united states of america nuclear regulatory …€¦ · 29th annual regulatory information...

1

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

29th ANNUAL REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE

+ + + + +

PERSPECTIVES OF COMMISSIONER BARAN

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY,

MARCH 15, 2017

+ + + + +

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

+ + + + +

The Regulatory Information Conference met

in the Grand Ballroom at the Bethesda North Marriott

Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road,

Rockville, Maryland, at 8:00 a.m., Michael F. Weber,

Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,

facilitating.

PRESENT:

JEFF BARAN, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

MICHAEL F. WEBER, Director, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research

2

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

CONTENTS

Perspectives of Commissioner Baran.................4

Question and comment period.......................24

Adjourn...........................................30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3


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

DIRECTOR WEBER: Good morning. And allow

me to add my welcome to this RIC, R Quick RIC, as the

Chairman called it. I am Michael Weber and I'm NRC's

director of Nuclear Regulatory Research. I often joke

with Bill that I'm the other NRR.

For our next presentation, it's my honor to

introduce Commissioner Jeff Baran. Who began his

service on the Commission on October 14th, 2014. We

welcome him to his third regulatory information

conference.

Before serving on the Commission, he worked

as a staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives

for over 11 years. Most recently as the staff director

for the Energy and Environment Committee for Democratic

staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And during his tenor with that Committee,

he focused on a variety of different topics, including

oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as one

of his primary responsibilities.

Originally from the Chicago area,

Commissioner Baran earned his bachelor's degree and

master's degree in political science from Ohio

University. And he holds a law degree from the Harvard

Law School.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4


Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in

welcoming Commissioner Jeff Baran.

(Applause)

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Mike. Good

morning everyone. I'm going to try to lower this enough

so that it's not blocking my face.

Well, it's great to see everyone here.

This is, as Mike mentioned, my third RIC. And so I've

done a couple of these speeches before.

And I've been trying to come up with

something new, different for this morning. And

Kristine knows this, it just gets a little bit harder

every year, each time. And so I started thinking about

some of the advice I got for my first RIC speech.

And some people, at that time, recommended

going big picture, philosophical. And so I thought

about that for a while and then asked myself, why stop

at philosophical, maybe I should be thinking bigger,

more dramatic, more exciting.

I thought maybe I could include some poetry

or movie quotes or a dramatic reading of a risk informed

technical specification.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Whoa.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Perhaps a bit of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5


interpretive dance. My daughter Mia does gymnastics

and she has a nice arabesque pose. I thought I could

try throwing one of those in. You know, is that

something you guys would want to see, a little kind of,

no? Okay, well that's fair.

And to be honest, it just isn't me. So I

decided to stick with the nerdy nuclear jokes. There's

a tradition of that.

And I think they've been reasonably

successful in the past. And they don't require me to

be particular limber.

Of course, with Project Aim our budget is

not what it used to be so we contract out our joke making.

Kristine uses comment cards from prior years.

My preferred joke supplier has been Darius

Dixon from Politico, who once again came through with

a joke for me this year. And this is, I think, for the

first time, this is actually a Darius Dixon original.

He wrote this joke. And so if you guys are ready for

this, we'll give it a shot. Here it goes.

This joke hearkens back to an early NRC

effort to get Werner Heisenberg to speak at an event.

And the conversation went something like this.

Hey boss, I'm sorry we couldn't book

Heisenberg. Oh, what happened? I don't know, we put

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6


a lot of time and energy into it but couldn't track him

down. Well you know, that may have been your problem.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Maybe you liked it,

maybe you didn't. Either way I'm pretty sure that went

better than the interpretive dance would have gone, so

our best available option I think.

You may have noticed that I have a new

speaking slot this year. I guess in some ways we all

have new slots because we pushed it back a day, but

during the last two years I opened up Day 2 of the RIC,

which I had to myself. In a kind of Siberian exile kind

of way.

This year is a little different. Now I'm

like the palate cleanser between our new Chairman and

our prior Chairman.

Seriously though, it's an honor to share

the morning with Kristine and Steve. I spent some time

pursuing the deep recesses of NRC's website, which has

a page listing all the former commissioners and their

terms of service.

