to several different 17 technical areas in this rule. The rest of the slides 18 are going to give an overview for each of the 19 technical areas for the topics, the technical areas or 20 topics in this slide.
21 If you look at the proposed rule in 22 Section 4, scope of the proposal, there are 16 23 headings for different topics or areas where we're 24 proposing some changes.
25
16 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 So the slide here followed the same order 1
in the proposed rule. The titles of the slides match 2
the headings in the proposed rule. And like I said, 3
we will give an overview.
4 I've been coordinating with the staff. We 5
have a great team of folks here at the NRC who are 6
working and supporting this. I am the rulemaking 7
project manager so I'm kind of coordinating it and 8
serving as a spokesperson right here, but the staff 9
are supporting, and many of them are on the line here 10 today.
11 I will be speaking to most of these 12 slides, but we do have a few staff that are going to 13 be speaking to the other slides. I'll introduce them 14 when we get to that. And I see that there is a hand 15 raised.
16 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes. Dan, I wanted to point 17 out that Dave Hills has his hand raised. Dave, did 18 you have something that you wanted to interject?
19 MR. HILLS: No, sorry, that was an error.
20 MR. DOYLE: Okay, no problem. So let's 21 move on to the next slide please.
22 The graded approach. This proposed rule 23 takes what we call a
graded approach to 24 decommissioning where different levels of requirements 25
17 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 would apply at different stages of the decommissioning 1
process.
2 Across the top of this table are the four 3
levels that are used or discussed in the proposed rule 4
as a facility goes through the decommissioning 5
process. The Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4, 6
chronologically.
7 Level 1, on the left, would begin after 8
the facility dockets the two required certifications.
9 One is for permanent cessation of operations. And 10 the other is that the fuel has been removed from the 11 reactor vessel.
12 Level 2 would be after a period of 13 sufficient decay, which would generically be ten 14 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a 15 pressurized water reactor if they meet the criteria in 16 the proposed rule.
17 Level 3 would be when all fuel is in dry 18 cask storage. And Level 4 would be when all fuel is 19 offsite.
20 The rows in this table show the topic 21 areas that have updated requirements, links to these 22 levels in the proposed rule. The top row, the 23 emergency preparedness, that would use all four of the 24 levels starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan 25
18 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 in Level 1 through Level 4, where there is no longer a 1
need for an onsite radiological emergency response 2
plan because all fuel is offsite.
3 Other topic areas that used the graded 4
approach include physical security, cyber security and 5
onsite/offsite insurance. So you can see that the 6
physical security has changes in level 1 and level 3.
7 And then cyber security has changes in level 2. And 8
also onsite/offsite insurance that we'll get to that 9
when we, in the next few slides here.
10 Okay, next slide please.
11 MR. RAKOVAN: Hey, Dan, this is Lance. If 12 you can identify which slide you're on instead of 13 saying next slide that will help the folks who are on 14 the phone.
15 MR. DOYLE: Will do. Thank you. So, we 16 are on Slide 13 right now. It says, emergency 17 preparedness at the top.
18 So this is the first of the topic slides.
19 Let me just take a minute to talk about, we have a 20 theme layout for each of these.
21 So for each of the topic slides you'll see 22 a summary of the proposed changes. The box in the 23 upper right identifies the section in the proposed 24 rule, with a more detailed discussion of the topic as 25
19 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 well as the page numbers in the printed version of the 1
federal register notice.
2 We also have listed all of the sections of 3
the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations, that would 4
be changed. Where we have changes associated with 5
this topic.
6 Where it says a specific request for 7
comment, each of these slides, we will mention if 8
there are any questions related to this topic in 9
Section 5 of the proposed rule where the NRC included 10 specific questions for the public to consider.
11 Sometimes we have kind of a directed specific 12 questions that we encourage stakeholders to provide 13 feedback on.
14 So we do have 18 of those in this proposed 15 rule. And some of them relate to these topics. So 16 we'll just try to point out where those specific 17 questions are and give you a sense of what the 18 question is focused on.
19 And then on the bottom of this slide we 20 have a, it's an area for additional information where 21 we may point out some additional things we think you 22 should be aware of. And then on the bottom of this 23 slide there is this kind of a progress bar that, 24 again, is showing each of the 16 topic areas.
25
20 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 I only fit five on a slide, but as we go 1
through you'll see the bold one will kind of move 2
along. In case there is a topic that you are 3
especially interested in you can kind of keep an eye 4
on that and see the next few topics that are coming 5
up. Like the parade of nations from the Olympics when 6
they come in. I don't know.
7 Okay. So emergency preparedness. Because 8
current regulations, so I'm going to give some 9
background on this. Because current regulations do 10 not provide a means to distinguish between the EP 11 requirements that apply to the operating reactor and 12 the EP requirements that will apply to the reactor 13 that has permanently ceased operations, 14 decommissioning licensees have historically requested 15 exemptions from EP requirements.
16 The proposed rule would provide common EP 17 requirements for reactors in decommissioning, 18 eliminate a need for specific exemptions or license 19 amendments.
20 Because of the decreased risk of offsite 21 radiological release and fewer types of possible 22 accidents that can occur at a decommissioning reactor, 23 the proposed EP requirements align with that reduction 24 in risk while maintaining safety.
25
21 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 So what we are proposing to change. The 1
NRC is proposing to add a new section, 10 CFR 50.200 2
in the list in the upper right there. So that's a new 3
section that would provide planning standards and 4
requirements for post-shutdown and permanently de-5 fueled emergency plans.
6 The proposed standards and the 7
requirements for emergency plans are consistent with 8
the level of planning the Commission has previously 9
approved for decommissioned facilities. The proposed 10 planning requirements also ensure close coordination 11 and training with offsite response organizations is 12 maintained throughout the decommissioning process.
13 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 14 50.54(q), Paragraph q, to provide licensees with the 15 option to use a tiered requirements and standards at 16 the appropriate time in decommissioning and to add a 17 new process by which licensees can make changes to the 18 emergency plans to transition between levels.
19 So the specific requests for comments. So 20 that was kind of the background and sort of overview 21 of what we wanted to highlight for this topic.
22 The specific request for feedback. We 23 would like to know what the advantages and 24 disadvantages are of requiring dedicated radiological 25
22 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 emergency planning, including a ten mile emergency 1
planning zone, or EPZ, until all spent nuclear fuel at 2
a site is removed from the spent fuel pool and placed 3
in dry cask storage.
4 Is there additional information the NRC 5
should consider in evaluating whether all hazards 6
planning would we as effective as dedicated 7
radiological emergency? The NRC has determined that 8
ten hours would be a sufficient amount of time for an 9
emergency response to a spent fuel pool accident based 10 on an all hazards plans.
11 Is there additional information the NRC 12 should consider in evaluating this matter?
13 The second bullet there for specific 14 requests emergency response data systems. Nuclear 15 power facilities that are shutdown permanently or 16 indefinitely are currently not required to maintain an 17 emergency response data system. These systems 18 transmit near real-time electronic data between the 19 licensee's onsite computer system and the NRC 20 operations center.
21 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain the 22 capability to provide meteorological, radiological and 23 spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a reasonable 24 time frame of following an event. What are the 25
23 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 advantages and disadvantages of requiring nuclear 1
power plant licensees to maintain those aspects of the 2
emergency response data system until all spent fuel is 3
removed from the pool?
4 So that's what those two questions are 5
about.
6 We wanted to point out for this topic that 7
we do have that new guidance document. The proposed 8
guidance document.
9 The staff has developed guidance 10 corresponding to the proposed rule changes for 11 emergency planning. We have proposed this new 12 regulatory guide, Draft Guide 1346.
