ML20137A047
| ML20137A047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/07/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1478, NUDOCS 8601140129 | |
| Download: ML20137A047 (149) | |
Text
r ORIGINA- mad 678-
\
Cy UNnED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE t
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 - 132 DATE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1986 ,
[$E80[f)$!E$0N . ..
Jo Kodemovejiom ACRS001ce AFNFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f'N 8601140129 860107 Q-) PDR ACRS OfficialReporters T-1478 PDR 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 b NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
' - ~
- a. ,
, -;w -
,,s - . -- 2M. - . .,
~ -. ns, - ,
- - 1 4.
r -
^
,. 4
~
Y A _ ,
I
- _ ^ .&.,~)
e
[# J .( g',. \
y N ( ,
T
. _ . , v. - -
q.
~
' ;< . N 4( I
> s f.
,bn0, iS(r.'d s
, wa) .
,_.s 1
, , m..
' :%:,b,,< > . C:,,,. A ,: ,';; +
Q <_
l
-y~y.y s. wm grgs a . - u . .~ > . , _
< Vd: ( . .
[' I N, ~W .
. ~.
x , ,
.a v V' .: - ,
r ,
t
- m. w" :.
g
,, ;-, s.r.-.., " '", -
4.% R y, sa.
s-Y .h v
,.'r\I -- &
., . .6-., ,
~
, , , ~- p
(- t u p <; , q ,1. ;y -
~
+ - <
+ '
+ M j
, ..'p.,_
, m ;- ,
. ~
w&* wn.__---... -
~ aw-.e i.c. -A k,. <- ' Y
,:M TRO4
- o. _ m. ,
.a ..-
4 -
DELFTE B. WHITE e n v
, ,~ _
- A
< 14 W_ RETL'RN ORIGINAL 'ID B. WHITE, d n r ACRS-1016-H 1,4, 4. .
s
,1-s i
- Thanks! ' . ,
- e ,
+ *
- r. .% )-
4
- *> Barbara Jo hhite , .-
~
u 4-1407 "h - - '
. . - .a3 ;
s *, ,p. ! q_~'E N v-.
4 -. ~ . ,.
-t.!
> ,, ., . , , . *i > ,,k f g*j 9- g- j 4- w x, m. ~ '.-f ' '.. - 'D ' ,
- 1' ~-
- a"}_' }
.p
- 1 i. s i,, " +
j e. s s
^ *
@ n ,
r- ,,.
- Ii s ';.-,..; , >
4 .
.'." . y' ,
- t 5 ~s + <
I
,,, f.;
L^ --
q .* h i.
,A'
)
r- ** .a.
.(.-- % tR s y" _
> .s
_r.,,' . -"
~
- l' 'k _?'
'^'
g _ 4l ,
,,L-j ,k.
._=9
'h.'j- \
- g
'-'_m'._
m i < 4 'r
\
A g { I f
,f f J ,'
Ys **J r e < t _ * *
. e 4
y A
..--7.,)i N 4 s .t. g s,.
- . -i , '"' _
4 2 1 ~ 2
- g s e c ~
~
'j] ,
s *
, .- r
,. '-[ *-
.,bd, m . , ~ - y
- - m,. . ,4.
'Y,'
, g
.p._'-,
'+ % .
..q,.
- m. . . -
\ * *
) h
.'3" q ,. 't # .',. .
- E 4 _
t f f, j'
- 4 4 ' 's
, / '
y ^
s 7 )-
',b' RM * . 5M"d t . f., m,... c.M'..'g'.E f,. &- y a
, v-~m. e.;pyM> w
- t-m7; +w.n~7 ~
- - ~ > - ~ v.- ' ,
- 2-1
.)_
l 1 4'y" r .
t, 's s,H
l .y 4 i <
,;- g.
-gg,eMj,,'3'rv.'R 6-r,,
y
- 4. g
^
$ 'd *
/ A t s.
- t. - -.4 4
,1..,3 g4 <
s --' v \
,,. (
_ 'L mP 'T '
g-
CR25462.0 .
1 DAV/cjg I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1046 6 , 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
7 g
Tuesday, January 7, 1986 9 The subcommittee met at 3:00 p.m., Dr. Carson Mark 10 presiding.
