ML22277A002
| 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 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 4
ON "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PRODUCTION AND 5
UTILIZATION FACILITIES TRANSITIONING TO 6
DECOMMISSIONING" 7
+ + + + +
8
- THURSDAY, 9
MARCH 31, 2022 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting convened at the Commission 12 Hearing Room, NRC One White Flint North, 11555 13 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and by video 14 teleconference, at 4:00 p.m. EDT, Lance Rakovan, 15 Meeting Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18 LANCE
- RAKOVAN, Meeting Facilitator; Senior 19 Environmental Project Manager, Office of Nuclear 20 Material Safety and Safeguards 21 HOWARD BENOWITZ, Senior Attorney 22 DANIEL DOYLE, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 23 Safeguards 24
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com STACEY IMBODEN, Senior Project Manager, Office of 1
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 2
PATRICIA HOLAHAN, Director, Office of Enforcement 3
GLENNA LAPPERT, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 4
Safeguards 5
MAURIN SCHEETZ, Reactor Operations Engineer, Office of 6
Nuclear Reactor Regulation 7
BRIAN ZALESKI, Fitness for Duty Program Specialist, 8
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 9
10 PUBLIC COMMENTERS:
11 MICHAEL COSTELLO 12 THEODORE WENTWORTH 13 TONY LESHINSKIE 14 RICH JANATI 15 CHRISTOPHER SALZ 16 TODD SMITH 17 ERIC GILLEN 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Welcome and Logistics..............................4 3
Background and Status..............................8 4
Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................13 5
Tips for Preparing Comments.......................49 6
Public Feedback and Questions.....................54 7
Next Steps and Wrap-up............................78 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
4:00 p.m.
2 MR. RAKOVAN: So, hello everyone, my name 3
is Lance Rakovan. I'm a senior environmental project 4
manager at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or 5
NRC, and it's my pleasure to facilitate today's 6
meeting, along with the staff, who will be helping out 7
in the Commissioner's Hearing Room at NRC 8
Headquarters. We're going to do our best to make sure 9
this meeting is worthwhile for everyone, and we hope 10 you'll help us out with that.
11 Slide two please. The purpose of this 12 public meeting is to provide information to help you 13 make more educated comments on the proposed 14 decommissioning rule, and draft regulatory guidance.
15 We will be going through the various ways you can 16 participate in this commenting process as part of our 17 presentation. Slide three please. Here's our agenda 18 for today. After I finish up with some logistics, 19 we'll have some opening remarks.
20 And then we'll provide our presentation, 21 which will include details on background, and status, 22 an overview of the proposed rule, tips for preparing 23 comments, and next steps. We'll then open the floor 24
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to feedback, and questions. Slide four please.
1 Please note that today's meeting is being recorded, 2
and transcribed. We ask that you help us get a full, 3
clear accounting of the meeting -- hold on, it sounds 4
like we've got some -- give me a second.
5 Okay, sorry about that. Please help us 6
get a clear accounting of the meeting by staying on 7
mute, appropriate timing. If you are on the phone, or 8
on Teams, and are not speaking, or keeping your 9
electronic devices
- silent, and keeping side 10 discussions to a minimum if you're in the room. Also 11 it would help us out greatly if speakers can identify 12 themselves, and any group they are with when they 13 first talk.
14 When we get to the Q&A portion of the 15 meeting, those of you on Teams can use the raise your 16 hand feature to signal that you have a question.
17 Those on the phone can use star five. Please note 18 that the chat feature on Teams has been disabled. The 19 slides that will be shown on the Microsoft Teams 20 screen can be found in the NRC's ADAMS Library at 21 ML22089A003. Again, for those of you on the phone, 22 that is ML22089A003.
23 And again, those are posted to the public 24
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com meeting schedule page for this meeting. Any phone 1
attendees, if you could, please email dan.doyle, 2
that's D-O-Y-L-E @nrc.gov to let us know that you were 3
in attendance. For those of you with us in the room 4
today, please note that emergency exits are at all 5
four corners of the room, and that restrooms are out 6
the main entrance, and then to your left. Slide five 7
please.
8 I would now like to introduce Trish 9
Holahan, a special assistant in the NRC's Division of 10 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support to 11 give some opening remarks. Trish, if you would?
12 DR. HOLAHAN: Thanks Lance, and good 13 afternoon. I'm Trish Holahan, as Lance said, I'm a 14 specialist within the NRC's Division of Rulemaking, 15 Environmental, and Financial Support, and I'd like to 16 thank you for joining us today to talk about the NRC's 17 decommissioning rulemaking. The NRC's goals for this 18 rulemaking are to maintain a safe, effective, and 19 efficient decommissioning process.
20 Incorporate lessons learned from the 21 decommissioning process, and support the NRC's 22 principles of good regulation, including openness, 23 clarity, and reliability. The proposed rule would 24
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com implement specific regulatory requirements for 1
different phases of the decommissioning process 2
consistent with the reduced risk that occurs over time 3
while continuing to maintain safety, and security.
4 The proposed rule would incorporate 5
lessons learned from plants that have recently 6
transitioned to decommissioning, and improve the 7
effectiveness, and efficiency of the regulatory 8
framework while protecting public health, and safety.
9 Public comment has twice played an important role in 10 the development of the proposed rule. When we 11 published an advanced notice for proposed rulemaking, 12 and later with the draft regulatory basis.
13 We are seeking public input on the 14 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 15 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 16 addresses several regulatory areas, which you'll hear 17 about in more detail during this meeting. We hope 18 today's meeting will help you better understand the 19 proposed rule. We look forward to your feedback, and 20 questions today.
21 But please note that the NRC will not be 22 responding in writing to verbal comments in today's 23 meeting. Comments must be submitted in writing 24
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com through the methods in the Federal Register notice as 1
you'll hear about
- later, to receive formal 2
consideration in the rulemaking. This is the second 3
public meeting on the proposed rule. We're also 4
planning to hold additional meetings in April, in 5
other locations around the country with the option for 6
virtual participation.
7 Please check the NRC's public website for 8
additional details about upcoming public meetings, and 9
for other resources to help you as you review the 10 proposed rule. Thank you very much, and I'll turn it 11 back to Lance.
12 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks Trish. If we could 13 go to slide six please. I'd now like to turn things 14 over to Dan Doyle, who has the lead for this 15 initiative. If I could ask folks to please let Dan 16 get through his presentation, and then we'll take a 17 short break, and open the floor to questions at that 18 time. But we want Dan to be able to provide all the 19 information today in his presentation. So, Dan?
20 MR. DOYLE: Thank you very much Lance. As 21 Trish said, this is our second public meeting on the 22 decommissioning proposed rule. If you attended the 23 previous meeting on March 21st, please note that the 24
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com first half of this
- meeting, the NRC staff 1
presentation, is the same material as last time, and 2
then we will open it up for Q&A, as Lance said, for 3
the rest of the time. We didn't want to have multiple 4
meetings in case individuals had a conflict, or are 5
working, or something.
6 So, there may be some more folks joining 7
us in the meeting a little bit later, because we did 8
mention that last time as well. But for those that 9
are here, welcome, and thank you. One final note 10 before I move ahead with the presentation is about the 11 meeting platform. We are using Microsoft Teams for 12 the meeting today. You should see the slides if you 13 join the meeting, through your computer.
14 If you don't, please go ahead, and raise 15 your hand, and we'll see if we can address that. But 16 assuming you do see that, underneath the slides you 17 should see arrows that would actually allow you to 18 flip back, and forth, and just wanted to point out 19 that that does not affect anyone else. That is just 20 your view, so you're free to do that if you see 21 something that interests you.
22 And also using this platform, you do have 23 the ability to click any of the links in the slides if 24
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 you wanted to open up any of the documents now. Next 1
slide please. And one more. Okay, starting off with 2
a little bit of context, if you wouldn't mind just 3
clicking dismiss on the screen there. Thank you.
4 There was an increase in nuclear power plant shutdowns 5
that focused the NRC's attention on making some 6
changes to the regulations that relate to 7
decommissioning.
8 So, the NRC initiated rulemaking in 9
December 2015 to explore changes related to that 10 process. We have already completed some extensive 11 public outreach. We solicited early comments in an 12 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. We also 13 issued a regulatory basis document, and we had public 14 comment periods in meetings for both of those steps.
15 We do have information about those, and 16 the feedback that we received from that early public 17 outreach available on our public website, which I'll 18 highlight with a later slide. So, the recent news 19 with this activity is that, and the reason we're 20 having the meeting today, is that we published the 21 proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 3rd, 22 2022.
23 The citation is 87 FR 12254. So, we are 24
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com in the public comment period right now. It is 75 1
days, and it will end on May 17th, 2022. Next slide 2
please. For convenience we included two slides that 3
list some of the key documents associated with this 4
proposed rule with links to access them directly. So, 5
this is the first slide. So, again, there's the 6
citation for the proposed rule with links to the web 7
version, or the printed version.
8 And then supporting, and related 9
materials. We have a draft regulatory analysis, which 10 discusses the costs, and benefits associated with this 11 action. Draft environmental assessment for compliance 12 with the National Environmental Policy Act. Draft 13 supporting statements for information collection. We 14 do have changes to information collection requirements 15 in this rule, and those changes are discussed in the 16 supporting statements for compliance with the 17 Paperwork Reduction Act.
18 And there is a fourth document listed on 19 there as the unofficial red line rule text. I have 20 another slide highlighting that a bit later, but just 21 to explain briefly what that is, in case you can't 22 tell from the title, it is unofficial, there is a 23 disclaimer when you open it, it is just for 24
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com information, but it is not an official part of the 1
package, it's not a legal document per se.