And that page confirmed what I had already

suspected, which is that Kristine has more experience

as a Commissioner than any of her predecessors as

Chairman. So she brings a tremendous amount of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7


knowledge to the position. Congratulations again,

Kristine, on your new role.

And with 30 plus years of service at the

Agency, I'm confident that Steve has more overall NRC

experience than anyone who has served on the Commission

during the last four decades. Thank you, Steve, for

your hard work as Chairman and for your continued

service on the Commission.

And I want you to know that I would say that

even if we did not depend on your continued service on

the Commission quorum.

I've been getting asked a lot lately about

what the change of administration means for NRC. It's

a question I think that matters for our staff, our

stakeholders and our international counterparts. So I

thought I would take some time this morning to share my

thoughts about what may change and what will stay the

same.

I've already discussed one obvious change,

which is that we have a new chairman. But there is also

continuity in the membership of the Commission.

Kristine, Steve and I have all served

together on the Commission for more than two years. The

three of us work very well together. We don't always

agree on policy, but we always have constructive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8


collegial discussions, and debate.

And I think that's how a Commission is

supposed to work. Bring together people with different

backgrounds, perspectives and experiences and have them

grapple with the tough questions together.

We learned from each other, we question

each other, we help one another to see issues in a new

light. And ultimately, we make sure that important

regulatory decisions are carefully and thoughtfully

considered. I think it's a very effective decision

making structure.

And that is something that does not change

with administrations. For more than 40 years, through

eight administrations, both democratic and republican

collegial decision making and independence have been at

the core of NRC.

Our independence ensures that regulatory

decisions are made based on science and technical

expertise and that our focus is on the agency's public

health and safety mission. That's not going to change.

Independence is a cornerstone of NRCs

regulatory and oversight activities. And the

administration has made clear that the recent executive

orders, relating to regulatory decision making, do not

apply to independent agencies like NRC, our commitment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9


to increasing the Agency's efficiency and agility,

while remaining focus on our health and safety mission

is also unchanged.

I have been very impressed by the

willingness of the NRC staff to take a hard questioning

look at what work the agency is doing and how we're doing

that work.

Last year, as part of Project Aim, the NRC

staff generated a list of 151 proposals to reduce cost.

The Commission approved nearly all of those proposals.

Some of the resulting savings have already

been realized. Other cost cutting measures are set to

kick in during Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.

Declining workloads in particular areas,

such as new reactor licensing, are generating

additional savings. And the Agency has essentially

been under its own self-imposed hiring freeze for the

last two years.

The impacts of these Project Aim efforts

have been dramatic. Our budget has gone down, our fees

are going down and the number of full-time NRC employees

has dropped by more than 11 percent in just two years.

We now have fewer FTEs then we did back in

2007, when the Agency was in the midst of ramping up for

the expected wave of a new reactor applications.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10


With these reductions, I believe we are

closer to achieving one of Project Aims central goals,

which is to align the Agency's resources with our

current and expected workload. There may be some

further FTE reductions in corporate support or as a

result of more efficient processes in other areas, but

I think there's a strong case to be made that the Agency

will soon be correctly sized for our workload.

Project Aim has been valuable, but these

stead productions have created some significant

challenges. To successfully meet our licensing and

oversight responsibilities, NRC needs an engaged

workforce with the right skills and strong moral. For

that to happen, and for the Agency's long-term health,

we need a stable pipeline of new talent.

In order to align our resources with our

workload, it makes sense to set tight limits on external

hiring. But that approach cannot be maintained

indefinitely.

In the medium term, we're going to need to

bring new resident inspectors and health physicists and

probabilistic risk experts into the Agency.

A significant number of our employees are

retirement eligible or will be soon. And that requires

NRC to attract talented individuals to maintain the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11


strong technical competence that has been the hallmark

of NRC.

We also need to keep the talent we already

have, during this period of change.

Each week my fellow commissioners and I get

a list of new NRC employees who are arriving at the

Agency and current employees who are leaving the Agency

for one reason or another. And those lists are very

lopsided.

There are virtually no new arrivals. A

significant number of employees are retiring after many

years of federal service.

But some very talented individuals are

leaving to pursue opportunities elsewhere. Some are

heading to the Department of Energy or the National

Labs, others are going to the private sector.