13 The staff, NRC staff believes that these 14 changes will establish emergency planning requirements 15 commensurate with the reduction in radiological risk 16 as licensees proceed through the decommissioning 17 process while continuing to provide reasonable 18 assurance that protective actions can and will be 19 taken in maintaining emergency preparedness as a final 20 independent layer of defense-in-depth. That's the 21 overview for this topic.
22 Next slide please. This is Slide 14. It 23 says physical security. So for this slide I will turn 24 it over to Vince Williams. Vince is a security 25
24 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 specialist in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Security and 1
Incident Response. And he is the staff lead for this 2
topic. Vince, you should be able to unmute and go for 3
this one.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name is 5
Vince Williams. I'll be speaking to the physical 6
security area of the decommissioning role.
7 This proposed rule would allow certain 8
changes to eliminate licensee requests for approvals 9
via exemptions amendments and for certain adjustments 10 to the physical security programs. Current security 11 requirements do not reflect the reduced risks for a 12 decommissioning facility after fuel is removed from 13 the reactor vessel.
14 When the fuel is transferred into the 15 spent fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that is 16 relied upon for the safe operation of the facility is 17 significantly reduced, which allows for certain 18 security measures to be modified because their 19 implementation is no longer needed or can be adjusted 20 for the physical protection program during 21 decommissioning.
22 Because certain security measures can be 23 modified or no longer are necessary for 24 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions and 25
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 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 1
this new posture.
2 For
- example, the control room is 3
specifically identified in current security 4
requirements as an area that must be protected as a 5
vital area. The proposed rule would potentially 6
eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 7
vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 8
the control room and when the area does not act as a 9
vital area boundary for other areas.
10 Also, current security regulations for a 11 power reactor licensee require the use of licensed 12 senior operators for the suspension of security 13 measures during emergencies. For permanently shutdown 14 and de-fueled reactors, licensed senior operators are 15 no longer required. The proposed rule would allow 16 certified fuel handlers to be used to suspend security 17 measures during emergencies at decommissioned 18 facilities.
19 Lastly, to eliminate the need for the 20 submission of license amendments and exemptions, the 21 licensee transitions to independent spent fuel storage 22 installations.
23 The NRC is proposing that once all spent 24 nuclear fuel has been placed in dry cask storage, 25
26 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 licensees may elect to protect a general license ISFSI 1
in accordance with the physical security requirements 2
that are consistent with Part 72 Subpart H, and 10 CFR 3
73.51. Licensees will continue to address the 4
applicable security related orders associated with an 5
ISFSI that are conditions of the license. Dan.
6 MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you, Vince. All 7
right, moving on to Slide 15. So this topic is cyber 8
security.
9 Consistent with the graded approach layout 10 and the technical basis for a graded approach, and 11 that I mentioned a few slides ago, cyber security was 12 one of those items. The proposed rule would continue 13 to apply cyber security requirements to 14 decommissioning plants until the risk to significantly 15 is reduced to, sorry, until the risk is significantly 16 reduced to public health and safety.
17 Specifically, the cyber security rule is 18 continuously applied until the fuel is permanently 19 removed from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool 20 and there has been sufficient decay of the fuel, in 21 the spent fuel pool, such that there is little chance 22 that the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could heat 23 up to a clad ignition temperature within ten hours if 24 a spent fuel pool were drained.
25
27 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 So there is more detailed discussion in 1
the proposed rule about that under technical basis.
2 Sorry, under the technical basis for the graded 3
approach.
4 Under the proposed rule, Part 50, power 5
reactor licensees and combined license holders would 6
be subject to the same requirement. For Part 50 power 7
reactor licensees the proposed rule would remove the 8
licensed condition that requires the licensee to 9
maintain its cyber security plan and make adjustments 10 to the regulations.
11 For combing license holders, the proposed 12 rule would extend the requirements to maintain a cyber 13 security plan during decommissioning. And this would 14 be a new requirement for that change.
15 For currently operating or recently 16 shutdown Part 50 reactor licensees, because the 17 licensee cyber security plan is included as a licensed 18 condition, this license condition to maintain a cyber 19 security program remains in effect until determination 20 of the license or the NRC removed the condition from 21 the license. For example, if a licensee submits a 22 license amendment request and the NRC approves it.
23 Therefore the proposed rule would not 24 constitute back fitting because the proposed rule 25
28 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 would codify the already imposed requirement of the 1
cyber security plan, sorry. Cyber security program 2
license condition during Level 1
of the 3
decommissioning, of decommissioning, or until the 4
spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has sufficiently 5
cooled.
6 This is not true for combined licensed 7
holders. The proposed revision would constitute a new 8
requirement because the operational programs, such as 9
a security program that includes the cyber security 10 program are requirements in the regulations and not 11 properly identified as licensed conditions as they are 12 for Part 50 licensees.
13 Currently combined license holders are 14 required to maintain a cyber security program only as 15 long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them. So that 16 means that combined license holders are not required 17 to maintain their cyber security programs during 18 decommissioning because the power reactor licensee is 19 not authorized to operate nuclear power reactor during 20 decommissioning.
21 So the change to 73.54 is identified in 22 the proposed rule as a change affecting issue finality 23 for 10 CFR Part 52 combined license holders as defined 24 in 52, 10 CFR 52.98. So therefore the proposed rule 25
29 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 does include a back fit analysis in Section IX.D. So 1
that is what we have highlighted as part of the 2
additional information.
3 I think I skipped over this request for 4
comments. I don't think I included it in there. Let 5
me get back to that a little bit later. I have a 6
slide that's going to talk about the comments. I can 7
highlight what the focus of that question was.
8 Okay, next slide please. Slide 16. Drug 9
and alcohol testing. There are three items that I 10 would like to highlight related to this.
11 In Part 26, which is about fitness-for-12 duty, we would amend, the proposed rule would amend 10 13 CFR 26.3,
- scope, to
- address, to correct an 14 inconsistency in the applicability of Part 26 to Part 15 50 and 52 license holders for nuclear power reactors.
16 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 17 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 10 18 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certification that a power reactor has 19 permanently ceased operations. Which formally 20 belongs, which is formally the decommission process.
21 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the 22 holder of the combined license issued under Part 52 23 throughout decommissioning. There is no, staff 24 believes no technical basis for this inconsistency.
25
30 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 CFR Part 26.3 would be revised to 1
specify that Part 26 also no longer applies to a Part 2
52 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensees 3
52.10, 10 CFR 52.10(a), certification that the power 4
reactor has permanently ceased operation. So that's 5
the first change, is related to fitness-for-duty scope 6
in 10 CFR 26.3.
7 The second item to highlight here is 8
related to criminal penalties. Section 26.3 includes 9
a substantive requirement for certain entities to 10 comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 by a 11 specific deadline. The violations of the regulation 12 should be subject to criminal penalties.
13 The specific deadlines in 26.3(a) were 14 added in the 2008 Part 26 final rule. But Section 15 26.825(b) was not updated to reflect this change, 16 which is an oversight. Therefore the proposed rule 17 would remove 10 CFR 26.3 from the list of provisions 18 that are not subject to criminal penalties if violated 19 in Section 26.825(b).
20 The third item I wanted to highlight for 21 this topic is related to the Part 73 insider 22 mitigation program. Section 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) 23 requires that a licensees insider mitigation program 24 contains elements of a fitness-for-duty program 25
31 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 described in Part 26, but does not identify which 1
fitness-for-duty program element must be included in 2
the insider mitigation program.
3 The proposed rule would establish the 4
required elements of the fitness-for-duty program and 5
an insider mitigation program for operating and 6
decommissioning reactors under Part 50 and 52.
7 Next slide please. Slide 17. This is 8
certified fuel handler definition and elimination of 9
10 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed 11 operators who are commonly used at permanently de-12 fueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 13 their spent fuel pools. The certified fuel handler is 14 intended to be the on shift representative who is 15 responsible for safe fuel handling activities and 16 always present on shift to ensure safety of the spent 17 fuel and any decommissioning related activities at the 18 facility.