2 It's just intended to be a helpful 3
information. But in the event that there was a 4
difference between that, and what was published in the 5
Federal Register, the Federal Register is the official 6
legal version. But that document may be helpful, 7
because it does show in a red line strike out format, 8
what this proposed rule would change in the rule 9
language. What would be inserted, and what would be 10 deleted.
11 So, you'd be able to see that in context, 12 and hopefully that would be helpful. Okay, next slide 13 please. We are also updating four guidance documents.
14 We're issuing four draft regulatory guides for public 15 comment in parallel with the proposed rule, and 16 they're listed here on the slide. The first one is 17 related to emergency planning for decommissioning 18 nuclear power plants, and that would be a new 19 regulatory guide.
20 The other three are updates to existing 21 regulatory guides that relate to decommissioning. The 22 second one on the left is an update to Reg Guide 23 1.184, decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The 24
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com next one would be an update to Reg Guide 1.159, which 1
is revision three. Availability of funds for 2
decommissioning production and utilization facilities.
3 And the last one is an update to 4
Regulatory Guide 1.185, standard format, and content 5
for post shutdown decommission activity reports. So, 6
these four documents are out for public comment now.
7 So, if you have public comments on the proposed rule, 8
and the guidance, please submit it all together. It's 9
all a combined action, it's one request for public 10 comment.
11 Next slide please. For this part of the 12 meeting we will give an overview of the topics in the 13 proposed rule. So, I'll start with a general 14 discussion of the graded approach concept that we use 15 in the proposed rule, and how that has been applied to 16 several technical areas. The rest of the slides will 17 give an overview for each of the technical areas, or 18 topics in the proposed rule.
19 If you look at the proposed rule in 20 section four, scope of the proposal, there are 16 21 headings. The slides here follow the order of those 22 topics in the proposed rule, the titles here match the 23 titles in that proposed rule. I would also like to 24
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com point out that I am the rulemaking project manager 1
serving as the spokesperson for the rule today. But 2
we have a great team of NRC staff who are the subject 3
matter experts in these topics that have helped shape, 4
and craft this proposed rule, and taken great care 5
with that.
6 Many of them are on the line here today 7
for the Q&A session later. Next slide please. The 8
proposed rule takes a
graded approach to 9
decommissioning, where different levels of 10 requirements apply at different stages of the 11 decommissioning process. Across the top of this table 12 are the four levels used in the proposed rule as a 13 facility goes through the decommissioning process.
14 Level one begins after the facility 15 dockets the two required certifications, one is for 16 permanent cessation of operations, and the other is 17 that fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel.
18 Level two is after a period of sufficient decay of the 19 spent fuel, which would generically be ten months for 20 a boiling water reactor, or 16 months for a 21 pressurized water reactor if the facility meets the 22 criteria in the proposed rule.
23 Level three would be when all fuel is in 24
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com dry cask storage. And level four would be when all 1
fuel is off site. The rows in the table show the 2
topic areas that have updated requirements linked to 3
these levels. Emergency preparedness would use all 4
four levels starting with the post shutdown emergency 5
plan in level one, through level four, where there is 6
no longer a need for an onsite radiological emergency 7
response plan because all fuel is off site.
8 Other topic areas that use the graded 9
approach include physical security, cyber security, 10 and on site, off site insurance, which we'll discuss 11 in later slides. Next slide please. Okay, so this is 12 the first of the 16 topic slides. Before I proceed, 13 I'll just explain how this is laid out a bit. So, for 14 each of these slides, you'll see a summary of the 15 proposed changes.
16 The box in the upper right corner 17 identifies the section in the proposed rule where we 18 have a more detailed discussion, we have a narrative 19 discussion about the topic. That box also includes 20 page numbers for where that section is located, if you 21 want to jump to that, and read it. We also have 22 listed all the sections in the CFR, the Code of 23 Federal Regulations that would be changed.
24
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Towards the middle of the slide, where it 1
says specific requests for comment for each of these 2
slides, we will mention if there are any questions 3
that the NRC is posing for stakeholder consideration.
4 Those would all be in section five of the proposed 5
rule. And then on the bottom of the slide we also 6
have an area for additional information if there's 7
something else we'd like to point out on the topic.
8 And then on the very bottom of the slide, 9
we have a progress bar that shows the topic that we're 10 on, and the ones we did recently, and ones coming up 11 next in case that's helpful to you as you're keeping 12 an eye on this meeting. Right now, we're starting 13 with the first one, emergency preparedness. So, a 14 little bit of background.
15 Because the current NRC regulations don't 16 provide a means to distinguish between the EP 17 requirements that apply to an operating reactor, and 18 the EP requirements that apply to a reactor that has 19 permanently ceased operations, decommissioning 20 licensees have historically requested exemption from 21 EP requirements. The proposed rule would provide 22 common EP requirements for reactors in 23 decommissioning.
24
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Eliminating the need for specific 1
exemptions, or license amendments. Because of the 2
decreased risk of off site radiological release, and 3
fewer types of possible accidents that can occur at a 4
decommissioning reactor, the proposed EP requirements 5
align with that reduction in risk while maintaining 6
safety. So, what are the changes that we're 7
proposing?
8 The NRC is proposing to add a new section, 9
10 CFR 50.200, which would provide planning standards, 10 and requirements for post shutdown, and permanently 11 defueled emergency plans. The proposed standards, and 12 requirements for emergency plans are consistent with 13 the level of planning the Commission has previously 14 approved for decommissioning facilities. The proposed 15 planning requirements also ensure close coordination, 16 and training with off site response organizations as 17 maintained throughout the decommissioning process.
18 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 19 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option to use 20 the tiered requirements, and standards at the 21 appropriate time in decommissioning, and to add a new 22 process by which licensees can make changes to the 23 emergency plan to transition between levels. There 24
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com are two questions that were related to this topic that 1
we're specifically asking for stakeholder input on if 2
you'd like to provide that.
3 So, the first one, we would like to know 4
what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring 5
dedicated radiological emergency planning, including a 6
ten mile emergency planning zone until all spent 7
nuclear fuel at the site is removed from the spent 8
fuel pool, and placed in dry cask storage. Is there 9
additional information the NRC should consider in 10 evaluating whether all hazards planning would be as 11 effective as dedicated radiological emergency 12 planning?
13 So, that's a summary of the first 14 question. The NRC has determined that ten hours would 15 be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 16 response to a spent fuel pool accident based on an all 17 hazards plan. Is there additional information the NRC 18 should consider in evaluating this issue? And the 19 second question, nuclear power facilities that are 20 shut down permanently, or indefinitely are currently 21 not required to maintain an emergency response data 22 system.
23 These systems transmit near real time 24
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com electronic data between the licensee's on site 1
computer system, and the NRC Operations Center.
2 Licensees in level one would maintain a capability to 3
provide meteorological, radiological, and spent fuel 4
pool data to the NRC within a reasonable time frame 5
following an event.
6 What are the advantages and disadvantages 7
of requiring nuclear power plant licensees to maintain 8
those aspects of the emergency response data system 9
until all spent fuel is removed from the pool? And 10 then under the additional information heading, the 11 staff has developed guidance corresponding to the 12 proposed rule changes for emergency preparedness. We 13 have this proposed new regulatory guide, emergency 14 planning for decommissioning nuclear power reactors, 15 Draft Guide 1346.
16 The NRC staff believes that these changes 17 will establish emergency planning requirements 18 commensurate with the reduction in radiological risk 19 as licensees proceed through the decommissioning 20 process, while continuing to provide reasonable 21 assurance that protective action can and will be 22 taken, and maintaining emergency preparedness as a 23 final independent later of defense in depth.
24
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Next slide please. The proposed rule 1
would make certain changes as for physical security.
2 The proposed rule would make certain changes to 3
eliminate licensee requests for approvals via 4
exemptions, amendments, and for certain adjustments to 5
their physical security programs. Current security 6
requirements do not reflect the reduced risk for a 7
decommissioning facility after fuel is removed from 8
the reactor vessel.
9 When the fuel is transferred into a spent 10 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that's relied 11 upon for the safe operation of the facility is 12 significantly reduced, which allows for certain 13 security measures to be eliminated because their 14 implementation is no longer needed, or the security 15 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection 16 program during decommissioning.
17 Because certain security measures can be 18
- adjusted, or no longer are necessary for 19 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions, and 20 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 21 this new posture. For example, the control room is 22 specifically identified in current security 23 requirements as an area that must be protected as a 24
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com vital area.
1 The proposed rule would potentially 2
eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 3
vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 4
the control room, and when the area does not act as a 5
vital area boundary for other vital areas. Also 6
current security regulations for a power reactor 7
licensee require the use of a licensed senior operator 8
for the suspension of security measures during 9
emergencies.
10 For permanently shut down, defueled 11 reactors, licensed senior operators are no longer 12 required. The proposed rule would allow certified 13 fuel handlers to be used to suspend security measures 14 during emergencies at a decommissioned facility.
15 Lastly, to eliminate the need for the submission of 16 license amendments, and exemptions for licensee 17 transitions to independent spent fuel storage 18 installations.
19 The NRC is proposing that once all spent 20 nuclear fuel has been placed in dry cask storage, 21 licensees may elect to protect a general license 22 independent spent fuel storage installation in 23 accordance with the physical security requirements 24
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that are consistent with Part 72, Subpart H in 10 CFR 1
73.51. Licensees would continue to address the 2
applicable security related orders associated with an 3
SSE that are conditions of the license.
4 Next slide please. Cyber security.
5 Consistent with a graded approach layout in the 6
technical basis for a graded approach section of the 7
Federal Register notice, this is in section III.G, the 8
proposed rule would continue to apply cyber security 9
requirements to decommissioning plants until the risk 10 is significantly reduced for public health, and 11 safety.
