ML22277A010
| ML22277A010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/04/2022 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Doyle, Daniel | |
| References | |
| NRC-1935, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59 | |
| Download: ML22277A010 (119) | |
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: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-1935 Pages 1-118 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 MONDAY 10 MAY 9, 2022 11 + + + + +
12 The meeting convened at the Hotel 1620 13 Plymouth Harbor, 180 Water St, Plymouth, 14 Massachusetts, and by video teleconference at 6:00 15 p.m. Eastern Time, Brett Klukan and Sarah Lopas, 16 Facilitators, presiding.
17 18 NRC STAFF PRESENT 19 BRETT KLUKAN, Facilitator 20 SARAH LOPAS, Facilitator 21 JAMES ANDERSON 22 KRISTINA BANOVAC 23 HOWARD BENOWITZ 24 ILKA BERRIOS 25 BRIDGET CURRAN NEAL 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 MARLAYNA DOELL 2 DAN DOYLE 3 RICHARD DRILL 4 DUANE HARDESTY 5 MAI HENDERSON 6 PATRICIA HOLAHAN 7 STACEY IMBODEN 8 ERIC LEE 9 ANGELLA LOVE BLAIR 10 JANE MARSHALL 11 FRED MILLER 12 EDWARD O'DONNELL 13 LEAH PARKS 14 MAURIN SCHEETZ 15 DIANE SCRENCI 16 JILL SHEPHERD 17 TODD SMITH 18 AMY SNYDER 19 SOLY SOTO LUGO 20 RICHARD TURTIL 21 BRUCE WATSON 22 TRENT WERTZ 23 CAROLYN WOLF 24 BRIAN ZALESKI 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 ALSO PRESENT 2 LARRY CAMPER 3 JIM CANTWELL 4 HENRIETTA CONSTANTINO 5 BENJAMIN CRONIN 6 CHRISTINE DANIELSON 7 LESLIE DANIELSON 8 ELAINE DICKINSON 9 PAUL GUNTER 10 MICHAEL JACKMAN 11 JOANNE KORGAN 12 JAMES LAMPERT 13 MARY LAMPERT 14 ROSEMARY SHIELDS 15 OLIVIA TEIXEIRA 16 DIANE TURCO 17 PATRICIA WATSON 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
4 1 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 PAGE 3 Welcome and Logistics..............................5 4 Opening Remarks....................................9 5 Background and Status.............................12 6 Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................16 7 Tips for Preparing Comments.......................54 8 Next Steps........................................58 9 Public Feedback and Questions.....................60 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
5 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 6:00 p.m.
3 MR. KLUKAN: Welcome, everyone. My name 4 is Brett Klukan. Normally, I serve as the regional 5 counsel for Region I of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission, or the NRC; however, tonight I'll be 7 acting as the in-person facilitator for this meeting.
8 In that task, I will be assisted by Sarah Lopas, who 9 will be virtually facilitating via Microsoft Teams.
10 Hence, this meeting will have a hybrid format, and 11 I'll explain more about that as part of my 12 introduction. Next slide, please.
13 But, first, a little bit about the purpose 14 of the meeting. So we are here tonight to provide 15 information to you to inform you on the comment 16 process for the proposed decommissioning rule and 17 draft regulatory guidance. We will be going through 18 the various ways that you can participate in the 19 commenting process, as part of the NRC's presentation.
20 Meeting attendees, whether in-person or 21 participating virtually, will have an opportunity to 22 ask questions of the NRC staff. However, as discussed 23 specifically in the meeting notice, the NRC is not 24 actively soliciting comments regarding the proposed 25 decommissioning rule, nor any other 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
6 1 decision, at this meeting this evening.
2 Again, the NRC staff will discuss tonight 3 the different ways in which you can formally submit 4 comments on the proposed rule. Next slide, please.
5 So a little bit about the agenda. After I 6 finish quickly going through logistics we'll have some 7 opening remarks, and then we'll have our NRC 8 presentation which will include details on background, 9 status, an overview of the proposed rule, tips for 10 preparing comments, and next steps. I will then open 11 the floor up to your questions. Next slide, please.
12 So a couple of logistics. Please note 13 that tonight's meeting is being recorded and 14 transcribed. We ask that you help us get a full, 15 clear recording of the meeting by staying on mute if 16 you are on the phone or on Teams when you are not 17 speaking.
18 Please keep your electronic devices 19 silent, for those of you who are in the room, and side 20 discussions to a minimum. Also, it would help us 21 greatly if speakers could identify themselves, whether 22 in person or on the phone, and along with any group 23 affiliation if you so choose, when they first start 24 speaking.
25 All the meeting attendees tonight who are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 participating virtually will have their microphones 2 muted and their cameras disabled during the 3 presentation. When we get to the question and answer 4 portion of the meeting those of you on Teams can use 5 the raise-hand function. It looks like a little hand 6 up in the -- usually it's in the top-right corner of 7 your screen. By hitting that it lets us know -- raise 8 your hand, quote/unquote -- it lets us know that you 9 would like to ask a question during the meeting.
10 Those of you on the phone, to do that, hit 11 star-five. Again, that is star-five, when we get to 12 the question and answer portion of the meeting.
13 Once our team facilitator, Sarah, enables 14 your microphone, you will then, if you're 15 participating via the phone or via Teams, have to 16 unmute yourself before you can start speaking.
17 For those of you participating on the 18 phone, to unmute yourself, you hit star-six. And I 19 will go through this again after the NRC's 20 presentation, but it's going to prepare you. Hit 21 star-five to raise your hand, and then star-six to 22 unmute yourself.
23 Again, for those of you attending in 24 person, if you'd like to speak during the question and 25 answer portion of the meeting, I would ask that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 please indicate on the registration sheet, which is in 2 the corner of the room by Diane who's standing there.
3 For the sake of simplicity tonight, the 4 order of speakers during the question and answer 5 session will be determined on the first come, first 6 serve basis, going back and forth, or alternating back 7 and forth between in person participants and virtual 8 participants.
9 Please also note as well, for those of you 10 participating via Teams, that the chat function has 11 been disabled.
12 If you have any trouble seeing the slides 13 tonight, or you're participating via phone and you 14 don't already have these available to you, the slides 15 that we will be presenting during the presentation can 16 be found in NRC's ADAMS Library at ML number, 17 ML22129A004, again, that's ML22129A004. You can also 18 go to the NRC's public meeting notice page and there's 19 a link there to the slides.
20 If you'd like to give something to the 21 NRC's and paneled staff here, I would ask that you 22 please set it on the side table.
23 And one last item before I turn it over to 24 the NRC staff, I'm hoping that you will fill out your 25 public meeting feedback form, you can find a link 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
9 1 the public meeting feedback form on the NRC's public 2 meeting schedule page for this meeting. Your opinion 3 for how this meeting went will help -- greatly help us 4 improve the conduct of future hybrid meetings, so 5 please take a moment to let us know what you think.
6 Finally, for those of you in the room with 7 us today, the bathrooms are just down the hall, and 8 emergency exists are just right behind you. So with 9 that, slide five, please.
10 And I will now turn it over to Trish 11 Holahan, the special assistant to the Division of 12 Rulemaking Environmental and Financial Support and the 13 NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
14 Trish?
15 MS. HOLAHAN: Thanks, Brett. Can you hear 16 me? Okay. Thanks, Brett. As Brett said, I'm Trish 17 Holahan, I'm the special assistant to the NRC's 18 Division of Rulemaking Environmental and Financial 19 Support.
20 With me at the table today is Dan Doyle, 21 the rulemaking PM. Also Howard Benowitz, NRC 22 attorney, will be presenting information on the rule 23 as well. Dan and Howard will be giving an overview of 24 what is in the rule package.
25 Also there are a number of other people 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
10 1 attendance, either via Teams or in person. Our Public 2 Affairs Office, Diane Screnci, in the back, is in the 3 room so I'd like any media to know that she's there.
4 I'd like -- okay. I want to thank you for 5 joining us today to talk about NRC's decommissioning 6 rulemaking, the NRC's goal for this rulemaking are to 7 maintain a safe, effective, and efficient 8 decommissioning process, incorporate lessons learned 9 from the decommissioning process and support the NRC's 10 principles of good regulation, including openness, 11 clarity, and reliability.
12 The proposed rule would implement specific 13 regulatory requirements for different phases of the 14 decommissioning process, consistent with the reduced 15 risk that occurs over time while continuing to 16 maintain safety and security.
17 The proposed rule would incorporate 18 lessons learned from plants that have recently 19 transitioned to decommissioning, and improve the 20 effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 21 framework while protecting public health and safety.
22 Public comment has twice played an 23 important role in the development of this proposed 24 rule, first of all when we published an advanced 25 notice of proposed rulemaking, and later with a draft NEAL 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 regulatory basis. We took all those comments into 2 consideration when we developed the proposed rule.
3 We're seeking public input on the proposed 4 rule to influence regulations that will guide future 5 nuclear power plant decommissioning, and the rule 6 addresses several regulatory areas which you will hear 7 about in more detail from Dan and Howard as they go 8 through the rule.
9 We hope today's meeting will help you 10 better understand the proposed rule, we look forward 11 to your feedback and questions today. But please note 12 that the NRC will not be responding in writing to any 13 verbal comments from today's meeting, so comments must 14 be submitted in writing through the methods described 15 in the Federal Register Notice to receive formal 16 consideration in the rulemaking.
17 This is the sixth public meeting on the 18 proposed rule and this is technically the last public 19 meeting we'll have, but Dan will talk about the 20 extension of the comment period. Thank you very much.
21 Dan?
22 MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you very 23 much. Good evening. My name is Dan Doyle, I'm the 24 senior project manager for this rulemaking about 25 decommissioning nuclear reactors.
NEAL 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 If you attended any of our previous 2 meetings please note that the first half of this 3 meeting, the NRC staff presentation is going to be the 4 same material, we're going to give a high level 5 overview of what's in the rulemaking, and then we'll 6 open it up for question and answer for the rest of the 7 time.
8 And then one final note before we move 9 ahead on the meeting platform itself, those attending 10 online, we are using Microsoft Teams for the meeting 11 today and underneath the slides you should see arrows 12 to be able to move forward and backward. Just wanted 13 to point out that that only affects your view, so if 14 you wanted to move ahead or back to look at anything 15 you are welcome to do that, that doesn't affect anyone 16 else and you should also be able to click the links on 17 the screen there if you wanted to open up any of the 18 documents.
19 For any of the people here in person, I'll 20 be showing a website that has information about the 21 rulemaking, including the slides here today, that has 22 links to all of the documents. All right, next slide, 23 please.
24 All right. So I'll be providing a 25 background and status of the rulemaking. So a very NEAL 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 brief overview about why the NRC started this 2 rulemaking, there was a increase in nuclear power 3 plant shutdowns, this lead the NRC to focus its 4 attention on some changes that we believe needed to be 5 made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 6 the transition for nuclear power plants to the 7 decommissioning process.
8 We initiated the rulemaking in December of 9 2015 to explore changes related to that process. As 10 Trish mentioned we've already completed some extensive 11 public outreach, we solicited early comments on an 12 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we also issued 13 what we call a regulatory basis document, we had 14 public comment periods on both of those and also 15 public meetings. Information about both of those 16 outreach efforts is available on the public website 17 that I'll be showing later.
18 So the recent update and the reason that 19 we're having this meeting today is because we 20 published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on 21 March 3, 2022, the citation is 87 FR 12254.
22 So we are in the public comment period 23 right now, the NRC received a request to extend the 24 comment period from 75 days to 180 days, we will be 25 granting that request so the new deadline for public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 comments will be August 30, 2022.
2 And the Federal Register notice about this 3 extension should be published within the next week, so 4 if you look at it right now it, I believe, would still 5 say that the deadline is May 17 but we are extending 6 that to August 30. Next slide, please.
7 For convenience we have two slides that 8 list all the key documents associated with this 9 proposed rule, with links to access them directly. So 10 in the first slide here we have, again, that citation 11 for the proposed rule with links to the web version 12 and the printed version, and then the supporting and 13 related materials.
14 We have a draft regulatory analysis which 15 discusses the cost and benefits that we've identified 16 associated with this action, a draft environmental 17 assessment for compliance with the National 18 Environmental Policy Act, draft supporting statements 19 for information collections for compliance with the 20 Paperwork Reduction Act.
21 We have an additional document, the 22 Unofficial Redline Rule Text, so I will talk about 23 that after we get through the topic slides. But 24 basically that document, the Unofficial Redline Rule 25 Text, shows how the proposed rule would modify 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
15 1 current rule language in a redline strikeout format, 2 meaning, this text would be deleted, this text would 3 be inserted. So you can see that in context.
4 Hopefully the title makes it clear that 5 it's unofficial, it's not the official legal version 6 of the rule language, the official version is what's 7 published in the Federal Register, but it may be 8 helpful for your understanding of the changes that 9 we're making. But please don't rely just on that 10 document, if there is a difference or discrepancy, 11 then what's published in the Federal Register is the 12 official version. Next slide.
13 We're also updating four guidance 14 documents as part of this rulemaking, so they are 15 available for public comment as well, they're listed 16 here on the slide.
17 The first one is a new regulatory guide 18 and the other three are updates to existing regulatory 19 guides, so the first one, Draft Guide-1346 is related 20 to emergency planning for decommissioning nuclear 21 power plants.
22 The second one, Draft Guide-1347 would be 23 an update to Reg Guide 1.184, Decommissioning Nuclear 24 Power Plants.
25 The third one, Draft Guide-1348 is 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
16 1 update to Reg Guide 1.159, Availability of Funds for 2 Decommissioning Production Utilization Facilities.
3 And the last one, Draft Guide-1349 would 4 be an update to Reg Guide 1.185, Standard Format and 5 Content for a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities 6 Report.
7 So these four documents are also out for 8 public comment now, if you have comments on the rule 9 and the guidance please submit that all together in 10 the same document. It's all going to the same place, 11 you don't need to submit separate comment submissions 12 on the rule and the guidance, just please go ahead and 13 submit it all together. Next slide, please.
14 So for this part of the meeting we will be 15 giving an overview of the proposed rule, so we'll 16 start with a general discussion of the graded approach 17 concept that we'll be mentioning throughout the 18 presentation, and how that's been applied to several 19 technical areas related to decommissioning.
20 And the rest of the slides are going to 21 give an overview of each of the 16 technical topics, 22 technical areas or technical topics in the proposed 23 rule.
