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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 5 ON "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PRODUCTION AND 6 UTILIZATION FACILITIES TRANSITIONING TO 7 DECOMMISSIONING" 8 + + + + +
9 TUESDAY 10 APRIL 12, 2022 11 + + + + +
12 The meeting convened at the Courtyard by 13 Marriott Chicago Downtown/River North, and by video 14 teleconference, at 6:00 p.m. CT, Frances Ramirez, 15 Senior Reactor Inspector, presiding.
16 17 PRESENT 18 HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC/LRAA/RASFP 19 DANIEL DOYLE, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 20 SARAH LOPAS, NMSS/MSST/MSEB 21 FRANCES RAMIREZ, R-IV/DORS/IPAT 22 JOHN TAPPERT, NMSS/REFS 23 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
2 1 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 PAGE 3 Call to Order, Welcome, and Logistics..............3 4 Opening Remarks....................................6 5 Background and Status..............................8 6 Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................13 7 Public Feedback and Questions.....................53 8 Wrap-up...........................................59 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 6:00 p.m. CT 3 MS. RAMIREZ: Good evening. Hello, 4 everyone.
5 My name is Frances Ramirez. I am a Senior 6 Reactor Inspector at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission, or NRC. And it is my pleasure to 8 facilitate today's meeting, along with the NRC staff 9 who will be here in this room in Chicago, and with the 10 staff and teams joining us virtually.
11 This meeting will have a hybrid format, 12 and we're going to do our best to help make this 13 meeting worthwhile for everyone. We're hoping that 14 you can help us out with that.
15 Slide 2, please.
16 The purpose of this meeting is to provide 17 information to help you to make more educated comments 18 on the Proposed Decommissioning Rule and the Draft 19 Regulatory Guidance. We will be going through the 20 various ways you can participate in this commenting 21 process as part of our presentation.
22 Slide 3, please.
23 Here's our agenda for today. After I 24 finish with logistics, we'll have some opening 25 remarks, and then, we'll provide our presentations, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 which will include details on background and status; 2 an overview of the proposed rule; tips for preparing 3 comments, and next steps. We'll then open the floor 4 for feedback and questions.
5 Slide 4, please.
6 Please note that today's meeting is being 7 recorded and transcribed. We ask that you help us get 8 a full, clear accounting of the meeting by staying on 9 mute if you are on the phone or on Teams and are not 10 speaking, or if you're in the room, keeping your 11 electronic devices in silent and keeping side 12 conversations or discussions to a minimum.
13 Also, it would help us out greatly if all 14 speakers can identify themselves and any group they're 15 with when they first talk.
16 All the meeting attendees have microphones 17 muted and cameras disabled during the presentation.
18 When we get to the Q&A portion of the meeting, those 19 of you on Teams can use the "raise your hand" feature 20 to signal that you have a question. Those on the 21 phone can use *5. Once our Teams facilitator Sarah 22 enables your microphone, you will have to unmute 23 yourself before you ask your question.
24 Please note that the chat feature on Teams 25 has been disabled.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 If you are having trouble seeing the 2 slides, or if they are not advancing for you, the 3 slides that will be shown on today's presentation can 4 be found in the NRC's ADAMS library at ML22101A015.
5 You can also go to the meeting notice page at the 6 NRC's website, and there is a link to the slides 7 there.
8 Any phone attendees, please email Dan 9 Doyle for attendance. The email is listed on this 10 slide.
11 One other item. We are hoping you will 12 fill out our public meeting feedback form. You can 13 link to the public meeting feedback form from the NRC 14 public meeting schedule page for this meeting. Your 15 opinion on how this meeting went will help us improve 16 and inform future meetings. So, please take a moment 17 to let us know what you think.
18 For those of you in the room with us 19 today, please note that the emergency exits are to our 20 left and out, and then, the restrooms are outside 21 towards the elevator and to the left.
22 Slide 5, please.
23 All right. I would like to introduce John 24 Tappert, who is the Director of the NRC's Division of 25 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 give some opening remarks.
2 MR. TAPPERT: Thanks, Frances.
3 And good evening.
4 As Frances says, I'm John Tappert. I'm 5 the Director of the NRC's Division of Rulemaking, 6 Environmental, and Financial Support.
7 And I would like to thank you for joining 8 us today to talk about the NRC's decommissioning 9 rulemaking. The NRC's goals for this rulemaking are 10 to maintain a safe, effective, and efficient 11 decommissioning process; incorporate lessons learned 12 from previous decommissionings, and support the NRC's 13 principles of good regulation, including openness, 14 clarity, and reliability.
15 The proposed rule would implement specific 16 regulatory requirements for different phases of the 17 decommissioning process, consistent with the reduced 18 risk that occurs over time, while continuing to 19 maintain safety and security.
20 The proposed rule would incorporate 21 lessons learned from the plants that have recently 22 transitioned to decommissioning and improve the 23 effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 24 framework while protecting public health and safety.
25 Public comment has twice played an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 important role in the development of this proposed 2 rule. We published an Advance Notice of Proposed 3 Rulemaking and, later, with the Draft Regulatory 4 Basis.
5 We are seeking public input on the 6 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 7 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 8 addresses several regulatory areas, which you will 9 hear about more later in the meeting.
10 We hope today's meeting will help you 11 better understand the proposed rule. We look forward 12 to your feedback and questions today. But please note 13 that the NRC will not be responding in writing to 14 verbal comments from today's meeting.
15 Comments must be submitted in writing 16 through the methods described in the Federal Register 17 notice to receive formal consideration in the 18 rulemaking.
19 This is our third public meeting on the 20 proposed rule. We will be having additional meetings 21 in other locations around the country with the option 22 for virtual participation. Please check the NRC's 23 public website for additional details about upcoming 24 public meetings and for other resources to help you as 25 you review the proposed rule.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 Thank you.
2 MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. Thank you, John.
3 Slide 6, please.
4 I would now like to introduce our 5 presenters today. In the room, we have Dan Doyle.
6 He's a Senior Rulemaking Project Manager in the 7 Reactor Rulemaking and Project Management Branch. And 8 in Teams, we have Howard Benowitz, a Senior Attorney 9 in the NRC's Office of the General Counsel.
10 If folks could let Dan and Howard get 11 through the presentation, we will then open the floor 12 for questions.
13 MR. DOYLE: All right. Thank you, 14 Frances.
15 So, before I move ahead here, I just 16 wanted to make a few points.
17 If you attended one of the previous 18 meetings that we had -- as John mentioned, this is our 19 third public meeting on the proposed rule -- please 20 note that the first half of the meeting, the NRC staff 21 presentation will be the same material, and then, 22 we'll open it up for Q&A for the rest of the time.
23 One change that we did make was to 24 alternate the presenters, just to try to make it a 25 little more engaging or interesting, just to kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 change up the speakers, but the material will be the 2 same.
3 And then, one final note before we move 4 ahead. On the meeting platform, we are using 5 Microsoft Teams for this meeting today. Under the 6 slides on your screen, if you've connected on the 7 computer, you should see arrows that would let you 8 flip forward and back, and you also have the ability 9 to click on any of the links that are in the slides.
10 We have included some of the key documents for your 11 convenience. So, you should be able to click those 12 links and just, if you move around, that only affects 13 your view. That does not affect anyone else.
