ML22277A002

Public Meeting Transcript for Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning, Pages 1-81

ML22277A002
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/04/2022
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Doyle, Daniel
References
NRC-1892, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59
Download: ML22277A002 (81)

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: Thursday, March 31, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-1892 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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 5 ON "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PRODUCTION AND 6 UTILIZATION FACILITIES TRANSITIONING TO 7 DECOMMISSIONING" 8 + + + + +

9 THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 31, 2022 11 + + + + +

12 The meeting convened at the Commission 13 Hearing Room, NRC One White Flint North, 11555 14 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and by video 15 teleconference, at 4:00 p.m. EDT, Lance Rakovan, 16 Meeting Facilitator, presiding.

17 18 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

19 LANCE RAKOVAN, Meeting Facilitator; Senior 20 Environmental Project Manager, Office of Nuclear 21 Material Safety and Safeguards 22 HOWARD BENOWITZ, Senior Attorney 23 DANIEL DOYLE, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 24 Safeguards NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 STACEY IMBODEN, Senior Project Manager, Office of 2 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 3 PATRICIA HOLAHAN, Director, Office of Enforcement 4 GLENNA LAPPERT, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 5 Safeguards 6 MAURIN SCHEETZ, Reactor Operations Engineer, Office of 7 Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8 BRIAN ZALESKI, Fitness for Duty Program Specialist, 9 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 10 11 PUBLIC COMMENTERS:

12 MICHAEL COSTELLO 13 THEODORE WENTWORTH 14 TONY LESHINSKIE 15 RICH JANATI 16 CHRISTOPHER SALZ 17 TODD SMITH 18 ERIC GILLEN 19 20 21 22 23 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

3 1 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 PAGE 3 Welcome and Logistics..............................4 4 Background and Status..............................8 5 Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................13 6 Tips for Preparing Comments.......................49 7 Public Feedback and Questions.....................54 8 Next Steps and Wrap-up............................78 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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

4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 4:00 p.m.

3 MR. RAKOVAN: So, hello everyone, my name 4 is Lance Rakovan. I'm a senior environmental project 5 manager at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or 6 NRC, and it's my pleasure to facilitate today's 7 meeting, along with the staff, who will be helping out 8 in the Commissioner's Hearing Room at NRC 9 Headquarters. We're going to do our best to make sure 10 this meeting is worthwhile for everyone, and we hope 11 you'll help us out with that.

12 Slide two please. The purpose of this 13 public meeting is to provide information to help you 14 make more educated comments on the proposed 15 decommissioning rule, and draft regulatory guidance.

16 We will be going through the various ways you can 17 participate in this commenting process as part of our 18 presentation. Slide three please. Here's our agenda 19 for today. After I finish up with some logistics, 20 we'll have some opening remarks.

21 And then we'll provide our presentation, 22 which will include details on background, and status, 23 an overview of the proposed rule, tips for preparing 24 comments, and next steps. We'll then open the floor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 to feedback, and questions. Slide four please.

2 Please note that today's meeting is being recorded, 3 and transcribed. We ask that you help us get a full, 4 clear accounting of the meeting -- hold on, it sounds 5 like we've got some -- give me a second.

6 Okay, sorry about that. Please help us 7 get a clear accounting of the meeting by staying on 8 mute, appropriate timing. If you are on the phone, or 9 on Teams, and are not speaking, or keeping your 10 electronic devices silent, and keeping side 11 discussions to a minimum if you're in the room. Also 12 it would help us out greatly if speakers can identify 13 themselves, and any group they are with when they 14 first talk.

15 When we get to the Q&A portion of the 16 meeting, those of you on Teams can use the raise your 17 hand feature to signal that you have a question.

18 Those on the phone can use star five. Please note 19 that the chat feature on Teams has been disabled. The 20 slides that will be shown on the Microsoft Teams 21 screen can be found in the NRC's ADAMS Library at 22 ML22089A003. Again, for those of you on the phone, 23 that is ML22089A003.

24 And again, those are posted to the public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 meeting schedule page for this meeting. Any phone 2 attendees, if you could, please email dan.doyle, 3 that's D-O-Y-L-E @nrc.gov to let us know that you were 4 in attendance. For those of you with us in the room 5 today, please note that emergency exits are at all 6 four corners of the room, and that restrooms are out 7 the main entrance, and then to your left. Slide five 8 please.

9 I would now like to introduce Trish 10 Holahan, a special assistant in the NRC's Division of 11 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support to 12 give some opening remarks. Trish, if you would?

13 DR. HOLAHAN: Thanks Lance, and good 14 afternoon. I'm Trish Holahan, as Lance said, I'm a 15 specialist within the NRC's Division of Rulemaking, 16 Environmental, and Financial Support, and I'd like to 17 thank you for joining us today to talk about the NRC's 18 decommissioning rulemaking. The NRC's goals for this 19 rulemaking are to maintain a safe, effective, and 20 efficient decommissioning process.

21 Incorporate lessons learned from the 22 decommissioning process, and support the NRC's 23 principles of good regulation, including openness, 24 clarity, and reliability. The proposed rule would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 implement specific regulatory requirements for 2 different phases of the decommissioning process 3 consistent with the reduced risk that occurs over time 4 while continuing to maintain safety, and security.

5 The proposed rule would incorporate 6 lessons learned from plants that have recently 7 transitioned to decommissioning, and improve the 8 effectiveness, and efficiency of the regulatory 9 framework while protecting public health, and safety.

10 Public comment has twice played an important role in 11 the development of the proposed rule. When we 12 published an advanced notice for proposed rulemaking, 13 and later with the draft regulatory basis.

14 We are seeking public input on the 15 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 16 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 17 addresses several regulatory areas, which you'll hear 18 about in more detail during this meeting. We hope 19 today's meeting will help you better understand the 20 proposed rule. We look forward to your feedback, and 21 questions today.

22 But please note that the NRC will not be 23 responding in writing to verbal comments in today's 24 meeting. Comments must be submitted in writing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 through the methods in the Federal Register notice as 2 you'll hear about later, to receive formal 3 consideration in the rulemaking. This is the second 4 public meeting on the proposed rule. We're also 5 planning to hold additional meetings in April, in 6 other locations around the country with the option for 7 virtual participation.

8 Please check the NRC's public website for 9 additional details about upcoming public meetings, and 10 for other resources to help you as you review the 11 proposed rule. Thank you very much, and I'll turn it 12 back to Lance.

13 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks Trish. If we could 14 go to slide six please. I'd now like to turn things 15 over to Dan Doyle, who has the lead for this 16 initiative. If I could ask folks to please let Dan 17 get through his presentation, and then we'll take a 18 short break, and open the floor to questions at that 19 time. But we want Dan to be able to provide all the 20 information today in his presentation. So, Dan?

21 MR. DOYLE: Thank you very much Lance. As 22 Trish said, this is our second public meeting on the 23 decommissioning proposed rule. If you attended the 24 previous meeting on March 21st, please note that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 first half of this meeting, the NRC staff 2 presentation, is the same material as last time, and 3 then we will open it up for Q&A, as Lance said, for 4 the rest of the time. We didn't want to have multiple 5 meetings in case individuals had a conflict, or are 6 working, or something.

7 So, there may be some more folks joining 8 us in the meeting a little bit later, because we did 9 mention that last time as well. But for those that 10 are here, welcome, and thank you. One final note 11 before I move ahead with the presentation is about the 12 meeting platform. We are using Microsoft Teams for 13 the meeting today. You should see the slides if you 14 join the meeting, through your computer.

15 If you don't, please go ahead, and raise 16 your hand, and we'll see if we can address that. But 17 assuming you do see that, underneath the slides you 18 should see arrows that would actually allow you to 19 flip back, and forth, and just wanted to point out 20 that that does not affect anyone else. That is just 21 your view, so you're free to do that if you see 22 something that interests you.

23 And also using this platform, you do have 24 the ability to click any of the links in the slides if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 you wanted to open up any of the documents now. Next 2 slide please. And one more. Okay, starting off with 3 a little bit of context, if you wouldn't mind just 4 clicking dismiss on the screen there. Thank you.

5 There was an increase in nuclear power plant shutdowns 6 that focused the NRC's attention on making some 7 changes to the regulations that relate to 8 decommissioning.

9 So, the NRC initiated rulemaking in 10 December 2015 to explore changes related to that 11 process. We have already completed some extensive 12 public outreach. We solicited early comments in an 13 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. We also 14 issued a regulatory basis document, and we had public 15 comment periods in meetings for both of those steps.

16 We do have information about those, and 17 the feedback that we received from that early public 18 outreach available on our public website, which I'll 19 highlight with a later slide. So, the recent news 20 with this activity is that, and the reason we're 21 having the meeting today, is that we published the 22 proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 3rd, 23 2022.

24 The citation is 87 FR 12254. So, we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 in the public comment period right now. It is 75 2 days, and it will end on May 17th, 2022. Next slide 3 please. For convenience we included two slides that 4 list some of the key documents associated with this 5 proposed rule with links to access them directly. So, 6 this is the first slide. So, again, there's the 7 citation for the proposed rule with links to the web 8 version, or the printed version.

9 And then supporting, and related 10 materials. We have a draft regulatory analysis, which 11 discusses the costs, and benefits associated with this 12 action. Draft environmental assessment for compliance 13 with the National Environmental Policy Act. Draft 14 supporting statements for information collection. We 15 do have changes to information collection requirements 16 in this rule, and those changes are discussed in the 17 supporting statements for compliance with the 18 Paperwork Reduction Act.

19 And there is a fourth document listed on 20 there as the unofficial red line rule text. I have 21 another slide highlighting that a bit later, but just 22 to explain briefly what that is, in case you can't 23 tell from the title, it is unofficial, there is a 24 disclaimer when you open it, it is just for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 information, but it is not an official part of the 2 package, it's not a legal document per se.