24 And then I would also like to point out 25 that I'm the Rulemaking Project Manager, I'm serving NEAL 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 as a spokesman for the rule today, but we have a great 2 team of NRC staff who are the subject matter experts 3 on each of these topics. And many of them are on the 4 line here or in the room, and will be available to 5 support as needed when we get to the question and 6 answer session. Next slide, please.
7 Okay, sorry for the small text but I'll 8 just try to highlight some of the important points 9 here, this slide is trying to convey this graded 10 approach concept that we are taking in this proposed 11 rule, where different levels of requirements apply at 12 different stages of the decommissioning process.
13 So across the top of the table are the 14 four levels that are used in the proposed rule as a 15 facility goes through the decommissioning process, 16 level one begins after the facility dockets the two 17 required certifications. One is for permanent 18 cessation of operations and the other is that the fuel 19 has been removed from the reactor vessel.
20 Level two is, after a period of sufficient 21 decay of the spent fuel, which would be, generically, 22 10 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for 23 a pressurized water reactor, if they meet the criteria 24 that we've listed in the proposed rule.
25 And then level three would be, once all NEAL 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 the fuel has been moved into dry cask storage. And 2 then level four would be when all of the fuel is off-3 site.
4 The rows in this table show the topic 5 areas that have updated requirements, linked to these 6 levels. Emergency preparedness, as we will explain, 7 would use all four of the levels, starting with the 8 post-shutdown emergency plan at level one through 9 level four where there's no longer a need for an on-10 site radiological emergency response plan because all 11 fuel is off-site.
12 The other topic areas that use the graded 13 approach, which we'll discuss in a little more detail 14 as we go through the slides, include physical 15 security, cyber security, and on-site, off-site 16 insurance. Next slide, please.
17 So this is the first of the 16 topic 18 slides, for each of these topic slides you'll see a 19 summary of the proposed changes. The box in the upper 20 right identifies the section in the proposed rule 21 where we have a more detailed discussion of the topic, 22 as well as the page numbers.
23 We've also listed all of the sections in 24 the Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR, that would be 25 changed. And where it says, specific request 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
19 1 comments, on each of the slides we'll point out if the 2 NRC has included a specific question that we were 3 asking the public to consider to provide feedback on, 4 related to that topic.
5 Below that we have additional information, 6 if there's anything else we wanted to point out to 7 bring to your attention. And at the very bottom we 8 just have a progress bar showing which topic we're on, 9 and the topics that are coming up, or were recently 10 completed.
11 All right, so, moving on with this topic, 12 Emergency Preparedness, because the current 13 regulations don't provide a means to distinguish 14 between the EP requirements that apply to an operating 15 reactor and those that apply to a reactor that has 16 permanently ceased operations, decommissioning 17 licensees have historically requested exemptions from 18 EP requirements, the proposed rule would provide 19 common EP requirements for reactors in 20 decommissioning, eliminating the need for specific 21 exemptions or license amendments.
22 Because the decreased risk of off-site 23 radiological release and the fewer types of possible 24 accidents that can occur at a decommissioning reactor, 25 the proposed EP requirements align with that reduction NEAL 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 in risk while maintaining safety.
2 So, the changes we are proposing here, 3 we're proposing to add a new section to the 4 regulations, it would be in 10 CFR 50.200, that would 5 provide planning standards and requirements for post-6 shutdown and permanently de-fueled emergency plans.
7 The proposed standards and requirements 8 for emergency plans are consistent with the level of 9 planning that the Commission has previously approved 10 for decommissioned facilities.
11 The proposed planning requirements also 12 ensure close coordination and training with off-site 13 response organizations is maintained throughout the 14 decommissioning process.
15 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 16 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option to use 17 the tiered requirements and standards at the 18 appropriate time in decommissioning, and to add a new 19 process by which licensees can make changes to the 20 emergency plans to transition between these levels.
21 We do have two specific questions that we 22 were asking for input on, the first one is, we're 23 asking stake holders to identify what they see as the 24 advantages and disadvantages of requiring dedicated 25 radiological emergency planning, including a 10 mile NEAL 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 emergency planning zone, until all spent fuel at a 2 site is removed from the spent fuel pool and placed in 3 dry cask storage. Is there additional information 4 that the NRC should consider in evaluating whether 5 all-hazards planning would as effective as a dedicated 6 radiological emergency planning.
7 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 8 be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 9 response to a spent fuel pool accident, based on an 10 all-hazards plan. Is there additional information 11 that the NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?
12 The second specific question is related to 13 emergency response data systems, so nuclear power 14 facilities that are shutdown permanently or 15 indefinitely are currently not required to maintain 16 these systems, they transmit near-real time electronic 17 data between the licensee's on-site computer system 18 and the NRC operation center. Licensees in level one 19 would maintain a capability to provide meteorological, 20 radiological, and spent fuel pool data to the NRC 21 within a reasonable time frame following an event.
22 What are the advantages and disadvantages 23 of requiring nuclear power plant licensees to maintain 24 those aspects of the emergency response data system 25 until all spent fuel is removed from the pool?
NEAL 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 And we do have, as I mentioned, updated 2 draft guidance document, Draft Guide-1346, that would 3 provide guidance to implement the requirements in the 4 proposed rule.
5 The NRC staff believes that these changes 6 will establish EP requirements commensurate with the 7 reduction in radiological risk as licensees proceed 8 through the decommissioning process while 9 continuing to provide reasonable assurance that 10 protective actions can and will be taken, and 11 maintaining EP is a final, independent layer of 12 defense-in-depth. Next slide, please.
13 I will be alternating, as Trish mentioned, 14 with Howard Benowitz for some of these topics, so the 15 next topic is backfit rule. Howard?
16 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan. Good evening, 17 everyone. I'm Howard Benowitz with the NRC's Office 18 of the General Counsel, and on slide 14 we're looking 19 at proposed changes to the NRC's backfit rule.
20 The backfit rule for nuclear power 21 reactors is found in section 50.109 of the NRC's 22 regulations. In general, a backfit occurs when the 23 NRC takes an action, such as issuing a new regulation, 24 that changes an existing license or other approval.
25 The backfit rule requires the NRC to justify such 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
23 1 action using criteria provided in Section 50.109.
2 The decommissioning proposed rule would 3 provide a new backfitting provision for nuclear power 4 reactor licensees and decommissioning, the proposed 5 rule would re-number the paragraphs of Section 50.109.
6 So Paragraph (a) would be the current backfit rule 7 for operating nuclear power reactors, and then a new 8 Paragraph (b) would be the new rule text for 9 decommissioning nuclear power reactor licensees.
10 The NRC is also proposing edits to the 11 backfitting provision in Part 72 of our regulations, 12 so that that provision would apply during the 13 decommissioning of a monitored retrievable storage 14 facility or an independent spent fuel storage 15 installation, also known as an ISFSI.
16 The proposed rule would also revise a 17 requirement that the NRC must consider the cost of 18 imposing a backfit if the basis for the backfit is, 19 what is known as the compliance exception, to the 20 requirement to perform a backfit analysis.
21 The default justification for backfitting 22 is a backfit analysis but there are some exceptions, 23 and one of them is when the backfit would be necessary 24 for compliance with a requirement.
25 This proposed change is based on a 2019 NEAL 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 update to the Commission's backfitting policy in 2 Management Directive 8.4, that is a NRC system of 3 policies called Management Directives, and 8.4 is 4 Management Directive 8 and then Section 8.4, which you 5 can find on the NRC's public website.
6 And in the Federal Register notice for the 7 proposed rule we do ask a question, or request 8 specific comment, on whether the backfit rule should 9 be applied to power reactor licensees that are in 10 decommissioning. And with that, I turn it back to Dan 11 for the next slide, please.
12 MR. DOYLE: Okay, slide 15, we are making 13 some changes related to environmental reviews for 14 decommissioning reactors.
15 The proposed rule clarifies environmental 16 reporting requirements in the Post-Shutdown 17 Decommissioning Activities Report, or PSDAR, where 18 licensees are required to evaluate the environmental 19 impacts from site-specific decommissioning activities 20 and provide the basis for why the impacts would be 21 bounded or not bounded by the impacts analyzed in 22 previous environmental reviews.
23 The NRC Commissioners provided direction 24 in their staff requirements memorandum, regarding the 25 consideration of any identified unbounded impacts.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 The proposed rule changes would allow 2 licensees to incorporate impact analyses from 3 previously issued federal environmental review 4 documents in demonstrating compliance with 5 environmental justice, the Endangered Species Act, the 6 National Historic Preservation Act, and other 7 environmental statute requirements or seek appropriate 8 regulatory approval prior to conducting the 9 decommissioning activity.
10 The proposed rule would also remove 11 regulatory language authorizing certain 12 decommissioning activities in 10 CFR Part 51 for power 13 reactors.
14 In developing the proposed rule, the NRC 15 considered and dismissed a proposal to approve the 16 licensee's Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities 17 Report before allowing major decommissioning 18 activities to begin, the proposal was dismissed by the 19 NRC on the basis that requiring approval of a PSDAR 20 would have no additional public health and safety 21 benefit.
22 However, in accordance with the 23 Commission's direction to the staff, the NRC is 24 including a specific request for comment on whether 25 the NRC should approve the PSDAR, conduct a site-NEAL 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 specific environmental review of planned 2 decommissioning activities, and have a hearing prior 3 to allowing any decommissioning activities to begin.
4 Other than the review and approval of the 5 PSDAR, are there other proposals that could help the 6 NRC improve public trust and increase transparency in 7 the agency's decommissioning regulatory framework.
8 Also, should the NRC provide a specific 9 role for state local governments in the NRC's 10 decommissioning process, and if so, what should that 11 role be? So this is one of our specific requests for 12 comment related to this topic -- or, I'm sorry, those 13 are the specific requests.
14 And then also, as noted, we are updating 15 two of our guidance documents, the two draft guides 16 that are listed, related to preparation of a Post-17 Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report consistent 18 with proposed rule changes.
19 We are also preparing to update the 20 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 21 decommissioning nuclear power reactors, that's known 22 as the decommissioning GEIS. That update is being 23 conducted separate from this rulemaking, but we did 24 want to point that out because that was included in 25 the staff requirements memorandum, but it's not part NEAL 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 of the proposed rule. Next slide, please. Back to 2 Howard.
3 MR. BENOWITZ: Yes, thanks. On slide 16, 4 the proposed rule would clarify that the license 5 termination requirements in Sections 50.82 and 52.110 6 only apply to nuclear power reactor licensees that 7 have loaded fuel into their reactors consistent with 8 historical NRC practice.
9 These license termination provisions are 10 written for reactors that have commenced operation, 11 and the NRC has historically viewed operation as 12 beginning with the loading of fuel into a reactor, and 13 this is discussed in the proposed rule Federal 14 Register notice.
15 The NRC is proposing these changes because 16 some confusion arose a few years ago about whether 17 Section 52.110 was applicable when certain, combined 18 license holders sought to terminate their licenses 19 during construction or even before construction began 20 for their particular reactors.
21 The NRC informed these licensees that 22 Section 52.110 did not apply, for reasons that are 23 also documented in the proposed rule Federal Register 24 notice.
25 We do not ask any specific request 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
28 1 comments on this particular issue, but we do request 2 that you take a look at what we're proposing here and, 3 if you have any comments, please submit them. Next 4 slide, please.
5 MR. DOYLE: Decommissioning funding 6 assurance, for this topic we have two slides. So, 7 the summary of changes on this topic, the proposed 8 rule modifies the biennial decommissioning trust 9 fund reporting frequency for operating reactors, 10 which is located in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent 11 with the three year reporting frequency for 12 independent spent fuel storage installations, or 13 ISFSIs.
14 We're making two changes related to 15 ISFSI funding reports. One is that it would allow 16 licensees to combine the reports require by the 17 regulations listed on the slide. The other related 18 change is that the proposed rule would remove the 19 requirement for NRC approval of the report filed 20 under 10 CFR 72.30(c). The proposed rule would 21 clarify that when a licensee identifies a shortfall 22 in the report, the licensee must obtain additional 23 financial assurance to cover the shortfall, and 24 discuss that information in the next report.
25 And then the final item displayed here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 is the proposed rule would make administrative 2 changes to ensure consistency with 10 CFR 50.4, 3 written communications regarding the submission of 4 notifications, and to eliminate a redundancy in the 5 regulations.
6 Next slide please. We do have several 7 requests for comment, suggested questions to 8 consider on this topic. Financial assurance, what 9 are the advantages and disadvantages of updating 10 the formula to reflect recent data and to cover all 11 estimated radiological decommission costs, rather 12 than the bulk of the costs?
13 For site specific cost analysis, the 14 question is what are the advantages and 15 disadvantages of requiring a full site 16 investigation and characterization at the time of 17 shutdown and of eliminating the formula and 18 requiring a site specific cost estimate during 19 operations.
20 The third one, decommissioning trust 21 funds. Should the NRC's regulations allow 22 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for 23 spent fuel management if there's a projected 24 surplus in the fund based on a comparison of the 25 expected costs identified in the site specific cost NEAL 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 estimate, and the assets are returned to the fund 2 within an established period of time?
3 What are the advantages and 4 disadvantages of allowing decommissioning trust 5 fund assets to be used for those purposes? What 6 are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing 7 decommissioning trust fund assets for non-8 radiological site restoration prior to the 9 completion of radiological decommissioning?
10 Regarding the timing of decommissioning 11 trust fund assurance reporting, what are the 12 advantages and disadvantages of extending the 13 reporting frequency from two years to three years?
14 Does this change affect the risk of insufficient 15 decommissioning funding? And the final one, 16 identical requirements under 10 CFR 50.82, and 17 52.110.
18 We are proposing conforming changes 19 between those two regulations, the questions I 20 asking whether the NRC should maintain identical 21 requirements in those two regulations. Excuse me?
22 Well, the numbers are 10 CFR 50.82, and 52.110.
23 I'm sorry, there was a question from the crowd, 24 what are the regulations? There's a lot more 25 that's in there, we could pull it up, or I could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 point it to you. Or I could get someone to provide 2 more of a summary. There are regulations related 3 to termination of a license, or a reactor license 4 under 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52.
5 Okay, and we do also have proposing 6 conforming changes to Reg Guide 1.159, assuring the 7 availability of funds for decommissioning 8 production and utilization facilities.
9 Next slide, please. Okay, this one is 10 also me. Onsite and offsite financial protections, 11 requirements, and indemnity agreements. The 12 changes on this topic would provide regulatory 13 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of 14 decommissioned reactors to request regulatory 15 exemptions for relief from requirements that should 16 apply only to operating reactor licensees.