14 And as Frances mentioned, the microphones 15 for attendees are disabled. If there is an issue that 16 you feel is affecting the effectiveness of the 17 meeting, you can raise your hand and bring that to our 18 attention, please.
19 All right. Next slide, please.
20 Okay, I will briefly go over some of the 21 background on this rulemaking, why we started, and the 22 current status.
23 Next slide, please. So, this is slide 8.
24 For context, there was an increase in 25 nuclear power plant shutdowns that focused the NRC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 attention on making some changes to the regulations 2 related to decommissioning.
3 So, the NRC initiated rulemaking in 4 December of 2015 to explore changes related to that 5 process. We've already completed some extensive 6 public outreach. We solicited early comments on an 7 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and we also 8 issued a regulatory basis document.
9 We had public comment periods on both of 10 those and public meetings. We have information about 11 both of those early outreach efforts on our public 12 website, which we have a link for later in this 13 presentation.
14 So, the recent update, and the reason that 15 we're having this meeting today, is because we 16 published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on 17 March 3rd, 2022. The citation is shown on the slide 18 there. It's 87 FR 12254.
19 So, we are in the public comment period 20 right now. It is 75 days and it will end on May 17th, 21 2022.
22 Next slide, please. All right. We are on 23 slide 9.
24 For convenience, we have two slides that 25 list all of the key documents associated with this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 proposed rule with links to access them directly. So, 2 this is the first slide.
3 Again, there's the citation for the 4 proposed rule with links to a web version and, also, a 5 printed version.
6 Supporting and related materials. We have 7 a Draft Regulatory Basis which discusses the cost and 8 benefits associated with this action; a Draft 9 Environmental Assessment for compliance with the 10 National Environmental Policy Act, and draft 11 supporting statements for information collections.
12 There are some changes related to 13 information collection associated with this rule. So, 14 those are discussed in the information collections 15 analysis for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 16 Act.
17 We have an additional document listed on 18 the slide there, the unofficial Redline Rule text. I 19 will talk about that more a little bit later, but, 20 basically, it shows how the proposed rule would modify 21 the current rule language in a redline/strikeout 22 format. So, showing text that would be inserted or 23 deleted. So, that may be helpful to see it in 24 context.
25 And hopefully, it's clear from the title.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 We also have a disclaimer in the introduction for 2 that document that it is unofficial. The official 3 legal version is what is published in the Federal 4 Register. So, please do not rely on just the 5 unofficial version for your comments. But we do hope 6 that that will be helpful.
7 Next slide, please. Slide 10.
8 We are also updating four guidance 9 documents as part of this rulemaking. So, they are 10 available for public comment as well. They're listed 11 here on this slide. The first one would be a new 12 Regulatory Guide and the other three are updates to 13 existing Regulatory Guides.
14 The first one, Draft Guide 1346, is 15 related to emergency planning for decommissioning 16 power plants.
17 The second one, Draft Guide 1347, would be 18 an update to Reg Guide 1.184, "Decommissioning Nuclear 19 Power Plants."
20 The next one, Draft Guide 1348, would be 21 an update to Reg Guide 1.159, "Availability of Funds 22 for Decommissioning Production or Utilization 23 Facilities."
24 And the last one on the list, Draft Guide 25 1349, would be an update to Reg Guide 1.185, "Standard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 Format and Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning 2 Activities Reports."
3 So, these four documents are also out for 4 comment, for public comment, right now. If you have 5 comments on the rule and the guidance, please go ahead 6 and submit that all together in the same document.
7 Next slide, please.
8 So, for this part of the meeting, we will 9 give an overview of the proposed rule. I will start 10 with a general discussion of the graded approach 11 concept that we discuss in the proposed rule and how 12 that's been applied to several of the technical areas.
13 The rest of the slides will give an 14 overview for each of the 16 technical areas or 15 technical topics in the proposed rule.
16 I would also like to point out that I am 17 the Rulemaking Project Manager and serving as 18 spokesman for many of these topics today. But we also 19 have a great team of NRC staff who are the subject 20 matter experts on these topics, and many of them are 21 on the line here today and available to answer 22 questions when we do get to the Q&A session later.
23 Next slide, please. So, we're on slide 24 12.
25 The proposed rule takes a graded approach NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 to decommissioning, where different levels of 2 requirements apply at different stages of the 3 decommissioning process. And we're trying to convey 4 that on this slide here.
5 Across the top of this table are the four 6 levels that are used in the proposed rule, as a 7 facility goes through the decommissioning process.
8 Level 1 begins after the facility dockets 9 the two required certifications. One is for permanent 10 cessation of operations, and the other is that fuel 11 has been removed from the reactor vessel.
12 Level 2 is, after a period of sufficient 13 decay of the spent fuel, which would generically be 10 14 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a 15 pressurized water reactor, if they meet the criteria 16 in the proposed rule.
17 Level 3 would be when all fuel is in dry 18 cask storage.
19 And Level 4 would be when all fuel is 20 offsite.
21 The rows in this table show the topic 22 areas that have updated requirements linked to these 23 levels.
24 Emergency preparedness would use all four 25 levels, starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 in Level 1 through Level 4, where there is no longer a 2 need for an onsite radiological emergency response 3 plan because all fuel is offsite.
4 The other topic areas that use the graded 5 approach include physical security, cyber security, 6 and onsite/offsite insurance, which we'll discuss in 7 the next slides.
8 Next slide, please.
9 This is the first of the 16 topic slides 10 that I mentioned. For each of these, you'll see a 11 summary of the proposed changes. The box in the upper 12 right for each these slides identifies the section in 13 the proposed rule with a more detailed discussion of 14 the topic, as well as the page numbers. And we also 15 have listed all of the sections in the Code of Federal 16 Regulations, or CFR, that would be changed related to 17 this topic.
18 Where it says, "Specific Requests for 19 Comments" on each slide, we will mention if there are 20 any questions related to this topic in Section 5 of 21 the proposed rule, where the NRC included questions 22 for the public to consider, when providing comments.
23 On the bottom slide, we have a progress 24 bar showing which topic we're on and the ones that we 25 did recently, and the ones that are coming up next, in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 case that's helpful.
2 All right. So, moving ahead with this 3 first topic here, "Emergency Preparedness," a little 4 background on this topic. Because the current 5 regulations do not provide a means to distinguish 6 between the emergency planning requirements that apply 7 to an operating reactor and the requirements that 8 apply to a reactor that has permanently ceased 9 operations, decommissioning licensees have 10 historically requested exemptions from emergency 11 preparedness requirements.
12 The proposed rule would provide common EP 13 requirements for reactors in decommissioning, 14 eliminating the need for specific exemptions or 15 license amendments. Because of the decreased risk of 16 offsite radiological release and the fewer types of 17 possible accidents that can occur at a decommissioned 18 reactor, the proposed EP requirements align with that 19 reduction in risk while maintaining safety.
20 So, what changes are we proposing? The 21 NRC is proposing to add a new section, 10 CFR 50.200, 22 which would provide planning standards and 23 requirements for post-shutdown and permanently 24 defueled emergency plans. The proposed standards and 25 requirements for emergency plans are consistent with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 the level of planning that the Commission has 2 previously approved for decommissioned facilities.
