ML22277A008

Public Meeting Transcript for Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning, Pages 1-98

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

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

3 + + + + +

4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING

5 ON "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PRODUCTION AND

6 UTILIZATION FACILITIES TRANSITIONING TO

7 DECOMMISSIONING"

8 + + + + +

9 WEDNESDAY,

10 MAY 4, 2022

11 + + + + +

12 The meeting convened at the Board of

13 Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055

14 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California and by

15 video teleconference, at 6:00 p.m. PDT, Brett Klukan

16 and Lance Rakovan, Facilitators, presiding.

17

18 PRESENT:

19 BRETT KLUKAN, Facilitator; Regional Counsel, Region I

20 Office, NRC

21 LANCE RAKOVAN, PMP, Facilitator; Federal, State &

22 Tribal Liaison Project Manager, Division of

23 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial

24 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

25 Safeguards, NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 2

1 JAMES ANDERSON, NRC

2 HOWARD BENOWITZ, Senior Attorney, Reactors & Materials

3 Rulemaking, Office of the General Counsel, NRC

4 DANIEL DOYLE, Senior Project Manager, Division of

5 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial

6 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

7 Safeguards, NRC

8 MAI HENDERSON, Financial Analyst, Division of

9 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial

10 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

11 and Safeguards, NRC

12 PATRICIA HOLAHAN, PhD, Special Assistant, Division of

13 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial

14 Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

15 Safeguards, NRC

16 ERIC LEE, Senior Cybersecurity Specialist, Division of

17 Physical and Cyber Security Policy, Nuclear

18 Security and Incident Response, NRC

19 DAVE MCINTYRE, Public Affairs Officer, Office of

20 Public Affairs, NRC

21 SCOTT MORRIS, Regional Administrator, Region IV

22 Office, NRC

23 SOLY SOTO LUGO, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental,

24 and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear

25 Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 3

1

2 BRUCE WATSON, CHP, Chief, Reactor Decommissioning

3 Branch, Division of Decommissioning Uranium

4 Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear

5 Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 4

1

2 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

3 PAGE

4 Welcome and Logistics..............................5

5 Opening Remarks....................................9

6 Background and Status.............................14

7 Overview of the Proposed Rule.....................17

8 Tips for Preparing Comments and Next Steps........54

9 Public Feedback and Questions.....................60

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 5

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 6:01 p.m.

3 MR. KLUKAN: Welcome, everyone, my name is

4 Brett Klukan, normally I serve as a Regional Counsel

5 for Region 1 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

6 or NRC, in short, however, tonight I'll be acting as

7 the in-person facilitator for this meeting this

8 evening.

9 In that task, I will be assisted by Lance

10 Rakovan, who will be virtually facilitating via

11 Microsoft Teams. This meeting will be a hybrid format

12 and I'll explain more about that in a minute. Next

13 slide, please.

14 So, the purpose of the meeting is to

15 provide information to inform you on the comment

16 process for the proposed decommissioning rule and

17 draft regulatory guidance.

18 We will be going through the various ways

19 you can participate in the commenting process as part

20 of our presentation this evening.

21 Meeting attendees, whether attending in

22 person or participating virtually will have an

23 opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff.

24 However, as discussed in the meeting notice, the NRC

25 is not actively soliciting comments regarding the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 6

1 proposed decommissioning rule or any other regulatory

2 decision at the meeting this evening.

3 Again, the NRC staff will discuss the

4 different ways in which you can submit formal comments

5 on the proposed rule. Next slide, please.

6 Here's our agenda for this evening. After

7 I finish with logistics, we'll have some opening

8 remarks and then we'll provide our presentations which

9 will include details on the background and status and

10 overview of the proposed rule, tips for preparing

11 comments and next steps.

12 We'll then open the floor to questions.

13 Next slide, please.

14 Some logistics, please note that tonight's

15 meeting is being recorded and transcribed. We ask

16 that you help us to get a full clear accounting of the

17 meeting by staying on mute if you are on the phone or

18 on Teams and are not speaking.

19 Please keep your electronic device silent

20 and side discussions to a minimum if you are in the

21 room. Also, it would help us greatly if all speakers

22 can identify themselves and any group affiliations

23 when it is their turn to speak.

24 For your awareness, in addition to the

25 meeting being recorded this evening, the meeting will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 7

1 also be broadcast live on Cable 21, the San Luis

2 Obispo County Government cable access channel, and

3 will be later available for streaming on www.slo-

4 span.org.

5 All meeting attendees participating via

6 Teams are on the phone will have their microphones

7 muted and cameras disabled during the presentation.

8 When we get to the Q&A portion of the meeting, those

9 of you on Teams can use the raise-hand function to let

10 Lance know you have a question.

11 Those of you on the phone, if you would

12 like to ask a question, please press star 5. Once the

13 facilitator, Lance, enables your microphone, you will

14 then if participating via the phone have to unmute

15 yourself by pressing star 6.

16 That's star 5 to raise your hand if you're

17 on the phone and star 6 to actually mute yourself once

18 Lance has called on you. For those of you attending

19 in person, there is a signup sheet outside.

20 Given the number of people we have in the

21 room, I think we can just go with the raise your hand

22 function and we'll go on a one-to-one, so we'll call

23 the person in the room and a person participating via

24 Teams or on the phone and then back and forth for the

25 sake of simplicity.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 8

1 Please note again the chat feature on

2 Teams has been disabled. If you are participating

3 virtually and have trouble seeing the slides or they

4 are not advancing for you, the slides that will be

5 shown on the Microsoft Teams screen can also be found

6 in the NRC Adams Library at ML22118A030.

7 Again, that's ML22118A030. You can also

8 go to the meeting notice page on the NRC's website and

9 there's a link to the slides as well there. Finally,

10 I'm hoping that you will assist us in filling out our

11 public meeting feedback form.

12 You can link to the public meeting

13 feedback form from the NRC's public meeting schedule

14 page for this meeting.

15 Your opinion on how this meeting went,

16 particularly as the NRC branches out into these

17 virtual meetings, will greatly help us to improve the

18 conduct of future meetings and better learn how to

19 make these meetings work for you.

20 So, please take a moment if you have a

21 chance to fill out that form. Finally, for those of

22 you who are in the room with us today, the emergency

23 exits are directly behind you and the bathrooms are

24 just further down the hall.

25 Slide 5. I will now turn it over to Trish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 9

1 Holahan, the Special Assistant to the Division of

2 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support at

3 the NRC Office of Nuclear Materials, Safety, and

4 Safeguards.

5 Trish, I turn it over to you, thank you.

6 DR. HOLAHAN: Good evening, I'm Trish

7 Holahan, the Special Assistant to the NRC's Division

8 of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support,

9 as Brett indicated.

10 With me at the table today are Scott

11 Morris, the Region 4 Regional Administrator, Dan

12 Doyle, the Rulemaking Project Manager, Howard

13 Benowitz, the NRC Attorney. Also at the table are

14 Soly Soto Lugo and Jim Anderson.

15 And also in the room is Bruce Watson, the

16 Branch Chief of the Decommissioning Group, and also

17 our Public Affairs Officer, Dave McIntyre, is in the

18 back of the room. Also, there are a number of other

19 NRC people in attendance via Teams as well.

20 I'd like to thank you for joining us today

21 to talk about the NRC's decommissioning rulemaking.

22 The NRC's goal for this rulemaking is to maintain a

23 safe, effective, and efficient decommissioning

24 process, incorporate lessons learned from the

25 decommissioning process, and support the NRC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10

1 principles of good regulation including openness,

2 clarity, and reliability.

3 The proposed rule would implement specific

4 regulatory requirements for different phases of the

5 decommissioning process consistent with the reduced

6 risk that occurs over time while continuing to

7 maintain safety and security.

8 The proposal rule would also incorporate

9 lessons learned from plants that have recently

10 transitioned to decommissioning and improve the

11 effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory

12 framework while protecting public health and safety.

13 Public comment has twice played an

14 important role in the development of this proposed

15 rule. First of all, when we publish an advanced

16 notice of proposed rulemaking and later with the draft

17 regulatory basis.

18 We are seeking public input from the

19 proposed rule to influence regulations that will guide

20 future nuclear plant decommissioning. The rule

21 addresses several regulatory areas which you will hear

22 about in more detail during the meeting.

23 We hope today's meeting will help you

24 better understand the proposed rule. We look forward

25 to your feedback and questions today but please note NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 11

1 the NRC will not be responding in writing to verbal

2 comments provided at the meeting.

3 Comments must be submitted in writing

4 through the methods described in the Federal Register

5 notice, which Dan will get into, to receive formal

6 consideration.

7 This is our fifth public meeting on the

8 proposed rule. We'll be having one additional meeting

9 in Massachusetts next week with the option for hybrid

10 participation again.

11 Please check the NRC's public website for

12 additional details about that public meeting and for

13 other resources to help you as you review the proposed

14 rule.

15 Thank you and now I'll turn it over to

16 Dan.

17 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Trish, good

18 evening, I am Dan Doyle. Before I move ahead with my

19 remarks, I do see that we have a hand raised on Teams.

20 I just wanted to pause to see if there was an issue

21 with the presentation or anything.

22 I do see, Stacey Hunter, it looks like you

23 have your hand raised. We did unmute you, you can go

24 ahead if you have an issue or if you just wanted to

25 let us know that you have a question or comment for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 12

1 later, that's fine too and we can just come back to

2 you later.

3 I did see the hand up. Stacey, did you

4 have something you wanted to raise at this point?

5 MR. RAKOVAN: Actually Stacey, we

6 deactivated your mic, you're going to have to unmute

7 yourself to speak.

8 MS. HUNTER: I'm connected through the

9 Internet and I'm having a lot of trouble hearing the

10 speakers. I've turned my speakers up to 100 percent

11 and I can still barely hear you guys. It's even worse

12 through my earbuds.

13 Is there a way to turn up the volume on

14 the Internet connection?

15 MR. DOYLE: We did, I just got an

16 indication from our tech here that he did turn it up.

17 If it doesn't sound good still, then you may try

18 connecting with a different device or dialing in using

19 the phone number.

20 So, there is a phone number if you go to

21 the NRC public website where you got the link for this

22 meeting, then the sound will be there.

23 MS. HUNTER: Actually, it is sounding

24 better already.

25 MR. DOYLE: Moving ahead, I'm Dan Doyle, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 13

1 welcome everyone, thank you for attending. I just

2 wanted to point out as Trish mentioned, this is our

3 fifth public meeting.

4 If you had attended any of the previous

5 meetings, just please note the first half of this

6 meeting is the NRC staff presentations and is the same

7 material that we've covered previously.

8 So, we have this meeting scheduled for two

9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />. The first hour is NRC staff presentation to go

10 over the topics in the rule and some other information

11 about the rulemaking and the process and the schedule.

12 That would be the same. And then we'll

13 open it up for question and answers for the rest of

14 the time.

15 One final note about Microsoft Teams for

16 those of you who are connected using Microsoft Teams

17 through the Internet, underneath the slides you should

18 see arrows that would allow you to move forward and

19 backwards, and also, you should be able to click any

20 of the links on the slides.

21 So, I just wanted to point out that

22 clicking those arrows only affects your view, it

23 doesn't affect anyone else, and you should be able to

24 click back to join where we are with the main

25 presentation.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 14

1 If you click up from where we are you

2 should see a slide to join back when you're done.

3 Next slide, please.

4 I will go ahead with some background and

5 status for the rulemaking. A very brief background,

6 there was an increase in nuclear power-plant shutdowns

7 that focused the NRC's attention on making some

8 changes to the regulations related to decommissioning.

9 We initiated the rulemaking in December of

10 2015 to explore changes related t o that process.

