ML22277A006
| ML22277A006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/2022 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Doyle, Daniel | |
| References | |
| NRC-1933, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59 | |
| Download: ML22277A006 (66) | |
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:
Atlanta, Georgia Date:
Tuesday, April 19, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-1933 Pages 1-65 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 19, 2022 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting convened at the NRC Region II 12 Office, Marquis One Tower, 245 Peachtree Center 13
- Avenue, NE,
- Atlanta, Georgia, and by video 14 teleconference, at 6:00 p.m. EDT, Steven Smith, 15 Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18 STEVEN SMITH, Facilitator, R-II 19 JAMES ANDERSON 20 KRISTINA BANOVAC 21 HOWARD BENOWITZ 22 JENNIFER DAVIS 23 MARLAYNA DOELL 24 DANIEL DOYLE 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 CHRISTINA ENGLAND 1
MAI HENDERSON 4
ERIC LEE 7
ANGELLA LOVE BLAIR 8
JOHN PELCHAT 10 LANCE RAKOVAN 11 AARON SANDERS 12 MAURIN SCHEETZ 13 DIANE SCRENCI 14 SOLY SOTO LUGO 15 TRENT WERTZ 16 LYNNEA WILKINS 17 BRIAN ZALESKI 18 19 ALSO PRESENT:
20 GEORGE ODOM 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 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Welcome and Logistics 4
3 Opening Remarks 6
4 Background and Status 9
5 Overview of the Proposed Rule 13 6
Tips for Preparing Comments 50 7
Public Feedback and Questions 55 8
Next Steps and Wrap-up 65 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(6:00 p.m.)
2 MR. SMITH: Hello, everyone. My name is 3
Steve Smith. Im a Branch Chief at the U.S. Nuclear 4
Regulatory Commission, or NRC. And its my pleasure 5
to facilitate todays meeting, along with the NRC 6
staff who are here with me in Atlanta.
7 And with the staff on Teams joining us 8
virtually, this meeting will have a hybrid format, and 9
were going to do our best to help make this meeting a 10 work -- make this meeting work well for everyone.
11 Next slide, please.
12 So the purpose of this public meeting is 13 to provide information to inform you on the comment 14 process for the proposed decommissioning rule and 15 draft regulatory guidance. We will be going through 16 the various ways you can participate in this 17 commenting process as part of our presentation.
18 Next slide, please.
19 Here is our agenda for today. After I 20 finish with logistics, Ill have some opening remarks, 21 and then well provide our presentations, which will 22 include details on background and status, an overview 23 of the proposed rule, tips for preparing comments, and 24 the next steps. We will then open the floor for 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 feedback and questions.
1 Next slide, please.
2 So logistics. Please note that todays 3
meeting is being recorded and transcribed. Wed ask 4
that you help us get a full, clear accounting of the 5
meeting by staying on mute if you are on the phone, on 6
Teams, and not speaking. Please keep your electronic 7
devices silent and side discussions to a minimum if 8
you are in the room.
9 Also, it would help us out greatly if all 10 speakers can identify themselves and any group they 11 are with when you first talk.
12 All meeting attendees have microphones 13 muted and cameras disabled during the presentation.
14 When we get to the Q&A portion of the meeting, those 15 of you on Teams can use the raise your hand feature to 16 signal that you have a question. Those on the phone 17 can use the -- star five.
18 Once our Teams facilitator enables your 19 microphone, you will have -- you will have to unmute 20 yourself before you ask your question. Please note 21 that the chat feature on Teams has been disabled.
22 If you are having trouble seeing the 23 slides, or if they cannot -- or if they are not 24 advancing for you, the slides that will be shown on 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 Microsoft Teams can be found in the NRCs ADAMS 1
library at ML22108A142. You can also go to the 2
meeting notice page in the NRCs website, and there is 3
a link there to the slides.
4 Any phone attendees, please email 5
dan.doyle@nrc.gov for attendance. Thats D-A-N dot D-6 O-Y-L-E at nrc.gov.
7 One other item. Im hoping well fill out 8
-- Im hoping you will fill out -- this is our public 9
meeting feedback form. You can link to the public 10 meeting feedback form from the NRC public meeting 11 schedule page for this meeting. Your opinion on how 12 this meeting went will help us improve upon future 13 meetings. So please take a moment to let us know what 14 you think.
15 Those of you in the room today, please 16 note that the emergency exits are in the back of the 17 room. There is a restroom outside the meeting room to 18 the left.
19 Slide 5, please.
20 I would like to introduce Tara Inverso, 21 Deputy
- Director, Division of Rulemaking, 22 Environmental, and Financial Support, to give some 23 opening remarks.
24 MS. INVERSO: All right. Thank you, 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 Steve. And good evening, everyone. I am Tara 1
Inverso, the Deputy Director of the NRCs Division of 2
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support.
3 I want to thank everyone for joining us 4
today to talk about the NRCs decommissioning proposed 5
rule. The NRCs goal for this rulemaking are to 6
maintain a
- safe, effective, and efficient 7
decommissioning process, incorporate lessons learned 8
from the decommissioning process, and support the 9
NRCs principles of good regulation, including 10 openness, clarity, and reliability.
11 The proposed rule would implement specific 12 regulatory requirements for different phases of the 13 decommissioning process consistent with the reduced 14 risk that occurs over time while continuing to 15 maintain safety and security.
16 The proposed rule would incorporate 17 lessons learned from plants that have recently 18 transitioned to decommissioning and that would improve 19 the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 20 framework while protecting public health and safety.
21 Public comment has twice played an 22 important role in the development of this proposed 23 rule. We first published an advance notice of 24 proposed rulemaking and later a draft regulatory basis 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 for comment.
1 We are seeing public input on the proposed 2
rule to implement regulations that will guide future 3
nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule addresses 4
several regulatory areas that you will hear about in 5
more detail during this public meeting.
6 We hope todays meeting will help you 7
better understand the proposed rule. We look forward 8
to your feedback and questions, but please note that 9
the NRC will not be responding in writing to verbal 10 comments from todays meeting. Comments must be 11 submitted in writing through the methods described in 12 the Federal Register Notice to receive formal 13 consideration in the rulemaking process.
14 This is our fourth public meeting on the 15 proposed rule. We will be having additional meetings 16 in other locations around the country with the option 17 of participating virtually. Please check the NRCs 18 public website for additional details about upcoming 19 public meetings and for other resources to help you as 20 you review the proposed rule.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Tara.
23 Now Ill go ahead and turn it over to Dan.
24 MR. DOYLE: All right. Thank you. Ill 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 just turn on my camera here. Good evening. My name 1
is Dan Doyle. Im a Senior Project Manager at the 2
NRC. I will be giving -- providing an overview of the 3
rulemaking this evening.
4 If you attended any of our previous 5
meetings -- this is our fourth public meeting. We 6
have two more coming up. If you attended any of the 7
previous meetings, just please note that the first 8
half of this meeting will probably be about an hour.
9 But the NRC staff presentation is the same material as 10 the previous meetings, and then we will open it up for 11 Q&A. So that will be -- be different.
12 One final note before we move ahead is 13 about the meeting platform that were using. Were 14 streaming this meeting using Microsoft Teams. So you 15 should see the slides in the window, how youre 16 joined. Underneath that you should see arrows that 17 would allow you to move to a different slide.
18 Just be aware that that only affects your 19 view. That doesnt affect anyone else. So you can 20 feel free to move around and check out any of the 21 other slides if you want to. You should also be able 22 to click the links in the slides to access any of the 23 documents.
24 We have included several links that we 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 hope will be helpful to -- for your review of this 1
proposed rule. And if you have any trouble with that, 2
Ill have a link and show you a website where you can 3
get additional information or you can reach out to me 4
and I will be happy to help you.