3 The proposed planning requirements also 4 ensure close coordination and training with offsite 5 response organizations is maintained throughout the 6 decommissioning process.
7 The NRC is also proposing to amend 8 10 CFR 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option 9 to use the tiered requirements and standards at the 10 appropriate time in decommissioning and to add a new 11 process by which licensees can make changes to the 12 emergency plans to transition between levels.
13 So, there are two questions related to 14 this topic that we're asking for stakeholder input on.
15 The first is asking about advantages and 16 disadvantages of requiring dedicated radiological 17 emergency planning, including a 10-mile Emergency 18 Planning Zone, until all spent fuel at a site is 19 removed from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry 20 cask storage.
21 "Is there additional information the NRC 22 should consider in evaluating whether all hazards 23 planning would be as effective as dedicated 24 radiological emergency planning?"
25 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 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 2 response to a spent fuel pool accident, based on an 3 all hazards plan. "Is there additional information 4 the NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?"
5 And then, the second question that we have 6 on this topic: nuclear power facilities that are shut 7 down permanently or indefinitely are currently not 8 required to maintain and emergency response data 9 system. These systems transmit near-real-time 10 electronic data between the licensee's onsite computer 11 system and the NRC Operations Center.
12 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain a 13 capability to provide meteorological, radiological, 14 and spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a 15 reasonable timeframe following an event.
16 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 17 of requiring nuclear power plant licensees to maintain 18 those aspects of the emergency response data system 19 until all spent fuel is removed from the pool?"
20 And then, the additional information, we 21 just wanted to point out that the staff has developed 22 guidance corresponding to these proposed rule changes.
23 So, for emergency planning, we have proposed new 24 Regulatory Guide "Emergency Planning for 25 Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors, Draft Guide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 1346."
2 The NRC believes that these changes will 3 establish EP requirements commensurate with the 4 reduction in radiological risk, as licensees proceed 5 through the decommissioning process, while continuing 6 to provide reasonable assurance that protective 7 actions can and will be taken, and maintaining EP as a 8 final independent layer of defense-in-depth.
9 Next slide, please. Okay, we're on slide 10 14.
11 So, for this slide, I will turn it over to 12 Mr. Howard Benowitz, a Senior Attorney from the Office 13 of the General Counsel.
14 Howard?
15 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan.
16 And good evening, everyone.
17 Slide 14 concerns the backfit rule. In 18 10 CFR 50.109, the NRC has the backfitting provisions 19 for nuclear power reactor licensees. And in the 20 proposed rule, we would provide a new backfitting 21 provision for nuclear power reactor licensees in 22 decommissioning. The proposed rule would renumber 23 paragraphs of Section 50.109. So, Section 50.109(a) 24 would be the current backfit rule, and Section 25 50.109(b) would be new rule text for decommissioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 nuclear power reactor licensees.
2 We are proposing edits to a backfitting 3 provision in Part 72 of our regulations, so that that 4 backfitting provision would apply during the 5 decommissioning of an independent spent fuel storage 6 installation, or ISFSI, or a monitored retrievable 7 storage facility. Those types of facilities are 8 licensed under Part 72.
9 The proposed rule would also revise a 10 requirement in 50.109 that the NRC must consider the 11 cost of imposing a backfit if the basis for the 12 backfitting is the compliance exception to the 13 requirement to perform a backfit analysis. This 14 proposed change is based on a 2019 update to the 15 Commission's backfitting policy in Management 16 Directive 8.4, which you can find on our public 17 website.
18 We are also asking in the proposed rule 19 FRN a question about how the backfit rule should work 20 in decommissioning, and whether we should even apply 21 it during decommissioning. So, we'll encourage you to 22 respond to that Request for Comments.
23 Thanks.
24 Dan?
25 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Howard.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 Next slide, please.
2 Environmental Considerations. The 3 proposed rule clarifies the various environmental 4 reporting requirements, including those related to the 5 content of the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activity 6 Reports, or PSDARs. In part, the proposed rule change 7 would clarify that licensees at the PSDAR stage are 8 required to evaluate the environmental impacts from 9 decommissioning and provide in the PSDAR the basis for 10 whether the proposed decommissioning activities are 11 bounded by a previously-issued, site-specific, or 12 generic environmental reviews.
13 The Commission provided additional 14 direction in its Staff Requirements Memorandum in 15 November with respect to the consideration of any 16 identified unbounded impacts. The rule changes would 17 allow licensees to use appropriate federally-issued 18 environmental review documents prepared in compliance 19 with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 20 Preservation Act, or other environmental statutes, 21 rather than just Environmental Impact Statements. The 22 rule would also remove language referencing amendments 23 for authorizing decommissioning activities in 10 CFR 24 Part 51.
25 In developing the original proposed rule, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 the NRC staff considered, but dismissed, a proposal 2 that staff approve each licensee's PSDAR before 3 allowing major decommissioning activities to begin.
4 This was done on the basis that requiring approval of 5 a PSDAR would have no additional benefit in terms of 6 public health and safety. However, we have included a 7 specific request for comment about whether the NRC 8 should require approval of the PSDAR, site-specific 9 environmental review, and a hearing opportunity before 10 undertaking any decommissioning activity.
11 "Other than NRC review and approval of the 12 PSDAR, are there other activities that could help to 13 increase transparency and public trust in the NRC 14 regulatory framework for decommissioning? Should the 15 rule provide a role for state and local governments in 16 the process, and what should that role be?"
17 The two Regulatory Guides related to 18 PSDARs were revised to include clarifying language 19 consistent with the rule changes.
20 And then, a side note related topic for 21 your awareness: the decommissioning generic 22 Environmental Impact Statement will be updated 23 separately by the NRC in the future, so not as part of 24 this rulemaking activity.
25 Next slide, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 MR. BENOWITZ: All right. Back to me.
2 This slide concerns the removal of some 3 license conditions and withdrawal of an order that's 4 related to decommissioning in some way.
5 So, the order would be Order EA-06-137 6 concerning mitigation strategies for large fires or 7 explosions at nuclear power plants.
8 The license conditions are the conditions 9 that are associated with that order and, also, Order 10 EA-02-026. Those orders were issued after the events 11 of 9/11 and are related to strategies and requirements 12 that our nuclear power plant licensees had to take or 13 implement following those events.
14 There are also license conditions 15 regarding cyber security that would be removed, and 16 Dan will be talking about those license conditions in 17 the discussion of the cyber security topic in this 18 proposed rule.
19 The license conditions would be deemed 20 removed by the proposed rule if we issue the final 21 rule with those provisions, but they would actually be 22 removed by the NRC in an administrative procedure 23 subsequent to the effective date of the final rule.
24 So, licensees would not have to request a license 25 amendment. The NRC can take the initiative to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 that.
2 We are asking in the Federal Register 3 notice for the proposed rule a question about whether 4 there are other provisions or license conditions, or 5 other redundant requirements, that are not listed in 6 this proposed rule that we could address in the final 7 rule, like these orders that we're removing them 8 because they are substantively redundant with existing 9 provisions in our regulations. License conditions are 10 redundant with existing provisions in our regulations.