11 We've already completed some extensive public

12 outreach, we solicited early comments on an advanced

13 notice of proposed rulemaking.

14 We also issued a regulatory basis

15 document, we had public comment periods on both of

16 those and also public meetings and we have information

17 about both of those early outreach efforts on our

18 public website, which I will be showing a little bit

19 later.

20 The recent update and the reason we're

21 having this meeting today is because we published a

22 proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 3rd,

23 2022, the citation is on the slide, it's 87 FR 12254.

24 So, we are in the public comment period

25 for the proposed rule right now. I would also like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 15

1 point out that we received a request to extend the

2 comment period from 75 days to 180 days.

3 The NRC will be granting the request. The

4 new deadline for comments will be August 30, 2022, the

5 Federal Register notice, which is the official notice

6 about that extension, should be published probably

7 next week, and we will update the website with a link

8 to that notice.

9 Next slide, please. For convenience, we

10 have two slides that list all of the key documents

11 associated with this proposed rule with links to

12 access them directly. And by the way, for those of

13 you in the room, if you wanted to get a copy of these

14 slides, it is on our website.

15 There's a meeting notice for this meeting

16 which has the link to the slides and then also our

17 website has a link to the slides. If you have any

18 trouble finding that you can shoot me an email or just

19 talk to me and I'll make sure you get a copy.

20 This is the first slide. We have the

21 citation for the proposed rule with links to both the

22 web version and a printed version of the proposed

23 rule. We also have supporting and related material.

24 So, there's a draft regulatory analysis

25 that discusses the costs and benefits associated with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 16

1 this action, a draft environmental assessment for

2 compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,

3 and draft supporting statements for information

4 collections.

5 We are proposing changes to some

6 information collection requirements in this rule, and

7 we have those discussed in the supporting statements

8 for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

9 We also have an additional document that's

10 listed here on the slide, the unofficial red-line rule

11 text.

12 I will have a slide highlighting that

13 later but just to point out, that document shows how

14 the proposed rule would modify the current rule

15 language in a red-line strike-out format, in other

16 words, what are new words that would be inserted and

17 what would be deleted from the Code of Federal

18 Regulations if the proposed rule were to be adopted as

19 proposed.

20 Hopefully the title makes that clear, that

21 is not the official legal version of the rule text.

22 The official version is what is published in the

23 Federal Register but it may be helpful, please do not

24 rely on that for your public comment.

25 Next slide, please. We're also updating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 17

1 four guidance documents as part of this rulemaking.

2 They're available for public comment as well, they're

3 listed here on the slide.

4 The first one would be a new regulatory

5 guide and the other three are updates to existing

6 regulatory guides. The first one, Draft Guide 1346,

7 is related to emergency planning for decommissioning

8 nuclear power-plants.

9 The second one, Draft 1347, would be an

10 update to Regulatory Guide 1.184, decommissioning

11 nuclear power-plants. The next one, Draft Guide 1348,

12 would be an update to Regulatory Guide 1.159,

13 availability of funds for decommissioning, production

14 utilization facilities.

15 And the last one on the left, Draft Guide

16 1341, would be an update to Regulatory Guide 1.185,

17 standard format and content for post-shutdown

18 decommissioning activities report.

19 These four documents are also out for

20 public comment right now. If you have comments on the

21 rule or the guidance or both, please submit that

22 altogether in the same document. It all goes to the

23 same place and will be reviewed and responded to

24 together.

25 Next slide. And moving onto Slide 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 18

1 graded approach. The proposed rule takes what we call

2 a graded approach to decommissioning where different

3 levels of requirements would apply at different stages

4 of the decommissioning process.

5 We tried to convey that on this slide.

6 Across the top of the table are the four levels that

7 we've used in the proposed rule as the facility goes

8 through the decommissioning process. Level 1 begins

9 after the facility dockets the two required

10 certifications.

11 One is for permanent cessation of

12 operations and the other is that fuel has been removed

13 from the reactor vessel.

14 Level 2 is after a period of sufficient

15 decay of the spent fuel, which would generically be 10

16 months for a boiling water reactor or 16 months for a

17 pressurized water reactor if they meet the criteria in

18 the proposed rule.

19 And Level 3 would be when all fuel is in

20 dry cask storage. And Level 4 would be when all fuel

21 is offsite. The rows in this table show the topic

22 areas that have updates requirements linked to these

23 levels.

24 Emergency preparedness would use all four

25 levels starting with the post-shutdown emergency plan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 19

1 in Level 1 through Level 4, where there is no longer a

2 need for an onsite radiological emergency response

3 plan because all fuel is offsite.

4 Other topic areas that use a graded

5 approach include physical security, cybersecurity, and

6 onsite, offsite insurance. Next slide, please.

7 We are on Slide 13, emergency

8 preparedness, this is the first of the topic slides.

9 So, for each of the topic slides, you'll see a summary

10 of the proposed changes related to that topic.

11 The box in the upper right corner

12 identifies the section in the proposed rule where we

13 have a more detailed discussion of the topic as well

14 as the page numbers, and we've also listed all of the

15 sections in the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations,

16 that would be changed related to this topic.

17 Where it says specific request for comment

18 on each slide, we will mention if there's any

19 questions related to this topic in Section V of the

20 proposed rule where the NRC included questions for the

21 public to consider.

22 And then at the bottom of the slide, we

23 also have additional information if there's anything

24 else we wanted to bring to your attention for the

25 topic.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 20

1 And then on the very bottom there's a

2 progress bar showing which topic we're on and which

3 ones are coming up in case there was something you

4 want to see or pay particular attention to.

5 Moving onto emergency preparedness,

6 because the current regulations do not provide a means

7 to distinguish between the emergency preparedness

8 requirements that apply to an operating reactor and

9 those that are applied to a reactor that has

10 permanently ceased operations, decommissioning

11 licensees have historically requested exemptions from

12 EP requirements.

13 The proposed rule would provide common EP

14 requirements for reactors and decommissioning,

15 eliminating the need for specific exemptions or

16 license amendments.

17 Because of the decreased risk of offsite

18 radiological release and fewer types of possible

19 accidents that can occur at a decommissioning reactor,

20 the proposed EP requirements align with that reduction

21 in risk while maintaining safety.

22 What are we proposing? We would be adding

23 a new section, 10 CFR 50.200, which would provide

24 planning standards and requirements for post-shutdown

25 and permanently defueled emergency plans.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 21

1 The proposed standards and requirements

2 for emergency plans are consistent with the levels of

3 planning that the Commission has previously approved

4 for decommissioned facilities.

5 The proposed planning requirements also

6 ensure close coordination and training with offsite

7 response organizations is maintained throughout the

8 decommissioning process.

9 The NRC is also proposing to amend 10 CFR

10 50.54(q) to provide licensees with the option to use

11 the tiered requirements and standards as the

12 appropriate time and decommissioning, and to add a new

13 process by which licensees can make changes to the

14 emergency plans to transition between levels.

15 There are a few related questions that we

16 are specifically asking for comments about.

17 The first one is that we would like to

18 know what you see as the advantages and disadvantages

19 of requiring dedicated radiological emergency

20 planning, including a 10-mile emergency planning zone,

21 until all spent nuclear fuel at the site is removed

22 from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry cask

23 storage.

24 Is there additional information the NRC

25 should consider in evaluating whether all hazards NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 22

1 planning would be as effective as dedicated

2 radiological emergency planning?

3 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

4 be a sufficient amount of time for an emergency

5 response to a spent fuel pool accident based on an

6 all-hazards plan. Is there additional information

7 that the NRC should consider in evaluating this issue?

8 And then the second question is about the

9 emergency response data system. So, nuclear power

10 facilities that are shutdown permanently or

11 indefinitely are currently not required to maintain

12 this emergency response data system.

13 The systems transmit near real-time

14 electronic data between the licensees' onsite computer

15 system and the NRC operations center.

16 Licensees in Level 1 would maintain a

17 capability to provide meteorological, radiological,

18 and spent fuel pool data to the NRC within a

19 reasonable timeframe following an event.

20 What are the advantages and disadvantages

21 of requiring nuclear power-plant licensees to maintain

22 those aspects of the emergency response data system

23 until all spent fuel is removed from the site? And

24 then guidance.

25 We have developed guidance corresponding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 23

1 to the proposed rule of changes. We have proposed a

2 new regulatory guide, emergency planning for

3 decommissioning nuclear power reactors Draft Guide

4 1346, that's out for comment as part of the proposed

5 rule.

6 The NRC staff believes these changes will

7 establish EP requirements commensurate with the

8 reduction in radiological risk as licensees proceed

9 through the decommissioning process will continuing to

10 provide reasonable assurance that protected actions

11 can and will be taken, and maintaining EP as a final

12 independent layer of defense in-depth.

13 There are 16 of these topic slides, by the

14 way, and I'll be covering some of them and Howard

15 Benowitz will be covering some of the other ones.

16 Next slide, please. I will turn it over Howard for

17 discussion of the backfit rule.

18 MR. BENOWITZ: Thanks, Dan, and good

19 evening, everyone.

20 The NRC's backfit rule is found in Part 50

21 of our regulations, specifically Section 50.109. In

22 this proposed rule, we are proposing to provide a new

23 backfitting provision for nuclear power reactor

24 licensees that are in decommissioning.

25 The proposed rule would re-number the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 24

1 paragraphs of the current Section 50.109 so that

2 Section 50.109(a) would be the current backfitting

3 provision and a new Section 50.109(b) would be the new

4 rule text for decommissioning nuclear power reactor

5 licensees.

6 The NRC is also proposing edits to the

7 backfitting provision in Part 72 of our regulations so

8 that backfitting provision would apply during the

9 decommissioning of a monitored retrievable storage

10 facility for an independent spent fuel storage

11 installation, also known by its abbreviated of ISFSI.

12 The proposed rule would also revise the

13 requirement that the NRC must consider the cost of

14 imposing a backfit if the basis for the backfitting is

15 the compliance exception to the requirement that we

16 perform a backfit analysis.

17 The backfit analysis is the default

18 justification for backfitting but there are exceptions

19 and one of them is known as the compliance exception.

20 This proposed change is based on a 2019 update to the

21 Commission's backfitting policy, which is in the NRC's

22 Management Directive 8.4

23 And in the proposed rule FRN, Federal

24 Register Notice, we do include a specific request for

25 comment regarding this change and that is whether the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 25

1 backfit rule should be applied during decommissioning.

2 Next slide, please. We received a

3 question in the room of what is a backfit? That's a

4 great question.

5 Backfitting, at least in the context of

6 the NRC, is a requirement in our regulations that

7 actually applies to the NRC, both to the Commission

8 and to the NRC staff.

9 And essentially, it means that when we

10 have issued an approval, it could be a license, a

11 permit, we cannot change that approval without meeting

12 certain criteria that are in the backfit rule in

13 Section 50.109 of our regulations.

14 And that's for power reactors, the one in

15 Section 50.109. We also had similar provisions in

16 Part 70 of our regulations, which applies to fuel

17 cycle facilities in Part 72, as I mentioned, and in

18 Part 76.

19 But essentially, we can't change the rules

20 after the game has begun. We issue you an approval,

21 you have a reasonable reliance on that approval that

22 we're not going to change it and you can act on it.

23 And so if we are going to change it, then

24 we have to meet certain criteria and justify it. And

25 so right now, as explained in the Federal Register NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 26

1 Notice of the proposed rule, it's not clear whether or

2 not that provision applies during decommissioning.

3 There is precedent from the Commission

4 saying there is but we're proposing to make it very

5 clear in the regulations itself that it would apply

6 during decommissioning.