17 There are two specific questions on 18 this topic. The first one is what are the 19 advantages and disadvantages of requiring the 20 existing level of insurance to be maintained until 21 all spent fuel is in dry cask storage? Which would 22 be level three. And then we also have a question 23 related to insurance for specific license ISFSIs.
24 The NRC recognizes that as a reactor 25 site is decommissioned, eventually all that remains NEAL 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 of the site is a general license ISFSI under 10 CFR 2 Part 72, which is essentially the same as a 3 specific license ISFSI under that same regulation.
4 So, general, and specific license. Considering 5 that specific license ISFSIs have no financial 6 protection requirements, should the NRC address 7 this disparity between specific license and general 8 license ISFSIs as part of this rulemaking?
9 Please provide an explanation. Next 10 topic, slide 20, Howard.
11 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks Dan. This slide, 12 slide 20 concerns a provision we have in the NRC's 13 regulations regarding foreign ownership, control, 14 or domination. It's section 50.38 of our 15 regulations, and it prohibits a foreign owned, 16 controlled, or dominated entity from applying for 17 and obtaining a license for a facility that is 18 licensed under Part 50 or Part 52 of our 19 regulations.
20 The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's 21 regulations provide definitions for utilization 22 facility and production facility. Additionally, 23 some of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in 24 our regulations, such as the foreign ownership, 25 control, or domination prohibition apply only to 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 utilization facility or a production facility.
2 This comes into play in decommissioning 3 because during decommissioning activities, a 4 utilization facility or a production facility will 5 be dismantled to the point at which it no longer 6 meets the definition of a utilization facility or 7 production facility. The proposed rule adds 8 language to establish the criteria for when exactly 9 a utilization facility or a production facility is 10 no longer a utilization facility or a production 11 facility due to the dismantling process.
12 The proposed rule also adds language to 13 affirm that despite this change in the physical 14 nature of the facility, the NRC continues to have 15 statutory authority over the existing Part 50, or 16 Part 52 license. And that the NRC regulations 17 applicable to utilization or production facilities 18 would continue to apply to the holder of that Part 19 50 or Part 52 license unless the regulations 20 explicitly state otherwise.
21 One of those provisions would be the 22 foreign ownership, control, or domination 23 provision. The proposed rule would amend that, the 24 prohibition in section 50.38, to state that it 25 would no longer apply once the Part 50 or Part 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
34 1 facility has been dismantled such that it no longer 2 is a utilization, or a production facility.
3 Therefore the NRC's regulations would 4 not prohibit the transfer of the Part 50 or Part 52 5 license for a facility that is no longer a 6 utilization facility, or a production facility to a 7 foreign owned, controlled, or dominated entity. We 8 did not have any specific request for comment on 9 these proposed changes. However, please review 10 them and submit any comments that you might have.
11 Thank you. Next slide please.
12 MR. DOYLE: Okay, physical security.
13 As I mentioned, there are 16 topics, and appreciate 14 you hanging with us to go through these. We're 15 trying to provide a summary, but I understand you 16 may need to read in more detail. It's hard to 17 digest all this. But we did want to include it, 18 and kind of walk through what's in the slides.
19 And again, we're happy to take 20 questions. So, I have the next three, we are 21 making some changes to physical security. The 22 proposed rule would allow certain changes to 23 eliminate licensee requests for approvals via 24 exemptions amendments and certain adjustments to 25 their physical security programs.
NEAL 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 Current security requirements do not 2 reflect the reduced risk for a decommissioning 3 facility after fuel is removed from the reactor 4 vessel. When the fuel is transferred to a spent 5 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that's 6 relied upon for the safe operation of the facility 7 is significantly reduced, which allows for certain 8 security measures to be eliminated because their 9 implementation is no longer needed.
10 Or the security measures can be 11 adjusted for the physical protection program during 12 decommissioning. Because certain security measures 13 can be adjusted, or are no longer necessary for 14 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions and 15 amendments have been submitted by licensees to 16 address this new posture.
17 For example, the control room is 18 specifically identified in the current regulations 19 as an area that must be protected as a vital area.
20 The proposed rule proposes to eliminate the need 21 to identify the control room as a vital area when 22 all vital equipment is removed from the control 23 room and when the area does not act as a vital area 24 boundary for other vital areas.
25 Also, current security regulations 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
36 1 a power reactor licensee require the use of a 2 licensed senior operator for the suspension of 3 security measures during emergencies. For 4 permanently shut down and defueled reactors, 5 licensed senior operators are no longer required.
6 The proposed rule would allow certified fuel 7 handlers to be used to suspend security measures 8 during emergencies at a decommissioned facility.
9 And lastly, to eliminate the need for 10 submission of license amendment and exemptions for 11 licensee transitions to an ISFSI, the NRC is 12 proposing that once all spent fuel has been placed 13 into dry cask storage, licensees may elect to 14 protect the general license ISFSI in accordance 15 with the physical security requirements that are 16 consistent with Part 72, subpart H, and 10 CFR 17 73.51. Licensees would continue to address the 18 applicable security related orders associated with 19 an ISFSI that are conditions of the license. Next 20 slide please.
21 We are making some changes for cyber 22 security. So consistent with that graded approach, 23 that table that we had back at the beginning.
24 The proposed rule would continue to 25 apply the cyber security requirements 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
37 1 decommissioned plants through level one until the 2 risk of -- I'm sorry, level two -- the risk of 3 public health, and safety is significantly reduced.
4 Specifically the cyber security requirement would 5 be applicable until the fuel is permanently removed 6 from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool and 7 after the period of sufficient cooling.
8 Under the proposed rule, power reactor 9 licensees under both Part 50 or Part 52 have two 10 ways of licensing power reactors. Licensees under 11 either of those ways would be subject to the same 12 requirement. So, what that would mean for a Part 13 50 licensee, is that the proposed rule would remove 14 a license condition that currently exists that 15 requires licensees to maintain the cyber security 16 plan because that requirement would be in the rule.
17 And for Part 52 combined license 18 holders, the proposed rule would extend the 19 requirement to maintain a cyber security plan 20 during decommissioning, which would be a new 21 requirement compared to how the requirements are 22 today. So, this rule would make them more 23 consistent.
24 For currently operating or recently 25 shutdown Part 50 reactor licensees, because 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
38 1 cyber security plan is included as a license 2 condition, the license condition to maintain the 3 program per cyber security plans remains in effect 4 until the termination of the license or the NRC 5 removes the condition from the license.
6 So, the proposed rule, this requirement 7 would not constitute back fitting, because it would 8 codify what's already imposed requirements during 9 level one of decommissioning until the spent fuel 10 has cooled sufficiently. So, this is not the case 11 for the Part 52 combined license holders, so the 12 proposed rule would be considered a new requirement 13 for that time period.
14 Because operational programs, such as 15 the security program that include cyber security 16 program are requirements in the regulations, and 17 are not separately identified as license conditions 18 as they are for Part 50 licensees. So, presently 19 the combined license holders are required to 20 maintain a cyber security program only as long as 21 regulation 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them.
22 So, that means that combined license 23 holders are not required to maintain their programs 24 during decommissioning because the power reactor 25 licensee is not authorized to operate the reactor NEAL 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 during decommissioning. We do have a specific 2 request for comment on this topic. So, the 3 proposed rule would apply the cyber security 4 requirements to level one plants.
5 Okay, I'm sorry, I misspoke a minute 6 ago. It would apply the cyber security 7 requirements to level one plants, however a 8 licensee in level two would not be required to 9 maintain a cyber security plan because the NRC has 10 determined that there is significantly reduced risk 11 of a spent fuel pool fire.
12 What are the advantages and 13 disadvantages of extending the cyber security 14 requirements to shut down nuclear power plants 15 until all spent fuel is transferred to dry cask 16 storage? So, the change in 73.54 is identified as 17 a change affecting issue finality, which according 18 to our procedures, we have to have a specific 19 analysis in that, and that's included in the 20 appropriate section of the proposed rule of a back 21 fit analysis.
22 Next slide please. We do have some 23 changes related to drug and alcohol testing. The 24 proposed rule would make three changes on this 25 topic that I'd like to point out. It would amend NEAL 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 the regulation that discusses the scope of these 2 requirements to correct an inconsistency with how 3 Part 26 applies to those Part 50 or Part 52 license 4 holders.
5 So, Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 6 license holder once the NRC dockets the 7 certifications that the power reactor has 8 permanently ceased operations, that's what formally 9 begins the decommissioning process. However Part 10 26 continues to apply to the holder of a combined 11 license issued under Part 52 throughout 12 decommissioning.
13 The NRC believes that there is no 14 technical basis for this inconsistency, and the 15 proposed rule would revise the regulation that 16 discusses the scope of these requirements to 17 specify that Part 26 also no longer applies to a 18 Part 52 license holder once the NRC dockets those 19 certifications for permanent cessation of 20 operations.
21 The next changes are related to 22 criminal penalties. There was a change from a 2008 23 final rule that should have been identified as 24 something subject to criminal penalties, it was an 25 oversight, and we're correcting that oversight by NEAL 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 listing that as a regulation that is subject to 2 criminal penalties if violated. The third change 3 is related to what's called an insider mitigation 4 program.
5 There's a requirement that licensees 6 maintain this program and that it contain elements 7 of the fitness for duty program described in Part 8 26, but current regulations do not identify which 9 program elements must be included. So, this 10 proposed rule would establish the required elements 11 of the fitness for duty program in an insider 12 mitigation program for both operating and 13 decommissioning reactors under Parts 50 and 52.
14 Next slide please, 24.
15 MR. BENOWITZ: Okay, thanks Dan. The 16 NRC is proposing to withdraw an order and remove 17 license conditions that are substantively redundant 18 with existing provisions in our regulations. The 19 order is Order EA-06-137, which concerns mitigation 20 strategies for large fires or explosions at nuclear 21 power plants. This order was issued after the 22 events of 9/11.
23 A few years later, the NRC issued a 24 final rule that included many of the requirements 25 that were in the order. The license conditions NEAL 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 that we would be removing are the conditions 2 associated with that order and another post 9/11 3 order, Order EA-02-026. The proposed rule would 4 also remove the cyber security license condition 5 that Dan just mentioned.
6 The license conditions would be deemed 7 removed in the final rule. They would actually be 8 removed by the NRC staff through what we call an 9 administrative license amendment. This means that 10 the licensees would not have to submit requests to 11 amend their licenses to remove these redundant 12 license amendments. The staff would issue, after 13 the final rule goes into effect, the staff would 14 issue the license amendments to the licensees.
15 The NRC included in the Federal 16 Register notice for the proposed rule a specific 17 request for comment on this topic. We are 18 interested in obtaining stakeholder input to 19 identify any other potential redundant requirements 20 that we did not include in the proposed rule. Next 21 slide, please.
22 MR. DOYLE: We are proposing some 23 changes related to spent fuel management planning.
24 The NRC staff identified ambiguity in the spent 25 fuel management decommissioning regulations due 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 a lack of cross referencing between Part 72 and 2 Part 50. The rulemaking clarifies this information 3 for consistency.
4 Specifically, there's a regulation in 5 10 CFR 72.218 which states that the spent fuel 6 management program, which has a requirement in 10 7 CFR 50.54(bb), the irradiated fuel management plan, 8 or IFMP, that it must show how the spent fuel will 9 be managed before starting to decommission systems 10 and components needed for moving, unloading, and 11 shipping the spent fuel.
12 Section 72.218 also requires that an 13 application for termination of a reactor operating 14 license submitted under those two termination 15 regulations I mentioned earlier, 50.82 and 52.110, 16 must also describe how the spent fuel stored under 17 the Part 72 general license will be removed from 18 the reactor site.
19 So, although 10 CFR 72.218 states what 20 information must be included in those documents 21 required in Part 50, the corresponding regulations 22 in Part 50 do not contain that information.
23 Therefore, the NRC proposes to clarify, and align 24 the regulations in 50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110, and 25 72.218, those are the four I just mentioned, 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
44 1 ensure the appropriate documentation of spent fuel 2 management plans and decommissioning plans.
3 So, what are we changing? We're 4 proposing to move the 72.218 provisions to that 5 regulation in Part 50 to clarify that the IFMP must 6 be submitted and approved before the licensee 7 starts to decommission systems, structures, and 8 components needed for moving, unloading, and 9 shipping spent fuel.
10 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 11 IFMP approval process and the provisions in Part 50 12 regarding preliminary approval and final NRC review 13 of the IFMP. This is the current language that's 14 in the regulation that refers to proceedings that 15 no longer exist as they did when that regulation 16 was first issued by the NRC.
17 The NRC proposes to require submittal 18 of the initial IFMP and any subsequent changes as a 19 license amendment request. And in 72.218, we're 20 proposing to revise that regulation to address 21 requirements related to decommissioning and 22 termination of the Part 72 general license as the 23 title of that regulation suggests -- termination of 24 licenses.
25 Specifically, the proposed 72.218 notes NEAL 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 that the general license ISFSI must be 2 decommissioned consistent with the requirements in 3 50.82 and 52.110 as the general license ISFSI is 4 part of the Part 50 or 52 license site. Also, the 5 proposed regulation in Part 72 notes that the 6 general license is terminated upon termination of 7 the Part 50 or Part 52 license.
8 We do have a specific question that 9 we're asking stakeholders to consider providing 10 input on. The proposed rule clarifies that the 11 current IFMP approval process, by requiring 12 submittal of an initial IFMP and any changes for 13 NRC review and approval, that we're clarifying that 14 approval process.
15 We would like to know if stakeholders 16 see any challenges with implementing that part of 17 the proposed rule. We're also considering a change 18 control provision to specify what changes the 19 licensee can make to the IFMP without NRC approval.
20 So, we're asking for input on that -- on having a 21 change control process -- including the criteria 22 for changes that licensees would be able to make 23 without approval, without prior NRC approval, and 24 any associated record keeping or reporting 25 requirements for those changes. We are proposing NEAL 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 guidance to two draft guides consistent with these 2 changes for the IFMP.
3 We've added guidance into draft guide 4 1347 to outline the information to be included in 5 the IFMP, and then for general license ISFSI 6 decommissioning, we added reference to general 7 license ISFSIs in those two reg guides to make it 8 clear that a general license ISFSI must be 9 decommissioned consistent with the two different 10 requirements for termination of licenses under 52 11 or Part 50.
12 The staff believes that these changes 13 will provide regulatory clarity and enhance the 14 overall transparency and openness regarding 15 decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.
16 Next slide.
17 Low level waste transportation. When a 18 plant is actively being decommissioned, the plant 19 typically generates large volumes of bulk low level 20 waste.