19 Currently, a certified fuel handler is 20 qualified through a training program that must be 21 reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed rule 22 would modify the definition of a certified fuel 23 handler and add a provision that removes the need for 24 NRC approval of the training program if the training 25
32 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 program for certified fuel handler is derived from a 1
systems approach to training and includes specific 2
topics, which are outlined in the proposed rule 3
language.
4 Specifically, the training program must 5
address the safe conduct of decommissioning 6
activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel 7
and an appropriate response to plant emergencies.
8 The proposed rule would also clarify that 9
a shift technical advisor is not required for 10 decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
11 Next slide please. So we have two slides 12 on this topic. This is decommissioning funding 13 assurance.
14 So the summary that, changes we're making.
15 The proposed rule modifies the biennial 16 decommissioning trust fund reporting frequency for 17 operating reactors, it's in 10 CFR 50.75, to be 18 consistent with the three year reporting frequency for 19 independent spent fuel storage installation.
20 We're making two changes related to 21 independent spent fuel storage insulation funding 22 reports. It would allow licensees to combine the 23 reports required by the regulations listed on the 24 slide there, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii) and 10 CFR 25
33 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 72.30. Also related to ISFSI funding report they 1
would remove the requirement for NRC approval of the 2
report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).
3 The proposed rule would clarify that when 4
a licensee identifies a shortfall in the report, 5
required by 50.75(f)(1) the licensee must obtain 6
additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall 7
and discuss that information in the next report.
8 And then the final item to highlight here, 9
the proposed rule would make administrative changes to 10 ensure consistency with 50.4, written communications, 11 regarding the submission of notifications and to 12 eliminate 50.75(f)(2) because 50.75(f)(1) fully 13 encompasses paragraph (f)(2).
14 All right, next slide please. So there 15 are a number of, there are five specific requests for 16 comments related to this topic. We're still on the 17 decommissioning funding assurance, Slide 19.
18 So the headings for each of those specific 19 requests are listed here. That's in section, I think 20 I said Section 5 of the proposed rule. So I'm just 21 going to highlight briefly what these specific 22 requests are about.
23 So the first one, financial assurance.
24 What are the advantages and disadvantages of updating 25
34 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 the formula to reflect recent data and to cover all 1
estimated radiological, decommissioning costs rather 2
than the bulk of the costs?
3 The second one, the site specific cost 4
analysis. What are the advantages and disadvantages 5
of requiring a
full site investigation and 6
characterization at the time of shutdown and of 7
eliminating the formula and of requiring a site 8
specific cost estimate during an operation?
9 Decommissioning trust funds. Should the 10 NRC's regulations allow decommissioning trust fund 11 assets to be used for spent fuel management if there 12 is a projected surplus in the fund based on the 13 comparison to the expect cost identified in the site 14 specific cost estimate, and the assets are returned to 15 the fund within established period of time?
16 So this is a question that we're asking 17 for feedback on. What are the advantages and 18 disadvantages of allowing decommissioning trust fund 19 assets to be used for these purposes?
20 What are the advantages and disadvantages 21 of allow decommissioning trust fund assets to be used 22 for non-radiological site restoration prior to the 23 completion of radiological decommissioning?
24 So just to be clear, that is not a change 25
35 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 that's proposed but it is a question and we are asking 1
for feedback on that topic.
2 Timing of decommissioning fund assurance 3
reporting. What are the advantages and disadvantages 4
of extending the reporting frequency from two years to 5
three years? Does this change affect the risk of 6
insufficient decommissioning funding?
7 And the last specific question. Identical 8
requirements under Section 50.82 and 52.110, besides 9
proposing conforming changes to 10 CFR 52 the NRC is 10 asking whether the NRC should maintain identical 11 requirements. In 10 CFR 52.110 and 50.82 for Part 52 12 and Part 50 licensees.
13 There is also additional guidance, as I 14 mentioned earlier. The update, the proposed update to 15 Reg Guide 1.159. Assuring the availability of fund 16 for decommissioning production of the utilization 17 facilities.
18 Next slide please. Slide 20 is focusing 19 on offsite and onsite financial protection 20 requirements and indemnity agreements.
21 These changes would provide regulatory 22 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of 23 decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 24 exemptions for relief from requirements that should 25
36 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 apply only to operating reactor licensees.
1 And the specific requests for public 2
comment. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 3
requiring an existing level of assurance to be 4
maintained until all spent fuel is in dry cask 5
storage, or Level 3?
6 And I think I don't have the information 7
right in front of me on that second question, I'll get 8
back to that one also later.
9 Okay, next slide please. So we're on 10 Slide 21. Environmental considerations. The proposed 11 rule clarifies various environmental reporting 12 requirements, including those related to the content 13 to the post-shutdown decommissioning activities 14 report, or PSDARs.
15 In part, the proposed rule change would 16 clarify that licensees, at the PSDAR stage are 17 required to evaluate the environmental impacts from 18 decommissioning and provide in the PSDAR the basis for 19 whether the proposed decommissioning activities are 20 bounded by previously issues site-specific or generic 21 environmental reviews.
22 The Commission provided additional 23 direction in its staff requirements memorandum, which 24 is the Commission's direction to the NRC staff. With 25
37 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 respect to the consideration of any identified 1
unbounded impacts.
2 The rule changes would allow licensees to 3
use appropriate federally issued environmental review 4
documents prepared in compliance with the Endangered 5
Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 6
or other environmental statutes, rather than just 7
environmental impact statements. The rule would also 8
remove language referencing amendments for authorizing 9
decommissioning activities in 10 CFR Part 51.
10 In developing the original proposed rule, 11 the NRC staff considered, but dismissed, a proposal 12 that staff approve each licensee's PSDAR before 13 allowing major activities to begin.
Major 14 decommissioning activities to begin.
15 This was done on the basis that requiring 16 approval of a PSDAR would have no additional benefit 17 in terms of public health and safety. However, as 18 will be discussed later, the staff is directed by the 19 Commission to solicit public comment on the question 20 of whether the NRC should require approval of PSDAR, 21 site-specific environmental review, and a hearing 22 opportunity before undertaking any decommissioning 23 activity.
24 The two regulatory guides related to 25
38 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 PSDARs were revised. So they're kind of combined into 1
a single bullet there. We're updating two guidance 2
documents associated with this topic. So those two 3
were revised to include clarifying language consistent 4
with the rule changes.
5 On a related topic that we have gotten 6
some questions about is not, I'm sorry, it is showing 7
on this slide here. That last sentence under 8
additional information.
9 The decommissioning generic environmental 10 impact statement will be updated, not as part of this 11 rulemaking activity, that will be updated separately 12 in the future. And the NRC will be putting out more 13 information about that in the future. So I wanted to 14 acknowledge that.
15 Next slide please. So we're on Slide 22, 16 record retention requirements. As noted, when a plant 17 is no longer operating and is in decommissioning, most 18 plant components, such as pumps and valves are no 19 longer in service and will eventually be removed as 20 part of the dismantlement activities. Therefore there 21 is no longer a need to retain certain records 22 associated with these components. And the rulemaking 23 eliminates many record retention, many recordkeeping 24 retention requirements.
25
39 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 The proposed change would not impact the 1
records that are required to be maintained in support 2
of decommissioning and license termination activities.
3 The proposed rule also includes the specific question 4
concerning the recordkeeping requirements for 5
facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 52.
6 One of the rulemakings, few proposed 7
changes in Part 52 would be in Section 52.63 regarding 8
the recordkeeping and retention requirements for 9
departures from the design of the facility. However, 10 these changes would not apply to a combined license 11 holder that references one of the certified designs in 12 Part 52 appendices because those appendices have their 13 own recordkeeping provisions.