11 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
12
,_ DR. CARSON MARK
/ 13 DR. MAX W. CARBON
)
'~'
DR. DADE W. MOELLER 14 DR. CHESTER P. SIESS MR. DAVID A. WARD 15 MR. JESSE EBERSOLE MR. CHARLES J. WYLIE 16 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON MR. GLENN A. REED 17 18 ,
19 20 21 21 23 24 M Reporters, Inc.
25
. i
\ $
b PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1986 !
The contents of this stenographic transcript.of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at *
- O twi =eettas-ecce9t= ear re 9oa idi11er for error or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
r1 -
l l
t l
l l
O l .
'4620 01 01 2 DAVbur 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 DR. MARK: (presiding) The meeting will come to 3 order.
4 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on 5 Safeguards and Security. I am Carson Mark, Chairman of the 6 subcommittee.
7 other members of the ACRS present today include, 8 to my left, David Ward, Max Carbon, Jesse Ebersole, Dade 9 Moeller, Charles Wylie, Carlyle Michelson, and Glenn Reed.
10 John Schiffgens, on my right, is the assigned 11 ACRS staff member for this meeting.
12 The purpose of the meeting is to review and 13 discuss SECY 85-381, entitled " Insider Safeguards Rules,"
)
{~/
w -
14 which covers three related safeguards rules for power 15 reactors. The main part is the access authorization 16 program, but also searches of individuals at power reactor 17 , facilities and some miscellaneous amendments concerning 18 physical protection of nuclear power plants.
19 A transcript of the meeting is being kept, and it 20 is requested that each speaker first identify himcelf or 21 herself and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so that 22 he or she can readily be heard.
23 We have received no written statements from 24 members of the public. We have received no recuests for
/~N 25 time to make oral statements from members of the public.
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
+ 1 l
4620 01 02 3 DAVbur 1 Are there questions from any of the subcommittee l 2 members or comments they wish to make about the agenda for l 3 today's meeting?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. EBERSOLE: We will stick to open topics?
6 DR. MARK: I believe this whole area is open that 7 bears'on the safeguard insider goals. It has nothing to do 8 with physical features of plants that I am aware of.
9 We will receive a short briefing, I guess, from 10 the NMSS staff, which will be given by Mr. McCorkle, on the 11 state of the package which I believe everyone has received.
12 It is my own feeling that the main thing we will
-s 13 want to be told about is the access authorization part of 14 the package unle.ss other members have questions they want to 15 raise about the search regulations or the physical 16 protection aspects to the extent they are covered in this 17 package.
18 I have a few cuestions which are probably better 19 reserve'd until after we have had the staff tell us about the l
l 20 package itself, and unless there is something to turn to at 21 the moment, I will ask Mr. McCorkle to proceed.
22 MR. MC CORKLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 I would like to bring you up to date on what has 24 happened since we have had the public comments. I believe 25 that the primary focus of this presentation is to l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800 336-6646
, : 4620 01103 4 DAVbur 't characterize the public comments and to indicate those 2 changes we made in the rules since it went out to the 3 public.
4 It was appropriately stated that the insider rule 5 consists of three major. portions, or actually three separate 6 rulemaking actions. -
j 7 (Slide.)
4 8 'But we combined them together because they all in 9 total are designed to add additional assurance against the 10 insider. They-are the access authorization program, the 11 _ search requirements, and the miscellaneous amendments.
12 DR. MARK: You just used a phrase which I found 13 in the voluminous written material we have, which seems to '
14 me offensive - " additional assurance against the insider."
15 It is nicely put in two places, and it seems to 16 me it should always be put that.way to obtain greater 17 assurance of the trustworthiness of the employees or the 18 insiders, but.the " assurance against the insider" sounds 19 like an antagonist and is almost certain to raise that.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: Well,-it certainly was not 21 intended.
22 DR. MARK: That is the way it is written, and it 23 is a thing which I think one might at least carry in mind.
24 MR. MC CORKLE: I am going to invert the secuence j 25 in which I address these components. I am going to address
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6646
e -
4620 01 04 5 DAVbur 1 search requirements and miscellaneous amendments first 2 because they are the easiest to handle, and then we will 3 visit the access authorization procram.
4 (Slide.)
5 Search requirements we had very, very little 6 comment from the public on during the period. We have left i
7 them identical to the way they went out for the public 8 comment; in other words, 100 percent equipment search of all 9 individuals. That includes visitors.
