ML22277A008
| ML22277A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/2022 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Doyle, Daniel | |
| References | |
| NRC-1936, NRC-2015-0070, RIN 3150-AJ59 | |
| Download: ML22277A008 (98) | |
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:
San Luis Obispo, California Date:
Wednesday, May 4, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-1936 Pages 1-97 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 WEDNESDAY, 9
MAY 4, 2022 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting convened at the Board of 12 Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055 13 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California and by 14 video teleconference, at 6:00 p.m. PDT, Brett Klukan 15 and Lance Rakovan, Facilitators, presiding.
16 17 PRESENT:
18 BRETT KLUKAN, Facilitator; Regional Counsel, Region I 19 Office, NRC 20 LANCE RAKOVAN, PMP, Facilitator; Federal, State &
21 Tribal Liaison Project Manager, Division of 22 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 23 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 24 Safeguards, NRC 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 JAMES ANDERSON, NRC 1
HOWARD BENOWITZ, Senior Attorney, Reactors & Materials 2
Rulemaking, Office of the General Counsel, NRC 3
DANIEL DOYLE, Senior Project Manager, Division of 4
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 5
Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 6
Safeguards, NRC 7
MAI HENDERSON, Financial Analyst, Division of 8
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 9
Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 10 and Safeguards, NRC 11 PATRICIA HOLAHAN, PhD, Special Assistant, Division of 12 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 13 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 14 Safeguards, NRC 15 ERIC LEE, Senior Cybersecurity Specialist, Division of 16 Physical and Cyber Security Policy, Nuclear 17 Security and Incident Response, NRC 18 DAVE MCINTYRE, Public Affairs Officer, Office of 19 Public Affairs, NRC 20 SCOTT MORRIS, Regional Administrator, Region IV 21 Office, NRC 22 SOLY SOTO LUGO, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, 23 and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear 24 Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC 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 1
BRUCE WATSON, CHP, Chief, Reactor Decommissioning 2
Branch, Division of Decommissioning Uranium 3
Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear 4
Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 1
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2
PAGE 3
Welcome and Logistics..............................5 4
Opening Remarks....................................9 5
Background and Status.............................14 6
Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................17 7
Tips for Preparing Comments and Next Steps........54 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
6:01 p.m.
2 MR. KLUKAN: Welcome, everyone, my name is 3
Brett Klukan, normally I serve as a Regional Counsel 4
for Region 1 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
or NRC, in short, however, tonight I'll be acting as 6
the in-person facilitator for this meeting this 7
evening.
8 In that task, I will be assisted by Lance 9
Rakovan, who will be virtually facilitating via 10 Microsoft Teams. This meeting will be a hybrid format 11 and I'll explain more about that in a minute. Next 12 slide, please.
13 So, the purpose of the meeting is to 14 provide information to inform you on the comment 15 process for the proposed decommissioning rule and 16 draft regulatory guidance.
17 We will be going through the various ways 18 you can participate in the commenting process as part 19 of our presentation this evening.
20 Meeting attendees, whether attending in 21 person or participating virtually will have an 22 opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff.
23 However, as discussed in the meeting notice, the NRC 24 is not actively soliciting comments regarding the 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 proposed decommissioning rule or any other regulatory 1
decision at the meeting this evening.
2 Again, the NRC staff will discuss the 3
different ways in which you can submit formal comments 4
on the proposed rule. Next slide, please.
5 Here's our agenda for this evening. After 6
I finish with logistics, we'll have some opening 7
remarks and then we'll provide our presentations which 8
will include details on the background and status and 9
overview of the proposed rule, tips for preparing 10 comments and next steps.
11 We'll then open the floor to questions.
12 Next slide, please.
13 Some logistics, please note that tonight's 14 meeting is being recorded and transcribed. We ask 15 that you help us to get a full clear accounting of the 16 meeting by staying on mute if you are on the phone or 17 on Teams and are not speaking.
18 Please keep your electronic device silent 19 and side discussions to a minimum if you are in the 20 room. Also, it would help us greatly if all speakers 21 can identify themselves and any group affiliations 22 when it is their turn to speak.
23 For your awareness, in addition to the 24 meeting being recorded this evening, the meeting will 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 also be broadcast live on Cable 21, the San Luis 1
Obispo County Government cable access channel, and 2
will be later available for streaming on www.slo-3 span.org.
4 All meeting attendees participating via 5
Teams are on the phone will have their microphones 6
muted and cameras disabled during the presentation.
7 When we get to the Q&A portion of the meeting, those 8
of you on Teams can use the raise-hand function to let 9
Lance know you have a question.
10 Those of you on the phone, if you would 11 like to ask a question, please press star 5. Once the 12 facilitator, Lance, enables your microphone, you will 13 then if participating via the phone have to unmute 14 yourself by pressing star 6.
15 That's star 5 to raise your hand if you're 16 on the phone and star 6 to actually mute yourself once 17 Lance has called on you. For those of you attending 18 in person, there is a signup sheet outside.
19 Given the number of people we have in the 20 room, I think we can just go with the raise your hand 21 function and we'll go on a one-to-one, so we'll call 22 the person in the room and a person participating via 23 Teams or on the phone and then back and forth for the 24 sake of simplicity.
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 note again the chat feature on 1
Teams has been disabled. If you are participating 2
virtually and have trouble seeing the slides or they 3
are not advancing for you, the slides that will be 4
shown on the Microsoft Teams screen can also be found 5
in the NRC Adams Library at ML22118A030.
6 Again, that's ML22118A030. You can also 7
go to the meeting notice page on the NRC's website and 8
there's a link to the slides as well there. Finally, 9
I'm hoping that you will assist us in filling out our 10 public meeting feedback form.
11 You can link to the public meeting 12 feedback form from the NRC's public meeting schedule 13 page for this meeting.
14 Your opinion on how this meeting went, 15 particularly as the NRC branches out into these 16 virtual meetings, will greatly help us to improve the 17 conduct of future meetings and better learn how to 18 make these meetings work for you.
19 So, please take a moment if you have a 20 chance to fill out that form. Finally, for those of 21 you who are in the room with us today, the emergency 22 exits are directly behind you and the bathrooms are 23 just further down the hall.
24 Slide 5. I will now turn it over to Trish 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 Holahan, the Special Assistant to the Division of 1
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support at 2
the NRC Office of Nuclear Materials, Safety, and 3
Safeguards.
4 Trish, I turn it over to you, thank you.
5 DR. HOLAHAN: Good evening, I'm Trish 6
Holahan, the Special Assistant to the NRC's Division 7
of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, 8
as Brett indicated.
9 With me at the table today are Scott 10 Morris, the Region 4 Regional Administrator, Dan 11
- Doyle, the Rulemaking Project
- Manager, Howard 12 Benowitz, the NRC Attorney. Also at the table are 13 Soly Soto Lugo and Jim Anderson.
14 And also in the room is Bruce Watson, the 15 Branch Chief of the Decommissioning Group, and also 16 our Public Affairs Officer, Dave McIntyre, is in the 17 back of the room. Also, there are a number of other 18 NRC people in attendance via Teams as well.
19 I'd like to thank you for joining us today 20 to talk about the NRC's decommissioning rulemaking.
21 The NRC's goal for this rulemaking is to maintain a 22
- safe, effective, and efficient decommissioning 23
- process, incorporate lessons learned from the 24 decommissioning process, and support the NRC's 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com principles of good regulation including openness, 1
clarity, and reliability.
2 The proposed rule would implement specific 3
regulatory requirements for different phases of the 4
decommissioning process consistent with the reduced 5
risk that occurs over time while continuing to 6
maintain safety and security.
7 The proposal rule would also incorporate 8
lessons learned from plants that have recently 9
transitioned to decommissioning and improve the 10 effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 11 framework while protecting public health and safety.
12 Public comment has twice played an 13 important role in the development of this proposed 14 rule. First of all, when we publish an advanced 15 notice of proposed rulemaking and later with the draft 16 regulatory basis.
17 We are seeking public input from the 18 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide 19 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule 20 addresses several regulatory areas which you will hear 21 about in more detail during the meeting.
22 We hope today's meeting will help you 23 better understand the proposed rule. We look forward 24 to your feedback and questions today but please note 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 the NRC will not be responding in writing to verbal 1
comments provided at the meeting.
2 Comments must be submitted in writing 3
through the methods described in the Federal Register 4
notice, which Dan will get into, to receive formal 5
consideration.
6 This is our fifth public meeting on the 7
proposed rule. We'll be having one additional meeting 8
in Massachusetts next week with the option for hybrid 9
participation again.
10 Please check the NRC's public website for 11 additional details about that public meeting and for 12 other resources to help you as you review the proposed 13 rule.
14 Thank you and now I'll turn it over to 15 Dan.
16 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Trish, good 17 evening, I am Dan Doyle. Before I move ahead with my 18 remarks, I do see that we have a hand raised on Teams.
19 I just wanted to pause to see if there was an issue 20 with the presentation or anything.
21 I do see, Stacey Hunter, it looks like you 22 have your hand raised. We did unmute you, you can go 23 ahead if you have an issue or if you just wanted to 24 let us know that you have a question or comment for 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 later, that's fine too and we can just come back to 1
you later.
2 I did see the hand up. Stacey, did you 3
have something you wanted to raise at this point?
4 MR.
RAKOVAN:
Actually
- Stacey, we 5
deactivated your mic, you're going to have to unmute 6
yourself to speak.
7 MS. HUNTER: I'm connected through the 8
Internet and I'm having a lot of trouble hearing the 9
speakers. I've turned my speakers up to 100 percent 10 and I can still barely hear you guys. It's even worse 11 through my earbuds.
12 Is there a way to turn up the volume on 13 the Internet connection?
14 MR. DOYLE: We did, I just got an 15 indication from our tech here that he did turn it up.
16 If it doesn't sound good still, then you may try 17 connecting with a different device or dialing in using 18 the phone number.
19 So, there is a phone number if you go to 20 the NRC public website where you got the link for this 21 meeting, then the sound will be there.
22 MS. HUNTER: Actually, it is sounding 23 better already.
24 MR. DOYLE: Moving ahead, I'm Dan Doyle, 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 welcome everyone, thank you for attending. I just 1
wanted to point out as Trish mentioned, this is our 2
fifth public meeting.
3 If you had attended any of the previous 4
meetings, just please note the first half of this 5
meeting is the NRC staff presentations and is the same 6
material that we've covered previously.
7 So, we have this meeting scheduled for two 8
hours. The first hour is NRC staff presentation to go 9
over the topics in the rule and some other information 10 about the rulemaking and the process and the schedule.
11 That would be the same. And then we'll 12 open it up for question and answers for the rest of 13 the time.
14 One final note about Microsoft Teams for 15 those of you who are connected using Microsoft Teams 16 through the Internet, underneath the slides you should 17 see arrows that would allow you to move forward and 18 backwards, and also, you should be able to click any 19 of the links on the slides.
20 So, I just wanted to point out that 21 clicking those arrows only affects your view, it 22 doesn't affect anyone else, and you should be able to 23 click back to join where we are with the main 24 presentation.
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 If you click up from where we are you 1
should see a slide to join back when you're done.
2 Next slide, please.
3 I will go ahead with some background and 4
status for the rulemaking. A very brief background, 5
there was an increase in nuclear power-plant shutdowns 6
that focused the NRC's attention on making some 7
changes to the regulations related to decommissioning.
8 We initiated the rulemaking in December of 9
2015 to explore changes related to that process.