12 Specifically, the cyber security rule is 13 continuously applied until the fuel is permanently 14 removed from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel 15 pool, and there has been sufficient decay of the fuel 16 in the spent fuel pool such that there is little 17 chance that it could heat up to cladding ignition 18 temperature within ten hours if the spent fuel pool 19 were to be drained.
20 So, the proposed rule would make several 21 changes related to this. For Part 50 power reactor 22 licensees, and combined license holders under Part 52, 23 would both be subject to the same requirements. So, 24
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com for Part 50, power reactor licensees, the proposed 1
rule would remove the license condition that requires 2
licensees to maintain cyber security plans.
3 For combined license holders, the proposed 4
rule would extend the requirement to maintain a cyber 5
security program during decommissioning, and that 6
would be a new requirement. For currently operating, 7
or recently shut down Part 50 reactor licensees, 8
because the licensee's cyber security program is 9
included as a license condition, this license 10 condition to maintain the cyber security program 11 remains in effect until the termination of the 12 license, or the NRC removes the condition from the 13 license.
14 For example, if the licensee submits a 15 license amendment request, and the NRC approves it.
16 Therefore the proposed rule would not constitute back 17 fitting, because the proposed rule would codify the 18 already imposed requirements, cyber security program 19 license conditions during level one decommissioning, 20 or until the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has 21 sufficiently cooled.
22 This is not true for combined license 23 holders. The proposed revision would constitute a 24
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 change, a new requirement, because the operational 1
program, such as a security program that includes 2
cyber security, are requirements in the regulations, 3
and not separately identified as license conditions as 4
they are for Part 50 licensees. Presently, combined 5
license holders are required to maintain their cyber 6
security program only as long as 10 CFR 73.54 is 7
applicable to them.
8 That means that combined license holders 9
are not required to maintain their cyber security 10 program during decommissioning, because the power 11 reactor licensee is not authorized to operate nuclear 12 power reactors during decommissioning. The change to 13 73.54 is identified in the proposed rule as a change 14 affecting issue finality for 10 CFR Part 52, combined 15 license holders, as defined in 52.98.
16 Therefore the proposed rule includes a 17 back fit analysis in section IX.D. There is a 18 specific question on this topic, the proposed rule 19 applied cyber security requirements to plants that are 20 in level one, however a licensee in level two would 21 not be required to maintain a cyber security plan, 22 because the NRC has determined that there is little 23 chance the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could 24
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com heat up to clad ignition temperature within ten hours.
1 What are the advantages and disadvantages 2
of extending the cyber security requirements to shut 3
down nuclear plants until all spent fuel is 4
transferred to dry cask storage? Next slide please.
5 Drug and alcohol testing, there are three items that I 6
would like to highlight on this topic. In Part 26, 7
which is related to fitness for duty requirements, the 8
proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 26.3 scope to correct 9
an inconsistency in the applicability of Part 26 to 10 Part 50, and 52 license holders of nuclear power 11 reactors.
12 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 13 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 10 14 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certification, that the power reactor 15 has permanently ceased operation, which formally 16 begins the decommissioning process. However, Part 26 17 continues to apply to the holder of a combined license 18 issued under Part 52 throughout decommissioning. The 19 staff believes that there is no technical basis for 20 this inconsistency.
21 10 CFR 26.3 would be revised to specify 22 that Part 26 also no longer applies to a Part 52 23 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 10 24
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com CFR 52.110(a) certification that the power reactor has 1
permanently ceased operation. That is the first 2
change related to fitness for duty, scope in 26.3.
3 The second item to highlight here is 4
related to criminal penalties. Section 26.3 includes 5
a substantive requirement for certain entities to 6
comply with requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 by a 7
specific deadline, and violations of this regulation 8
should be subject to criminal penalties. The specific 9
deadlines in section 26.3(a) were added in the 2008 10 Part 26 final rule. But Section 26.825(b) was not 11 updated to reflect this change, which was an 12 oversight. Therefore, the proposed rule would remove 13 10 CFR 26.3 from the list of provisions that are not 14 subject to criminal penalties if violated in 15 26.825(b).
16 The third item I wanted to highlight for 17 this topic is related to the Part 73 insider 18 mitigation program. Section 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) 19 requires that a licensee's insider mitigation program 20 contain elements of a fitness for duty program 21 described in part 26 but does not identify which 22 fitness for duty program elements must be included in 23 the insider mitigation program. The proposed rule 24
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would establish the required elements of a fitness for 1
duty program in the insider mitigation program for 2
operating, and decommissioning reactors under Part 50, 3
and 52. Next slide please.
4 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed 5
operators who are commonly used at permanently 6
defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 7
the spent fuel pool.
8 The certified fuel handler is intended to 9
be the on-shift representative who is responsible for 10 safe fuel handling activities, and always present on 11 shift to ensure safety of the spent fuel, and any 12 decommissioning related activities at the facility.
13 Currently a certified fuel handler is qualified 14 through a training program that must be reviewed, and 15 approved by the NRC.
16 The proposed rule would modify the 17 definition of a certified fuel handler, and add a 18 provision that removes the need for NRC approval of 19 the training program if the training program for 20 certified fuel handler is derived from a systems 21 approach to training, and includes specific topics 22 which are outlined in the proposed rule language.
23 Specifically the training program must 24
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com address the safe conduct of decommissioning 1
activities, safe handling, and storage of spent fuel, 2
and appropriate response to plant emergencies. The 3
proposed rule would also clarify that a shift 4
technical advisor is not required for decommissioning 5
nuclear power reactors. Next slide please. The 6
decommissioning funding assurance topic, we have two 7
slides.
8 Summary of the changes, this proposed rule 9
modifies the biennial decommissioning trust fund 10 reporting frequency for operating reactors in 10 CFR 11 50.75 to be consistent with the three year reporting 12 frequency for independent spent fuel storage 13 installations. We are making two changes related to 14 independent spent fuel storage installation funding 15 reports.
16 One is that would allow licensees to 17 combine the reports required by the regulations listed 18 on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii), and 10 CFR 19 72.30. The other related change is that the proposed 20 rule would remove the requirement for NRC approval of 21 the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c). The proposed 22 rule would clarify that when a licensee identifies a 23 shortfall in the report required by 50.75(f)(1), the 24
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com licensee must obtain additional financial assurance to 1
cover the shortfall, and discuss the information in 2
the next report.
3 The final item to highlight here, the 4
proposed rule would make administrative changes to 5
ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, written 6
communications regarding the submission of 7
notification, and to eliminate 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2),
8 because 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) fully encompasses paragraph 9
(f)(2). Next slide please. So, these are specific 10 requests for comment related to the decommissioning 11 funding assurance topic.
12 For financial assurance, the proposed rule 13 includes the question what are the advantages and 14 disadvantages of updating the formula to reflect 15 recent data, and to cover all estimated radiological 16 decommissioning costs rather than the bulk of the 17 cost? Site specific cost analysis, what are the 18 advantages and disadvantages of requiring a full site 19 investigation, and characterization at the time of 20 shut down and of eliminating the formula and requiring 21 a site specific cost estimate during operations?
22 Regarding the decommissioning trust fund, should the 23 NRC's regulations allow decommissioning trust fund 24
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com assets to be used for spent fuel management if one, 1
there is a projected surplus in the fund based on a 2
comparison to the expected cost identified in a site 3
specific cost estimate.
4 And two, the assets are returned to the 5
fund within an established period of time. What are 6
the advantages and disadvantages of allowing 7
decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for these 8
purposes? What are the advantages and disadvantages 9
of allowing decommissioning trust fund assets to be 10 used for non-radiological site restoration prior to 11 the completion of radiological decommissioning.
12 The timing of the decommissioning fund 13 assurance reporting. What are the advantages and 14 disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency 15 from two years to three years? And does this change 16 affect the risk of insufficient decommissioning 17 funding? And the last item, identical requirements 18 under 10 CFR 50.82, and 52.110. Besides proposing 19 conforming changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is 20 asking whether the NRC should maintain identical 21 requirements in 10 CFR 52.110, and 10 CFR 50.82.
22 We do have, as I mentioned earlier, 23 updated guidance document, Draft Guide 1348, update to 24
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Reg Guide 1.159 provides updated guidance for assuring 1
the availability of funds for decommissioning. Next 2
slide please. Regarding the requirements for on site, 3
and off site financial protection requirements, and 4
indemnity agreements.
5 These changes would provide regulatory 6
certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of 7
decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 8
exemptions for relief from requirements that should 9
apply only to operating reactor licensees. We do have 10 two specific requests for public comment. What are 11 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 12 existing level of insurance to be maintained until all 13 spent fuel is in dry cask storage, which would be 14 level three.
15 And the insurance for a specific licensee, 16 the NRC recognizes that as a reactor site is 17 decommissioned, eventually all that remains of the 18 Part 50, or Part 52 licensed site is a general license 19 ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is essentially the 20 same as a site specific ISFSI. I don't know if I said 21 ISFSI is independent spent fuel storage installation 22 in case anyone was wondering, ISFSI.
23 It's essentially the same as a specific 24
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72. Considering that 1
10 CFR Part 72 specific license ISFSIs have no 2
financial protection requirements, should the NRC 3
address the disparity between specific license, and 4
general license ISFSIs as a part of this rulemaking?
5 Please provide an explanation for your response. Next 6
slide please.
7 The proposed rule clarifies various 8
environmental reporting requirements, including those 9
related to the content of the post shutdown 10 decommissioning activity report, or PSDARs. In part, 11 the proposed rule would change, would clarify that 12 licensees at the PSDAR stage are required to evaluate 13 the environmental impacts from decommissioning, and 14 provide in the PSDAR the basis for whether the 15 proposed decommissioning activities are bounded by 16 previously issued site
- specific, or generic 17 environmental reviews.