I wish them all the best, but I want to make

sure that NRC can retain our next generation of leaders

who may be concerned that they won't have the

advancement prospects at NRC that they likely would have

had a few years ago. That's a challenge for us in

training, career development, mentoring, workforce

planning and succession planning.

With more people leaving the Agency, we

also need to make sure that we're capturing all of that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12


knowledge. Every organization has to manage these

challenges, but it's harder during a period of

downsizing.

With a reduced budget in workforce, one of

our key priorities must be to ensure that core technical

capabilities are maintained in the staff. This isn't

an issue that just effects NRC. It also effects

licensees, applicants and other stakeholders.

For example, we're seeing growing

interests in advance technology fuel and risk informed

licensing submittals. In order to conduct effective

and efficient reviews, we need to make sure that our

staff retains the technical and regulatory expertise to

handle complex and involving areas of work, like these.

There's broad agreement that it's

important for NRC to align its resources with its

workload. I think that's a reasonable goal that we all

share.

But it does raise a question about how we

make sure that we can handle new unexpected work. Part

of the answer is improved agility. The ability to

redirect NRC staff with the needed skills to the new

work.

We talk about that piece a lot. We don't

talk as much about the need to maintain a surge capacity,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13


for when significant unexpected work comes along, such

as the potential construction of the Bellefonte

reactors.

So what does all this mean for the future

of Project Aim? In terms of our budget and FTEs, the

reductions that have already been set in motion by the

Commission, will continue the sharp downward trend of

the past couple of years.

But ongoing reductions of that magnitude,

year after year, are not realistic. Deeper and deeper

cuts would prevent NRC from accomplishing its vital

mission.

In my view, our resource and FTE levels need

to flatten out pretty soon. On the other hand, the

Project Aim mind set of striving for improved efficiency

and agility is absolutely sustainable. We can and

should internalize this as an enduring focus of our

work.

I spent a fair bit of time, so far, talking

about the organization and management of NRC, let me

turn to some of the safety and security issues we're

working on.

This month marks six years since the

nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Plant in

Japan. NRC remains focused on post-Fukushima safety

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14


enhancements and lessons learned.

The Commission is currently considering

the draft final rule on mitigating beyond design basis

events. That rule addresses a number of the

recommendations of the near-term taskforce and is the

culmination of years of work.

Meanwhile, the staff's focus, as Vick

mentioned, is shifting more and more to oversight and

inspection of licensee implementation of several safety

enhancements and natural hazard evaluations.

Recently, the NRC staff also provided the

Commission with its proposed resolution of the three

remaining Tier II and Tier III issues. I want to take

a minute to highlight one of the staff's initiatives,

the establishment of a more routine proactive and

systematic program, for identifying and evaluating new

information related to natural hazards.

Under this approach, the staff would

collect, aggregate, review and assess new scientific

information about a range of natural hazards on an

ongoing basis. The staff would begin by complying and

organizing a knowledge base for each type of natural

hazard, consisting of all the information gathered

through the Agency's previous work.

This would ensure that the data, models,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15


documentation, and staff insights relied on in the past,

are readily retrievable in the future.

Overtime, the staff will expand this

knowledge base through active and ongoing technical

engagement with other federal agents, academia,

industry, international counterparts, professional

societies and consensus standards organizations.

When the staff obtains new information

about a natural hazard, the staff will assess its

potential significance and the context of the

accumulated hazardous information, rather than in

isolation. The overall objective is to determine if

the new information could have a potentially

significant effect on plant safety.

I think the staffs plan to actively and

routinely seek out the latest scientific information

about the natural hazards facing nuclear power plants

will significantly enhance safety. And it is

necessary, in light of the impacts on climate change on

some hazards, such as flooding and drought, which are

expected to exceed historical levels in the future.

Our regulatory processes need to account

for the changing frequency, intensity and duration of

these events. Successful implementation of the

proposed process will require a sustained long-term

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16


effort by the NRC staff.

But deepening and refining our

understanding of natural hazards will provide

substantial benefits in the year to come.

The power plant decommissioning is another

major area of focus for the Agency. In the last few

years, six U.S. reactors have permanently shut down and

seven more have announced plans to close in the coming

years.