10 We've already completed some extensive public 11 outreach, we solicited early comments on an advanced 12 notice of proposed rulemaking.
13 We also issued a
regulatory basis 14 document, we had public comment periods on both of 15 those and also public meetings and we have information 16 about both of those early outreach efforts on our 17 public website, which I will be showing a little bit 18 later.
19 The recent update and the reason we're 20 having this meeting today is because we published a 21 proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 3rd, 22 2022, the citation is on the slide, it's 87 FR 12254.
23 So, we are in the public comment period 24 for the proposed rule right now. I would also like to 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 point out that we received a request to extend the 1
comment period from 75 days to 180 days.
2 The NRC will be granting the request. The 3
new deadline for comments will be August 30, 2022, the 4
Federal Register notice, which is the official notice 5
about that extension, should be published probably 6
next week, and we will update the website with a link 7
to that notice.
8 Next slide, please. For convenience, we 9
have two slides that list all of the key documents 10 associated with this proposed rule with links to 11 access them directly. And by the way, for those of 12 you in the room, if you wanted to get a copy of these 13 slides, it is on our website.
14 There's a meeting notice for this meeting 15 which has the link to the slides and then also our 16 website has a link to the slides. If you have any 17 trouble finding that you can shoot me an email or just 18 talk to me and I'll make sure you get a copy.
19 This is the first slide. We have the 20 citation for the proposed rule with links to both the 21 web version and a printed version of the proposed 22 rule. We also have supporting and related material.
23 So, there's a draft regulatory analysis 24 that discusses the costs and benefits associated with 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 this action, a draft environmental assessment for 1
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 2
and draft supporting statements for information 3
collections.
4 We are proposing changes to some 5
information collection requirements in this rule, and 6
we have those discussed in the supporting statements 7
for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
8 We also have an additional document that's 9
listed here on the slide, the unofficial red-line rule 10 text.
11 I will have a slide highlighting that 12 later but just to point out, that document shows how 13 the proposed rule would modify the current rule 14 language in a red-line strike-out format, in other 15 words, what are new words that would be inserted and 16 what would be deleted from the Code of Federal 17 Regulations if the proposed rule were to be adopted as 18 proposed.
19 Hopefully the title makes that clear, that 20 is not the official legal version of the rule text.
21 The official version is what is published in the 22 Federal Register but it may be helpful, please do not 23 rely on that for your public comment.
24 Next slide, please. We're also updating 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 four guidance documents as part of this rulemaking.
1 They're available for public comment as well, they're 2
listed here on the slide.
3 The first one would be a new regulatory 4
guide and the other three are updates to existing 5
regulatory guides. The first one, Draft Guide 1346, 6
is related to emergency planning for decommissioning 7
nuclear power-plants.
8 The second one, Draft 1347, would be an 9
update to Regulatory Guide 1.184, decommissioning 10 nuclear power-plants. The next one, Draft Guide 1348, 11 would be an update to Regulatory Guide 1.159, 12 availability of funds for decommissioning, production 13 utilization facilities.
14 And the last one on the left, Draft Guide 15 1341, would be an update to Regulatory Guide 1.185, 16 standard format and content for post-shutdown 17 decommissioning activities report.
18 These four documents are also out for 19 public comment right now. If you have comments on the 20 rule or the guidance or both, please submit that 21 altogether in the same document. It all goes to the 22 same place and will be reviewed and responded to 23 together.
24 Next slide. And moving onto Slide 12, 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 graded approach. The proposed rule takes what we call 1
a graded approach to decommissioning where different 2
levels of requirements would apply at different stages 3
of the decommissioning process.
4 We tried to convey that on this slide.
5 Across the top of the table are the four levels that 6
we've used in the proposed rule as the facility goes 7
through the decommissioning process. Level 1 begins 8
after the facility dockets the two required 9
certifications.
10 One is for permanent cessation of 11 operations and the other is that fuel has been removed 12 from the reactor vessel.
13 Level 2 is after a period of sufficient 14 decay of the spent fuel, which would generically be 10 15 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a 16 pressurized water reactor if they meet the criteria in 17 the proposed rule.
18 And Level 3 would be when all fuel is in 19 dry cask storage. And Level 4 would be when all fuel 20 is offsite. The rows in this table show the topic 21 areas that have updates requirements linked to these 22 levels.
23 Emergency preparedness would use all four 24 levels starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan 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 in Level 1 through Level 4, where there is no longer a 1
need for an onsite radiological emergency response 2
plan because all fuel is offsite.
3 Other topic areas that use a graded 4
approach include physical security, cybersecurity, and 5
onsite, offsite insurance. Next slide, please.
6 We are on Slide 13, emergency 7
preparedness, this is the first of the topic slides.
8 So, for each of the topic slides, you'll see a summary 9
of the proposed changes related to that topic.
10 The box in the upper right corner 11 identifies the section in the proposed rule where we 12 have a more detailed discussion of the topic as well 13 as the page numbers, and we've also listed all of the 14 sections in the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations, 15 that would be changed related to this topic.
16 Where it says specific request for comment 17 on each slide, we will mention if there's any 18 questions related to this topic in Section V of the 19 proposed rule where the NRC included questions for the 20 public to consider.
21 And then at the bottom of the slide, we 22 also have additional information if there's anything 23 else we wanted to bring to your attention for the 24 topic.
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 And then on the very bottom there's a 1
progress bar showing which topic we're on and which 2
ones are coming up in case there was something you 3
want to see or pay particular attention to.
4 Moving onto emergency preparedness, 5
because the current regulations do not provide a means 6
to distinguish between the emergency preparedness 7
requirements that apply to an operating reactor and 8
those that are applied to a reactor that has 9
permanently ceased operations, decommissioning 10 licensees have historically requested exemptions from 11 EP requirements.
12 The proposed rule would provide common EP 13 requirements for reactors and decommissioning, 14 eliminating the need for specific exemptions or 15 license amendments.
16 Because of the decreased risk of offsite 17 radiological release and fewer types of possible 18 accidents that can occur at a decommissioning reactor, 19 the proposed EP requirements align with that reduction 20 in risk while maintaining safety.
21 What are we proposing? We would be adding 22 a new section, 10 CFR 50.200, which would provide 23 planning standards and requirements for post-shutdown 24 and permanently defueled emergency plans.
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 The proposed standards and requirements 1
for emergency plans are consistent with the levels of 2
planning that the Commission has previously approved 3
for decommissioned facilities.
4 The proposed planning requirements also 5
ensure close coordination and training with offsite 6
response organizations is maintained throughout the 7
decommissioning process.
8 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 9
50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option to use 10 the tiered requirements and standards as the 11 appropriate time and decommissioning, and to add a new 12 process by which licensees can make changes to the 13 emergency plans to transition between levels.
14 There are a few related questions that we 15 are specifically asking for comments about.
16 The first one is that we would like to 17 know what you see as the advantages and disadvantages 18 of requiring dedicated radiological emergency 19 planning, including a 10-mile emergency planning zone, 20 until all spent nuclear fuel at the site is removed 21 from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry cask 22 storage.
23 Is there additional information the NRC 24 should consider in evaluating whether all hazards 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 planning would be as effective as dedicated 1
radiological emergency planning?
2 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 3
be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency 4
response to a spent fuel pool accident based on an 5
all-hazards plan. Is there additional information 6
that the NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?
7 And then the second question is about the 8
emergency response data system. So, nuclear power 9
facilities that are shutdown permanently or 10 indefinitely are currently not required to maintain 11 this emergency response data system.
12 The systems transmit near real-time 13 electronic data between the licensees' onsite computer 14 system and the NRC operations center.
15 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain a 16 capability to provide meteorological, radiological, 17 and spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a 18 reasonable timeframe following an event.
19 What are the advantages and disadvantages 20 of requiring nuclear power-plant licensees to maintain 21 those aspects of the emergency response data system 22 until all spent fuel is removed from the site? And 23 then guidance.
24 We have developed guidance corresponding 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 to the proposed rule of changes. We have proposed a 1
new regulatory
- guide, emergency planning for 2
decommissioning nuclear power reactors Draft Guide 3
1346, that's out for comment as part of the proposed 4
rule.
5 The NRC staff believes these changes will 6
establish EP requirements commensurate with the 7
reduction in radiological risk as licensees proceed 8
through the decommissioning process will continuing to 9
provide reasonable assurance that protected actions 10 can and will be taken, and maintaining EP as a final 11 independent layer of defense in-depth.
12 There are 16 of these topic slides, by the 13 way, and I'll be covering some of them and Howard 14 Benowitz will be covering some of the other ones.
15 Next slide, please. I will turn it over Howard for 16 discussion of the backfit rule.
17 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan, and good 18 evening, everyone.
19 The NRC's backfit rule is found in Part 50 20 of our regulations, specifically Section 50.109. In 21 this proposed rule, we are proposing to provide a new 22 backfitting provision for nuclear power reactor 23 licensees that are in decommissioning.
24 The proposed rule would re-number the 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 paragraphs of the current Section 50.109 so that 1
Section 50.109(a) would be the current backfitting 2
provision and a new Section 50.109(b) would be the new 3
rule text for decommissioning nuclear power reactor 4
licensees.
5 The NRC is also proposing edits to the 6
backfitting provision in Part 72 of our regulations so 7
that backfitting provision would apply during the 8
decommissioning of a monitored retrievable storage 9
facility for an independent spent fuel storage 10 installation, also known by its abbreviated of ISFSI.
11 The proposed rule would also revise the 12 requirement that the NRC must consider the cost of 13 imposing a backfit if the basis for the backfitting is 14 the compliance exception to the requirement that we 15 perform a backfit analysis.
16 The backfit analysis is the default 17 justification for backfitting but there are exceptions 18 and one of them is known as the compliance exception.
19 This proposed change is based on a 2019 update to the 20 Commission's backfitting policy, which is in the NRC's 21 Management Directive 8.4 22 And in the proposed rule FRN, Federal 23 Register Notice, we do include a specific request for 24 comment regarding this change and that is whether the 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com backfit rule should be applied during decommissioning.
1 Next slide, please. We received a 2
question in the room of what is a backfit? That's a 3
great question.
4 Backfitting, at least in the context of 5
the NRC, is a requirement in our regulations that 6
actually applies to the NRC, both to the Commission 7
and to the NRC staff.
8 And essentially, it means that when we 9
have issued an approval, it could be a license, a 10 permit, we cannot change that approval without meeting 11 certain criteria that are in the backfit rule in 12 Section 50.109 of our regulations.
13 And that's for power reactors, the one in 14 Section 50.109. We also had similar provisions in 15 Part 70 of our regulations, which applies to fuel 16 cycle facilities in Part 72, as I mentioned, and in 17 Part 76.
18 But essentially, we can't change the rules 19 after the game has begun. We issue you an approval, 20 you have a reasonable reliance on that approval that 21 we're not going to change it and you can act on it.
22 And so if we are going to change it, then 23 we have to meet certain criteria and justify it. And 24 so right now, as explained in the Federal Register 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 Notice of the proposed rule, it's not clear whether or 1
not that provision applies during decommissioning.
2 There is precedent from the Commission 3
saying there is but we're proposing to make it very 4
clear in the regulations itself that it would apply 5
during decommissioning.
6 Dan?
7 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Howard, we're on 8
Slide 15 for environmental considerations. The 9
proposed rule clarified various evolution reporting 10 requirements including those related to the content of 11 the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report, 12 or PSDAR.