7 Dan?

8 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Howard, we're on

9 Slide 15 for environmental considerations. The

10 proposed rule clarified various evolution reporting

11 requirements including those related to the content of

12 the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report,

13 or PSDAR.

14 In part, the proposed rule change would

15 clarify that licensees at the PSDAR stage are required

16 to evaluate the environmental impacts from

17 decommissioning and provide in the PSDAR the basis for

18 whether the proposed decommissioning activities are

19 bounded by previously issued, site-specific or generic

20 environmental reviews.

21 The Commissioners provided additional

22 direction in the staff requirements memorandum that

23 was issued back in November 2021 with respect to the

24 consideration of any identified unbounded impacts.

25 The rule changes would allow licensees to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 27

1 use appropriate federally issued environmental review

2 documents prepared in compliance with the Endangered

3 Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act,

4 and other environmental statutes rather than just

5 environmental impact statements.

6 The rule would also remove language

7 referencing amendments for authorizing decommissioning

8 activities in 10 CFR Part 51.

9 In developing the original proposed rule,

10 the NRC staff considered but dismissed a proposal that

11 the NRC staff approved each licensee's PSDAR -- that

12 is not in the proposed rule -- before allowing major

13 decommissioning activities to begin.

14 This decision was based on that requiring

15 approval of a PSDAR would have no additional benefit

16 in terms of public health and safety, however, we are

17 including specific requests for comment about whether

18 the NRC should require approval by the NRC of the

19 PSDAR site-specific environmental review and the

20 hearing opportunity before undertaking any

21 decommissioning activities.

22 Other than NRC review and approval of the

23 PSDAR, are there other activities that could help to

24 increase transparency and public trust in the NRC's

25 regulatory framework for decommissioning?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 28

1 Should the rule provide a role for a state

2 and local government in the process and what should

3 that role be? We do have two Regulatory Guides

4 related to PSDARs that were revised to include

5 clarifying language consistent with the rule changes.

6 Those are listed on the bottom of the

7 slide and another item we wanted to bring to your

8 attention related to this topic is that there is a

9 decommissioning generic environmental impact

10 statement, or GEIS, that will be updated separately in

11 the future by the NRC.

12 That's not a direct part of this action

13 but that is something the NRC is planning to update in

14 the future. Next slide. Slide 16, back to Howard.

15 MR. BENOWITZ: On this slide we talk about

16 license termination plans. In this proposed rule, the

17 NRC would clarify that our provisions in 10 CFR for

18 regulations Section 50.82 and 52.110.

19 Those are the license termination

20 requirements that they do not apply before fuel has

21 been loaded into a reactor. This is consistent with

22 our historical practice.

23 These license termination provisions are

24 written for reactors that have commenced operations

25 and the NRC has historically viewed operations as the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 29

1 point beginning when the loading of fuel into the

2 reactor.

3 This precedent is discussed in the Federal

4 Register notice. The NRC is proposing this change

5 because there has been some confusion regarding

6 Section 52.110 and whether it was applicable.

7 We had a few of our combined license

8 holders a few years ago who sought to terminate their

9 licenses during the construction or before

10 construction had even begun.

11 The NRC informed them that provision

12 52.110 did not apply for the reasons that are

13 explained in the Federal Register notice. This is a

14 clarification of the two provisions.

15 The Section 52.82 applies to our Part 50

16 licensees and Section 52.110 applies to Part 52

17 license. And there are no requests for comments on

18 that one, specific requests for comments, but we

19 always encourage comments on the proposed rule

20 language.

21 Next slide, please. This is Slide 17,

22 decommissioning funding assurance. We do have two

23 slides on this topic, this is the first one, a summary

24 of the changes.

25 The proposed rule modifies the biannual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 30

1 decommissioning trust fund reporting frequency for

2 operating reactors in 10 CFR 50.75 to be consistent

3 with the three-year reporting frequency for

4 independent spent fuel storage installations or

5 ISFSIs, for making two changes related to independent

6 spent fuel storage installation funding reports.

7 One is that would allow licensees to

8 combine the reports required by the regulations listed

9 on the slide, 50.82(a)(8)(v), (8)(vii), and 10 CFR

10 72.30.

11 The other related change is the proposed

12 rule would remove the requirement for NRC approval of

13 the report filed under 10 CFR 72.30(c).

14 The proposed rule would clarify that when

15 a licensee identifies a shortfall in the report

16 required by 50.75(f)(1), the licensee must obtain

17 additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall

18 and discuss that information in the next report.

19 And then the final item to highlight on

20 this topic, the proposed rule would make

21 administrative changes to ensure consistency with

22 50.4, written communications regarding the submission

23 of notification and to eliminate 50.75(f)(2) because

24 Paragraph (f)(1) fully encompasses (f)(2).

25 Next slide, please. Slide 18, continuing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 31

1 the same topic, we do have several specific questions

2 or specific requests for comment on this topic, so I'm

3 just going to summarize those briefly.

4 Financial assurance, what are the

5 advantages and disadvantages of updating the formula

6 to reflect recent data and to cover ell estimated

7 radiological decommissioning costs rather than the

8 bulk of the costs.

9 The site-specific cost analysis, what are

10 the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a full

11 site investigation and characterization of the time of

12 shutdown and eliminating the formula and requiring the

13 site of the cost estimate during operations?

14 Decommissioning trust fund, we have a

15 question about that.

16 Should the NRC's regulation allow

17 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for spent

18 fuel management if there is a projected surplus in the

19 fund based on a comparison of the expected cost

20 identified in the site-specific cost estimate.

21 And the assets are returned to the fund

22 within an established period of time. What are the

23 advantages and disadvantages of allowing

24 decommissioning trust fund assets to be used for those

25 purposes?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 32

1 And what would be the advantages and

2 disadvantages of allowing the trust fund assets to be

3 used for non-radiological site restoration prior to

4 the completion of radiological decommissioning?

5 The timing of decommissioning fund

6 assurance reporting. What are the advantages and

7 disadvantages of extending the reporting frequency

8 from two to three years? Does the change affect the

9 risk of insufficient funding?

10 And then finally, identical requirements

11 under 50.82 and 52.110. Besides proposing conforming

12 changes to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC is asking whether

13 we should maintain identical requirements in Part

14 52.110 and 50.82, which we do today.

15 We are also proposing conforming changes

16 to a Regulatory Guide, 1.159, which is about assuring

17 the availability of funds. Next slide, please, Slide

18 19, I have that one. This is about offsite and onsite

19 financial protection requirements and indemnity

20 agreements.

21 The changes would provide regulatory

22 certainty by minimizing the need for licensees of

23 decommissioning reactors to request regulatory

24 exemptions for relief from requirements that should

25 apply only to operating reactor licensees.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 33

1 We do have two specific requests for

2 comment on this topic so the first one, what are the

3 advantages and disadvantages of requiring the existing

4 level of assurance to be maintained until all spent

5 fuel is in dry cask storage or Level 3 in the graded

6 approach?

7 And then the other question is about

8 insurance for specific license ISFSIs.

9 The NRC recognizes that as a reactor site

10 is decommissioned, eventually all that remains of the

11 Part 50 or Part 52 licensed site is a general licensed

12 ISFSI under 10 CFR Part 72, which is essentially the

13 same as the specific license, ISFSI, under 10 CFR Part

14 72.

15 So, considering that Part 72 specific

16 license ISFSIs have no financial protection

17 requirements, should the NRC address the disparity

18 between specific licenses and general licenses to

19 ISFSI as part of this rulemaking?

20 Please provide an explanation for your

21 response. Next slide, please. Slide 20. Back to

22 Howard.

23 MR. BENOWITZ: As you can see, Slide 20 is

24 about foreign ownership control or domination but it's

25 also about what is the production or utilization NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 34

1 facility? The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's

2 regulations provide definitions for utilization

3 facility and production facility.

4 Additionally, certain of the provisions of

5 the Atomic Energy Act and our regulations, including a

6 provision regarding foreign ownership control or

7 domination, apply only to a utilization or a

8 production facility.

9 During decommissioning activities, a

10 utilization facility or production facility will be

11 dismantled to the point where it no longer meets the

12 definition of utilization facility or production

13 facility.

14 The proposed rule would add language to

15 establish the criteria for when exactly a utilization

16 facility or production facility is no longer a

17 utilization facility or production facility.

18 The proposed rule also has language to

19 affirm that. Despite the fact that the facility would

20 no longer meet the definition, the NRC would continue

21 to have statutory authority over that licensee,

22 whether it's under Part 50 or 52 as a nuclear power

23 reactor.

24 And the NRC regulations applicable to

25 utilization or production facilities would continue to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 35

1 apply to the holder of that license unless the

2 regulations specifically state otherwise.

3 And the proposed rule identifies one such

4 regulation.

5 The proposed rule would amend the foreign

6 ownership control or domination prohibition to state

7 that it no longer applies once a Part 50 or 52

8 facility is no longer a utilization or production

9 facility due to the decommissioning and dismantling of

10 the facility.

11 Therefore, the NRC's regulations would not

12 prohibit the transfer of a Part 50 or Part 52 license

13 for a facility that is no longer a utilization or

14 production facility to a foreign-owned controlled or

15 dominated entity.

16 And we are not asking for specific

17 requests for comments on that but of course, we would

18 encourage you to provide comments if you have any.

19 Both on the proposed change to Section 50.38 and to

20 the whole production utilization facility proposal.

21 Next slide, please.

22 Slide 21 is about physical security. The

23 proposed rule would allow certain changes to eliminate

24 licensee requests for approval via exemptions,

25 amendments, and for certain adjustments to their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 36

1 physical security programs.

2 Current security requirements do not

3 reflect the reduced risk for a decommissioning

4 facility after a fuel is removed from the reactor

5 vessel.

6 When the fuel is transferred into a spent

7 fuel pool, the amount of plant equipment that is

8 relied on for a safe operations facility is

9 significantly reduced which allows for certain

10 security measures to be eliminated because their

11 implementation is no longer needed, or the security

12 measures can be adjusted for the physical protection

13 program during decommissioning.

14 Because certain security measures can be

15 adjusted or no longer are necessary for

16 decommissioning, commonly requested exemptions and

17 amendments have been submitted by licensees to address

18 this new posture.

19 For example, the control room is

20 specifically identified in current security

21 requirements as an area that must be protected as a

22 vital area.

23 The proposed rule would potentially

24 eliminate the need to identify the control room as a

25 vital area when all vital equipment is removed from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 37

1 the control room and when the area does not act as a

2 vital area boundary for other vital areas.

3 Also, current security regulations for

4 power reactor licensee require the use of a licensed

5 senior operator for the suspension of security

6 measures during emergencies. For permanently shutdown

7 and defueled reactors, licensed senior operators are

8 no longer required.

9 The proposed rule would allow certified

10 fuel handlers to be used to suspend security measures

11 during emergencies at a decommissioning facility. And

12 lastly, to eliminate the need for a submission of

13 license amendments and exemptions for licensee

14 transition to ISFSIs.

15 The NRC is proposing that once all spent

16 nuclear fuel has been placed in dry cask storage,

17 licensees may elect to protect a general license ISFSI

18 in accordance with the physical security requirements

19 that are consistent with Part 72, Subpart H, and 10

20 CFR 73.51.

21 Licensees would continue to address the

22 applicable security-related orders associated with an

23 ISFSI that are conditions of the license. Next slide,

24 please. Slide 22 is about cyber security.

25 Consistent with the graded approach, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 38

1 proposed rule would continue to apply cybersecurity

2 requirements to decommissioning plants until the risk

3 to public health and safety is significantly reduced.

4 So, specifically, the cybersecurity

5 requirement would be applicable through Level 2, which

6 is after a period of sufficient cooling as discussed

7 previously.