10 At the present time we have 100 percent equipment 11 search for employees and 5 percent random pat-down search of 12 employees and 100 percent check both equipment and pat-down e- 13 of visitors.
(>) -
The new rule proposes 100 percent equipment 14 15 search of all individuals.
16 MR. REED: I don't think I quite follow that.
17 The present requirement -- or the past requirement is at the 18 bottom bullet, where you have 100 percent search. I think 19 you would be using metal detectors, mass detectors, X-ray 20 machines, and then if something breaks down in the equipment 21 you do a-5 percent random pat-down.
22 MR. MC CORKLE: At the present time we have a 5 23 percent random pat-down in addition. Now, of course if we 24 do have an equipment breakdown, we will have a pat-down 25 search for cause or failed equipment. That will be 100 bN ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
312-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 01 05 6 DAVbur 1 percent.-
2 MR. EBERSOLE: Can I ask kind of a point 3 question? Do you look in the employee's thermos bottle or 4 quart of coffee to see whether it is really coffee or not?
5 MR. MC CORKLE: I am sorry, to see what?
6 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you look in his thermos bottle 7 to see whether it is coffee or nitro?
8 MR. MC CORKLE: No, we certainly do not. We have 9 an X ray of material going through.
10 MR. EBERSOLE: It shows the bottle?
11 MR. MC CORKLE: That is right.
12 MR. EBERSOLE: That is all I have to say.
g 13 DR. MARK: On this item I noticed in what has .
14 been written that the exception to t'his search 15 requirement -- an exception exists for on duty police.
16 MR. MC CORKLE: The exception for the on duty 17 police who are coming onsite, one, they are recognized and 18 I they are known. They go through a search. They normally 19 carry firearms in the course of their duty. Their firearms 20 are not removed from them.
21 DR. MARK: But they do go through the detector?
22 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes.
23 DR. MARK: How about firemen?
24 MR. MC CORKLE: Firemen? I will get to this 25 probably later on when we are talking about emergency J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
_ _ _ . . ._ - , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ~ - _ , , _ ,_,
i 4620 01 06 7
.DAVbur 1 procedures.
2 DR. MARK: All right.
3 MR. MC CORKLE: I will just briefly answer.
4 If he is responding to an emergency, I don't i 5 think we are going to have him stop to identify himself and 6 sign a log and go through a search procedure when he is 7 there to put a fire out.
~
8 MR. MICHELSON: What do you do if the on duty 9 police are not known to the site personnel? State police 10 come from all over the state. They certainly aren't 11 well-known.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe we are talking about r- 13 when we anticipate-police to arrive. It would be out of the
(_S/ -
14 ordinary.
15 MR. MICHELSON: If it is not anticipated, what do 16 you do?
17 They are escorted, I assume, but they are never
.18 searched even if they are unknown and unanounced?
19 MR. MC CORKLE: They are searched.
20 MR. MICHELSON: They are searched?
21 MR. MC CORKLE: They are searched. I stated that 22 they did not take their weapons away from them.
~
23 MR. MICHELSON: So that metal detectors don't 24 mean anything?
25 MR. MC CORKLE: Well, we take the metal detector
[}
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
4620 01 07 8 DAVbur 1 while we are doing the search.
2 MR. MICHELSON: You don't do a pat-down?
3 MR. MC CORKLE: Nor do we on any other visitors 4 who go through.
5 DR. MOELLER: I guess I need further 6 clarification on that, about the on duty police officer, in 7 the sense that I said to myself, well, is this a loophole?
8 I guess I need further explanation. .
9 If I put on a police officer's uniform and had an 10 authentic looking badge on my shoulder and a gun and went up 11 to a plant to the security place, would they just let me 12 through?
13 I guess I would have to have some reason.
Or~
14 i MR. REED: I know one that wouldn't. I don't I
15 think I would let an off duty or any amount of on duty 16 police officers with guns in a facility. I don't cuite see 17 why they would have occasion to be there.
18 DR. MOELLER: What is the occasion? I guess that 19 is what I need.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe the guidance developed 21 supports this quite a bit in support of the rule, but the 22 philosophy is that some police officers are invited onsite 23 in connection with an exercise. It is anticipated they know 24 what time it is and the arrangements are made in advance.