18 The Commission provided additional 19 direction in its staff requirements memorandum in 20 November with respect to the consideration of any 21 identified unbounded impacts. The rule changes would 22 allow licensees to use appropriate federally issued 23 environmental review documents prepared in compliance 24
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 1
Preservation Act, or other environmental statutes 2
rather than just environmental impact statements.
3 The rule would also remove language 4
referencing amendments for authorizing decommissioning 5
activities in 10 CFR Part 51. In developing the 6
original proposed rule, the NRC staff considered, but 7
dismissed a proposal that staff approve each 8
licensee's PSDAR before allowing major decommissioning 9
activities to begin. This was done on the basis that 10 requiring approval of a PSDAR would have no additional 11 benefit in terms of public health, and safety.
12 However, as will be discussed later, the 13 staff was directed by the Commission to solicit public 14 comment on the question of whether the NRC should 15 require approval of a PSDAR in a site specific 16 environmental review, and hearing opportunity before 17 undertaking any decommissioning activity. The two 18 regulatory guides related to PSDARs were revised to 19 include clarifying language consistent with the rule 20 changes.
21 I would also like to note on this topic 22 that the decommissioning generic environmental impact 23 statement will be updated separately in the future.
24
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Separately from the rulemaking activities. Okay, I 1
think I covered the specific requests for comments.
2 We do have a comment, I think it's actually the first 3
request, that it does discuss what I just said, about 4
the PSDAR.
5 And it asks for input regarding site 6
specific environmental review, or hearing opportunity 7
before allowing major decommissioning activities.
8 There's also a request for input for other activities 9
to increase transparency, and public trust in the 10 NRC's regulatory framework, and also regarding the 11 role of state, and local governments in the 12 decommissioning process.
13 Next slide please. When the plant is no 14 longer operating, and in decommissioning, most plant 15 components such as pumps, and valves are no longer in 16 service, and will eventually be removed as part of the 17 dismantlement activities. Therefore there's no longer 18 a need to retain certain records associated with these 19 components, and the proposed rule would eliminate many 20 record keeping retention requirements.
21 This proposed rule would not impact the 22 records that are required to be maintained in support 23 of decommissioning, and license termination 24
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com activities. The proposed rule also includes the 1
specific question concerning the record keeping 2
requirements for facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 3
- 52. One of this rulemaking's few proposed changes to 4
Part 52 would be in 10 CFR 52.63 regarding the record 5
keeping, and retention requirements for departures 6
from the design of a facility.
7 However, these changes would not apply to 8
a combined license holder that references one of the 9
certified designs in the Part 52 appendices, because 10 those appendices have their own record keeping 11 provision. The NRC is asking if we should revise the 12 Part 52 appendices to conform those record keeping 13 requirements with those proposed in 10 CFR 52.63.
14 Next slide please.
15 Okay, low level waste transportation. We 16 are on slide 23. When a plant is actively being 17 decommissioned, the plant typically generates large 18 volumes of bulk low level radioactive waste to 19 efficiently manage the transportation of the waste to 20 a licensed disposal site. Most licensees ship waste 21 by rail. The railroads control the schedule for the 22 transportation of the rail cars to the destination.
23 And the time to reach the disposal site is 24
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com generally more than the 20 day notification 1
requirement currently in the regulation. Licensees 2
will continue to monitor and track the location and 3
progress of their low level waste shipments, but 4
notifications to the NRC would no longer be required 5
unless the new 45 day limit is exceeded. Next slide, 6
slide 24, spent fuel management planning.
7 The NRC staff identified ambiguity in the 8
spent fuel management, and decommissioning regulations 9
due to a lack of cross referencing between Part 72, 10 and Part 50. The rulemaking clarifies the information 11 for consistency. Specifically, the regulation in 10 12 CFR 72.218 states that the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) spent fuel 13 management program, the irradiated fuel management 14 plan, or IFMP, must show how the spent fuel will be 15 managed before starting to decommission systems and 16 components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping 17 the spent fuel. Section 72.218 also requires that an 18 application for termination of a reactor operating 19 license submitted under 10 CFR 50.82 or 10 CFR 52.110 20 must also describe how the spent fuel stored under the 21 Part 72 general license will be removed from the 22 reactor site.
23 Although 10 CFR 72.218 states what 24
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com information must be included in these Part 50 1
documents, the corresponding regulations in Part 50 do 2
not contain this information. Therefore the NRC 3
proposes to clarify and align the regulation in 10 CFR 4
50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110, and 72.218 to ensure 5
appropriate documentation of spent fuel management 6
plans and decommissioning plans.
7 So, the rule changes that we are proposing 8
in 10 CFR 50.54(bb), the NRC proposes moving the 9
72.218 provisions to 50.54(bb) to clarify that the 10 IFMP must be submitted and approved before the 11 licensee starts to decommission systems, structures, 12 and components needed for moving, unloading, and 13 shipping the spent fuel. The NRC proposes to clarify 14 the current irradiated fuel management plan approval 15 process and the 50.54(bb) provisions regarding 16 preliminary approval and final NRC review of the IFMP 17 as part of any proceeding for a continued licensing 18 under Part 50, or Part 72, as these proceedings no 19 longer exist as they did when 50.54(bb) was first 20 promulgated. The NRC proposes to require submittal of 21 the initial IFMP, and any subsequent changes to the 22 IFMP as a license amendment request.
23 And the changes in 10 CFR 72.218, the NRC 24
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com proposes revising that section to address requirements 1
related to decommissioning and termination of the Part 2
72 general license as the current title of 72.218, 3
which is termination of licenses suggests.
4 Specifically, the proposed 72.218 notes that the 5
general license ISFSI must be decommissioned 6
consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82, 10 7
CFR 52.110, as the general license ISFSI is part of 8
the Part 50, or Part 52 licensed site.
9 Also the proposed 72.218 notes that the 10 general license is terminated upon termination of the 11 Part 50, or Part 52 license. We do have a specific 12 request for comment related to this topic. The 13 proposed rule clarifies the current IFMP approval 14 process by requiring submittal of the initial IFMP, 15 and any changes to the IFMP for NRC review, and 16 approval by license amendment.
17 We would like to know if stakeholders see 18 any challenges with implementing this part of the 19 proposed rule. We're also considering including a 20 change control provision to specify what changes a 21 licensee can make to the IFMP without NRC approval.
22 We would like to know stakeholder's opinions on a 23 change control process including the criteria for 24
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com changes licensees can make without NRC approval, and 1
any associated record keeping or reporting for those 2
changes.
3 We do have updated guidance on this topic.
4 For the IFMP, we added guidance in Draft Guide 1347, 5
it's in section C3, to outline the information to be 6
included in a licensee's IFMP. For a general licensee 7
decommissioning, we added references to general 8
license ISFSIs in both Draft Guide 1347, and Draft 9
Guide 1349. To make it clear that the general license 10 ISFSI must be decommissioned consistent with the 11 requirements in 10 CFR 50.82, and 10 CFR 52.110.
12 The NRC staff believes that these changes 13 will provide regulatory clarity, and enhance overall 14 regulatory transparency, and openness regarding 15 decommissioning, and spent fuel management planning. I 16 would now like to, for the next several slides, turn 17 it over to Mr. Howard Benowitz. Howard is our senior 18 attorney supporting this rulemaking in the NRC's 19 Office of the General Counsel. Howard?
20 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks Dan. If we could go 21 to slide 25, this is on the back fit rule. The back 22 fit rule currently sits in 10 CFR 50.109, and in this 23 proposed rule, the NRC would provide a new back 24
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com fitting provision for nuclear power reactor licensees 1
in decommissioning. We would renumber the paragraphs 2
in the current 10 CFR 50.109 so that the 50.109(a) 3 would be the current back fit rule.
4 And the new 50.109(b) would be the 5
provision for decommissioning nuclear power reactor 6
licensees. The NRC is also proposing to edit the back 7
fitting provision in Part 72 so that that provision 8
would apply during decommissioning for an ISFSI, or 9
monitored retrievable storage facility. The proposed 10 rule would also revise a requirement in 10 CFR 50.109 11 that the NRC must consider the cost of imposing a back 12 fit if the basis for back fitting is a compliance 13 exception to the requirement of performing a back fit 14 analysis.
15 This proposed change is based on a 2019 16 update to the Commission's back fitting policy in 17 Management Directive 8.4. Also included in the 18 proposed rule, Federal Register notice, a specific 19 request for comment regarding the back fit rule, and 20 specifically what are the advantages and disadvantages 21 of applying the back fit rule to power reactor 22 licensees in decommissioning. Next slide please, 23 slide 26 on foreign ownership control and domination.
24
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's regulations 1
provide definitions for utilization facility and 2
production facility. Additionally, certain provisions 3
in the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations, 4
including the prohibition on foreign ownership, 5
control, or domination, apply only to a utilization, 6
or production facility.
7 But during decommissioning, a utilization 8
facility, or production facility will be dismantled to 9
the point where it no longer meets the definition of a 10 utilization facility, or production facility. The 11 proposed rule adds language to establish the criteria 12 for when exactly a utilization facility or a 13 production facility is no longer a utilization 14 facility or production facility.
15 The proposed rule also adds language to 16 affirm that despite this physical change in the 17 facility, and that it no longer meets the appropriate 18 definition, the NRC continues to have statutory 19 authority over the existing Part 50, or Part 52 20 license. And that the NRC regulations applicable to 21 utilization or production facilities will continue to 22 apply to the holder of that Part 50, or 52 license 23 unless the regulations explicitly state otherwise.
24
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And we have identified one such regulation in the 1
proposed rule, and that is in 10 CFR 50.38, the 2
foreign ownership, control, or domination prohibition.
