ML22277A004
| ML22277A004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/2022 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Doyle, Daniel | |
| References | |
| NRC-1924, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59 | |
| Download: ML22277A004 (61) | |
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:
Chicago, Illinois Date:
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-1924 Pages 1-60 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 TUESDAY 9
APRIL 12, 2022 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting convened at the Courtyard by 12 Marriott Chicago Downtown/River North, and by video 13 teleconference, at 6:00 p.m. CT, Frances Ramirez, 14 Senior Reactor Inspector, presiding.
15 16 PRESENT 17 HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC/LRAA/RASFP 18 DANIEL DOYLE, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 19 SARAH LOPAS, NMSS/MSST/MSEB 20 FRANCES RAMIREZ, R-IV/DORS/IPAT 21 JOHN TAPPERT, NMSS/REFS 22 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Call to Order, Welcome, and Logistics..............3 3
Opening Remarks....................................6 4
Background and Status..............................8 5
Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................13 6
Public Feedback and Questions.....................53 7
Wrap-up...........................................59 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
6:00 p.m. CT 2
MS. RAMIREZ: Good evening. Hello, 3
everyone.
4 My name is Frances Ramirez. I am a Senior 5
Reactor Inspector at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission, or NRC. And it is my pleasure to 7
facilitate today's meeting, along with the NRC staff 8
who will be here in this room in Chicago, and with the 9
staff and teams joining us virtually.
10 This meeting will have a hybrid format, 11 and we're going to do our best to help make this 12 meeting worthwhile for everyone. We're hoping that 13 you can help us out with that.
14 Slide 2, please.
15 The purpose of this meeting is to provide 16 information to help you to make more educated comments 17 on the Proposed Decommissioning Rule and the Draft 18 Regulatory Guidance. We will be going through the 19 various ways you can participate in this commenting 20 process as part of our presentation.
21 Slide 3, please.
22 Here's our agenda for today. After I 23 finish with logistics, we'll have some opening 24 remarks, and then, we'll provide our presentations, 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com which will include details on background and status; 1
an overview of the proposed rule; tips for preparing 2
comments, and next steps. We'll then open the floor 3
for feedback and questions.
4 Slide 4, please.
5 Please note that today's meeting is being 6
recorded and transcribed. We ask that you help us get 7
a full, clear accounting of the meeting by staying on 8
mute if you are on the phone or on Teams and are not 9
speaking, or if you're in the room, keeping your 10 electronic devices in silent and keeping side 11 conversations or discussions to a minimum.
12 Also, it would help us out greatly if all 13 speakers can identify themselves and any group they're 14 with when they first talk.
15 All the meeting attendees have microphones 16 muted and cameras disabled during the presentation.
17 When we get to the Q&A portion of the meeting, those 18 of you on Teams can use the "raise your hand" feature 19 to signal that you have a question. Those on the 20 phone can use *5. Once our Teams facilitator Sarah 21 enables your microphone, you will have to unmute 22 yourself before you ask your question.
23 Please note that the chat feature on Teams 24 has been disabled.
25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com If you are having trouble seeing the 1
slides, or if they are not advancing for you, the 2
slides that will be shown on today's presentation can 3
be found in the NRC's ADAMS library at ML22101A015.
4 You can also go to the meeting notice page at the 5
NRC's website, and there is a link to the slides 6
there.
7 Any phone attendees, please email Dan 8
Doyle for attendance. The email is listed on this 9
slide.
10 One other item. We are hoping you will 11 fill out our public meeting feedback form. You can 12 link to the public meeting feedback form from the NRC 13 public meeting schedule page for this meeting. Your 14 opinion on how this meeting went will help us improve 15 and inform future meetings. So, please take a moment 16 to let us know what you think.
17 For those of you in the room with us 18 today, please note that the emergency exits are to our 19 left and out, and then, the restrooms are outside 20 towards the elevator and to the left.
21 Slide 5, please.
22 All right. I would like to introduce John 23 Tappert, who is the Director of the NRC's Division of 24 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, to 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com give some opening remarks.
1 MR. TAPPERT: Thanks, Frances.
2 And good evening.
3 As Frances says, I'm John Tappert. I'm 4
the Director of the NRC's Division of Rulemaking, 5
Environmental, and Financial Support.
6 And I would like to thank you for joining 7
us today to talk about the NRC's decommissioning 8
rulemaking. The NRC's goals for this rulemaking are 9
to maintain a safe, effective, and efficient 10 decommissioning process; incorporate lessons learned 11 from previous decommissionings, and support the NRC's 12 principles of good regulation, including openness, 13 clarity, and reliability.
14 The proposed rule would implement specific 15 regulatory requirements for different phases of the 16 decommissioning process, consistent with the reduced 17 risk that occurs over time, while continuing to 18 maintain safety and security.
19 The proposed rule would incorporate 20 lessons learned from the plants that have recently 21 transitioned to decommissioning and improve the 22 effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 23 framework while protecting public health and safety.
24 Public comment has twice played an 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com important role in the development of this proposed 1
rule. We published an Advance Notice of Proposed 2
Rulemaking and, later, with the Draft Regulatory 3
Basis.
4 We are seeking public input on the 5
proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 6
future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 7
addresses several regulatory areas, which you will 8
hear about more later in the meeting.
9 We hope today's meeting will help you 10 better understand the proposed rule. We look forward 11 to your feedback and questions today. But please note 12 that the NRC will not be responding in writing to 13 verbal comments from today's meeting.
14 Comments must be submitted in writing 15 through the methods described in the Federal Register 16 notice to receive formal consideration in the 17 rulemaking.
18 This is our third public meeting on the 19 proposed rule. We will be having additional meetings 20 in other locations around the country with the option 21 for virtual participation. Please check the NRC's 22 public website for additional details about upcoming 23 public meetings and for other resources to help you as 24 you review the proposed rule.
25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Thank you.
1 MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. Thank you, John.
2 Slide 6, please.
3 I would now like to introduce our 4
presenters today. In the room, we have Dan Doyle.
5 He's a Senior Rulemaking Project Manager in the 6
Reactor Rulemaking and Project Management Branch. And 7
in Teams, we have Howard Benowitz, a Senior Attorney 8
in the NRC's Office of the General Counsel.
9 If folks could let Dan and Howard get 10 through the presentation, we will then open the floor 11 for questions.
12 MR. DOYLE: All right. Thank you, 13 Frances.
14 So, before I move ahead here, I just 15 wanted to make a few points.
16 If you attended one of the previous 17 meetings that we had -- as John mentioned, this is our 18 third public meeting on the proposed rule -- please 19 note that the first half of the meeting, the NRC staff 20 presentation will be the same material, and then, 21 we'll open it up for Q&A for the rest of the time.
22 One change that we did make was to 23 alternate the presenters, just to try to make it a 24 little more engaging or interesting, just to kind of 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com change up the speakers, but the material will be the 1
same.
2 And then, one final note before we move 3
ahead. On the meeting platform, we are using 4
Microsoft Teams for this meeting today. Under the 5
slides on your screen, if you've connected on the 6
computer, you should see arrows that would let you 7
flip forward and back, and you also have the ability 8
to click on any of the links that are in the slides.