8 Under the proposed rule, the power reactor

9 licensees under Part 50 and Part 52 would be subject

10 to the same requirement.

11 So, for Part 50 licensees the proposed

12 rule would remove the license conditions that requires

13 licensees to maintain their cybersecurity plan and for

14 Part 52, combined license holders for the proposed

15 rule would extend the requirement to maintain a

16 cybersecurity plan during decommissioning, which would

17 be a new requirement.

18 So, the purpose of those changes is to

19 make both types of facilities have the same

20 requirement.

21 For currently operating or recently

22 shutdown Part 50 reactor licensees, because the

23 licensee's cybersecurity plan is included as a license

24 condition, the license condition to maintain a

25 cybersecurity program per their cybersecurity plan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 39

1 remains in effect until the termination of a license

2 or the NRC removes the condition from the license.

3 For example, if a licensee submits a

4 license amendment request and the NRC approved it.

5 Therefore, the proposed rule would not

6 constitute backfitting, as Howard was explaining

7 earlier, because the proposed rule would codify the

8 already-imposed requirement of the cybersecurity plan

9 license condition during Level 1 of decommissioning or

10 until the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool has cooled

11 sufficiently.

12 So, this is not the case for combined

13 license holders. The proposed rule would constitute a

14 new requirement because the operational program, such

15 as a security program that includes a cybersecurity

16 program are requirements in the regulations and are

17 not separately identified as license conditions as

18 they are for the Part 50 licensees.

19 Presently, combined license holders are

20 required to maintain a cybersecurity program only as

21 long as 10 CFR 73.54 is applicable to them.

22 This means that combined license holders

23 are not required to maintain their cybersecurity

24 program during decommissioning between power reactor

25 licensee is not authorized to operate the nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 40

1 power reactor during decommissioning.

2 We do have a specific request for comment

3 from this topic. The proposed rule applies the

4 cybersecurity requirements to plants that are in Level

5 1 of the graded approach.

6 However, a licensee in Level 2 would not

7 be required to maintain the cybersecurity plan because

8 the NRC has determined there is little chance that the

9 spent fuel in the spent fuel pool could heat up to a

10 clad ignition temperature within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

11 What are the advantages and disadvantages

12 of extending cybersecurity requirements to shut down

13 nuclear power-plants until all spent fuel is

14 transferred to dry cask storage?

15 And then additional information, we wanted

16 to point out that the change in 10 CFR 73.54 is

17 identified in the proposed rule as a change affecting

18 issue finality for Part 52 combined license holders,

19 as defined in 52.98.

20 So, therefore, the proposed rule includes

21 a backfit analysis in Section IX.D. Next slide,

22 please.

23 We're on Slide 23, drug and alcohol

24 testing. The proposed rule would make several changes

25 related to requirements for drug and alcohol testing.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 41

1 There are three that I'd like to highlight for this

2 topic.

3 The first one, for Part 26, which is

4 related to requirements for fitness for duty, the

5 proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 26.3 scope to correct

6 an inconsistency in the applicability of Part 26, Part

7 50, and Part 52 license holders of nuclear power

8 reactors.

9 Part 26 does not apply to a Part 50

10 license holder once the NRC dockets the licensee's

11 50.82(a)(1) certification that the power reactor has

12 permanently ceased operations, which formally begins

13 the decommissioning process.

14 However, Part 26 continues to apply to the

15 holder of a combined license issued under Part 52

16 throughout decommissioning. There's no technical

17 basis for this inconsistency.

18 The staff is proposing this in the

19 proposed rule.

20 Section 26.3 would be revised to specify

21 that Part 26 also no longer applies to a Part 52

22 license holder once the NRC dockets licensee's

23 52.110(a) certification that the power reactor has

24 permanently ceased operation.

25 The second item in this topic is Part 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 42

1 related to criminal penalties.

2 Section 26.3 includes a substantive

3 requirement for certain entities to comply with the

4 requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 by a specific deadline

5 and violations of the regulation should be subject to

6 criminal penalties.

7 Specific deadlines in 26.3(a) were added

8 in a 2008 Part 26 final rule but Section 26.825(b) was

9 not updated to reflect this change, which was an

10 oversight.

11 Therefore, the proposed rule would remove

12 26.3 from the list of the provisions that are not

13 subject to criminal penalties if violated in Section

14 26.825(b).

15 The final item on this topic is related to

16 an insider mitigation program, Section

17 73.55(b)(9)(ii)(B) requires that a licensee's insider

18 mitigation program contain elements of fitness for

19 duty program described under Part 26 but does not

20 identify which fitness for duty program elements must

21 be included in the insider mitigation program.

22 The proposed rule would establish the

23 required elements of the fitness for duty program in

24 the insider mitigation program for operating and

25 decommissioning reactors under Part 50 and 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 43

1 Next slide, please. Slide 24, back to

2 Howard.

3 MR. BENOWITZ: Slide 24 concerns the

4 removal of license conditions and withdrawal of an

5 order. We are proposing these actions because the

6 order and license conditions are substantively

7 redundant with existing provisions in our regulations.

8 The order that we're proposing to withdraw

9 is Order EA 06-137 concerning mitigation strategies

10 for large fires or explosions at nuclear power-plants.

11 This order was issued after events of 9/11.

12 The license conditions are the conditions

13 associated with that order but also another post-9/11

14 order, Order EA-02-026, plus the cybersecurity license

15 conditions that Dan was just talking about.

16 The license conditions that we would

17 remove through this rulemaking would be removed by

18 what we call administrative license amendments. That

19 means the NRC staff would take the initiative of

20 issuing license amendments.

21 Typically, what happens is the licensee

22 requests approval for a license amendment and submits

23 a request to the NRC. We review it and if it meets

24 the criteria, we approve it.

25 In this case, the NRC staff would issue NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 44

1 them without having a licensee applying for that

2 amendment. We do include in this Federal Register

3 notice a specific request for comment.

4 We are interested if there are other

5 orders or license conditions that also could be

6 removed or withdrawn if they are substantively

7 redundant with our existing regulations.

8 Next slide, please. Fuel management, Dan?

9 MR. DOYLE: Spent fuel management, the NRC

10 staff identified ambiguity in the spent fuel

11 management and decommissioning regulations due to a

12 lack of cross-referencing between Part 72 and Part 50.

13 The rulemaking clarifies the information for

14 consistency.

15 Specifically, the regulation in 72.218

16 states that 50.54(bb) spent fuel management program,

17 the irradiated fuel management plan, or IFMP, must

18 show how the spent fuel will be managed before

19 starting to decommission systems and components needed

20 for removing, unloading, and shipping the spent fuel.

21 Section 72.218 also requires that an

22 application for termination of a reactor-operating

23 license submitted under 50.82 or 52.110 must also

24 describe how the spent fuel stored under the Part 72

25 general license will be removed from the reactor site.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 45

1 Although 72.218 states what information

2 must be included in these Part 50 documents, the

3 corresponding regulations in Part 50 do not contain

4 this information.

5 Therefore, the NRC proposes to clarify and

6 align the regulations in 50.54(bb), 50.82, 52.110, and

7 72.218 to ensure that appropriate documentation of

8 spent fuel management plans and decommissioning plans.

9 What are we proposing?

10 The NRC proposes moving the 72.218

11 provision to 50.54(bb) to clarify that the IFMP must

12 be submitted and approved before the licensee starts

13 to decommission systems structures and components

14 needed for moving, unloading, and shipping the spent

15 fuel.

16 The NRC proposes to clarify the current

17 IFMP approval process and the 50.54(bb) provisions

18 regarding preliminary approval and final NRC review of

19 the IFMP as part of any proceeding for continued

20 licensing under Part 50 or 72, as these proceedings no

21 longer exist as they did when the 50.54(bb) regulation

22 was first promulgated. The NRC proposes to require

23 submittal of the initial IFMP and any subsequent

24 changes to the IFMP as a license amendment request.

25 Changes to 72.218. We're proposing to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 46

1 revise 72.218 to a draft requirement related to

2 decommissioning and termination of the Part 72 general

3 license as the current title of 72.218, Termination

4 of licenses suggests.

5 Specifically, the proposed 72.218 notes

6 that the general license ISFSI must be decommissioned

7 consistent with the requirements in 50.82 or 52.110 as

8 the general license ISFSI is part of the Part 50 or

9 Part 52 licensed site.

10 Also, the proposed 72.218 notes that the

11 general license is terminated upon termination of the

12 Part 50 or Part 52 license. We do have a specific

13 request for comment on this topic.

14 The proposed rule clarifies that the

15 current IFMP approval process, by requiring submittal

16 of the initial IFMP, and any changes to the IFMP for

17 NRC review and approval -- I'm sorry, the proposed

18 rule clarified the current IFMP approval process by

19 requiring submittal of initial IFMP and any changes to

20 the IFMP for NRC review and approval by license

21 amendment.

22 We would like to know if stakeholders see

23 any challenges with implementing this part of the

24 proposed rule. We're also considering a change to

25 control provision to specify what changes the licensee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 47

1 can make to the IFMP without NRC approval.

2 We would like to know stakeholders'

3 opinion on a change control process including the

4 criteria for changes licensees can make without NRC

5 approval and any associated recordkeeping and

6 reporting for those changes.

7 Guidance, we have developed guidance

8 corresponding to the proposed rule changes in the

9 draft guide for the IFMP.

10 We added guidance to Draft Guide 1347

11 that's in Section C.3 to outline the information to be

12 included in the licensee's IFMP.

13 For general license ISFSI decommissioning,

14 we added references to general license ISFSIs in both

15 Draft Guide 1347 and Draft Guide 1349 to make it clear

16 that the general license ISFSI must be decommissioned

17 consistent with the requirements in 50.82 and 52.110.

18 The NRC staff believes these changes will

19 provide regulatory clarity and enhance overall

20 regulatory transparency and openness regarding

21 decommissioning and spent fuel management planning.

22 Next slide, please. Slide 26, low-level

23 waste transportation. When a plant is actively being

24 decommissioned, the plant typically generates large

25 volumes of bulk low-level radioactive waste.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 48

1 To efficiently manage the transportation

2 of the waste to a licensed disposal site, most

3 licensees ship waste by rail.

4 The railroads control the schedule for the

5 transportation of the rail cars to the destination and

6 a time to reach the disposal site destination is

7 generally more than the 20-day notification

8 requirement, which is currently in the regulation.

9 Licensees will continue to monitor and

10 track the location and progress of their low-level

11 waste shipments, but the proposed rule would say that

12 the notifications to the NRC are not required unless a

13 45-day limit is exceeded.

14 Next slide, please. Slide 27, certified

15 fuel handler definition and elimination of the shift

16 technical advisor.

17 Certified fuel handlers are non-licensed

18 operators who are commonly used at permanently

19 defueled nuclear facilities with irradiated fuel in

20 the spent fuel pool.

21 The certified fuel handler is intended to

22 be the on-shift representative who is responsible for

23 safe fuel handling activities and always present on

24 shift to ensure safety of the spent fuel and any

25 decommissioning-related activities at the facility.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 49

1 Currently, a certified fuel handler is

2 qualified through a training program that must be

3 reviewed and approved by the NRC.

4 The proposed rule would modify the

5 definition of the certified fuel handler and add a

6 provision that removes the need for NRC approval of

7 the training program if the training program for

8 certified fuel handlers is derived from a systems

9 approach training that includes specific topics that

10 are outlined in the proposed rule language.

11 Specifically, the training program must

12 address the safe conduct of decommissioning

13 activities, safe handling and storage of spent fuel,

14 and appropriate response to planned emergencies.

15 The proposed rule would also clarify that

16 a shift technical advisor is not required for

17 decommissioning nuclear power reactors. Next slide,

18 please.