5 Okay. Next slide, please. And next 6
slide.
7 All right. So Ill start off with just a 8
very brief background on why the NRC started this 9
rulemaking and the current status. There was an 10 increase in nuclear power plant shutdowns that focused 11 the NRCs attention on making some changes to the 12 regulations related to decommissioning for the NRC-13 initiated rulemaking in December 2015 to explore 14 changes related to that process.
15 We have already completed some extensive 16 public outreach. We solicited early comments on an 17 advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and we also 18 issued a regulatory basis document. We had public 19 comment periods on both of those and also public 20 meetings.
21 We do have information about both of those 22 early outreach efforts on our public website, which is 23 I believe highlighted later in our slides.
24 So the recent update with this project, 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com and the reason were having this meeting today, is 1
because we published the proposed rule in the Federal 2
Register on March 3, 2022. The citation is 87 FR 3
12254.
4 So we are in the public comment period 5
right now. Its 75 days, so that will end in about a 6
month on May 17th, 2022.
7 Next slide, please.
8 For convenience, we have two slides that 9
list all of the key documents associated with this 10 proposed rule, with links to access them directly. So 11 this is the first slide. So, again, there is the 12 citation for the proposed rule with links to a web 13 version or the printed version.
14 We have supporting and related materials 15 listed here. First is a draft regulatory analysis, 16 which discusses the costs and benefits associated with 17 this action. We have a draft environmental assessment 18 for compliance with the National Environmental Policy 19 Act and draft supporting statements for information 20 collection.
21 So we do have some changes to information 22 collection requirements in this rulemaking. So those 23 are discussed in the supporting statements for 24 compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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 There is an additional document listed at 1
the bottom. Thats the unofficial redline rule text.
2 So we have a slide later to show a little bit more 3
about that. So basically what that is, it shows how 4
the proposed rule would modify the current rule 5
language in a redline strikeout format. So showing 6
what words, language that would be inserted, what 7
would be deleted from the current regulation. So that 8
may be helpful, to see that in context.
9 Just wanted to emphasize -- hopefully the 10 title makes it clear that this is an unofficial 11 document, so please dont rely just on that for your 12 public comment. The official legal version is what is 13 published in the Federal Register.
14 Thank you.
15 Next slide.
16 We are also updating four guidance 17 documents as part of this rulemaking. So they are 18 available for public comment as well. They are listed 19 here on the slide. The first one would be a new 20 regulatory guide, and the other three are updates to 21 existing NRC regulatory guides.
22 The first one, Draft Guide 1346, is 23 related to emergency planning for decommissioning 24 nuclear power plants. The second one, Draft Guide 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 1347, would be an update to Regulatory Guide 1.184, 1
decommissioning nuclear power plants.
2 Next one, Draft Guide 1348, is an update 3
to Reg Guide 1.159, availability of funds for 4
decommissioning production or utilization facilities.
5 And the last one on the list, Draft Guide 1349, would 6
be an update to Reg Guide 1.185, standard format and 7
content for post-shutdown decommissioning activities 8
report.
9 So these four documents are also out for 10 public comment now. If you have comments on the rule 11 and the guidance, please go ahead and submit it all 12 together in the same document. Its all going to the 13 same place.
14 Next slide, please.
15 So for this part of the meeting, we will 16 give an overview of the proposed rule. Ill start 17 with a general discussion of the graded approach 18 concept and how that has been applied to several 19 technical areas. The rest of the slides are going to 20 give an overview of each of the 16 technical areas or 21 topics in the proposed rule.
22 I would also like to point out that I am 23 the rulemaking project manager and serving as a 24 spokesperson for the rule today, but we have a great 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 team of NRC staff who are the subject matter experts 1
on these topics, and many of them are on the line here 2
today available for the question and answer session 3
later in the meeting.
4 Next slide, please.
5 The proposed rule takes a graded approach 6
to decommissioning where different levels of 7
requirements apply at different stages of the 8
decommissioning process. Across the top of this table 9
are the four levels used in the proposed rule as a 10 facility goes through the decommissioning process.
11 Level 1 begins after the facility dockets 12 the two required certifications. One is for permanent 13 cessation of operations, and the other is that the 14 fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel.
15 Level 2 is after a period of sufficient 16 decay of the spent fuel, which would generically be 10 17 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a 18 pressurized water reactor if they meet the criteria in 19 the proposed rule.
20 Level 3 would then -- would be when all 21 fuel is in dry cask storage.
22 And Level 4 would be when all fuel is 23 offsite.
24 The rows in this table show the topic 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 areas that have updated requirements linked at these 1
levels. Emergency preparedness would use all four 2
levels, starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan 3
in Level 1 through Level 4 where there is no longer a 4
need for an onsite radiological emergency response 5
plan because all fuel is offsite.
6 Other topic areas that use the graded 7
approach include physical security, cyber security, 8
and onsite/offsite insurance, which well discuss in 9
the upcoming slides.
10 Next slide, please.
11 This is the first of the topic slides. So 12 for each of these topic slides you will see a summary 13 of the proposed changes. There is a box in the upper 14 right corner that identifies the section in the 15 proposed rule with a more detailed discussion of the 16 topic as well as the page numbers. And we have also 17 listed all of the sections of the CFR, or Code of 18 Federal Regulations, that would be changed.
19 Where it says specific request for 20 comments on each slide, we will mention if there are 21 any questions related to this topic in Section V of 22 the proposed rule where the NRC included a number of 23 questions for the public to consider as it provides 24 comment.
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 On the bottom of the slide, we have a 1
progress bar showing which topic were on, the ones 2
that we did recently, and the ones that are coming up 3
next. We also had additional information where we may 4
include some information wed like you to be aware of.
5 All right. So jumping into the first 6
topic here, emergency preparedness. Because the 7
current regulations do not provide a means to 8
distinguish between the EP requirements that apply to 9
an operating reactor and the EP requirements that 10 apply to a reactor that has permanently ceased 11 operations, decommissioning licensees have 12 historically requested exemptions from EP 13 requirements.
14 The proposed rule would provide common EP 15 requirements for reactors in decommissioning, 16 eliminating the need for specific exemptions or 17 license amendments. Because of the decreased risk of 18 offsite radiological release and the fewer types of 19 possible accidents that can occur at a decommissioning 20 reactor, the proposed EP requirements aligned with 21 that reduction in risk while maintaining safety.
22 So the changes that we are proposing.
23 Were proposing to add a new section, 10 CFR 50.200, 24 which would provide planning standards and 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 requirements for post-shutdown and permanently 1
defueled emergency plans. The proposed standards and 2
requirements for emergency plans are consistent with 3
the level of planning the Commission has previously 4
approved for decommissioning facilities.
5 The proposed planning requirements also 6
ensure close coordination and training with offsite 7
response organizations is maintained throughout the 8
decommissioning process. The NRC is also proposing to 9
amend 10 CFR 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the 10 option to use the tiered requirements and standards at 11 the appropriate time in decommissioning and to add a 12 new process by which licensees can make changes to the 13 emergency plans to transition between levels.
14 There are two specific questions related 15 to this topic. So the first one, wed like to know 16 what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of 17 requiring dedicated radiological emergency planning, 18 including a 10-mile EPZ until all spent nuclear fuel 19 at a site is removed from the spent fuel pool and 20 placed in dry 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
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 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 1
be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 2
response to the spent fuel pool accident based on an 3
all hazards plan. Is there additional information the 4
NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?
5 And then the second question is related to 6
emergency response data systems. Nuclear power 7
facilities that are shut down permanently or 8
indefinitely are currently not required to maintain 9
emergency response data systems. These systems 10 transmit near real-time electronic data between the 11 licensees onsite computer system and the NRC 12 operations center.