3 And the proposed rule states that that provision would 4
no longer apply once the Part 50 or 52 facility is no 5
longer a
utilization, or production facility.
6 Therefore the NRC's regulations would not prohibit the 7
transfer of a license for that facility to a foreign 8
owned, controlled, or dominated entity.
9 We did not ask a specific request for 10 questions on that one. So, next slide please, slide 11 27, concerning the scope of license termination plans.
12 We have in Part 50 and Part 52 provisions concerning 13 license termination plans. And the proposed rule 14 would clarify that those provisions in 10 CFR 50.82 15 and 52.110 would not apply before fuel has been loaded 16 into the reactor for that facility that's licensed 17 under Part 50, or 52.
18 Which, and this is consistent with our 19 historical
- practice, these license termination 20 provisions are written for reactors that have 21 commenced operations, and the NRC has historically 22 viewed operation as beginning with the loading of fuel 23 into the reactor. And this is discussed in more 24
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com detail in the proposed rule Federal Register notice.
1 The NRC is also proposing this change 2
because some confusion arose about whether 10 CFR 3
52.110 was applicable when certain combined license 4
holders sought to terminate their licenses during 5
construction, or before construction even began at 6
their facility. The NRC informed these licensees that 7
52.110 did not apply for the reasons that are 8
described in the Federal Register notice.
9 Next slide please, 28. We are proposing 10 to remove certain license conditions and withdraw 11 orders. These license conditions, and there's one 12 particular order, they're substantively redundant with 13 existing provisions in our regulations. So, we no 14 longer need to have them as license conditions, or 15 orders. The order is Order EA-06-137 concerning 16 mitigation strategies for large fires, or explosions 17 at nuclear power plants.
18 And this is provided in the Federal 19 Register notice, but the ADAMS number is accession 20 number ML061600076. That's the ADAMS number for that 21 particular order. The license conditions that we are 22 proposing to remove are the conditions associated with 23 that order, and Order EA-02-026, which was one of the 24
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com post 9/11 orders, and also the cyber security license 1
condition that Dan mentioned earlier.
2 The license conditions would be deemed 3
removed when the rule goes into -- these provisions 4
are in the final rule when the final rule goes into 5
effect, and they would actually be removed by 6
administrative license amendment. Which means the NRC 7
staff would proactively, without a license amendment 8
request from a licensee, we would issue letters to the 9
licensees with the license amendment changes removing 10 those license conditions.
11 We did ask in the Federal Register notice, 12 a question about this proposal. We were interested in 13 getting your input to identify any other potential 14 redundant requirements that are not listed in this 15 proposed rule that are related to decommissioning.
16 Next slide please. This is slide 29. This concerns 17 changes, and the proposed changes to make consistent 18 our regulations regarding the treatment of holders of 19 an operating license under Part 50, or Part 52 20 combined license.
21 There are many provisions, you can see in 22 the top right corner of the slide. There are a number 23 of provisions in our regulations listed there. They 24
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com often only refer to 10 CFR Part 50.82 for the 1
decommissioning requirements for a Part 50 licensee, 2
and they do not also reference the similar provision 3
in Part 52, 52.110.
4 So, we are proposing to provide those 5
references in each instance, so that those provisions 6
would state, and reference both the Part 50, and 52 7
provisions regarding decommissioning, and license 8
termination. That is all I had Dan, back to you.
9 MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you Howard.
10 So, we're on slide 30. This is showing all the 11 specific requests for comment. The headings for each 12 of the specific requests for comment, I mentioned 13 there are 18 of them, it is in section five of the 14 Federal Register notice. And we've highlighted on the 15 previous topic slides, any that related to those 16 topics.
17 There are three that didn't specifically 18 fall into any of those, I'll just highlight those now.
19 The time frame for decommissioning, this was one of 20 the topics that the Commissioners had directed the 21 staff to examine, and we did look at that in the 22 regulatory basis stage, but ultimately made a decision 23 as described in that regulatory basis document not to 24
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com propose changes to the decommissioning time frame 1
requirements.
2 But we are soliciting stakeholder feedback 3
on that, and the question is basically what are the 4
advantages and disadvantages of requiring prompt 5
decontamination rather than allowing up to 60 years to 6
decommission a site? As part of its review of a 7
PSDAR, what are the advantages and disadvantages of 8
the NRC evaluating, and making a decision about a time 9
frame for decommissioning on a site specific basis?
10 Another one is on the right side, second 11 from the top, exemptions, and then right before that, 12 applicability. So, for exemptions, as stated, as 13 discussed in the proposed rule, one of the goals of 14 amending these regulations is to reduce the need for 15 regulatory exemptions. 10 CFR 50.12 states that the 16 Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements 17 of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request 18 will not present an undue risk to public health, and 19 safety, and is consistent with common defense, and 20 security.
21 What are the advantages and disadvantages 22 of the current 50.12 approach to decommissioning 23 related exemptions? What standard should the NRC 24
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com apply in determining whether to grant exemptions from 1
the new, or amended regulations? What are the 2
advantages and disadvantages of providing an 3
opportunity for the public to weigh in on such 4
5 Are there other process changes the NRC 6
should consider in determining whether to grant 7
exemptions from the new or amended regulation? And 8
then the one right below that, applicability, to 9
highlight that. There is a discussion in the proposed 10 rule about the applicability of these changes to NRC 11 licensees that are currently operating that are not 12 transitioning into decommissioning right now.
13 And also to facilities that have already 14 gone largely through the decommissioning process, or 15 are in the process now, such as ISFSI only, or a 16 standalone ISFSI decommissioned reactor site.
17 Permanently shut down nuclear reactors will be at 18 different stages of decommissioning when the new 19 decommissioning regulations become effective, and will 20 have previously received varying regulatory 21 exemptions.
22 Can you foresee any implementation issues 23 with the proposed rule as it is currently written for 24
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com any new, or amended requirement included in this 1
proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to 2
sites currently in different stages of the 3
decommissioning process? All right, so that's all of 4
the topics that we did ask for questions on. There's 5
quite a list there.
6 Next slide please. Slide 31. So, we do 7
have a regulatory analysis as one of our supporting 8
documents, where we examine the costs, and benefits to 9
the NRC, nuclear industry, public. So, that document 10 is available for review and comment. So, just to 11 summarize a few points related to that. The 12 conclusion in the regulatory analysis is that the 13 proposed rule would be overall cost beneficial with an 14 estimated net averted cost.
15 In other words, cost that would have 16 occurred without the proposed rule, of approximately 17 17.9 million, seven percent, all of these values are 18 seven percent net present value, basically bringing 19 future value back to present dollars. And 37 million 20 at a three percent net present value for the 21 recommended alternatives that were included in the 22 proposed rule.
23 And just to highlight a few of the areas 24
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that had sort of the largest costs, or benefits 1
associated with those, the emergency preparedness 2
alternative is estimated to result in net averted 3
costs of approximately 7.74 million. The drug, and 4
alcohol testing alternative is estimated to result in 5
net averted costs of approximately 7 million, and the 6
decommissioning funding assurance alternative is 7
estimated to result in averted costs of approximately 8
1.18 million.
9 Next slide please. So, for these next few 10 slides, this is intended to provide some tips, some 11 things for you to consider if you're planning to 12 review the proposed rule and submit comments to 13 hopefully make the comments and the outcome more 14 effective. Next slide please. So, one tip is to take 15 a look at the commenter's checklist. This is not an 16 NRC document, but it's on regulations.gov.
17 That's a website that many other federal 18 agencies
- use, including the
- NRC, to provide 19 information about rulemaking activities, and to 20 collect public comments. When you go to submit a 21 comment on there, you'll see a link to this 22 commenter's checklist. So, it's right on the comment 23 form. There's also a printable format, which I have a 24
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com screen shot of there.
1 So, please feel free to take a look at 2
that, it provides some helpful tips on the kinds of 3
information that is most helpful for a federal agency 4
to receive, and to help you make your point more 5
effectively. Next slide please. Tip number two, as I 6
mentioned at the beginning, we did make available this 7
unofficial red line rule language document.
8 It shows how the proposed rule would 9
modify the current regulations in red line strike out 10 format. This will be deleted, this will be added, so 11 that is a different format from what you see in the 12 proposed rule if you go to the very end where it has a 13 list of instructions. But you wouldn't see it in 14 context, you would have to take out the current 15 regulations, and actually go through, and apply those 16 changes.
17 So, this is intended to be helpful by 18 doing that step for you. But again, the proposed 19 rule, and what's printed in the Federal Register is 20 the official legal version, and please do not rely on 21 this document for your comments, but you can feel free 22 to check it. Next slide please. Tip number three, we 23 did put on the NRC public website, a dedicated page 24
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with information about this proposed rule.
1 We do have a direct link to the proposed 2
rule, a direct link to the comment form. All of the 3
supporting documents, the regulatory guides, the 4
regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment, 5
information collections, as well as the background 6
documents from the advanced notice of proposed 7
rulemaking, the regulatory basis, the staff's paper 8
that went to the Commission, the Commission's 9
direction, the background information is all there.
10 That short link on the slide will bring 11 you right to that, or you can scan the QR code with a 12 mobile device, and that'll also bring you there. If 13 you have any trouble with that, feel free to reach out 14 to me. My email address, and phone number is shown on 15 the slide there. Next slide please. One of the small 16 differences from the last meeting, if anyone was at 17 the meeting on the 21st, we did add this slide just 18 summarizing, or showing how to submit a comment.
19 Just wanted to make that very clear. So, 20 there are several methods where you can submit a 21 comment. These instructions are in the proposed rule 22 in the Federal Register notice, there's a section that 23 says addresses, and we've included that here. So, you 24
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com can use regulations.gov to upload your comment, or you 1
can send it by email to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov, 2
or you could send it through the regular mail to the 3
secretary, and the address is there.