13 In part, the proposed rule change would 14 clarify that licensees at the PSDAR stage are required 15 to evaluate the environmental impacts from 16 decommissioning and provide in the PSDAR the basis for 17 whether the proposed decommissioning activities are 18 bounded by previously issued, site-specific or generic 19 environmental reviews.
20 The Commissioners provided additional 21 direction in the staff requirements memorandum that 22 was issued back in November 2021 with respect to the 23 consideration of any identified unbounded impacts.
24 The rule changes would allow licensees to 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 use appropriate federally issued environmental review 1
documents prepared in compliance with the Endangered 2
Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 3
and other environmental statutes rather than just 4
environmental impact statements.
5 The rule would also remove language 6
referencing amendments for authorizing decommissioning 7
activities in 10 CFR Part 51.
8 In developing the original proposed rule, 9
the NRC staff considered but dismissed a proposal that 10 the NRC staff approved each licensee's PSDAR -- that 11 is not in the proposed rule -- before allowing major 12 decommissioning activities to begin.
13 This decision was based on that requiring 14 approval of a PSDAR would have no additional benefit 15 in terms of public health and safety, however, we are 16 including specific requests for comment about whether 17 the NRC should require approval by the NRC of the 18 PSDAR site-specific environmental review and the 19 hearing opportunity before undertaking any 20 decommissioning activities.
21 Other than NRC review and approval of the 22 PSDAR, are there other activities that could help to 23 increase transparency and public trust in the NRC's 24 regulatory framework for decommissioning?
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 Should the rule provide a role for a state 1
and local government in the process and what should 2
that role be? We do have two Regulatory Guides 3
related to PSDARs that were revised to include 4
clarifying language consistent with the rule changes.
5 Those are listed on the bottom of the 6
slide and another item we wanted to bring to your 7
attention related to this topic is that there is a 8
decommissioning generic environmental impact 9
statement, or GEIS, that will be updated separately in 10 the future by the NRC.
11 That's not a direct part of this action 12 but that is something the NRC is planning to update in 13 the future. Next slide. Slide 16, back to Howard.
14 MR. BENOWITZ: On this slide we talk about 15 license termination plans. In this proposed rule, the 16 NRC would clarify that our provisions in 10 CFR for 17 regulations Section 50.82 and 52.110.
18 Those are the license termination 19 requirements that they do not apply before fuel has 20 been loaded into a reactor. This is consistent with 21 our historical practice.
22 These license termination provisions are 23 written for reactors that have commenced operations 24 and the NRC has historically viewed operations as the 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 point beginning when the loading of fuel into the 1
reactor.
2 This precedent is discussed in the Federal 3
Register notice. The NRC is proposing this change 4
because there has been some confusion regarding 5
Section 52.110 and whether it was applicable.
6 We had a few of our combined license 7
holders a few years ago who sought to terminate their 8
licenses during the construction or before 9
construction had even begun.
10 The NRC informed them that provision 11 52.110 did not apply for the reasons that are 12 explained in the Federal Register notice. This is a 13 clarification of the two provisions.
14 The Section 52.82 applies to our Part 50 15 licensees and Section 52.110 applies to Part 52 16 license. And there are no requests for comments on 17 that one, specific requests for comments, but we 18 always encourage comments on the proposed rule 19 language.
20 Next slide, please. This is Slide 17, 21 decommissioning funding assurance. We do have two 22 slides on this topic, this is the first one, a summary 23 of the changes.
24 The proposed rule modifies the biannual 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 decommissioning trust fund reporting frequency for 1
operating reactors in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent 2
with the three-year reporting frequency for 3
independent spent fuel storage installations or 4
ISFSIs, for making two changes related to independent 5
spent fuel storage installation funding reports.
6 One is that would allow licensees to 7
combine the reports required by the regulations listed 8
on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii), and 10 CFR 9
72.30.
10 The other related change is the proposed 11 rule would remove the requirement for NRC approval of 12 the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).
13 The proposed rule would clarify that when 14 a licensee identifies a shortfall in the report 15 required by 50.75(f)(1), the licensee must obtain 16 additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall 17 and discuss that information in the next report.
18 And then the final item to highlight on 19 this
- topic, the proposed rule would make 20 administrative changes to ensure consistency with 21 50.4, written communications regarding the submission 22 of notification and to eliminate 50.75(f)(2) because 23 Paragraph (f)(1) fully encompasses (f)(2).
24 Next slide, please. Slide 18, continuing 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 the same topic, we do have several specific questions 1
or specific requests for comment on this topic, so I'm 2
just going to summarize those briefly.
3 Financial assurance, what are the 4
advantages and disadvantages of updating the formula 5
to reflect recent data and to cover ell estimated 6
radiological decommissioning costs rather than the 7
bulk of the costs.
8 The site-specific cost analysis, what are 9
the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a full 10 site investigation and characterization of the time of 11 shutdown and eliminating the formula and requiring the 12 site of the cost estimate during operations?
13 Decommissioning trust fund, we have a 14 question about that.
15 Should the NRC's regulation allow 16 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for spent 17 fuel management if there is a projected surplus in the 18 fund based on a comparison of the expected cost 19 identified in the site-specific cost estimate.
20 And the assets are returned to the fund 21 within an established period of time. What are the 22 advantages and disadvantages of allowing 23 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for those 24 purposes?
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 And what would be the advantages and 1
disadvantages of allowing the trust fund assets to be 2
used for non-radiological site restoration prior to 3
the completion of radiological decommissioning?
4 The timing of decommissioning fund 5
assurance reporting. What are the advantages and 6
disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency 7
from two to three years? Does the change affect the 8
risk of insufficient funding?
9 And then finally, identical requirements 10 under 50.82 and 52.110. Besides proposing conforming 11 changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is asking whether 12 we should maintain identical requirements in Part 13 52.110 and 50.82, which we do today.
14 We are also proposing conforming changes 15 to a Regulatory Guide, 1.159, which is about assuring 16 the availability of funds. Next slide, please, Slide 17 19, I have that one. This is about offsite and onsite 18 financial protection requirements and indemnity 19 agreements.
20 The changes would provide regulatory 21 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of 22 decommissioning reactors to request regulatory 23 exemptions for relief from requirements that should 24 apply only to operating reactor licensees.
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 We do have two specific requests for 1
comment on this topic so the first one, what are the 2
advantages and disadvantages of requiring the existing 3
level of assurance to be maintained until all spent 4
fuel is in dry cask storage or Level 3 in the graded 5
approach?
6 And then the other question is about 7
insurance for specific license ISFSIs.
8 The NRC recognizes that as a reactor site 9
is decommissioned, eventually all that remains of the 10 Part 50 or Part 52 licensed site is a general licensed 11 ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is essentially the 12 same as the specific license, ISFSI, under 10 CFR Part 13
- 72.
14 So, considering that Part 72 specific 15 license ISFSIs have no financial protection 16 requirements, should the NRC address the disparity 17 between specific licenses and general licenses to 18 ISFSI as part of this rulemaking?
19 Please provide an explanation for your 20 response. Next slide, please. Slide 20. Back to 21 Howard.
22 MR. BENOWITZ: As you can see, Slide 20 is 23 about foreign ownership control or domination but it's 24 also about what is the production or utilization 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? The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's 1
regulations provide definitions for utilization 2
facility and production facility.
3 Additionally, certain of the provisions of 4
the Atomic Energy Act and our regulations, including a 5
provision regarding foreign ownership control or 6
domination, apply only to a utilization or a 7
production facility.
8 During decommissioning activities, a 9
utilization facility or production facility will be 10 dismantled to the point where it no longer meets the 11 definition of utilization facility or production 12 facility.
13 The proposed rule would add language to 14 establish the criteria for when exactly a utilization 15 facility or production facility is no longer a 16 utilization facility or production facility.
17 The proposed rule also has language to 18 affirm that. Despite the fact that the facility would 19 no longer meet the definition, the NRC would continue 20 to have statutory authority over that licensee, 21 whether it's under Part 50 or 52 as a nuclear power 22 reactor.
23 And the NRC regulations applicable to 24 utilization or production facilities would continue to 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 apply to the holder of that license unless the 1
regulations specifically state otherwise.
2 And the proposed rule identifies one such 3
regulation.
4 The proposed rule would amend the foreign 5
ownership control or domination prohibition to state 6
that it no longer applies once a Part 50 or 52 7
facility is no longer a utilization or production 8
facility due to the decommissioning and dismantling of 9
the facility.
10 Therefore, the NRC's regulations would not 11 prohibit the transfer of a Part 50 or Part 52 license 12 for a facility that is no longer a utilization or 13 production facility to a foreign-owned controlled or 14 dominated entity.
15 And we are not asking for specific 16 requests for comments on that but of course, we would 17 encourage you to provide comments if you have any.
18 Both on the proposed change to Section 50.38 and to 19 the whole production utilization facility proposal.
20 Next slide, please.
21 Slide 21 is about physical security. The 22 proposed rule would allow certain changes to eliminate 23 licensee requests for approval via exemptions, 24 amendments, and for certain adjustments to their 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 physical security programs.
1 Current security requirements do not 2
reflect the reduced risk for a decommissioning 3
facility after a fuel is removed from the reactor 4
vessel.
5 When the fuel is transferred into a spent 6
fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that is 7
relied on for a safe operations facility is 8
significantly reduced which allows for certain 9
security measures to be eliminated because their 10 implementation is no longer needed, or the security 11 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection 12 program during decommissioning.
13 Because certain security measures can be 14 adjusted or no longer are necessary for 15 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions and 16 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address 17 this new posture.
18 For
- example, the control room is 19 specifically identified in current security 20 requirements as an area that must be protected as a 21 vital area.
22 The proposed rule would potentially 23 eliminate the need to identify the control room as a 24 vital area when all vital equipment is removed from 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 the control room and when the area does not act as a 1
vital area boundary for other vital areas.
2 Also, current security regulations for 3
power reactor licensee require the use of a licensed 4
senior operator for the suspension of security 5
measures during emergencies. For permanently shutdown 6
and defueled reactors, licensed senior operators are 7
no longer required.
8 The proposed rule would allow certified 9
fuel handlers to be used to suspend security measures 10 during emergencies at a decommissioning facility. And 11 lastly, to eliminate the need for a submission of 12 license amendments and exemptions for licensee 13 transition to ISFSIs.
14 The NRC is proposing that once all spent 15 nuclear fuel has been placed in dry cask storage, 16 licensees may elect to protect a general license ISFSI 17 in accordance with the physical security requirements 18 that are consistent with Part 72, Subpart H, and 10 19 CFR 73.51.
20 Licensees would continue to address the 21 applicable security-related orders associated with an 22 ISFSI that are conditions of the license. Next slide, 23 please. Slide 22 is about cyber security.
24 Consistent with the graded approach, 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 proposed rule would continue to apply cybersecurity 1
requirements to decommissioning plants until the risk 2
to public health and safety is significantly reduced.
3 So, specifically, the cybersecurity 4
requirement would be applicable through Level 2, which 5
is after a period of sufficient cooling as discussed 6
previously.
7 Under the proposed rule, the power reactor 8
licensees under Part 50 and Part 52 would be subject 9
to the same requirement.
10 So, for Part 50 licensees the proposed 11 rule would remove the license conditions that requires 12 licensees to maintain their cybersecurity plan and for 13 Part 52, combined license holders for the proposed 14 rule would extend the requirement to maintain a 15 cybersecurity plan during decommissioning, which would 16 be a new requirement.