13 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain a 14 capability to provide meteorological, radiological, 15 and spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a 16 reasonable timeframe following an event. What are the 17 advantages and disadvantages of requiring nuclear 18 power plant licensees to maintain those aspects of the 19 emergency response data system until all spent fuel is 20 removed from the pool?
21 And then additional information, just 22 pointing out that we have developed guidance 23 corresponding to the proposed changes on this topic.
24 For EP, we have this new -- proposed new regulatory 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 guide, emergency planning for decommissioning nuclear 1
power reactors, Draft Guide 1346. The NRC staff 2
believes that these changes will establish EP 3
requirements commensurate with the reduction in 4
radiological risk as licensees proceed through the 5
decommissioning process while continuing to provide 6
reasonable assurance that protective actions can and 7
will be taken, and maintaining EP as a final 8
independent layer of defense in depth.
9 Next slide, please.
10 All right. I will now turn it over to Mr.
11 Howard Benowitz from the Office of the General 12 Counsel.
13 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan.
14 Hi, everyone. My name is Howard Benowitz.
15 Im in the NRCs Office of the General Counsel. And 16 on slide 14 we will be discussing the proposed changes 17 to the backfit rule.
18 The NRCs backfit rule is found in 10 CFR 19 Section 50.109. And in the proposed rule we would 20 provide a new backfitting provision for nuclear power 21 reactor licensees in decommissioning. The proposed 22 rule would renumber the paragraphs in Section 50.109, 23 so Section 50.109(a) would be the current backfit 24 rule, and a new Section 50.109(b), Bravo, would be the 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 new rule text for decommissioning nuclear power 1
reactor licensees.
2 The NRC is also proposing edits to the 3
backfitting provision in Part 72, so that that 4
provision applies during the decommissioning of an 5
independent spent fuel storage installation, or an 6
ISFSI, or a monitored retrievable storage facility.
7 The proposed rule would also revise the 8
compliance exception to the requirement to perform a 9
backfit analysis, and the proposed rule would 10 specifically require the NRC to consider the costs of 11 imposing a backfit when the basis for backfitting is 12 use of that compliance exception.
13 This change is based on a 2019 update to 14 the Commissions backfitting policy that you can find 15 in Management Directive 8.4, and thats available on 16 our public website.
17 There is a specific request for comment in 18 the Federal Register Notice regarding these proposed 19 changes, and thats essentially, should we apply the 20 backfit rule to power reactor licensees in 21 decommissioning? So please give us your thoughts on 22 that.
23 Next slide, please.
24 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Back to me. So we are 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 on environmental considerations. The proposed rule 1
clarifies various environmental reporting 2
requirements, including those related to the content 3
of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities 4
reports, or PSDARs.
5 In part, the proposed rule change would 6
clarify that licensees at the PSDAR stage are required 7
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 previously issued site-specific or generic 11 environmental reviews.
12 The Commission provided additional 13 direction to the staff in its staff requirements 14 memorandum with respect to the consideration of any 15 unidentified -- Im sorry, of any identified unbounded 16 impacts. The rule changes would allow licensees to 17 use appropriate federally issued environmental review 18 documents prepared in compliance with the Endangered 19 Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, or 20 other environmental statutes, rather than just 21 environmental impact statements.
22 The rule would also remove language 23 referencing amendments or authorizing decommissioning 24 activities in 10 CFR Part 51.
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 In developing the original proposed rule, 1
the NRC staff considered but dismissed a proposal that 2
staff approve each licensees PSDAR before allowing 3
major decommissioning activities to begin. This was 4
done on the basis that requiring approval of a PSDAR 5
would have no additional benefit in terms of public 6
health and safety.
7 However, we have included a specific 8
request for comment about whether the NRC should 9
require approval of the PSDAR, a site-specific 10 environmental review, and a hearing opportunity before 11 undertaking any decommissioning activity.
12 Other than NRC review and approval of the 13 PSDAR, are there other activities that could help to 14 increase transparency and public trust in the NRC 15 regulatory framework for decommissioning, should the 16 rule provide a role for the states or local 17 governments in the process, and what should that role 18 be?
19 A few regulatory guides related to PSDARs 20 were revised to include clarifying language consistent 21 with the rule changes. And we would also like to note 22 that the decommissioning generic environmental impact 23 statement will be updated by the NRC, but that will be 24 a separate action apart from this rulemaking activity.
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 So that will be updated in the future.
1 Next slide, please.
2 MR. BENOWITZ: Back to me for slide 16.
3 Were on license -- this one concerns license 4
termination plan requirements.
5 So in the proposed rule, the NRC would 6
clarify that 10 CFR 50.82 and 52.110 do not apply 7
before fuel has been loaded into the reactor 8
consistent with historical NRC practice. These 9
license termination provisions are written for 10 reactors that have commenced operation, and the NRC 11 has historically viewed operation as beginning with 12 the loading of fuel into the reactor, which is -- this 13 is discussed in the proposed rule Federal Register 14 Notice.
15 The NRC is proposing this change because 16 some confusion arose about whether 10 CFR 52.110 was 17 applicable when certain combined license holders 18 sought to terminate their licenses during construction 19 or before construction had begun. At that time, the 20 NRC informed the licensees that Section 52.110 did not 21 apply for the reasons that are also documented in the 22 proposed rule.
23 And there is not a specific request for 24 comment on this provision.
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 Ill turn it back to Dan.
1 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Next topic, please.
2 Decommissioning funding assurance. So for 3
this topic we have two slides. So the first one 4
providing a summary of changes related to this topic.
5 The proposed rule modifies the Biennial 6
Decommissioning Trust Fund reporting frequency for 7
operating reactors in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent 8
with the three-year reporting frequency for 9
independent spent fuel storage installations, or 10 ISFSIs.
11 Were making two changes related to ISFSI 12 funding reports. One is that it would allow licensees 13 to combine the reports required by the regulations 14 listed on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), 50.82(a)(8)(vii),
15 and 10 CFR 72.30.
16 The other related change is that the 17 proposed rule would remove the requirement for NRC 18 approval of the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).
19 The proposed rule would clarify that when 20 a licensee identifies a shortfall in the report 21 required by 50.75(f)(1), the licensee must obtain 22 additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall 23 and discuss that information in the next report.
24 And then the final item to highlight, the 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 proposed rule would make administrative changes to 1
ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, written 2
communications regarding the submission of 3
notifications and to eliminate 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2),
4 because 50.75(f)(1) fully encompasses paragraph 5
(f)(2).
6 Next slide, please.
7 We do have several specific questions on 8
this topic. So Im just going to briefly go through 9
each of those.
10 Related to financial assurance, what are 11 the advantages and the disadvantages -- what are the 12 advantages and disadvantages of updating the formula 13 to reflect recent data and to cover all estimated 14 radiological decommissioning costs rather than the 15 bulk of the costs?
16 For a site-specific cost analysis, what 17 are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a 18 full site investigation and characterization at the 19 time of shutdown and of eliminating the formula and 20 requiring a site-specific cost estimate during 21 operations?
22 Decommissioning Trust Fund. Should the 23 NRCs regulations allow Decommissioning Trust Fund 24 assets to be used for spent fuel management if, one, 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 there is a protected surplus in the fund based on a 1
comparison to the expected costs identified in a site 2
specific cost estimate; and, two, if the assets are 3
returned to the fund within an established period of 4
time.
5 What are the advantages and disadvantages 6
of allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund assets to be 7
used for those purposes? What are the advantages and 8
disadvantages of allowing Decommissioning Trust Fund 9
assets to be used for non-radiological site 10 restoration prior to the completion of radiological 11 decommissioning?
12 Timing of the decommissioning fund 13 assurance report -- reporting. What are the 14 advantages and disadvantages of extending the 15 reporting frequency from two years to three years?