19 Back to Howard.

20 MR. BENOWITZ: On Slide 28, we're talking

21 about how our current regulations don't consistently

22 refer to both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees and

23 decommissioning. We have many provisions in our

24 regulations that already apply to licensees when they

25 enter decommissioning.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 50

1 This proposed rule, as you've heard over

2 the last hour, we're proposing changes to our

3 regulations to make others applicable during

4 decommissioning and to revise others to make it clear

5 that they apply during decommissioning.

6 Here, you can see in the top right corner

7 of the slide there are many provisions that in most

8 part, only refer to the Part 50 licensees in

9 decommissioning and don't refer to Part 52 licensees.

10 Or if they do, it's possibly the wrong

11 provision in Part 52.

12 It's 52.110, sometimes it says it's (a)(1)

13 -- the wrong paragraph -- instead of (a) it's (a)(1),

14 and so these are in some cases typos but in other

15 cases, it is somewhat substantive to make sure that

16 our regulations consistently apply to both Part 50 and

17 Part 52 licensees in decommissioning.

18 And so that's essentially a pretty

19 straightforward slide and proposal. Back to you, Dan.

20 MR. DOYLE: This is Slide 29, record-

21 retention requirements. This is the last of our

22 specific topic slides.

23 As noted, when a plant is no longer

24 operating and is in decommissioning, most plant

25 components such as pumps and valves are no longer in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 51

1 service and will eventually be removed as part of the

2 dismantlement activities.

3 Therefore, there's no longer a need to

4 retain certain records associated with these

5 components and the rulemaking eliminates many

6 recordkeeping retention requirements.

7 This proposed change would not impact the

8 records that are required to be maintained in support

9 of decommissioning and license termination activities.

10 The proposed rule also includes a specific question

11 concerning the recordkeeping requirements for

12 facilities license under 10 CFR Part 52.

13 One of the rulemaking's few proposed

14 changes to Part 52 would be in 52.63 regarding the

15 recordkeeping and retention requirements for

16 departures of the design of a facility.

17 However, these changes would not apply to

18 a combined license holder that references one of the

19 certified designs in the Part 52 appendices because

20 those appendices have their own recordkeeping

21 provision.

22 The NRC is asking if we should revise the

23 Part 52 appendices to conform those recordkeeping

24 requirements with those proposed for 52.63. Next

25 slide, please.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 52

1 As we highlighted on these provide slides,

2 there were 18 specific requests for comment. Most of

3 them were linked to the topics and those were the ones

4 that we highlighted. However, there were two that

5 were not directly related to these topics, so I'd like

6 to just point them out quickly now.

7 One is the timeframe for decommissioning.

8 So, the NRC is not proposing changes to

9 the decommissioning timeframe requirement, but we do

10 have a question on this topic, and we'd like to know

11 what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of

12 requiring prompt decontamination rather than allowing

13 up to 60 years to decommission a site.

14 As part of its review of the PSDAR, one of

15 the advantages and disadvantages of the NRC evaluating

16 and making a decision about the timeframe for

17 decommissioning on a site-specific basis.

18 The other topic, actually there were

19 three, the second one is exemptions. As stated in the

20 proposed rule, one of the goals of amending these

21 regulations is to reduce the need for regulatory

22 exemptions.

23 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission

24 may grant exemptions from the requirements, the

25 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 if the request will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 53

1 not present an undue risk to public health and safety

2 and is consistent with common defense and security.

3 What are the advantages and disadvantages

4 of the current 50.12 approach to

5 decommissioning-related exemptions? What standard

6 should the NRC apply in determining whether to grant

7 exemptions from the new or amended regulations?

8 What are the advantages and disadvantages

9 of providing an opportunity for the public to weigh in

10 on such exemption requests? Are there other process

11 changes the NRC should consider in determining whether

12 to grant exemptions from the new or amended

13 regulations?

14 And then the third one is about

15 applicability. There is the discussion for the

16 applicability to NRC licensees during operations and

17 to ISFSI only and standalone ISFSI Commission reactor

18 sites.

19 Permanently shutdown nuclear power

20 reactors will be at different stages of the

21 decommissioning process when the new decommissioning

22 regulations become effective and we'll have previously

23 received varying regulatory exemptions.

24 Can you foresee any implementation issues

25 with the proposed rule as its currently written for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 54

1 any new or amended requirements included in the

2 proposed rule? How should the requirement apply to

3 sites that are currently in different stages of

4 decommissioning?

5 Next slide, please.

6 Slide 31, we do have a regulatory

7 analysis, as a I mentioned, that accompanies the

8 proposed rule. I just want to point out some items of

9 interest.

10 Overall, the regulatory analysis concludes

11 that this action as proposed would be overall cost

12 beneficial with an estimated benefit of approximately

13 $18 million at a 7 percent net present value, 37

14 million at 3 percent net present value.

15 The three areas that influence us the most

16 were emergency preparedness, about $7.7 million, drug

17 and alcohol testing alternatives about $7 million, and

18 the decommissioning funding assurance alternative,

19 about $1 million.

20 So, we have a detailed discussion of what

21 we identified as the cost and benefits and you're

22 welcome to take a look at that and provide comments as

23 part of your review. Next slide, please.

24 Moving to Slide 33. We do have several

25 tips for you to consider as you're reviewing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 55

1 proposed rule and preparing your public comments. I'm

2 trying to provide some helpful in formation here to

3 make your comments more effective.

4 So, number one is to take a look at the

5 commenter's checklist at regulations.gov. This is a

6 government-wide website where agencies will publish

7 information about rulemaking activities and collect

8 public comments so they have a checklist that's on

9 their things to consider.

10 There's a link to it right on the comment

11 submission form and there's also a link in the slides

12 to a printable format so it just has some tips about

13 the type of information to provide in your comments.

14 Next slide, please.

15 As I mentioned earlier, we do have an

16 unofficial red-line rule document that shows how the

17 proposed rule would modify the current regulations in

18 red-line strike-out format.

19 There's a direct link to it right there in

20 the accession number.

21 Next slide, please. Tip 3 is that we do

22 have a public website, this is intended to be a one-

23 stop shop for information about this rulemaking

24 activity. You could scan that code with your phone,

25 that would bring you right to the website.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 56

1 There's also a short link there or if you

2 have any trouble accessing, my contact information is

3 on the slide. I'd be happy to give you a direct link

4 or help you out.

5 So, this website has a link directly to

6 the proposed rule. All these related documents that I

7 mentioned, there's a direct link to the comment form,

8 information about passed and upcoming public meetings.

9 As Trish mentioned, we do have one

10 additional public meeting coming up on Monday.

11 And the next slide, Slide 36, how to

12 submit a comment. This is just summarizing the

13 instructions that we have in the proposed rule. There

14 are multiple methods that you can use to give your

15 comments to use. The one that we prefer is

16 regulations.gov.

17 There's a comment form there where you

18 could type in your comments or you could upload a

19 document if you had prepared comments in a word file

20 or if you have a PDF you can upload your own document.

21 Or you could email it to us at

22 rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov or you could mail it to

23 the address shown there. Please don't submit your

24 comments in multiple methods, sometimes people do that

25 just to make sure we get it.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 57

1 If you do submit it, we will get it. If

2 you send the email, you'll get a confirmation email

3 back to know that it was received. And next slide,

4 37. We're just showing the high-level next steps.

5 So, as I mentioned earlier, we will be

6 extending the public comment period to August 30th so

7 the comment period would close 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time

8 on August 30th.

9 After the comment period closes, the NRC

10 staff will review and address the public comments as

11 part of developing the final rule package, which we

12 plan to submit to the Commission, October of 2023.

13 This day does not reflect the change to

14 the schedule so that's something we're going to have

15 to take a look at and see. That may be adjusted but

16 the current official estimated date is October 2023

17 for the staff to submit it to the Commission.

18 And then the final rule publication date

19 of May 2024. That wraps up the staff's prepared

20 comments, thanks for your patience and attention with

21 that. I will now turn it back over to Brett for the

22 public feedback and questions portion of the meeting.

23 MR. KLUKAN: Thanks, Dan, I appreciate it.

24 My name is Brett Klukan, I am hopefully going to lead

25 us through -- that's much better. Again, we're now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 58

1 going to turn to the public feedback and question

2 portion of the meeting, however, before we do that,

3 one more step.

4 I'd like to offer any elected officials or

5 representatives an opportunity to either be recognized

6 or to give prepared remarks or to ask questions. And

7 I'd like to begin with any representatives of tribal

8 nations.

9 So, do we have any representative tribal

10 nation in the room who would like to be recognized or

11 to ask a question?

12 Seeing none, if you are a tribal official

13 or representative of a tribal official participating

14 virtually this evening and would like to be recognized

15 or to ask a question at this time, please either raise

16 your hand in teams, it's a little raise-hand button at

17 the top of the screen, or hit star-five.

18 That's star-five if you are participating

19 by phone. Once you have been called upon, please

20 remember to unmute yourself within teams or by hitting

21 star 6 on your phone.

22 Again, we would ask that you please

23 identify yourself for the sake of the transcript and

24 recording. With that, Lance, do we have any

25 representatives of tribal nations who would like to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 59

1 recognized at this time?

2 MR. RAKOVAN: None have identified

3 themselves.

4 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. We will

5 now turn to Congressional representatives and we have

6 with us this evening, Shelly Abajian, the District

7 Director for U.S. Senator Feinstein and we also have

8 Greg Haas, the Senior District representative for

9 Congressman Carbajal.

10 I asked how to pronounce that because I

11 knew I was going to mess it up beforehand because it

12 would stick in my throat so I apologize.

13 So, anyway, do we have any other

14 Congressional representatives in the room or

15 representatives of Congresspeople in the room with us

16 this evening who would like to be recognized at this

17 time or to ask a question?

18 Lance, are there any Congressional

19 representatives on the phone or on Teams who would

20 like to be recognized or as a question? I feel like

21 I'm looking into the sky, I don't know why, it's what

22 I do when I do these virtual meetings because I don't

23 know where to look.

24 So, do we have anyone, Lance?

25 MR. RAKOVAN: None have identified NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 60

1 themselves, Brett.

2 MR. KLUKAN: We will now turn to any state

3 representatives. And state representatives in the

4 room? How about on the phone? If you are a state

5 representative, please raise your hand if you'd like

6 to be recognized or to ask a question or hit star 5 on

7 your phone.

8 MR. RAKOVAN: Again, I see no hands,

9 Brett.

10 MR. KLUKAN: Any county or local elected

11 officials who would like to stand and be recognized at

12 this time or to ask a question? Anyone in the room?

13 Online, is there anyone participating via

14 Teams who is a representative of a county or local

15 elected official who would like to be recognized or to

16 ask a question at this time?

17 MR. RAKOVAN: No one raising their hand,

18 Brett.

19 MR. KLUKAN: We will now turn over to --

20 the two that I mentioned, thank you for joining us

21 this evening. We're now going to transition to the

22 question and answer portion of the meeting.

23 Remember, our goal, as I articulated at

24 the beginning of the meeting, is the help inform your

25 process of providing written comments so that we ask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 61

1 that you focus your questions on any clarifications

2 you think that you may need or others may need in

3 terms of what you've heard tonight with respect to the

4 proposed decommissioning rule and draft regulatory

5 guidance.

6 The process that I'm going to use again is

7 that I'm going to call one person in the room and then

8 go to one person online. For those of you in the

9 room, when you are called to speak, please go to the

10 microphone position to the left of me.

11 If you would like to have a microphone

12 brought to you, please raise your hand. When I call

13 your name, I will bring this microphone to you.