9 We have included some of the key documents for your 10 convenience. So, you should be able to click those 11 links and just, if you move around, that only affects 12 your view. That does not affect anyone else.
13 And as Frances mentioned, the microphones 14 for attendees are disabled. If there is an issue that 15 you feel is affecting the effectiveness of the 16 meeting, you can raise your hand and bring that to our 17 attention, please.
18 All right. Next slide, please.
19 Okay, I will briefly go over some of the 20 background on this rulemaking, why we started, and the 21 current status.
22 Next slide, please. So, this is slide 8.
23 For context, there was an increase in 24 nuclear power plant shutdowns that focused the NRC's 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com attention on making some changes to the regulations 1
related to decommissioning.
2 So, the NRC initiated rulemaking in 3
December of 2015 to explore changes related to that 4
process. We've already completed some extensive 5
public outreach. We solicited early comments on an 6
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and we also 7
issued a regulatory basis document.
8 We had public comment periods on both of 9
those and public meetings. We have information about 10 both of those early outreach efforts on our public 11 website, which we have a link for later in this 12 presentation.
13 So, the recent update, and the reason that 14 we're having this meeting today, is because we 15 published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on 16 March 3rd, 2022. The citation is shown on the slide 17 there. It's 87 FR 12254.
18 So, we are in the public comment period 19 right now. It is 75 days and it will end on May 17th, 20 2022.
21 Next slide, please. All right. We are on 22 slide 9.
23 For convenience, we have two slides that 24 list all of the key documents associated with this 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com proposed rule with links to access them directly. So, 1
this is the first slide.
2 Again, there's the citation for the 3
proposed rule with links to a web version and, also, a 4
printed version.
5 Supporting and related materials. We have 6
a Draft Regulatory Basis which discusses the cost and 7
benefits associated with this action; a Draft 8
Environmental Assessment for compliance with the 9
National Environmental Policy
- Act, and draft 10 supporting statements for information collections.
11 There are some changes related to 12 information collection associated with this rule. So, 13 those are discussed in the information collections 14 analysis for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 15 Act.
16 We have an additional document listed on 17 the slide there, the unofficial Redline Rule text. I 18 will talk about that more a little bit later, but, 19 basically, it shows how the proposed rule would modify 20 the current rule language in a redline/strikeout 21 format. So, showing text that would be inserted or 22 deleted. So, that may be helpful to see it in 23 context.
24 And hopefully, it's clear from the title.
25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com We also have a disclaimer in the introduction for 1
that document that it is unofficial. The official 2
legal version is what is published in the Federal 3
Register. So, please do not rely on just the 4
unofficial version for your comments. But we do hope 5
that that will be helpful.
6 Next slide, please. Slide 10.
7 We are also updating four guidance 8
documents as part of this rulemaking. So, they are 9
available for public comment as well. They're listed 10 here on this slide. The first one would be a new 11 Regulatory Guide and the other three are updates to 12 existing Regulatory Guides.
13 The first one, Draft Guide 1346, is 14 related to emergency planning for decommissioning 15 power plants.
16 The second one, Draft Guide 1347, would be 17 an update to Reg Guide 1.184, "Decommissioning Nuclear 18 Power Plants."
19 The next one, Draft Guide 1348, would be 20 an update to Reg Guide 1.159, "Availability of Funds 21 for Decommissioning Production or Utilization 22 Facilities."
23 And the last one on the list, Draft Guide 24 1349, would be an update to Reg Guide 1.185, "Standard 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Format and Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning 1
Activities Reports."
2 So, these four documents are also out for 3
comment, for public comment, right now. If you have 4
comments on the rule and the guidance, please go ahead 5
and submit that all together in the same document.
6 Next slide, please.
7 So, for this part of the meeting, we will 8
give an overview of the proposed rule. I will start 9
with a general discussion of the graded approach 10 concept that we discuss in the proposed rule and how 11 that's been applied to several of the technical areas.
12 The rest of the slides will give an 13 overview for each of the 16 technical areas or 14 technical topics in the proposed rule.
15 I would also like to point out that I am 16 the Rulemaking Project Manager and serving as 17 spokesman for many of these topics today. But we also 18 have a great team of NRC staff who are the subject 19 matter experts on these topics, and many of them are 20 on the line here today and available to answer 21 questions when we do get to the Q&A session later.
22 Next slide, please. So, we're on slide 23
- 12.
24 The proposed rule takes a graded approach 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to decommissioning, where different levels of 1
requirements apply at different stages of the 2
decommissioning process. And we're trying to convey 3
that on this slide here.
4 Across the top of this table are the four 5
levels that are used in the proposed rule, as a 6
facility goes through the decommissioning process.
7 Level 1 begins after the facility dockets 8
the two required certifications. One is for permanent 9
cessation of operations, and the other is that fuel 10 has been removed from the reactor vessel.
11 Level 2 is, after a period of sufficient 12 decay of the spent fuel, which would generically be 10 13 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a 14 pressurized water reactor, if they meet the criteria 15 in the proposed rule.
16 Level 3 would be when all fuel is in dry 17 cask storage.
18 And Level 4 would be when all fuel is 19 offsite.
20 The rows in this table show the topic 21 areas that have updated requirements linked to these 22 levels.
23 Emergency preparedness would use all four 24 levels, starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com in Level 1 through Level 4, where there is no longer a 1
need for an onsite radiological emergency response 2
plan because all fuel is offsite.
3 The other topic areas that use the graded 4
approach include physical security, cyber security, 5
and onsite/offsite insurance, which we'll discuss in 6
the next slides.
7 Next slide, please.
8 This is the first of the 16 topic slides 9
that I mentioned. For each of these, you'll see a 10 summary of the proposed changes. The box in the upper 11 right for each these slides identifies the section in 12 the proposed rule with a more detailed discussion of 13 the topic, as well as the page numbers. And we also 14 have listed all of the sections in the Code of Federal 15 Regulations, or CFR, that would be changed related to 16 this topic.
17 Where it says, "Specific Requests for 18 Comments" on each slide, we will mention if there are 19 any questions related to this topic in Section 5 of 20 the proposed rule, where the NRC included questions 21 for the public to consider, when providing comments.
22 On the bottom slide, we have a progress 23 bar showing which topic we're on and the ones that we 24 did recently, and the ones that are coming up next, in 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com case that's helpful.
1 All right. So, moving ahead with this 2
first topic here, "Emergency Preparedness," a little 3
background on this topic. Because the current 4
regulations do not provide a means to distinguish 5
between the emergency planning requirements that apply 6
to an operating reactor and the requirements that 7
apply to a reactor that has permanently ceased 8
operations, decommissioning licensees have 9
historically requested exemptions from emergency 10 preparedness requirements.
11 The proposed rule would provide common EP 12 requirements for reactors in decommissioning, 13 eliminating the need for specific exemptions or 14 license amendments. Because of the decreased risk of 15 offsite radiological release and the fewer types of 16 possible accidents that can occur at a decommissioned 17 reactor, the proposed EP requirements align with that 18 reduction in risk while maintaining safety.
19 So, what changes are we proposing? The 20 NRC is proposing to add a new section, 10 CFR 50.200, 21 which would provide planning standards and 22 requirements for post-shutdown and permanently 23 defueled emergency plans. The proposed standards and 24 requirements for emergency plans are consistent with 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the level of planning that the Commission has 1
previously approved for decommissioned facilities.