3 It's just intended to be a helpful 4 information. But in the event that there was a 5 difference between that, and what was published in the 6 Federal Register, the Federal Register is the official 7 legal version. But that document may be helpful, 8 because it does show in a red line strike out format, 9 what this proposed rule would change in the rule 10 language. What would be inserted, and what would be 11 deleted.

12 So, you'd be able to see that in context, 13 and hopefully that would be helpful. Okay, next slide 14 please. We are also updating four guidance documents.

15 We're issuing four draft regulatory guides for public 16 comment in parallel with the proposed rule, and 17 they're listed here on the slide. The first one is 18 related to emergency planning for decommissioning 19 nuclear power plants, and that would be a new 20 regulatory guide.

21 The other three are updates to existing 22 regulatory guides that relate to decommissioning. The 23 second one on the left is an update to Reg Guide 24 1.184, decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 next one would be an update to Reg Guide 1.159, which 2 is revision three. Availability of funds for 3 decommissioning production and utilization facilities.

4 And the last one is an update to 5 Regulatory Guide 1.185, standard format, and content 6 for post shutdown decommission activity reports. So, 7 these four documents are out for public comment now.

8 So, if you have public comments on the proposed rule, 9 and the guidance, please submit it all together. It's 10 all a combined action, it's one request for public 11 comment.

12 Next slide please. For this part of the 13 meeting we will give an overview of the topics in the 14 proposed rule. So, I'll start with a general 15 discussion of the graded approach concept that we use 16 in the proposed rule, and how that has been applied to 17 several technical areas. The rest of the slides will 18 give an overview for each of the technical areas, or 19 topics in the proposed rule.

20 If you look at the proposed rule in 21 section four, scope of the proposal, there are 16 22 headings. The slides here follow the order of those 23 topics in the proposed rule, the titles here match the 24 titles in that proposed rule. I would also like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 point out that I am the rulemaking project manager 2 serving as the spokesperson for the rule today. But 3 we have a great team of NRC staff who are the subject 4 matter experts in these topics that have helped shape, 5 and craft this proposed rule, and taken great care 6 with that.

7 Many of them are on the line here today 8 for the Q&A session later. Next slide please. The 9 proposed rule takes a graded approach to 10 decommissioning, where different levels of 11 requirements apply at different stages of the 12 decommissioning process. Across the top of this table 13 are the four levels used in the proposed rule as a 14 facility goes through the decommissioning process.

15 Level one begins after the facility 16 dockets the two required certifications, one is for 17 permanent cessation of operations, and the other is 18 that fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel.

19 Level two is after a period of sufficient decay of the 20 spent fuel, which would generically be ten months for 21 a boiling water reactor, or 16 months for a 22 pressurized water reactor if the facility meets the 23 criteria in the proposed rule.

24 Level three would be when all fuel is in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 dry cask storage. And level four would be when all 2 fuel is off site. The rows in the table show the 3 topic areas that have updated requirements linked to 4 these levels. Emergency preparedness would use all 5 four levels starting with the post shutdown emergency 6 plan in level one, through level four, where there is 7 no longer a need for an onsite radiological emergency 8 response plan because all fuel is off site.

9 Other topic areas that use the graded 10 approach include physical security, cyber security, 11 and on site, off site insurance, which we'll discuss 12 in later slides. Next slide please. Okay, so this is 13 the first of the 16 topic slides. Before I proceed, 14 I'll just explain how this is laid out a bit. So, for 15 each of these slides, you'll see a summary of the 16 proposed changes.

17 The box in the upper right corner 18 identifies the section in the proposed rule where we 19 have a more detailed discussion, we have a narrative 20 discussion about the topic. That box also includes 21 page numbers for where that section is located, if you 22 want to jump to that, and read it. We also have 23 listed all the sections in the CFR, the Code of 24 Federal Regulations that would be changed.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 Towards the middle of the slide, where it 2 says specific requests for comment for each of these 3 slides, we will mention if there are any questions 4 that the NRC is posing for stakeholder consideration.

5 Those would all be in section five of the proposed 6 rule. And then on the bottom of the slide we also 7 have an area for additional information if there's 8 something else we'd like to point out on the topic.

9 And then on the very bottom of the slide, 10 we have a progress bar that shows the topic that we're 11 on, and the ones we did recently, and ones coming up 12 next in case that's helpful to you as you're keeping 13 an eye on this meeting. Right now, we're starting 14 with the first one, emergency preparedness. So, a 15 little bit of background.

16 Because the current NRC regulations don't 17 provide a means to distinguish between the EP 18 requirements that apply to an operating reactor, and 19 the EP requirements that apply to a reactor that has 20 permanently ceased operations, decommissioning 21 licensees have historically requested exemption from 22 EP requirements. The proposed rule would provide 23 common EP requirements for reactors in 24 decommissioning.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

17 1 Eliminating the need for specific 2 exemptions, or license amendments. Because of the 3 decreased risk of off site radiological release, and 4 fewer types of possible accidents that can occur at a 5 decommissioning reactor, the proposed EP requirements 6 align with that reduction in risk while maintaining 7 safety. So, what are the changes that we're 8 proposing?

9 The NRC is proposing to add a new section, 10 10 CFR 50.200, which would provide planning standards, 11 and requirements for post shutdown, and permanently 12 defueled emergency plans. The proposed standards, and 13 requirements for emergency plans are consistent with 14 the level of planning the Commission has previously 15 approved for decommissioning facilities. The proposed 16 planning requirements also ensure close coordination, 17 and training with off site response organizations as 18 maintained throughout the decommissioning process.

19 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 20 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option to use 21 the tiered requirements, and standards at the 22 appropriate time in decommissioning, and to add a new 23 process by which licensees can make changes to the 24 emergency plan to transition between levels. There NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 are two questions that were related to this topic that 2 we're specifically asking for stakeholder input on if 3 you'd like to provide that.

4 So, the first one, we would like to know 5 what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring 6 dedicated radiological emergency planning, including a 7 ten mile emergency planning zone until all spent 8 nuclear fuel at the site is removed from the spent 9 fuel pool, and placed in dry cask storage. Is there 10 additional information the NRC should consider in 11 evaluating whether all hazards planning would be as 12 effective as dedicated radiological emergency 13 planning?

14 So, that's a summary of the first 15 question. The NRC has determined that ten hours would 16 be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 17 response to a spent fuel pool accident based on an all 18 hazards plan. Is there additional information the NRC 19 should consider in evaluating this issue? And the 20 second question, nuclear power facilities that are 21 shut down permanently, or indefinitely are currently 22 not required to maintain an emergency response data 23 system.

24 These systems transmit near real time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 electronic data between the licensee's on site 2 computer system, and the NRC Operations Center.

3 Licensees in level one would maintain a capability to 4 provide meteorological, radiological, and spent fuel 5 pool data to the NRC within a reasonable time frame 6 following an event.

7 What are the advantages and disadvantages 8 of requiring nuclear power plant licensees to maintain 9 those aspects of the emergency response data system 10 until all spent fuel is removed from the pool? And 11 then under the additional information heading, the 12 staff has developed guidance corresponding to the 13 proposed rule changes for emergency preparedness. We 14 have this proposed new regulatory guide, emergency 15 planning for decommissioning nuclear power reactors, 16 Draft Guide 1346.

17 The NRC staff believes that these changes 18 will establish emergency planning requirements 19 commensurate with the reduction in radiological risk 20 as licensees proceed through the decommissioning 21 process, while continuing to provide reasonable 22 assurance that protective action can and will be 23 taken, and maintaining emergency preparedness as a 24 final independent later of defense in depth.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 Next slide please. The proposed rule 2 would make certain changes as for physical security.

3 The proposed rule would make certain changes to 4 eliminate licensee requests for approvals via 5 exemptions, amendments, and for certain adjustments to 6 their physical security programs. Current security 7 requirements do not reflect the reduced risk for a 8 decommissioning facility after fuel is removed from 9 the reactor vessel.

10 When the fuel is transferred into a spent 11 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that's relied 12 upon for the safe operation of the facility is 13 significantly reduced, which allows for certain 14 security measures to be eliminated because their 15 implementation is no longer needed, or the security 16 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection 17 program during decommissioning.

18 Because certain security measures can be 19 adjusted, or no longer are necessary for 20 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions, and 21 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 22 this new posture. For example, the control room is 23 specifically identified in current security 24 requirements as an area that must be protected as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 vital area.

2 The proposed rule would potentially 3 eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 4 vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 5 the control room, and when the area does not act as a 6 vital area boundary for other vital areas. Also 7 current security regulations for a power reactor 8 licensee require the use of a licensed senior operator 9 for the suspension of security measures during 10 emergencies.

11 For permanently shut down, defueled 12 reactors, licensed senior operators are no longer 13 required. The proposed rule would allow certified 14 fuel handlers to be used to suspend security measures 15 during emergencies at a decommissioned facility.

16 Lastly, to eliminate the need for the submission of 17 license amendments, and exemptions for licensee 18 transitions to independent spent fuel storage 19 installations.

20 The NRC is proposing that once all spent 21 nuclear fuel has been placed in dry cask storage, 22 licensees may elect to protect a general license 23 independent spent fuel storage installation in 24 accordance with the physical security requirements NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 that are consistent with Part 72, Subpart H in 10 CFR 2 73.51. Licensees would continue to address the 3 applicable security related orders associated with an 4 SSE that are conditions of the license.

5 Next slide please. Cyber security.

6 Consistent with a graded approach layout in the 7 technical basis for a graded approach section of the 8 Federal Register notice, this is in section III.G, the 9 proposed rule would continue to apply cyber security 10 requirements to decommissioning plants until the risk 11 is significantly reduced for public health, and 12 safety.