17 So, the purpose of those changes is to 18 make both types of facilities have the same 19 requirement.
20 For currently operating or recently 21 shutdown Part 50 reactor licensees, because the 22 licensee's cybersecurity plan is included as a license 23 condition, the license condition to maintain a 24 cybersecurity program per their cybersecurity plan 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 remains in effect until the termination of a license 1
or the NRC removes the condition from the license.
2 For example, if a licensee submits a 3
license amendment request and the NRC approved it.
4 Therefore, the proposed rule would not 5
constitute backfitting, as Howard was explaining 6
earlier, because the proposed rule would codify the 7
already-imposed requirement of the cybersecurity plan 8
license condition during Level 1 of decommissioning or 9
until the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has cooled 10 sufficiently.
11 So, this is not the case for combined 12 license holders. The proposed rule would constitute a 13 new requirement because the operational program, such 14 as a security program that includes a cybersecurity 15 program are requirements in the regulations and are 16 not separately identified as license conditions as 17 they are for the Part 50 licensees.
18 Presently, combined license holders are 19 required to maintain a cybersecurity program only as 20 long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them.
21 This means that combined license holders 22 are not required to maintain their cybersecurity 23 program during decommissioning between power reactor 24 licensee is not authorized to operate the nuclear 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 power reactor during decommissioning.
1 We do have a specific request for comment 2
from this topic. The proposed rule applies the 3
cybersecurity requirements to plants that are in Level 4
1 of the graded approach.
5 However, a licensee in Level 2 would not 6
be required to maintain the cybersecurity plan because 7
the NRC has determined there is little chance that the 8
spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could heat up to a 9
clad ignition temperature within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
10 What are the advantages and disadvantages 11 of extending cybersecurity requirements to shut down 12 nuclear power-plants until all spent fuel is 13 transferred to dry cask storage?
14 And then additional information, we wanted 15 to point out that the change in 10 CFR 73.54 is 16 identified in the proposed rule as a change affecting 17 issue finality for Part 52 combined license holders, 18 as defined in 52.98.
19 So, therefore, the proposed rule includes 20 a backfit analysis in Section IX.D. Next slide, 21 please.
22 We're on Slide 23, drug and alcohol 23 testing. The proposed rule would make several changes 24 related to requirements for drug and alcohol testing.
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 There are three that I'd like to highlight for this 1
topic.
2 The first one, for Part 26, which is 3
related to requirements for fitness for duty, the 4
proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 26.3 scope to correct 5
an inconsistency in the applicability of Part 26, Part 6
50, and Part 52 license holders of nuclear power 7
reactors.
8 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50 9
license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's 10 50.82(a)(1) certification that the power reactor has 11 permanently ceased operations, which formally begins 12 the decommissioning process.
13 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the 14 holder of a combined license issued under Part 52 15 throughout decommissioning. There's no technical 16 basis for this inconsistency.
17 The staff is proposing this in the 18 proposed rule.
19 Section 26.3 would be revised to specify 20 that Part 26 also no longer applies to a Part 52 21 license holder once the NRC dockets licensee's 22 52.110(a) certification that the power reactor has 23 permanently ceased operation.
24 The second item in this topic is Part 26 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 related to criminal penalties.
1 Section 26.3 includes a substantive 2
requirement for certain entities to comply with the 3
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 by a specific deadline 4
and violations of the regulation should be subject to 5
criminal penalties.
6 Specific deadlines in 26.3(a) were added 7
in a 2008 Part 26 final rule but Section 26.825(b) was 8
not updated to reflect this change, which was an 9
oversight.
10 Therefore, the proposed rule would remove 11 26.3 from the list of the provisions that are not 12 subject to criminal penalties if violated in Section 13 26.825(b).
14 The final item on this topic is related to 15 an insider mitigation
- program, Section 16 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) requires that a licensee's insider 17 mitigation program contain elements of fitness for 18 duty program described under Part 26 but does not 19 identify which fitness for duty program elements must 20 be included in the insider mitigation program.
21 The proposed rule would establish the 22 required elements of the fitness for duty program in 23 the insider mitigation program for operating and 24 decommissioning reactors under Part 50 and 52.
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 Next slide, please. Slide 24, back to 1
Howard.
2 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 24 concerns the 3
removal of license conditions and withdrawal of an 4
order. We are proposing these actions because the 5
order and license conditions are substantively 6
redundant with existing provisions in our regulations.
7 The order that we're proposing to withdraw 8
is Order EA 06-137 concerning mitigation strategies 9
for large fires or explosions at nuclear power-plants.
10 This order was issued after events of 9/11.
11 The license conditions are the conditions 12 associated with that order but also another post-9/11 13 order, Order EA-02-026, plus the cybersecurity license 14 conditions that Dan was just talking about.
15 The license conditions that we would 16 remove through this rulemaking would be removed by 17 what we call administrative license amendments. That 18 means the NRC staff would take the initiative of 19 issuing license amendments.
20 Typically, what happens is the licensee 21 requests approval for a license amendment and submits 22 a request to the NRC. We review it and if it meets 23 the criteria, we approve it.
24 In this case, the NRC staff would issue 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 them without having a licensee applying for that 1
amendment. We do include in this Federal Register 2
notice a specific request for comment.
3 We are interested if there are other 4
orders or license conditions that also could be 5
removed or withdrawn if they are substantively 6
redundant with our existing regulations.
7 Next slide, please. Fuel management, Dan?
8 MR. DOYLE: Spent fuel management, the NRC 9
staff identified ambiguity in the spent fuel 10 management and decommissioning regulations due to a 11 lack of cross-referencing between Part 72 and Part 50.
12 The rulemaking clarifies the information for 13 consistency.
14 Specifically, the regulation in 72.218 15 states that 50.54(bb) spent fuel management program, 16 the irradiated fuel management plan, or IFMP, must 17 show how the spent fuel will be managed before 18 starting to decommission systems and components needed 19 for removing, unloading, and shipping the spent fuel.
20 Section 72.218 also requires that an 21 application for termination of a reactor-operating 22 license submitted under 50.82 or 52.110 must also 23 describe how the spent fuel stored under the Part 72 24 general license will be removed from the reactor site.
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 Although 72.218 states what information 1
must be included in these Part 50 documents, the 2
corresponding regulations in Part 50 do not contain 3
this information.
4 Therefore, the NRC proposes to clarify and 5
align the regulations in 50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110, and 6
72.218 to ensure that appropriate documentation of 7
spent fuel management plans and decommissioning plans.
8 What are we proposing?
9 The NRC proposes moving the 72.218 10 provision to 50.54(bb) to clarify that the IFMP must 11 be submitted and approved before the licensee starts 12 to decommission systems structures and components 13 needed for moving, unloading, and shipping the spent 14 fuel.
15 The NRC proposes to clarify the current 16 IFMP approval process and the 50.54(bb) provisions 17 regarding preliminary approval and final NRC review of 18 the IFMP as part of any proceeding for continued 19 licensing under Part 50 or 72, as these proceedings no 20 longer exist as they did when the 50.54(bb) regulation 21 was first promulgated. The NRC proposes to require 22 submittal of the initial IFMP and any subsequent 23 changes to the IFMP as a license amendment request.
24 Changes to 72.218. We're proposing to 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 revise 72.218 to a draft requirement related to 1
decommissioning and termination of the Part 72 general 2
license as the current title of 72.218, Termination 3
of licenses suggests.
4 Specifically, the proposed 72.218 notes 5
that the general license ISFSI must be decommissioned 6
consistent with the requirements in 50.82 or 52.110 as 7
the general license ISFSI is part of the Part 50 or 8
Part 52 licensed site.
9 Also, the proposed 72.218 notes that the 10 general license is terminated upon termination of the 11 Part 50 or Part 52 license. We do have a specific 12 request for comment on this topic.
13 The proposed rule clarifies that the 14 current IFMP approval process, by requiring submittal 15 of the initial IFMP, and any changes to the IFMP for 16 NRC review and approval -- I'm sorry, the proposed 17 rule clarified the current IFMP approval process by 18 requiring submittal of initial IFMP and any changes to 19 the IFMP for NRC review and approval by license 20 amendment.
21 We would like to know if stakeholders see 22 any challenges with implementing this part of the 23 proposed rule. We're also considering a change to 24 control provision to specify what changes the licensee 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 can make to the IFMP without NRC approval.
1 We would like to know stakeholders' 2
opinion on a change control process including the 3
criteria for changes licensees can make without NRC 4
approval and any associated recordkeeping and 5
reporting for those changes.
6 Guidance, we have developed guidance 7
corresponding to the proposed rule changes in the 8
draft guide for the IFMP.
9 We added guidance to Draft Guide 1347 10 that's in Section C.3 to outline the information to be 11 included in the licensee's IFMP.
12 For general license ISFSI decommissioning, 13 we added references to general license ISFSIs in both 14 Draft Guide 1347 and Draft Guide 1349 to make it clear 15 that the general license ISFSI must be decommissioned 16 consistent with the requirements in 50.82 and 52.110.
17 The NRC staff believes these changes will 18 provide regulatory clarity and enhance overall 19 regulatory transparency and openness regarding 20 decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.
21 Next slide, please. Slide 26, low-level 22 waste transportation. When a plant is actively being 23 decommissioned, the plant typically generates large 24 volumes of bulk low-level radioactive waste.
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 To efficiently manage the transportation 1
of the waste to a licensed disposal site, most 2
licensees ship waste by rail.
3 The railroads control the schedule for the 4
transportation of the rail cars to the destination and 5
a time to reach the disposal site destination is 6
generally more than the 20-day notification 7
requirement, which is currently in the regulation.
8 Licensees will continue to monitor and 9
track the location and progress of their low-level 10 waste shipments, but the proposed rule would say that 11 the notifications to the NRC are not required unless a 12 45-day limit is exceeded.
13 Next slide, please. Slide 27, certified 14 fuel handler definition and elimination of the shift 15 technical advisor.
16 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed 17 operators who are commonly used at permanently 18 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in 19 the spent fuel pool.
20 The certified fuel handler is intended to 21 be the on-shift representative who is responsible for 22 safe fuel handling activities and always present on 23 shift to ensure safety of the spent fuel and any 24 decommissioning-related activities at the facility.
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 Currently, a certified fuel handler is 1
qualified through a training program that must be 2
reviewed and approved by the NRC.
3 The proposed rule would modify the 4
definition of the certified fuel handler and add a 5
provision that removes the need for NRC approval of 6
the training program if the training program for 7
certified fuel handlers is derived from a systems 8
approach training that includes specific topics that 9
are outlined in the proposed rule language.
10 Specifically, the training program must 11 address the safe conduct of decommissioning 12 activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel, 13 and appropriate response to planned emergencies.
14 The proposed rule would also clarify that 15 a shift technical advisor is not required for 16 decommissioning nuclear power reactors. Next slide, 17 please.
18 Back to Howard.
19 MR. BENOWITZ: On Slide 28, we're talking 20 about how our current regulations don't consistently 21 refer to both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees and 22 decommissioning. We have many provisions in our 23 regulations that already apply to licensees when they 24 enter decommissioning.
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 This proposed rule, as you've heard over 1
the last hour, we're proposing changes to our 2
regulations to make others applicable during 3
decommissioning and to revise others to make it clear 4
that they apply during decommissioning.