2 The proposed planning requirements also 3
ensure close coordination and training with offsite 4
response organizations is maintained throughout the 5
decommissioning process.
6 The NRC is also proposing to amend 7
10 CFR 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option 8
to use the tiered requirements and standards at the 9
appropriate time in decommissioning and to add a new 10 process by which licensees can make changes to the 11 emergency plans to transition between levels.
12 So, there are two questions related to 13 this topic that we're asking for stakeholder input on.
14 The first is asking about advantages and 15 disadvantages of requiring dedicated radiological 16 emergency planning, including a 10-mile Emergency 17 Planning Zone, until all spent fuel at a site is 18 removed from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry 19 cask storage.
20 "Is there additional information the NRC 21 should consider in evaluating whether all hazards 22 planning would be as effective as dedicated 23 radiological emergency planning?"
24 The NRC has determined that 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> would 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 1
response to a spent fuel pool accident, based on an 2
all hazards plan. "Is there additional information 3
the NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?"
4 And then, the second question that we have 5
on this topic: nuclear power facilities that are shut 6
down permanently or indefinitely are currently not 7
required to maintain and emergency response data 8
system. These systems transmit near-real-time 9
electronic data between the licensee's onsite computer 10 system and the NRC Operations Center.
11 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain a 12 capability to provide meteorological, radiological, 13 and spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a 14 reasonable timeframe following an event.
15 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 16 of requiring nuclear power plant licensees to maintain 17 those aspects of the emergency response data system 18 until all spent fuel is removed from the pool?"
19 And then, the additional information, we 20 just wanted to point out that the staff has developed 21 guidance corresponding to these proposed rule changes.
22 So, for emergency planning, we have proposed new 23 Regulatory Guide "Emergency Planning for 24 Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors, Draft Guide 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 1346."
1 The NRC believes that these changes will 2
establish EP requirements commensurate with the 3
reduction in radiological risk, as licensees proceed 4
through the decommissioning process, while continuing 5
to provide reasonable assurance that protective 6
actions can and will be taken, and maintaining EP as a 7
final independent layer of defense-in-depth.
8 Next slide, please. Okay, we're on slide 9
- 14.
10 So, for this slide, I will turn it over to 11 Mr. Howard Benowitz, a Senior Attorney from the Office 12 of the General Counsel.
13 Howard?
14 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan.
15 And good evening, everyone.
16 Slide 14 concerns the backfit rule. In 17 10 CFR 50.109, the NRC has the backfitting provisions 18 for nuclear power reactor licensees. And in the 19 proposed rule, we would provide a new backfitting 20 provision for nuclear power reactor licensees in 21 decommissioning. The proposed rule would renumber 22 paragraphs of Section 50.109. So, Section 50.109(a) 23 would be the current backfit rule, and Section 24 50.109(b) would be new rule text for decommissioning 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com nuclear power reactor licensees.
1 We are proposing edits to a backfitting 2
provision in Part 72 of our regulations, so that that 3
backfitting provision would apply during the 4
decommissioning of an independent spent fuel storage 5
installation, or ISFSI, or a monitored retrievable 6
storage facility. Those types of facilities are 7
licensed under Part 72.
8 The proposed rule would also revise a 9
requirement in 50.109 that the NRC must consider the 10 cost of imposing a backfit if the basis for the 11 backfitting is the compliance exception to the 12 requirement to perform a backfit analysis. This 13 proposed change is based on a 2019 update to the 14 Commission's backfitting policy in Management 15 Directive 8.4, which you can find on our public 16 website.
17 We are also asking in the proposed rule 18 FRN a question about how the backfit rule should work 19 in decommissioning, and whether we should even apply 20 it during decommissioning. So, we'll encourage you to 21 respond to that Request for Comments.
22 Thanks.
23 Dan?
24 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Howard.
25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Next slide, please.
1 Environmental Considerations.
The 2
proposed rule clarifies the various environmental 3
reporting requirements, including those related to the 4
content of the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activity 5
Reports, or PSDARs. In part, the proposed rule change 6
would clarify that licensees at the PSDAR stage are 7
required to evaluate the environmental impacts from 8
decommissioning and provide in the PSDAR the basis for 9
whether the proposed decommissioning activities are 10 bounded by a previously-issued, site-specific, or 11 generic environmental reviews.
12 The Commission provided additional 13 direction in its Staff Requirements Memorandum in 14 November with respect to the consideration of any 15 identified unbounded impacts. The rule changes would 16 allow licensees to use appropriate federally-issued 17 environmental review documents prepared in compliance 18 with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 19 Preservation Act, or other environmental statutes, 20 rather than just Environmental Impact Statements. The 21 rule would also remove language referencing amendments 22 for authorizing decommissioning activities in 10 CFR 23 Part 51.
24 In developing the original proposed rule, 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the NRC staff considered, but dismissed, a proposal 1
that staff approve each licensee's PSDAR before 2
allowing major decommissioning activities to begin.
3 This was done on the basis that requiring approval of 4
a PSDAR would have no additional benefit in terms of 5
public health and safety. However, we have included a 6
specific request for comment about whether the NRC 7
should require approval of the PSDAR, site-specific 8
environmental review, and a hearing opportunity before 9
undertaking any decommissioning activity.
10 "Other than NRC review and approval of the 11 PSDAR, are there other activities that could help to 12 increase transparency and public trust in the NRC 13 regulatory framework for decommissioning? Should the 14 rule provide a role for state and local governments in 15 the process, and what should that role be?"
16 The two Regulatory Guides related to 17 PSDARs were revised to include clarifying language 18 consistent with the rule changes.
19 And then, a side note related topic for 20 your awareness:
the decommissioning generic 21 Environmental Impact Statement will be updated 22 separately by the NRC in the future, so not as part of 23 this rulemaking activity.
24 Next slide, please.
25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. BENOWITZ: All right. Back to me.
1 This slide concerns the removal of some 2
license conditions and withdrawal of an order that's 3
related to decommissioning in some way.
4 So, the order would be Order EA-06-137 5
concerning mitigation strategies for large fires or 6
explosions at nuclear power plants.
7 The license conditions are the conditions 8
that are associated with that order and, also, Order 9
EA-02-026. Those orders were issued after the events 10 of 9/11 and are related to strategies and requirements 11 that our nuclear power plant licensees had to take or 12 implement following those events.
13 There are also license conditions 14 regarding cyber security that would be removed, and 15 Dan will be talking about those license conditions in 16 the discussion of the cyber security topic in this 17 proposed rule.
18 The license conditions would be deemed 19 removed by the proposed rule if we issue the final 20 rule with those provisions, but they would actually be 21 removed by the NRC in an administrative procedure 22 subsequent to the effective date of the final rule.
23 So, licensees would not have to request a license 24 amendment. The NRC can take the initiative to do 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that.
1 We are asking in the Federal Register 2
notice for the proposed rule a question about whether 3
there are other provisions or license conditions, or 4
other redundant requirements, that are not listed in 5
this proposed rule that we could address in the final 6
rule, like these orders that we're removing them 7
because they are substantively redundant with existing 8
provisions in our regulations. License conditions are 9
redundant with existing provisions in our regulations.