13 Specifically, the cyber security rule is 14 continuously applied until the fuel is permanently 15 removed from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel 16 pool, and there has been sufficient decay of the fuel 17 in the spent fuel pool such that there is little 18 chance that it could heat up to cladding ignition 19 temperature within ten hours if the spent fuel pool 20 were to be drained.

21 So, the proposed rule would make several 22 changes related to this. For Part 50 power reactor 23 licensees, and combined license holders under Part 52, 24 would both be subject to the same requirements. So, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

23 1 for Part 50, power reactor licensees, the proposed 2 rule would remove the license condition that requires 3 licensees to maintain cyber security plans.

4 For combined license holders, the proposed 5 rule would extend the requirement to maintain a cyber 6 security program during decommissioning, and that 7 would be a new requirement. For currently operating, 8 or recently shut down Part 50 reactor licensees, 9 because the licensee's cyber security program is 10 included as a license condition, this license 11 condition to maintain the cyber security program 12 remains in effect until the termination of the 13 license, or the NRC removes the condition from the 14 license.

15 For example, if the licensee submits a 16 license amendment request, and the NRC approves it.

17 Therefore the proposed rule would not constitute back 18 fitting, because the proposed rule would codify the 19 already imposed requirements, cyber security program 20 license conditions during level one decommissioning, 21 or until the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has 22 sufficiently cooled.

23 This is not true for combined license 24 holders. The proposed revision would constitute a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

24 1 change, a new requirement, because the operational 2 program, such as a security program that includes 3 cyber security, are requirements in the regulations, 4 and not separately identified as license conditions as 5 they are for Part 50 licensees. Presently, combined 6 license holders are required to maintain their cyber 7 security program only as long as 10 CFR 73.54 is 8 applicable to them.

9 That means that combined license holders 10 are not required to maintain their cyber security 11 program during decommissioning, because the power 12 reactor licensee is not authorized to operate nuclear 13 power reactors during decommissioning. The change to 14 73.54 is identified in the proposed rule as a change 15 affecting issue finality for 10 CFR Part 52, combined 16 license holders, as defined in 52.98.

17 Therefore the proposed rule includes a 18 back fit analysis in section IX.D. There is a 19 specific question on this topic, the proposed rule 20 applied cyber security requirements to plants that are 21 in level one, however a licensee in level two would 22 not be required to maintain a cyber security plan, 23 because the NRC has determined that there is little 24 chance the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

25 1 heat up to clad ignition temperature within ten hours.

2 What are the advantages and disadvantages 3 of extending the cyber security requirements to shut 4 down nuclear plants until all spent fuel is 5 transferred to dry cask storage? Next slide please.

6 Drug and alcohol testing, there are three items that I 7 would like to highlight on this topic. In Part 26, 8 which is related to fitness for duty requirements, the 9 proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 26.3 scope to correct 10 an inconsistency in the applicability of Part 26 to 11 Part 50, and 52 license holders of nuclear power 12 reactors.

13 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 14 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 10 15 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certification, that the power reactor 16 has permanently ceased operation, which formally 17 begins the decommissioning process. However, Part 26 18 continues to apply to the holder of a combined license 19 issued under Part 52 throughout decommissioning. The 20 staff believes that there is no technical basis for 21 this inconsistency.

22 10 CFR 26.3 would be revised to specify 23 that Part 26 also no longer applies to a Part 52 24 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 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

26 1 CFR 52.110(a) certification that the power reactor has 2 permanently ceased operation. That is the first 3 change related to fitness for duty, scope in 26.3.

4 The second item to highlight here is 5 related to criminal penalties. Section 26.3 includes 6 a substantive requirement for certain entities to 7 comply with requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 by a 8 specific deadline, and violations of this regulation 9 should be subject to criminal penalties. The specific 10 deadlines in section 26.3(a) were added in the 2008 11 Part 26 final rule. But Section 26.825(b) was not 12 updated to reflect this change, which was an 13 oversight. Therefore, the proposed rule would remove 14 10 CFR 26.3 from the list of provisions that are not 15 subject to criminal penalties if violated in 16 26.825(b).

17 The third item I wanted to highlight for 18 this topic is related to the Part 73 insider 19 mitigation program. Section 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) 20 requires that a licensee's insider mitigation program 21 contain elements of a fitness for duty program 22 described in part 26 but does not identify which 23 fitness for duty program elements must be included in 24 the insider mitigation program. The proposed rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

27 1 would establish the required elements of a fitness for 2 duty program in the insider mitigation program for 3 operating, and decommissioning reactors under Part 50, 4 and 52. Next slide please.

5 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed 6 operators who are commonly used at permanently 7 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 8 the spent fuel pool.

9 The certified fuel handler is intended to 10 be the on-shift representative who is responsible for 11 safe fuel handling activities, and always present on 12 shift to ensure safety of the spent fuel, and any 13 decommissioning related activities at the facility.

14 Currently a certified fuel handler is qualified 15 through a training program that must be reviewed, and 16 approved by the NRC.

17 The proposed rule would modify the 18 definition of a certified fuel handler, and add a 19 provision that removes the need for NRC approval of 20 the training program if the training program for 21 certified fuel handler is derived from a systems 22 approach to training, and includes specific topics 23 which are outlined in the proposed rule language.

24 Specifically the training program must NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

28 1 address the safe conduct of decommissioning 2 activities, safe handling, and storage of spent fuel, 3 and appropriate response to plant emergencies. The 4 proposed rule would also clarify that a shift 5 technical advisor is not required for decommissioning 6 nuclear power reactors. Next slide please. The 7 decommissioning funding assurance topic, we have two 8 slides.

9 Summary of the changes, this proposed rule 10 modifies the biennial decommissioning trust fund 11 reporting frequency for operating reactors in 10 CFR 12 50.75 to be consistent with the three year reporting 13 frequency for independent spent fuel storage 14 installations. We are making two changes related to 15 independent spent fuel storage installation funding 16 reports.

17 One is that would allow licensees to 18 combine the reports required by the regulations listed 19 on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii), and 10 CFR 20 72.30. The other related change is that the proposed 21 rule would remove the requirement for NRC approval of 22 the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c). The proposed 23 rule would clarify that when a licensee identifies a 24 shortfall in the report required by 50.75(f)(1), the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

29 1 licensee must obtain additional financial assurance to 2 cover the shortfall, and discuss the information in 3 the next report.

4 The final item to highlight here, the 5 proposed rule would make administrative changes to 6 ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, written 7 communications regarding the submission of 8 notification, and to eliminate 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2),

9 because 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) fully encompasses paragraph 10 (f)(2). Next slide please. So, these are specific 11 requests for comment related to the decommissioning 12 funding assurance topic.

13 For financial assurance, the proposed rule 14 includes the question what are the advantages and 15 disadvantages of updating the formula to reflect 16 recent data, and to cover all estimated radiological 17 decommissioning costs rather than the bulk of the 18 cost? Site specific cost analysis, what are the 19 advantages and disadvantages of requiring a full site 20 investigation, and characterization at the time of 21 shut down and of eliminating the formula and requiring 22 a site specific cost estimate during operations?

23 Regarding the decommissioning trust fund, should the 24 NRC's regulations allow decommissioning trust fund NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

30 1 assets to be used for spent fuel management if one, 2 there is a projected surplus in the fund based on a 3 comparison to the expected cost identified in a site 4 specific cost estimate.

5 And two, the assets are returned to the 6 fund within an established period of time. What are 7 the advantages and disadvantages of allowing 8 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for these 9 purposes? What are the advantages and disadvantages 10 of allowing decommissioning trust fund assets to be 11 used for non-radiological site restoration prior to 12 the completion of radiological decommissioning.

13 The timing of the decommissioning fund 14 assurance reporting. What are the advantages and 15 disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency 16 from two years to three years? And does this change 17 affect the risk of insufficient decommissioning 18 funding? And the last item, identical requirements 19 under 10 CFR 50.82, and 52.110. Besides proposing 20 conforming changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is 21 asking whether the NRC should maintain identical 22 requirements in 10 CFR 52.110, and 10 CFR 50.82.

23 We do have, as I mentioned earlier, 24 updated guidance document, Draft Guide 1348, update to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

31 1 Reg Guide 1.159 provides updated guidance for assuring 2 the availability of funds for decommissioning. Next 3 slide please. Regarding the requirements for on site, 4 and off site financial protection requirements, and 5 indemnity agreements.

6 These changes would provide regulatory 7 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of 8 decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 9 exemptions for relief from requirements that should 10 apply only to operating reactor licensees. We do have 11 two specific requests for public comment. What are 12 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 13 existing level of insurance to be maintained until all 14 spent fuel is in dry cask storage, which would be 15 level three.

16 And the insurance for a specific licensee, 17 the NRC recognizes that as a reactor site is 18 decommissioned, eventually all that remains of the 19 Part 50, or Part 52 licensed site is a general license 20 ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is essentially the 21 same as a site specific ISFSI. I don't know if I said 22 ISFSI is independent spent fuel storage installation 23 in case anyone was wondering, ISFSI.

24 It's essentially the same as a specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

32 1 license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72. Considering that 2 10 CFR Part 72 specific license ISFSIs have no 3 financial protection requirements, should the NRC 4 address the disparity between specific license, and 5 general license ISFSIs as a part of this rulemaking?

6 Please provide an explanation for your response. Next 7 slide please.

8 The proposed rule clarifies various 9 environmental reporting requirements, including those 10 related to the content of the post shutdown 11 decommissioning activity report, or PSDARs. In part, 12 the proposed rule would change, would clarify that 13 licensees at the PSDAR stage are required to evaluate 14 the environmental impacts from decommissioning, and 15 provide in the PSDAR the basis for whether the 16 proposed decommissioning activities are bounded by 17 previously issued site specific, or generic 18 environmental reviews.