5 Here, you can see in the top right corner 6
of the slide there are many provisions that in most 7
part, only refer to the Part 50 licensees in 8
decommissioning and don't refer to Part 52 licensees.
9 Or if they do, it's possibly the wrong 10 provision in Part 52.
11 It's 52.110, sometimes it says it's (a)(1) 12
-- the wrong paragraph -- instead of (a) it's (a)(1),
13 and so these are in some cases typos but in other 14 cases, it is somewhat substantive to make sure that 15 our regulations consistently apply to both Part 50 and 16 Part 52 licensees in decommissioning.
17 And so that's essentially a pretty 18 straightforward slide and proposal. Back to you, Dan.
19 MR. DOYLE: This is Slide 29, record-20 retention requirements. This is the last of our 21 specific topic slides.
22 As noted, when a plant is no longer 23 operating and is in decommissioning, most plant 24 components such as pumps and valves are no longer in 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 service and will eventually be removed as part of the 1
dismantlement activities.
2 Therefore, there's no longer a need to 3
retain certain records associated with these 4
components and the rulemaking eliminates many 5
recordkeeping retention requirements.
6 This proposed change would not impact the 7
records that are required to be maintained in support 8
of decommissioning and license termination activities.
9 The proposed rule also includes a specific question 10 concerning the recordkeeping requirements for 11 facilities license under 10 CFR Part 52.
12 One of the rulemaking's few proposed 13 changes to Part 52 would be in 52.63 regarding the 14 recordkeeping and retention requirements for 15 departures of the design of a facility.
16 However, these changes would not apply to 17 a combined license holder that references one of the 18 certified designs in the Part 52 appendices because 19 those appendices have their own recordkeeping 20 provision.
21 The NRC is asking if we should revise the 22 Part 52 appendices to conform those recordkeeping 23 requirements with those proposed for 52.63. Next 24 slide, please.
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 As we highlighted on these provide slides, 1
there were 18 specific requests for comment. Most of 2
them were linked to the topics and those were the ones 3
that we highlighted. However, there were two that 4
were not directly related to these topics, so I'd like 5
to just point them out quickly now.
6 One is the timeframe for decommissioning.
7 So, the NRC is not proposing changes to 8
the decommissioning timeframe requirement, but we do 9
have a question on this topic, and we'd like to know 10 what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of 11 requiring prompt decontamination rather than allowing 12 up to 60 years to decommission a site.
13 As part of its review of the PSDAR, one of 14 the advantages and disadvantages of the NRC evaluating 15 and making a decision about the timeframe for 16 decommissioning on a site-specific basis.
17 The other topic, actually there were 18 three, the second one is exemptions. As stated in the 19 proposed rule, one of the goals of amending these 20 regulations is to reduce the need for regulatory 21 exemptions.
22 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission 23 may grant exemptions from the requirements, the 24 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will 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 not present an undue risk to public health and safety 1
and is consistent with common defense and security.
2 What are the advantages and disadvantages 3
of the current 50.12 approach to 4
decommissioning-related exemptions? What standard 5
should the NRC apply in determining whether to grant 6
exemptions from the new or amended regulations?
7 What are the advantages and disadvantages 8
of providing an opportunity for the public to weigh in 9
on such exemption requests? Are there other process 10 changes the NRC should consider in determining whether 11 to grant exemptions from the new or amended 12 regulations?
13 And then the third one is about 14 applicability. There is the discussion for the 15 applicability to NRC licensees during operations and 16 to ISFSI only and standalone ISFSI Commission reactor 17 sites.
18 Permanently shutdown nuclear power 19 reactors will be at different stages of the 20 decommissioning process when the new decommissioning 21 regulations become effective and we'll have previously 22 received varying regulatory exemptions.
23 Can you foresee any implementation issues 24 with the proposed rule as its currently written for 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 any new or amended requirements included in the 1
proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to 2
sites that are currently in different stages of 3
decommissioning?
4 Next slide, please.
5 Slide 31, we do have a regulatory 6
analysis, as a I mentioned, that accompanies the 7
proposed rule. I just want to point out some items of 8
interest.
9 Overall, the regulatory analysis concludes 10 that this action as proposed would be overall cost 11 beneficial with an estimated benefit of approximately 12
$18 million at a 7 percent net present value, 37 13 million at 3 percent net present value.
14 The three areas that influence us the most 15 were emergency preparedness, about $7.7 million, drug 16 and alcohol testing alternatives about $7 million, and 17 the decommissioning funding assurance alternative, 18 about $1 million.
19 So, we have a detailed discussion of what 20 we identified as the cost and benefits and you're 21 welcome to take a look at that and provide comments as 22 part of your review. Next slide, please.
23 Moving to Slide 33. We do have several 24 tips for you to consider as you're reviewing the 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 proposed rule and preparing your public comments. I'm 1
trying to provide some helpful information here to 2
make your comments more effective.
3 So, number one is to take a look at the 4
commenter's checklist at regulations.gov. This is a 5
government-wide website where agencies will publish 6
information about rulemaking activities and collect 7
public comments so they have a checklist that's on 8
their things to consider.
9 There's a link to it right on the comment 10 submission form and there's also a link in the slides 11 to a printable format so it just has some tips about 12 the type of information to provide in your comments.
13 Next slide, please.
14 As I mentioned earlier, we do have an 15 unofficial red-line rule document that shows how the 16 proposed rule would modify the current regulations in 17 red-line strike-out format.
18 There's a direct link to it right there in 19 the accession number.
20 Next slide, please. Tip 3 is that we do 21 have a public website, this is intended to be a one-22 stop shop for information about this rulemaking 23 activity. You could scan that code with your phone, 24 that would bring you right to the website.
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 There's also a short link there or if you 1
have any trouble accessing, my contact information is 2
on the slide. I'd be happy to give you a direct link 3
or help you out.
4 So, this website has a link directly to 5
the proposed rule. All these related documents that I 6
mentioned, there's a direct link to the comment form, 7
information about passed and upcoming public meetings.
8 As Trish mentioned, we do have one 9
additional public meeting coming up on Monday.
10 And the next slide, Slide 36, how to 11 submit a comment. This is just summarizing the 12 instructions that we have in the proposed rule. There 13 are multiple methods that you can use to give your 14 comments to use. The one that we prefer is 15 regulations.gov.
16 There's a comment form there where you 17 could type in your comments or you could upload a 18 document if you had prepared comments in a word file 19 or if you have a PDF you can upload your own document.
20 Or you could email it to us at 21 rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov or you could mail it to 22 the address shown there. Please don't submit your 23 comments in multiple methods, sometimes people do that 24 just to make sure we get it.
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 If you do submit it, we will get it. If 1
you send the email, you'll get a confirmation email 2
back to know that it was received. And next slide, 3
- 37. We're just showing the high-level next steps.
4 So, as I mentioned earlier, we will be 5
extending the public comment period to August 30th so 6
the comment period would close 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time 7
on August 30th.
8 After the comment period closes, the NRC 9
staff will review and address the public comments as 10 part of developing the final rule package, which we 11 plan to submit to the Commission, October of 2023.
12 This day does not reflect the change to 13 the schedule so that's something we're going to have 14 to take a look at and see. That may be adjusted but 15 the current official estimated date is October 2023 16 for the staff to submit it to the Commission.
17 And then the final rule publication date 18 of May 2024. That wraps up the staff's prepared 19 comments, thanks for your patience and attention with 20 that. I will now turn it back over to Brett for the 21 public feedback and questions portion of the meeting.
22 MR. KLUKAN: Thanks, Dan, I appreciate it.
23 My name is Brett Klukan, I am hopefully going to lead 24 us through -- that's much better. Again, we're now 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 going to turn to the public feedback and question 1
portion of the meeting, however, before we do that, 2
one more step.
3 I'd like to offer any elected officials or 4
representatives an opportunity to either be recognized 5
or to give prepared remarks or to ask questions. And 6
I'd like to begin with any representatives of tribal 7
nations.
8 So, do we have any representative tribal 9
nation in the room who would like to be recognized or 10 to ask a question?
11 Seeing none, if you are a tribal official 12 or representative of a tribal official participating 13 virtually this evening and would like to be recognized 14 or to ask a question at this time, please either raise 15 your hand in teams, it's a little raise-hand button at 16 the top of the screen, or hit star-five.
17 That's star-five if you are participating 18 by phone. Once you have been called upon, please 19 remember to unmute yourself within teams or by hitting 20 star 6 on your phone.
21 Again, we would ask that you please 22 identify yourself for the sake of the transcript and 23 recording. With that, Lance, do we have any 24 representatives of tribal nations who would like to be 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 recognized at this time?
1 MR. RAKOVAN: None have identified 2
themselves.
3 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. We will 4
now turn to Congressional representatives and we have 5
with us this evening, Shelly Abajian, the District 6
Director for U.S. Senator Feinstein and we also have 7
Greg Haas, the Senior District representative for 8
Congressman Carbajal.
9 I asked how to pronounce that because I 10 knew I was going to mess it up beforehand because it 11 would stick in my throat so I apologize.
12 So, anyway, do we have any other 13 Congressional representatives in the room or 14 representatives of Congresspeople in the room with us 15 this evening who would like to be recognized at this 16 time or to ask a question?
17
- Lance, are there any Congressional 18 representatives on the phone or on Teams who would 19 like to be recognized or as a question? I feel like 20 I'm looking into the sky, I don't know why, it's what 21 I do when I do these virtual meetings because I don't 22 know where to look.
23 So, do we have anyone, Lance?
24 MR. RAKOVAN: None have identified 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 themselves, Brett.
1 MR. KLUKAN: We will now turn to any state 2
representatives. And state representatives in the 3
room? How about on the phone? If you are a state 4
representative, please raise your hand if you'd like 5
to be recognized or to ask a question or hit star 5 on 6
your phone.
7 MR. RAKOVAN: Again, I see no hands, 8
Brett.
9 MR. KLUKAN: Any county or local elected 10 officials who would like to stand and be recognized at 11 this time or to ask a question? Anyone in the room?
12 Online, is there anyone participating via 13 Teams who is a representative of a county or local 14 elected official who would like to be recognized or to 15 ask a question at this time?
16 MR. RAKOVAN: No one raising their hand, 17 Brett.
18 MR. KLUKAN: We will now turn over to --
19 the two that I mentioned, thank you for joining us 20 this evening. We're now going to transition to the 21 question and answer portion of the meeting.
22 Remember, our goal, as I articulated at 23 the beginning of the meeting, is the help inform your 24 process of providing written comments so that we ask 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 that you focus your questions on any clarifications 1
you think that you may need or others may need in 2
terms of what you've heard tonight with respect to the 3
proposed decommissioning rule and draft regulatory 4
guidance.
5 The process that I'm going to use again is 6
that I'm going to call one person in the room and then 7
go to one person online. For those of you in the 8
room, when you are called to speak, please go to the 9
microphone position to the left of me.
10 If you would like to have a microphone 11 brought to you, please raise your hand. When I call 12 your name, I will bring this microphone to you.
13 And again, though I've said it several 14 times already, let Lance know that you would like ask 15 a question as a member of the public on Teams or for 16 those of you participating via the phone, please 17 either raise your hand within Teams, it's a little 18 raise-hand button or press star 5.
19 Again, that is star 5. When you've been 20 called on to ask your question, if you're on Teams you 21 can then unmute yourself or if you're on the phone you 22 then have to press star 6.
23 Trust me, I will repeat this at least 10 24 more times this evening. So, it looks like we have 2 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com people who signed up in the room. I'm just trying to 1
get a sense of how many people in the room think they 2
have a question right now.