10 So, we are cleaning up, if you will, our regulatory 11 framework.
12 "Are there others maybe that we could add 13 in this rulemaking that are in some way related to 14 the rulemaking?" So, please give us your comments on 15 that.
16 Thank you.
17 Next slide, please.
18 MR. DOYLE: Okay. I have this one, 19 "Decommissioning Funding Assurance."
20 For this topic, we have two slides. So, 21 on this one, I'll provide a quick summary of the 22 changes.
23 The proposed rule modifies the biennial 24 Decommissioning Trust Fund reporting frequency for 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com operating reactors in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent 1
with the three-year reporting frequency for 2
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, or 3
ISFSIs. We're making two changes related to ISFSI 4
funding reports.
5 One is that it would allow licensees to 6
combine the reports required by the regulations listed 7
on the
- slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v),
(8)(vii),
and 8
9 The other related change is that the 10 proposed rule would remove the requirement for NRC 11 approval of the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).
12 The proposed rule would clarify that, when a licensee 13 identifies a shortfall in the report required by 14 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1),
the licensee must obtain 15 additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall 16 and discuss that information in the next report.
17 And then, the final item to highlight the 18 proposed rule would make administrative changes to 19 ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, "Written 20 Communications,"
regarding the submission of 21 notifications and to eliminate 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2) 22 because 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) fully encompasses paragraph 23 (f)(2).
24 Next slide, please.
25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com This is the second slide on this topic.
1 We do have several specific Requests for Comment 2
related to this. I've just highlighted some of the 3
keywords here on the slide, and I'll briefly explain, 4
and then, we do have updated guidance.
5 So, related to financial assurance, "What 6
are the advantages and disadvantages of updating the 7
formula to reflect recent data and to cover all 8
estimated radiological decommissioning costs rather 9
than the bulk of the costs?"
10 The site-specific cost analysis. "What 11 are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a 12 full site investigation and characterization at the 13 time of shutdown and of eliminating the formula and 14 requiring a site-specific cost estimate during 15 operations?"
16 Decommissioning Trust Fund. "Should the 17 NRC's regulations allow Decommissioning Trust Fund 18 assets to be used for spent fuel management if there 19 is a projected surplus in the fund, based on a 20 comparison to the expected costs identified in the 21 site-specific cost estimate, and the assets are 22 returned to the fund within an established period of 23 time? What are the advantages and disadvantages of 24 allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund assets to be used 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com for these purposes? What are the advantages and 1
disadvantages of allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund 2
assets to be used for non-radiological site 3
restoration prior to the completion of radiological 4
decommissioning?"
5 Timing of decommissioning funding 6
assurance reporting. "What are the advantages and 7
disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency 8
from two years to three years? Does this change 9
affect the risk of insufficient decommissioning 10 funding?"
11 And finally, identical requirements under 12 10 CFR 50.82 and 52.110. Besides proposing conforming 13 changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is asking whether 14 the NRC should maintain identical requirements in 15 10 CFR 52.110 and 10 CFR 50.82.
16 And the final point again, we are 17 proposing conforming changes to Reg Guide 1.159 18 related to this topic, and the title of that Reg Guide 19 is "Assuring the Availability of Funds for 20 Decommissioning Production or Utilization Facilities."
21 Next slide, please.
22 Offsite and onsite financial protection 23 requirements and indemnity agreements. These changes 24 related to this topic would provide regulatory 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com certainty by minimizing the need for licensees 1
decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 2
exemptions for relief from requirements that should 3
apply only to operating reactor licensees.
4 We do have two specific Requests for 5
Comment on this topic related to insurance. "What are 6
the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 7
existing level of insurance to be maintained until all 8
spent fuel is in dry cask storage?" -- which would be 9
Level 3.
10 And insurance for specific license ISFSIs.
11 The NRC recognizes that, as a reactor site is 12 decommissioned, eventually, all that remains of the 13 10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52 license site would be a 14 general license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is, 15 essentially, the same as a specific license ISFSI 16 under 10 CFR Part 72.
17 "Considering that 10 CFR Part 72 specific 18 license ISFSIs have no financial protection 19 requirements, should the NRC address the disparity 20 between specific license and general license ISFSIs as 21 part of this rulemaking? Please provide an 22 explanation for your response."
23 Next slide, please.
24 Okay, back to Howard.
25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. BENOWITZ: Yes, thanks.
1 This is foreign ownership, control, or 2
domination. And also, the proposed changes I'm going 3
to be discussing really go to the definition of a 4
production facility or utilization facility, which, 5
then, impacts our regulations on foreign ownership, 6
control, or domination.
7 So, the Atomic Energy Act and our 8
regulations provide definitions for a utilization 9
facility and a production facility. Additionally, 10 certain of the provisions of the Act and our 11 regulations apply only to a utilization facility or a 12 production facility.
During decommissioning 13 activities, a utilization facility or production 14 facility will be dismantled -- so, the point at which 15 it no longer meets the definition of utilization 16 facility or production facility.
17 The proposed rule would add language to 18 establish the criteria for when exactly a utilization 19 facility or production facility is no longer a 20 utilization facility or production facility due to the 21 physical changes that the licensee makes to the 22 facility.
23 The proposed rule also adds language to 24 affirm that, despite this, the NRC continues to have 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com statutory authority over the Part 50 or Part 52 1
licensee, and that the NRC regulations applicable to a 2
utilization or production facility will continue to 3
apply to the holder of that Part 50 or 52 license, 4
unless the regulations explicitly state otherwise.
5 The proposed rule also amends one of those 6
regulations, the foreign ownership, control, or 7
domination regulation. That regulation in Part 50, 8
50.38, it's a prohibition and we would amend that 9
prohibition on foreign ownership,
- control, or 10 domination to state that that prohibition no longer 11 applies once the Part 50 or 52 facility is no longer a 12 utilization facility or a production facility, such 13 that, during the dismantling process, if the licensee 14 takes certain actions to dismantle the facility, it no 15 longer meets the definition of utilization facility or 16 production facility. Then, that foreign ownership, 17 control, or domination prohibition would no longer 18 apply.
19 And what that means is that we would no 20 longer prohibit the transfer of that Part 50 or Part 21 52 license for a facility that's no longer a 22 utilization or production facility to a foreign-owned, 23 controlled, or dominated entity.
24 We're not asking any questions about that, 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com but we would encourage you to comment on those 1
provisions you can see in the top right corner of the 2
slide. There are a number of provisions that we're 3
proposing to amend that would be affected by this.
4 So, please take a look at those and give us your 5
comments.
6 Thanks.
7 Next slide, please.
8 MR. DOYLE: Physical Security. The 9
proposed rule would allow certain changes to eliminate 10 licensee requests for approvals via exemptions, 11 amendments, and for certain adjustments to their 12 physical security programs.
13 Current security requirements do not 14 reflect the reduced risk for a decommissioning 15 facility after fuel is removed from the reactor 16 vessel. When the fuel is transferred into a spent 17 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that is 18 relied on for the safe operation of the facility is 19 significantly reduced, which allows for certain 20 security measures to be eliminated, because their 21 implementation is no longer needed or the security 22 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection 23 program during decommissioning.