19 The Commission provided additional 20 direction in its staff requirements memorandum in 21 November with respect to the consideration of any 22 identified unbounded impacts. The rule changes would 23 allow licensees to use appropriate federally issued 24 environmental review documents prepared in compliance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

33 1 with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 2 Preservation Act, or other environmental statutes 3 rather than just environmental impact statements.

4 The rule would also remove language 5 referencing amendments for authorizing decommissioning 6 activities in 10 CFR Part 51. In developing the 7 original proposed rule, the NRC staff considered, but 8 dismissed a proposal that staff approve each 9 licensee's PSDAR before allowing major decommissioning 10 activities to begin. This was done on the basis that 11 requiring approval of a PSDAR would have no additional 12 benefit in terms of public health, and safety.

13 However, as will be discussed later, the 14 staff was directed by the Commission to solicit public 15 comment on the question of whether the NRC should 16 require approval of a PSDAR in a site specific 17 environmental review, and hearing opportunity before 18 undertaking any decommissioning activity. The two 19 regulatory guides related to PSDARs were revised to 20 include clarifying language consistent with the rule 21 changes.

22 I would also like to note on this topic 23 that the decommissioning generic environmental impact 24 statement will be updated separately in the future.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

34 1 Separately from the rulemaking activities. Okay, I 2 think I covered the specific requests for comments.

3 We do have a comment, I think it's actually the first 4 request, that it does discuss what I just said, about 5 the PSDAR.

6 And it asks for input regarding site 7 specific environmental review, or hearing opportunity 8 before allowing major decommissioning activities.

9 There's also a request for input for other activities 10 to increase transparency, and public trust in the 11 NRC's regulatory framework, and also regarding the 12 role of state, and local governments in the 13 decommissioning process.

14 Next slide please. When the plant is no 15 longer operating, and in decommissioning, most plant 16 components such as pumps, and valves are no longer in 17 service, and will eventually be removed as part of the 18 dismantlement activities. Therefore there's no longer 19 a need to retain certain records associated with these 20 components, and the proposed rule would eliminate many 21 record keeping retention requirements.

22 This proposed rule would not impact the 23 records that are required to be maintained in support 24 of decommissioning, and license termination NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

35 1 activities. The proposed rule also includes the 2 specific question concerning the record keeping 3 requirements for facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 4 52. One of this rulemaking's few proposed changes to 5 Part 52 would be in 10 CFR 52.63 regarding the record 6 keeping, and retention requirements for departures 7 from the design of a facility.

8 However, these changes would not apply to 9 a combined license holder that references one of the 10 certified designs in the Part 52 appendices, because 11 those appendices have their own record keeping 12 provision. The NRC is asking if we should revise the 13 Part 52 appendices to conform those record keeping 14 requirements with those proposed in 10 CFR 52.63.

15 Next slide please.

16 Okay, low level waste transportation. We 17 are on slide 23. When a plant is actively being 18 decommissioned, the plant typically generates large 19 volumes of bulk low level radioactive waste to 20 efficiently manage the transportation of the waste to 21 a licensed disposal site. Most licensees ship waste 22 by rail. The railroads control the schedule for the 23 transportation of the rail cars to the destination.

24 And the time to reach the disposal site is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

36 1 generally more than the 20 day notification 2 requirement currently in the regulation. Licensees 3 will continue to monitor and track the location and 4 progress of their low level waste shipments, but 5 notifications to the NRC would no longer be required 6 unless the new 45 day limit is exceeded. Next slide, 7 slide 24, spent fuel management planning.

8 The NRC staff identified ambiguity in the 9 spent fuel management, and decommissioning regulations 10 due to a lack of cross referencing between Part 72, 11 and Part 50. The rulemaking clarifies the information 12 for consistency. Specifically, the regulation in 10 13 CFR 72.218 states that the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) spent fuel 14 management program, the irradiated fuel management 15 plan, or IFMP, must show how the spent fuel will be 16 managed before starting to decommission systems and 17 components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping 18 the spent fuel. Section 72.218 also requires that an 19 application for termination of a reactor operating 20 license submitted under 10 CFR 50.82 or 10 CFR 52.110 21 must also describe how the spent fuel stored under the 22 Part 72 general license will be removed from the 23 reactor site.

24 Although 10 CFR 72.218 states what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

37 1 information must be included in these Part 50 2 documents, the corresponding regulations in Part 50 do 3 not contain this information. Therefore the NRC 4 proposes to clarify and align the regulation in 10 CFR 5 50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110, and 72.218 to ensure 6 appropriate documentation of spent fuel management 7 plans and decommissioning plans.

8 So, the rule changes that we are proposing 9 in 10 CFR 50.54(bb), the NRC proposes moving the 10 72.218 provisions to 50.54(bb) to clarify that the 11 IFMP must be submitted and approved before the 12 licensee starts to decommission systems, structures, 13 and components needed for moving, unloading, and 14 shipping the spent fuel. The NRC proposes to clarify 15 the current irradiated fuel management plan approval 16 process and the 50.54(bb) provisions regarding 17 preliminary approval and final NRC review of the IFMP 18 as part of any proceeding for a continued licensing 19 under Part 50, or Part 72, as these proceedings no 20 longer exist as they did when 50.54(bb) was first 21 promulgated. The NRC proposes to require submittal of 22 the initial IFMP, and any subsequent changes to the 23 IFMP as a license amendment request.

24 And the changes in 10 CFR 72.218, the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

38 1 proposes revising that section to address requirements 2 related to decommissioning and termination of the Part 3 72 general license as the current title of 72.218, 4 which is termination of licenses suggests.

5 Specifically, the proposed 72.218 notes that the 6 general license ISFSI must be decommissioned 7 consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82, 10 8 CFR 52.110, as the general license ISFSI is part of 9 the Part 50, or Part 52 licensed site.

10 Also the proposed 72.218 notes that the 11 general license is terminated upon termination of the 12 Part 50, or Part 52 license. We do have a specific 13 request for comment related to this topic. The 14 proposed rule clarifies the current IFMP approval 15 process by requiring submittal of the initial IFMP, 16 and any changes to the IFMP for NRC review, and 17 approval by license amendment.

18 We would like to know if stakeholders see 19 any challenges with implementing this part of the 20 proposed rule. We're also considering including a 21 change control provision to specify what changes a 22 licensee can make to the IFMP without NRC approval.

23 We would like to know stakeholder's opinions on a 24 change control process including the criteria for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

39 1 changes licensees can make without NRC approval, and 2 any associated record keeping or reporting for those 3 changes.

4 We do have updated guidance on this topic.

5 For the IFMP, we added guidance in Draft Guide 1347, 6 it's in section C3, to outline the information to be 7 included in a licensee's IFMP. For a general licensee 8 decommissioning, we added references to general 9 license ISFSIs in both Draft Guide 1347, and Draft 10 Guide 1349. To make it clear that the general license 11 ISFSI must be decommissioned consistent with the 12 requirements in 10 CFR 50.82, and 10 CFR 52.110.

13 The NRC staff believes that these changes 14 will provide regulatory clarity, and enhance overall 15 regulatory transparency, and openness regarding 16 decommissioning, and spent fuel management planning. I 17 would now like to, for the next several slides, turn 18 it over to Mr. Howard Benowitz. Howard is our senior 19 attorney supporting this rulemaking in the NRC's 20 Office of the General Counsel. Howard?

21 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks Dan. If we could go 22 to slide 25, this is on the back fit rule. The back 23 fit rule currently sits in 10 CFR 50.109, and in this 24 proposed rule, the NRC would provide a new back NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

40 1 fitting provision for nuclear power reactor licensees 2 in decommissioning. We would renumber the paragraphs 3 in the current 10 CFR 50.109 so that the 50.109(a) 4 would be the current back fit rule.

5 And the new 50.109(b) would be the 6 provision for decommissioning nuclear power reactor 7 licensees. The NRC is also proposing to edit the back 8 fitting provision in Part 72 so that that provision 9 would apply during decommissioning for an ISFSI, or 10 monitored retrievable storage facility. The proposed 11 rule would also revise a requirement in 10 CFR 50.109 12 that the NRC must consider the cost of imposing a back 13 fit if the basis for back fitting is a compliance 14 exception to the requirement of performing a back fit 15 analysis.

16 This proposed change is based on a 2019 17 update to the Commission's back fitting policy in 18 Management Directive 8.4. Also included in the 19 proposed rule, Federal Register notice, a specific 20 request for comment regarding the back fit rule, and 21 specifically what are the advantages and disadvantages 22 of applying the back fit rule to power reactor 23 licensees in decommissioning. Next slide please, 24 slide 26 on foreign ownership control and domination.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

41 1 The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's regulations 2 provide definitions for utilization facility and 3 production facility. Additionally, certain provisions 4 in the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations, 5 including the prohibition on foreign ownership, 6 control, or domination, apply only to a utilization, 7 or production facility.

8 But during decommissioning, a utilization 9 facility, or production facility will be dismantled to 10 the point where it no longer meets the definition of a 11 utilization facility, or production facility. The 12 proposed rule adds language to establish the criteria 13 for when exactly a utilization facility or a 14 production facility is no longer a utilization 15 facility or production facility.

16 The proposed rule also adds language to 17 affirm that despite this physical change in the 18 facility, and that it no longer meets the appropriate 19 definition, the NRC continues to have statutory 20 authority over the existing Part 50, or Part 52 21 license. And that the NRC regulations applicable to 22 utilization or production facilities will continue to 23 apply to the holder of that Part 50, or 52 license 24 unless the regulations explicitly state otherwise.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

42 1 And we have identified one such regulation in the 2 proposed rule, and that is in 10 CFR 50.38, the 3 foreign ownership, control, or domination prohibition.