16 Does this change affect the risk of insufficient 17 decommissioning funding?
18 And we also have a question about 19 identical requirements under 10 CFR 50.82 and 52.110.
20 Besides proposing conforming changes to 10 21 CFR Part 52, the NRC is asking whether the NRC should 22 continue to maintain identical requirements in 10 CFR 23 52.110 and 10 CFR 50.82.
24 We are also -- so, finally, on this slide, 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 we are also proposing conforming changes to Regulatory 1
Guide 1.159, assuring the availability of funds for 2
decommissioning production or utilization facilities.
3 Next slide, please.
4 So for offsite and onsite financial 5
protection requirements, and indemnity agreements, 6
these changes would provide regulatory certainty by 7
minimizing the need for licensees of decommissioning 8
reactors to request regulatory exemptions for relief 9
from requirements that should apply only to operating 10 reactor licensees.
11 We do have two specific requests for 12 comment on this topic regarding insurance. What are 13 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 14 existing level of insurance to be maintained until all 15 spent fuel is in dry cask storage, which would be 16 Level 3?
17 And the other question related to 18 insurance for specific license ISFSIs. The NRC 19 recognizes that as a reactor site is decommissioned, 20 eventually all that remains of the 10 CFR Part 50 or 21 Part 52 license site is a general license ISFSI under 22 10 CFR Part 72, which is essentially the same as a 23 specific license ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72.
24 Considering that 10 CFR Part 72 specific 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 license ISFSIs have no financial protection 1
requirements, should the NRC address the disparity 2
between specific license and general license ISFSIs as 3
part of this rulemaking? Please provide an 4
explanation for your response.
5 Next slide, please.
6 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 20 concerns foreign 7
ownership, control, or domination. That really 8
focuses on -- this change focuses on, what is a 9
production or utilization facility during the 10 decommissioning process?
11 The Atomic Energy Act and the NRCs 12 regulations provide definitions for a utilization 13 facility and production facility. Additionally, 14 certain other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and 15 the NRCs regulations, including the foreign 16 ownership, control, or domination prohibition, apply 17 only to a utilization or production facility.
18 During the decommissioning process, a 19 utilization facility or production facility will be 20 dismantled to the point at which it no longer meets 21 the definition of a utilization facility or production 22 facility.
23 The proposed rule adds language to the 24 regulations to establish the criteria for when exactly 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 a production facility or utilization facility is no 1
longer a production facility or utilization facility.
2 The proposed rule also adds language to 3
affirm that despite the change, the NRC continues to 4
have statutory authority over the existing 10 CFR Part 5
50 or Part 52 license, and that the NRC regulations 6
applicable to utilization or production facilities 7
will continue to apply to the older of that Part 50 or 8
52 license, unless regulations explicitly state 9
otherwise.
10 And one of those regulations is the 11 foreign ownership, control, or domination provision, 12 and the proposed rule would amend that provision to 13 state that the prohibition on foreign ownership, 14 control, or domination no longer applies once the Part 15 50 or 52 facility is no longer a utilization or 16 production facility.
17 Therefore, the NRCs regulations would not 18 prohibit the transfer of a Part 50 or 52 license for a 19 facility that is no longer a utilization or production 20 facility to a foreign-owned, controlled, or dominated 21 entity.
22 There is no specific request for comment 23 on this -- on these proposed changes. You can see in 24 the top right corner that there are several provisions 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 that would be affected or amended. So please take a 1
look at that and provide any comments that you might 2
have.
3 Thanks.
4 Next slide, please.
5 MR. DOYLE: So physical security. The 6
proposed rule would allow certain changes to eliminate 7
licensee requests for approvals via exemptions, 8
amendments, and for certain adjustments to their 9
physical security programs.
10 Current security requirements do not 11 reflect the reduced risk of a decommissioning facility 12 after fuel is removed from the reactor vessel. When 13 the fuel is transferred to a spent fuel pool, the 14 amount of plant equipment that is relied upon for the 15 safe operation of the facility is significantly 16 reduced, which allows for certain security measures to 17 be eliminated because their implementation is no 18 longer needed or the security measures can be adjusted 19 for the physical protection program during 20 decommissioning.
21 Because certain security measures can be 22 adjusted or no longer are necessary for 23 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions and 24 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 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 this new posture. For example, the control room is 1
specifically identified in current security 2
requirements as an area that must be protected as a 3
vital area.
4 The proposed rule would potentially 5
eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 6
vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 7
the control room and when the area does not act as a 8
vital area boundary for other vital areas.
9 Also, current security regulations for a 10 power reactor licensee require the use of licensed 11 senior operators for the suspension of security 12 measures during emergencies. For permanently shut 13 down and defueled reactors, licensed senior operators 14 are no longer required. The proposed rule would allow 15 certified fuel handlers to be used to suspend security 16 measures during emergencies at a decommissioned 17 facility.
18 And then, lastly, to eliminate the need 19 for the submission of license amendments and 20 exemptions for licensee transitions to ISFSIs, the NRC 21 is proposing that once all spent nuclear fuel has been 22 placed in dry cask storage, licensees may elect to 23 protect the general license ISFSI in accordance with 24 the physical security requirements that are consistent 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 with Part 72 Subpart H and 10 CFR 73.51.
1 Licensees would continue to address the 2
applicable security-related orders associated with an 3
ISFSI that are conditions of the license.
4 Next slide, please.
5 Cybersecurity. Consistent with the graded 6
approach, the proposed rule would continue to apply 7
cybersecurity requirements to decommissioning plants 8
until the risk to public health and safety is 9
significantly reduced.
10 Specifically, the cybersecurity 11 requirement would be applicable until the fuel is 12 permanently removed from the reactor vessel to the 13 spent fuel pool and there has been a sufficient decay 14 such that there is a very low risk that the spent fuel 15 could heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> if the spent fuel pool were drained.
17 Under the proposed rule, power reactor 18 licensees under Part 50 or Part 52 -- Part 50 and Part 19 52 -- would be subject to the same requirement. For 20 Part 50 reactor licensees, the proposed rule would 21 remove the license condition that requires the 22 licensee to maintain its cybersecurity plan. And for 23 Part 52 combined license holders, the proposed rule 24 would extend the requirement to maintain their 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 cybersecurity plan during decommissioning, which would 1
be a new requirement.
2 For currently operating or recently 3
shutdown 10 CFR Part 50 reactor licensees, because the 4
licensees cybersecurity plan is included as a license 5
condition, this license condition to maintain the 6
cybersecurity program per their cybersecurity plans 7
remains in effect until the termination of the license 8
or the NRC removes the condition from the license; for 9
example, if the licensee submits a license amendment 10 request and the NRC approves it.
11 Therefore, the proposed rule would not 12 constitute backfitting because it would codify the 13 already imposed requirements of the cybersecurity plan 14 license conditions during Level 1 of decommissioning 15 or until the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has 16 sufficiently cooled.
17 This is not the case for combined license 18 holders currently. The proposed revision would 19 constitute a new requirement because the operational 20 program, such as security programs that include a 21 cybersecurity program, are requirements in the 22 regulations and not separately identified as license 23 conditions like for Part 50 licensees.
24 Presently, combined license holders are 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 required to maintain a cybersecurity program only as 1
long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them. This 2
means that combined license holders are not required 3
to maintain their cybersecurity programs during 4
decommissioning because a power reactor licensee is 5
not authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor 6
during decommissioning.
7 We do have a specific request for comment 8
on this topic. The proposed rule applies the 9
cybersecurity requirements to Level -- plants in Level 10
- 1. However, a licensee in Level 2 would not be 11 required to maintain a cybersecurity plan because the 12 NRC has determined that there is little chance that 13 the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could heat up to 14 clad ignition temperature within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
15 So we do have a question. Lets see here.
16 What are the advantages and disadvantages of 17 extending the cybersecurity requirements to shut down 18 nuclear power plants until all spent fuel is 19 transferred to dry cask storage. So thats what the 20 specific question is about.