24 Because certain security measures can be 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com adjusted or are no longer necessary for 1
decommissioning, commonly-requested exemptions and 2
amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 3
this new posture. For example, the control room is 4
specifically identified in current security 5
requirements as an area that must be protected as a 6
vital area. The proposed rule would potentially 7
eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 8
vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 9
the control room, and when the area does not act as a 10 vital area boundary for other vital areas.
11 Also, current security regulations for a 12 power reactor licensee require the use of a Licensed 13 Senior Operator for the suspension of security 14 measures during emergencies. For permanently shut-15 down and defueled reactors, Licensed Senior Operators 16 are no longer required. The proposed rule would allow 17 Certified Fuel Handlers to be used to suspend security 18 measures during emergencies at a decommissioned 19 facility.
20 Lastly, to eliminate the need for the 21 submission of license amendments and exemptions for 22 licensee transitions to ISFSIs, the NRC is proposing 23 that, once all spent nuclear fuel has been placed in 24 dry cask storage, licensees may elect to protect a 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com general license ISFSI in accordance with the physical 1
security requirements that are consistent with 2
10 CFR Part 72 Subpart H and 10 CFR 73.51. Licensees 3
would continue to address the applicable security-4 related orders associated with an ISFSI that are 5
conditions of the license.
6 Next slide, please.
7 Cyber Security. Consistent with the 8
graded approach, the proposed rule would continue to 9
apply cyber security requirements to decommissioning 10 plants until the risk to public health and safety is 11 significantly reduced.
12 Specifically, the cyber security 13 requirements would be applicable until the fuel is 14 permanently removed from the reactor vessel to the 15 spent fuel pool and there has been a sufficient decay, 16 such that there's a very low risk that the spent fuel 17 could heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />, if the spent fuel pool were drained.
19 Under the proposed rule, power reactor 20 licensees under Part 50 and Part 52 would be subject 21 to the same requirement. For Part 50 power reactor 22 licensees, the proposed rule would remove the license 23 condition that requires the licensee to maintain its 24 cyber security plan. For Part 52 combined license 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
- holders, the proposed rule would extend the 1
requirement to maintain a cyber security plan during 2
decommissioning, which would be a new requirement.
3 For currently operating or recently shut-4 down 10 CFR Part 50 reactor licensees, because the 5
licensee's cyber security plan is included as a 6
license condition, this license condition to maintain 7
a cyber security program, per their cyber security 8
plans, remains in effect until the termination of the 9
license or the NRC removes the condition from the 10 license. For example, if the licensee submits a 11 license amendment request and the NRC approves it.
12 Therefore, the proposed rule would not 13 constitute backfitting because the proposed rule would 14 codify the already imposed requirements of the cyber 15 security plan license conditions during Level 1 of 16 decommissioning or until the spent fuel in the spent 17 fuel pool has sufficiently cooled.
18 This is not true for combined license 19 holders. The proposed revision would constitute new 20 requirements because the operational programs, such as 21 a security program that includes a cyber security 22 program, are requirements in the regulations and not 23 separately identified as license conditions, like 24 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.
25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Presently combined license holders are 1
required to maintain their cyber security program only 2
as long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them. So, 3
this means that combined license holders are not 4
required to maintain their cyber security programs 5
during decommissioning because a power reactor 6
licensee is not authorized to operate a nuclear power 7
reactor during decommissioning.
8 We do have a specific Request for Comment 9
on this topic. The proposed rule applies cyber 10 security requirements to Level 1 plants. However, a 11 licensee in Level 2 would not be required to maintain 12 a cyber security plan because the NRC has determined 13 that there is little chance that the spent fuel and 14 the spent fuel pool could heat up to clad ignition 15 temperature within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
16 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 17 of extending cyber security requirements to shut-down 18 nuclear power plants until all spent fuel is 19 transferred to dry cask storage?"
20 The change to 10 CFR 73.54 is identified 21 in the proposed rule as a change affecting issue 22 finality for 10 CFR Part 52 combined license holders, 23 as defined in 10 CFR 52.98. Therefore, the proposed 24 rule includes a backfit analysis in Section IX.D.
25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Next slide, please.
1 Drug and Alcohol Testing. The proposed 2
rule would make several changes related to 3
requirements for drug and alcohol testing. There are 4
three items that I would like to highlight related to 5
this topic.
6 The first one, Part 26, which is related 7
to fitness for duty. The proposed rule would amend 8
10 CFR 26.3, Scope, to correct an inconsistency in the 9
applicability of Part 26 to Part 50 and 52 license 10 holders of nuclear power reactors. Part 26 does not 11 apply to a Part 50 license holder once the NRC dockets 12 the licensee's 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certification that 13 the power reactor has permanently ceased operations, 14 which formally begins the decommissioning process.
15 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the 16 holder of a combined license issued under Part 52 17 throughout decommissioning. No technical basis exists 18 for this inconsistency. Section 10 CFR 26.3 would be 19 revised to specify that Part 26 also no longer applies 20 to a Part 52 license holder once the NRC dockets the 21 licensee's 10 CFR 52.110(a) certification that the 22 power reactor has permanently ceased operations.
23 The second item to highlight here is 24 related to Part 26, the Criminal Penalties section.
25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10 CFR 26.3 includes a substantive requirement for 1
certain entities to comply with requirements in 2
10 CFR Part 26 by a specific deadline. And violations 3
of this regulation should be subject to criminal 4
penalties.
5 The specific deadlines in 10 CFR 26.3(a) 6 were added in the 2008 Part 26 final rule, but 7
10 CFR 26.825(b) was not updated to reflect this 8
change, which was an oversight. Therefore, the 9
proposed rule would remove 10 CFR 26.3 from the list 10 of provisions that are not subject to criminal 11 penalties if violated in 10 CFR 26.825(b).
12 And the final item for this topic is 13 10 CFR Part 73, Insider Mitigation Program. Section 14 10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) requires that a licensee's 15 insider mitigation program contain elements of a 16 fitness-for-duty program described in 10 CFR Part 26, 17 but does not identify which fitness-for-duty program 18 elements must be included in the insider mitigation 19 program. The proposed rule would establish the 20 required elements of a fitness-for-duty program in the 21 insider mitigation program for operating and 22 decommissioning reactors under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
23 Next slide, please.
24 MR. BENOWITZ: We're now on slide 24, and 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com this concerns our license termination plan 1
requirements for power reactor licensees.
2 And our regulation is in 10 CFR 50.82 for 3
Part 50 licensees and 52.110 for Part 52 licensees.
4 We require those licensees to submit license 5
termination plans to the NRC for our approval before 6
they can actually terminate the licenses.
7 In the proposed rule, we would clarify 8
that those provisions do not apply before fuel has 9
been loaded into the reactor. This is consistent with 10 historical NRC practice. These license termination 11 provisions are written for reactors that have 12 commenced operation, and the NRC has historically 13 viewed operation as beginning with the loading of fuel 14 into the reactor. And this is discussed in the 15 proposed rule Federal Register notice.
16 The NRC is proposing this change because 17 there has been some confusion among some entities 18 about whether the provision in 10 CFR 52.110 was 19 applicable when some combined license holders sought 20 to terminate their licenses during the construction or 21 before construction even began of their facilities.