3 So, two people, anyone else? Lance, I'm 4
just trying to get a sense of how many people we have.
5 There's a third. Lance, looking up again at the sky, 6
how many people online have raised their hands at this 7
time?
8 MR. RAKOVAN: I currently have one hand 9
online.
10 MR. KLUKAN: We're going to start first 11 with Jane Swanson. If you'd like to come up to the 12 microphone to ask your questions? And then again 13 after that we'll go to someone online.
14 If you could state your name and 15 affiliation for the transcript.
16 MS. SWANSON: Right, Jane Swanson, I'm a 17 spokesperson, one of the several spokespersons, for 18 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. I'd like to thank 19 this body, first of all, for extending the deadline 20 for comments.
21 Our attorney, Diane Curran, did ask for 22 that, perhaps other parties did, I don't know. But 23 that's very much appreciated. And my comments here 24 today are me as an individual, I'm not a lawyer so I'm 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 just speaking from myself at the moment.
1 While I appreciate that you traveled here 2
to meet with us in person and I know you're trying to 3
be accessible, that's your whole goal, that's your 4
charge, your responsibility, to be accessible to the 5
public.
6 And I go to a lot of public meetings over 7
the last 50 years, a lot, but I must say this is very 8
challenging for me and I'm sure it is for other 9
laypersons.
10 I'm not complaining at you, I'm just 11 giving you feedback that what you just presented, I 12 had the slides on my computer, so I was seeing them 13 the way I wanted to also, but the language is very 14 dense, and you talk really fast.
15 And you go by Part 50.2311 and Part 52 16 whatever so frequently, I couldn't actually keep up 17 with you all. I'm a lot more familiar with the 18 language and vocabulary of this Agency than the 19 average citizen in this community.
20 But I think it's important that the 21 average person -- it shouldn't have to be somebody who 22 is nutty enough like me to devote a lot of time to 23 these issues.
24 A normal person living a normal life 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 should be able to comprehend this and make comments 1
and I'm going to work at it and do the best I can but 2
it will be a very big challenge for me and I cannot 3
imagine -- that's maybe why there are not that many 4
people in the room or online, because it's really 5
difficult.
6 And I appreciate that you're nodding, 7
you're getting my message so I will shorten -- I have 8
a lot to say. Can I say two more minutes, zero or 9
what?
10 MR. KLUKAN: That's why I did try to get a 11 sense of how many people were in here. So, take a 12 couple more minutes, we're not in a rush this evening 13 so I think we should be able to get through. We're 14 here until 8:00 p.m.
15 MS. SWANSON: I've got a lot to say but 16 I'll just make one more verbal comment. I was very 17 distressed to see the plan the NEPA environmental 18 review will happen along the way or afterwards or 19 whatever that was.
20 It should happen first, that should be 21 number one because all parties concerned, lawyers, 22 laypersons, PG&Es, that should be all be laid out, 23 what the national and policy act has to do with 24 decommissioning. It's super important.
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 If it waits until the end then it's a fait 1
accompli and there's nothing you can do about it.
2 So, that would be my strongest verbal 3
message and I'm happy to have the opportunity to say 4
it in a public forum because I hope that puts a little 5
flag up for other people and they might look into that 6
also.
7 Thank you, the rest of my comments will 8
come online. Thank you very much.
9 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Lance, 10 if you could please unmute our next speaker?
11 MR. RAKOVAN: Ms. ZamEk, you should be 12 able to unmute yourself, your mic is active.
13 MS. ZAMEK: Hello, I'm Jill ZamEk, I live 14 in Arroyo Grande. I appreciate this opportunity for a 15 local meeting to discuss this extremely important and 16 complex proposed rule.
17 I'm very pleased that the deadline for the 18 submittal of comments has been extended until August 19 30th. I have a multitude of questions, I don't know 20 how you're going to handle them but I'll start and see 21 if you want to answer them on the spot or how you 22 manage it.
23 At first glance of the proposed rule, I 24 observed that the changes allow for licensee benefits 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 of cost savings and reduced regulatory burden. What 1
enhanced financial and safety protections are included 2
in this rule for us, the host community?
3 Do you answer the questions now or should 4
I just keep going?
5 MR. KLUKAN: If you know that you have 6
several questions that are related, I think it makes 7
sense to bundle them together, however, if you're 8
going to jump to a different topic, then maybe let the 9
staff address this one.
10 Because again, we only have a handful of 11 speakers at this time, I think that method will work.
12 If you have other questions related to this, I would 13 ask those now as well.
14 But if this is your only question on that, 15 then we can move on to the other ones after the staff 16 has potentially had a chance to respond to that.
17 MS. ZAMEK: I don't think any of my 18 questions are related.
19 MR. DOYLE: Let's just try to respond here 20 to questions. So, you were asking basically, are 21 there safety enhancements or additional requirements 22 that would be imposed to provide more protections for 23 the public in this rulemaking?
24 So, in general this is making efficiency 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 improvements and clarifying the regulations and just 1
going back to the original comment, I also understand 2
what you're saying and apologize that this is not as 3
accessible language.
4 But a lot of these are niche topics where 5
there's a long history to it and it's a challenge to 6
summarize. And I think we didn't quite hit that mark 7
is what I heard so I apologize for that.
8 But I guess to directly answer your 9
question that there's nothing in here from the NRC's 10 perspective, I guess I'll look around.
11 Hopefully, what I'm saying is consistent 12 with what we have in the proposed rule that it's not 13 imposing some new requirements where the NRC had 14 identified a safety issue or a security issue that 15 required that.
16 We are making adjustments that are 17 basically intended for improving efficiency.
18 MR. MORRIS: It's probably worth pointing 19 out the NRC is governed by five core principles, 20 independence, clarity, openness, reliability and 21 efficiency.
22 And so to the extent that efficiency also 23 applies to us, because the current process that's been 24 utilized, the exemption process, is quite inefficient 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 and it actually consumes quite a bit of our resources 1
as well for no real safety benefit.
2 MR. KLUKAN: For those of you on the 3
phone, I just wanted to point out the last speaker was 4
Scott Morris, the Regional Administrator for Region 4.
5 And he was preceded by Dan Doyle, for those of you 6
who can't see our faces on the video, those were the 7
last two speakers.
8 So, you said you had some additional 9
questions?
10 MS. ZAMEK: I do. To follow up on that 11 one, there are no financial and safety protections 12 included for the community members then.
13 Number two, my second question, are there 14 provisions for increased public involvement in the 15 decommissioning decision-making in this draft 16 proposal?
17 MR. KLUKAN: The question again, just to 18 make sure, the staff is asking me to clarify, you're 19 asking are there any additions to the rule with 20 regards to public involvement in the decommissioning 21 process?
22 Did I capture that correctly?
23 MS. ZAMEK: Yes, when are opportunities?
24 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce Watson, I'm the 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 Chief of the Reactor Decommissioning Branch at NRC 1
Headquarters.
2 I guess I was going to kind of expand a 3
little bit on the first question you had in that while 4
the rule actually provides for efficiencies for both 5
the NRC and the licensees, because there's about 20 to 6
25 actions that they take when they shut down a plant.
7 And if they don't have to do those actions 8
to the level that we require right now by making it 9
more efficient, there's a savings to the licensee in 10 the fact that the trust fund is being spent on real 11 decommissioning and not on just licensing activities.
12 There is a net benefit there for the 13 public in that their funds that they provided through 14 the Public Service Commission to fund the 15 decommissioning fund will now be used better 16 effectively towards the actual decommissioning.
17 So, I think that's the answer really to 18 the first one. It's kind of indirect but that's the 19 net result.
20 And the second one is, yes, I will agree 21 with you that many of the opportunities for public 22 engagement over these issues, if it's a license 23 amendment, there's always the opportunity for a 24 hearing.
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 By codifying these, these will no longer 1
be available for requesting public involvement in 2
them.
3 However, I just do want to point out that 4
we've had 17 reactor shutdowns over the history of 5
since the 1990s and so since 2013, we've had 12 more 6
shutdowns that will benefit the plants in the future 7
from these types of regulatory actions by being 8
codified.
9 So, the plants in the future will be able 10 to use these regulations to be more efficient for 11 transitioning into decommissioning.
12 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, and I would just 13 add that if you are concerned about this, the purpose 14 of this meeting, if you believe the rule should 15 include additional opportunities for public 16 interaction within decommissioning, please, we would 17 ask that you submit that as a comment as one of the 18 methods the staff described this evening.
19 How about one more question? And then I 20 feel like I should move on. If we have time at the 21 end, we can come back to you. One more question right 22 now?
23 MS.
ZAMEK:
What is the NRC's 24 decision-making rule with respect to the 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 decommissioning activities on the site? What 1
authority does the NRC have over the licensees 2
decommissioning plan?
3 MR. WATSON: Yes, this is Bruce Watson 4
again, Chief of the Reactor Decommissioning Branch.
5 The NRC provides oversight of decommissioning 6
activities in a number of ways. The first is through 7
the licensing process which my branch does in 8
particular.
9 We issue the licensing documents such as 10 changes to the technical specifications or the safety 11 analysis report. And the licensees conduct those 12 activities they're going to do within the existing 13 safety evaluation process they've been using since the 14 plant was operating.
15 I hate to throw out the number but it's 10 16 CFR 50.59 is the safety evaluation process.
17 And that process is inspected to by our 18 regional inspectors and so they keep track of the work 19 they plan to do but continue to inspect it during the 20 actual major activities that are conducted to make 21 sure they're done safely.
22 So, oversight of the decommissioning, in a 23 couple ways, like I said, one is through the licensing 24 process and the second one is through the inspection 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 process.
1 MR. MORRIS: If I could just add -- this 2
is Scott Morris, regional administrator for Region 4, 3
we manage a very active decommissioning program out of 4
the regional office.
5 I've got several fully qualified 6
decommissioning inspectors who visit the sites 7
routinely, are in constant communication with the 8
sites such that when significant activities are 9
ongoing, we can be present to observe those in real 10 time.
11 And all of those inspection reports are 12 available in the public record.
13 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, Scott and Bruce, 14 for your comments and thank you for your questions.
15 Again, I just want to circle back to other people who 16 have indicated the desire to speak, and then if we 17 have time to make sure they get that opportunity.
18 And then if we have time, we'll circle 19 back to your additional questions. So, thank you, 20 though, for the questions you've raised thus far.
21 We're now going to turn to our next person 22 in the room and that is Sherry Lewis. If you'd like 23 to come up to the microphone.
24 MS. LEWIS: My name is Sherry Lewis and 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 I'm connected with San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.
1 I have a couple of questions, one is about the 2
overloading, as I think of it, of the spent fuel 3
pools.
4 PG&E has chosen to have the pools loaded 5
more and more and more to maximum capacity and the 6
reason seems to be that when the plant shuts down and 7
all of the spent fuel is in the pool, they can be 8
unloaded to dry cask at a quicker time, which saves 9
them money.
10 But the problem with that is that when you 11 have the pools filled so much and you have, say, and 12 earthquake and loss of pool water, then the Zirconium 13 cladding can catch on fire and you can have a huge 14 fire problem.
15 Now, the thing there is it is known, not 16 that I'm saying how, that it's safer to have the spent 17 fuel is dry cask storage than to have it in the pools.
18 So, the important thing is to have them taken out of 19 the pools as soon as you can, as soon as they're cool 20 enough, to go into dry cask storage.