21 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 25 transportation of the rail cars to the destination, NEAL 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 and the time to reach the disposal site is 2 generally more than -- the current regulations have 3 a 20 day notification requirement.
4 We're proposing to change that to 45 5 day limit to account for the additional time. Next 6 slide please.
7 This topic is certified fuel handler 8 definitions and elimination of the shift technical 9 advisor. So, kind of two topics in one, but they 10 were related, so we listed them together.
11 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed operators 12 that are commonly used at defueled nuclear 13 facilities with irradiated fuel in the spent fuel 14 pools.
15 The certified fuel handler is intended 16 to be the on-shift representative who is 17 responsible for safe fuel handling activities and 18 is always present on-shift to ensure safety of the 19 spent fuel and any decommissioning related 20 activities at the facility. Currently, a certified 21 fuel handler is qualified through a training 22 program that must be reviewed and approved by the 23 NRC.
24 The proposed rule would modify the 25 definition of this position and add a provision NEAL 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 that removes the need for NRC approval of the 2 training program if the training program is derived 3 from a systems approach to training and includes 4 specific topics that are listed in the proposed 5 rule.
6 Specifically, it must address the 7 topics of safe conduct of decommissioning 8 activities, safe handling and storage of spent 9 fuel, and appropriate response to plant 10 emergencies. The proposed rule would also clarify 11 that a shift technical advisor is not required for 12 decommissioning nuclear power reactors. Next 13 slide, please, slide 28.
14 MR. BENOWITZ: The NRC actually does 15 have some regulations that refer to licensees in 16 decommissioning. Not many, which is one of the 17 reasons why we are proposing these requirements and 18 amendments in this rulemaking. But the ones that 19 do refer to these licensees in decommissioning 20 often only refer to the Part 50 licensees in 21 decommissioning and whether the particular 22 regulation that contains that reference would be 23 applicable to the Part 50 licensees in 24 decommissioning. What this slide is describing is 25 the proposed changes to several regulations, 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
49 1 you can see them in the box in the top right corner 2 of the slide, where we would clarify that those 3 particular regulations that currently refer to only 4 Part 50 licensees in decommissioning also should 5 include a reference, and would include a reference, 6 to the Part 52 power reactor licensees in 7 decommissioning so that the applicability of those 8 particular regulations would be clear on the timing 9 of their applicability to the Part 50, or 52 power 10 reactor licensees in decommissioning.
11 We haven't asked for a specific request 12 for comment on this one, but for instance if you've 13 noticed that maybe we didn't catch all of them, we 14 think we have, but if there is a regulation that 15 you think should apply to power reactor licensees 16 in decommissioning, or should not, given the timing 17 of when these licensees enter decommissioning, 18 please let us know.
19 But the purpose here is primarily just 20 to ensure that power reactor licensees, whether 21 they're licensed under Part 50 of our regulations 22 or Part 52, that the regulations apply similarly to 23 both types of licensees. Next slide please.
24 MR. DOYLE: If we could back up one.
25 Record retention requirements. As noted, when a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 1 plant is no longer operating in decommissioning, 2 most plant components, such as pumps and valves, 3 are no longer in service and will eventually be 4 removed as part of the dismantlement activities.
5 So, therefore, there is no longer a need to 6 maintain certain records associated with these 7 components.
8 And the rulemaking eliminates many 9 record keeping retention requirements, however it 10 would not impact records that are required to be 11 maintained in support of decommissioning and 12 license termination activities. The proposed rule 13 also includes a specific question concerning the 14 record keeping requirements for facilities licensed 15 under Part 52.
16 One of the rulemaking's few proposed 17 changes in Part 52 would be regarding the record 18 keeping and retention requirements for departures 19 from the design of a facility. However, these 20 changes would not apply to a combined license 21 holder that references one of the certified designs 22 in one of the appendices in Part 52 because those 23 appendices have their own record keeping 24 provisions.
25 So, you do have this question that'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
51 1 asking if we should revise those appendices to 2 conform to the record keeping requirements with 3 those proposed in 10 CFR Part 52.63. Next slide 4 please.
5 So, that completes the overview of each 6 of those 16 topics that I mentioned, thank you for 7 sticking with us through that.
8 Hopefully that was a helpful high-level 9 overview and that could serve as a useful reference 10 to look into that further if you have additional 11 questions about that. So, what I'm showing on this 12 slide, as we mentioned throughout each of these 13 topics, there were a number of specific requests 14 for comment, so we did point those out.
15 All of them are listed on the slide 16 here, but we pointed them out on the previous 17 slides, where they were related to those topics.
18 There were three of them however that didn't 19 specifically relate to any of those topics. So, 20 I'll just briefly mention those here. One is the 21 time frame for decommissioning. So, to be clear, 22 we are not proposing a change to the time frame 23 requirements in this proposed rule.
24 But we are asking the question -- what 25 would you see as the advantages and disadvantages NEAL 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 of requiring prompt radiological decontamination 2 rather than allowing up to 60 years to complete 3 decommissioning for a site. And as part of the 4 NRC's review of a PSDAR, what are the advantages 5 and disadvantages of the NRC evaluating and making 6 a decision about the time frame for decommissioning 7 on a site specific basis?
8 The second one to point out is related 9 to exemptions. As stated in the proposed rule, one 10 of the goals of amending the regulations is to 11 reduce the need for regulatory exemptions, which is 12 governed by 10 CFR 50.12 -- states that the 13 Commission may grant exemptions from the 14 requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will 15 not present an undue risk to public health and 16 safety and is consistent with common defense and 17 security.
18 What are the advantages and 19 disadvantages of that current approach to 20 decommissioning-related exemptions? What standard 21 should the NRC apply in determining whether to 22 grant exemptions from these new or amended 23 regulations? What are the advantages and 24 disadvantages of providing an opportunity for 25 public to weigh in on such exemption requests? Are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
53 1 there other process changes that the NRC should 2 consider in determining whether to grant exemptions 3 from these proposed regulations?
4 And then the third one to point out is 5 applicability. So, we do have a discussion in the 6 proposed rule about how these changes apply to 7 licensees that are currently operating or licensees 8 that have already gone through the decommissioning 9 process, and are what we call just an ISFSI only 10 site or a standalone ISFSI with a decommissioned 11 reactor.
12 Permanently shut-down nuclear power 13 plants will be at different stages of 14 decommissioning when these new regulations become 15 effective and will have previously received varying 16 regulatory exemptions.
17 So, we are asking this question if 18 stakeholders see any implementation issues with how 19 we've described these changes as it's currently 20 written. For any of the new or amended 21 requirements in the rule, how should the 22 requirement apply to sites that are currently in 23 the different stages of decommissioning?
24 Okay, so that covers all the specific 25 requests. The page numbers are where those are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
54 1 listed in there. Next slide, please.
2 We do have, as I mentioned earlier, 3 what we call a regulatory analysis. This is a 4 document that looks at the costs and benefits of 5 what we're proposing. We try to take a holistic 6 look and identify costs and benefits to the NRC, to 7 the industry, to the general public.
8 So, this document is linked and 9 available for review on that earlier slide I 10 mentioned. So, this slide here, I'm just providing 11 an overview that the conclusion from the document 12 is that overall, these changes we believe would be 13 cost beneficial. We kind of add up all of what we 14 see as the benefits and the costs, and the benefits 15 would be greater by approximately 18 million, seven 16 percent, or 37 million at three percent discount.
17 The three topics that influence that 18 the most would be emergency preparedness of about 19 7.7 million. The drug and alcohol testing changes, 20 about 7 million, and decommissioning funding 21 assurance changes would be approximately 1.2 22 million. Next slide please.
23 We have a few slides -- next slide. A 24 few tips. I think many of you who are attending 25 virtually, or in person are familiar with 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
55 1 rulemaking process.
2 But whether you are or not hopefully 3 some of these tips will be helpful for you if you 4 do choose to prepare and submit comments, to 5 hopefully have those comments be more effective to 6 communicate what you're proposing to the NRC, and 7 for us to be able to consider that and give a good 8 response. So, the first tip is to consider taking 9 a look at this commenter's checklist.
10 This is on regulations.gov, which is 11 not run by the NRC -- this is a government-wide 12 website that many agencies use for providing 13 information about rulemaking and collecting public 14 comments. So, they have a checklist that's very 15 prominently posted on the comment submission form 16 right at the top it says click here to see the 17 checklist.
18 It's pretty short, and I think it's 19 pretty well written and understandable and gives 20 some good tips to think about. There's a link 21 there, you can get it from that comment form, and 22 it's also in printable format. Next slide please.
23 Next tip is to take a look at this 24 unofficial red line rule text. If you want to get 25 a different understanding, or you want to see what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 words in the Code of Federal Regulations, what 2 would actually change with this proposed rule --
3 what would be deleted, what would be added -- and 4 you could see it in context. Sometimes, if you 5 just look at a proposed rule, it's not so easy to 6 tell what the change would be. Maybe we say 7 replace this existing paragraph with this text, but 8 you'd have to just look at it and compare them side 9 by side to figure out what the actual change is.
10 Even though we do describe the change, 11 and we try to be clear about that, but we do have 12 to follow a required format. So, this is just a 13 different format of communicating that that we hope 14 would be helpful. So, it shows how the proposed 15 rule would modify the current regulations. And 16 that's the accession number and the direct link to 17 it.
18 The third and final tip is that we do 19 have this public website that we've put together, 20 intended to be a one stop shop for information 21 about this rulemaking activity. We have a direct 22 link to the proposed rule, all of the related 23 documents that I mentioned, there's a direct link 24 to the comment submission form, information about 25 all of our past public meetings.
NEAL 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 As Trish mentioned, this is our 6th, 2 and final one that we have scheduled at this time, 3 but all of our public meetings, we have information 4 about those on there. And then also those 5 additional background documents I mentioned from 6 the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and the 7 regulatory basis stage. So, you could scan that 8 code with your phone, and you could get it on your 9 phone.
10 There's a short URL that's listed right 11 there, and I also included my contact information 12 if you have any trouble accessing that or finding 13 it. Feel free to reach out to me, and I would be 14 happy to help you. Next slide please. So, this 15 slide is just summarizing how to actually submit a 16 comment -- these instructions are in the proposed 17 rule.
18 And just providing them here for 19 convenience. So, you can submit them, as I 20 mentioned, that website, regulations.gov, there's a 21 comment form. You can send it as an email, you can 22 type it into the email, or you can attach a 23 document to your email, and send it to 24 rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. You could also mail 25 it into us.
NEAL 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 So, I'll just put out there that our 2 preferred method is to submit it -- if you submit 3 it -- via regulations.gov. So, again, you could 4 type your comment in there, and you could also 5 upload it to regulations.gov. So, there's multiple 6 methods, hopefully that's pretty easy and straight 7 forward for you to submit it. Also you don't need 8 to submit using multiple methods.
9 You'll get a confirmation if you send 10 to regulations.gov or email, so you can be sure 11 that we received it, and don't need to submit it 12 again. Okay, next slide.
13 So, this is our summary of the next 14 steps as we wrap up the staff presentation. So, 15 the public comment period, again, will be extended 16 until August 30th. After we receive public 17 comments, the NRC will consider, and address those, 18 and develop an updated final rule, which we'll send 19 to the Commission.
20 We're estimating it as October 2023.
21 That date may be adjusted based on the change to 22 the public comment period, but we have not changed 23 that yet. After the Commission reviews, if they 24 approve the final rule, the estimated date for that 25 to be published would be around May 2024. And 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
59 1 concludes the staff presentation, I'll turn it back 2 to Brett. Next slide please.
3 MR. KLUKAN: Thanks Dan. So, a lot of 4 you came into the room after I started my initial 5 presentation, so I'm going to run through some high 6 level points very quickly, so we can get to the 7 question, and answer session. So, the purpose of 8 this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to 9 one, provide you an overview of the draft rule or 10 the proposed rule.
11 And to, during the question and answer 12 session, answer any questions you have about what's 13 in the draft rule. What are the current 14 regulations that aren't being changed by the draft 15 rule? The purpose of which is to help you prepare 16 to submit formal comments on the proposed rule.
17 Again, we are not soliciting those formal comments 18 tonight as part of the transcript for this record.
19 The purpose of this is to help you 20 figure out, okay, I have concerns about this, how 21 do I go about doing this? Even if you have 22 questions on the commenting process itself. Next, 23 again, we will go in room, alternate between in 24 room and virtual speakers. And I will go through 25 the process, once we get to it again, about how NEAL 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 virtual speakers are able to raise their hands.
2 If you haven't already, if you're in 3 the room, and know that you would like to ask 4 questions, please see Diane in the back of the room 5 to sign up your name. And then finally, I know 6 many of you -- well thank you for coming here this 7 evening first of all. Taking time out of your life 8 to participate in this meeting.
9 And I recognize that many of you are 10 participating in this meeting out of motivated by 11 strong concerns you have, or feelings with respect 12 to the matters we discussed earlier, they were 13 subjects of the NRC's presentation. The only thing 14 I would say about this is with respect to other 15 members of the public.
16 I would just ask that, particularly if 17 they're voicing opinions that are different from 18 your own, or contrary to what you believe, that you 19 act respectfully towards each other, to the other 20 members of the public in the room. With that, 21 before we go to public speakers or to the question 22 and answer session, I will start with elected 23 officials who have requested to make prepared 24 statements.
25 And we will begin with Jim Cantwell, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
61 1 who is the state director for Senator Markey. So, 2 if you would sir.
3 MR. CANTWELL: Thank you Brett, I 4 appreciate the opportunity to speak here. Daniel, 5 Patricia, and all the staff. We do appreciate your 6 time, and that you're bringing this information 7 back to folks at the NRC, hopefully for changes to 8 these rules. Good evening everyone, my name is Jim 9 Cantwell, I have the great honor of being Ed 10 Markey's state director here in Massachusetts.
11 I'll be delivering a statement on 12 behalf of Senator Markey. When it comes to the 13 decommissioning of nuclear power stations like 14 Pilgrim, the public's interest must always be the 15 top priority. As the chairman of the Senate 16 Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean 17 Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, I will continue 18 to work with Senator Warren, Congressman Keating, 19 and our colleagues in the Senate, and House to push 20 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prioritize 21 public engagement, public safety, and public health 22 over industry profits.
23 As a side note on local engagement, as 24 the local residents here at tonight's meeting 25 remember well, in August of 2019, the NRC approved NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
62 1 the transfer of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 2 license from Entergy Nuclear Operations to Holtec 3 International.