14 And again, though I've said it several

15 times already, let Lance know that you would like ask

16 a question as a member of the public on Teams or for

17 those of you participating via the phone, please

18 either raise your hand within Teams, it's a little

19 raise-hand button or press star 5.

20 Again, that is star 5. When you've been

21 called on to ask your question, if you're on Teams you

22 can then unmute yourself or if you're on the phone you

23 then have to press star 6.

24 Trust me, I will repeat this at least 10

25 more times this evening. So, it looks like we have 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 62

1 people who signed up in the room. I'm just trying to

2 get a sense of how many people in the room think they

3 have a question right now.

4 So, two people, anyone else? Lance, I'm

5 just trying to get a sense of how many people we have.

6 There's a third. Lance, looking up again at the sky,

7 how many people online have raised their hands at this

8 time?

9 MR. RAKOVAN: I currently have one hand

10 online.

11 MR. KLUKAN: We're going to start first

12 with Jane Swanson. If you'd like to come up to the

13 microphone to ask your questions? And then again

14 after that we'll go to someone online.

15 If you could state your name and

16 affiliation for the transcript.

17 MS. SWANSON: Right, Jane Swanson, I'm a

18 spokesperson, one of the several spokespersons, for

19 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. I'd like to thank

20 this body, first of all, for extending the deadline

21 for comments.

22 Our attorney, Diane Curran, did ask for

23 that, perhaps other parties did, I don't know. But

24 that's very much appreciated. And my comments here

25 today are me as an individual, I'm not a lawyer so I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 63

1 just speaking from myself at the moment.

2 While I appreciate that you traveled here

3 to meet with us in person and I know you're trying to

4 be accessible, that's your whole goal, that's your

5 charge, your responsibility, to be accessible to the

6 public.

7 And I go to a lot of public meetings over

8 the last 50 years, a lot, but I must say this is very

9 challenging for me and I'm sure it is for other

10 laypersons.

11 I'm not complaining at you, I'm just

12 giving you feedback that what you just presented, I

13 had the slides on my computer, so I was seeing them

14 the way I wanted to also, but the language is very

15 dense, and you talk really fast.

16 And you go by Part 50.2311 and Part 52

17 whatever so frequently, I couldn't actually keep up

18 with you all. I'm a lot more familiar with the

19 language and vocabulary of this Agency than the

20 average citizen in this community.

21 But I think it's important that the

22 average person -- it shouldn't have to be somebody who

23 is nutty enough like me to devote a lot of time to

24 these issues.

25 A normal person living a normal life NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 64

1 should be able to comprehend this and make comments

2 and I'm going to work at it and do the best I can but

3 it will be a very big challenge for me and I cannot

4 imagine -- that's maybe why there are not that many

5 people in the room or online, because it's really

6 difficult.

7 And I appreciate that you're nodding,

8 you're getting my message so I will shorten -- I have

9 a lot to say. Can I say two more minutes, zero or

10 what?

11 MR. KLUKAN: That's why I did try to get a

12 sense of how many people were in here. So, take a

13 couple more minutes, we're not in a rush this evening

14 so I think we should be able to get through. We're

15 here until 8:00 p.m.

16 MS. SWANSON: I've got a lot to say but

17 I'll just make one more verbal comment. I was very

18 distressed to see the plan the NEPA environmental

19 review will happen along the way or afterwards or

20 whatever that was.

21 It should happen first, that should be

22 number one because all parties concerned, lawyers,

23 laypersons, PG&Es, that should be all be laid out,

24 what the national and policy act has to do with

25 decommissioning. It's super important.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 65

1 If it waits until the end then it's a fait

2 accompli and there's nothing you can do about it.

3 So, that would be my strongest verbal

4 message and I'm happy to have the opportunity to say

5 it in a public forum because I hope that puts a little

6 flag up for other people and they might look into that

7 also.

8 Thank you, the rest of my comments will

9 come online. Thank you very much.

10 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Lance,

11 if you could please unmute our next speaker?

12 MR. RAKOVAN: Ms. ZamEk, you should be

13 able to unmute yourself, your mic is active.

14 MS. ZAMEK: Hello, I'm Jill ZamEk, I live

15 in Arroyo Grande. I appreciate this opportunity for a

16 local meeting to discuss this extremely important and

17 complex proposed rule.

18 I'm very pleased that the deadline for the

19 submittal of comments has been extended until August

20 30th. I have a multitude of questions, I don't know

21 how you're going to handle them but I'll start and see

22 if you want to answer them on the spot or how you

23 manage it.

24 At first glance of the proposed rule, I

25 observed that the changes allow for licensee benefits NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 66

1 of cost savings and reduced regulatory burden. What

2 enhanced financial and safety protections are included

3 in this rule for us, the host community?

4 Do you answer the questions now or should

5 I just keep going?

6 MR. KLUKAN: If you know that you have

7 several questions that are related, I think it makes

8 sense to bundle them together, however, if you're

9 going to jump to a different topic, then maybe let the

10 staff address this one.

11 Because again, we only have a handful of

12 speakers at this time, I think that method will work.

13 If you have other questions related to this, I would

14 ask those now as well.

15 But if this is your only question on that,

16 then we can move on to the other ones after the staff

17 has potentially had a chance to respond to that.

18 MS. ZAMEK: I don't think any of my

19 questions are related.

20 MR. DOYLE: Let's just try to respond here

21 to questions. So, you were asking basically, are

22 there safety enhancements or additional requirements

23 that would be imposed to provide more protections for

24 the public in this rulemaking?

25 So, in general this is making efficiency NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 67

1 improvements and clarifying the regulations and just

2 going back to the original comment, I also understand

3 what you're saying and apologize that this is not as

4 accessible language.

5 But a lot of these are niche topics where

6 there's a long history to it and it's a challenge to

7 summarize. And I think we didn't quite hit that mark

8 is what I heard so I apologize for that.

9 But I guess to directly answer your

10 question that there's nothing in here from the NRC's

11 perspective, I guess I'll look around.

12 Hopefully, what I'm saying is consistent

13 with what we have in the proposed rule that it's not

14 imposing some new requirements where the NRC had

15 identified a safety issue or a security issue that

16 required that.

17 We are making adjustments that are

18 basically intended for improving efficiency.

19 MR. MORRIS: It's probably worth pointing

20 out the NRC is governed by five core principles,

21 independence, clarity, openness, reliability and

22 efficiency.

23 And so to the extent that efficiency also

24 applies to us, because the current process that's been

25 utilized, the exemption process, is quite inefficient NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 68

1 and it actually consumes quite a bit of our resources

2 as well for no real safety benefit.

3 MR. KLUKAN: For those of you on the

4 phone, I just wanted to point out the last speaker was

5 Scott Morris, the Regional Administrator for Region 4.

6 And he was preceded by Dan Doyle, for those of you

7 who can't see our faces on the video, those were the

8 last two speakers.

9 So, you said you had some additional

10 questions?

11 MS. ZAMEK: I do. To follow up on that

12 one, there are no financial and safety protections

13 included for the community members then.

14 Number two, my second question, are there

15 provisions for increased public involvement in the

16 decommissioning decision-making in this draft

17 proposal?

18 MR. KLUKAN: The question again, just to

19 make sure, the staff is asking me to clarify, you're

20 asking are there any additions to the rule with

21 regards to public involvement in the decommissioning

22 process?

23 Did I capture that correctly?

24 MS. ZAMEK: Yes, when are opportunities?

25 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce Watson, I'm the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 69

1 Chief of the Reactor Decommissioning Branch at NRC

2 Headquarters.

3 I guess I was going to kind of expand a

4 little bit on the first question you had in that while

5 the rule actually provides for efficiencies for both

6 the NRC and the licensees, because there's about 20 to

7 25 actions that they take when they shut down a plant.

8 And if they don't have to do those actions

9 to the level that we require right now by making it

10 more efficient, there's a savings to the licensee in

11 the fact that the trust fund is being spent on real

12 decommissioning and not on just licensing activities.

13 There is a net benefit there for the

14 public in that their funds that they provided through

15 the Public Service Commission to fund the

16 decommissioning fund will now be used better

17 effectively towards the actual decommissioning.

18 So, I think that's the answer really to

19 the first one. It's kind of indirect but that's the

20 net result.

21 And the second one is, yes, I will agree

22 with you that many of the opportunities for public

23 engagement over these issues, if it's a license

24 amendment, there's always the opportunity for a

25 hearing.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 70

1 By codifying these, these will no longer

2 be available for requesting public involvement in

3 them.

4 However, I just do want to point out that

5 we've had 17 reactor shutdowns over the history of

6 since the 1990s and so since 2013, we've had 12 more

7 shutdowns that will benefit the plants in the future

8 from these types of regulatory actions by being

9 codified.

10 So, the plants in the future will be able

11 to use these regulations to be more efficient for

12 transitioning into decommissioning.

13 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, and I would just

14 add that if you are concerned about this, the purpose

15 of this meeting, if you believe the rule should

16 include additional opportunities for public

17 interaction within decommissioning, please, we would

18 ask that you submit that as a comment as one of the

19 methods the staff described this evening.

20 How about one more question? And then I

21 feel like I should move on. If we have time at the

22 end, we can come back to you. One more question right

23 now?

24 MS. ZAMEK: What is the NRC's

25 decision-making rule with respect to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 71

1 decommissioning activities on the site? What

2 authority does the NRC have over the licensees

3 decommissioning plan?

4 MR. WATSON: Yes, this is Bruce Watson

5 again, Chief of the Reactor Decommissioning Branch.

6 The NRC provides oversight of decommissioning

7 activities in a number of ways. The first is through

8 the licensing process which my branch does in

9 particular.

10 We issue the licensing documents such as

11 changes to the technical specifications or the safety

12 analysis report. And the licensees conduct those

13 activities they're going to do within the existing

14 safety evaluation process they've been using since the

15 plant was operating.

16 I hate to throw out the number but it's 10

17 CFR 50.59 is the safety evaluation process.

18 And that process is inspected to by our

19 regional inspectors and so they keep track of the work

20 they plan to do but continue to inspect it during the

21 actual major activities that are conducted to make

22 sure they're done safely.

23 So, oversight of the decommissioning, in a

24 couple ways, like I said, one is through the licensing

25 process and the second one is through the inspection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 72

1 process.

2 MR. MORRIS: If I could just add -- this

3 is Scott Morris, regional administrator for Region 4,

4 we manage a very active decommissioning program out of

5 the regional office.

6 I've got several fully qualified

7 decommissioning inspectors who visit the sites

8 routinely, are in constant communication with the

9 sites such that when significant activities are

10 ongoing, we can be present to observe those in real

11 time.

12 And all of those inspection reports are

13 available in the public record.

14 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, Scott and Bruce,

15 for your comments and thank you for your questions.

16 Again, I just want to circle back to other people who

17 have indicated the desire to speak, and then if we

18 have time to make sure they get that opportunity.

19 And then if we have time, we'll circle

20 back to your additional questions. So, thank you,

21 though, for the questions you've raised thus far.

22 We're now going to turn to our next person

23 in the room and that is Sherry Lewis. If you'd like

24 to come up to the microphone.

25 MS. LEWIS: My name is Sherry Lewis and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 73

1 I'm connected with San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.

2 I have a couple of questions, one is about the

3 overloading, as I think of it, of the spent fuel

4 pools.

5 PG&E has chosen to have the pools loaded

6 more and more and more to maximum capacity and the

7 reason seems to be that when the plant shuts down and

8 all of the spent fuel is in the pool, they can be

9 unloaded to dry cask at a quicker time, which saves

10 them money.

11 But the problem with that is that when you

12 have the pools filled so much and you have, say, and

13 earthquake and loss of pool water, then the Zirconium

14 cladding can catch on fire and you can have a huge

15 fire problem.