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. So, therefore, the 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 proposed rule includes a backfit analysis in Section 1
9(d).
2 Next slide, please.
3 The drug and alcohol testing topic. The 4
proposed rule would make several changes related to 5
requirements for drug and alcohol testing. There are 6
three items that Id like to highlight related to this 7
topic. The first one for 10 CFR Part 26, which is 8
related to fitness for duty, the proposed rule would 9
amend 10 CFR 26.3, scope, to correct an inconsistency 10 in the applicability of Part 26 to Part 50 and 52 11 license holders of nuclear power reactors.
12 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 13 license holder once the NRC dockets licensees 10 CFR 14 50.82(a)(1) certification that the power reactor has 15 permanently ceased operations, which formally begins 16 the decommissioning process.
17 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the 18 holder of a combined license issued under Part 52 19 throughout decommissioning. No technical basis exists 20 for this inconsistency, so Section 26.3 would be 21 revised to specify that Part 26 also no longer applies 22 to a Part 52 license holder once the NRC dockets the 23 licensees 52.110(a) certification that the power 24 reactor has permanently ceased operations.
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 The second topic or second item related to 1
this topic is Part 26 criminal penalties. Section 2
26.3 includes a substantive requirement for certain 3
entities to comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 4
Part 26 by a specific deadline, and violations of this 5
regulation should be subject to criminal penalties.
6 The specific deadlines in 10 CFR 26.3(a) 7 were added in a 2008 Part 26 final rule, but 10 CFR 8
26.825(b) was not updated to reflect this change, 9
which was an oversight. Therefore, the proposed rule 10 would remove 10 CFR 26.3 from the list of provisions 11 that are not subject to criminal penalties if violated 12 in 10 CFR 26.825(b).
13 Last item. This relates to the insider 14 mitigation program. Section 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) 15 requires that a licensees insider mitigation program 16 contained elements of a fitness for duty program 17 described in Part 26, but does not identify which 18 fitness for duty program elements must be included in 19 the insider mitigation program.
20 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 Parts 50 and 52.
24 Next slide, please.
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 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 24 concerns the 1
removal of license conditions and the withdrawal of an 2
order. The NRC would propose to withdraw an order and 3
remove license conditions that are substantively 4
redundant with existing provisions in the NRCs 5
regulations.
6 The order is Order EA-06-137, which 7
concerns mitigation strategies for large fires or 8
explosions at nuclear power plants. The license 9
conditions are the conditions associated with that 10 order and Order EA-02-026, which was an order issued 11 right after the events of 9/11.
12 There is also a license condition that Dan 13 just mentioned regarding the cybersecurity license --
14 the cybersecurity license condition that also would be 15 removed. Now, these license conditions are currently 16 parts of licenses, but under the proposed rule, these 17 license conditions would be deemed removed, and then 18 the NRC staff would actually remove them through 19 administrative license amendments after the effective 20 date of the final rule.
21 In this way, licensees would not need to 22 submit license amendment requests. The NRC can, on 23 its own initiative, do that, and essentially just --
24 it would mail or email, or however, the new pages --
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 the marked up pages and new pages of the license to 1
reflect the removal of the license conditions.
2 We did include in the Federal Register 3
Notice a request for comment on this topic. We are 4
interested in if there are any potential redundant 5
requirements that we did not include in this proposed 6
rule that you think we should remove because, again, 7
they are substantively redundant. And, therefore, we 8
are not -- dont need to have more than one of the 9
same requirement.
10 Next slide, please.
11 MR. DOYLE: Slide 25, spent fuel 12 management planning. So brief background on this 13 topic. The NRC staff identified ambiguity in the 14 spent fuel management and decommissioning regulations 15 due to a lack of cross referencing between Part 72 and 16 Part 50. The rulemaking clarifies the information for 17 consistency.
18 Specifically, the regulation in 10 CFR 19 72.218 states that the 50.54(bb) spent fuel management 20 program, the irradiated fuel management plan, or IFMP, 21 must show how the spent fuel will be managed before 22 starting to decommission systems and components needed 23 for moving, unloading, and shipping the spent fuel.
24 Section 72.218 also requires that an 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 application for termination of a reactor operating 1
license submitted under 10 CFR 50.82, or 52.110, must 2
also describe how the spent fuel stored under the Part 3
72 general license will be removed from the reactor 4
site.
5 Although 10 CFR 72.218 states what 6
information must be included in these Part 50 7
documents, the corresponding regulations in Part 50 do 8
not contain this information. Therefore, the NRC 9
proposes to clarify and align the regulations in 10 50.54(bb), 50.82, and 52.110, and 72.218, to ensure 11 appropriate documentation -- whew, I need some more 12 water here -- to ensure appropriate documentation of 13 spent fuel management plans and decommissioning plans.
14 I think Im going to have to come back to 15 this one. I cant really -- let me see if we have 16 another slide here.
17 Can we skip to slide 28? Sorry.
18 MR. BENOWITZ: No. No problem, Dan.
19 Slide 28. That concerns proposed changes to make our 20 regulations consistent in how we -- in how they apply 21 to Part 50 licensees and Part 52 licensees in 22 decommissioning.
23 Right now, we have regulations -- quite a 24 few. If you look in the top right corner of the 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 slide, you can see that we have many regulations that 1
reference -- for the most part they reference only the 2
Part 50 decommissioning regulation, 50 -- 10 CFR 3
50.82. They do not also reference Section 52.110, or 4
maybe -- or 110(a). Sometimes there are references to 5
52.110(a)(1) when it should be just 52.110(a).
6 And so there are several -- I wont call 7
them typos, but in some cases they are just to the 8
wrong paragraph within the section. Sometimes we 9
dont -- the section itself is not included in that 10 regulatory provision. Thats just the nature of, 11 unfortunately, doing rulemaking over the years, not 12 catching every one, but then this rule we hope that we 13 have done that, gone through all of the regulations, 14 Part 50 and 52, where one or the other provision is 15 referenced and without the other. And so our proposal 16 is to include both, to capture the 50 and 52 17 licensees.
18 If you find that we missed one, please let 19 us know. I think we -- I think we got them all.
20 Dan, thats all I have. I can keep 21 talking, but if youre okay to come back, that would 22 be great.
23 MR. DOYLE: I apologize for that.
24 Hopefully, Ill be able to -- Ill be able to keep it 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 together here. Sorry. Allergies are -- Im having 1
some trouble with, having some trouble here.
2 Okay. So were back on slide 25, please.
3 Spent fuel management planing. So I was about to 4
explain the rule changes that we are proposing. I had 5
pointed out the inconsistency that the staff had 6
discussed.
7 We do have changes to 10 CFR 50.54(bb).
8 We propose moving the 72.218 provisions to 50.54(bb) 9 to clarify that the IFMP must be submitted and 10 approved before the licensee starts to decommission 11 systems, structures, and components needed for moving, 12 unloading, and shipping the spent fuel.
13 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 14 IFMP approval process and the 50.54(bb) provisions 15 regarding preliminary approval and final NRC review of 16 IFMP as part of any proceeding for continued licensing 17 under Part 50 or Part 72 as these proceedings no 18 longer exist as they did when 50.54(bb) was first 19 promulgated.
20 The NRC proposes to require submittal of 21 the initial IFMP and any subsequent changes to the 22 IFMP as a license amendment request.
23 Changes to 72.218. The NRC proposes 24 revising 72.218 to address requirements related to the 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 decommissioning and termination of the Part 72 general 1
license as the current title of 72.218, termination of 2
licenses, suggests.