14 The NRC is asking if we should revise the 15 Part 52 appendices to conform those recordkeeping 16 requirements with those proposed for 52.53.
17 Next slide please. Okay, Slide 23, low 18 level waste transportation. When a plant is actively 19 being decommissioning the plant typically generates 20 large volumes of bulk low level radioactive waste.
21 To efficiently manage the transportation 22 of the waste to a licensed disposal site most 23 licensees ship waste by rail. The railroads control 24 the schedule for the transportation of the railcars to 25
40 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 the destination. And the time to reach the disposal 1
destination is generally more than the 20-day 2
notification requirement that's currently in the 3
regulation.
4 Licensees, the licensees will continue to 5
track and monitor the location of the progress of 6
their low level waste shipments, but notification to 7
the NRC would no longer be required unless the 45-day 8
limit is exceeded. So changing the 20 days to 45 9
days.
10 Next slide please. Spent fuel management 11 planning. So a brief background on this topic. The 12 NRC staff identified ambiguity in the spent fuel 13 management and decommissioning regulations due to a 14 lack of cross referencing between Part 72 and Part 50.
15 The rulemaking clarifies the information 16 for consistency. Specifically, the regulation in 10 17 CFR 72.218 states that the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) spent fuel 18 management program, or the irradiated fuel management 19 plan, or IFMP, must show how the spent fuel will be 20 managed before starting to decommission systems and 21 components needed for moving unloaded, unloading and 22 shipping the spent fuel.
23 Section 72.218 also requires that an 24 application for termination of a reactor operating 25
41 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 license submitted under 50.82 or 52.110 must also 1
describe how the spent fuel stored, under the Part 72 2
general license, will be removed from the reactor 3
site. Although Section 72.218 states what information 4
must be included in these Part 50 documents.
5 The corresponding regulations in Part 50 6
do not contain this information therefore the NRC 7
proposes to clarify and align the regulations in 8
Section 50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110 and 72.218 to ensure 9
appropriate documentation of spent fuel management 10 plans and decommissioning plans.
11 I think we might be on the wrong slide, 12 can you back up please? Sorry. Sorry. Thank you so 13 much. So, yes, sorry. We're on the spent fuel 14 management planning topic.
15 Okay. So the rule changes that we are 16 proposing in 50.54(bb). The NRC proposes moving the 17 72.218 provisions to 50.54(bb) to clarify that the 18 irradiated fuel management plan must be submitted and 19 approved before the licensee starts to decommission 20 system structures and components needed for moving, 21 unloading and shipping the spent fuel.
22 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 23 IFMP approval process and the 50.54(bb) provisions 24 regarding preliminary approval and final NRC review of 25
42 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 the irradiated fuel management plan as part of any 1
proceedings for, sorry, as part of any proceedings for 2
continued licensing under Part 50 or 72 as these 3
proceedings no longer exist as they did when 50.54(bb) 4 was first promulgated.
5 The NRC proposes to require submittal of 6
the initial IFMP and any subsequent changes to the 7
IFMP as a license amendment request. So 72.218, the 8
changes in that section.
9 The NRC proposes revising Section 72.218 10 to address the requirements related to decommissioning 11 and termination of the Part 72 general license as the 12 current title of 72.218, which is termination of 13 licenses, suggests.
14 Specifically, the proposed Section 72.218 15 notes that the general licensed ISFSI must be 16 decommissioned consistent with the requirements in 17 50.82 or 52.110 as the general license ISFSI is part 18 of the Part 50 or Part 52 licensed site. Also, the 19 proposed 72.218 notes that the general license is 20 terminated upon termination of the Part 50 or 52 21 license.
22 There is a specific request for comment 23 associated with this topic. The proposed rule 24 clarifies the current IFMP approval process by 25
43 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 requiring submittal of an initial IFMP and that any 1
changes to the IFMP, I'm sorry, and any changes to the 2
IFMP for NRC review and approval by license amendment, 3
we would like to know if stakeholders see any 4
challenges with implementing this part of the proposed 5
rule.
6 We're also considering including a change 7
control provision to specify what changes the licensee 8
can make to the IFMP without NRC approval. We would 9
like to know what stakeholders input on a change 10 control process, including criteria for changes 11 licensees can make without NRC approval and any 12 associated recordkeeping or reporting requirements for 13 those changes.
14 We are making updates to guidance 15 associated with this topic. For the IFMP we added 16 guidance to draft guide 1347 in Sections (c)(3) to 17 outline the information to be included in the 18 licensee's IFMP.
19 For general licensee ISFSI decommissioning 20 we added references to general license ISFSIs in both 21 Draft Guide 1347 and 1349 to make it clear that the 22 general license ISFSI must be decommissioned 23 consistent with the requirements in 50.82 and 52.110.
24 The NRC staff believes that these changes will 25
44 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 provide regulatory clarity and an enhanced overall 1
regulatory transparency and openness regarding 2
decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.
3 Next topic please. Or next slide please.
4 All right, so at this point I will turn it over to 5
Mr. Howard Benowitz, who is here at the table with me.
6 Howard is a senior attorney in the NRC's 7
Office of the General Counsel and is our lead attorney 8
for this rulemaking activity. Howard.
9 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan. And for the 10 reporter, my name is Howard Benowitz with the NRC's 11 Office of the General Counsel.
12 We're on Slide 25, the backfit rule. And 13 in this proposed rule we will be providing a new 14 backfitting provision that would be for nuclear power 15 reactor licensees and decommissioning.
16 The proposed rule would renumber the 17 paragraphs of current 10 CFR 50.109. So that Section 18 50.109(a) would be the current backfit rule. And 19 50.109(b) would be the new rule text for 20 decommissioning nuclear power plant licensees.
21 The NRC is also proposing edits to the 22 backfitting provision in Part 72 so that that 23 provision applies during decommissioning of an ISFSI 24 or a monitored retrievable storage facility.
25
45 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 And we would also revise the requirement 1
in 50.109 that the NRC must consider the costs of 2
imposing a backfit if the basis for backfitting is the 3
compliance exception to the requirement to perform a 4
backfit analysis. This would reflect a change in the 5
Commission's backfitting policies. And that came in a 6
2019 update to Management Directive 8.4.
7 Next slide please. That would be Slide 8
- 26.
Regarding foreign ownership control or 9
domination.
10 The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's 11 regulations provide definitions for utilization 12 facilities and production facilities. Additionally, 13 some of the provisions of the act, and our 14 regulations, including the foreign ownership control 15 or domination prohibition, apply only to a utilization 16 or a production facility.
17 During decommissioning activities, a 18 utilization facility, or a production facility, will 19 be dismantled to the point that it no longer meets the 20 definition of production or utilization facility.
21 The proposed rule adds language to 22 establish the criteria for when exactly a utilization 23 facility, or a production facility, is no longer a 24 utilization facility or a production facility. Just 25
46 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 physically the dismantling of the facility, or 1
whatever the licensee does to the facility, prohibits 2
it from actually performing the functions that enable 3
it to be "utilization facility or a production 4
facility."
5 The proposed rule also adds language to 6
affirm that despite not being a production or 7
utilization facility. The NRC would continue to have 8
statutory authority over the existing Part 50 or 52 9
license. And that the NRC regulations applicable to a 10 utilization facility or a production facility will 11 continue to apply to the holder of that Part 50 or 12 Part 52 license. Unless the regulations explicitly 13 state otherwise.
14 An example of this is another proposed 15 change we had in this rule which would amend the 16 foreign ownership control or domination regulation 17 that's in 10 CFR 50.38. And we would change it to 18 state that it would no longer apply, that prohibition 19 would no longer apply once a Part 50 or 52 facility is 20 no longer a utilization or a production facility.