22 The NRC informed those licensees that Section 52.110 23 did not apply for the reasons that are documented in 24 the proposed rule FRN. Basically, if they hadn't 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com loaded fuel, then they had not commenced operation.
1 Under the proposed rule, we could clarify that.
2 Next slide, please.
3 MR. DOYLE: This topic is spent fuel 4
management planning. The NRC staff identified 5
ambiguity in the spent fuel management and 6
decommissioning regulations due to a lack of cross-7 referencing between 10 CFR Part 72 and Part 50. The 8
rulemaking clarifies the information for consistency.
9 Specifically, the regulation in 10 CFR 10 72.218 states that the 10 CFR 50.54(bb), Spent Fuel 11 Management Program, the Irradiated Fuel Management 12 Plan, or IFMP, must show how the spent fuel will be 13 managed before starting to decommission systems and 14 components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping 15 the spent fuel. Section 10 CFR 72.218 also requires 16 that an application for termination of a reactor 17 operating license submitted under 10 CFR 50.82 or 18 10 CFR 52.110 must also describe how the spent fuel 19 stored under the Part 72 general license will be 20 removed from the reactor site.
21 Although 10 CFR 72.218 states what 22 information must be included in these Part 50 23 documents, the corresponding regulations in Part 50 do 24 not contain this information. Therefore, the NRC 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com proposes to clarify and align the regulations in 1
10 CFR 50.54(bb), 10 CFR 50.82, 10 CFR 52.110, and 2
10 CFR 72.218 to ensure appropriate documentation of 3
spent fuel management plans and decommissioning plans.
4 So, the rule changes that we are 5
proposing. In 10 CFR 50.54(bb), the NRC proposes 6
moving the 10 CFR 72.218 provisions to 10 7
CFR 50.54(bb) to clarify that the IFMP must be 8
submitted and approved before the licensee starts to 9
decommission systems, structures, and components 10 needed for moving, unloading, and shipping the spent 11 fuel.
12 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 13 IFMP approval process in the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) 14 provisions regarding preliminary approval and final 15 NRC review of the IFMP as part of any proceeding for 16 continued licensing under Part 50 or Part 72, as these 17 proceedings no longer exist as they did when 18 10 CFR 50.54(bb) was first promulgated. The NRC 19 proposes to require submittal of the initial IFMP and 20 any subsequent changes to the IFMP as a license 21 amendment request.
22 10 CFR 72.218 changes. The NRC proposes 23 revising 10 CFR 72.218 to address requirements related 24 to decommissioning and termination of the Part 72 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com general license, as the current title of 72.218, 1
Termination of Licenses, suggests. Specifically, the 2
proposed 10 CFR 72.218 notes that the general license 3
ISFSI must be decommissioned consistent with the 4
requirements in 10 CFR 50.82 or 52.110, as the general 5
license ISFSI is part of the Part 50 or Part 52 6
licensed site. Also, the proposed 10 CFR 72.218 notes 7
that the general license is terminated upon 8
termination of the Part 50 or Part 52 license.
9 We do have a specific Request for Comment 10 on this topic. The proposed rule clarifies that the 11 current IFMP approval process -- I'm sorry -- the 12 proposed rule clarifies the current IFMP approval 13 process by requiring submittal of the initial IFMP and 14 any changes to the IFMP for NRC review and approval by 15 license amendment. We would like to know if 16 stakeholders see any challenges with implementing this 17 part of the proposed rule.
18 We're also considering including a change 19 control provision to specify what changes the licensee 20 can make to the IFMP without NRC approval. We would 21 like to know stakeholders' opinions on a change 22 control process, including the criteria for changes 23 licensees can make without NRC approval and any 24 associated recordkeeping or reporting for those 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com changes.
1 We do have updated guidance corresponding 2
to the proposed rule changes.
3 For the IFMP, we added guidance to Draft 4
Guide 1347 in Section C.3, to outline the information 5
to be included in a licensee's IFMP.
6 For general license ISFSI decommissioning, 7
we added references to general license ISFSIs in both 8
Draft Guide 1347 and Draft Guide 1349, to make it 9
clear that the general license ISFSI must be 10 decommissioned consistent with the requirements in 11 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.
16 Next slide, please.
17 Low-Level Waste Transportation. When a 18 plant is actively being decommissioned, the plant 19 typically generates large volumes of bulk low-level 20 radioactive waste. To efficiently manage the 21 transportation of the waste to a licensed disposal 22 site, most licensees ship waste by rail. The 23 railroads control the schedule for the transportation 24 of the railcars to the destination, and the time to 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com reach the disposal site destination is generally more 1
than the 20-day notification requirement currently in 2
the regulations.
3 The licensees will continue to monitor and 4
track the location and progress of their low-level 5
waste shipments, but notification to the NRC would no 6
longer be required unless the 45-day limit is 7
exceeded.
8 Next slide, please.
9 Certified Fuel Handler Definition and 10 Elimination of the Shift Technical Advisor.
11 Certified Fuel Handlers are non-licensed 12 operators who are commonly used at permanently 13 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 14 their spent fuel pools. The Certified Fuel Handler is 15 intended to be the on-shift representative who is 16 responsible for safe fuel handling activities and 17 always present on shift to ensure safety of the spent 18 fuel and any decommissioning-related activities at the 19 facility.
20 Currently, a Certified Fuel Handler is 21 qualified through a training program that must be 22 reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed rule 23 would modify the definition of a Certified Fuel 24 Handler and add a provision that removes the need for 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com NRC approval of the training program, if the training 1
program for Certified Fuel Handlers is derived from a 2
systems approach to training and includes specific 3
topics which are outlined in the proposed rule 4
language.
5 Specifically, the training program must 6
address the safe conduct of decommissioning 7
activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel, 8
and appropriate response to plant emergencies. The 9
proposed rule would also clarify that a Shift 10 Technical Advisor is not required for decommissioning 11 nuclear power reactors.
12 Next slide, please.
13 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 28.
14 In this proposed rule, the NRC is 15 proposing to revise several of our regulations, as you 16 can see in the top right corner, to make them 17 consistent in how they treat holders of an operating 18 license under Part 50 and a holder of a combined 19 license under Part 52, when it comes to 20 decommissioning.
21 Some of our regulations only speak to one 22 set of decommissioning regulations, the Part 50; 23 usually, it's the Part 50 regulations in 10 CFR 50.82.
24 And the same regulation does not also point to the 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com decommissioning regulations in Part 52, which are in 1
Section 52.110.
2 So, we're proposing to align the 3
regulations so that they, where appropriate, refer to 4
both the Part 50 and 52 provisions for 5
decommissioning. That's a pretty straightforward one.
6 If you think that we missed one, please 7
let us know. We think we caught all of them, but 8
thanks.
9 Next slide, please.
10 MR. DOYLE: Record Retention Requirements.
11 This is the last of our topic slides.
12 As noted, when a plant is no longer 13 operating and is in decommissioning, most plant 14 components such as pumps and valves are no longer in 15 service and will eventually be removed as part of the 16 dismantlement activities. Therefore, there's no 17 longer a need to retain certain records associated 18 with these components, and the rulemaking eliminates 19 many recordkeeping retention requirements. This 20 proposed change would not impact the records that are 21 required to be maintained in support of 22 decommissioning and license termination activities.