Despite the growing number of effected

units, NRC does not currently have regulations

specifically tailored for the transition from

operations to decommissioning. As a result, licensees

with reactors transitioning to decommissioning

routinely seek exemptions for many of the regulations

applicable to operating reactors.

I see two main purposes for the

decommissioning rulemaking effort that is now underway,

and both are vital.

First, the rulemaking will allow us to move

away from regulating by exemption in this area. The

exemption approach is not very efficient and does not

provide for public participation.

And second, the rulemaking provides a

chance for NRC, and all of our stakeholders, to take a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17


fresh look at our decommissioning process and

requirements.

There is a lot of interest in this aspect

of the rulemaking. States, local governments,

nonprofit groups and the communities around these

plants are very engaged and want to share their views.

In response to NRCs advance notice of

proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 162 comments,

including comments on every regulatory area covered in

the notice. And there were a lot of regulatory areas

covered in the notice.

Many of the comments were focused on the

level of public involvement in the decommissioning

process. Other hot topics in the comments were the

60-year time limit for decommissioning, whether NRC

should approve post-shutdown decommissioning

activities reports, emergency preparedness and the use

of decommissioning trust funds.

The staff considered these comments and

released a draft regulatory basis last Friday. A

90-day public comment period officially opens today.

I look forward to reviewing the staffs work

and the comments we receive on it. I feel strongly that

we need to thoughtfully consider the ideas presented by

stakeholders with an open mind.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18


I'm keeping a close eye on the schedule for

this rulemaking. The timing of this rule is crucial

because of the plants that will be shutting down in the

coming years.

We need to complete this rulemaking in

2019, because all parties will benefit from having the

rule in place for those plants who have announced

shutdowns.

This poses a management challenge for the

Agency because many of the technical experts working on

the rulemaking will also need to review the anticipated

exemption requests for the plants that are closing. We

need to make sure that we handle this licensing workload

while keeping the rulemaking on track.

Additional plants transitioning to

decommissioning only increases the value of completing

the comprehensive rulemaking in a timely way.

Another constant for NRC and our licensees

is the need for robust physical and cybersecurity. The

potential threats facing power plants, fuel cycle

facilities and radioactive materials licensees are

constantly evolving. They require NRC to maintain

effective physical security requirements, including

the force-on-force inspections conducted by NRC.

Performance based cybersecurity standards

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19


are also essential and are being implemented.

Although distinct from physical security,

source accountability and tracking play an important

role in insuring that radioactive sources do not fall

into the wrong hands.

For Category 1 and 2 sources, NRC, in the

agreement states, have web-based systems to inventory

sources, validate materials licensees, verify that

possession limits are not exceeded and prevent

unauthorized parties from obtaining radioactive

materials.

However, Category 3 sources are not

included in the National Source Tracking System, and

there is currently no regulatory requirement for a

vendor to verify the authenticity of a license for

Category 3 sources before selling them.

The Government Accountability Office

highlighted this regulatory gap last year when it found

that a factitious company, established by GAO, could

produce counterfeit Category 3 possession licensees and

obtain commitments from vendors to sell it, a sufficient

amount of material, to reach Category 2 levels.

In response to GAO's audit, the Commission

supported my proposal to direct the NRC staff to examine

the options for closing this gap. One option is to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20


include Category 3 sources in the National Source

Tracking System.

But there may be other approaches that

would resolve the issue. I have an open mind about what

the right answer is. We should look at the pros and cons

of the potential solutions and then decide what makes

sense.

Let me turn to a few areas of our work that

could be impacted by the priorities of the new

administration. NRC is already preparing for advance

reactor licensing and advance technology fuel

qualification. But the level of Department of Energy

support for the development of these technologies may

affect the column and timing of our future workload.

Currently, we're seeing a lot of interests

in advance reactors for vendors, utilities and policy

makers. One vendor has begun pre-application

discussions with the staff, and we anticipate three more

vendors may reach that point next year.

In response to this interests, NRC is

ramping up its activities on advance reactors. We want

to make sure that we have an efficient and effective

licensing process for non-light water reactors.

At the end of last year, the staff released

its vision and strategy for achieving this goal. Vic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21


discussed this a little bit.

The staff is also seeking public comment on

draft implementation plans for the near-term, mid-term

and long-term. Draft guidance for developing

principle design criteria for advance reactors just

went out for public comment last month.