16 Now, the thing there is it is known, not

17 that I'm saying how, that it's safer to have the spent

18 fuel is dry cask storage than to have it in the pools.

19 So, the important thing is to have them taken out of

20 the pools as soon as you can, as soon as they're cool

21 enough, to go into dry cask storage.

22 But what PG&E is opting to do is to keep

23 it all there and not deal with taking it out until the

24 end when it can be done more quickly. So, my question

25 then is how can NRC countenance something like that?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 74

1 That's choosing economics over safety.

2 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you for the question.

3 I appreciate you coming out this evening and raising

4 it.

5 We do have Scott Morris with us, the

6 Region 4 regional administrator, we'd like to if we

7 have time at the end to focus on plant-specific

8 questions, we can circle back around to those.

9 But we want to make sure we get through

10 all the questions with respect to the decommissioning

11 rule first.

12 So, as time permits we can circle back to

13 that question and I'll raise it again, but we just

14 want to make sure right now we capture within the time

15 for the meeting the questions with respect to the

16 decommissioning rule itself.

17 But again, thank you for raising the

18 question, I'm not trying to dismiss it.

19 MS. LEWIS: I have another question.

20 MR. MORRIS: And if I could just add, if

21 we run out of time I'll make myself available at the

22 end.

23 MS. LEWIS: My other one again you can

24 come back to, it probably wouldn't fit in now, the

25 Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 75

1 spent many years and thousands of hours coming up with

2 a lot of good information and suggestions.

3 And I'm wondering if the NRC pays

4 attention to anything like that? They are a local

5 group where you would get some more local input. So,

6 that's an important thing, to be able to use the

7 information that these people have spent a long time

8 gathering.

9 MR. KLUKAN: Bruce Watson is going to take

10 that one for us.

11 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce Watson,

12 citizens advisory panels, citizen advisory boards,

13 they come in a variety of names, yes, we encourage the

14 utility or the local community to form one.

15 Some are formed by the states, we do

16 participate in those if we're invited, however, we

17 also generally listen to what's going on with them.

18 I've been here to speak at the Diablo one before and

19 there's another safety group here that I've spoken

20 with.

21 It's an independent safety committee from

22 the state, and I've spoken to them before too. We do

23 pay a lot of attention to what's going on with those

24 groups and we have them at a variety of sites around

25 the country.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 76

1 Not all of them have them but many of them

2 do have them.

3 As a matter of fact, a few years ago I

4 held a meeting right here to collect comments because

5 we were charged by Congress to put together a report

6 for best practices for citizens advisory panels or

7 boards, and that report went out in July of 2019.

8 And so that report went to Congress and I

9 led that effort for the Agency and we held a meeting

10 on that particular issue right here in this room. We

11 got a lot of good feedback from the Diablo Canyon

12 Citizens Advisory Panel.

13 MS. LEWIS: Thank you.

14 DR. HOLAHAN: And if I can add, that

15 report, we sent it to Congress when we had the overall

16 report done and we had good practices from several

17 different sites.

18 So, we put that report together and we've

19 asked the question in the proposed rule whether that

20 should be required or not.

21 But we found that it was better to leave

22 it up to the individual sites to formulate their

23 citizens advisory board.

24 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for your

25 questions and as time permits, we'll circle back to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 77

1 your first one.

2 Lance, has anyone else raised a hand on

3 Teams or indicated for those participating by phone

4 hit star 5 to notify you they would like to ask a

5 question at this time?

6 MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, we have three hands up.

7 Marty Brown, you can unmute yourself and ask your

8 question if you'd like?

9 MR. KLUKAN: Please go ahead whenever

10 you're ready.

11 MR. RAKOVAN: Mr. Brown, you should be

12 able to unmute yourself. Are you there?

13 MR. KLUKAN: If you're on Teams, click the

14 little thing that looks like a microphone, which

15 should have a Ghostbuster symbol through it, whatever,

16 I'm dating myself. Or hit star six on your phone.

17 Maybe we can come back Mr. Brown. Lance,

18 can we have another speaker?

19 MR. RAKOVAN: Sure, Ryan Pickering, you

20 should be able to unmute yourself and ask a question

21 now.

22 MR. PICKERING: Thank you and good

23 evening. I want to begin by thanking this group for

24 progressing this work of streamlining our

25 decommissioning process in the United States.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 78

1 This is a critical effort in order to save

2 taxpayer dollars and dispel fear in the public, and

3 finally, make nuclear energy even more competitive

4 than it already is.

5 So, I just want to commend the work and

6 though, as a layperson I did find it mildly confusing,

7 I was roughly able to follow along. So, keep up the

8 good work and we appreciate efforts to save taxpayer

9 dollars.

10 My question is I'm wondering if there has

11 been a consideration of a rule proposal to facilitate

12 a nuclear power-plant operator changing direction from

13 decommissioning to life extension.

14 As we've heard both the Governor of

15 California and Michigan are pushing to keep nuclear

16 power-plants open, I'm wondering if there's a rule

17 proposal to facilitate a power-plant operator changing

18 direction from decommissioning to life extension?

19 Thank you.

20 MR. MORRIS: I'll try this one, Scott

21 Morris here, Regional Administrator. There is a

22 process for license renewal, it's a well-trodden road

23 on most plants.

24 Many plants that are operating today have

25 already successfully gone through that process and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 79

1 extended their operating license from the initial 40-

2 year period to an additional 20 years.

3 What typically is required is, obviously

4 what's required is an application from the licensee to

5 be able to extend their license. That review process

6 takes nominally two years to get through.

7 It's a detailed evaluation of things that

8 are really impactful for extended life, particularly

9 passive systems, structures, and components. So, the

10 short answer is, yes, there is a way.

11 However, once we receive certification

12 from a licensee that they have permanently ceased

13 operations and all fuel has been removed from the

14 vessel, that changes the whole equation.

15 But before they send those letters to us,

16 then there is an opportunity to extend their license.

17 So, in the case of Diablo Canyon, for example, we

18 haven't received such letters because clearly, they're

19 still operating.

20 So, they do have an opportunity to submit

21 a license renewal application. We don't have that

22 application before us right now but it is a

23 possibility. Bruce, did you want to add to that?

24 Once you get those certification letters

25 in, you've pretty much removed your opportunity for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 80

1 seeking a license extension.

2 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for your

3 comment and question. Sir, I know that you indicated

4 that you'd like to speak this evening, please?

5 MR. PICKERING: Well, thank you, everyone,

6 that's very enlightening and we will do our best to

7 continue to create portable and reliable electricity

8 in the United States.

9 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

10 Pickering, for your comments and participating in the

11 meeting this evening.

12 MR. MILLER: I'm Clint Miller, I actually

13 work at the plant for PG&E but I'm speaking as a

14 ratepayer. I believe you asked a question about the

15 trust fund and the formula and to the spending.

16 Trish, I don't know if you remember me but

17 I've been at a couple of the EPRI meetings virtually

18 so I'm glad to finally meet you after a couple of

19 years in person. Part of that trust fund would be the

20 setting aside money for the disposal cost at a low-

21 level waste disposal site.

22 There was an NRC guidance out there on how

23 to calculate that. Long ago, it was based on the

24 disposal site in South Carolina.

25 A few years ago, that guidance from the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 81

1 NRC was updated to where most plants are shipping out

2 either Class A license facility in Utah or to the

3 Class B/C waste to the disposal facility in Texas.

4 The Nuclear Energy Institute sent in

5 comments on that update and said thank you very much

6 for updating the cost but for decommissioning I think

7 really missed the boat, those comments from NEI said,

8 because the large, massive quantities of material

9 which has trace amounts of activity is being sent to

10 these alternative disposal sites, the U.S. Ecology

11 site in Idaho or to the RCRA cell at Texas.

12 And people ship there because it's

13 significantly less than shipping to the Class A site

14 at Utah. And PG&E, they ship large quantities to

15 Idaho and large quantities to Texas.

16 So, I submit that guidance needs to be

17 changed because at certain states you're able to go to

18 your public utility commission and say, hey, we're

19 going to use a different number than what's in the NRC

20 guidance.

21 But the NRC guidance is out there, and as

22 I read it it's requiring you to put more money in the

23 trust fund than is absolutely necessary. And that's

24 an opportunity cost that in these austere economic

25 times just cannot be borne.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 82

1 That money should go back to their

2 ratepayers, never taken from the ratepayers in the

3 first place if they can go through these hard economic

4 times, or it should be available for the utilities to

5 go update their grids to get either more prevention

6 for fires starting or get more transmission to be able

7 to push renewables from where it is today to where

8 it's needed.

9 And it's just a huge opportunity cost. The

10 dollars are there, I don't think another submittal of

11 comments to the NRC is needed because the Nuclear

12 Energy Institute already sent in their comments on

13 that guidance on low-level waste cost testing.

14 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for that,

15 I'm going to turn it over to Bruce.

16 MR. WATSON: Your comment is very good

17 actually, this is Bruce Watson again. Up until the

18 time about five years before the plant shuts down, the

19 licensees can use that formula we have with all the

20 cost factors and all that type of information to come

21 up with the minimum cost for the decommissioning.

22 And that's based on a reasonable

23 expectation that there will be enough money to

24 complete the decommissioning. It's not a complete

25 assurance but it is reasonable that there's going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 83

1 be enough money to complete the decommissioning.

2 But five years before they shut down,

3 they're required to submit a site-specific estimate of

4 the cost. Now, unfortunately, a lot of these plants

5 shut down and recently, before they announced that

6 unexpectedly they were going to shut down without

7 meeting that five-year criteria.

8 So, when they do shut down they have to

9 provide a site-specific estimate and that's when they

10 generally adjust the cost based on their specific plan

11 for the disposal of the waste.

12 So, if they expect they're going to create

13 a lot of low-level trivial activity waste that's going

14 to go to a RCRA cell or Idaho, the U.S. Ecology

15 facility, that's when they would make those changes in

16 the cost estimate.

17 But like I said, the formulas is to set

18 the minimum and then they can take the time during

19 anytime in their operation if they really want to go

20 into the details of planning the decommissioning,

21 which isn't an additional cost to do that while

22 they're in operations, to determine how they're going

23 to do the decommissioning.

24 But most don't do that until within five

25 years when they're going to shut down. So, there is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 84

1 an opportunity from the utility to really adjust those

2 costs based on what their plans are.

3 But there's a lot of variability in the

4 strategies that the utilities could use to -- or I

5 should say the companies that are decommissioning the

6 sites and how they choose to do it.

7 And so that would lend for more

8 variability in the cost but I agree with you, if

9 you're shooting high and you're asking for a lot more

10 money, that's probably not fair to everybody, I'll

11 just say that.

12 But they do want to make sure they have a

13 reasonable amount of money to cover the entire cost of

14 the decommissioning.

15 MR. MILLER: I understand, I'm just trying

16 to reiterate that the common practice now is that

17 those vast quantities of material that have trace

18 level activity are going to RCRA cells to much lower

19 fee and it shouldn't be a requirement to stock money

20 that could either be back to the ratepayers five years

21 before or be available for the utilities to ask

22 ratepayers for money to go improve the grid.

23 Thank you.

24 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. Lance,

25 could we have our next speaker on Teams or on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 85

1 phone, please?

2 MR. RAKOVAN: Lynne Goodman, you should be

3 able to unmute and ask your question now.

4 MS. GOODMAN: Good evening, I'm Lynne

5 Goodman. I have a question that's similar to Mr.

6 Pickering's but somewhat different.

7 Once the current regulatory guidance from

8 how I read it says that once a plant has shut down

9 permanently and submitted its certification, if they

10 want to restart the plant, it's basically a

11 case-by-case basis.