21 Therefore our regulations would not 22 prohibit the transfer of a Part 50 or 52 license for a 23 facility that is no longer a utilization facility or a 24 production facility. No longer prohibited to transfer 25
47 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 that license to a foreign owner controlled or 1
dominated entity.
2 Next slide please. Going back to the 3
backfit slide, I just realized there's a specific 4
request for comments. We do have one on the backfit 5
rule section.
6 It asks if there are -- we want your 7
feedback on the advantages or disadvantages of having 8
a backfit provision for licensees and decommissioning.
9 I'm now on Slide
- 27.
Regarding 10 clarification of scope of license termination plan 11 requirements. This part of the proposed rule would 12 clarify regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 and 52.110.
13 Concerning the license termination 14 requirements. And state that they do not apply before 15 fuel has been loaded into the reactor. Consistent 16 with our historical practice.
17 These license termination provisions are 18 written for reactors that have commenced operation.
19 And the NRC has historically viewed operation as 20 beginning with the loading of fuel into the reactor.
21 And this is discussed in more detail in the proposed 22 rule FRN.
23 The NRC is proposing this change because 24 some confusion has arisen about whether 52, 10 CFR 25
48 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 52.110 was applicable when certain combined license 1
holders sought to terminate their licenses during 2
construction, or before construction even began. The 3
NRC informed these licensees that 10 CFR 52.110 did 4
not apply for reasons that are documented in the 5
proposed rule.
6 Next slide please. It would be Slide 28.
7 Concerning the removal of certain license conditions 8
and withdrawal of an order.
9 So the order is Order EA-06-137. Which 10 was issued in the post-9/11 time period concerning 11 mitigation strategies for large fires or explosions at 12 nuclear power plants. We subsequently issued 13 regulations that are very similar to that order.
14 And the license conditions are conditions 15 associated with that order, order EA-02-026. And the 16 cyber security license conditions that Dan discussed 17 previously.
18 These license conditions in this order are 19 all substantively redundant with existing provisions 20 in our regulations. And so there is no reason to have 21 the license conditions in the licenses and for this 22 order to still be on the books.
23 So the license condition is deemed removed 24 would be actually removed by an administrative license 25
49 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 amendment after we, after the effective date of this 1
final rule. Presumably. Presuming that this final 2
rule includes this provision.
3 This will be done by the NRC staff.
4 Licensees would not have to submit anything by putting 5
it into the rule like this. It's procedurally more 6
efficient.
7 We are interested in obtaining stakeholder 8
input to identify potential redundant requirements 9
that are not in this proposed rule that have to do, 10 ideally related to decommissioning.
11 Next slide please. That will be slide 29.
12 This one is pretty straightforward. We have 13 regulations on our books that as written, apply to 14 what, Part 50 licensees that are in decommissioning.
15 But don't mention that provision in Part 16 52, 52.110, that would make that regulation 17 applicable, or not applicable, once that Part 52 18 licensee goes into decommissioning. So we have 19 identified several, you can see them in the top right 20 corner of the slide in that box, several regulations 21 that require, in almost every instance, it's just 22 adding the words, and 52.110, or something to that 23 effect, to ensure there is consistency between how 24 these regulations apply or don't apply to a Part 50, 25
50 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 holder of a Part 50 operating license and a Part 52 1
combined license.
2 And that's it for me, Dan. Back to you.
3 MR. DOYLE: Thank you so much, Howard.
4 Next slide, please. Okay. I promised I would get 5
back to you on it, so, again, we have the Section V in 6
the Federal Register Notice.
7 We have quite a list of specific requests 8
for feedback for you to consider if this is something 9
that you are interested in. This helps the Agency 10 kind of direct attention to areas where we are 11 particularly interested in your feedback.
12 So, again, there are 18 questions that are 13 in there. We highlighted the ones that were related 14 to the previous topics, the previous on the 16 15 separate technical areas that we just finished talking 16 about.
17 So here is all of them. So there were a 18 few that I wanted to follow up with you about or 19 explain, make sure I touched on. So cyber security, I 20 think I did not cover that one. It is the fifth one 21 on the left side.
22 So the proposed rule applies cyber 23 security requirements to Level 1 plants. So that's 24 when they submit, after they submit the two 25
51 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 certifications.
1 The licensee in Level 2, which is after 2
the sufficient decay of the spent fuel, would not be 3
required to maintain a cyber security plan under this 4
proposed rule because the NRC is determined that there 5
is little chance that the spent fuel in the spent fuel 6
pool could heat up to a clad ignition temperature 7
within ten hours.
8 So our question is what would be the 9
advantages and disadvantages of extending that through 10 the end of Level 2, so extending it until, extending 11 the requirement to maintain the cyber security program 12 until all spent fuel is transferred to dry cask 13 storage. So that would be Level 3. So that is what 14 that question is about.
15 So we'll just stay on this slide here.
16 Let me jump a little bit. All right. The next one I 17 wanted to mention was insurance for specific license 18 ISFSIs. That's the fourth one on the right side 19 there.
20 Insurance for specific license ISFSIs, so 21 we have a question about that. So the question 22 basically gives a background about how things work 23 today and here is what I wanted to direct your 24 attention to, the NRC recognizes that as the reactor 25
52 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 site is decommissioned eventually all that remains of 1
the Part 50 or 52 license site is the general license 2
ISFSI under Part 72, which is essentially the same as 3
a specific license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72.
4 So general license, specific license 5
ISFSI, essentially the same. Considering that 10 CFR 6
Part 72 specific license ISFSIs have no financial 7
protection requirements should the NRC address the 8
disparity between specific license and general license 9
ISFSIs as part of this rulemaking? Please provide an 10 explanation for your response. That is the question.
11 All right. And then there were a few 12 other ones that were, didn't really fit under the 13 topics that we covered there, so I wanted to mention 14 the PSDAR approval question, a timeframe for 15 decommissioning, those are both on the upper left 16 there, and then on kind of the right side the 17 exemptions and the question about applicability.
18 So PSDAR approval. So the question talks 19 about basically how thing work today with the post-20 shutdown decommissioning activities report. We 21 already talked about that a little bit.
22 So the question is essentially should the 23 NRC require approval of the PSDAR site-specific 24 environmental
- review, have a
site-specific 25
53 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 environmental review, and a hearing opportunity. We 1
are asking for stakeholder input on that.
2 The next one was the timeframe for 3
decommissioning. So the NRC is not proposing changes 4
to the decommissioning timeframe requirements as part 5
of this proposed rule.
6 Not proposing changes, but we are asking a 7
question. What would the advantages and disadvantages 8
be of requiring prompt decontamination rather than 9
allowing up to 60 years to decommission a site?
10 As part of its review of the PSDAR what 11 are advantages and disadvantages of NRC evaluating and 12 making a
decision about the timeframe for 13 decommissioning on a site-specific basis?
14 All right, two more that I wanted to 15 highlight for you related to exemptions. What are the 16 advantages and disadvantages of the current 10 CFR 17 50.12 approach to decommissioning related exemptions?
18 What standard should the NRC apply in 19 determining whether to grant exemptions from the new 20 or amended regulations? What are the advantages and 21 disadvantages of providing an opportunity for the 22 public to weigh in on such exemption requests?
23 Are there other process changes the NRC 24 should consider in determining whether to grant 25
54 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 exemptions from the new or amended regulations?
1 And the last one I wanted to highlight 2
that I had not already covered is, it's underlined, it 3
says applicability. So Section III of this document 4
of the proposed rule has the discussion about 5
applicability, so we do have a specific discussion 6
that is in there about applicability to NRC licensees 7
during operations and to ISFSI only or stand-alone SSC 8
decommission reactor sites.