11 So, we are cleaning up, if you will, our regulatory 12 framework.
13 "Are there others maybe that we could add 14 in this rulemaking that are in some way related to 15 the rulemaking?" So, please give us your comments on 16 that.
17 Thank you.
18 Next slide, please.
19 MR. DOYLE: Okay. I have this one, 20 "Decommissioning Funding Assurance."
21 For this topic, we have two slides. So, 22 on this one, I'll provide a quick summary of the 23 changes.
24 The proposed rule modifies the biennial 25 Decommissioning Trust Fund reporting frequency for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 operating reactors in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent 2 with the three-year reporting frequency for 3 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, or 4 ISFSIs. We're making two changes related to ISFSI 5 funding reports.
6 One is that it would allow licensees to 7 combine the reports required by the regulations listed 8 on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii), and 9 10 CFR 72.30.
10 The other related change is that the 11 proposed rule would remove the requirement for NRC 12 approval of the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).
13 The proposed rule would clarify that, when a licensee 14 identifies a shortfall in the report required by 15 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), the licensee must obtain 16 additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall 17 and discuss that information in the next report.
18 And then, the final item to highlight the 19 proposed rule would make administrative changes to 20 ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, "Written 21 Communications," regarding the submission of 22 notifications and to eliminate 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2) 23 because 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) fully encompasses paragraph 24 (f)(2).
25 Next slide, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 This is the second slide on this topic.
2 We do have several specific Requests for Comment 3 related to this. I've just highlighted some of the 4 keywords here on the slide, and I'll briefly explain, 5 and then, we do have updated guidance.
6 So, related to financial assurance, "What 7 are the advantages and disadvantages of updating the 8 formula to reflect recent data and to cover all 9 estimated radiological decommissioning costs rather 10 than the bulk of the costs?"
11 The site-specific cost analysis. "What 12 are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a 13 full site investigation and characterization at the 14 time of shutdown and of eliminating the formula and 15 requiring a site-specific cost estimate during 16 operations?"
17 Decommissioning Trust Fund. "Should the 18 NRC's regulations allow Decommissioning Trust Fund 19 assets to be used for spent fuel management if there 20 is a projected surplus in the fund, based on a 21 comparison to the expected costs identified in the 22 site-specific cost estimate, and the assets are 23 returned to the fund within an established period of 24 time? What are the advantages and disadvantages of 25 allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund assets to be used NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 for these purposes? What are the advantages and 2 disadvantages of allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund 3 assets to be used for non-radiological site 4 restoration prior to the completion of radiological 5 decommissioning?"
6 Timing of decommissioning funding 7 assurance reporting. "What are the advantages and 8 disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency 9 from two years to three years? Does this change 10 affect the risk of insufficient decommissioning 11 funding?"
12 And finally, identical requirements under 13 10 CFR 50.82 and 52.110. Besides proposing conforming 14 changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is asking whether 15 the NRC should maintain identical requirements in 16 10 CFR 52.110 and 10 CFR 50.82.
17 And the final point again, we are 18 proposing conforming changes to Reg Guide 1.159 19 related to this topic, and the title of that Reg Guide 20 is "Assuring the Availability of Funds for 21 Decommissioning Production or Utilization Facilities."
22 Next slide, please.
23 Offsite and onsite financial protection 24 requirements and indemnity agreements. These changes 25 related to this topic would provide regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees 2 decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 3 exemptions for relief from requirements that should 4 apply only to operating reactor licensees.
5 We do have two specific Requests for 6 Comment on this topic related to insurance. "What are 7 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 8 existing level of insurance to be maintained until all 9 spent fuel is in dry cask storage?" -- which would be 10 Level 3.
11 And insurance for specific license ISFSIs.
12 The NRC recognizes that, as a reactor site is 13 decommissioned, eventually, all that remains of the 14 10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52 license site would be a 15 general license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is, 16 essentially, the same as a specific license ISFSI 17 under 10 CFR Part 72.
18 "Considering that 10 CFR Part 72 specific 19 license ISFSIs have no financial protection 20 requirements, should the NRC address the disparity 21 between specific license and general license ISFSIs as 22 part of this rulemaking? Please provide an 23 explanation for your response."
24 Next slide, please.
25 Okay, back to Howard.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 MR. BENOWITZ: Yes, thanks.
2 This is foreign ownership, control, or 3 domination. And also, the proposed changes I'm going 4 to be discussing really go to the definition of a 5 production facility or utilization facility, which, 6 then, impacts our regulations on foreign ownership, 7 control, or domination.
8 So, the Atomic Energy Act and our 9 regulations provide definitions for a utilization 10 facility and a production facility. Additionally, 11 certain of the provisions of the Act and our 12 regulations apply only to a utilization facility or a 13 production facility. During decommissioning 14 activities, a utilization facility or production 15 facility will be dismantled -- so, the point at which 16 it no longer meets the definition of utilization 17 facility or production facility.
18 The proposed rule would add language to 19 establish the criteria for when exactly a utilization 20 facility or production facility is no longer a 21 utilization facility or production facility due to the 22 physical changes that the licensee makes to the 23 facility.
24 The proposed rule also adds language to 25 affirm that, despite this, the NRC continues to have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 statutory authority over the Part 50 or Part 52 2 licensee, and that the NRC regulations applicable to a 3 utilization or production facility will continue to 4 apply to the holder of that Part 50 or 52 license, 5 unless the regulations explicitly state otherwise.
6 The proposed rule also amends one of those 7 regulations, the foreign ownership, control, or 8 domination regulation. That regulation in Part 50, 9 50.38, it's a prohibition and we would amend that 10 prohibition on foreign ownership, control, or 11 domination to state that that prohibition no longer 12 applies once the Part 50 or 52 facility is no longer a 13 utilization facility or a production facility, such 14 that, during the dismantling process, if the licensee 15 takes certain actions to dismantle the facility, it no 16 longer meets the definition of utilization facility or 17 production facility. Then, that foreign ownership, 18 control, or domination prohibition would no longer 19 apply.
20 And what that means is that we would no 21 longer prohibit the transfer of that Part 50 or Part 22 52 license for a facility that's no longer a 23 utilization or production facility to a foreign-owned, 24 controlled, or dominated entity.
25 We're not asking any questions about that, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 but we would encourage you to comment on those 2 provisions you can see in the top right corner of the 3 slide. There are a number of provisions that we're 4 proposing to amend that would be affected by this.
5 So, please take a look at those and give us your 6 comments.
7 Thanks.
8 Next slide, please.
9 MR. DOYLE: Physical Security. The 10 proposed rule would allow certain changes to eliminate 11 licensee requests for approvals via exemptions, 12 amendments, and for certain adjustments to their 13 physical security programs.
14 Current security requirements do not 15 reflect the reduced risk for a decommissioning 16 facility after fuel is removed from the reactor 17 vessel. When the fuel is transferred into a spent 18 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that is 19 relied on for the safe operation of the facility is 20 significantly reduced, which allows for certain 21 security measures to be eliminated, because their 22 implementation is no longer needed or the security 23 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection 24 program during decommissioning.
25 Because certain security measures can be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 adjusted or are no longer necessary for 2 decommissioning, commonly-requested exemptions and 3 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 4 this new posture. For example, the control room is 5 specifically identified in current security 6 requirements as an area that must be protected as a 7 vital area. The proposed rule would potentially 8 eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 9 vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 10 the control room, and when the area does not act as a 11 vital area boundary for other vital areas.