23 The proposed rule also includes a specific 24 question concerning the recordkeeping requirements for 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. One of this 1
rulemaking's few proposed changes to Part 52 would be 2
in 10 CFR 52.63 regarding the recordkeeping and 3
retention requirements for departures from the design 4
of a facility. However, these changes would not apply 5
to a combined license holder that references one of 6
the certified designs in the Part 52 appendices 7
because those appendices have their own recordkeeping 8
provisions. The NRC is asking if we should revise the 9
Part 52 appendices to conform those recordkeeping 10 requirements with those proposed in 10 CFR 52.63.
11 Next slide, please.
12 So, as I mentioned,Section V of the 13 proposed rule has specific Requests for Comments.
14 There are actually 18 headings listed under there. We 15 have them shown on the slide, and we've called them 16 out in the previous topic slides, if they relate to 17 those topics. There are just three that did not 18 relate to those topics. I'll just briefly mention 19 those here.
20 The first one is a timeframe for 21 decommissioning. The NRC is not proposing changes to 22 the decommissioning timeframe requirements, but we are 23 asking a question for stakeholder input. "What are 24 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring prompt 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com decommissioning" -- I'm sorry -- "requiring prompt 1
decontamination rather than allowing up to 60 years to 2
decommission a site? As part of its review of a 3
PSDAR, what are the advantages and disadvantages of 4
NRC evaluating and making a decision about the 5
timeframe for decommissioning on a site-specific 6
basis?"
7 Related to exemptions, as stated in the 8
proposed rule, one of the goals for amending these 9
regulations is to reduce the need for regulatory 10 exemptions. 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission 11 may grant exemptions from the requirements of the 12 regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will not 13 present an undue risk to public health and safety and 14 is consistent with the common defense and security.
15 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 16 of the current 10 CFR 50.12 approach to 17 decommissioning related exemptions? What standards 18 should the NRC apply in determining whether to grant 19 exemptions from the new or amended regulations? What 20 are the advantages and disadvantages of providing an 21 opportunity for the public to weigh in on such 22 exemption requests? Are there other process changes 23 the NRC should consider in determining whether to 24 grant exemptions from the new or amended regulations?"
25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And the final one, applicability. There 1
is a discussion related to the applicability to NRC 2
licensees during operations and to ISFSI-only and 3
standalone ISFSI decommissioned reactor sites.
4 Permanently shut-down nuclear power plants will be at 5
different stages of the decommissioning process when 6
the new decommissioning regulations become effective 7
and will have previously received varying regulatory 8
exemptions.
9 "Can you foresee any implementation issues 10 with the proposed rule as it's currently written for 11 any new or amended requirement included in this 12 proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to 13 sites currently in different stages of 14 decommissioning?"
15 Next slide, please.
16 We do have a regulatory analysis that is 17 available for comment. As I mentioned earlier, this 18 is a document that the NRC often issues along with the 19 proposed rules to provide an analysis of the costs and 20 the benefits of the action.
21 So, in
- summary, in our regulatory 22 analysis, the conclusion is that the proposed rule 23 would be cost-beneficial with an estimated net averted 24 cost of approximately $17.9 million at a 7 percent net 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com present value, or $37 million at 3 percent net present 1
value, which is just referring to adjusting for the 2
time that the costs or benefits would occur and just 3
bringing it back to present day to compare apples to 4
apples. So, overall, this proposal would be cost-5 beneficial.
6 And to highlight several of the areas 7
where there was the largest change, the emergency 8
preparedness alternative is estimated to result in a 9
net averted cost of approximately $7.74 million. The 10 drug and alcohol testing alternative would be 11 approximately $7 million, and decommissioning funding 12 assurance, $1.18 million.
13 Next slide, please.
14 All right. Before we get to the Q&A, we 15 do have a few tips, for I'm sure many of the folks on 16 the meeting are well aware of reviewing and commenting 17 on proposed rules, but some of these tips may be 18 helpful, or for others who may not have as much 19 experience, hopefully, this is helpful.
20 So, Tip No. 1, please consider reviewing 21 the Commenters' Checklist. This is not an NRC 22 document, but it's on regulations.gov, which is a 23 website that the NRC and many other federal agencies 24 use to provide information about rulemaking 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com activities.
1 So, the checklist includes some helpful 2
tips, as you are reviewing the documents and preparing 3
your comments, what types of information is most 4
helpful for federal agencies to communicate any 5
concerns you may have.
6 So, the checklist is available on the 7
Comment Submission Form, if you use that on 8
regulations.gov. There's a link to it right there.
9 There's also a printable format which is also 10 available.
11 Tip No. 2 -- next slide; slide 34 -- as I 12 mentioned earlier, we did issue an unofficial Redline 13 Rule language document. It shows how the proposed 14 rule would modify the current regulations, if the 15 proposed rule were issued as final. The ADAMS 16 Accession Number is shown there on the screen. And 17 this screenshot is kind of showing the red text of the 18 insertions and deletions. Hopefully, that's helpful.
19 Next slide, 35, slide 35.
20 We have a public website that we created 21 just for this rulemaking, intended to be a one-stop 22 shop for important information about this rulemaking.
23 You can access it by clicking that short link on the 24 screen there or scanning the QR code with your phone.
25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com If you have any trouble accessing that, feel free to 1
reach out to me and I'll help you locate it.
2 So, on the website, we do have links to 3
the proposed rule and related documents. There is a 4
direct link to the Comment Form. We do have 5
information about past and upcoming public meetings, 6
and there are additional background documents from 7
those earlier public outreach efforts that I 8
mentioned.
9 Next slide, please.
10 Slide 36 is just summarizing how to submit 11 a comment. So, you can go to regulations.gov.
12 There's a link to the Comment Form. You can send an 13 email to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov or you can send 14 it through the regular mail to the address shown 15 there. So, all these instructions are in the proposed 16 rule, the Federal Register notice, and the address' 17 caption.
18 Please don't submit multiple methods. You 19 can just go ahead and submit one, and we will get it.
20 If you submit multiple
- methods, it creates 21 duplication.
22 And our preferred method, we encourage you 23 to use regulations.gov. Hopefully, that's easy for 24 you to use, and it's a little more efficient on our 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com end. But you are welcome to use any of these methods.
1 Next slide, please. Slide 37.
2 Okay. So, we're almost done with the 3
staff presentation here.
4 Just to highlight some of the next steps 5
in the rulemaking process, again, the public comment 6
period ends on May 17th. So, that full day is part of 7
the comment period. So, it actually closes 11:59 p.m.
8 Eastern Time on May 17th, so right before ticking over 9
to May 18th.
10 So, after the comment period closes, the 11 NRC staff will review all the public comments and 12 address them as part of the final rule package, which 13 we, the staff, will submit to the Commission. That's 14 scheduled for October of 2023, and then, the estimated 15 publication date of the final rule is May 2024.
16 And next slide, please.
17 Okay. Thank you. So, that concludes the 18 staff presentation. I'll turn it back over to 19 Frances.
20 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. Before moving 21 into the public Q&A session, we'd like to take a quick 22 break. The time is now 7:10 local time. So, let's 23 take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 7:20.