For Fiscal Year 2017, NRC requested funding

for advance reactors off the fee base. In my view,

that's the fairest way to fund our expanding activities

in this area.

We're also seeing an acceleration of

efforts to develop reactor fuels that can better

withstand higher accident temperatures and provide

longer cooping periods during station blackout

conditions. Fuel vendors and utilities are now aiming

to deploy lead test assemblies for more evolutionary

technologies in the next couple years.

And some stakeholders are contemplating

potential changes to NRCs regulatory process for

qualifying and licensing new fuels.

Given all this activity, I think holding a

public commission meeting on this topic, with a broad

range of stakeholders later this year, would be

valuable. It would be a good opportunity to discuss the

technologies, where they are in development,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22


anticipated timelines for licensing submissions, and

resource implications for the Agency and any proposals

for adjusting the existing regulatory process.

I often get asked, what's going to happen

on high-level waste. In fact, that question may

already be floating around on a comment card or two.

Well, NRCs role is to review license

applications. And our process is premised on having

engaged applicants.

The administration in Congress set the

overall policy direction on high-level waste and make

decisions about funding.

The NRC staff recently docketed the waste

control specialists' license application for

consolidated interim storage facility in Texas. The

staff has begun its safety and environmental reviews,

which will proceed concurrently.

NRC anticipates that another license

application, for a consolidated interim storage

facility in New Mexico, may also be filed.

Although there is still a lot of

uncertainty about Fiscal 2017, Fiscal Year 2017

appropriations, NRC would likely have sufficient

resources to review both applications.

I discussed several regulatory issues this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23


morning. Each and every one of them requires NRC to

remain focused on enhancing our openness and

transparency.

When we communicate clearly, hear from a

diverse mix of stakeholders and thoughtfully consider

their ideas and comments, we make better decisions.

I'll close with one more thing that won't

change, and that's my interest in visiting plants and

other licensed facilities. I had the chance to visit

a number of sites during the past year and those visits

are always valuable, because I get to see facilities and

equipment firsthand, check in with NRCs resident and

inspectors, and talk with licensees about their

concerns and areas of focus.

So I want to thank those of you who have

hosted me at your sites, I look forward to reconnecting

with folks this week and getting out to additional sites

during the coming year. With that I'm happy to answer

a few questions. I think we probably have about ten

minutes or so.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Well, thank you very

much, Commissioner. I appreciate your speech.

(Applause)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24


DIRECTOR WEBER: We have a bumper-crop of

questions here and I don't know that we'll have time to

answer them all, but we'll give it a shot and see how

far we go.

Commissioner, there's been a tremendous

investment on security measures, especially after the

9/11 attacks on the United States, yet security

inspections and force-on-force exercises continue, or

are at least are perceived to continue, to expand the

design basis without an explicit change in the design

basis threat. Why is there no credit given for operator

action and local law enforcement availability and FLEX

strategies in NRC regulation of security?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. Well, thanks

for that question.

I haven't seen cases, or I'm not convinced

that we have a large-scale issue with force-on-force,

going beyond a design basis threat. But I do think that

we've seen, overtime, with force-on-force inspections

and exercises going on across the country, sites keep

a very close eye on that and make adjustments when they

see tactics, strategies approaches at different sites

that may raise issues for them.

So I think that's, I think that piece of

it's natural. That's not something that NRC is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25


imposing on anyone.

It is, our requirements are there. And if

licensees choose to take additional steps to increase

their own confidence that they will succeed on the

force-on-force, I think that's for them to think through

and make decisions on.

I know that our security office is taking

a look at some of the specific elements of that question

in terms of credit for local law enforcement response

and potential crediting of FLEX equipment. So we're

going to wait and see what the staff comes up with on

that and then consider it once they've had a chance to

take a look at it.

I would just reflect that, at the RIC, one

of the things that the Commission spends so much of its

time on individual commissioners is our bilaterals with

other countries. And my observation is that many of our

international counterparts have been moving in our

direction on physical security.

So I think, you know, given the dangers of

the world in which we live, I think that that's probably

a trend that will likely continue.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Okay, thank you. Here's

another question.