4 A ruling made even before it resolved 5 open petitions in the proceeding docket or answered 6 critical questions about safety, security, and 7 funding. Keeping Holtec's business interests on 8 schedule seemed to be a higher priority than 9 answering public questions. And this disregard for 10 public input isn't unique to Pilgrim.
11 We've seen it play out at other 12 decommissioning power plants across the country.
13 On Friday, Senator Markey goes on to say, I was 14 pleased to chair a United States Senate field 15 hearing at Plymouth Town Hall of the Environment 16 and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, 17 Climate, and Nuclear Safety. We received verbal 18 testimony from the Office of Nuclear Materials 19 Safety and Safeguards Director John Lubinski from 20 the NRC; from Dr. Kris Singh, the president of 21 Holtec International; Massachusetts State Senator 22 Sue Moran; and senior attorneys from the 23 Massachusetts Attorney General's Office; and the 24 Natural Resources Defense Council. There's some 25 testimony from all of those folks during 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
63 1 hearing last Friday -- made clear the need for a 2 stronger decommissioning rule that creates a more 3 meaningful role for our communities in the 4 decommissioning process.
5 The process decommissioning rule that 6 is currently open, and we're hearing tonight in 7 summary for public comment, serves as a critical 8 opportunity for the NRC to re-assert itself as an 9 independent, impartial regulator worthy of the 10 public's trust and to rebut a popular belief that 11 the NRC is a captured agency. Trust needs to be 12 earned.
13 Instead of simply approving the 14 proposed decommissioning rule, I hope the NRC takes 15 this opportunity to improve the rule. The current 16 version of this rule would cut public and state 17 engagement out of the decommissioning process.
18 Instead, stakeholders would be only able to 19 participate in the regulatory and adjudicatory 20 process over reviews and plans that are either too 21 old -- in the case of license amendments and 22 approvals -- too late -- in the case of license 23 amendments -- or too sparse. The proposed 24 decommissioning rule advocates the NRC's authority 25 and obligations over the decommissioning process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
64 1 taking a backseat role to the industry by, number 2 one, failing to require NRC approval of the post 3 shut down decommissioning activities report, PSDAR, 4 which you mentioned tonight, Daniel, which also 5 results in no NEPA assessment, a National 6 Environmental Policy Act assessment, of the 7 decommissioning plant. Number two, it's a back 8 seat role for allowing for an exemption-based 9 system of regulations rather than creating a new 10 framework that fits the needs of the 11 decommissioning sites, which allows for an unfunded 12 emergency response mandate to be passed onto nearby 13 communities.
14 By the way, we had testimony last 15 Friday, we heard just from one community, the town 16 of Marshfield, saying they had a $450,000 cost that 17 is passed onto them. We heard from Plymouth, $8 18 million dollars lost for revenues to them.
19 Number three, the back seat role.
20 Retaining the option to get a waiver in order to 21 use the decommissioning trust fund money for spent 22 fuel management without requiring reimbursement.
23 And number four, failing to include 24 more robust protections against damage to spent 25 fuel and storage casks, among many other issues.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 1 These are serious problems that cause financial and 2 safety issues for nearby communities and erode the 3 public trust in the NRC. But the NRC should 4 address these issues by throwing out the proposed 5 rule and delivering a stronger result instead.
6 By putting a stronger rule in place, 7 the NRC can ensure that communities have a seat at 8 the table when it comes to the decommissioning 9 process. They can better protect the safety and 10 financial health of every community. In closing, 11 the senator says I'm pleased that the NRC is 12 holding this hearing, we do appreciate your time, 13 and frankly that you all have done a great job 14 tonight giving us information.
15 So, we appreciate your time, these are 16 directed more for folks that you'll bring the 17 information back to hoping for changes. We are 18 grateful for the additional time that the 19 stakeholders will have, knowing that we have until 20 August now. I hope that the Commission takes this 21 opportunity to learn from the people who have the 22 most to lose and the least to gain from this 23 decommissioning process. We appreciate your time 24 tonight, thank you very much.
25 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Next NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 1 we'll hear from Mike Jackman, who is a district 2 director for Representative Bill Keating.
3 MR. JACKMAN: Thank you. Again, my 4 name is Michael Jackman, district director for 5 Congressman Bill Keating, couldn't be here tonight.
6 Thank you for allowing me to make a statement on 7 his behalf. I am calling upon the Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission to reject its proposed rule 9 for decommissioning power plants and to rewrite the 10 rule to include more robust oversight of licensees 11 in charge of the private companies entrusted with 12 the awesome responsibility of dismantling the aging 13 fleet of nuclear power stations across our nation.
14 At last week's field hearing of the 15 Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, 16 the NRC's director of Nuclear Material Safety 17 admitted that the decision of whether to discharge 18 effluent from the spent fuel pool is up to the 19 licensee. This response typifies the NRC's 20 approach to serious environmental and public safety 21 challenges posed by decommissioning.
22 Allow the licensee to determine what is 23 and isn't appropriate based on its own business 24 needs. This approach puts at risk the economy and 25 the environment of southeast Massachusetts because, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
67 1 as it stands today, the NRC has no mechanism to 2 prevent the current licensee from discharging 3 dangerous effluent into Cape Cod Bay.
4 Which will threaten not only marine 5 life, but also thousands of residents who rely on 6 the bay for their livelihoods. The new proposed 7 rule would not prevent a similarly situated 8 licensee elsewhere in the country from making 9 decisions regardless of environmental and economic 10 impacts, and must therefore be rejected.
11 The proposed new rule is also 12 inadequate in that it fails to require extended 13 physical safety, cyber security, and emergency 14 preparedness measures that will mitigate the 15 effects of any potential critical incident 16 associated with the decommissioning process.
17 In drafting a replacement to the 18 proposed new rule, I urge NRC to give itself a 19 stronger, more proactive role in overseeing the 20 activities of the licensees that will have an 21 impact on the residents of my district and to give 22 those residents a meaningful role in speaking out 23 about those decommissioning operations.
24 The cessation of power generation 25 operations and transfer of spent fuel out of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
68 1 pool lessens, but does not eliminate the safety 2 risk presented by the decommissioning plant. The 3 new rule must maintain security protocols at robust 4 levels to ensure the physical security of the site.
5 And the inviolability of the plant's 6 electronic and cyber security systems, as well as 7 monitor the integrity of the storage casks. I urge 8 the NRC to instill these important principles into 9 its new decommissioning rule. Thank you.
10 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Next 11 we'll hear from Liv Teixeira, who is a staff 12 assistant to Senator Warren. She is participating 13 virtually. Sarah, could you please unmute Liv 14 Teixeira please?
15 MS. LOPAS: Yes, I have done that.
16 Liv, your microphone is enabled, and I've also 17 enabled your camera, if you'd like to share your 18 camera.
19 MS. TEIXEIRA: Hi everybody, it looks 20 like my camera is not working at the moment, but 21 thank you so much for having me. I am happy to be 22 here to represent the senator, and to share a 23 statement on her behalf. So, her statement is as 24 follows -- hi, my camera's working. I am 25 disappointed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
69 1 is proposing a new decommissioning rule that 2 ignores repeated calls for enhanced transparency, 3 accountability, and community engagement.
4 This new rule was an important 5 opportunity that could have been used to strengthen 6 the decommissioning process and prioritize 7 community safety over industry savings. Instead, 8 the proposed rule continues to allow the NRC and 9 plant operators to cut corners on safety and limit 10 public engagement at the expense of the health and 11 wellbeing of the residents who live in communities 12 near these plants.
13 I, along with my delegation and local 14 partners, have continually urged the NRC to 15 increase its public and stakeholder engagement, 16 institute a comprehensive set of decommissioning 17 and cleanup regulations, and address concerns about 18 the safety of onsite storage and spent fuel.
19 Based on our collective experiences 20 with the decommissioning of the Pilgrim plant in 21 Plymouth, it is abundantly clear that these changes 22 are not only necessary, but also long overdue. Yet 23 none of these important considerations are included 24 in the proposed rule. Once again, I urge the NRC 25 to strengthen this decommissioning 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
70 1 I will continue to fight, and my vocal 2 partnerships with federal, state, and local 3 colleagues to ensure the decommissioning process 4 prioritizes public safety, and community 5 participation. Thank you.
6 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Now 7 I'll see if there are any other elected officials, 8 or representatives of elected officials in the room 9 with us this evening who would like to offer 10 prepared remarks at this time.
11 Seeing none, now if you are an elected 12 official or a representative of an elected official 13 participating virtually -- either on the phone or 14 on the Teams application -- and you would like to 15 offer a prepared statement at this time, you can do 16 so by through the Teams app raising your hand using 17 the raise hand button. Or if you're on the phone, 18 press star five, again that's star five to raise 19 your hand. And then when Sarah calls on you, you 20 need to press star six to unmute yourself, and then 21 you would also need to unmute yourself via Teams.
22 So, I'll give people a second, and then 23 I'll turn it over to Sarah to see if we have any 24 elected officials or representatives of officials 25 who have raised their hands at this time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
71 1 MS. LOPAS: I do see three folks with 2 raised hands, but as far as I'm aware, they're not 3 elected officials.
4 MR. KLUKAN: Okay. So, if that's 5 untrue, we apologize. We're now going to go to the 6 public question and answer portion of this meeting.
7 There are a number of you in the room tonight, I'm 8 going to try my best to get through as many of your 9 questions as possible out of fairness, of you 10 taking time out of your life to come here this 11 evening.
12 So, we are going to extend the meeting 13 to 8:30, because we're not probably going to get 14 through it by 8:00, that's not going to happen.
15 So, I talked to Trish beforehand, we'll go to 8:30.
16 So, we're going to get started as quickly as 17 possible. First up, because they indicated in 18 advance of the meeting they wouldn't be able to 19 come here tonight.
20 And that's before we knew how many of 21 you would be attending, we're going to first go to 22 Jim Lampert, or Mary Lampert, I'm not sure how 23 they're signed on. And they're participating via 24 Teams. So, Sarah, could you unmute James or Mary 25 Lampert? I don't know --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
72 1 MS. LOPAS: Yeah.
2 MR. KLUKAN: Okay, good, thank you.
3 MS. LOPAS: I'll start with James 4 because he's at the top of my list. Mary, you're 5 right below him. So, I'm going to allow mic for 6 James. James, you'll just need to unmute yourself, 7 and if you're not seeing how to unmute yourself, 8 James, you can just move your --
9 MR. LAMPERT: Can you hear me?
10 MS. LOPAS: Yeah, now we've got you, go 11 ahead.
12 MR. LAMPERT: Let me just say 13 something, preliminarily, as we get into this, I've 14 had some off, and on in my ability to connect via 15 the internet. If I drop off in volume, you can't 16 hear me, I expect I will probably drop off in the 17 video. I am also lined up to come in on one of 18 your phone links, so we might try that.
19 And I know my wife's comments will be 20 separate from mine.
21 MS. LOPAS: Okay, I see your cell 22 phone, so if you drop off on Teams, go ahead, and 23 you'll just press star five first, and then star 24 six, okay?
25 MR. LAMPERT: That's fine, that'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
73 1 great.
2 MS. LOPAS: Go ahead, you sound okay 3 now.
4 MR. LAMPERT: Good to see you tonight 5 Brett, it's been a long time, I'm sorry I can't be 6 there tonight, but COVID being what it is, I'm not.
7 I clearly will be submitting detailed comments as 8 you have requested. But as you know, time is 9 limited tonight, so I can only say a few things.
10 Initially your slides repeatedly say that the 11 purpose of the new rule is to clarify.
12 To some extent, this may be true. But 13 what it really seems to clarify is the NRC's 14 apparent goals to even further reduce your already 15 far too limited oversight of decommissioning. To 16 even further reduce, assuming that's possible, the 17 level of what you call public involvement. To even 18 further reduce the level of protection of the 19 public.
20 And -- and this is probably central to 21 everything -- to increase industry profits. Some 22 months ago, your own historian published a book 23 about your practices entitled Safe Enough. The 24 obvious question is safe enough for whom? The 25 industry? The NRC? Or the public? Essentially NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
74 1 the same question should be asked about the 2 statement in your slides.
3 Quote this proposed rule is determined 4 to be cost beneficial, close quote. For whom?
5 Again, not the public. The NRC will benefit and 6 will save money, since you will have decided in 7 advance that a plant does not need to comply with 8 many current NRC regulations. The nuclear industry 9 will benefit and save money because they no longer 10 have to even try to show you that a particular 11 plant needs, much less deserves, an exemption.
12 The public will save money, but it will 13 no longer be able to voice, and express its very 14 real concerns. Only the NRC would think that's a 15 benefit. The NRC claims, and I quote, that it 16 considers public involvement in, and information 17 about its activities to be a cornerstone of strong, 18 fair regulation of the nuclear industry, close 19 quote.
20 Many of us here would ask how you can 21 say that with a straight face. One of your atomic 22 safety board licensing judges found that you 23 provided the substantive relief requested in a 24 2.206 petition only once in more than 35 years.
25 Commissioner Baran has said -- and at last Friday'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
75 1 Senate Subcommittee hearing, one of your directors 2 confirmed -- that the real reason you don't approve 3 PSDARs is that if you did, you might have to allow 4 public participation.
5 Both my wife and I filed extensive 6 comments on Pilgrim's PSDARs. I don't think you 7 even acknowledged you received them. Three days 8 ago, your director admitted that the NRC has never 9 required a licensee to make any changes to a PSDAR.
10 According to Commissioner Baran, your current 11 regulatory system barely qualifies as a regulatory 12 system at all. I agree.
13 Nothing in your proposed rule changes 14 that, at least for the better. I hope you will, 15 but I have little hope that you will improve it.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. So, 18 before we go to Mary, let's go to a person in the 19 room. Again, the plan is to go back and forth. So, 20 I have Pat Watson. Pat Watson? And again, just to 21 repeat, for the sake of the transcription, state 22 your name, if you so choose, and any affiliation, 23 if you so choose. Do not say your address. It's 24 so the transcriptionist knows who is speaking.
25 MS. WATSON: Thank you. The NRC knows NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
76 1 that historically speaking -- Pat Watson, I'm 2 sorry, my name is Pat Watson. I live in East 3 Bridgewater. As the NRC knows, historically, the 4 biggest problem with nuclear power plants is how to 5 get rid of spent fuel rods. That's always the 6 biggest problem, that's always the biggest concern.
7 This is actually the first time I've 8 come or commented on a public hearing because I'm 9 just getting aware of this recently. And to say in 10 your slides that A, you have an operating nuclear 11 power plant, and now it's decommissioned, so it's 12 different, it's separate, and the EPA rules change.