9 So I know that there has been some 10 stakeholder interest in this and how does this rule 11 apply to reactors that are currently operating, how 12 does it apply to reactors or facilities that have 13 already decommissioned, so we do discuss that in that 14 section.
15 Permanently shutdown nuclear power plants 16 will be at a different stage of the decommissioning 17 when the new decommissioning regulations become 18 effective and we'll have previously received varying 19 regulatory exemptions.
20 So we are asking stakeholders if you 21 foresee any implementation issues with the proposed 22 rule as it is currently written for any new or amended 23 requirements in the proposed rule, how should the 24 requirement apply to sites that are currently in 25
55 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 different stages of decommissioning.
1 All right. So we have briefly touched on 2
each of these questions. Next slide, please. There 3
is a regulatory analysis. This is a standard NRC 4
practice for rulemaking.
5 We have a document where we attempt to 6
identify all of the costs and benefits associated with 7
the action that we are proposing. So we have a draft 8
regulatory analysis for this rulemaking and I wanted 9
to highlight a few aspects of that.
10 So, in summary, the proposed rule is 11 determined to be cost beneficial with the estimated 12 net averted cost of approximately $17.9 million at a 7 13 percent net present value, $37 million at a 3 percent 14 net present value, for the recommended alternatives.
15 There are a few decommissioning areas that 16 we wanted to point out. The emergency preparedness, 17 that kind of had the largest influence on this 18 outcome.
19 The emergency preparedness alternative was 20 estimated to result in this net averted cost of 21 approximately $7.74 million at 7 percent.
22 So when we say net averted cost, these are 23 costs how the future would have essentially looked if 24 we are now proposing this action and savings compared 25
56 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 to that with what we are proposing, so those are 1
considered as benefits.
2 The drug and alcohol testing alternative 3
would have $7.03 million net averted cost and the 4
decommissioning funding assurance, I'm sorry, funding, 5
sorry, I think it was a missed, typo on the slide 6
there, assurance alternative, decommissioning funding 7
assurance, not insurance, is estimated to result in 8
net averted costs of approximately $1.18 million. All 9
those are 7 percent net present value.
10 You are welcome to review and provide any 11 feedback on this document as part of the proposed rule 12 and comment.
13 Next slide, please. Again, this slide, 14 I'm sorry, that document, the regulatory analysis on 15 the earlier slide where I had listed the proposed rule 16 and other related documents.
17 All right. There are a few tips that I 18 wanted to point out. I am sure many of the people who 19 are attending this have reviewed and commented on 20 proposed rules before and are well aware of the 21 resources that are out there, but in case you aren't, 22 and there are a few things that we are doing a little 23 differently here to try to help stakeholders who are 24 interested in giving this I just wanted to point out a 25
57 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 few things that you are welcome to review.
1 Next slide, please. All right, so we have 2
three tips. Tip Number 1 is to consider reviewing 3
this commenter's checklist. It's on regulations.gov.
4 This is not something that the NRC wrote, but it's on 5
regulations.gov, which is this website that many other 6
agencies use, including the NRC, for providing 7
information about rulemaking activities and to collect 8
public feedback.
9 So they have developed a list of tips and 10 things to consider as you are reviewing a proposed 11 rule to try to help the process overall be more 12 efficient, to kind of provide the kind of information 13 that is helpful to federal agencies when you submit 14 your comments, so please consider taking a look at 15 that.
16 There is a link to that checklist right on 17 regulations.gov. There is a comment form. So if you 18 click on the comment form you can enter your comments 19 there. Right on the top of that it has a link to this 20 checklist and there is also a printable format.
21 So if you are able to click the link here 22 and you wanted to do that that would come up. If not, 23 then I apologize, and you could download the slides 24 or, again, you could contact me and I could, I am 25
58 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 happy to send it to you.
1 All right, next slide, please. Tip Number 2
2, I mentioned this earlier. This is a document that 3
we have created to assist the public when reviewing 4
this proposed rule.
5 This is the unofficial redline rule 6
language. So, again, this shows how the proposed rule 7
would modify the current regulations in 8
redline/strikeout format, so what would be deleted, 9
what would stay the same.
10 So we have included all of the text in any 11 section that we are modifying. So some of them, as 12 you kind of flip through and you see this is just, you 13 know, if it's just normal looking, black-and-white 14 text without any strikeout or underline that means 15 that there is no change to that.
16 So the proposed changes are just where 17 there is the underlined text for inserted and then the 18 strikeout for text that would be deleted. So it may 19 be helpful in providing context for the changes.
20 Please consider reviewing that.
21 Next slide, please. All right. The final 22 tip is that you can find additional information about 23 this rulemaking on the NRC's public website. So we 24 just created a single-page intended to be a one-stop 25
59 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 shop for people who may be interested in this 1
rulemaking.
2 It has a direct link to the proposed rule, 3
a direct link to the form where you can submit a 4
comment if you would like to do that, the related 5
documents that I mentioned, public meetings, so 6
including this public meeting and future meetings that 7
Trish mentioned in her introduction.
8 We will be adding information there to be 9
able to join it before the meeting and then after the 10 meeting posting a link to the meeting summary and the 11 other materials if folks in the future were not able 12 to attend or if anyone here wanted to go back and take 13 a look at that later, we will be adding that to the 14 website.
15 There is a QR code if you wanted to scan 16 that and see it on your phone, but it would be kind of 17 small. There is also a short link, or you could find 18 it on the NRC's public website, or, if it's easier, 19 feel free, again, to just reach out to me and I will 20 be happy to send you a link to it.
21 Next slide, please. All right. So this 22 is just about the end of the prepared staff 23 presentation. I just wanted to highlight the next 24 steps, some of the key milestones.
25
60 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 So, again, we are in the public comment 1
period right now. It closes May 17th, so that's 11:59 2
p.m. I believe it's Eastern Time, but just -- I 3
wouldn't cut it close.
4 But, anyway, it's like the end of the day, 5
so that full day you would be able to submit comments 6
and it is supposed to close like right before 7
midnight.
8 Then the staff will review all of the 9
public comments and address them as part of developing 10 the final rule package. The final rule is due to the 11 Commission October of 2023 and the final rule, or 12 estimated, so these are both estimated dates, October 13 of 2023 to the Commission and the final rule 14 publication date.
15 So we do keep our schedules updated on our 16 public website and if there is a change in the future 17 we would reflect that there.
18 Next slide, please. What is -- Let's see.
19 Okay, so that concludes what we had prepared. Thank 20 you for your attention going through that.
21 We hope that the information there was 22 helpful and useful and maybe could be used as a 23 reference or, you know, highlighting things that will 24 hopefully assist you in taking a look at this proposed 25
61 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 rule. We are interested in your feedback.
1 So what we have on the agenda here --
2 Well, I think I was going to turn it back over to 3
Lance for this portion. Lance is our facilitator for 4
the meeting and will assist with the rest. Thank you.
5 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, it's all good, Dan.
6 Thank you. That was a lot of time there and a lot to 7
digest so we wanted to give folks a chance to kind of 8
take a break, stretch their legs, take a bio break, 9
get some more caffeine, whatever you need.
10 So we were looking at ten minutes, but 11 looking at the time what do you say we start back up 12 at 2:35. Like it gives people a little bit longer 13 than ten minutes and we'll go ahead and open the floor 14 to questions at that point.
15 So, again, we'll start back at 2:35 16 Eastern. Sound good, Dan?
17 MR. DOYLE: Yes. Thank you so much.
18 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 2:24 p.m. and resumed at 2:35 p.m.)
21 MR. RAKOVAN: Folks, if you wouldn't mind 22 giving us a second, we're going to work on making sure 23 that we can unmute that line.