4 And the proposed rule states that that provision would 5 no longer apply once the Part 50 or 52 facility is no 6 longer a utilization, or production facility.

7 Therefore the NRC's regulations would not prohibit the 8 transfer of a license for that facility to a foreign 9 owned, controlled, or dominated entity.

10 We did not ask a specific request for 11 questions on that one. So, next slide please, slide 12 27, concerning the scope of license termination plans.

13 We have in Part 50 and Part 52 provisions concerning 14 license termination plans. And the proposed rule 15 would clarify that those provisions in 10 CFR 50.82 16 and 52.110 would not apply before fuel has been loaded 17 into the reactor for that facility that's licensed 18 under Part 50, or 52.

19 Which, and this is consistent with our 20 historical practice, these license termination 21 provisions are written for reactors that have 22 commenced operations, and the NRC has historically 23 viewed operation as beginning with the loading of fuel 24 into the reactor. And this is discussed in more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

43 1 detail in the proposed rule Federal Register notice.

2 The NRC is also proposing this change 3 because some confusion arose about whether 10 CFR 4 52.110 was applicable when certain combined license 5 holders sought to terminate their licenses during 6 construction, or before construction even began at 7 their facility. The NRC informed these licensees that 8 52.110 did not apply for the reasons that are 9 described in the Federal Register notice.

10 Next slide please, 28. We are proposing 11 to remove certain license conditions and withdraw 12 orders. These license conditions, and there's one 13 particular order, they're substantively redundant with 14 existing provisions in our regulations. So, we no 15 longer need to have them as license conditions, or 16 orders. The order is Order EA-06-137 concerning 17 mitigation strategies for large fires, or explosions 18 at nuclear power plants.

19 And this is provided in the Federal 20 Register notice, but the ADAMS number is accession 21 number ML061600076. That's the ADAMS number for that 22 particular order. The license conditions that we are 23 proposing to remove are the conditions associated with 24 that order, and Order EA-02-026, which was one of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

44 1 post 9/11 orders, and also the cyber security license 2 condition that Dan mentioned earlier.

3 The license conditions would be deemed 4 removed when the rule goes into -- these provisions 5 are in the final rule when the final rule goes into 6 effect, and they would actually be removed by 7 administrative license amendment. Which means the NRC 8 staff would proactively, without a license amendment 9 request from a licensee, we would issue letters to the 10 licensees with the license amendment changes removing 11 those license conditions.

12 We did ask in the Federal Register notice, 13 a question about this proposal. We were interested in 14 getting your input to identify any other potential 15 redundant requirements that are not listed in this 16 proposed rule that are related to decommissioning.

17 Next slide please. This is slide 29. This concerns 18 changes, and the proposed changes to make consistent 19 our regulations regarding the treatment of holders of 20 an operating license under Part 50, or Part 52 21 combined license.

22 There are many provisions, you can see in 23 the top right corner of the slide. There are a number 24 of provisions in our regulations listed there. They NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

45 1 often only refer to 10 CFR Part 50.82 for the 2 decommissioning requirements for a Part 50 licensee, 3 and they do not also reference the similar provision 4 in Part 52, 52.110.

5 So, we are proposing to provide those 6 references in each instance, so that those provisions 7 would state, and reference both the Part 50, and 52 8 provisions regarding decommissioning, and license 9 termination. That is all I had Dan, back to you.

10 MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you Howard.

11 So, we're on slide 30. This is showing all the 12 specific requests for comment. The headings for each 13 of the specific requests for comment, I mentioned 14 there are 18 of them, it is in section five of the 15 Federal Register notice. And we've highlighted on the 16 previous topic slides, any that related to those 17 topics.

18 There are three that didn't specifically 19 fall into any of those, I'll just highlight those now.

20 The time frame for decommissioning, this was one of 21 the topics that the Commissioners had directed the 22 staff to examine, and we did look at that in the 23 regulatory basis stage, but ultimately made a decision 24 as described in that regulatory basis document not to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

46 1 propose changes to the decommissioning time frame 2 requirements.

3 But we are soliciting stakeholder feedback 4 on that, and the question is basically what are the 5 advantages and disadvantages of requiring prompt 6 decontamination rather than allowing up to 60 years to 7 decommission a site? As part of its review of a 8 PSDAR, what are the advantages and disadvantages of 9 the NRC evaluating, and making a decision about a time 10 frame for decommissioning on a site specific basis?

11 Another one is on the right side, second 12 from the top, exemptions, and then right before that, 13 applicability. So, for exemptions, as stated, as 14 discussed in the proposed rule, one of the goals of 15 amending these regulations is to reduce the need for 16 regulatory exemptions. 10 CFR 50.12 states that the 17 Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements 18 of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request 19 will not present an undue risk to public health, and 20 safety, and is consistent with common defense, and 21 security.

22 What are the advantages and disadvantages 23 of the current 50.12 approach to decommissioning 24 related exemptions? What standard should the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

47 1 apply in determining whether to grant exemptions from 2 the new, or amended regulations? What are the 3 advantages and disadvantages of providing an 4 opportunity for the public to weigh in on such 5 exemption requests?

6 Are there other process changes the NRC 7 should consider in determining whether to grant 8 exemptions from the new or amended regulation? And 9 then the one right below that, applicability, to 10 highlight that. There is a discussion in the proposed 11 rule about the applicability of these changes to NRC 12 licensees that are currently operating that are not 13 transitioning into decommissioning right now.

14 And also to facilities that have already 15 gone largely through the decommissioning process, or 16 are in the process now, such as ISFSI only, or a 17 standalone ISFSI decommissioned reactor site.

18 Permanently shut down nuclear reactors will be at 19 different stages of decommissioning when the new 20 decommissioning regulations become effective, and will 21 have previously received varying regulatory 22 exemptions.

23 Can you foresee any implementation issues 24 with the proposed rule as it is currently written for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

48 1 any new, or amended requirement included in this 2 proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to 3 sites currently in different stages of the 4 decommissioning process? All right, so that's all of 5 the topics that we did ask for questions on. There's 6 quite a list there.

7 Next slide please. Slide 31. So, we do 8 have a regulatory analysis as one of our supporting 9 documents, where we examine the costs, and benefits to 10 the NRC, nuclear industry, public. So, that document 11 is available for review and comment. So, just to 12 summarize a few points related to that. The 13 conclusion in the regulatory analysis is that the 14 proposed rule would be overall cost beneficial with an 15 estimated net averted cost.

16 In other words, cost that would have 17 occurred without the proposed rule, of approximately 18 17.9 million, seven percent, all of these values are 19 seven percent net present value, basically bringing 20 future value back to present dollars. And 37 million 21 at a three percent net present value for the 22 recommended alternatives that were included in the 23 proposed rule.

24 And just to highlight a few of the areas NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

49 1 that had sort of the largest costs, or benefits 2 associated with those, the emergency preparedness 3 alternative is estimated to result in net averted 4 costs of approximately 7.74 million. The drug, and 5 alcohol testing alternative is estimated to result in 6 net averted costs of approximately 7 million, and the 7 decommissioning funding assurance alternative is 8 estimated to result in averted costs of approximately 9 1.18 million.

10 Next slide please. So, for these next few 11 slides, this is intended to provide some tips, some 12 things for you to consider if you're planning to 13 review the proposed rule and submit comments to 14 hopefully make the comments and the outcome more 15 effective. Next slide please. So, one tip is to take 16 a look at the commenter's checklist. This is not an 17 NRC document, but it's on regulations.gov.

18 That's a website that many other federal 19 agencies use, including the NRC, to provide 20 information about rulemaking activities, and to 21 collect public comments. When you go to submit a 22 comment on there, you'll see a link to this 23 commenter's checklist. So, it's right on the comment 24 form. There's also a printable format, which I have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

50 1 screen shot of there.

2 So, please feel free to take a look at 3 that, it provides some helpful tips on the kinds of 4 information that is most helpful for a federal agency 5 to receive, and to help you make your point more 6 effectively. Next slide please. Tip number two, as I 7 mentioned at the beginning, we did make available this 8 unofficial red line rule language document.

9 It shows how the proposed rule would 10 modify the current regulations in red line strike out 11 format. This will be deleted, this will be added, so 12 that is a different format from what you see in the 13 proposed rule if you go to the very end where it has a 14 list of instructions. But you wouldn't see it in 15 context, you would have to take out the current 16 regulations, and actually go through, and apply those 17 changes.

18 So, this is intended to be helpful by 19 doing that step for you. But again, the proposed 20 rule, and what's printed in the Federal Register is 21 the official legal version, and please do not rely on 22 this document for your comments, but you can feel free 23 to check it. Next slide please. Tip number three, we 24 did put on the NRC public website, a dedicated page NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

51 1 with information about this proposed rule.

2 We do have a direct link to the proposed 3 rule, a direct link to the comment form. All of the 4 supporting documents, the regulatory guides, the 5 regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment, 6 information collections, as well as the background 7 documents from the advanced notice of proposed 8 rulemaking, the regulatory basis, the staff's paper 9 that went to the Commission, the Commission's 10 direction, the background information is all there.

11 That short link on the slide will bring 12 you right to that, or you can scan the QR code with a 13 mobile device, and that'll also bring you there. If 14 you have any trouble with that, feel free to reach out 15 to me. My email address, and phone number is shown on 16 the slide there. Next slide please. One of the small 17 differences from the last meeting, if anyone was at 18 the meeting on the 21st, we did add this slide just 19 summarizing, or showing how to submit a comment.

20 Just wanted to make that very clear. So, 21 there are several methods where you can submit a 22 comment. These instructions are in the proposed rule 23 in the Federal Register notice, there's a section that 24 says addresses, and we've included that here. So, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

52 1 can use regulations.gov to upload your comment, or you 2 can send it by email to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov, 3 or you could send it through the regular mail to the 4 secretary, and the address is there.