13 How could the EPA rules change when 14 historically, and admitted by the NRC, when the 15 fuel rods, the worst part, and the hardest problem 16 of the whole nuclear power plant is how do you get 17 rid of that? That's the worst, most difficult, all 18 of a sudden now the EPA doesn't necessarily need to 19 apply the way it did under an operating.
20 That makes no sense whatsoever.
21 There's just so many holes in the process going 22 from an operating to a decommissioning. And I 23 think that basically -- and then to say -- I guess 24 it just lacks, there's holes in the whole process.
25 It lacks common sense, even all of us who are not, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
77 1 here, experts on how a nuclear power plant 2 operates.
3 And I think transparency would be 4 better served if you just talked -- I don't know, 5 have the opportunity for people to understand the 6 process, and know that it just doesn't make common 7 sense that the most dangerous part of a nuclear 8 power plant, the fuel rods would even -- the NRC 9 would even think it would be okay to dump those in 10 the ocean. That's all I have to say.
11 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. So, 12 next -- and again, I would ask out of courtesy, I 13 don't have any timer up here, that you try to keep 14 your questions to about four minutes, including any 15 follow ups. And then if we have additional time, 16 we'll go through again. I'm remiss that I didn't 17 see that earlier, but that's just out of based on 18 the number of people I think, when they speak 19 tonight.
20 So, no further delays. Next we will 21 have Mary Lampert, please, Sarah.
22 MS. LOPAS: Okay. Mary, I have enabled 23 your microphone, so you'll just need to unmute 24 yourself. And you look like you're all set. You 25 should be able to talk Mary. I do see your mic'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
78 1 enabled and not muted. Okay, nobody else is 2 hearing Mary?
3 MR. KLUKAN: No, we aren't. So, what I 4 would suggest is Mary, we will come back to you.
5 Maybe use the phone -- maybe you and Jim aren't in 6 the same location -- but we will come back to you 7 as our next speaker. So, let us go back to now in 8 the room. I think this is -- I don't know the 9 first name, Danielson, with the Seafood 10 Collaborative.
11 Okay, no comment, moving right along 12 then. Next we will have Pine duBois. No comment.
13 Maybe that was too easy -- all right, Leslie 14 Danielson, Leslie Danielson?
15 MS. DANIELSON: Hello, everyone, thank 16 you for taking comments this evening. My name is 17 Leslie Danielson, and I am a resident of Plymouth.
18 And I just have a comment about the Cape Cod Bay, 19 and the concerns with the ocean. Just a reminder 20 that Cape Cod Bay and the Atlantic Ocean do not 21 belong to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and do 22 not belong to Holtec. It is not yours to approve 23 any dumping into. Thank you.
24 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. All right, 25 Sarah, let's try Mary one more time if we can.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
79 1 MS. LOPAS: So, Mary looks like she 2 dropped off, I'm not seeing her. Mary, if you 3 happened to call in on your cell phone, go ahead, 4 and press star five right now, if you've called in.
5 Star five on your phone.
6 MR. KLUKAN: And again, if there are 7 others online, if you would like to ask a question 8 via Teams, or via phone, again, use the raise hand 9 function, or press star five if you're 10 participating via phone. We'll go to our next in 11 person speaker who is Henrietta Constantino --
12 MS. LOPAS: Hang on a second, I did get 13 a hand raised on the call, I just enabled 14 somebody's microphone on the call. Mary, if that 15 was you -- you're back Mary, okay, I'm going to try 16 to go ahead, and allow your mic, I'm seeing you.
17 Okay, Mary I have enabled your mic, go ahead, and 18 try again, you just have to unmute yourself. I see 19 you on Teams.
20 And if you're on your phone Mary, then 21 press star six on your phone.
22 MS. LAMPERT: Am I on now?
23 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, we can hear you.
24 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
25 MS. LOPAS: And I think, if you do 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
80 1 your phone, mute it, because we're hearing you on 2 both ends now, a little echo. Okay, I think we're 3 good, go ahead.
4 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. The NRC 5 decommissioning process is backwards. The NRC does 6 not approve the decommissioning plan at the outset 7 of the process, as it should. It waits until the 8 end of the process. If NRC approves the 9 decommissioning plan at the beginning, it would 10 signify that the plan is a major federal action.
11 As a result, the agency would have to 12 perform its NEPA environmental review, and a NEPA 13 review at this early stage makes more sense than at 14 the end of the licensing termination, when all the 15 major decisions would already have been made.
16 Nearly all the impacts of decommissioning would 17 have occurred, and nearly all the decommissioning 18 trust fund spent.
19 Absent a NEPA review, cost estimates 20 will remain unreliable. Because the NRC approval 21 of a decommissioning plan will be a licensing 22 action, stakeholders will have the opportunity to 23 request an adjudicatory hearing at that time, real 24 public participation. Like the NEPA review, the 25 opportunity for a hearing will be most beneficial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
81 1 at the beginning, not at the end.
2 Holtec's plan to discharge radioactive 3 contaminated water into Cape Cod Bay provides a 4 good example. Holtec announced December 1st to 5 discharge 1 million gallons of radioactive 6 contaminated water into Cape Cod Bay, a protected 7 ocean sanctuary. This proposal would not have been 8 given serious consideration for one second had a 9 NEPA review occurred at the beginning of the 10 decommissioning process and if NRC approval of the 11 plan was required, so that stakeholders had a 12 significant opportunity for an adjudicatory 13 hearing. In this example, if the NEPA review and 14 the NRC approval were in place at the start of the 15 decommissioning process, it would result in 16 significant savings to licensees, the state, and 17 stakeholders.
18 Absent those changes, if Pilgrim's 19 licensee, Holtec, decides to dump, there will be 20 lawsuits that will delay decommissioning. Time is 21 money and costs the company attorney fees.
22 Likewise, the state -- the public -- will face 23 continuing expense fighting this horrific proposal.
24 A NEPA review and adjudication would show that 25 dumping would cause irreparable economic harm 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
82 1 safety concerns.
2 Facts would be placed on the table at 3 the beginning that the bay is a semi enclosed 4 space, and circulation will keep the contaminants 5 in the bay long enough to do harm. The bay and 6 marine life each year is increasingly being harmed 7 by past program releases, development, and invasive 8 species. It does not need more from Pilgrim's 9 decommissioning when there are alternatives to 10 dumping.
11 Not one more drop. That's what you 12 would learn if you had the process not backwards as 13 it is now, but properly placed. Thank you very 14 much, I appreciate it.
15 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Now, 16 again, we will turn to -- I think we were on 17 Henrietta Constantino.
18 MS. CONSTANTINO: Thank you for giving 19 me this opportunity, and I do appreciate the work 20 that's gone into putting this together. But I 21 would like to make a comment about the process 22 itself. Somehow, and I don't mean to be insulting, 23 but the way that these rules have been presented 24 was very, very difficult to relate to.
25 It sounded like bureaucratic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
83 1 gobbledygook. And I really wish that at some point 2 when the NRC actually decides to invite serious 3 public engagement, that the NRC would come, open 4 minded, open hearted, and without a lot of 5 gobbledygook to read at us. But rather come and 6 ask serious questions about what our concerns are.
7 I also want to greatly appreciate the 8 emissaries from our wonderful federal 9 representatives who have really made the 10 suggestions that we all appreciate, as has Mary and 11 Jim Lampert. And I want to also appreciate what 12 Leslie said about the comments. This is a way 13 overlooked point which is so utterly fundamental.
14 The ocean does not belong to the NRC, 15 it just doesn't. This is our treasure, our commons 16 -- and there is a sovereignty issue here. This 17 should be under the aegis of the Commonwealth of 18 Massachusetts, and in fact it is. And indeed, when 19 Holtec signed the settlement agreement with the 20 commonwealth through the negotiations with 21 Scofield, and the HEO.
22 It did agree to abide by the 23 regulations of the commonwealth that have an impact 24 on our health, our environment, and our economic 25 wellbeing. I do not understand why 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
84 1 conversation keeps getting kicked back to the NDPES 2 -- the water discharge permit -- which should not 3 need to be invoked because Holtec has already 4 agreed to the settlement.
5 Now, just one question, you have heard 6 very loud and clear that the urgent concern right 7 now is with Holtec's proposition to discharge 8 radioactive water into our bay, something that is 9 simply beyond the pale. I would like to know if 10 there's anything in these regulations -- which I 11 really would have to go back and spend days reading 12 to be able to digest -- I'd like to know if there's 13 anything in the new regulation that would address a 14 problem like this, that would have -- if the new 15 regulations were now in effect, would any of that 16 have affected Holtec's plan to dump?
17 Another question is we now have 63 dry 18 casks sitting a football field away from a public 19 road. It is unprotected, it is visible from the 20 air, it's visible from the road. It is highly 21 vulnerable to bad actors. If, for example, the 911 22 bombers had decided to come and crash on that site, 23 the entire east coast would be more or less 24 destroyed. So, is there anything in the current 25 regulation that you're proposing that would change NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
85 1 this situation and give us dry casks that are 2 actually contained, hardened onsite, with guards?
3 That's what I would like to know, thank you.
4 MR. DOYLE: So, I heard two questions 5 that you were asking about. If there was anything 6 in the proposed rule that would affect the 7 situation where Holtec was proposing to discharge 8 the amount of 1 million gallons to the bay. The 9 answer is no, that we're not changing anything 10 about discharges of contamination to the 11 environment, we're not changing the standards, 12 that's not part of the proposed rule.
13 And then you were also asking about 14 basically security of dry cask storage. I don't 15 think we have a security official with us today 16 about this, but there is -- the answer is no, about 17 as far as that you were saying a terrorist attack 18 of a spent fuel storage facility, we're not making 19 changes to that in this proposed rule. It's 20 focused on the transition to decommissioning, and 21 the changes that we talked about.
22 MR. KLUKAN: I'm going to jump in here.
23 So, as John Lubinski said at the hearing before 24 the congressional delegation convened by Senator 25 Markey, the purpose of this, why we're here tonight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
86 1 is to help better inform you, so you can write 2 comments. If you believe that there should be 3 changes that would prevent -- or change to the way 4 that discharges occur, that there have to be prior 5 approvals, submit that comment to the NRC.
6 If you believe there should be changes 7 to how security works for dry cask storage, submit 8 that to the NRC. So, that's why we're here 9 tonight. It's not to -- that is not the final 10 answer of what's in the rule, where we're here 11 soliciting your comments. Not tonight, but hoping 12 that you will submit comments on what you believe 13 should be in the rule. So, thank you for those 14 questions.
15 We will now, Sarah, see if there's 16 anyone else online who has their hand raised.
17 MS. LOPAS: We've got two people with 18 their hands raised, and I just want to note that I 19 know some of you are accessing on like a web 20 browser. In that case, sometimes you don't see how 21 to raise your hand. Just wiggle your mouse around, 22 take your mouse off the bottom of your screen, and 23 put it back on.
24 And that control panel should pop up at 25 the bottom of your screen, and then you'll be able NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
87 1 to hit the raise hand icon, and unmute icon. So, we 2 just have two folks in the queue right now, so go 3 ahead, and raise your hand, or press star five on 4 your phone. So, we're going to go to Paul Gunter 5 of Beyond Nuclear. Paul, I've enabled your 6 microphone, so you should be able to unmute 7 yourself.
8 MR. GUNTER: Can you hear me now?
9 MS. LOPAS: Yes.
10 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. Paul Gunter, 11 I'm with Beyond Nuclear, we're in Takoma Park, 12 Maryland, and we do plan to submit comments. Thank 13 you very much for the extension. The point of this 14 meeting tonight is to get some clarification on the 15 proposed rule, and at the top of my list is that 16 the -- as it's being proposed right now, you're 17 proposing both an environmental assessment for 18 decommissioning and separately, but incredibly 19 vaguely, describe that you're going to undertake a 20 generic environmental impact statement. But 21 without explanation. It's my understanding that a 22 GEIS is -- these are basically categorical 23 exemptions from environmental assessment. And so 24 how -- if you could give some background, please, 25 on how you are proposing to segregate a GEIS from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
88 1 the environmental assessment.
2 And why you're going to handle that --
3 how you're going to handle it, and why you're 4 choosing to do it in the manner that you are.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. DOYLE: Okay, I'm going to ask if 7 an NRC staff member on the line, Stacey Imboden is 8 an environmental subject matter expert. Stacey, 9 would you be able to unmute, and talk about what 10 Paul just discussed?
11 MS. IMBODEN: Yes, hi, Stacey Imboden, 12 NRC. I think the environmental assessment you're 13 referring to was the one mentioned earlier in the 14 slides. And that environmental assessment was for 15 this rulemaking activity. So, it just covers the 16 environmental impacts of the rulemaking itself.
17 The generic environmental impact statement for 18 decommissioning is going to be updated as part of 19 this rulemaking.
20 And that's on a separate path. The 21 GEIS would cover findings that are similar between 22 facilities and provide a determination, and then 23 each licensee that comes in for decommissioning in 24 their PSDAR would have to describe whether their 25 environmental impacts of the proposed action 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
89 1 be bounded by either the generic environmental 2 impact statement. Or, under this proposed rule 3 previously issued or site-specific environmental 4 documents. And so those are two separate things.
5 So, the environmental -- I'm not sure 6 if that's the environmental assessment you were 7 referring to, the one that was mentioned in the 8 slides, but that is only covering the impacts of 9 this rulemaking.
10 And we're required to do an 11 environmental review for the rulemaking activities.
12 MR. GUNTER: So, can I ask a follow up?
13 MR. KLUKAN: Sure.
14 MR. GUNTER: Okay, so let me just be 15 clear, and if you would validate my understanding.
16 The decommissioning rule, as it's currently 17 proposed, will not provide the public with an 18 opportunity to address concerns under the National 19 Environmental Policy Act about decommissioning, and 20 the environmental impacts this rule is proposing, 21 is that correct?
22 MR. DOYLE: So, we have to comply with 23 NEPA for all the actions -- I'm sorry. For this 24 rulemaking activity, we're looking at all the 25 actions that we're proposing in here, all of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
90 1 changes. So, if you think that something we're 2 proposing has an environmental impact that we have 3 not appropriately identified, then please provide 4 that to us as a comment.