12 Does the proposed guidance address that

13 any further as far as if once a plant has submitted

14 its certification, if it decides to change their mind

15 and wants to restart the plant using what their

16 current license allows, I'm not talking about further

17 extending the license but using the rest of the

18 current license, is that addressed at all in the

19 proposed guidance?

20 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle. We have

21 not proposed any changes in the regulations or the

22 guidance related to that situation where a facility

23 has started the decommissioning process and then

24 wanted to change.

25 That's not something we've proposed any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 86

1 changes related to.

2 MR. MORRIS: This is Scott Morris. I just

3 want to add the practical implications also need to be

4 I think just -- I need to mention them here. Once a

5 plant shuts down, submits those two certifications, at

6 that point, they tend to, the licensed operators that

7 operate the facility, tend to go away.

8 They give up those licenses. To order new

9 fuel to run the reactor is typically at least a two-

10 year lead time. And there's a whole bunch of things

11 like that.

12 So, the practical implications are that if

13 a decision like that was made, it would still measure

14 two to three years minimum before they could actually

15 -- even if they had the means to do that in a rule,

16 for example.

17 That's just the practical side of it.

18 MS. GOODMAN: I'm specifically thinking

19 about the Palisades situation since the plant shut

20 down is coming very quickly yet the Governor and

21 others have discussed the potential of not permanently

22 shutting it down or being able to continue to operate

23 it because of the low emissions to meet the carbon

24 goals of the state.

25 So, if it did shut down whether or not it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 87

1 would be potential to restart it up again, recognizing

2 there would be delays to order the fuel and also the

3 plant would have to be maintained in good condition in

4 the meantime.

5 MR. MORRIS: Just another side of that, in

6 that particular case, the company that owns that

7 facility has already entered into a contractual

8 agreement with the company that's purchasing it and

9 conducting the decommissioning.

10 So, for them, backing out of that

11 contract, that's a real practical implication that

12 would present some pretty significant challenges for

13 that utility.

14 MR. KLUKAN: Did you have any other

15 questions?

16 MS. GOODMAN: No, thank you.

17 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much for

18 asking your question and for participating in the

19 meeting this evening. Can I look to the room again?

20 Is there anyone else who has not yet spoken who would

21 like to ask any questions or provide any feedback at

22 this time?

23 For the record, seeing none, Lance, do we

24 have anyone who hasn't asked a question yet? Maybe we

25 go back to Mr. Brown I think, see if we can reconnect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 88

1 him?

2 MR. RAKOVAN: I have no one who has their

3 hand up at this time and I think he may have dropped

4 off.

5 MR. KLUKAN: I think we had one individual

6 who had additional questions. Since we have a couple

7 minutes left, the first online speaker, did you want

8 to ask some additional questions now?

9 We said we would give an opportunity to

10 come back to you if we didn't have anyone else.

11 MR. RAKOVAN: Ms. ZamEk, you should be

12 able to unmute.

13 MS. ZAMEK: Thank you, I think they are

14 probably faster questions. Is the National

15 Environmental Policy Act environmental review required

16 before decommissioning work commences?

17 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle.

18 The National Environmental Policy Act is

19 applied to all NRC actions so the short answer to your

20 question is yes, from initial licensing to any

21 changes, there is requirements and guidance for how we

22 meet our obligations under the National Environmental

23 Policy Act.

24 There's an environmental review before, at

25 the beginning of the process and what we're talking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 89

1 about in this proposed rule is some of the changes

2 related to the decommissioning process.

3 So, the short answer to your question is

4 yes, there are requirements before the decommissioning

5 process, it's not just at the end. Hopefully that

6 helps.

7 MS. ZAMEK: Will the entomb option for

8 decommissioning strategies be removed from this

9 proposed rule?

10 MR. WATSON: This is Bruce. Entombment is

11 only mentioned in our guidance and it was incorporated

12 back I'll say 30 years ago based on what the

13 international community felt was important to everyone

14 at that time.

15 But during the 1990s we held public

16 meetings and it was determined that entombment was not

17 a chosen path for decommissioning for NRC license

18 facilities.

19 And so we never promulgated any

20 regulations to allow for entombment and so we looked

21 at this as part of this rulemaking and decided that we

22 have some very old guidance after this that still

23 mentions entombment but we'll be removing that from

24 the guidance as we revise it.

25 MS. ZAMEK: My last question, what is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 90

1 rationale for reduced emergency preparedness when the

2 plant reaches Level 2 and there's all that high burnup

3 fuel still in the pools?

4 And this same question pertains to reduced

5 cybersecurity and insurance requirements.

6 MR. ANDERSON: This is Jim Anderson.

7 To speak to the emergency preparedness

8 part of that question, when the utility would enter

9 into Level 2, the spent fuel at that stage, be it 10

10 months for a boiling reactor or 16 months for a

11 pressurized water reactor, or a separate time based on

12 a site-specific determination, the ability of the fuel

13 to heat up to cladding ignition temperatures at which

14 it would catch fire would be limited.

15 It would not be able to happen within 10

16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of the initiation of the event. So, that's how

17 the transition to Level 2 occurs and why it happens

18 when it does according to the proposed rule.

19 Does that answer the question?

20 MS. ZAMEK: I think perhaps this is a

21 site-specific question because I know at Diablo

22 they're planning to remove that fuel within two years,

23 so I don't know how that works with that 16 months.

24 MR. MORRIS: This is Scott Morris. At the

25 end of the day, it's all about heat, it's all about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 91

1 the decay heat that's being generated. And of course,

2 over time as the decay heat continues to go down and

3 down and down.

4 And I think what Jim is stating here or

5 the objective of the point of this proposed new

6 requirement is to say -- I don't want to mix issues

7 and I don't want to make it complicated.

8 I'm trying to think of a way to say this

9 simply.

10 Like I said, the bottom line is that for

11 used fuel sitting in a spent fuel pool, for it to

12 actually get to a point where it would have enough

13 heat to cause it to self-ignite and it causes

14 zirconium fire, there would be adequate amount of time

15 once the event initiator happens, meaning a loss of

16 cooling, like all the water in the pool is gone.

17 There's no water to cool the fuel.

18 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 />

19 before the temperature of the fuel would exceed the

20 ignition point. And the thought is if that's the

21 case, we can employ other more traditional ways of

22 combating that emergency and then what is required in

23 a current operating reactor.

24 That's the bottom line, right? And as far

25 as going to dry storage, dry storage means the heat in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 92

1 the fuel has decayed away to the point that the fuel

2 doesn't need water anymore and normal circulation of

3 air around it is enough to keep it cool.

4 That typically takes three years, four

5 years, it depends.

6 MR. WATSON: I was just going to respond

7 to a hidden question in there and that is in the

8 rulemaking, for a pressurized water reactor, we are

9 specifying that it takes 16 months for the fuel to

10 cool sufficiently so that you can't have that zirc

11 fire and cause an offsite dose consequence that would

12 require an emergency plan offsite.

13 But the second part of I think the

14 question you asked was is it okay for Diablo Canyon,

15 is it safe for them to move the fuel in 24 months or 2

16 years?

17 And the answer to that is, yes, it's much

18 greater than 16 months so the fuel would even be six

19 months cooler, it will be in a better situation to be

20 transported to dry storage.

21 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you, and I think the

22 other two parts of that question were regarding

23 reducing cybersecurity requirements and insurance

24 requirements. Can someone from the staff just touch

25 upon our rationale in the proposed rule for our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 93

1 changes to those?

2 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan. There were

3 similar related questions about emergency preparedness

4 which Jim already addressed. Also, for cybersecurity

5 and for the offsite, the insurance requirements, let

6 me check with Eric Lee. I know we have a staff Member

7 on board.

8 Eric, is there anything additional you

9 wanted point out for cybersecurity requirements?

10 MR. LEE: Yes, hold on a second.

11 MR. DOYLE: I think we lost you, Eric.

12 Let me check, we have another staff Member, Mai

13 Henderson is our subject-matter expert on the

14 insurance requirements. Eric, we got you back, let's

15 go with Eric.

16 MR. LEE: The same reason, cybersecurity

17 rule is based on the risk. Once the licensee has shut

18 down the reactor, they don't really have any

19 safety-related systems to protect.

20 And because of that, based on the risk

21 just talked about by the emergency preparedness

22 person, removing the cybersecurity requirement at

23 Level 2, which is for pressure water I believe is 16

24 months and the boiling water is 10 months after move

25 to the spent fuel pool.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 94

1 I hope that answers the question.

2 MR. DOYLE: Let me check with Mai

3 Henderson, is there anything else you wanted to add

4 for insurance requirement changes and why the staff us

5 proposing those changes at that point?

6 MS. HENDERSON: No, good evening, this is

7 Mai Henderson and no, not anything that would differ

8 from the emergency preparedness staff or cybersecurity

9 staff.

10 When reviewing exemptions for offsite and

11 onsite insurance, we largely base our review on the EP

12 exemption that takes place.

13 And so if the licensee has met all of the

14 requirements in order to obtain any emergency

15 preparedness exemption, we utilize those technical

16 findings to then approve the exemption requests for

17 both onsite and offsite insurance.

18 And there's a lot of other background

19 information with regards to how we determine and

20 arrived at the particular values for offsite and

21 onsite insurance, however, there's no different or new

22 findings or technical basis that we use to approve

23 exemptions for insurance or financial protection.

24 MR. KLUKAN: For those participating on

25 the phone, could you repeat your name one more time?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 95

1 MS. HENDERSON: This is Mai Henderson and

2 I'm the subject-matter expert for the offsite and

3 onsite financial protection and indemnity agreements.

4 MR. KLUKAN: Sorry, I was asking the

5 member of the public.

6 MS. ZAMEK: Jill ZamEk.

7 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you again for your

8 questions. Right now we're past our scheduled meeting

9 end time of 8:00 p.m. We'd like to thank all of you

10 participating.

11 I would say we have one open question that

12 you asked, Ms. Lewis, that Scott Morris will follow

13 up with you afterwards.

14 Again, thank you for asking the question,

15 I thank all of you for participating as well. Could I

16 have the next slide, please?

17 Again, I mentioned at the outset of this

18 meeting and frontloaded the requests, clearly you

19 can't scan that right now because it's up on the

20 screen but we do ask that you go to our website or go

21 on your computer, find these slides, click on the QR

22 code, fill out the meeting feedback form.

23 Again, just like everybody else we're

24 learning about how best to conduct hybrid meetings so

25 we really appreciate your feedback. If there are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 96

1 things you think we could be doing to make this a

2 better process that's more useful for you, please let

3 us know.

4 As a facilitator, I would really

5 appreciate it. And with that, I want to thank you

6 again for taking the time this evening to join us and

7 talk with us and with that, I'll turn it over to Dan.

8 MR. DOYLE: Thank you very much, we also

9 just want to say thank you to the San Luis Obispo

10 County Government staff for allowing us to use this

11 facility for this meeting. This is a great facility,

12 we appreciate it and again, thank you for your time.

13 Trish, do you have any other closing

14 remarks?

15 DR. HOLAHAN: Again, I'd like to thank

16 everybody for coming tonight both in the room and on

17 the phone. Thank you for providing the comments.

18 We've heard your comments and we're going to take them

19 to heart but this will also help inform our path

20 forward.

21 Again, please, I encourage you to submit

22 comments in writing and then we'll consider all the

23 comments in formulating the final rule. So, thank you

24 again and thank you to the County supervisors.

25 MR. KLUKAN: All right, with that, we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 97

1 ended the meeting, everyone. Thank you again, we can

2 stop the recording at this time. Lance, thank you for

3 facilitating online, I very much appreciate it and

4 thank all of you for participating virtually as well.

5 Goodnight, everyone.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter

7 went off the record at 8:10 p.m.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com