5 So, please don't submit multiple methods, 6 that just causes us duplication. So, our preferred 7 method is regulations.gov, but you're welcome to use 8 other methods, or again, if you have a problem with 9 any of that, you can reach out to me. My name, and 10 contact information is in the proposed rule. Next 11 slide please. Okay, we are almost about to wrap this 12 up.

13 The next steps are shown here on the 14 slide. Again, we're in the public comment period, the 15 last day is May 17th. So, that full day is included, 16 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, May 17th is actually when 17 regulations.gov would no longer accept public 18 comments, that's the official close of the comment 19 period. After we received the comments, the staff 20 will review, and develop an updated final rule 21 package, which would be submitted to the Commission.

22 The target date for the staff to do that 23 is October of 2023, and then the estimated final rule 24 publication date would be May of 2024. The final rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

53 1 would be effective 30 days after that, this would be 2 assuming the Commission -- it does need to go to the 3 Commission for review, and vote. So, if they approve 4 that, then the estimated publication date would be May 5 2024.

6 We do also maintain on our website, the 7 schedule for all of our ongoing rulemaking activities, 8 including these major milestone dates for when it 9 would go to the signature authority, and when we 10 believe it would be published. So, if there are 11 changes, then we will update that website. Next slide 12 please. Okay, thank you for sticking with us. I know 13 some of this can be kind of dry.

14 But we did think it would be helpful to at 15 least touch on each of these topics, that if something 16 catches your interest, or attention, that you know 17 where to look to learn more about it. So, as you 18 formulate your comments, we hope that was helpful.

19 So, that concludes the staff's overview of the 20 proposed rule, and I will now turn it back to Lance.

21 MR. RAKOVAN: All right, thanks Dan. That 22 was a pretty lengthy presentation, so we wanted to 23 give everyone about a ten minute break to kind of 24 stretch your legs, take a bio break if you need to, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

54 1 get a tasty beverage, if you have one, or can go get 2 one. I've got 5:11 Eastern, so let's plan on starting 3 up a little bit after 5:20 Eastern, where we'll be 4 opening the floor up for questions.

5 So, again, going to take a ten minute 6 break, back in a little after 5:20 Eastern.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 8 off the record at 5:11 p.m. and resumed at 5:21 p.m.)

9 MR. RAKOVAN: Lets go ahead and 10 transition to our public Q&A session. Please remember 11 that our goal today is to help provide you with 12 information, so you can make informed comments. So, 13 we ask that your questions focus on any clarification 14 you, or others may need in terms of the proposed 15 decommissioning rule, and draft regulatory guidance.

16 Our intent is not to discuss specific details of any 17 particular facility.

18 So, we ask that you keep your questions on 19 the decommissioning rule, and related topics, in 20 general. I'll take questions here on Teams, and Dan 21 will help if there's anyone in the audience there in 22 the Commissioner's Hearing Room. Remember, those of 23 you who are on Teams directly can use the raise your 24 hand feature to signal that you have a question, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

55 1 you can unmute yourselves.

2 Those on the phone, you can hit star five 3 to raise your hand, and star six to unmute. We'll 4 take hands in the order that we see them, and we ask 5 that folks keep to a few question at a time if you do 6 have a question. So again, for those of you on Teams, 7 if you'd like to ask a question, you can just raise 8 your hand, and use the raise your hand feature. For 9 those of you on the phone, you can hit star five, and 10 that will signal to me that you have a question.

11 So, we'll go ahead, and pause to see if we 12 have any questions today. All right, Mr. Costello, if 13 you could go ahead, and unmute yourself, and ask your 14 question.

15 MR. COSTELLO: Hi, this is Michael 16 Costello from the Wisconsin DHS. Just wanted to ask, 17 we have a licensee, without getting into the 18 specifics, who could possibly be classified as a 19 utilization facility. Is this current rulemaking 20 intended to only target power plants and the 21 associated facilities with nuclear power production, 22 or would it affect general materials licenses that it 23 falls under?

24 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

56 1 from the NRC. The proposed rule is only proposing 2 changes that would -- you referred to materials 3 licensees, the proposed changes would only affect Part 4 50 of our regulations, and 52, but there are -- Part 5 50 has a definition of production facility, and a 6 definition of utilization facility, but it only 7 applies within Part 50 of our regulations.

8 So, when you refer to materials licensees, 9 that leads me to believe you're outside of Part 50, so 10 I'm not asking you to clarify, or go into any more 11 detail, we're here to talk more generically about this 12 proposed rule, but just hopefully that helps answer 13 your question, that this rule is limited in that sense 14 to Part 50. And not materials licensees that might be 15 under say Part 30, or 40.

16 MR. RAKOVAN: Sir, did that clarify your 17 question, did you have any follow up?

18 MR. COSTELLO: Yeah, that was very 19 helpful, thank you.

20 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, Mr. Wentworth, I see 21 you have your hand up.

22 MR. WENTWORTH: Yes, thank you. TR 23 Wentworth, State of Michigan. I wanted to make sure, 24 or actually I just wanted to ask the question, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

57 1 noted that the final rule is slated for implementation 2 October of 2023 with -- and I understand that the 3 dates are in flux, final implementation date of May of 4 2024. Will this have any impact on facilities that 5 are going into decommissioning status between say 6 right now, and those two dates?

7 MR. DOYLE: I was just going to say, I'll 8 start, and then Howard can add on or correct me. So, 9 we do have that section where we're talking about the 10 applicability to operate -- so, I think the main 11 answer to your question is no, in general, the 12 proposed rule is not intended to propose changes to 13 facilities that are currently operating, or that are 14 going to be going into decommissioning before the 15 effective date of the final rule.

16 But again, we do have a section that 17 highlights, I believe the Part 26, I think there was a 18 Part 26 change that would apply to currently operating 19 reactors, and there's another example I can't think of 20 right now, but most of the changes are focused on 21 decommissioning.

22 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard, I would 23 just add that this is only a proposal at this point, 24 and nothing in this Federal Register notice impacts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

58 1 anybody until the final rule, as approved by this 2 Commission, goes into effect. So, it says, you noted 3 it was 2024. So, at that point, whatever is in the 4 final rule, which may look a lot like the proposed 5 rule, it may not, we don't know right now.

6 But whatever's in that final rule would go 7 into effect. Much of that is -- a lot of those things 8 are not mandatory. So, even a licensee that goes into 9 decommissioning tomorrow for instance, if they submit 10 their 50.82 certifications for instance tomorrow, and 11 they begin decommissioning, and when this rule goes 12 into effect say in two years, if they decide I want to 13 take advantage of that emergency preparedness new 14 requirement, it's optional, so I want to take 15 advantage of it.

16 They might be able to do that at that 17 point, and it's just up to them as maybe a business 18 decision, or -- so the short answer -- probably too 19 late for that, is that until this rule goes into 20 effect as a final rule, there's nothing really 21 available. No part of it is even an option for any 22 entity to use, and certainly we're not imposing 23 anything in this proposal on anyone until it's a final 24 rule. Does that help answer your question?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

59 1 MR. WENTWORTH: I think so. I just want 2 to make sure that -- suppose a facility goes into 3 decommissioning status between right now, and the time 4 of the final rule, will their licensing status change 5 once this final rule goes into effect? Or are they 6 under the regime at the time they go into decommission 7 status? I guess that's probably what I wanted to say.

8 MR. BENOWITZ: Okay, I don't think my 9 answer really changes. Because much of what we're 10 doing in this rule is optional, that if the licensee 11 wants to take advantage of something, I say take 12 advantage, wants to use the EP framework that we're 13 proposing in this rule, or they can stay under the 14 current regulations, which they might have to file 15 exemptions, et cetera, but that's their choice.

16 There are things in this proposed rule 17 that they might want to -- trying to think of -- a lot 18 of it will depend on, of course what's in the final 19 rule, and whether it's mandatory, or not, on a license 20 that is in decommissioning at the time the rule goes 21 into effect. So, if that licensee goes into 22 decommissioning tomorrow, they will be under the 23 current rules until this rule goes into effect.

24 And to the extent that this rulemaking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

60 1 changes any of the current rules, whether they're 2 mandatory, or not, I think will be the answer to your 3 question of how that particular licensee reacts to the 4 final rule. The framework itself overall isn't 5 changing, but aspects of it will be. But again, some 6 of them won't be mandatory, so they won't be mandatory 7 changes on that licensee.

8 MR. WENTWORTH: Okay, thank you, I think 9 that answers my question, I appreciate that. Thank 10 you.

11 MR. RAKOVAN: All right, Mr. Ray, you have 12 your hand up? Mr. Ray, did you have a question?

13 COURT REPORTER: Can you hear me?

14 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes.

15 COURT REPORTER: I was wondering who spoke 16 before Howard, but now I understand there are only 17 three people in the room, so I figured it out. Thank 18 you.

19 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, thank you. Okay, 20 again, if you have a question, if you're directly on 21 Teams, you can use the raise your hand feature like 22 the similar folks have done, and we've gone one by 23 one. If you are on the phone line, you can hit star 24 five, and that will raise your hand. Looks like we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

61 1 have a question, please go ahead Mr. Leshinskie.

2 MR. LESHINSKIE: It's Leshinskie, yes.

3 I'm Tony Leshinskie, I am the state nuclear engineer 4 for the State of Vermont. And this is effectively a 5 follow up to the last question. In the response it 6 was stated that most of what is being proposed here 7 will not be mandatory. So, just for the point of 8 clarification, and I recognize that at this point you 9 don't know what's going to be in the final rule.