12 Also, current security regulations for a 13 power reactor licensee require the use of a Licensed 14 Senior Operator for the suspension of security 15 measures during emergencies. For permanently shut-16 down and defueled reactors, Licensed Senior Operators 17 are no longer required. The proposed rule would allow 18 Certified Fuel Handlers to be used to suspend security 19 measures during emergencies at a decommissioned 20 facility.
21 Lastly, to eliminate the need for the 22 submission of license amendments and exemptions for 23 licensee transitions to ISFSIs, the NRC is proposing 24 that, once all spent nuclear fuel has been placed in 25 dry cask storage, licensees may elect to protect a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 general license ISFSI in accordance with the physical 2 security requirements that are consistent with 3 10 CFR Part 72 Subpart H and 10 CFR 73.51. Licensees 4 would continue to address the applicable security-5 related orders associated with an ISFSI that are 6 conditions of the license.
7 Next slide, please.
8 Cyber Security. Consistent with the 9 graded approach, the proposed rule would continue to 10 apply cyber security requirements to decommissioning 11 plants until the risk to public health and safety is 12 significantly reduced.
13 Specifically, the cyber security 14 requirements would be applicable until the fuel is 15 permanently removed from the reactor vessel to the 16 spent fuel pool and there has been a sufficient decay, 17 such that there's a very low risk that the spent fuel 18 could heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />, if the spent fuel pool were drained.
20 Under the proposed rule, power reactor 21 licensees under Part 50 and Part 52 would be subject 22 to the same requirement. For Part 50 power reactor 23 licensees, the proposed rule would remove the license 24 condition that requires the licensee to maintain its 25 cyber security plan. For Part 52 combined license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 holders, the proposed rule would extend the 2 requirement to maintain a cyber security plan during 3 decommissioning, which would be a new requirement.
4 For currently operating or recently shut-5 down 10 CFR Part 50 reactor licensees, because the 6 licensee's cyber security plan is included as a 7 license condition, this license condition to maintain 8 a cyber security program, per their cyber security 9 plans, remains in effect until the termination of the 10 license or the NRC removes the condition from the 11 license. For example, if the licensee submits a 12 license amendment request and the NRC approves it.
13 Therefore, the proposed rule would not 14 constitute backfitting because the proposed rule would 15 codify the already imposed requirements of the cyber 16 security plan license conditions during Level 1 of 17 decommissioning or until the spent fuel in the spent 18 fuel pool has sufficiently cooled.
19 This is not true for combined license 20 holders. The proposed revision would constitute new 21 requirements because the operational programs, such as 22 a security program that includes a cyber security 23 program, are requirements in the regulations and not 24 separately identified as license conditions, like 25 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 Presently combined license holders are 2 required to maintain their cyber security program only 3 as long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them. So, 4 this means that combined license holders are not 5 required to maintain their cyber security programs 6 during decommissioning because a power reactor 7 licensee is not authorized to operate a nuclear power 8 reactor during decommissioning.
9 We do have a specific Request for Comment 10 on this topic. The proposed rule applies cyber 11 security requirements to Level 1 plants. However, a 12 licensee in Level 2 would not be required to maintain 13 a cyber security plan because the NRC has determined 14 that there is little chance that the spent fuel and 15 the spent fuel pool could heat up to clad ignition 16 temperature within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
17 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 18 of extending cyber security requirements to shut-down 19 nuclear power plants until all spent fuel is 20 transferred to dry cask storage?"
21 The change to 10 CFR 73.54 is identified 22 in the proposed rule as a change affecting issue 23 finality for 10 CFR Part 52 combined license holders, 24 as defined in 10 CFR 52.98. Therefore, the proposed 25 rule includes a backfit analysis in Section IX.D.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 Next slide, please.
2 Drug and Alcohol Testing. The proposed 3 rule would make several changes related to 4 requirements for drug and alcohol testing. There are 5 three items that I would like to highlight related to 6 this topic.
7 The first one, Part 26, which is related 8 to fitness for duty. The proposed rule would amend 9 10 CFR 26.3, Scope, to correct an inconsistency in the 10 applicability of Part 26 to Part 50 and 52 license 11 holders of nuclear power reactors. Part 26 does not 12 apply to a Part 50 license holder once the NRC dockets 13 the licensee's 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certification that 14 the power reactor has permanently ceased operations, 15 which formally begins the decommissioning process.
16 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the 17 holder of a combined license issued under Part 52 18 throughout decommissioning. No technical basis exists 19 for this inconsistency. Section 10 CFR 26.3 would be 20 revised to specify that Part 26 also no longer applies 21 to a Part 52 license holder once the NRC dockets the 22 licensee's 10 CFR 52.110(a) certification that the 23 power reactor has permanently ceased operations.
24 The second item to highlight here is 25 related to Part 26, the Criminal Penalties section.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 1 10 CFR 26.3 includes a substantive requirement for 2 certain entities to comply with requirements in 3 10 CFR Part 26 by a specific deadline. And violations 4 of this regulation should be subject to criminal 5 penalties.
6 The specific deadlines in 10 CFR 26.3(a) 7 were added in the 2008 Part 26 final rule, but 8 10 CFR 26.825(b) was not updated to reflect this 9 change, which was an oversight. Therefore, the 10 proposed rule would remove 10 CFR 26.3 from the list 11 of provisions that are not subject to criminal 12 penalties if violated in 10 CFR 26.825(b).
13 And the final item for this topic is 14 10 CFR Part 73, Insider Mitigation Program. Section 15 10 CFR 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) requires that a licensee's 16 insider mitigation program contain elements of a 17 fitness-for-duty program described in 10 CFR Part 26, 18 but does not identify which fitness-for-duty program 19 elements must be included in the insider mitigation 20 program. The proposed rule would establish the 21 required elements of a fitness-for-duty program in the 22 insider mitigation program for operating and 23 decommissioning reactors under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
24 Next slide, please.
25 MR. BENOWITZ: We're now on slide 24, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 this concerns our license termination plan 2 requirements for power reactor licensees.
3 And our regulation is in 10 CFR 50.82 for 4 Part 50 licensees and 52.110 for Part 52 licensees.
5 We require those licensees to submit license 6 termination plans to the NRC for our approval before 7 they can actually terminate the licenses.
8 In the proposed rule, we would clarify 9 that those provisions do not apply before fuel has 10 been loaded into the reactor. This is consistent with 11 historical NRC practice. These license termination 12 provisions are written for reactors that have 13 commenced operation, and the NRC has historically 14 viewed operation as beginning with the loading of fuel 15 into the reactor. And this is discussed in the 16 proposed rule Federal Register notice.
17 The NRC is proposing this change because 18 there has been some confusion among some entities 19 about whether the provision in 10 CFR 52.110 was 20 applicable when some combined license holders sought 21 to terminate their licenses during the construction or 22 before construction even began of their facilities.
23 The NRC informed those licensees that Section 52.110 24 did not apply for the reasons that are documented in 25 the proposed rule FRN. Basically, if they hadn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 loaded fuel, then they had not commenced operation.