A commenter noted a recent NRC acceptance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


letter for a license application, for an amendment.

And it said, in this acceptance letter, that the

estimate of the staff hours to review that application

is about 715 hours. The commenter notes that at about

$265 per hour, that translates to roughly $200,000.

And the commenter observes that that seems

extremely expensive for the amendment request. So the

essence of the comment is, does the value of NRCs

licensing review, of an amendment request, justify that

size of expense?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: That's kind of a

tough question given that I have no idea what the license

amendment request is.

DIRECTOR WEBER: I can give that to you.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: I'm going to go with

yes. I'm going to go with yes.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER BARAN: I think we're a

bargain at twice the price. No, I don't mean that. I

don't mean that.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER BARAN: No, I'm just kidding.

There's been a lot of focus, in recent years and at

recent times, particularly with Project Aim, in

thinking through, as I mentioned, what is the work we're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27


doing, how are we doing that work, how can be more

efficient in doing that work.

We're seeing a lot of efficiencies, as I

mentioned and Vick mentioned and the Chairman talked

about, in terms of, it's really reflected in the size

of our budget, the decline in the budget, the decline

in our workforce. And I think we're going to be seeing

that carrying through in a decline in fees. And so

we're very thoughtful about that.

There have also been a lot of efforts, and

it gets difficult without knowing specifics, and I don't

think I want to get into specifics of individual

submittals anyway, but there have been a lot of efforts

in terms of streamlining our processes, being more

thoughtful up front about what kind of time is going to

go into the review of a specific submittal and thinking,

and having good discussions with the applicant and the

licensee about that and keeping them apprised of where

things stand.

So it's a continued focus for the Agency.

But, you know, it being, in all seriousness, these

reviews are important. And we want to make sure that

we're efficient, but we also want to make sure that the

staff is doing an adequate review and really fully

considering the issues raised in any particular

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28


submittal.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Thank you, Commissioner.

(Off microphone comment)

DIRECTOR WEBER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. Well, we got a

little bit more information about that particular one.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Based on your

observations, Commissioner, do you believe there is a

safety culture concern at the NRC?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Safety culture

concern. Well, I think, I've been here now about two

and a half years and I am very impressed, continued to

be very impressed, with the focus of our staff and our

managers on the safety and health mission of the Agency.

I will say this, in last year's review of,

you know, the Inspector General has a review

periodically of safety culture issues. In one area

there, that I think we talked about a little bit last

year that did concern me, that I know there's a lot of

management focus on, is a willingness to use the

processes we have at this agency for expressing

differing views.

Whether it be at the nonconcurrence process

or differing professional opinion process, those are

really important processes. And I know I personally

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29


have benefitted from reading, reviewing, thinking

through a number of the nonconcurrences and DPOs that

have been submitted, over the years, as the Commission

has considered some of the tough policy issues before

us.

So those are incredibly valuable. Those

processes and the products that result from them.

So I'll take this opportunity to say, once

again, please, if you have, if you're an employee at NRC

and you have a concern about something that's going on,

speak up, and utilize those processes. We want to hear

from you. We benefit from hearing from you.

And that is just so important for us, at the

Agency, to have that safety culture and that culture of

openness and willingness to express views that may be

in the minority, and that's fine. We want to hear those

views. If there are safety concerns, please mention

them.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Okay. And your last

question.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay.

DIRECTOR WEBER: You and Chairman Svinicki

and EDO McCree all talked about staffing in your

prepared remarks. The question is, how does the new

scale application affect staffing plans?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

30


And goes on to note that, if the new scale

application is not accepted for a licensing review,

likely other passive and advance designs may not also

move forward, which could mean a death now for new

reactors and future applications.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Wow, that is a gloomy

question. Well, let me just say, I think it's probably,

pretty likely this week, that a determination will be

announced, one way or the other, on whether the staff

is docketing the new scale application. So folks can

wait and see what happens there.

And as has been mentioned, we are very much

focused, both on that application, but also on the other

new reactor and new reactor design applications that we

have. And ones that are anticipated for the coming

years. And that will be a continued area of focus for

the Commission.

DIRECTOR WEBER: Thank you very much,

Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you.

(Applause)

united states of america nuclear regulatory …€¦ · 29th annual regulatory information...

Documents