10 As you stated, it could look a lot like 11 what's proposed right now, it could be different. But 12 do you guys have any sense of what parts of the 13 current rulemaking will be mandatory for all plants 14 currently undergoing decommissioning when these rules 15 take effect?

16 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz 17 again. Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer 18 to that question. In the Federal Register notice, I 19 think we say whether or not a particular proposed 20 change would be optional for licensees. Again, the 21 first thing that comes to mind, the first emergency 22 preparedness requirement, that whole framework that we 23 propose is optional.

24 And then there are -- I'm sorry, I have to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

62 1 say read the Federal Register notice. And also there 2 is a -- to some extent, it might help if there's a 3 back fitting discussion, because if we are proposing 4 mandatory changes, then we would explain in the back 5 fitting discussion, which you'll find it in the 6 Federal Register notice, whether, or not it's a back 7 fit.

8 And a back fit, just for those who aren't 9 familiar, is a change to a current requirement that 10 the NRC is imposing on a licensee. So, this rule, to 11 the extent that there are -- maybe it's a reporting 12 requirement we're changing, and that could be a back 13 fit if it's mandatory. The licensee has to change 14 some aspect of how it operates, or even in 15 decommissioning.

16 And that's -- back fitting is in Section 17 IX, Roman numeral IX. The heading is back fitting, 18 and issue finality. And it goes through all of the 19 proposed changes in this proposed rule, and whether, 20 or not they would be imposed, or not, and, or be back 21 fitting, or affect the issue finality of a holder of a 22 combined license under Part 52. So, that might be --

23 the back fitting section might not have all the 24 answers that you're looking for.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

63 1 But it might be a shortcut at least to 2 know, I'm sorry I just don't remember whether, or not 3 it states whether certain ones would be mandatory, or 4 not.

5 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay, that's helpful. I 6 admittedly have not looked at the back fitting 7 section, and since you noted that, it sounds like it's 8 mostly for Part 52, if I understood what you said 9 correctly. I'm more interested in Part 50 at this 10 point, but I'll look through there anyway.

11 MR. BENOWITZ: Okay, just to clarify, I'm 12 sorry if I misspoke, it's Part 50 and Part 52. Issue 13 finality is a concept like back fitting, but it only 14 applies to licensees under Part 52, and back fitting 15 for this rule is for the Part 50 licensees.

16 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay, that's very 17 helpful, thank you.

18 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, any additional? There 19 we go. Mr. Janati?

20 MR. JANATI: Yes, Rich Janati, Division of 21 Environmental Protection. I actually have two 22 questions. One of them is going to be semi question, 23 semi comment. We've had several nuclear power plants 24 decommissioned in the U.S. already, and I'm wondering NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

64 1 what took the NRC so long to come up with this 2 proposed rulemaking? I would say it probably should 3 have been done several years ago.

4 The other question I have is related to 5 the FFD program. How does the FFD program fall under 6 this graded approach, or fit under this graded 7 approach? Do licensees require to maintain the FFD 8 program throughout level two, and three? If you could 9 elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.

10 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle, so I can 11 talk about the schedule a bit. So, why did it take so 12 long? We were very thorough, so there's a lot of 13 regulations that touch decommissioning. The NRC 14 wanted to do a thorough job, and proceed carefully 15 with basically maximum stakeholder input on this. So, 16 in the early stages, I guess one thing I'll point out, 17 I was aware this was before my time, but the NRC was 18 looking at making changes to decommissioning in the 19 late 1990s.

20 The last major change to decommissioning 21 regulations was 1996. So, there was some discussions 22 going back into the 90's actually. After September 23 11th, the agency's focus shifted to security. But 24 there has been this awareness, or interest in making NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

65 1 some of the changes to decommissioning, and then as I 2 mentioned, the prompt recently, semi recently for this 3 proposed rule, was the increase in licensees that were 4 shutting down.

5 Some of them with very little planning.

6 So, that's kind of the big picture, and then we again 7 decided to take an approach that had maximum 8 opportunity for stakeholder input. We did do an 9 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we had a 10 regulatory basis document, again, with a comment 11 period on both of those. And then we're following our 12 internal process which includes getting internal 13 alignment with the Commission, who sets the policy for 14 the agency, and with other priorities for that agency.

15 So, hopefully that's helpful, but your point is 16 taken, it has not been a fast process.

17 DR. HOLAHAN: Can I add something?

18 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

19 DR. HOLAHAN: Sorry, this is Trish 20 Holahan. Also we had done a lessons learned of the 21 existing plants in decommissioning. So, we started 22 with that, and then we went to the ANPR, and the draft 23 reg basis. So, we've been working on it for a while, 24 but we started with the lessons learned for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

66 1 decommissioning.

2 MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you Trish, this is 3 Dan Doyle again. So, I believe the second question 4 was related to fitness for duty?

5 MR. JANATI: Correct.

6 MR. DOYLE: Let's see, we do have --

7 MR. ZALESKI: Yeah, can you hear me? This 8 is Brian Zaleski.

9 MR. JANATI: Yeah, I can hear you.

10 MR. DOYLE: You have the NRC staff contact 11 for this, Mr. Brian Zaleski, thank you.

12 MR. ZALESKI: So, let me reiterate the 13 question you had to see if I understand it correctly, 14 and you can correct me before I answer it. So, I 15 think you were asking what's changing from what 16 currently applies to decommissioning sites to what 17 we're proposing?

18 MR. JANATI: Correct, yeah, as it relates 19 to the different levels, yeah.

20 MR. ZALESKI: So, right now under Part 26, 21 Part 26 does not apply to a decommissioning power 22 reactor. But elements of Part 26 do apply through the 23 insider mitigation program under Part 73. Part 73 24 does not specify what those elements are. So, a 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

67 1 licensee today that was decommissioning would be 2 inside their security plan, defining what elements of 3 the Part 26 program they would apply.

4 So, we're talking about, and if you look 5 in the rulemaking documents, it supports that the 6 licensees are currently implementing a full program.

7 So, if the proposed rule was finalized as proposed, 8 there would be a reduction in the requirements based 9 on what licensees are currently doing under their own 10 actions. So, it would break it out into individuals 11 that have unescorted access authorization to the vital 12 area of the decommissioning facility.

13 So, that's one element. And it would be a 14 couple other categories of individuals. One would be 15 security, it would be certified fuel handlers, and it 16 would be individuals that are defined as fitness for 17 duty program personnel, so those are individuals that 18 are administering the drug testing program. They 19 would be subject to a full probing. That's everything 20 in Part 26 now.

21 And like I said, licensees are applying --

22 decommissioning licensees I believe are applying the 23 full program right now. And the second piece would be 24 individuals that do not have access to the vital 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

68 1 areas. So, they do not have access to the spent fuel 2 pool, but they do have access to the protected area.

3 So, that's outside the vital area, they have 4 unescorted access to the protected area.

5 There would be a subset of fitness for 6 duty program requirements that would apply to them.

7 They would be subject to pre-access testing, so that's 8 before they're granted access. They'd be subject to 9 for cause testing, so if they're demonstrating signs 10 of impairment, or if there's credible information 11 about a potential substance abuse issue, and they 12 would be subject to the behavioral observation 13 program.

14 So, if they're demonstrating some sort of 15 aberrant behavior, the program would apply to them.

16 And that's through the for cause. So, that's what's 17 in the proposed rule in terms of the differences 18 between right now, where the full program is applying 19 through the security plan to comply with the IMP 20 requirement in Part 73 to more of a graded approach.

21 Hopefully that lays out the difference.

22 MR. JANATI: Yeah, that helps. I was 23 wondering if somehow you could fit that in the slide 24 that has the four levels.

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

69 1 MR. ZALESKI: Right, you want --

2 MR. JANATI: With cyber security, but it 3 would have been nice to have the FFD program in there 4 as well.

5 MR. ZALESKI: I appreciate that feedback, 6 we can look at that, we do have additional public 7 meetings, so Dan, we can take a look at that.

8 MR. JANATI: Thank you very much.

9 MR. ZALESKI: Thank you.

10 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, again, if you have a 11 question, if you are directly on Teams, you can use 12 the raise your hand feature. If you are on the phone, 13 then you can hit star five. Let's see if we have any 14 additional questions. Let's see if we have any 15 additional questions. All right, Mr. Salz please.

16 MR. SALZ: Hi, this is Chris Salz, State 17 of Ohio, radiological branch chief with the Emergency 18 Management Agency. Are you guys elaborating on 19 anything that you presented on during this?

20 MR. DOYLE: Sure, we have staff here, and 21 so we'll do the best that we can to again, try to 22 explain what's in the proposed rule, yes.

23 MR. SALZ: Okay, so you talked about spent 24 fuel handlers, and it kind of sounded like you were 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

70 1 lowering the qualification standards, was the best way 2 that I can sum that up. And then lowering the adult 3 supervision if you will, that was to be on the site 4 while there was still spent fuel in the pool. Was that 5 kind of what I heard? And if you -- if that is what I 6 heard, can you, I guess elaborate as to why?

7 MR. DOYLE: Yes, this is Dan Doyle. Again, 8 we can address that you're talking about the certified 9 fuel handler and elimination of the shift technical 10 advisor topic. We do have a staff member who can talk 11 about that, Maurin Scheetz. Okay, Maurin, are you 12 able to unmute?

13 MR. RAKOVAN: Maurin, are you there? I 14 cannot, I don't have the ability to unmute her 15 unfortunately.

16 MR. DOYLE: Okay, we might need to come 17 back to that one. But just, I guess at a high level, 18 what we're doing is revising the regulations such that 19 NRC approval of the training program would not be 20 required. So, I don't think that we would 21 characterize that as lowering the qualification 22 standards. But when we get Maurin back, we can 23 explain that a little bit more.