21 But what PG&E is opting to do is to keep 22 it all there and not deal with taking it out until the 23 end when it can be done more quickly. So, my question 24 then is how can NRC countenance something like that?
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 That's choosing economics over safety.
1 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you for the question.
2 I appreciate you coming out this evening and raising 3
it.
4 We do have Scott Morris with us, the 5
Region 4 regional administrator, we'd like to if we 6
have time at the end to focus on plant-specific 7
questions, we can circle back around to those.
8 But we want to make sure we get through 9
all the questions with respect to the decommissioning 10 rule first.
11 So, as time permits we can circle back to 12 that question and I'll raise it again, but we just 13 want to make sure right now we capture within the time 14 for the meeting the questions with respect to the 15 decommissioning rule itself.
16 But again, thank you for raising the 17 question, I'm not trying to dismiss it.
18 MS. LEWIS: I have another question.
19 MR. MORRIS: And if I could just add, if 20 we run out of time I'll make myself available at the 21 end.
22 MS. LEWIS: My other one again you can 23 come back to, it probably wouldn't fit in now, the 24 Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel has 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 spent many years and thousands of hours coming up with 1
a lot of good information and suggestions.
2 And I'm wondering if the NRC pays 3
attention to anything like that? They are a local 4
group where you would get some more local input. So, 5
that's an important thing, to be able to use the 6
information that these people have spent a long time 7
gathering.
8 MR. KLUKAN: Bruce Watson is going to take 9
that one for us.
10 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce Watson, 11 citizens advisory panels, citizen advisory boards, 12 they come in a variety of names, yes, we encourage the 13 utility or the local community to form one.
14 Some are formed by the states, we do 15 participate in those if we're invited, however, we 16 also generally listen to what's going on with them.
17 I've been here to speak at the Diablo one before and 18 there's another safety group here that I've spoken 19 with.
20 It's an independent safety committee from 21 the state, and I've spoken to them before too. We do 22 pay a lot of attention to what's going on with those 23 groups and we have them at a variety of sites around 24 the country.
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 Not all of them have them but many of them 1
do have them.
2 As a matter of fact, a few years ago I 3
held a meeting right here to collect comments because 4
we were charged by Congress to put together a report 5
for best practices for citizens advisory panels or 6
boards, and that report went out in July of 2019.
7 And so that report went to Congress and I 8
led that effort for the Agency and we held a meeting 9
on that particular issue right here in this room. We 10 got a lot of good feedback from the Diablo Canyon 11 Citizens Advisory Panel.
12 MS. LEWIS: Thank you.
13 DR. HOLAHAN: And if I can add, that 14 report, we sent it to Congress when we had the overall 15 report done and we had good practices from several 16 different sites.
17 So, we put that report together and we've 18 asked the question in the proposed rule whether that 19 should be required or not.
20 But we found that it was better to leave 21 it up to the individual sites to formulate their 22 citizens advisory board.
23 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for your 24 questions and as time permits, we'll circle back to 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 your first one.
1 Lance, has anyone else raised a hand on 2
Teams or indicated for those participating by phone 3
hit star 5 to notify you they would like to ask a 4
question at this time?
5 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, we have three hands up.
6 Marty Brown, you can unmute yourself and ask your 7
question if you'd like?
8 MR. KLUKAN: Please go ahead whenever 9
you're ready.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: Mr. Brown, you should be 11 able to unmute yourself. Are you there?
12 MR. KLUKAN: If you're on Teams, click the 13 little thing that looks like a microphone, which 14 should have a Ghostbuster symbol through it, whatever, 15 I'm dating myself. Or hit star six on your phone.
16 Maybe we can come back Mr. Brown. Lance, 17 can we have another speaker?
18 MR. RAKOVAN: Sure, Ryan Pickering, you 19 should be able to unmute yourself and ask a question 20 now.
21 MR. PICKERING: Thank you and good 22 evening. I want to begin by thanking this group for 23 progressing this work of streamlining our 24 decommissioning process in the United States.
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 This is a critical effort in order to save 1
taxpayer dollars and dispel fear in the public, and 2
finally, make nuclear energy even more competitive 3
than it already is.
4 So, I just want to commend the work and 5
though, as a layperson I did find it mildly confusing, 6
I was roughly able to follow along. So, keep up the 7
good work and we appreciate efforts to save taxpayer 8
dollars.
9 My question is I'm wondering if there has 10 been a consideration of a rule proposal to facilitate 11 a nuclear power-plant operator changing direction from 12 decommissioning to life extension.
13 As we've heard both the Governor of 14 California and Michigan are pushing to keep nuclear 15 power-plants open, I'm wondering if there's a rule 16 proposal to facilitate a power-plant operator changing 17 direction from decommissioning to life extension?
18 Thank you.
19 MR. MORRIS: I'll try this one, Scott 20 Morris here, Regional Administrator. There is a 21 process for license renewal, it's a well-trodden road 22 on most plants.
23 Many plants that are operating today have 24 already successfully gone through that process and 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 extended their operating license from the initial 40-1 year period to an additional 20 years.
2 What typically is required is, obviously 3
what's required is an application from the licensee to 4
be able to extend their license. That review process 5
takes nominally two years to get through.
6 It's a detailed evaluation of things that 7
are really impactful for extended life, particularly 8
passive systems, structures, and components. So, the 9
short answer is, yes, there is a way.
10 However, once we receive certification 11 from a licensee that they have permanently ceased 12 operations and all fuel has been removed from the 13 vessel, that changes the whole equation.
14 But before they send those letters to us, 15 then there is an opportunity to extend their license.
16 So, in the case of Diablo Canyon, for example, we 17 haven't received such letters because clearly, they're 18 still operating.
19 So, they do have an opportunity to submit 20 a license renewal application. We don't have that 21 application before us right now but it is a 22 possibility. Bruce, did you want to add to that?
23 Once you get those certification letters 24 in, you've pretty much removed your opportunity for 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 seeking a license extension.
1 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for your 2
comment and question. Sir, I know that you indicated 3
that you'd like to speak this evening, please?
4 MR. PICKERING: Well, thank you, everyone, 5
that's very enlightening and we will do our best to 6
continue to create portable and reliable electricity 7
in the United States.
8 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much, Mr.
9 Pickering, for your comments and participating in the 10 meeting this evening.
11 MR. MILLER: I'm Clint Miller, I actually 12 work at the plant for PG&E but I'm speaking as a 13 ratepayer. I believe you asked a question about the 14 trust fund and the formula and to the spending.
15 Trish, I don't know if you remember me but 16 I've been at a couple of the EPRI meetings virtually 17 so I'm glad to finally meet you after a couple of 18 years in person. Part of that trust fund would be the 19 setting aside money for the disposal cost at a low-20 level waste disposal site.
21 There was an NRC guidance out there on how 22 to calculate that. Long ago, it was based on the 23 disposal site in South Carolina.
24 A few years ago, that guidance from the 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 NRC was updated to where most plants are shipping out 1
either Class A license facility in Utah or to the 2
Class B/C waste to the disposal facility in Texas.
3 The Nuclear Energy Institute sent in 4
comments on that update and said thank you very much 5
for updating the cost but for decommissioning I think 6
really missed the boat, those comments from NEI said, 7
because the large, massive quantities of material 8
which has trace amounts of activity is being sent to 9
these alternative disposal sites, the U.S. Ecology 10 site in Idaho or to the RCRA cell at Texas.
11 And people ship there because it's 12 significantly less than shipping to the Class A site 13 at Utah. And PG&E, they ship large quantities to 14 Idaho and large quantities to Texas.
15 So, I submit that guidance needs to be 16 changed because at certain states you're able to go to 17 your public utility commission and say, hey, we're 18 going to use a different number than what's in the NRC 19 guidance.
20 But the NRC guidance is out there, and as 21 I read it it's requiring you to put more money in the 22 trust fund than is absolutely necessary. And that's 23 an opportunity cost that in these austere economic 24 times just cannot be borne.
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 That money should go back to their 1
ratepayers, never taken from the ratepayers in the 2
first place if they can go through these hard economic 3
times, or it should be available for the utilities to 4
go update their grids to get either more prevention 5
for fires starting or get more transmission to be able 6
to push renewables from where it is today to where 7
it's needed.
8 And it's just a huge opportunity cost. The 9
dollars are there, I don't think another submittal of 10 comments to the NRC is needed because the Nuclear 11 Energy Institute already sent in their comments on 12 that guidance on low-level waste cost testing.
13 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for that, 14 I'm going to turn it over to Bruce.
15 MR. WATSON: Your comment is very good 16 actually, this is Bruce Watson again. Up until the 17 time about five years before the plant shuts down, the 18 licensees can use that formula we have with all the 19 cost factors and all that type of information to come 20 up with the minimum cost for the decommissioning.
21 And that's based on a
reasonable 22 expectation that there will be enough money to 23 complete the decommissioning. It's not a complete 24 assurance but it is reasonable that there's going to 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 be enough money to complete the decommissioning.
1 But five years before they shut down, 2
they're required to submit a site-specific estimate of 3
the cost. Now, unfortunately, a lot of these plants 4
shut down and recently, before they announced that 5
unexpectedly they were going to shut down without 6
meeting that five-year criteria.
7 So, when they do shut down they have to 8
provide a site-specific estimate and that's when they 9
generally adjust the cost based on their specific plan 10 for the disposal of the waste.
11 So, if they expect they're going to create 12 a lot of low-level trivial activity waste that's going 13 to go to a RCRA cell or Idaho, the U.S. Ecology 14 facility, that's when they would make those changes in 15 the cost estimate.
16 But like I said, the formulas is to set 17 the minimum and then they can take the time during 18 anytime in their operation if they really want to go 19 into the details of planning the decommissioning, 20 which isn't an additional cost to do that while 21 they're in operations, to determine how they're going 22 to do the decommissioning.
23 But most don't do that until within five 24 years when they're going to shut down. So, there is 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 an opportunity from the utility to really adjust those 1
costs based on what their plans are.
2 But there's a lot of variability in the 3
strategies that the utilities could use to -- or I 4
should say the companies that are decommissioning the 5
sites and how they choose to do it.
6 And so that would lend for more 7
variability in the cost but I agree with you, if 8
you're shooting high and you're asking for a lot more 9
money, that's probably not fair to everybody, I'll 10 just say that.
11 But they do want to make sure they have a 12 reasonable amount of money to cover the entire cost of 13 the decommissioning.
14 MR. MILLER: I understand, I'm just trying 15 to reiterate that the common practice now is that 16 those vast quantities of material that have trace 17 level activity are going to RCRA cells to much lower 18 fee and it shouldn't be a requirement to stock money 19 that could either be back to the ratepayers five years 20 before or be available for the utilities to ask 21 ratepayers for money to go improve the grid.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Lance, 24 could we have our next speaker on Teams or on the 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 phone, please?
1 MR. RAKOVAN: Lynne Goodman, you should be 2
able to unmute and ask your question now.
3 MS. GOODMAN: Good evening, I'm Lynne 4
Goodman. I have a question that's similar to Mr.
5 Pickering's but somewhat different.
6 Once the current regulatory guidance from 7
how I read it says that once a plant has shut down 8
permanently and submitted its certification, if they 9
want to restart the plant, it's basically a 10 case-by-case basis.
11 Does the proposed guidance address that 12 any further as far as if once a plant has submitted 13 its certification, if it decides to change their mind 14 and wants to restart the plant using what their 15 current license allows, I'm not talking about further 16 extending the license but using the rest of the 17 current license, is that addressed at all in the 18 proposed guidance?