2 Under the proposed rule, we could clarify that.
3 Next slide, please.
4 MR. DOYLE: This topic is spent fuel 5 management planning. The NRC staff identified 6 ambiguity in the spent fuel management and 7 decommissioning regulations due to a lack of cross-8 referencing between 10 CFR Part 72 and Part 50. The 9 rulemaking clarifies the information for consistency.
10 Specifically, the regulation in 10 CFR 11 72.218 states that the 10 CFR 50.54(bb), Spent Fuel 12 Management Program, the Irradiated Fuel Management 13 Plan, or IFMP, must show how the spent fuel will be 14 managed before starting to decommission systems and 15 components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping 16 the spent fuel. Section 10 CFR 72.218 also requires 17 that an application for termination of a reactor 18 operating license submitted under 10 CFR 50.82 or 19 10 CFR 52.110 must also describe how the spent fuel 20 stored under the Part 72 general license will be 21 removed from the reactor site.
22 Although 10 CFR 72.218 states what 23 information must be included in these Part 50 24 documents, the corresponding regulations in Part 50 do 25 not contain this information. Therefore, the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 proposes to clarify and align the regulations in 2 10 CFR 50.54(bb), 10 CFR 50.82, 10 CFR 52.110, and 3 10 CFR 72.218 to ensure appropriate documentation of 4 spent fuel management plans and decommissioning plans.
5 So, the rule changes that we are 6 proposing. In 10 CFR 50.54(bb), the NRC proposes 7 moving the 10 CFR 72.218 provisions to 10 8 CFR 50.54(bb) to clarify that the IFMP must be 9 submitted and approved before the licensee starts to 10 decommission systems, structures, and components 11 needed for moving, unloading, and shipping the spent 12 fuel.
13 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 14 IFMP approval process in the 10 CFR 50.54(bb) 15 provisions regarding preliminary approval and final 16 NRC review of the IFMP as part of any proceeding for 17 continued licensing under Part 50 or Part 72, as these 18 proceedings no longer exist as they did when 19 10 CFR 50.54(bb) was first promulgated. The NRC 20 proposes to require submittal of the initial IFMP and 21 any subsequent changes to the IFMP as a license 22 amendment request.
23 10 CFR 72.218 changes. The NRC proposes 24 revising 10 CFR 72.218 to address requirements related 25 to decommissioning and termination of the Part 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
41 1 general license, as the current title of 72.218, 2 Termination of Licenses, suggests. Specifically, the 3 proposed 10 CFR 72.218 notes that the general license 4 ISFSI must be decommissioned consistent with the 5 requirements in 10 CFR 50.82 or 52.110, as the general 6 license ISFSI is part of the Part 50 or Part 52 7 licensed site. Also, the proposed 10 CFR 72.218 notes 8 that the general license is terminated upon 9 termination of the Part 50 or Part 52 license.
10 We do have a specific Request for Comment 11 on this topic. The proposed rule clarifies that the 12 current IFMP approval process -- I'm sorry -- the 13 proposed rule clarifies the current IFMP approval 14 process by requiring submittal of the initial IFMP and 15 any changes to the IFMP for NRC review and approval by 16 license amendment. We would like to know if 17 stakeholders see any challenges with implementing this 18 part of the proposed rule.
19 We're also considering including a change 20 control provision to specify what changes the licensee 21 can make to the IFMP without NRC approval. We would 22 like to know stakeholders' opinions on a change 23 control process, including the criteria for changes 24 licensees can make without NRC approval and any 25 associated recordkeeping or reporting for those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 1 changes.
2 We do have updated guidance corresponding 3 to the proposed rule changes.
4 For the IFMP, we added guidance to Draft 5 Guide 1347 in Section C.3, to outline the information 6 to be included in a licensee's IFMP.
7 For general license ISFSI decommissioning, 8 we added references to general license ISFSIs in both 9 Draft Guide 1347 and Draft Guide 1349, to make it 10 clear that the general license ISFSI must be 11 decommissioned consistent with the requirements in 12 10 CFR 50.82 and 10 CFR 52.110.
13 The NRC staff believes that these changes 14 will provide regulatory clarity and enhance overall 15 regulatory transparency and openness regarding 16 decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.
17 Next slide, please.
18 Low-Level Waste Transportation. When a 19 plant is actively being decommissioned, the plant 20 typically generates large volumes of bulk low-level 21 radioactive waste. To efficiently manage the 22 transportation of the waste to a licensed disposal 23 site, most licensees ship waste by rail. The 24 railroads control the schedule for the transportation 25 of the railcars to the destination, and the time to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 1 reach the disposal site destination is generally more 2 than the 20-day notification requirement currently in 3 the regulations.
4 The licensees will continue to monitor and 5 track the location and progress of their low-level 6 waste shipments, but notification to the NRC would no 7 longer be required unless the 45-day limit is 8 exceeded.
9 Next slide, please.
10 Certified Fuel Handler Definition and 11 Elimination of the Shift Technical Advisor.
12 Certified Fuel Handlers are non-licensed 13 operators who are commonly used at permanently 14 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 15 their spent fuel pools. The Certified Fuel Handler is 16 intended to be the on-shift representative who is 17 responsible for safe fuel handling activities and 18 always present on shift to ensure safety of the spent 19 fuel and any decommissioning-related activities at the 20 facility.
21 Currently, a Certified Fuel Handler is 22 qualified through a training program that must be 23 reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed rule 24 would modify the definition of a Certified Fuel 25 Handler and add a provision that removes the need for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 NRC approval of the training program, if the training 2 program for Certified Fuel Handlers is derived from a 3 systems approach to training and includes specific 4 topics which are outlined in the proposed rule 5 language.
6 Specifically, the training program must 7 address the safe conduct of decommissioning 8 activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel, 9 and appropriate response to plant emergencies. The 10 proposed rule would also clarify that a Shift 11 Technical Advisor is not required for decommissioning 12 nuclear power reactors.
13 Next slide, please.
14 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 28.
15 In this proposed rule, the NRC is 16 proposing to revise several of our regulations, as you 17 can see in the top right corner, to make them 18 consistent in how they treat holders of an operating 19 license under Part 50 and a holder of a combined 20 license under Part 52, when it comes to 21 decommissioning.
22 Some of our regulations only speak to one 23 set of decommissioning regulations, the Part 50; 24 usually, it's the Part 50 regulations in 10 CFR 50.82.
25 And the same regulation does not also point to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
45 1 decommissioning regulations in Part 52, which are in 2 Section 52.110.
3 So, we're proposing to align the 4 regulations so that they, where appropriate, refer to 5 both the Part 50 and 52 provisions for 6 decommissioning. That's a pretty straightforward one.
7 If you think that we missed one, please 8 let us know. We think we caught all of them, but 9 thanks.
10 Next slide, please.
11 MR. DOYLE: Record Retention Requirements.
12 This is the last of our topic slides.
13 As noted, when a plant is no longer 14 operating and is 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 18 longer a need to retain certain records associated 19 with these components, and the rulemaking eliminates 20 many recordkeeping retention requirements. This 21 proposed change would not impact the records that are 22 required to be maintained in support of 23 decommissioning and license termination activities.