24 And then as far as lowering the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

71 1 supervision, I don't think we would characterize that 2 either, but rather having the appropriate level of 3 supervision based on what's required at the facility.

4 I do see Maurin's video, are you?

5 MR. RAKOVAN: Yeah, we can hear her, go 6 ahead Maurin.

7 MS. SCHEETZ: I'm back, sorry about that, 8 my audio wasn't working. So, to answer the question 9 about certified fuel handlers, we're matching what is 10 currently done for non-licensed operators at a plant.

11 So, the proposed language would take away the 12 Commission's approval of a training program because 13 we're going to match how we do non-licensed training 14 programs for operating reactors.

15 Which is having a training program that's 16 based on a systems approach to training, which has its 17 own definition in the Code of Federal Regulations.

18 So, we're applying a certain pedigree to the certified 19 fuel handling program, and the proposed rule would 20 make that occur for all certified fuel handling 21 programs for decommissioning.

22 And then as far as the shift technical 23 advisor, what currently happens at decommissioning 24 sites now, is they have to go through a license 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 1 amendment request process to remove the shift 2 technical advisor. So, that's already happening, that 3 is a person that is there for accident assessment, and 4 engineering expertise in an operating reactor. So, 5 that position doesn't apply in a decommissioning 6 state.

7 So, we're just matching what is already 8 done, and codifying it in the proposed rule language.

9 I hope that answers your question.

10 MR. SALZ: Yes, thank you.

11 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, let's see if we have 12 any other hands that come up.

13 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan again, while we're 14 waiting for the next question. I just wanted to make 15 the point that Mr. Salz was just asking, that's kind 16 of the whole reason why we're here, is to try to 17 explain, or if there's something that doesn't make 18 sense, to really help you understand better what's in 19 the proposed rule, and to prepare your public 20 comments.

21 So, feel free to ask questions, we do have 22 staff available to try to respond. And we will be 23 putting out, as I said, we did have that first meeting 24 on March 21st, we will be putting out a summary of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

73 1 that meeting, we're going to do a summary of this 2 meeting also, and as Trish mentioned, we are planning 3 additional meetings. So, for each of those we'll have 4 the slides, we'll have a summary.

5 And if something occurs to you after this 6 meeting, as you're taking a look at it, you can feel 7 free to pop back in on those future ones, and ask the 8 question there.

9 MR. RAKOVAN: So again, if you have any 10 questions, please raise your hand, or if you're on the 11 phone, you can hit star five. All quiet on all fronts 12 at this time.

13 MR. DOYLE: Okay, so what we're planning 14 to do here is maybe I should go through the rest of my 15 slides, there are just a few more slides here. And 16 then if folks want to step off, away from the meeting, 17 that is totally fine, and up to you. But the NRC 18 staff that are here, most of us are going to remain on 19 the line in case someone was planning to join the 20 meeting later to make a comment. So, let's go -- what 21 do we have for the next slide?

22 Okay, so I did just want to make this 23 point before folks drop off. That we are interested 24 in your feedback on how we conduct our public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

74 1 meetings, so we do have, for all public meetings, a 2 feedback form. There's just a few questions, if you 3 want to provide any feedback about what you think went 4 well, or what could be done better, or differently.

5 We are entering this new way of 6 interacting with the public, and trying to have these 7 hybrid meetings, so people can attend in person, or 8 online, and we want it to be effective. So, if you 9 have tips, or anything that you'd like us to know, the 10 best way to do that would be to fill out the feedback 11 form. There is the QR code you can scan, or click the 12 link on the meeting details page. There is the 13 meeting feedback form.

14 All right, I think the next one is just 15 the list of acronyms, and abbreviations that we have 16 used in this slide, we always try to include that, too 17 many acronyms here. But, so that's all the slides 18 that we have. As I said, we are going to stick on the 19 meeting here, on the line. So, if there was a 20 question that you had, that you've been hanging onto, 21 we're going to be here.

22 So, feel free to speak up, we're here for 23 you guys. If you do want to drop off, that is okay as 24 well, but again, we'll be staying here.

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

75 1 MR. RAKOVAN: Hey Dan, my recommendation 2 would be to put the slide up that talks about how 3 folks can provide their comments, and to leave that 4 one up as we idle, if you will.

5 MR. DOYLE: Okay, that's a good point.

6 That was slide 36 if you want to put that up.

7 MR. RAKOVAN: With that, I guess we are 8 unofficially convening the meeting. But again, we 9 will hang out, just in case folks have comments, or 10 folks pop back on, and we'll address as necessary.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 5:53 p.m. and resumed at 5:55 p.m.)

13 MR. COSTELLO: Just in terms of the 14 emergency preparedness, I believe it mentioned that 15 there would be a reduced off site response 16 requirement, I'm assuming that's for the licensee, is 17 that correct?

18 MR. DOYLE: We're going to get an NRC 19 staff member here, Mr. Todd Smith.

20 MR. SMITH: Hi, yeah, this is Todd Smith, 21 Senior Level Advisor for Emergency Preparedness and 22 Incident Response in the Office of Nuclear Security 23 Instant Response. So, the requirements on the 24 licensee change commensurate to the risk of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

76 1 facility, to the levels of decommissioning. As far as 2 the off site response, that is the responsibility of 3 state, and locals, as it currently is for operating 4 nuclear plants.

5 So, that responsibility does not change.

6 The only thing that changes is whether the NRC 7 requires findings of the state of the off site 8 planning. However, there will always be off site 9 plans, just like there will always be on site plans 10 throughout decommissioning.

11 MR. COSTELLO: Okay, and part two to that 12 question, does the NRC anticipate an increased need 13 for environmental monitoring when this need, as it's 14 written now, goes into effect with the graded stages 15 of decommissioning?

16 MR. DOYLE: Let me pull the -- that's a 17 good question, you're asking if there's an increased 18 need for environmental monitoring. So, what I can say 19 for now is we don't have anything in the proposed rule 20 that would change requirements for environmental 21 monitoring that I'm aware of right now. Let me see, 22 do we have -- is Stacey Imboden on the line, Stacey 23 are you able to respond to this one?

24 MS. IMBODEN: Hi Dan, Stacey Imboden. No, 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

77 1 I'm not aware of any additional requirements for 2 environmental monitoring.

3 MR. DOYLE: So, let me just follow that up 4 by saying that if -- again, so you form your views, 5 and from your point of view on the proposed rule, and 6 we encourage you to submit any comments if you feel 7 that there's a basis for making a change to what we've 8 proposed for the current regulations, does that answer 9 your question? Do you have any other follow up for 10 that sir?

11 MR. COSTELLO: Yeah, thank you very much 12 for the responses. That cleared it up. So, no 13 current requirement change for that environmental 14 monitoring.

15 MR. DOYLE: That's correct.

16 MR. RAKOVAN: It looks like we do have 17 another question. Are we still good with getting the 18 transcript?

19 COURT REPORTER: Yes sir.

20 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. Mr. Gillen?

21 MR. GILLEN: Yes, thank you. I was 22 wondering if there were going to be future local 23 public meetings on this proposed rulemaking?

24 MR. DOYLE: Yes, this is Dan Doyle, we are 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

78 1 planning to host several public meetings in April that 2 people could attend in person. So, we have not 3 released those yet. The changes, as everybody knows 4 the challenges with the pandemic, the surge, and the 5 impact on facilities and availability and spacing and 6 all of that has unfortunately delayed us releasing.

7 But it's nice that things seem to be going in a good 8 direction.

9 So, we do expect to issue those meeting 10 notices very soon, with the locations, and the times 11 for those, so the short answer is yes.

12 MR. GILLEN: Okay, thank you.

13 MR. DOYLE: And those would be also hybrid 14 meetings, so if you don't happen to live near those, 15 but as I said, if you wanted to participate, or ask a 16 question, you could turn in just like you did for this 17 one, or call in either with your computer, or the 18 phone, and participate virtually.

19 MR. GILLEN: Great, thank you.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 6:01 p.m. and resumed at 6:14 p.m.)

22 MR. DOYLE: Great. So, we have a small 23 but dedicated group of individuals who are still in 24 attendance, that's totally fine. Hope we're not 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

79 1 inconveniencing you at all with keeping on the line. I 2 imagine if you don't have comments, or questions, 3 that's totally fine, or you may have some, but just 4 not want to raise them here, that's totally fine. But 5 again, we are going to just hang out.

6 That was a decision that we made 7 internally just in case someone wanted to join later.

8 So, I imagine you're staying on, because you might 9 want to hear what other folks have to say, totally up 10 to you. But I did just want to point out we will be 11 releasing the meeting summary, and there's also going 12 to be a transcript in case you wanted to come back, 13 and look later. But again, you're welcome to stay on 14 the line, thank you.

15 And we just stopped sharing the slides, 16 and shared them again, just to add this note in case 17 someone does happen to join in, and just hears 18 silence. That the meeting will remain open until 7:00 19 p.m. Eastern Time, so it's about another 45 minutes.

20 If you do think of a question, feel free to raise your 21 hand or unmute. Thank you.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 23 off the record at 6:15 p.m. and resumed at 6:59 p.m.)

24 MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you very much.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

80 1 So, we are right at 7:00 p.m., as we mentioned 2 earlier, we did just want to keep the lines open for 3 the full amount of time in case someone had a 4 conflict, and wanted to join late. So, I'm glad that 5 we did keep the lines open, we did get a few more 6 comments from individuals after there was a brief 7 pause. So, that's good insight from us.

8 We'll factor in this experience today with 9 our planning for the future meetings. But for those 10 few dedicated people who are still on the line, just 11 wanted to say thank you again for participating today, 12 we appreciate your time, and look forward to any 13 comments you may have on the proposed rule. And that 14 wraps it up for today, thank you so much, have a great 15 day.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 7:00 p.m.)

18 19 20 21 22 23 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