24 While we are waiting for that I will go 25
62 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 ahead and go over a few things. So, again, please 1
remember that our goal here today is to help you, is 2
to help to provide you with information so that you 3
can provide informed comments.
4 So we ask that your questions focus on any 5
clarification you or others may need in terms of the 6
proposed decommissioning rule or the draft regulatory 7
guidance.
8 I will take questions here on Teams and on 9
the phone and Dan is going to help me out with any 10 hands that are raised in the Commissioner's Hearing 11 Room there at NRC Headquarters.
12 If you are on Teams you can use the raise 13 your hand feature to signal that you have a question.
14 Those on the phone can use star five. I will go in 15 order that I see hands come up.
16 Those on Teams should be able to unmute 17 themselves. Those on the phone can use star six to 18 unmute themselves. Again, I will take hands in the 19 order that I see them and work with Dan if there are 20 any questions there in the room.
21 With that, I will see if we have been able 22 to unmute the line in the room. Dan, we can't hear 23 you. Okay, unfortunately, you might need to call back 24 in, I don't know. I don't know how to unmute you, I 25
63 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 apologize.
1 All right, I do see we have a question, 2
but I think we would like to try to work out our 3
technical issues before we take some, so if you could 4
give us a moment and we'll get to the questions.
5 Again, I will try to get them in the order 6
that I see them. I apologize for the delay, folks.
7 (Pause.)
8 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. I am getting 9
some messages that they are working on it. Again, 10 appreciate your patience on this.
11 (Pause.)
12 MR. DOYLE: Hello. Lance, can you hear 13 us?
14 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, we can. You are a 15 little faint. You could be a little louder, but we 16 can hear you.
17 MR. DOYLE: Wonderful. How about now, 18 does that sound better?
19 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, that's much better. We 20 do not have any kind of video feed or slide feed, but 21 that's okay. Do you want to go ahead? I do have one 22 hand up if you would like to take -- Oh, that person 23 just put their hand down, okay.
24 MR. DOYLE: All right. Yes, I think --
25
64 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 MR. RAKOVAN: I hope we didn't intimidate 1
them.
2 MR. DOYLE: I think we will try to share 3
in case there are any questions, you know, that we 4
needed to have the slides we might need to jump back 5
to, so we will pull that up.
6 But, yes, so this is the fun part of the 7
meeting. We are here and interested in -- And, again, 8
so just to emphasize the purpose of the meeting here, 9
we are trying to help stakeholders understand the 10 proposed rule and comments would need to be submitted 11 in writing, but we are interested in any questions and 12 if there is anything that we can help to clarify.
13 Is there anyone here in the room that 14 would like to ask a question? We have the two 15 microphones.
16 MR. RAKOVAN: And, again, for anyone on 17 Teams you can raise your hand and I will take the 18 hands in the order that I see them. If you are on the 19 phone you can use star five to give me a signal and 20 then star six to unmute yourself and ask a question.
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. RAKOVAN: I see no takers on Teams.
23 Dan, anyone in the room there?
24 MR. DOYLE: Yes. It looks like we do have 25
65 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 a taker. Yes, sir?
1 MR. CHAPPELL: Good afternoon. Coley 2
Chappell with PSEG Nuclear. A question on the use of 3
the unofficial redline.
4 What is the best way for when we are 5
preparing comments, what's the best way to use that 6
unofficial redline in conjunction with the updated 7
Federal Register information looking at in particular 8
perhaps some of the most recent changes that are being 9
proposed? Thank you.
10 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Thank you for that 11 question. So it sounded a little faint here in the 12 room. I will just repeat it again real quick in case 13 anyone was not able to hear.
14 The question was basically what's the best 15 way to use the unofficial redline document to 16 understand any changes, or recent changes.
17 So that document is another format or 18 another way of understanding what the changes would be 19 to the regulations.
20 So I know the last part of the Federal 21 Register Notice has the amendatory instructions where 22 it says "insert new section" 50.200, you know, delete 23 this paragraph and revise it to state the following, 24 right.
25
66 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 It's kind of hard to tell what exactly the 1
changes are sometimes and just a list, we have to 2
follow a format that is given to us by the Office of 3
the Federal Register, to be extremely clear about what 4
the changes are, but that's not necessarily the best 5
format for a member of the public to really know just 6
by looking at it what actually is changing.
7 Sometimes there is just, you know, a word 8
or two that is changing. So that's just kind of 9
explaining again what the document is.
10 And then I think kind of what you are 11 getting at with, you know, recent changes, that if 12 there were, you know, we're going through a whole 13 process here, we follow our, we love processes and 14 procedures, and so part of that includes, you know, 15 the staff sending up, the staff sent up a paper to the 16 Commission. That was in 2018.
17 The Commission, there is, you know, up to 18 five Commissioners that are appointed for the NRC that 19 set the policy for the Agency. We have three at the 20 moment right now.
21 (Off microphone comment.)
22 MR. DOYLE: So they review and vote and 23 provide direction back to the staff in the staff 24 Requirements Memorandum, is what we call that. Then 25
67 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 we, the staff, will update the documents to reflect 1
that.
2 So I think what you were getting at within 3
the recent changes was the areas where the Commission 4
had directed some changes. So the staff updated the 5
other portions of the rulemaking package to reflect 6
that, so we have addressed the Commission's direction.
7 So if you see changes in the rule text you 8
should also see a corresponding discussion that is 9
consistent with that in the, you know, the scope of 10 the proposal section or, you know, in the Federal 11 Register Notice where we explain here is what this 12 topic is about and what changes we are making and the 13 purpose of those changes that those should be 14 consistent with.
15 Those should be consistent with the 16 changes to the rule languages. So if you see 17 something you should be able to jump back to that 18 section and look through there and understand or there 19 is another kind of a backup section called the 20 section-by-section analysis. We use the word 21 "section" a lot.
22 So that goes through sequentially all of 23 the, every section in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 that has a change and just very briefly states what 25
68 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 that change is. So those should all be consistent. I 1
hope that answers your question.
2 MR. CHAPPELL: Yes.
3 MR. DOYLE: Yes?
4 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz at 5
the NRC. Please do not submit comments on the 6
unofficial redline document, that rule text. That is 7
not part of the official package, if you will.
8 That is the Federal Register Notice and 9
accompanying documents, like the regulatory analysis, 10 you know, those documents that Dan -- This unofficial 11 redline is a tool just to help the public understand 12 and see really more of the changes that we are 13 proposing to the rule language.
14 So we would ask for comments on what I 15 would call the official documents, that's the Federal 16 Register
- Notice, the regulatory
- analysis, the 17 environmental assessment, you know, those documents.
18 This is really not part of that. I think 19 this might be the first time or it's rare that we 20 provide a document like this in rulemaking space. You 21 might find it useful, you might not.
22 But if you comment on the rule text it 23 should be on what's in the Federal Register Notice, 24 that rule text. That's all. Thank you.
25
69 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 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. Dan, anyone else 1
in the room have any questions, because I don't see 2
any hands in Teams? Again, if you have a question on 3
Teams -- Oh, I do, one just popped up. Jerry Bonanno, 4
if you could unmute yourself and ask your question.
5 MR. BONANNO: Sure. Thank you. I 6
appreciate it. I appreciate the presentation. I hope 7
you all can hear me okay.
8 This is Jerry Bonanno from NEI. I had a 9
question, maybe this one is for Howard, just on the 10 proposed backfitting language in the rule in the 11 proposed 51.09B.
12 So I note in the preamble to the proposed 13 rule there was a lot of discussion of the term 14 "operate" and "operation" and tied that term to the 15 spent fuel pool and the ISFSI and the associated SSCs.
16 So I just had a question on the proposed 17 rule language in (b)(1). It says, you know, 18 "Backfitting is defined as a modification or addition 19 to system, structures, or components in use after 20 permanent cessation of operations."
