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