5 So, hopefully that makes sense. But 6 for example something --
7 MR. GUNTER: Well --
8 MR. DOYLE: Go ahead.
9 MR. GUNTER: I understand that you're 10 saying that you're providing the public with 11 comment, but in fact you're not providing the 12 public with standing in any of these 13 decommissioning proceedings. So, I'm a little 14 confused that you would be creating a generic 15 environmental impact statement for a broad category 16 of exemptions which, for all we know right now, 17 includes exempting Holtec from a million gallon 18 radioactive water dump into the bay. That 19 certainly would be one concern for a broad set of 20 undefined, generic, categorical exemptions. When 21 in fact the public is not being provided an 22 opportunity to a hearing under the NEPA process.
23 That's correct, right?
24 You're not going to be providing us an 25 opportunity for standing or contentions under 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
91 1 National Environmental Policy Act. And at the same 2 time you're going to create a broad category of 3 undefined, vague, categorical exemptions. And are 4 we going to get an opportunity -- are you going to 5 approach this GEIS through another comment period, 6 or what?
7 MS. HOLAHAN: Yes, the GEIS will be 8 under a separate path and will go through the 9 normal scoping and comment period. And you can 10 comment then on the GEIS separately. Stacey, did 11 you want to add anything?
12 MS. IMBODEN: Yeah, I was going to say 13 what you had said. There would be public 14 involvement opportunities under the process for the 15 GEIS when it's going out in draft form at least, 16 and most likely a period before that for scoping.
17 We do have an existing decommissioning GEIS that 18 goes along with the existing rules.
19 So, we would be updating the GEIS for 20 this new proposed rule. But I just want to 21 clarify, these are not categorical exemptions. So, 22 the generic environmental impact statement 23 evaluates the various resource areas, and for 24 different plants that we've seen similar impacts.
25 And it provides a conclusion for those types 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
92 1 impacts.
2 But for each licensee that comes in, 3 they have to evaluate their environmental impacts 4 of their action, their decommissioning action, and 5 they have to provide the basis for whether their 6 proposed activities under decommissioning are 7 bounded. And so the staff evaluates that, so it's 8 not an exemption, they still have to provide a 9 justification, and we have to agree to that 10 justification when we do our site specific 11 environmental review.
12 MR. GUNTER: But the GEIS will have a 13 category one exempted from NEPA review, correct?
14 MR. DOYLE: I think you're referring to 15 issue where we have a generic conclusion. So, a 16 licensee would need to look at what those 17 assumptions were, and verify whether, or not that 18 applies in their situation. If it does, then they 19 would be able to adopt that generic conclusion. I 20 think that's what you're referring to, it's not an 21 exemption, but I think I understand what you're 22 saying.
23 So, if they did, then they would be 24 able to adopt the conclusion.
25 MR. GUNTER: Right, so you called 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
93 1 generic -- these are, in fact, what we've 2 experienced are generic exclusions, generic 3 exemptions that are broad categories that are 4 shielded from NEPA review. That's our concern.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for 7 your questions and comments. So, we're now going 8 to move to our next speaker in the room, and that 9 is Diane Turco with Cape Downwinders.
10 MS. TURCO: Hi. Gee, it's Christmas 11 early this year for the industry isn't it? Even 12 before July, this is just a nice wish list for the 13 industry. I think you really need to go back to 14 the drawing board and look at what's going on.
15 That you talk about the dry casks until they're in 16 -- the waste that's in the dry casks, the life 17 doesn't end there.
18 As you know, the radionuclides are 19 still dangerous for tens of thousands of years, but 20 emergency planning is now right at the fence around 21 the pad in Plymouth, and there are 62 casks there, 22 each holding 68 assemblies that are dangerous 23 forever, and you think it's okay to have the safety 24 right to the fence. So, I don't have much faith in 25 what your proposals are at all.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
94 1 But I just wanted to say -- I'm 2 exhausted, sorry. I just wanted to say that there 3 is a mechanism to stop the radioactive dumping in 4 the bay, it's your own regulations, CFR 20.1301(f).
5 It says the Commission may impose additional 6 restrictions on radiation levels in unrestricted 7 areas -- like Cape Cod Bay -- and on the total 8 quantity of radionuclides that a licensee may 9 release in effluents in order to restrict the 10 collective dose.
11 So, why can't you -- we're asking you 12 to use this regulation, and make it zero, and do 13 that for our community. I'll say it again. It's 14 CFR 20.1301(f). The Commission may impose 15 additional restrictions on radiation levels in 16 unrestricted areas -- like Cape Cod Bay -- and on 17 the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee 18 may release in effluents in order to restrict the 19 collective dose.
20 MR. DOYLE: You're correct, so there 21 are -- I'm not an expert in that regulation, but I 22 assume that you've looked at that. So, yes, there 23 are standards for effluents for discharges, and 24 just to be clear there is not a change in this 25 regulation, this proposed rule related to 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
95 1 But as Brett mentioned, if you think that there 2 should be, or you could certainly provide that as a 3 comment.
4 I know your interest is in the facility 5 that's right here. We do have someone on --
6 MS. TURCO: I'm sorry, we'd like this 7 to be implemented here, that's what I'm asking.
8 It's already a rule, we're not asking for a change, 9 or an addition, we'd just like to have this rule 10 that is already in the books to be implemented.
11 MR. DOYLE: Okay, let me ask Bruce 12 Watson, are you on the line, would you be able to 13 discuss the request for taking action immediately 14 for this facility that's right here, is the 15 question.
16 MR. WATSON: Yes, thank you. And I 17 wish I was there in Plymouth with you all, so I 18 could have some fresh seafood from Cape Code Bay.
19 But in implementing this rule that's already in the 20 regulations, we would have to have a firm safety 21 basis for doing that. And we just, at this point, 22 do not have one. The licensee, and the regulations 23 that we have presently, and in the license are 24 adequate to protect the safety of the health --
25 public health, and safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
96 1 And so we have no reason to implement 2 that particular part of the regulation. If there 3 was a safety reason for it, then we could do that.
4 But to date, there is none, so thank you.
5 MS. TURCO: Yeah, I think Senator 6 Markey, Senator Warren, Representative Keating, all 7 of our elected officials have said don't dump in 8 the bay. I think the community has said that 9 clearly and strongly. We have said that it will 10 destroy the economy of the area and the 11 environment, the health, and safety -- thank you.
12 The health, and safety of our community.
13 And so we're saying that. You have a 14 public meeting today, and you want to hear about 15 the public, and you want to hear what we want to 16 say, and how we want to take care of our 17 communities, and that's what we're doing. So, 18 we're asking you to implement that regulation for 19 us.
20 MR. WATSON: Like I said, we do not 21 have a firm safety basis for implementing that part 22 of the regulation, and we have to be a reasonable 23 regulator and look at all aspects, whether it's the 24 community concerns, the actual safety issue with 25 the release, or potential release, and also 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
97 1 concerns with the established regulatory process 2 that has been established by both the NRC and the 3 EPA in setting those safe standards.
4 So, I appreciate your comment, and 5 we'll take that into consideration as we move along 6 in evaluating this issue. So, thank you very much.
7 MS. TURCO: I just want to make one 8 more comment, that the EPA maximum contaminant 9 level goal for radionuclides in water is zero.
10 Also the National Academy of Sciences has 11 determined there is no safe dose. So, I think the 12 science has already backed that, we want you to 13 act. So, public meeting, we're making a request.
14 We are asking you -- actually demanding 15 you to follow through on your regulations. Why 16 change something if you don't follow what you've 17 got now?
18 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. Sarah, we'll 19 go to our next speaker online please.
20 MS. LOPAS: Next up we have Larry 21 Camper. Larry, your microphone is unmuted.
22 MR. CAMPER: Thank you very much. I 23 appreciate the NRC staff's work tonight, and the 24 opportunity to give public comments, thank you for 25 that. I have two questions. One is that in 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
98 1 Commission SRM for this rulemaking, the staff was 2 directed to update the existing programmatic 3 environmental impact statement, NUREG 0586.
4 What is the plan and timing for doing 5 that? You mentioned earlier that's separate from 6 the rulemaking, I would like to know what are your 7 plans and schedule for doing that? My second 8 question deals with slide 18 of the presentation, 9 addressing financial assurance. I note that the 10 staff is asking for more comments on the financial 11 assurance question.
12 But in reading the description on page 13 12302 of the FRN dealing with this financial 14 shortage question, there is no mention of the NRC 15 financial assurance working group that conducted an 16 analysis and completed its report in May of 2020.
17 In that report, the working group found no gaps or 18 policy issues warranting a change in the process.
19 But the working group did make seven 20 recommendations, and my question to the staff is 21 why was a reference to the findings from that 22 working group not mentioned within the FRN 23 addressing the question of additional comment on 24 financial assurance? Thank you.
25 MR. DOYLE: Okay, there were two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
99 1 questions there, the first one about the status, 2 the plan forward for this update of the generic 3 environmental impact statement. Trish, did you 4 want to talk about that, or Stacey? I'm not sure 5 if we have information that we could provide at 6 this time.
7 MS. HOLAHAN: Well, we were always 8 going to do the update to the generic impact 9 statement on decommissioning after the rulemaking.
10 So, we have an existing generic impact statement 11 on decommissioning. So, we're going to continue 12 using that until we update the guides for 13 decommissioning. And on the second issue, the 14 reactor decommissioning financial assurance working 15 group report.
16 We're making changes to the guidance on 17 financial assurance as part of that update, so we 18 are addressing it. And I'll have to take a look at 19 the Federal Register notice and see if we should 20 identify that as one of the possibilities.
21 MR. CAMPER: Can you still hear me?
22 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
23 MR. CAMPER: Yes, thank you for that 24 Dr. Holahan. And I failed to introduce myself to 25 the audience, I'm Larry Camper, I'm a retired 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
100 1 independent consultant. I do think that 2 clarification to that item on page 12302 addressing 3 financial assurance with regards to the findings of 4 that financial assurance working group would help 5 to better inform the public as to some other work 6 that's already been done around this question.
7 And I do recognize that there is an 8 existing programmatic environmental impact 9 statement for the decommissioning of nuclear power 10 plants set forth in NUREG 0586, and the staff has 11 been requested by the Commission to update it. So, 12 thank you, Dr. Holahan, for your comments.
13 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. We 14 will now move onto our next in room speaker, and 15 that is Elaine, I'm sorry, I don't want to butcher 16 your last name, I don't know if I can read it --
17 Dickinson, sorry, with Cape Downwinders, please.
18 MS. DICKINSON: Elaine Dickinson with 19 Cape Downwinders. I'm sitting here all night 20 patiently like all these people listening to all of 21 this presentation, slides, and language we don't 22 understand, and as Henrietta eloquently said before 23 me, gobbledygook. But I'm also staring at your 24 logo in the corner of your screen there.
25 U.S. NRC, United States Nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
101 1 Regulatory Commission. Everybody with me, 2 protecting people and the environment. Is that BS, 3 or do you people really follow that?
4 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. Sarah, again, 5 do we have any speakers online who have raised 6 their hand?
7 MS. LOPAS: We have no speakers at the 8 moment who have their hand raised. So, please go 9 ahead, and hit that raise hand icon, like I said, 10 if you don't see it on screen, just wiggle your 11 mouse around, and off of the Teams screen, and that 12 lower menu should pop up, where you should be able 13 to see a hand icon. So, go ahead, and hit that at 14 any point, at any time, and star five if you're on 15 your cell phone. Nobody right now.
16 MR. KLUKAN: All right, thank you 17 Sarah. We'll now move onto our next in person 18 speaker then, which is Rosemary Shields.
19 MS. SHIELDS: Hi, I'm Rosemary Shields 20 from Cape Cod Harwich, I'm also with the League of 21 Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area. I just want to 22 know that the NRC, and I want to say that I 23 appreciate that it has been working on these rules 24 since 2014. To reflect the concern of the agency 25 about the safety, and what happened at Fukushima.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
102 1 So, I want to say how much I appreciate 2 that the NRC took this very much into 3 consideration. But then there have been years of 4 delay from 2014 to do it now. And one wonders how 5 things have changed. So, after several years of 6 delay, a proposed rule was approved in a two to one 7 vote later in November 2021.
8 The new rule laid out areas where plant 9 operators could meet less stringent regulations 10 during the decommissioning process. Such as no 11 longer needing physical security plan for the 12 reactor core after the fuel had been removed.
13 Specifically, the rule would allow the NRC to 14 implement incremental changes to requirements 15 without going through an exemption or license 16 amendment process.
17 NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Baran wrote on 18 Twitter that the rule misses the mark and would 19 hand too much power to licensees to make 20 decommissioning decisions. Tilting the regulation 21 even more towards the interests of industry. I 22 want everybody to know that there was one board 23 member who totally rejected this rule, and we're 24 asking for this rule to go back to the drawing 25 board, and reject this 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
103 1 I think the NRC did have a good 2 intention, and one other thing. I have been going 3 to the NDCAP for at least four years, and March 4 28th, an NRC representative gave a presentation on 5 radioactive doses allowable by law to be dumped 6 into the environment. And a question was asked, 7 what doses are allowed for sea creatures?
8 The NRC representative admitted that 9 the science they had, and I don't know what science 10 the NRC has, only took into consideration human 11 adults. He continued -- human adults, not babies, 12 not fetuses, and he continued, radioactivity on sea 13 creatures is unknown. Pretty strong words from the 14 NRC. It is unknown, so the question again is, why 15 dump radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay? Thank 16 you.
17 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much.
18 We'll go to our next speaker, who I believe is 19 Joanne Corrigan.
20 MS. CORRIGAN: Joanne Corrigan, 21 Plymouth, Mass. I live at Priscilla Beach, right 22 around the corner from the nuclear power plant, and 23 I'd like to just address one of the slides that you 24 have up. The NRC is trying to increase 25 transparency and public trust. I mean is that 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
104 1 joke? We've had no trust in the NRC since the 2 plant was in the degraded column year, after year, 3 after year.
4 And they had an open end fix it when 5 you get to it. And I went to an NDCAP meeting, 6 which I hadn't been to in a while, and the two 7 employees from Pilgrim that were there, ill-8 informed, had no clue what was going on, everything 9 was we'd have to look into that and get back to 10 you. Well, let's just talk about the gentleman 11 from Pilgrim making the comment about half-life of 12 radioactive elements being a week to 10 to 12 days.
13 Well, yes, if you're at work in the 14 nuclear medicine in a hospital, those are the seeds 15 they use for bladder cancer and things like that.
16 I was an X-ray tech for 45 years, and I can tell 17 you the half-life of what is over at Pilgrim is 18 more like 50,000 years. And what the fishermen are 19 worried about -- and all of us are worried about --
20 is that radioactive element settling into the sand, 21 into the krill, into the plankton, and everything 22 else that fish consume, and my favorite thing, 23 lobster, consume. Not to mention my grandkids, 24 fifth generation, on that beach in that water. And 25 I'm not worried about all these 51.140 whatever, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
105 1 and 90210, I'm worried about 02360, which is 2 Plymouth, and what's going to go on here with 3 radioactive water poured into our backyards.