3 MR. BENOWITZ: Dan, dont mean to 4
interrupt, but seriously, if you want me to continue 5
at any point, just let me know. Okay?
6 MR. DOYLE: Okay. I appreciate that.
7 So, specifically, the proposed 72.218 8
notes that the general license ISFSI must be 9
decommissioned, consistent with the requirements in 10 50.82 or 52.110, as the general license ISFSI is part 11 of the Part 50 or Part 52 license site.
12 Also, the proposed 72.218 notes that the 13 general license is terminated upon termination of the 14 Part 50 or Part 52 license. We do have a specific 15 request for comment on this topic. The proposed rule 16 clarifies that the current IFMP approval process, by 17 requiring submittal of the initial IFMP and any 18 changes to the IFMP, for review and approval by 19 license amendment, we would like to know if 20 stakeholders see any challenges with implementing this 21 part of the proposed rule.
22 We are also considering including a change 23 control provision to specify what changes a licensee 24 can make to the IFMP without NRC approval. Wed like 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 to know what stakeholders -- wed like to know 1
stakeholders opinions on a change control process, 2
including the criteria for changes that licensees 3
could make without NRC approval, and any associated 4
recordkeeping or reporting for those changes.
5 The undeveloped guidance corresponding to 6
proposed rule changes for the IFMP, we added guidance 7
to Draft Guide 1346, Section (c)(3), to outline the 8
information to be included in the licensees IFMP.
9 And then for general license ISFSI 10 decommissioning, we added references to general 11 license ISFSIs in both Draft Guide 1347 and 1349 to 12 make it clear that the general license ISFSI must be 13 decommissioned, consistent with the requirements in 10 14 CFR 50.82 and 52.110.
15 The NRC staff believes that these changes 16 will provide regulatory clarity and enhance overall 17 regulatory transparency and openness regarding 18 decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.
19 Next slide, please.
20 Low-level waste transportation. When a 21 plant is actively being decommissioned, the plant 22 typically generates large volumes of bulk low-level 23 radioactive waste.
To officially manage the 24 transportation of the waste to a licensed disposal 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 site, most licensees ship waste by rail.
1 The railroads control the schedule for the 2
transportation of the railcars to the destination, and 3
the time to reach the disposal site destination is 4
generally more than the current 20-day notification 5
requirement.
6 So licensees -- under the proposed rule, 7
the licensees would continue to monitor and track the 8
location and progress of their low-level waste 9
shipments, but notifications to the NRC would no 10 longer be required unless the new proposed 45-day 11 limit is exceeded.
12 All right. Next slide here? So were on 13 slide 27.
14 Certified fuel handler definition and 15 elimination of the shift technical advisor. So its 16 kind of two topics combined under one heading.
17 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed 18 operators who are commonly used at permanently 19 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 20 their spent fuel pools. A certified fuel handler is 21 intended to be the on-shift representative who is 22 responsible for safe fuel handling activities and is 23 always present on shift to ensure safety of the spent 24 fuel and any decommissioning-related activities at a 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 facility.
1 Currently, a certified fuel handler is 2
qualified through a training program that must be 3
reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed rule 4
would modify the definition of a certified fuel 5
handler and add a provision that removes the need for 6
NRC approval of the training program if the training 7
program for certified fuel handlers is derived from a 8
systems approach to training and includes specific 9
topics which are outlined in the proposed rule 10 language.
11 Specifically, the training program must 12 address the safe conduct of decommissioning 13 activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel, 14 and appropriate response to plant emergencies.
15 And then regarding the technical advisor, 16 the proposed rule would clarify that the shift 17 technical advisor is not required for decommissioning 18 nuclear power reactors.
19 Next slide, please.
20 Okay. This is the one that Howard 21 covered. Appreciate the pinch hit help there, Howard, 22 so we can move ahead to slide 29.
23 Record retention requirements. As noted, 24 when a
plant is no longer operating in 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 decommissioning, most plant components, such as pumps 1
and valves, are no longer in service and will 2
eventually be removed as part of the dismantlement 3
activities. Therefore, there is no longer a need to 4
retain certain records associated with these 5
components, and the rulemaking eliminates many 6
recordkeeping retention requirements.
7 This proposed change would not impact the 8
records that are required to be maintained in support 9
of decommissioning and license termination activities.
10 The proposed rule also includes a specific question 11 concerning the recordkeeping requirements for 12 facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 52.
13 One of the rulemakings few proposed 14 changes to Part 52 would be in 10 CFR 52.63 regarding 15 the recordkeeping and retention requirements for 16 departures from the design of a facility. However, 17 these changes would not apply to a combined license 18 holder that references one of the certified designs in 19 the Part 52 appendices because those appendices have 20 their own recordkeeping provisions.
21 The NRC is asking in this proposed rule if 22 we should revise the Part 52 appendices to conform 23 those recordkeeping requirements with those proposed 24 in 10 CFR 52.63.
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 Next slide, please.
1 Okay. So were on slide 30. So we have 2
completed all of the topic slides. There were 16 of 3
them. So this slide lists the specific requests for 4
comment. We have already highlighted most of these.
5 As I mentioned, in Section V of the proposed rule, we 6
do have these areas where were trying to highlight 7
for stakeholders information that would be 8
particularly helpful for the NRC.
9 Just to point out, there were three of 10 them that were not mentioned in the previous topic 11 slides, so Ill just briefly summarize them here.
12 The timeframe for decommissioning, the 13 second one of the left, the NRC is not proposing 14 changes to the decommissioning timeframe requirements, 15 but we are asking a question. What are the advantages 16 and disadvantages of requiring prompt decontamination 17 rather than allowing up to 60 years to decommission a 18 site?
19 As part of its review of a PSDAR, what are 20 the advantages and disadvantages of NRC evaluating and 21 making a decision about timeframe for decommissioning 22 on a site-specific basis?
23 Related to exemptions, which is the second 24 one on the right, as stated in the proposed rule, one 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 of the goals of amending these regulations is to 1
reduce the need for regulatory exemptions. 10 CFR 2
50.12 -- 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission may 3
grant exemptions from the requirements of the 4
regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will not 5
present an undue risk to public health and safety and 6
is consistent with the common defense and security.
7 What are the advantages and disadvantages 8
of the current 10 CFR 50.12 approach to 9
decommissioning-related exemptions? What standard 10 should the NRC apply in determining whether to grant 11 exemptions from the new or amended regulations? What 12 are the advantages and disadvantages of providing an 13 opportunity for the public to weigh in on such 14 exemption requests?
15 Are there other process changes the NRC 16 should consider in determining whether to grant 17 exemptions from the new or amended regulation?
18 And then the final one to highlight is 19 applicability, the third one on the right.
20 Specifically, there is a discussion related to 21 applicability to NRC licensees during operations and 22 to ISFSI only and standalone ISFSI decommissioned 23 reactor sites. Permanently shut down nuclear power 24 plants will be at different stages of the 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 decommissioning process when the new decommissioning 1
regulations become effective and will have -- may have 2
previously received varying regulatory exemptions.
3 Can you foresee any implementation issues 4
with the proposed rule as its currently written 5
related to applicability for these licensees? For any 6
new or amended requirement included in the proposed 7
rule, how should the requirement apply to sites 8
currently in decommissioning -- the different stages 9
of decommission?
10 Next slide, please.
11 Okay. As I mentioned earlier, we do have 12 a regulatory analysis document for this rulemaking, as 13 we do for many other rulemaking activities, where we 14 discuss the cost and benefits associated with this 15 action. So this slide is just to provide an overview 16 and a summary of this -- of the conclusions from our 17 analysis.