24 The proposed rule also includes a specific 25 question concerning the recordkeeping requirements for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. One of this 2 rulemaking's few proposed changes to Part 52 would be 3 in 10 CFR 52.63 regarding the recordkeeping and 4 retention requirements for departures from the design 5 of a facility. However, these changes would not apply 6 to a combined license holder that references one of 7 the certified designs in the Part 52 appendices 8 because those appendices have their own recordkeeping 9 provisions. The NRC is asking if we should revise the 10 Part 52 appendices to conform those recordkeeping 11 requirements with those proposed in 10 CFR 52.63.
12 Next slide, please.
13 So, as I mentioned,Section V of the 14 proposed rule has specific Requests for Comments.
15 There are actually 18 headings listed under there. We 16 have them shown on the slide, and we've called them 17 out in the previous topic slides, if they relate to 18 those topics. There are just three that did not 19 relate to those topics. I'll just briefly mention 20 those here.
21 The first one is a timeframe for 22 decommissioning. The NRC is not proposing changes to 23 the decommissioning timeframe requirements, but we are 24 asking a question for stakeholder input. "What are 25 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring prompt NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 decommissioning" -- I'm sorry -- "requiring prompt 2 decontamination rather than allowing up to 60 years to 3 decommission a site? As part of its review of a 4 PSDAR, what are the advantages and disadvantages of 5 NRC evaluating and making a decision about the 6 timeframe for decommissioning on a site-specific 7 basis?"
8 Related to exemptions, as stated in the 9 proposed rule, one of the goals for amending these 10 regulations is to reduce the need for regulatory 11 exemptions. 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission 12 may grant exemptions from the requirements of the 13 regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will not 14 present an undue risk to public health and safety and 15 is consistent with the common defense and security.
16 "What are the advantages and disadvantages 17 of the current 10 CFR 50.12 approach to 18 decommissioning related exemptions? What standards 19 should the NRC apply in determining whether to grant 20 exemptions from the new or amended regulations? What 21 are the advantages and disadvantages of providing an 22 opportunity for the public to weigh in on such 23 exemption requests? Are there other process changes 24 the NRC should consider in determining whether to 25 grant exemptions from the new or amended regulations?"
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
48 1 And the final one, applicability. There 2 is a discussion related to the applicability to NRC 3 licensees during operations and to ISFSI-only and 4 standalone ISFSI decommissioned reactor sites.
5 Permanently shut-down nuclear power plants will be at 6 different stages of the decommissioning process when 7 the new decommissioning regulations become effective 8 and will have previously received varying regulatory 9 exemptions.
10 "Can you foresee any implementation issues 11 with the proposed rule as it's currently written for 12 any new or amended requirement included in this 13 proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to 14 sites currently in different stages of 15 decommissioning?"
16 Next slide, please.
17 We do have a regulatory analysis that is 18 available for comment. As I mentioned earlier, this 19 is a document that the NRC often issues along with the 20 proposed rules to provide an analysis of the costs and 21 the benefits of the action.
22 So, in summary, in our regulatory 23 analysis, the conclusion is that the proposed rule 24 would be cost-beneficial with an estimated net averted 25 cost of approximately $17.9 million at a 7 percent net NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 1 present value, or $37 million at 3 percent net present 2 value, which is just referring to adjusting for the 3 time that the costs or benefits would occur and just 4 bringing it back to present day to compare apples to 5 apples. So, overall, this proposal would be cost-6 beneficial.
7 And to highlight several of the areas 8 where there was the largest change, the emergency 9 preparedness alternative is estimated to result in a 10 net averted cost of approximately $7.74 million. The 11 drug and alcohol testing alternative would be 12 approximately $7 million, and decommissioning funding 13 assurance, $1.18 million.
14 Next slide, please.
15 All right. Before we get to the Q&A, we 16 do have a few tips, for I'm sure many of the folks on 17 the meeting are well aware of reviewing and commenting 18 on proposed rules, but some of these tips may be 19 helpful, or for others who may not have as much 20 experience, hopefully, this is helpful.
21 So, Tip No. 1, please consider reviewing 22 the Commenters' Checklist. This is not an NRC 23 document, but it's on regulations.gov, which is a 24 website that the NRC and many other federal agencies 25 use to provide information about rulemaking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 1 activities.
2 So, the checklist includes some helpful 3 tips, as you are reviewing the documents and preparing 4 your comments, what types of information is most 5 helpful for federal agencies to communicate any 6 concerns you may have.
7 So, the checklist is available on the 8 Comment Submission Form, if you use that on 9 regulations.gov. There's a link to it right there.
10 There's also a printable format which is also 11 available.
12 Tip No. 2 -- next slide; slide 34 -- as I 13 mentioned earlier, we did issue an unofficial Redline 14 Rule language document. It shows how the proposed 15 rule would modify the current regulations, if the 16 proposed rule were issued as final. The ADAMS 17 Accession Number is shown there on the screen. And 18 this screenshot is kind of showing the red text of the 19 insertions and deletions. Hopefully, that's helpful.
20 Next slide, 35, slide 35.
21 We have a public website that we created 22 just for this rulemaking, intended to be a one-stop 23 shop for important information about this rulemaking.
24 You can access it by clicking that short link on the 25 screen there or scanning the QR code with your phone.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
51 1 If you have any trouble accessing that, feel free to 2 reach out to me and I'll help you locate it.
3 So, on the website, we do have links to 4 the proposed rule and related documents. There is a 5 direct link to the Comment Form. We do have 6 information about past and upcoming public meetings, 7 and there are additional background documents from 8 those earlier public outreach efforts that I 9 mentioned.
10 Next slide, please.
11 Slide 36 is just summarizing how to submit 12 a comment. So, you can go to regulations.gov.
13 There's a link to the Comment Form. You can send an 14 email to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov or you can send 15 it through the regular mail to the address shown 16 there. So, all these instructions are in the proposed 17 rule, the Federal Register notice, and the address' 18 caption.
19 Please don't submit multiple methods. You 20 can just go ahead and submit one, and we will get it.
21 If you submit multiple methods, it creates 22 duplication.
23 And our preferred method, we encourage you 24 to use regulations.gov. Hopefully, that's easy for 25 you to use, and it's a little more efficient on our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
52 1 end. But you are welcome to use any of these methods.
2 Next slide, please. Slide 37.
3 Okay. So, we're almost done with the 4 staff presentation here.
5 Just to highlight some of the next steps 6 in the rulemaking process, again, the public comment 7 period ends on May 17th. So, that full day is part of 8 the comment period. So, it actually closes 11:59 p.m.
9 Eastern Time on May 17th, so right before ticking over 10 to May 18th.
11 So, after the comment period closes, the 12 NRC staff will review all the public comments and 13 address them as part of the final rule package, which 14 we, the staff, will submit to the Commission. That's 15 scheduled for October of 2023, and then, the estimated 16 publication date of the final rule is May 2024.
17 And next slide, please.
18 Okay. Thank you. So, that concludes the 19 staff presentation. I'll turn it back over to 20 Frances.
21 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. Before moving 22 into the public Q&A session, we'd like to take a quick 23 break. The time is now 7:10 local time. So, let's 24 take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 7:20.
25 Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
53 1 (Whereupon, at 7:10 p.m. CT, the foregoing 2 matter went off the record and went back on the record 3 at 7:29 p.m. CT.)