24 Thanks.
25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com (Whereupon, at 7:10 p.m. CT, the foregoing 1
matter went off the record and went back on the record 2
at 7:29 p.m. CT.)
3 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. Let's go ahead 4
and transition to our public Q&A session now.
5 Please remember that our goal today is to 6
help you provide informed written comments. So, we 7
ask that your questions focus on any clarification you 8
or others may need in terms of the proposed 9
decommissioning rule and Draft Regulatory Guidance.
10 Our intent is not to discuss specific 11 details about any particular facility. So, we ask 12 that you keep your comments on the decommissioning 13 rule and related topics in general.
14 We will take questions here in the room 15 and from Teams or the phone. And then, Sarah Lopas, 16 our Teams facilitator, will help me with the questions 17 from Teams and the phone.
18 Remember, those of you on Teams can use 19 the "raise your hand" feature to signal that you have 20 a question. Those on the phone can use *5.
21 When you've been called on to ask a 22 question, if you're on Teams, you can use your unmute 23 button, and if you're on the phone, you use *6 to 24 unmute yourself.
25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com We'll take questions in order that we see 1
them, and we'll alternate between the room and Teams 2
and on the phone.
3 Let's go ahead and start. We, actually, 4
don't have any questions here in the room. So, Sarah, 5
I'll turn it over to you.
6 MS. LOPAS: I'm not seeing any hands 7
raised right now, but, just a tip, if you aren't 8
seeing your controls on Teams, just wiggle your mouse 9
around; maybe take it to the very bottom of your 10 screen. That should pop up the Teams controls, and 11 you'll be able to see the "raise hand" button, and 12 I'll be able to enable your microphone. And then, you 13 can unmute yourselves.
14 So, go ahead and do that, if you're on 15 your computer. And then, if you have called in and 16 you want to make a comment, just press *5 on your 17 phone, and that will show me that you've raised your 18 hand on the phone.
19 So, we'll just give it a minute; *5 or 20 raise your hand on your computer web Teams access.
21 (Pause.)
22 And if nobody has any questions, we will 23 give it some time.
24 (Pause.)
25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Maybe I have a question, Dan, maybe while 1
we wait for other people to raise their hand.
2 How will other people be able to see 3
public comments? Will they kind of show up in 4
regulations.gov right away or does it take a while?
5 Or how does that work?
6 MR. DOYLE: Sure. That's a good question.
7 If you're interested in seeing what others 8
have commented, we have a direct link on our public 9
website, that one that I mentioned earlier, the one 10 that's dedicated to this rulemaking. There's a 11 heading that's something like, you know, read it in 12 the Federal Register or submit a formal comment.
13 There's a link to the Comment Form, and right below 14 that is another link that says, you know, "Read 15 comments that have been submitted." So, you can click 16 that and see other comments, once they're posted to 17 regulations.gov.
18 Right now, as of today, we have received 19 two comments, two submissions, and they are both 20 available on regulations.gov.
21 But the comment period ends on the 17th.
22 It's fairly common for many people to wait until the 23 end of the comment period. But, anyway, as soon as we 24 receive the comments and process them, we'll get them 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com posted as soon as possible. Anyone would be able to 1
see them by using that link. That would probably be 2
the easiest way.
3 That's a good question. Thank you.
4 MS. LOPAS: Yes.
5 All right, so *5 on the phone or use that 6
"raise hand" function if you are logged into Teams 7
audio on your computer.
8 (Pause.)
9 Okay. Dan, I'm not seeing any raised 10 hands or anything. So, I don't know if you want to 11 kind of put a timeframe out there for people for how 12 long we'll hang out waiting for any questions.
13 MR. DOYLE: Okay. I think what we're 14 doing to do is we're just going to stay on the line 15 here for, let's say, another 15 minutes, just in case 16 there was someone that saw the scheduled time, was 17 planning to join. So, we'll just stick on the line 18 here for another -- let's see, I've got -- what time 19 is it? 7:25. So, yes, so until 7:40.
20 So, we'll stick on the line. So, if you 21 have a question, feel free to chime in. We're here to 22 help. If there's something that you have a question 23 about the proposed rule, we have folks on the line to 24 try to get a response for you. If you'd like to 25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com "drive off," that's fine, too. But, yes, we'll stick 1
on the line here for like another 15 minutes, just in 2
case anything thinks of anything.
3 MS. LOPAS: All right. Very good. All 4
right. So, again, *5 if you've dialed in; *5 to raise 5
your hand, or "raise your hand" using the Teams 6
function.
7 And we will be here until about 8:40 8
waiting for those questions -- or sorry, I apologize, 9
not 8:40 -- 7:40 Central Time; 8:40 Eastern Time. I 10 apologize. I'm facilitating from Maryland over here.
11 (Pause.)
12 MR. DOYLE: Are we still unmuted? We're 13 still unmuted, right, Sarah?
14 MS. LOPAS: Yes, you are.
15 MR. DOYLE: Oh, okay. Great.
16 Sarah, mic check. You can hear me, right?
17 MS. LOPAS: Yes. Mic check is all good.
18 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Yes, as we said, we'll 19 stay on here for another few minutes.
20 But, just with the few dedicated that we 21 have on the line, I'll make one more plug for the 22 public meeting feedback form.
23 Could we just go to the next slide? And 24 we can come back and hang out.
25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com But I just wanted to show, on slide 39, we 1
do have this public meeting feedback form which is 2
asking for feedback on how we conduct our public 3
meetings. If there was any issue or suggestion that 4
you have for how we could make meetings like this more 5
effective in the future, we do take a look at that 6
feedback, and we encourage you to fill out the form.
7 It's just a few questions.
8 You can scan that and fill it out with 9
your phone. There's also a link to the feedback form 10 on the meeting details page.
11 And we did get just a few forms filled out 12 from the previous meetings, and I know because I 13 reviewed it.
14 Okay. So, that's really all of our slides 15 that we do have.
16 Did that jar any other questions from the 17 folks that we have on the line here?
18 (No response.)
19 Okay. So, I think, yes, we will go mute.
20 We'll, again, be online. We're not trying to rush 21 out the door here. Feel free to chime in. It's not 22 too late. You could still be the first one with a 23 question. But, yes, we'll go on mute here and just 24 wait.
25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Thank you.
1 (Pause.)
2 MS. RAMIREZ: Just remember to press *5 if 3
you're on the phone to raise your hand or use your 4
"raise your hand" feature if you're on Teams and have 5
a question.
6 (Pause.)
7 MS. LOPAS: Okay. I'm going to do another 8
reminder: *5 -- this is kind of your final closing 9
moments. We're approaching 8:40. *5 to make a 10 comment if you've called in using your phone, or go 11 ahead and try to find that "raise hand" icon and click 12 on that if you want to make a comment before we close 13 out.
14 (Pause.)
15 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. It looks like we 16 don't have any questions.
17 So, on behalf of the NRC, we would like to 18 thank everyone who attended or listened to our meeting 19 today.
20 Please take a moment to go online and fill 21 out a feedback form to help us make future public 22 meetings even better. There are feedback forms in the 23 meeting notice as well. Just follow the link provided 24 and submit a feedback form, which is Form No. 659.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Thank you again, and be safe.
1 (Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m. CT, the meeting 2
was concluded.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25