18 So, overall, the proposed rule was 19 determined to be overall cost beneficial with the 20 estimated net averted cost, meaning costs that 21 otherwise would have taken place -- so savings -- of 22 approximately 17.9 million at a seven percent net 23 present value.
24 So the net present value, as mentioned on 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 the slide a few times, thats just referring to, you 1
know, bringing dollars to present -- you know, future 2
dollars to present day, so you can compare apples to 3
apples, or 37 million at a three percent net present 4
value.
5 And then just highlighting several of the 6
areas that had the biggest influence on this 7
conclusion, the emergency preparedness alternative 8
would result in about a 7.74 million averted cost, 9
drug and alcohol testing would be about seven million, 10 and decommissioning funding assurance about 1.18 11 million.
12 Next slide, please.
13 Okay. So just a few tips. We thought 14 this might be helpful. Im sure many of the people 15 attending this meeting may have already reviewed and 16 commented on NRC regulations in the past. But if you 17 havent, then welcome. And even if you have, then 18 hopefully this will still be helpful.
19 So lets see. Next slide, please.
20 So Tip Number 1 as youre considering your 21 comments is to review the commenters checklist. This 22 is available on regulations.gov. Its actually right 23 there on the comment submission forms. This is not an 24 NRC document. This is something that is on 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 regulations.gov, which is used by many federal 1
agencies for providing information and collecting 2
public comments on rulemaking activities.
3 So it has some helpful tips about how to 4
review the proposed rule and how to -- what kind of 5
information is helpful in general for agencies to 6
provide in your public comments.
7 Okay. Next slide, please.
8 So Tip Number 2 is to review the 9
unofficial redline rule language document. I 10 mentioned this earlier. This document shows how the 11 proposed rule would modify the current regulations in 12 this redline strikeout format, what would be inserted 13 and deleted, because sometimes that can be hard to 14 decipher from the required format in the Federal 15 Register.
16
- But, again, this is an unofficial 17 document. Please do not rely on this for your -- for 18 your public comments.
19 Thank you.
20 Next slide.
21 Okay. Tip Number 3 is we have provided a 22 dedicated public website intended to be one-stop shop 23 for information about this proposed rule. So we have 24 a link to that. There is a short link on the slide 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 there that should work if you wanted to click on that 1
or you could scan it with your -- scan the QR code 2
there with your phone.
3 If you have any trouble with that, please 4
dont hesitate to reach out to me and Ill make sure 5
that youre able to access it.
6 So the information -- some of the 7
information that we have on this website, we have a 8
link directly to the proposed rule, all of these 9
related documents that Ive mentioned. There is a 10 direct link to the comment form, to make it easier to 11 submit a comment. There is also information about our 12 past and upcoming public meetings, and there are some 13 additional background documents from the earlier 14 stages of rulemaking that we mentioned.
15 Next slide, please.
16 Okay. And then, just to summarize how to 17 actually submit a comment, the instructions are in the 18 proposed rule, Federal Register Notice. But just to 19 make it clear here, we do have three different 20 methods. Our preferred method would be for you to go 21 to regulations.gov and submit using that comment form.
22 You can either type in your comment or have it in a 23 separate document which you upload. So either would 24 be fine.
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 Or you could send it to the NRC as an 1
email, and the address is there. Thats the same 2
email address for all rulemaking activities, so just 3
make sure you identify which rulemaking you are 4
commenting on. Or you can send it in the mail to the 5
address shown there.
6 Just a note, you know, please dont submit 7
the same comment multiple methods just to make sure 8
that we get it because that would create duplication.
9 We will get it. Just go ahead and submit it to --
10 using one of those methods.
11 Thank you.
12 Next slide, please.
13 Okay. Slide 37. Just wrapping up the 14 staff presentation portion of the meeting here, the 15 next steps after -- you know, moving forward, public 16 comment period, as I mentioned, ends in about a month, 17 May 17th.
18 Following that, the staff will collect and 19 review, address all the public comments, and develop a 20 final rule, which we will send up to our Commission.
21 We have Commissioners who set policy for the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission. So the staff would provide it 23 to them. Its scheduled in October of 2023.
24 And then the estimated publication date of 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 the final rule when these rules would actually go into 1
effect -- well, the publication date would be May 2
2024, and then the rules would actually go into effect 3
30 days after that.
4 So those are estimated dates. Its 5
subject to change. There are a lot of things that 6
could happen, depending on the types of comments that 7
we get or other -- other factors or priorities.
8 Sometimes rulemaking schedules may change.
9 We do have a website, though, that -- that 10 lists these milestones for this rulemaking and for 11 every other rulemaking that we are working on. We 12 have these key milestones of when we would deliver it 13 to the signature authority and when we expect to 14 publish it. So if there are changes to our schedule 15 in the future, we will update it there, and you can --
16 you can find it on that website.
17 So that concludes the staff presentation.
18 Thanks for sticking with me, and I apologize again 19 for challenges with my allergies and voice here.
20 Thank you.
21 All right. So I will turn it back over to 22 Steven.
23 MR. SMITH: Thanks, Dan. Thanks.
24 So before we go into the Q&A session, wed 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 like to take a quick break. The time is now 7:11.
1 Lets take 10 minutes, and well be back at 7:21. All 2
right?
3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 4
record at 7:11 p.m. and resumed at 7:21 p.m.)
5 MR. SMITH: So its 7:21. Lets go ahead 6
and transition to our public Q&A session. Please 7
remember that our goal today is to help you provide 8
informed written comments. So we ask that your 9
questions focus on any clarification you or others may 10 need in terms of the proposed decommissioning rule and 11 draft regulatory guidance.
12 Our intent is not to discuss specific 13 details about any particular facility. So we ask that 14 you keep your questions on the decommissioning rule 15 and related topics in general.
16 I will take questions from the Teams line 17 over the phone. Remember, those of you on Teams can 18 raise your hand with the hand feature, and I can see 19 that. Those on the phone can use star five. You can 20 call up and ask a question. If you are on Teams, you 21 can use your unmute button. And if youre on the 22 phone, use star six to unmute yourself.
23 I will take the hands in the order that I 24 see them, and I will alternate between Teams and the 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 phone.
1 To ensure each person who wants to speak 2
or ask a question gets a chance, please limit your 3
speaking time to three minutes. You will have the 4
option for one follow-up question. If you need more 5
time, please wait and I will take -- I will advise you 6
to take a second turn later. This will happen towards 7
the end of the meeting.
8 So, with that, lets go ahead and start.
9 Anyone on the phone or Teams have a question? I do 10 not see any hands. I dont see any indication from 11 anyone on the phone. So Ill give it a minute.
12 While were waiting, did you want to share 13 the website for comments?
14 MR. DOYLE: Sure. So were not -- were 15 not in a rush to get out of here. We did schedule 16 this meeting, and were available -- as I said, many 17 of the subject matter experts are available on the 18 line to answer if you do have a question. If youre 19 wondering if there may be other people out there with 20 the same question, please dont -- dont hesitate to 21 go ahead and raise your hand.
22 So let me -- let me share the website. So 23 this is a little different from the previous meeting.
24 What Im going to do is Im going to share my screen 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 here, and then share the screen.
1 So if someone could just kind of keep an 2
eye on the chat there, see if there are any questions, 3
but Im just going to -- Im just going to talk for a 4
little bit here.
5 And if anything I say, or if anything you 6
see, you know, prompts a question, feel free to just 7
go ahead and ask, or just go ahead and raise your 8
hand.
9 This is that -- the website that we put 10 out. This is the, you know, kind of one-stop shop for 11 this rulemaking activity. There is the -- the link 12 that was earlier in the slides. So what we have --
13 this right here, this link, you know, proposed rule, 14 read it in the Federal Register.
15 So if you click on that, this is the web 16 version of the proposed rule. And you can see this is 17 the link to submit a formal comment. Thats right up 18 here. This is the -- let me go ahead and click on it.