4 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. Let's go ahead 5 and transition to our public Q&A session now.
6 Please remember that our goal today is to 7 help you provide informed written comments. So, we 8 ask that your questions focus on any clarification you 9 or others may need in terms of the proposed 10 decommissioning rule and Draft Regulatory Guidance.
11 Our intent is not to discuss specific 12 details about any particular facility. So, we ask 13 that you keep your comments on the decommissioning 14 rule and related topics in general.
15 We will take questions here in the room 16 and from Teams or the phone. And then, Sarah Lopas, 17 our Teams facilitator, will help me with the questions 18 from Teams and the phone.
19 Remember, those of you on Teams can use 20 the "raise your hand" feature to signal that you have 21 a question. Those on the phone can use *5.
22 When you've been called on to ask a 23 question, if you're on Teams, you can use your unmute 24 button, and if you're on the phone, you use *6 to 25 unmute yourself.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
54 1 We'll take questions in order that we see 2 them, and we'll alternate between the room and Teams 3 and on the phone.
4 Let's go ahead and start. We, actually, 5 don't have any questions here in the room. So, Sarah, 6 I'll turn it over to you.
7 MS. LOPAS: I'm not seeing any hands 8 raised right now, but, just a tip, if you aren't 9 seeing your controls on Teams, just wiggle your mouse 10 around; maybe take it to the very bottom of your 11 screen. That should pop up the Teams controls, and 12 you'll be able to see the "raise hand" button, and 13 I'll be able to enable your microphone. And then, you 14 can unmute yourselves.
15 So, go ahead and do that, if you're on 16 your computer. And then, if you have called in and 17 you want to make a comment, just press *5 on your 18 phone, and that will show me that you've raised your 19 hand on the phone.
20 So, we'll just give it a minute; *5 or 21 raise your hand on your computer web Teams access.
22 (Pause.)
23 And if nobody has any questions, we will 24 give it some time.
25 (Pause.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
55 1 Maybe I have a question, Dan, maybe while 2 we wait for other people to raise their hand.
3 How will other people be able to see 4 public comments? Will they kind of show up in 5 regulations.gov right away or does it take a while?
6 Or how does that work?
7 MR. DOYLE: Sure. That's a good question.
8 If you're interested in seeing what others 9 have commented, we have a direct link on our public 10 website, that one that I mentioned earlier, the one 11 that's dedicated to this rulemaking. There's a 12 heading that's something like, you know, read it in 13 the Federal Register or submit a formal comment.
14 There's a link to the Comment Form, and right below 15 that is another link that says, you know, "Read 16 comments that have been submitted." So, you can click 17 that and see other comments, once they're posted to 18 regulations.gov.
19 Right now, as of today, we have received 20 two comments, two submissions, and they are both 21 available on regulations.gov.
22 But the comment period ends on the 17th.
23 It's fairly common for many people to wait until the 24 end of the comment period. But, anyway, as soon as we 25 receive the comments and process them, we'll get them NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 posted as soon as possible. Anyone would be able to 2 see them by using that link. That would probably be 3 the easiest way.
4 That's a good question. Thank you.
5 MS. LOPAS: Yes.
6 All right, so *5 on the phone or use that 7 "raise hand" function if you are logged into Teams 8 audio on your computer.
9 (Pause.)
10 Okay. Dan, I'm not seeing any raised 11 hands or anything. So, I don't know if you want to 12 kind of put a timeframe out there for people for how 13 long we'll hang out waiting for any questions.
14 MR. DOYLE: Okay. I think what we're 15 doing to do is we're just going to stay on the line 16 here for, let's say, another 15 minutes, just in case 17 there was someone that saw the scheduled time, was 18 planning to join. So, we'll just stick on the line 19 here for another -- let's see, I've got -- what time 20 is it? 7:25. So, yes, so until 7:40.
21 So, we'll stick on the line. So, if you 22 have a question, feel free to chime in. We're here to 23 help. If there's something that you have a question 24 about the proposed rule, we have folks on the line to 25 try to get a response for you. If you'd like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
57 1 "drive off," that's fine, too. But, yes, we'll stick 2 on the line here for like another 15 minutes, just in 3 case anything thinks of anything.
4 MS. LOPAS: All right. Very good. All 5 right. So, again, *5 if you've dialed in; *5 to raise 6 your hand, or "raise your hand" using the Teams 7 function.
8 And we will be here until about 8:40 9 waiting for those questions -- or sorry, I apologize, 10 not 8:40 -- 7:40 Central Time; 8:40 Eastern Time. I 11 apologize. I'm facilitating from Maryland over here.
12 (Pause.)
13 MR. DOYLE: Are we still unmuted? We're 14 still unmuted, right, Sarah?
15 MS. LOPAS: Yes, you are.
16 MR. DOYLE: Oh, okay. Great.
17 Sarah, mic check. You can hear me, right?
18 MS. LOPAS: Yes. Mic check is all good.
19 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Yes, as we said, we'll 20 stay on here for another few minutes.
21 But, just with the few dedicated that we 22 have on the line, I'll make one more plug for the 23 public meeting feedback form.
24 Could we just go to the next slide? And 25 we can come back and hang out.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
58 1 But I just wanted to show, on slide 39, we 2 do have this public meeting feedback form which is 3 asking for feedback on how we conduct our public 4 meetings. If there was any issue or suggestion that 5 you have for how we could make meetings like this more 6 effective in the future, we do take a look at that 7 feedback, and we encourage you to fill out the form.
8 It's just a few questions.
9 You can scan that and fill it out with 10 your phone. There's also a link to the feedback form 11 on the meeting details page.
12 And we did get just a few forms filled out 13 from the previous meetings, and I know because I 14 reviewed it.
15 Okay. So, that's really all of our slides 16 that we do have.
17 Did that jar any other questions from the 18 folks that we have on the line here?
19 (No response.)
20 Okay. So, I think, yes, we will go mute.
21 We'll, again, be online. We're not trying to rush 22 out the door here. Feel free to chime in. It's not 23 too late. You could still be the first one with a 24 question. But, yes, we'll go on mute here and just 25 wait.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
59 1 Thank you.
2 (Pause.)
3 MS. RAMIREZ: Just remember to press *5 if 4 you're on the phone to raise your hand or use your 5 "raise your hand" feature if you're on Teams and have 6 a question.
7 (Pause.)
8 MS. LOPAS: Okay. I'm going to do another 9 reminder: *5 -- this is kind of your final closing 10 moments. We're approaching 8:40. *5 to make a 11 comment if you've called in using your phone, or go 12 ahead and try to find that "raise hand" icon and click 13 on that if you want to make a comment before we close 14 out.
15 (Pause.)
16 MS. RAMIREZ: All right. It looks like we 17 don't have any questions.
18 So, on behalf of the NRC, we would like to 19 thank everyone who attended or listened to our meeting 20 today.
21 Please take a moment to go online and fill 22 out a feedback form to help us make future public 23 meetings even better. There are feedback forms in the 24 meeting notice as well. Just follow the link provided 25 and submit a feedback form, which is Form No. 659.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
60 1 Thank you again, and be safe.
2 (Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m. CT, the meeting 3 was concluded.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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