19 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle. We have 20 not proposed any changes in the regulations or the 21 guidance related to that situation where a facility 22 has started the decommissioning process and then 23 wanted to change.
24 That's not something we've proposed any 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 changes related to.
1 MR. MORRIS: This is Scott Morris. I just 2
want to add the practical implications also need to be 3
I think just -- I need to mention them here. Once a 4
plant shuts down, submits those two certifications, at 5
that point, they tend to, the licensed operators that 6
operate the facility, tend to go away.
7 They give up those licenses. To order new 8
fuel to run the reactor is typically at least a two-9 year lead time. And there's a whole bunch of things 10 like that.
11 So, the practical implications are that if 12 a decision like that was made, it would still measure 13 two to three years minimum before they could actually 14
-- even if they had the means to do that in a rule, 15 for example.
16 That's just the practical side of it.
17 MS. GOODMAN: I'm specifically thinking 18 about the Palisades situation since the plant shut 19 down is coming very quickly yet the Governor and 20 others have discussed the potential of not permanently 21 shutting it down or being able to continue to operate 22 it because of the low emissions to meet the carbon 23 goals of the state.
24 So, if it did shut down whether or not it 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 would be potential to restart it up again, recognizing 1
there would be delays to order the fuel and also the 2
plant would have to be maintained in good condition in 3
the meantime.
4 MR. MORRIS: Just another side of that, in 5
that particular case, the company that owns that 6
facility has already entered into a contractual 7
agreement with the company that's purchasing it and 8
conducting the decommissioning.
9 So, for them, backing out of that 10 contract, that's a real practical implication that 11 would present some pretty significant challenges for 12 that utility.
13 MR. KLUKAN: Did you have any other 14 questions?
15 MS. GOODMAN: No, thank you.
16 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for 17 asking your question and for participating in the 18 meeting this evening. Can I look to the room again?
19 Is there anyone else who has not yet spoken who would 20 like to ask any questions or provide any feedback at 21 this time?
22 For the record, seeing none, Lance, do we 23 have anyone who hasn't asked a question yet? Maybe we 24 go back to Mr. Brown I think, see if we can reconnect 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 him?
1 MR. RAKOVAN: I have no one who has their 2
hand up at this time and I think he may have dropped 3
off.
4 MR. KLUKAN: I think we had one individual 5
who had additional questions. Since we have a couple 6
minutes left, the first online speaker, did you want 7
to ask some additional questions now?
8 We said we would give an opportunity to 9
come back to you if we didn't have anyone else.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: Ms. ZamEk, you should be 11 able to unmute.
12 MS. ZAMEK: Thank you, I think they are 13 probably faster questions.
Is the National 14 Environmental Policy Act environmental review required 15 before decommissioning work commences?
16 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle.
17 The National Environmental Policy Act is 18 applied to all NRC actions so the short answer to your 19 question is yes, from initial licensing to any 20 changes, there is requirements and guidance for how we 21 meet our obligations under the National Environmental 22 Policy Act.
23 There's an environmental review before, at 24 the beginning of the process and what we're talking 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 about in this proposed rule is some of the changes 1
related to the decommissioning process.
2 So, the short answer to your question is 3
yes, there are requirements before the decommissioning 4
process, it's not just at the end. Hopefully that 5
helps.
6 MS. ZAMEK: Will the entomb option for 7
decommissioning strategies be removed from this 8
proposed rule?
9 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce. Entombment is 10 only mentioned in our guidance and it was incorporated 11 back I'll say 30 years ago based on what the 12 international community felt was important to everyone 13 at that time.
14 But during the 1990s we held public 15 meetings and it was determined that entombment was not 16 a chosen path for decommissioning for NRC license 17 facilities.
18 And so we never promulgated any 19 regulations to allow for entombment and so we looked 20 at this as part of this rulemaking and decided that we 21 have some very old guidance after this that still 22 mentions entombment but we'll be removing that from 23 the guidance as we revise it.
24 MS. ZAMEK: My last question, what is the 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 rationale for reduced emergency preparedness when the 1
plant reaches Level 2 and there's all that high burnup 2
fuel still in the pools?
3 And this same question pertains to reduced 4
cybersecurity and insurance requirements.
5 MR. ANDERSON: This is Jim Anderson.
6 To speak to the emergency preparedness 7
part of that question, when the utility would enter 8
into Level 2, the spent fuel at that stage, be it 10 9
months for a boiling reactor or 16 months for a 10 pressurized water reactor, or a separate time based on 11 a site-specific determination, the ability of the fuel 12 to heat up to cladding ignition temperatures at which 13 it would catch fire would be limited.
14 It would not be able to happen within 10 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> of the initiation of the event. So, that's how 16 the transition to Level 2 occurs and why it happens 17 when it does according to the proposed rule.
18 Does that answer the question?
19 MS. ZAMEK: I think perhaps this is a 20 site-specific question because I know at Diablo 21 they're planning to remove that fuel within two years, 22 so I don't know how that works with that 16 months.
23 MR. MORRIS: This is Scott Morris. At the 24 end of the day, it's all about heat, it's all about 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 the decay heat that's being generated. And of course, 1
over time as the decay heat continues to go down and 2
down and down.
3 And I think what Jim is stating here or 4
the objective of the point of this proposed new 5
requirement is to say -- I don't want to mix issues 6
and I don't want to make it complicated.
7 I'm trying to think of a way to say this 8
simply.
9 Like I said, the bottom line is that for 10 used fuel sitting in a spent fuel pool, for it to 11 actually get to a point where it would have enough 12 heat to cause it to self-ignite and it causes 13 zirconium fire, there would be adequate amount of time 14 once the event initiator happens, meaning a loss of 15 cooling, like all the water in the pool is gone.
16 There's no water to cool the fuel.
17 It would still take at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> 18 before the temperature of the fuel would exceed the 19 ignition point. And the thought is if that's the 20 case, we can employ other more traditional ways of 21 combating that emergency and then what is required in 22 a current operating reactor.
23 That's the bottom line, right? And as far 24 as going to dry storage, dry storage means the heat in 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 the fuel has decayed away to the point that the fuel 1
doesn't need water anymore and normal circulation of 2
air around it is enough to keep it cool.
3 That typically takes three years, four 4
years, it depends.
5 MR. WATSON: I was just going to respond 6
to a hidden question in there and that is in the 7
rulemaking, for a pressurized water reactor, we are 8
specifying that it takes 16 months for the fuel to 9
cool sufficiently so that you can't have that zirc 10 fire and cause an offsite dose consequence that would 11 require an emergency plan offsite.
12 But the second part of I think the 13 question you asked was is it okay for Diablo Canyon, 14 is it safe for them to move the fuel in 24 months or 2 15 years?
16 And the answer to that is, yes, it's much 17 greater than 16 months so the fuel would even be six 18 months cooler, it will be in a better situation to be 19 transported to dry storage.
20 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, and I think the 21 other two parts of that question were regarding 22 reducing cybersecurity requirements and insurance 23 requirements. Can someone from the staff just touch 24 upon our rationale in the proposed rule for our 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 changes to those?
1 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan. There were 2
similar related questions about emergency preparedness 3
which Jim already addressed. Also, for cybersecurity 4
and for the offsite, the insurance requirements, let 5
me check with Eric Lee. I know we have a staff Member 6
on board.
7 Eric, is there anything additional you 8
wanted point out for cybersecurity requirements?
9 MR. LEE: Yes, hold on a second.
10 MR. DOYLE: I think we lost you, Eric.
11 Let me check, we have another staff Member, Mai 12 Henderson is our subject-matter expert on the 13 insurance requirements. Eric, we got you back, let's 14 go with Eric.
15 MR. LEE: The same reason, cybersecurity 16 rule is based on the risk. Once the licensee has shut 17 down the reactor, they don't really have any 18 safety-related systems to protect.
19 And because of that, based on the risk 20 just talked about by the emergency preparedness 21 person, removing the cybersecurity requirement at 22 Level 2, which is for pressure water I believe is 16 23 months and the boiling water is 10 months after move 24 to the spent fuel pool.
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 I hope that answers the question.
1 MR. DOYLE: Let me check with Mai 2
Henderson, is there anything else you wanted to add 3
for insurance requirement changes and why the staff us 4
proposing those changes at that point?
5 MS. HENDERSON: No, good evening, this is 6
Mai Henderson and no, not anything that would differ 7
from the emergency preparedness staff or cybersecurity 8
staff.
9 When reviewing exemptions for offsite and 10 onsite insurance, we largely base our review on the EP 11 exemption that takes place.
12 And so if the licensee has met all of the 13 requirements in order to obtain any emergency 14 preparedness exemption, we utilize those technical 15 findings to then approve the exemption requests for 16 both onsite and offsite insurance.
17 And there's a lot of other background 18 information with regards to how we determine and 19 arrived at the particular values for offsite and 20 onsite insurance, however, there's no different or new 21 findings or technical basis that we use to approve 22 exemptions for insurance or financial protection.
23 MR. KLUKAN: For those participating on 24 the phone, could you repeat your name one more time?
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 MS. HENDERSON: This is Mai Henderson and 1
I'm the subject-matter expert for the offsite and 2
onsite financial protection and indemnity agreements.
3 MR. KLUKAN: Sorry, I was asking the 4
member of the public.
5 MS. ZAMEK: Jill ZamEk.
6 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you again for your 7
questions. Right now we're past our scheduled meeting 8
end time of 8:00 p.m. We'd like to thank all of you 9
participating.
10 I would say we have one open question that 11 you asked, Ms. Lewis, that Scott Morris will follow 12 up with you afterwards.
13 Again, thank you for asking the question, 14 I thank all of you for participating as well. Could I 15 have the next slide, please?
16 Again, I mentioned at the outset of this 17 meeting and frontloaded the requests, clearly you 18 can't scan that right now because it's up on the 19 screen but we do ask that you go to our website or go 20 on your computer, find these slides, click on the QR 21 code, fill out the meeting feedback form.
22 Again, just like everybody else we're 23 learning about how best to conduct hybrid meetings so 24 we really appreciate your feedback. If there are 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 things you think we could be doing to make this a 1
better process that's more useful for you, please let 2
us know.
3 As a
facilitator, I
would really 4
appreciate it. And with that, I want to thank you 5
again for taking the time this evening to join us and 6
talk with us and with that, I'll turn it over to Dan.
7 MR. DOYLE: Thank you very much, we also 8
just want to say thank you to the San Luis Obispo 9
County Government staff for allowing us to use this 10 facility for this meeting. This is a great facility, 11 we appreciate it and again, thank you for your time.
12 Trish, do you have any other closing 13 remarks?
14 DR. HOLAHAN: Again, I'd like to thank 15 everybody for coming tonight both in the room and on 16 the phone. Thank you for providing the comments.
17 We've heard your comments and we're going to take them 18 to heart but this will also help inform our path 19 forward.
20 Again, please, I encourage you to submit 21 comments in writing and then we'll consider all the 22 comments in formulating the final rule. So, thank you 23 again and thank you to the County supervisors.
24 MR. KLUKAN: All right, with that, we've 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 ended the meeting, everyone. Thank you again, we can 1
stop the recording at this time. Lance, thank you for 2
facilitating online, I very much appreciate it and 3
thank all of you for participating virtually as well.
4 Goodnight, everyone.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 6
went off the record at 8:10 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25