4 So, please don't submit multiple methods, 5
that just causes us duplication. So, our preferred 6
method is regulations.gov, but you're welcome to use 7
other methods, or again, if you have a problem with 8
any of that, you can reach out to me. My name, and 9
contact information is in the proposed rule. Next 10 slide please. Okay, we are almost about to wrap this 11 up.
12 The next steps are shown here on the 13 slide. Again, we're in the public comment period, the 14 last day is May 17th. So, that full day is included, 15 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, May 17th is actually when 16 regulations.gov would no longer accept public 17 comments, that's the official close of the comment 18 period. After we received the comments, the staff 19 will review, and develop an updated final rule 20 package, which would be submitted to the Commission.
21 The target date for the staff to do that 22 is October of 2023, and then the estimated final rule 23 publication date would be May of 2024. The final rule 24
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be effective 30 days after that, this would be 1
assuming the Commission -- it does need to go to the 2
Commission for review, and vote. So, if they approve 3
that, then the estimated publication date would be May 4
2024.
5 We do also maintain on our website, the 6
schedule for all of our ongoing rulemaking activities, 7
including these major milestone dates for when it 8
would go to the signature authority, and when we 9
believe it would be published. So, if there are 10 changes, then we will update that website. Next slide 11 please. Okay, thank you for sticking with us. I know 12 some of this can be kind of dry.
13 But we did think it would be helpful to at 14 least touch on each of these topics, that if something 15 catches your interest, or attention, that you know 16 where to look to learn more about it. So, as you 17 formulate your comments, we hope that was helpful.
18 So, that concludes the staff's overview of the 19 proposed rule, and I will now turn it back to Lance.
20 MR. RAKOVAN: All right, thanks Dan. That 21 was a pretty lengthy presentation, so we wanted to 22 give everyone about a ten minute break to kind of 23 stretch your legs, take a bio break if you need to, 24
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com get a tasty beverage, if you have one, or can go get 1
one. I've got 5:11 Eastern, so let's plan on starting 2
up a little bit after 5:20 Eastern, where we'll be 3
opening the floor up for questions.
4 So, again, going to take a ten minute 5
break, back in a little after 5:20 Eastern.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7
off the record at 5:11 p.m. and resumed at 5:21 p.m.)
8 MR. RAKOVAN:
Lets go ahead and 9
transition to our public Q&A session. Please remember 10 that our goal today is to help provide you with 11 information, so you can make informed comments. So, 12 we ask that your questions focus on any clarification 13 you, or others may need in terms of the proposed 14 decommissioning rule, and draft regulatory guidance.
15 Our intent is not to discuss specific details of any 16 particular facility.
17 So, we ask that you keep your questions on 18 the decommissioning rule, and related topics, in 19 general. I'll take questions here on Teams, and Dan 20 will help if there's anyone in the audience there in 21 the Commissioner's Hearing Room. Remember, those of 22 you who are on Teams directly can use the raise your 23 hand feature to signal that you have a question, and 24
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com you can unmute yourselves.
1 Those on the phone, you can hit star five 2
to raise your hand, and star six to unmute. We'll 3
take hands in the order that we see them, and we ask 4
that folks keep to a few question at a time if you do 5
have a question. So again, for those of you on Teams, 6
if you'd like to ask a question, you can just raise 7
your hand, and use the raise your hand feature. For 8
those of you on the phone, you can hit star five, and 9
that will signal to me that you have a question.
10 So, we'll go ahead, and pause to see if we 11 have any questions today. All right, Mr. Costello, if 12 you could go ahead, and unmute yourself, and ask your 13 question.
14 MR. COSTELLO: Hi, this is Michael 15 Costello from the Wisconsin DHS. Just wanted to ask, 16 we have a licensee, without getting into the 17 specifics, who could possibly be classified as a 18 utilization facility. Is this current rulemaking 19 intended to only target power plants and the 20 associated facilities with nuclear power production, 21 or would it affect general materials licenses that it 22 falls under?
23 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz 24
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com from the NRC. The proposed rule is only proposing 1
changes that would -- you referred to materials 2
licensees, the proposed changes would only affect Part 3
50 of our regulations, and 52, but there are -- Part 4
50 has a definition of production facility, and a 5
definition of utilization facility, but it only 6
applies within Part 50 of our regulations.
7 So, when you refer to materials licensees, 8
that leads me to believe you're outside of Part 50, so 9
I'm not asking you to clarify, or go into any more 10 detail, we're here to talk more generically about this 11 proposed rule, but just hopefully that helps answer 12 your question, that this rule is limited in that sense 13 to Part 50. And not materials licensees that might be 14 under say Part 30, or 40.
15 MR. RAKOVAN: Sir, did that clarify your 16 question, did you have any follow up?
17 MR. COSTELLO: Yeah, that was very 18 helpful, thank you.
19 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, Mr. Wentworth, I see 20 you have your hand up.
21 MR. WENTWORTH: Yes, thank you. TR 22 Wentworth, State of Michigan. I wanted to make sure, 23 or actually I just wanted to ask the question, you 24
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com noted that the final rule is slated for implementation 1
October of 2023 with -- and I understand that the 2
dates are in flux, final implementation date of May of 3
2024. Will this have any impact on facilities that 4
are going into decommissioning status between say 5
right now, and those two dates?
6 MR. DOYLE: I was just going to say, I'll 7
start, and then Howard can add on or correct me. So, 8
we do have that section where we're talking about the 9
applicability to operate -- so, I think the main 10 answer to your question is no, in general, the 11 proposed rule is not intended to propose changes to 12 facilities that are currently operating, or that are 13 going to be going into decommissioning before the 14 effective date of the final rule.
15 But again, we do have a section that 16 highlights, I believe the Part 26, I think there was a 17 Part 26 change that would apply to currently operating 18 reactors, and there's another example I can't think of 19 right now, but most of the changes are focused on 20 decommissioning.
21 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard, I would 22 just add that this is only a proposal at this point, 23 and nothing in this Federal Register notice impacts 24
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com anybody until the final rule, as approved by this 1
Commission, goes into effect. So, it says, you noted 2
it was 2024. So, at that point, whatever is in the 3
final rule, which may look a lot like the proposed 4
rule, it may not, we don't know right now.
5 But whatever's in that final rule would go 6
into effect. Much of that is -- a lot of those things 7
are not mandatory. So, even a licensee that goes into 8
decommissioning tomorrow for instance, if they submit 9
their 50.82 certifications for instance tomorrow, and 10 they begin decommissioning, and when this rule goes 11 into effect say in two years, if they decide I want to 12 take advantage of that emergency preparedness new 13 requirement, it's optional, so I want to take 14 advantage of it.
15 They might be able to do that at that 16 point, and it's just up to them as maybe a business 17 decision, or -- so the short answer -- probably too 18 late for that, is that until this rule goes into 19 effect as a final rule, there's nothing really 20 available. No part of it is even an option for any 21 entity to use, and certainly we're not imposing 22 anything in this proposal on anyone until it's a final 23 rule. Does that help answer your question?
24
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. WENTWORTH: I think so. I just want 1
to make sure that -- suppose a facility goes into 2
decommissioning status between right now, and the time 3
of the final rule, will their licensing status change 4
once this final rule goes into effect? Or are they 5
under the regime at the time they go into decommission 6
status? I guess that's probably what I wanted to say.
7 MR. BENOWITZ: Okay, I don't think my 8
answer really changes. Because much of what we're 9
doing in this rule is optional, that if the licensee 10 wants to take advantage of something, I say take 11 advantage, wants to use the EP framework that we're 12 proposing in this rule, or they can stay under the 13 current regulations, which they might have to file 14 exemptions, et cetera, but that's their choice.
15 There are things in this proposed rule 16 that they might want to -- trying to think of -- a lot 17 of it will depend on, of course what's in the final 18 rule, and whether it's mandatory, or not, on a license 19 that is in decommissioning at the time the rule goes 20 into effect. So, if that licensee goes into 21 decommissioning tomorrow, they will be under the 22 current rules until this rule goes into effect.
23 And to the extent that this rulemaking 24
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com changes any of the current rules, whether they're 1
mandatory, or not, I think will be the answer to your 2
question of how that particular licensee reacts to the 3
final rule. The framework itself overall isn't 4
changing, but aspects of it will be. But again, some 5
of them won't be mandatory, so they won't be mandatory 6
changes on that licensee.
7 MR. WENTWORTH: Okay, thank you, I think 8
that answers my question, I appreciate that. Thank 9
you.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: All right, Mr. Ray, you have 11 your hand up? Mr. Ray, did you have a question?
12 COURT REPORTER: Can you hear me?
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes.
14 COURT REPORTER: I was wondering who spoke 15 before Howard, but now I understand there are only 16 three people in the room, so I figured it out. Thank 17 you.
18 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, thank you. Okay, 19 again, if you have a question, if you're directly on 20 Teams, you can use the raise your hand feature like 21 the similar folks have done, and we've gone one by 22 one. If you are on the phone line, you can hit star 23 five, and that will raise your hand. Looks like we 24
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com have a question, please go ahead Mr. Leshinskie.
1 MR. LESHINSKIE: It's Leshinskie, yes.
2 I'm Tony Leshinskie, I am the state nuclear engineer 3
for the State of Vermont. And this is effectively a 4
follow up to the last question. In the response it 5
was stated that most of what is being proposed here 6
will not be mandatory. So, just for the point of 7
clarification, and I recognize that at this point you 8
don't know what's going to be in the final rule.
9 As you stated, it could look a lot like 10 what's proposed right now, it could be different. But 11 do you guys have any sense of what parts of the 12 current rulemaking will be mandatory for all plants 13 currently undergoing decommissioning when these rules 14 take effect?