21 So I was curious if that language "in use" 22 was meant to kind of refer back to the spent fuel 23 pool, associated SSCs and the 2, or, you know, how "in 24 use" was intended to limit maybe the SSCs that the 25
70 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 definition applied to.
1 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz 2
with the NRC. Thank you for that question. I would 3
ask that -- I am not sure what kind of answer I am 4
going to give you, so, of course, you can submit it as 5
a question which would allow us more time to think 6
about the answer than what I am allotted here.
7 I am looking at that rule language now and 8
"SSCs in use after permanent cessation of operations" 9
-- I am just trying to think if I -- Maybe we need to 10 have a point where it no longer applies.
11 I mean that might be a comment. I am just 12 thinking out loud now to help all of us, because we 13 have when it, sort of when this provision would begin, 14 but we don't necessarily, I don't know if we have one 15 when it would end, and that might help answer your 16 question or it might help define what SSCs we're 17 talking about, right.
18 I mean even if we say a license 19 termination was still an ISFSI but then you have the 20 Part 72 provision, right, 72.62, backfitting provision 21 for an ISFSI.
22 So I think, you know, here, given that you 23 have that provision for an ISFSI, the spent fuel pool 24 I think is the, it would be applicable, that would one 25
71 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 of the SSCs that would be applicable for this proposed 1
revision 50.109B(1) where it refers to SSCs.
2 Then, you know, once the facility no 3
longer has spent fuel pool, you know, what SSCs are 4
left. I mean it just, you know, depends on the 5
dismantling process.
6 But I would -- I think the answer -- I 7
think now then, thinking out loud to answer your 8
question, might be yes if the question was is it 9
referring to the SSCs like a spent fuel pool. I think 10 the answer there is yes. Does that help answer your 11 question?
12 MR. BONANNO: Yes, thank you. It was just 13 really trying to read whether, you know, when I read 14 it I had read it I think consistently with where you 15 ended up, Howard, which was it just depends what SSCs 16 are still, you know, at the plant and it's going to 17 depend on the phase of decommissioning that the plant 18 is in. But, yes, thank you, that helps.
19 MR. BENOWITZ: Great. Thanks.
20 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. Anyone else at 21 this time have any questions? Don't be shy, now is 22 the time, the floor is open.
23 Again, if you are on the phone you can use 24 star five. It looks like I do have a hand. If you 25
72 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 could let us know who you are and go ahead with your 1
question, please.
2 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, hi. This is Bruce 3
Montgomery with the Nuclear Energy Institute. I would 4
like to thank everybody for this opportunity. We have 5
already heard a couple of our industry members are 6
going to be involved in reviewing this package, Jerry 7
and Coley.
8 It seems to me this is probably the -- You 9
know, I guess the best way to characterize this is 10 it's the beginning of an end of a very long journey 11 that started maybe, what, six years ago.
12 It looks like it's going to wrap up if we 13 stay on schedule in 2024, which means, you know, this 14 is an eight to ten year journey that we have been on.
15 But I would like to say that we very much 16 appreciate, just on a first glance of what we have 17 seen of the package, that the NRC has done a very 18 thorough and competent job of putting together this 19 very significant regulatory package.
20 It's a big body of work and, you know, 21 we've got some questions. I think you just heard a 22 couple of them.
23 I am not going to say that based on what 24 we have seen so far that we are going to ultimately 25
73 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 agree with everything in the package, but if you 1
looked at, you know, if you would just say how much 2
have we seen that we agree to, I think that in the end 3
it's going to be a very high percentage of the changes 4
that the NRC is proposing that we are going to agree 5
with.
6 I think is a very significant improvement 7
in the regulatory framework around decommissioning.
8 It's going to result in significant efficiencies in 9
transitioning plants from operations and even through 10 decommissioning.
11 We still have work to do on the back end 12 of the process. We will be working on that 13 separately, but do very much welcome the work that NRC 14 has done to identify inconsistencies and efficiencies 15 of the process, so thanks to you all for that.
16 We do intend to respond by May 17th as 17 requested and we will also be responding to the 18 special questions that are included in the package.
19 So, again, Dan, I had hoped to be there in 20 person, it just didn't work out. I couldn't get my 21 Teams link to work, but, Dan and Howard and the rest 22 of your team, thanks so much for the work you have 23 done and the opportunity today, so thank you.
24 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay. Thank you, Bruce.
25
74 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 All right. Dan, I am assuming that there is no other 1
hands in the room?
2 MR. DOYLE: No, there are no hands in the 3
room.
4 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. Again, if you 5
have a question you can raise your hand if you are on 6
Teams or hit star five if you are connected through 7
your phone line.
8 (No response.)
9 MR. RAKOVAN: Seeing no hands at this 10 time.
11 MR. DOYLE: Okay, sounds good. So let's 12 go to the next slide, which I think is all the way --
13 Yes, there we go.
14 So we are always interested in feedback on 15 our public meetings and how we could do them better, 16 for example don't drop the phone line during the 17 meeting. So lesson learned from that one.
18 So there are a number of questions and we 19 encourage you to fill out this feedback form just 20 about, not about the rulemaking, just about the 21 meeting itself and how it was conducted.
22 So there is the QR for that. You can also 23 have a, there is a link to that on the meeting details 24 page on the NRC website if you would like to provide 25
75 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 feedback on that.
1 And just other I guess closing thoughts is 2
we do have another public meeting scheduled for next 3
Thursday, that's March 31st. We scheduled it later in 4
the day, so it's 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
5 The idea was to try to, you know, have 6
multiple opportunities, maybe if someone is in a 7
different time zone or is working or busy or just had 8
a conflict and wasn't able to attend today, but the 9
intention was to basically go through the same kind of 10 presentation as we did here, so going through the 11 discussion and the slides that we had today.
12 So if you are interested in kind of 13 following everything about this rulemaking and wanted 14 to see that I just wanted to point out that basically 15 the first half of it is similar to today and it would 16 be almost the same.
17 Again, we will have opportunity for 18 question and answer after that. So that's the part 19 that I imagine would be different. Also, Trish had 20 mentioned in the opening remarks that we are planning 21 for several public meetings around the country.
22 So we will be adding that to our website 23 once we have the details for that firm and, again, 24 those will be hybrid. So if folks happen to live near 25
76 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 those locations and you wanted to come in person you 1
could. If you wanted to attend on Teams you can do 2
that.
3 So we'll be putting out the agenda. I 4
guess for now I am thinking -- Well, I guess we'll 5
have to reconsider if maybe a different format or a 6
different focus would be better.
7 I guess my kind of default for now would 8
be to follow kind of a similar format again, but we 9
are open to reconsidering and we'll circle back after 10 we complete these two meetings and we'll put out 11 agendas for those meetings in April.
12 But we just wanted to do everything that 13 we could to increase awareness of the proposed rule 14 and the opportunity to provide feedback on it, so 15 that's why we were planning to have those meetings.
16 I think that concludes everything that I 17 had in mind. Trish?
18 DR. HOLAHAN: I just wanted to add on to 19 what Dan said. We are considering, you know, having 20 the meetings, but we are going to have them probably 21 in Illinois, California, Georgia, and the Boston area 22 so we can have a broad spectrum of participants that 23 want to either come or they are interested in that 24 area.
25
77 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 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Thank you, everyone, so 1
much for your attention. That is all we had for you 2
today. I think we are going to be wrapping this up 3
about an hour early, which is fine. Hopefully that's 4
okay with everybody.
5 Thanks again for your time and attention 6
and we look forward to any comments you may have on 7
the proposed rule. That concludes the meeting. Thank 8
you so much.
9 DR. HOLAHAN: Thank you.
10 MR. DOYLE: Have a great day.
11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 3:00 p.m.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25