19 So theres a dropdown form. You can type in a 20 comment right there.
21 You can -- let me see here. Go back. You 22 can also see, you know, other -- other comments that 23 have already been submitted. It actually might be 24 easier to show you from here.
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 If you wanted to see, say, what other 1
people have said about this proposed rule, you could 2
click that link right here, read comments received, 3
and that will bring you over to regulations.gov and 4
filter for the comments that have already been posted.
5 So you can see, as of today, we have 6
received and posted four public comment submissions 7
from other individuals. So as they come in, they will 8
be available there.
9 Many commenters tend to wait until right 10 towards the end of the comment period, so just be 11 aware of that. And also, if you submit something and 12 then dont see it immediately, it doesnt mean there 13 is a problem. There is kind of a holding -- holding 14 area basically where we -- where we -- the agency, you 15 know, sees what was submitted and then just confirms 16 that its okay to be posted publicly. So there may be 17 a few days between when you submit something and when 18 you see it posted.
19 We do have these -- the handy links to the 20 related documents. There is the four draft regulatory 21 guides, the EP, decommissioning, availability of 22
- funds, post-shutdown decommissioning activities 23 reports. So those are all right here. Reg analysis, 24 the environmental assessment, the support statements.
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 This is the redline rule text.
1 This -- so here is our introduction just 2
explaining, you know, what this document is showing, 3
that Ive already explained. Each of these headings 4
here in the table of contents are links. So you could 5
actually click to that, so, say, in 10 CFR 50.82, 6
termination of licensees, you could just click on 7
that. It will jump you right to the page that has 8
50.82.
9 So, again, this is showing, you know, the 10 current rule language. You dont see any red text 11 here. So what thats saying is that were not 12 proposing any changes to this paragraph right here.
13 So, but if you scroll down, so you can see, you know, 14 what it says and what it would continue to say, and 15 then how we would actually be -- how the NRC is 16 proposing to modify this regulation.
17 So this text would be inserted. Make this 18 a little bit bigger. So this text is there and would 19 continue to be there, but with these edits, we would 20 be adding this new paragraph 2.
21 Let see. Anything else here that would be 22 interesting to point out. We put in the -- the entire 23 section is there. So if were making at least one 24 change in a section, we included the entire section, 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 just to kind of err on the safe side for context. So 1
it does make the document longer. Its a 260-page 2
document. But, you know, hopefully thats helpful, to 3
have that context. So these are all the sections in 4
eight different parts.
5 All right.
6 MR. SMITH: All right. Anyone on the 7
phone who has questions, please press star five to 8
indicate that youd like to talk, and star six to 9
unmute yourself.
10 For those using Teams, again, there is a 11 raise hand function that is at the top. I think its 12 under React. You click on that, and there should be a 13 little -- little handle that comes up just like that.
14 Again, well give it about 10 minutes to 15 give anyone an opportunity to talk. And if that -- if 16 we dont get anything, well wrap the meeting up.
17 Soly, can you pull the slides back up?
18 Well go ahead and go to slide 39, which is the 19 comments, opportunities for comments. Okay. Were 20 having some difficulties. Just bear with us. There 21 it is.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. SMITH: I dont see any hands or any 24 indication of any questions so far.
25
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. DOYLE: Yeah. And thats totally 1
fine. I think, you know, probably, you know, some 2
folks who are joining are interested in the 3
rulemaking, maybe wanted to hear, you know, what other 4
people might have to say about it, and thats totally 5
fine.
6 So we can -- just in case someone joined 7
or in case something came to mind, again, we didnt 8
want to just rush out.
9 I dont think there was too much else. I 10 think the website is pretty self-explanatory. So 11 hopefully that was -- that was helpful.
12 We did have -- down in the bottom part of 13 that website, there is the additional background 14 documents. If -- you know, if people have been 15 following this rulemaking, its -- you know, as I 16 mentioned from the background, this has been going on 17 for a few years.
18 People may be aware that there was, you 19 know, a version that the staff had generated that was, 20 you know, submitted and publicly released in 2018. So 21 thats available in the additional background 22 documents, but thats -- thats historical. That is 23 not the current version.
24 But I do -- I do know that there were some 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com people that were reaching out to me about that 1
document. Thats -- so that 2018 draft proposed rule 2
is listed under the additional background documents.
3 The Commission approved publication with several 4
changes in November, and that brought us to where we 5
are today, to the proposed rule that was published on 6
March 3rd.
7 So we have some previous Federal Register 8
Notices, the regulatory basis document, the ANPR, 9
previous public outreach, summaries of the public 10 meetings. So that is all there on the website.
11 MR. SMITH: Im not seeing any comments or 12 questions from the chat.
13 Excuse me. Soly, could you go ahead and 14 go to slide 39.
15 So while were waiting on -- you know, 16 well go ahead and pull this up. Again, you can just 17 scan the QR code or click on the link. Actually, I 18 dont think you have the option for that. But just 19 you can scan the QR code with your phone, and that 20 will take you to the meeting feedback form.
21 MR. DOYLE: Yes. And this -- this form is 22 just for the meeting itself, not about the rulemaking.
23 But if you have any suggestions for how we can make 24 meetings like this more effective, were very 25
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com interested in that feedback.
1 We did just have one more slide after this 2
one, which is the acronyms. There are too many 3
acronyms here that we have used in some of the slides 4
as we were speaking.
5 (Pause.)
6 MR. DOYLE: All right. I think were 7
good.
8 MR. SMITH: Okay. So I want to thank 9
everyone for participating.
10 MR. DOYLE: Hold on.
11 MR. SMITH: Oh.
12 MR. DOYLE: We got somebody.
13 MR. SMITH: Got a question?
14 MR. DOYLE: Perfect.
15 MR. SMITH: Okay.
16 MR. DOYLE: Were not trying to rush out 17 of here.
18 MR. SMITH: Okay. Mr. Odom. Please turn 19 on your mic.
20 MR. DOYLE: You should be able to unmute 21 yourself now.
22 MR. ODOM: I didnt quite -- I really 23 enjoyed the presentation today, but I scanned your QR 24 code and its not -- its not really working.
25
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. DOYLE: I apologize for that. Let me 1
2 MR. ODOM: It says invalid meeting code, 3
and its asking for a meeting code.
4 MR. DOYLE: Hmm. You know what? I think 5
the system -- I think there might be a problem with 6
the system because I do know that this is the code for 7
the meeting, and it goes into the form. And youre 8
right, so you are completely right. I apologize.
9 So Im going to need to submit a ticket 10 for that. Sorry about that.
11 MR. SMITH: Thank you for pointing that 12 out, Mr. Odom.
13 MR. ODOM: No problem.
14 MR. SMITH: Any other questions? Any 15 comments?
16 MR. DOYLE: We did get a comment, by the 17 way, from one of the other staff that it -- just 18 confirmed that it is a problem with the system, 19 unfortunately, and that it has been submitted. But 20 Ill be following up on that also.
21 So if you could, if you wouldnt mind just 22 checking back in a day or two, hopefully well get 23 that resolved quickly.
24 MR. ODOM: Will do.
25
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. DOYLE: Thank you for confirming that 1
the raise the hand feature is working.
2 All right. And think we were just 3
wrapping up there. So, again, thank everybody for 4
your time, for your interest in this rulemaking. We 5
are looking forward to your -- any feedback that you 6
may have.
7 Again, as the PM, you can reach out to me.
8 My name and contact information is in the proposed 9
rule and this presentation here, if there is anything 10 that I can do to help you as you are reviewing this.
11 And, again, thank you. That concludes the 12 meeting today. Have a wonderful day. Thank you.
13 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-14 entitled matter went off the record at 7:36 p.m.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25