15 MR. BENOWITZ: This is Howard Benowitz 16 again. Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer 17 to that question. In the Federal Register notice, I 18 think we say whether or not a particular proposed 19 change would be optional for licensees. Again, the 20 first thing that comes to mind, the first emergency 21 preparedness requirement, that whole framework that we 22 propose is optional.
23 And then there are -- I'm sorry, I have to 24
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com say read the Federal Register notice. And also there 1
is a -- to some extent, it might help if there's a 2
back fitting discussion, because if we are proposing 3
mandatory changes, then we would explain in the back 4
fitting discussion, which you'll find it in the 5
Federal Register notice, whether, or not it's a back 6
fit.
7 And a back fit, just for those who aren't 8
familiar, is a change to a current requirement that 9
the NRC is imposing on a licensee. So, this rule, to 10 the extent that there are -- maybe it's a reporting 11 requirement we're changing, and that could be a back 12 fit if it's mandatory. The licensee has to change 13 some aspect of how it operates, or even in 14 decommissioning.
15 And that's -- back fitting is in Section 16 IX, Roman numeral IX. The heading is back fitting, 17 and issue finality. And it goes through all of the 18 proposed changes in this proposed rule, and whether, 19 or not they would be imposed, or not, and, or be back 20 fitting, or affect the issue finality of a holder of a 21 combined license under Part 52. So, that might be --
22 the back fitting section might not have all the 23 answers that you're looking for.
24
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com But it might be a shortcut at least to 1
know, I'm sorry I just don't remember whether, or not 2
it states whether certain ones would be mandatory, or 3
not.
4 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay, that's helpful. I 5
admittedly have not looked at the back fitting 6
section, and since you noted that, it sounds like it's 7
mostly for Part 52, if I understood what you said 8
correctly. I'm more interested in Part 50 at this 9
point, but I'll look through there anyway.
10 MR. BENOWITZ: Okay, just to clarify, I'm 11 sorry if I misspoke, it's Part 50 and Part 52. Issue 12 finality is a concept like back fitting, but it only 13 applies to licensees under Part 52, and back fitting 14 for this rule is for the Part 50 licensees.
15 MR. LESHINSKIE: Okay, that's very 16 helpful, thank you.
17 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, any additional? There 18 we go. Mr. Janati?
19 MR. JANATI: Yes, Rich Janati, Division of 20 Environmental Protection. I actually have two 21 questions. One of them is going to be semi question, 22 semi comment. We've had several nuclear power plants 23 decommissioned in the U.S. already, and I'm wondering 24
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com what took the NRC so long to come up with this 1
proposed rulemaking? I would say it probably should 2
have been done several years ago.
3 The other question I have is related to 4
the FFD program. How does the FFD program fall under 5
this graded approach, or fit under this graded 6
approach? Do licensees require to maintain the FFD 7
program throughout level two, and three? If you could 8
elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.
9 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle, so I can 10 talk about the schedule a bit. So, why did it take so 11 long? We were very thorough, so there's a lot of 12 regulations that touch decommissioning. The NRC 13 wanted to do a thorough job, and proceed carefully 14 with basically maximum stakeholder input on this. So, 15 in the early stages, I guess one thing I'll point out, 16 I was aware this was before my time, but the NRC was 17 looking at making changes to decommissioning in the 18 late 1990s.
19 The last major change to decommissioning 20 regulations was 1996. So, there was some discussions 21 going back into the 90's actually. After September 22 11th, the agency's focus shifted to security. But 23 there has been this awareness, or interest in making 24
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com some of the changes to decommissioning, and then as I 1
mentioned, the prompt recently, semi recently for this 2
proposed rule, was the increase in licensees that were 3
shutting down.
4 Some of them with very little planning.
5 So, that's kind of the big picture, and then we again 6
decided to take an approach that had maximum 7
opportunity for stakeholder input. We did do an 8
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we had a 9
regulatory basis document, again, with a comment 10 period on both of those. And then we're following our 11 internal process which includes getting internal 12 alignment with the Commission, who sets the policy for 13 the agency, and with other priorities for that agency.
14 So, hopefully that's helpful, but your point is 15 taken, it has not been a fast process.
16 DR. HOLAHAN: Can I add something?
17 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
18 DR. HOLAHAN: Sorry, this is Trish 19 Holahan. Also we had done a lessons learned of the 20 existing plants in decommissioning. So, we started 21 with that, and then we went to the ANPR, and the draft 22 reg basis. So, we've been working on it for a while, 23 but we started with the lessons learned for 24
66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com decommissioning.
1 MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you Trish, this is 2
Dan Doyle again. So, I believe the second question 3
was related to fitness for duty?
4 MR. JANATI: Correct.
5 MR. DOYLE: Let's see, we do have --
6 MR. ZALESKI: Yeah, can you hear me? This 7
is Brian Zaleski.
8 MR. JANATI: Yeah, I can hear you.
9 MR. DOYLE: You have the NRC staff contact 10 for this, Mr. Brian Zaleski, thank you.
11 MR. ZALESKI: So, let me reiterate the 12 question you had to see if I understand it correctly, 13 and you can correct me before I answer it. So, I 14 think you were asking what's changing from what 15 currently applies to decommissioning sites to what 16 we're proposing?
17 MR. JANATI: Correct, yeah, as it relates 18 to the different levels, yeah.
19 MR. ZALESKI: So, right now under Part 26, 20 Part 26 does not apply to a decommissioning power 21 reactor. But elements of Part 26 do apply through the 22 insider mitigation program under Part 73. Part 73 23 does not specify what those elements are. So, a 24
67 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com licensee today that was decommissioning would be 1
inside their security plan, defining what elements of 2
the Part 26 program they would apply.
3 So, we're talking about, and if you look 4
in the rulemaking documents, it supports that the 5
licensees are currently implementing a full program.
6 So, if the proposed rule was finalized as proposed, 7
there would be a reduction in the requirements based 8
on what licensees are currently doing under their own 9
actions. So, it would break it out into individuals 10 that have unescorted access authorization to the vital 11 area of the decommissioning facility.
12 So, that's one element. And it would be a 13 couple other categories of individuals. One would be 14 security, it would be certified fuel handlers, and it 15 would be individuals that are defined as fitness for 16 duty program personnel, so those are individuals that 17 are administering the drug testing program. They 18 would be subject to a full probing. That's everything 19 in Part 26 now.
20 And like I said, licensees are applying --
21 decommissioning licensees I believe are applying the 22 full program right now. And the second piece would be 23 individuals that do not have access to the vital 24
68 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com areas. So, they do not have access to the spent fuel 1
pool, but they do have access to the protected area.
2 So, that's outside the vital area, they have 3
unescorted access to the protected area.
4 There would be a subset of fitness for 5
duty program requirements that would apply to them.
6 They would be subject to pre-access testing, so that's 7
before they're granted access. They'd be subject to 8
for cause testing, so if they're demonstrating signs 9
of impairment, or if there's credible information 10 about a potential substance abuse issue, and they 11 would be subject to the behavioral observation 12 program.
13 So, if they're demonstrating some sort of 14 aberrant behavior, the program would apply to them.
15 And that's through the for cause. So, that's what's 16 in the proposed rule in terms of the differences 17 between right now, where the full program is applying 18 through the security plan to comply with the IMP 19 requirement in Part 73 to more of a graded approach.
20 Hopefully that lays out the difference.
21 MR. JANATI: Yeah, that helps. I was 22 wondering if somehow you could fit that in the slide 23 that has the four levels.
24
69 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. ZALESKI: Right, you want --
1 MR. JANATI: With cyber security, but it 2
would have been nice to have the FFD program in there 3
as well.
4 MR. ZALESKI: I appreciate that feedback, 5
we can look at that, we do have additional public 6
meetings, so Dan, we can take a look at that.
7 MR. JANATI: Thank you very much.
8 MR. ZALESKI: Thank you.
9 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, again, if you have a 10 question, if you are directly on Teams, you can use 11 the raise your hand feature. If you are on the phone, 12 then you can hit star five. Let's see if we have any 13 additional questions. Let's see if we have any 14 additional questions. All right, Mr. Salz please.
15 MR. SALZ: Hi, this is Chris Salz, State 16 of Ohio, radiological branch chief with the Emergency 17 Management Agency. Are you guys elaborating on 18 anything that you presented on during this?
19 MR. DOYLE: Sure, we have staff here, and 20 so we'll do the best that we can to again, try to 21 explain what's in the proposed rule, yes.
22 MR. SALZ: Okay, so you talked about spent 23 fuel handlers, and it kind of sounded like you were 24
70 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com lowering the qualification standards, was the best way 1
that I can sum that up. And then lowering the adult 2
supervision if you will, that was to be on the site 3
while there was still spent fuel in the pool. Was that 4
kind of what I heard? And if you -- if that is what I 5
heard, can you, I guess elaborate as to why?
6 MR. DOYLE: Yes, this is Dan Doyle. Again, 7
we can address that you're talking about the certified 8
fuel handler and elimination of the shift technical 9
advisor topic. We do have a staff member who can talk 10 about that, Maurin Scheetz. Okay, Maurin, are you 11 able to unmute?
12 MR. RAKOVAN: Maurin, are you there? I 13 cannot, I don't have the ability to unmute her 14 unfortunately.
15 MR. DOYLE: Okay, we might need to come 16 back to that one. But just, I guess at a high level, 17 what we're doing is revising the regulations such that 18 NRC approval of the training program would not be 19 required. So, I don't think that we would 20 characterize that as lowering the qualification 21 standards. But when we get Maurin back, we can 22 explain that a little bit more.
23 And then as far as lowering the 24
71 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com supervision, I don't think we would characterize that 1
either, but rather having the appropriate level of 2
supervision based on what's required at the facility.