4 And I'm really surprised so many people 5 over the last couple of months were shocked when 6 they saw this on channel four and channel five back 7 in December. Everybody -- because they know I've 8 been involved with the Cape Cod Tree Huggers and 9 Downwinders for a long time -- and people are 10 coming to me saying, is this true? They can't be 11 doing this.
12 I'm like yeah, they are trying to do 13 that. So, I don't know what you have to amend, all 14 I know is it's wrong, and it's not protecting 15 people, or the environment. Thank you.
16 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. We 17 will now go to our next speaker, who is, I think 18 it's Benjamin Cronin.
19 MR. CRONIN: Good evening, and I'd like 20 to thank the honorable members for having us, and 21 for being here in Plymouth. My name is Dr.
22 Benjamin Cronin. I'm a historian of southeastern 23 Massachusetts. I grew up and reside in Duxbury 24 with the cranberries, not the yacht club side for 25 those of you who are local. I hold a PhD 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
106 1 history from the University of Michigan at Ann 2 Arbor and a BA the highest honors in history and 3 political science from Williams College.
4 I've taught at the college level of 5 both two- and four-year institutions including in 6 Plymouth. And I wrote my doctoral dissertation on 7 the commons of early Plymouth County, particularly 8 the powerful, enduring, and continuing effort by 9 several towns to preserve their common resources.
10 But before I get into the history here, I do wish 11 to echo both the Lamperts, and Ms. Constantino, and 12 Ms. Danielson.
13 This is a process that frankly strikes 14 many of us as farcical. As the bureaucratic 15 equivalent of when medieval scholastic philosophers 16 would argue about how many angels can dance on the 17 head of a pin. It's rather as attorney Scofield 18 said at the senate subcommittee hearing on Friday.
19 An illusory process, the simulacrum of actual 20 regulation.
21 Indeed, the Lamperts quote the NRC 22 itself, stating that the rule is essentially 23 designed to save the nuclear industry money, which 24 is one of the reasons so many of us oppose it.
25 Here is the NRC itself saying so, and the Lamperts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
107 1 have the citation in the documents submitted.
2 Most of the cost savings, I'm quoting, 3 most of the cost savings are attributable to the 4 relief of exemptions, and amendments that 5 licensees, i.e., Holtec et al., would typically 6 submit to the NRC for review and approval during 7 decommissioning. I'm sorry, I'm scrolling, I'm a 8 millennial, but not used to giving a speech off of 9 a laptop.
10 Second, regarding the public health, 11 and safety, which the honorable member mentioned, 12 surely they're aware that the five communities 13 surrounding Pilgrim have certain rates of cancer 14 that are attributable exclusively to radionuclide 15 exposure that are 60 percent higher than their 16 neighboring communities not so exposed.
17 So, surely they would agree that their 18 conclusions are at the very least possibly 19 erroneous. Now, to the history, and our commons, 20 this is what I wrote my original speech upon. If 21 you look at the early town meetings of the towns 22 around Cape Code Bay, for those of you who aren't 23 around here, in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th 24 centuries, you see a persistent pattern.
25 The thing the various towns almost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
108 1 uniformly spend the most time on, and effort, is 2 the preservation of the commons. The commons, that 3 is lands, waters, and resources that belong to 4 everybody in general, and to nobody in particular.
5 Places like the sea and its shores, resources in 6 forests and wetlands, meadows, salt marshes, 7 running water, bog iron have been regarded as 8 common from an early date.
9 The Code of Justinian, which codified 10 Roman law in the 500s recognizes the idea of 11 commons as ancient and general to all nations.
12 Likewise, Magna Carta, the great charter of English 13 liberties, the foundation of the common law signed 14 by King John in 1215, and that's the same John that 15 was Prince John in Robin Hood, and is the bad guy 16 for a reason.
17 It's typically understood to include 18 the charter of the forests, which restored to the 19 common people of England their right to use the 20 commons for things like firewood, grazing cattle, 21 fishing, and hunting. These documents, and the 22 rights that they contain are a part of our legal 23 and political fabric. They quite literally precede 24 the U.S. Constitution by over 500 years.
25 Locally, both the Wampanoag and 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
109 1 English inhabitants of these lands zealously 2 guarded their common resources. For the Wampanoag, 3 a preservation of the commons was built not only 4 into everyday practices, but into larger systems of 5 knowledge, metaphysics, and legend. And I know 6 that our friends in the Herring Pond Band are 7 deeply opposed to this.
8 The English town -- radically different 9 from the Wampanoag in so many ways -- likewise 10 share their concern with the commons. Here's what 11 the Plymouth town meeting said over three centuries 12 ago. This is on the 15th of May, 1699. Whereas 13 sundry of the inhabitants of the town of Plymouth 14 have been taken in certain tracts of common lands 15 to the prejudice of sundry neighbors.
16 Whereupon the inhabitants of said town 17 at a town meeting held at Plymouth on the 15th day 18 of May, 1699, appointed agents for, and trustees on 19 the behalf of said town to defend the said commons 20 from particular intrusions. And on the town's 21 behalf, to warn any of said inhabitants that have 22 made any enclosure of said town's commons to remove 23 their fences of said commons.
24 And basically they go on, and say 25 they'll tear them down if they don't. Now, when we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
110 1 stand here as so many of us are tonight, in defense 2 of these commons, we're therefore engaged in a very 3 old effort, it's democratic with a small D, 4 republican with a small R. And it's basically 5 putting a question to the honorable members.
6 Which side are they on? Are they on 7 those whom Teddy Roosevelt called the malefactors 8 of great wealth? Or are they on the side of those 9 that Herman Melville called the kingly commons?
10 With all those forgoing facts in mind, my question 11 to the honorable members is this. Will they change 12 their rules to reflect the fact that we are 13 supposed to live in a democracy, rather than a 14 corporate oligarchy? Thank you and good evening.
15 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. So, we've now 16 exhausted the list of speakers who indicated that 17 they wanted to speak. I know that we had -- Paul 18 Gunter, you raised your hand again, we just wanted 19 to check if you had a follow up question?
20 MS. LOPAS: Yeah, Paul's back, hand is 21 raised again. Paul, I'm going to allow your mic.
22 Go ahead.
23 MR. GUNTER: Hello, can you hear me?
24 MR. KLUKAN: We can Paul.
25 MR. GUNTER: This will be a quick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
111 1 question, thank you for allowing it. But the 2 proposed rule has this hypothesis that the site is 3 clean until proven dirty. Or it's generally 4 expressed that way. But it's clear that there's a 5 lot of uncertainty because the current rule is 6 really focused on surface contamination. And 7 there's a lot of uncertainty and unknown -- and 8 even in the process right now, you're not looking 9 at deep aquifer or what could be a very expensive 10 contamination of soil running deep down.
11 So, could someone there just clarify a 12 little bit, what your approach is right now on sub 13 surface contamination, and how the decommissioning 14 rule is supposed to be approaching that?
15 MR. DOYLE: Bruce Watson, are you able 16 to address this question?
17 MR. WATSON: Yeah, I think I can. The 18 rule as written, that we've reviewed tonight, does 19 not address your question. The NRC already has 20 extensive guidance in place having to do with the 21 environmental monitoring of the site. Right now, 22 well, all power plants and all decommissioning 23 sites are required to do what we call a site 24 characterization study.
25 And they sample both the surface, 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
112 1 subsurface, and of course the ground water 2 associated with the plant. And they do report --
3 they do provide that report to the NRC, because it 4 serves as the basis for the license termination 5 plan.
6 By coincidence, on May 11th, which is 7 day after tomorrow, the NRC is conducting 8 additional reviews of our subsurface issues with 9 soils and around the power plants and other 10 facilities. And so we are conducting a public 11 workshop on sub surface measurements, and this is 12 our ongoing research, and also our development of 13 adding additional guidance to our present guidance 14 for doing that site characterization and for 15 monitoring the environment in and around the power 16 plants and other types of complex material sites.
17 So, while the rule doesn't address that, we are 18 addressing that in a different avenue, and we are 19 having the sub surface workshop, it'll be the 20 second one. We had one last year, and this is May 21 11th, I think it's in the afternoon. So, I'm sure 22 you'll find that on our meeting website also.
23 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you Mr. Gunter. I'm 24 actually facilitating that, it's from 12 to 5 on 25 Wednesday, it's an all virtual. The second annual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
113 1 sub surface conference. That is not its complete 2 name, but that's how I think of it in my head. So, 3 yeah, it should be up on the public website. Our 4 last speaker is going to be one whose name was on 5 the list, but wasn't ready yet to give a comment, 6 and that's Kristine Danielson.
7 MS. DANIELSON: I now have my 8 questions, so thanks. So, I'm Kristine Danielson, 9 I'm representing the Massachusetts Seafood 10 Collaborative. I'm also here on behalf of the 11 Citizens Climate Change, and also too, just for 12 reference, I'm a former environmental studies 13 student and a current political science student, so 14 kind of in my wheelhouse right now.
15 So, my question to you, how do you plan 16 on addressing the public health crisis that 17 radioactive waste dumping is going to bring to the 18 commonwealth? Massachusetts may be the leading 19 state in public health and medical advances, 20 however no community has the ability to mitigate 21 the effects of radioactive exposure. Take it from 22 my example.
23 Back in the 70s, my family was directly 24 affected by water contamination. Some may remember 25 the civil action in Hoover, Massachusetts -- yeah, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
114 1 exactly. Well, if you look at that map, there's a 2 big red dot right on my house. My grandfather was 3 one of the individuals to get non-Hodgkin's 4 lymphoma from exposure.
5 How do you plan on addressing someone 6 like me, and my family, and tell me that 7 contaminated water is safe? I bet you you can't.
8 I'd love to hear your thoughts. They don't.
9 MR. KLUKAN: So, the question is being 10 asked by the audience, just so we capture it for 11 the record, is whether anyone from the NRC, or 12 Holtec live within the Cape Code Bay area. So, I 13 can speak on behalf of Region I, when the residents 14 were there at Pilgrim, of course we had the 15 resident inspectors who lived there. I can't speak 16 on behalf of Holtec.
17 I don't know how many of them lived 18 within the area, and I would not want to speculate 19 on that point. I appreciate that, thank you.
20 MS. DANIELSON: Just one quick thing, 21 do you guys have a response to my question?
22 Respectfully.
23 MR. KLUKAN: So, I think your question 24 was basically how would we address the impact of 25 contamination?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
115 1 MS. DANIELSON: Yeah, and how can you 2 look at someone like me straight in the face, and 3 tell me that cancer is not going to be an issue 4 when I've seen it firsthand?
5 MR. DOYLE: We do the best we can with 6 the information we have, and I'm sorry that your 7 family was impacted.
8 MS. DANIELSON: Okay, so you'll do the 9 best you can after the dumping, or before?
10 MR. DOYLE: We have requirements in 11 place for effluent discharges, and we believe that 12 we're protecting the public.
13 MS. DANIELSON: Okay, would you say 14 that you're protecting the public to all of the 15 oncologists in Boston? Because I think they'd have 16 other answers. Thank you.
17 MR. KLUKAN: So, I think this is going 18 to be it though, because we're already over, and we 19 have limited amount of time with our police 20 officers being here. So, we're going to go to Mary 21 Lampert on the phone, and then we'll go to you, 22 okay? So Mary, you had your hand raised, right?
23 MS. LOPAS: Mary, I've enabled your 24 mic, so press star six on your pone.
25 MR. LAMPERT: You actually have Jim NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
116 1 Lampert, Mary is sitting across from me. There's 2 been a lot of references tonight -- can you hear 3 me?
4 MR. KLUKAN: Yes, we can.
5 MR. LAMPERT: There have been a lot of 6 references tonight to quote guidance, quote. And I 7 think what the people you are talking to need to 8 realize is that guidance is not regulation. It 9 does not require any licensee to do anything. And 10 I think the second thing that they need to know is 11 that guidance, at least as I have followed it, 12 seems to be drafted at least as much by the nuclear 13 industry, as by anyone who has anything perhaps on 14 the other side.
15 MS. LAMPERT: And Mary would add would 16 you suggest that instead of speed limits on our 17 highways, we have suggestions? We recommend that 18 you consider going at 60 miles an hour. Think 19 about it.
20 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. So, 21 I think -- and again, this will be our last 22 speaker. While she's speaking, can we put up the 23 slide again on how to make comments?
24 MS. COSENTINO: Yes, I just wanted, as 25 a follow up to Kristine's question, which I feel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
117 1 very much because I, too, had a sibling who 2 perished from leukemia as a direct result of 3 radiation from fall out. But my question is there 4 was a study -- two studies I believe, done by 5 Richard Clapp, I think he was associated with you 6 in the 1990s.
7 Which really focused on incidents of 8 cancer around nuclear installations around Pilgrim.
9 And since that time, I believe the NRC was going 10 to do a follow up study, but ended up not doing it.
11 Why?
12 MS. HOLAHAN: I think the study you're 13 referring to was, we were going to have the 14 National Academy -- I recall, look at cancer 15 incidence around the nuclear power plants. And we 16 were going to go in with DOE and EPA, and we 17 couldn't get the funding.
18 MR. KLUKAN: So, again, we've heard 19 lots of -- many of your concerns tonight. Again, 20 this is why we put this up again. These are how to 21 submit your formal comments to the NRC. You have 22 three ways of doing it. Again, don't do duplicate 23 methods, pick your favorite one, and run with that 24 one, all right? So, thank you very much for, 25 again, taking time out of your night to participate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
118 1 in this process, I really appreciate it personally.
2 And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Trish.
3 Thank you.
4 MS. HOLAHAN: Thank you very much all 5 of you for coming out, and participating by phone.
6 It's been very enlightening, and thanks for 7 providing your comments verbally, but I really hope 8 you provide your comments in writing, and we'll 9 take those into consideration when we finalize the 10 rule, or we'll provide something to the Commission.
11 So, thank you very much.
12 MR. KLUKAN: All right, thank you very 13 much. Again, the meeting feedback form is up on 14 the screen, I would really appreciate it, 15 particularly those who participated virtually, if 16 you could give us your comments on how that went 17 for you. We're still learning how to do virtual 18 meetings. So, thank you everyone again, and the 19 meeting is now officially closed. Thank you, have 20 a good night.
21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 22 went off the record at 8:37 p.m.)
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