3 I do see Maurin's video, are you?
4 MR. RAKOVAN: Yeah, we can hear her, go 5
ahead Maurin.
6 MS. SCHEETZ: I'm back, sorry about that, 7
my audio wasn't working. So, to answer the question 8
about certified fuel handlers, we're matching what is 9
currently done for non-licensed operators at a plant.
10 So, the proposed language would take away the 11 Commission's approval of a training program because 12 we're going to match how we do non-licensed training 13 programs for operating reactors.
14 Which is having a training program that's 15 based on a systems approach to training, which has its 16 own definition in the Code of Federal Regulations.
17 So, we're applying a certain pedigree to the certified 18 fuel handling program, and the proposed rule would 19 make that occur for all certified fuel handling 20 programs for decommissioning.
21 And then as far as the shift technical 22 advisor, what currently happens at decommissioning 23 sites now, is they have to go through a license 24
72 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com amendment request process to remove the shift 1
technical advisor. So, that's already happening, that 2
is a person that is there for accident assessment, and 3
engineering expertise in an operating reactor. So, 4
that position doesn't apply in a decommissioning 5
state.
6 So, we're just matching what is already 7
done, and codifying it in the proposed rule language.
8 I hope that answers your question.
9 MR. SALZ: Yes, thank you.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, let's see if we have 11 any other hands that come up.
12 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan again, while we're 13 waiting for the next question. I just wanted to make 14 the point that Mr. Salz was just asking, that's kind 15 of the whole reason why we're here, is to try to 16 explain, or if there's something that doesn't make 17 sense, to really help you understand better what's in 18 the proposed rule, and to prepare your public 19 comments.
20 So, feel free to ask questions, we do have 21 staff available to try to respond. And we will be 22 putting out, as I said, we did have that first meeting 23 on March 21st, we will be putting out a summary of 24
73 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that meeting, we're going to do a summary of this 1
meeting also, and as Trish mentioned, we are planning 2
additional meetings. So, for each of those we'll have 3
the slides, we'll have a summary.
4 And if something occurs to you after this 5
meeting, as you're taking a look at it, you can feel 6
free to pop back in on those future ones, and ask the 7
question there.
8 MR. RAKOVAN: So again, if you have any 9
questions, please raise your hand, or if you're on the 10 phone, you can hit star five. All quiet on all fronts 11 at this time.
12 MR. DOYLE: Okay, so what we're planning 13 to do here is maybe I should go through the rest of my 14 slides, there are just a few more slides here. And 15 then if folks want to step off, away from the meeting, 16 that is totally fine, and up to you. But the NRC 17 staff that are here, most of us are going to remain on 18 the line in case someone was planning to join the 19 meeting later to make a comment. So, let's go -- what 20 do we have for the next slide?
21 Okay, so I did just want to make this 22 point before folks drop off. That we are interested 23 in your feedback on how we conduct our public 24
74 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com meetings, so we do have, for all public meetings, a 1
feedback form. There's just a few questions, if you 2
want to provide any feedback about what you think went 3
well, or what could be done better, or differently.
4 We are entering this new way of 5
interacting with the public, and trying to have these 6
hybrid meetings, so people can attend in person, or 7
online, and we want it to be effective. So, if you 8
have tips, or anything that you'd like us to know, the 9
best way to do that would be to fill out the feedback 10 form. There is the QR code you can scan, or click the 11 link on the meeting details page. There is the 12 meeting feedback form.
13 All right, I think the next one is just 14 the list of acronyms, and abbreviations that we have 15 used in this slide, we always try to include that, too 16 many acronyms here. But, so that's all the slides 17 that we have. As I said, we are going to stick on the 18 meeting here, on the line. So, if there was a 19 question that you had, that you've been hanging onto, 20 we're going to be here.
21 So, feel free to speak up, we're here for 22 you guys. If you do want to drop off, that is okay as 23 well, but again, we'll be staying here.
24
75 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. RAKOVAN: Hey Dan, my recommendation 1
would be to put the slide up that talks about how 2
folks can provide their comments, and to leave that 3
one up as we idle, if you will.
4 MR. DOYLE: Okay, that's a good point.
5 That was slide 36 if you want to put that up.
6 MR. RAKOVAN: With that, I guess we are 7
unofficially convening the meeting. But again, we 8
will hang out, just in case folks have comments, or 9
folks pop back on, and we'll address as necessary.
10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 11 off the record at 5:53 p.m. and resumed at 5:55 p.m.)
12 MR. COSTELLO: Just in terms of the 13 emergency preparedness, I believe it mentioned that 14 there would be a
reduced off site response 15 requirement, I'm assuming that's for the licensee, is 16 that correct?
17 MR. DOYLE: We're going to get an NRC 18 staff member here, Mr. Todd Smith.
19 MR. SMITH: Hi, yeah, this is Todd Smith, 20 Senior Level Advisor for Emergency Preparedness and 21 Incident Response in the Office of Nuclear Security 22 Instant Response. So, the requirements on the 23 licensee change commensurate to the risk of the 24
76 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com facility, to the levels of decommissioning. As far as 1
the off site response, that is the responsibility of 2
state, and locals, as it currently is for operating 3
nuclear plants.
4 So, that responsibility does not change.
5 The only thing that changes is whether the NRC 6
requires findings of the state of the off site 7
planning. However, there will always be off site 8
plans, just like there will always be on site plans 9
throughout decommissioning.
10 MR. COSTELLO: Okay, and part two to that 11 question, does the NRC anticipate an increased need 12 for environmental monitoring when this need, as it's 13 written now, goes into effect with the graded stages 14 of decommissioning?
15 MR. DOYLE: Let me pull the -- that's a 16 good question, you're asking if there's an increased 17 need for environmental monitoring. So, what I can say 18 for now is we don't have anything in the proposed rule 19 that would change requirements for environmental 20 monitoring that I'm aware of right now. Let me see, 21 do we have -- is Stacey Imboden on the line, Stacey 22 are you able to respond to this one?
23 MS. IMBODEN: Hi Dan, Stacey Imboden. No, 24
77 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com I'm not aware of any additional requirements for 1
environmental monitoring.
2 MR. DOYLE: So, let me just follow that up 3
by saying that if -- again, so you form your views, 4
and from your point of view on the proposed rule, and 5
we encourage you to submit any comments if you feel 6
that there's a basis for making a change to what we've 7
proposed for the current regulations, does that answer 8
your question? Do you have any other follow up for 9
that sir?
10 MR. COSTELLO: Yeah, thank you very much 11 for the responses. That cleared it up. So, no 12 current requirement change for that environmental 13 monitoring.
14 MR. DOYLE: That's correct.
15 MR. RAKOVAN: It looks like we do have 16 another question. Are we still good with getting the 17 transcript?
18 COURT REPORTER: Yes sir.
19 MR. RAKOVAN: All right. Mr. Gillen?
20 MR. GILLEN: Yes, thank you. I was 21 wondering if there were going to be future local 22 public meetings on this proposed rulemaking?
23 MR. DOYLE: Yes, this is Dan Doyle, we are 24
78 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 planning to host several public meetings in April that 1
people could attend in person. So, we have not 2
released those yet. The changes, as everybody knows 3
the challenges with the pandemic, the surge, and the 4
impact on facilities and availability and spacing and 5
all of that has unfortunately delayed us releasing.
6 But it's nice that things seem to be going in a good 7
direction.
8 So, we do expect to issue those meeting 9
notices very soon, with the locations, and the times 10 for those, so the short answer is yes.
11 MR. GILLEN: Okay, thank you.
12 MR. DOYLE: And those would be also hybrid 13 meetings, so if you don't happen to live near those, 14 but as I said, if you wanted to participate, or ask a 15 question, you could turn in just like you did for this 16 one, or call in either with your computer, or the 17 phone, and participate virtually.
18 MR. GILLEN: Great, thank you.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 6:01 p.m. and resumed at 6:14 p.m.)
21 MR. DOYLE: Great. So, we have a small 22 but dedicated group of individuals who are still in 23 attendance, that's totally fine. Hope we're not 24
79 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 inconveniencing you at all with keeping on the line. I 1
imagine if you don't have comments, or questions, 2
that's totally fine, or you may have some, but just 3
not want to raise them here, that's totally fine. But 4
again, we are going to just hang out.
5 That was a decision that we made 6
internally just in case someone wanted to join later.
7 So, I imagine you're staying on, because you might 8
want to hear what other folks have to say, totally up 9
to you. But I did just want to point out we will be 10 releasing the meeting summary, and there's also going 11 to be a transcript in case you wanted to come back, 12 and look later. But again, you're welcome to stay on 13 the line, thank you.
14 And we just stopped sharing the slides, 15 and shared them again, just to add this note in case 16 someone does happen to join in, and just hears 17 silence. That the meeting will remain open until 7:00 18 p.m. Eastern Time, so it's about another 45 minutes.
19 If you do think of a question, feel free to raise your 20 hand or unmute. Thank you.
21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 22 off the record at 6:15 p.m. and resumed at 6:59 p.m.)
23 MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
24
80 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So, we are right at 7:00 p.m., as we mentioned 1
earlier, we did just want to keep the lines open for 2
the full amount of time in case someone had a 3
conflict, and wanted to join late. So, I'm glad that 4
we did keep the lines open, we did get a few more 5
comments from individuals after there was a brief 6
pause. So, that's good insight from us.
7 We'll factor in this experience today with 8
our planning for the future meetings. But for those 9
few dedicated people who are still on the line, just 10 wanted to say thank you again for participating today, 11 we appreciate your time, and look forward to any 12 comments you may have on the proposed rule. And that 13 wraps it up for today, thank you so much, have a great 14 day.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 7:00 p.m.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24