(] 25 Many police feel that part of their uniform and part of ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 01 08 9 DAVbur 1 their duty involves the use of firearms. They feel it 2 denigrates them to remove their weapon and not allow them 3 onsite.
4 Our guidance stipulates that in such 5 circumstances it will not be necessary to take the weapon 6 away and store it while the man is onsite. We think that 7 defeats the purpose of the positive liaison with your local 8 police departments who will provide you support in case they 9 are called during an emergency.
i 10 You must remember that many sites have scheduled 11 liaison visits with the local police departments, and this 12 is what we had in mind when this provision was put in.
gs 13 MR. MICHELSON: If that were the case, then
.O 14 the words ought to be "if they are known to the personnel at 15 the plant." Then I would have no problem. If they are 16 unknown to the parsonnel, I would have a little bit of a 17 problem.
! 18 MR. MC CORKLE: The guides, I think --
19 MR. MICHELSON: That is what I am looking for.
20 You said this was detailed, and I don't recall reading it.
21 MR. MC CORKLE: The guides have been revised. I 22 don't believe you may have a copy of it.
'23 MR. MICHELSON: The guidance is not in the SECY.
( 24 MR. DWYER: The guidance is still undergoing i
25 office review.
l l
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33666d6
4620 01 09 10 DAVbur 1 MR. MC CORKLE: The goal is performance 2 oriented.
3 MR. MICHELSON: This is the only thing that 4 counts, though. This is the regulation.
5 MR. MC CORKLE: But the regulation historically 6 for some time past has been performance oriented and -is not 7 at that level of detail.
~ ~
8 MR.'MICHELSON: The regulation says that an on 9 duty policeman -- one has to have an escort.
10 MR. MC CORKLE: Right. He is escorted, plus the 11 fact that the conditions under which that is applied are 12 subject 'o approval.
s 13 Of course, the staff has acceptance criteria x_)
14 which we use when we review plants.
15 MR. MICHELSON: But you don' t really have a good 16 answer for what you do about the case wherein a policeman in 17 disguise gets onsite or even a group comes onsite.
18 MR. MC CORKLE: I think if a policeman showed up 19 and he was from a department other than we knew, I am 20 certain we would asp. for identification.
21 MR. MICHELSON.: That is not hard.
22 Mk. MC CORKLE: Right. We would probably make a 23 radio check back. I mean, I would if I was in that 24 position.
25 MR. MICHELSON: I think I would, too.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800-3364646
4620o01 10 11 DAVbur 1 MR. MC CORKLE: But I know of very few 2 instances -- in fact, I don't know of any -- where a 3 policeman from a department showed up unannounced, who was 4 unknown. Now, some places have policemen stop by 5 periodically when they are on the ground, which is good. We 6 encourage that.
7 Yes?
. 8 DR. CARBON: Don' t answer this if it shouldn' t be 9 in an open session, but does your equipment search only
]
10 search for metal objects?
11 MR. MC CORKLE: There is a metal search and an 12 explosive search and an eculpment search.
13 DR. C,ARBON: An explosive search and an equipment
<-)
\.) .
14 search.
15 And stop me when I shouldn' t go any further.
16 Does it detect dynamite, TNT? Does it detect plastic 17 explosives?
18 MR. MC CORKLE: It detects a good portion of 19 those.
20 DR. CARBON: Okay. You have the same problem t
21 with any search. I know what you are driving at. Any place 22 that you have such a search, whether it is at an airport or 23 any place else.
24 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you use devices th'at detect the
~% 25 emission of odors?
(O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336 4646
4620 01 11 12 DAVbur 1 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, that is the primary method 2 that they use for explosives detection.
3 MR. EBERSOLE: But that won't detect it if it is 4 sealed?
5 MR. MC CORKLE: There are things it will not 6 detect.'
7 MR. REED: You said -- maybe I am getting you 8 back to the viewgraph -- you said that y'ou didn' t get any 9 comments from the licensees on this new revision of 100 10 percent equipment search.
11 I am a little surprised at that. I have to think 12 if that is the case the shock -- a dramatic experience f~ 13 happened some years ago where all employees were challenged 14 upon arrival at the workplace no matter how faithful, good, 15 and selected they were. The licensees and their employees 16 have gotten over-that shock. I recall that there was a 17 tremendous employee shock at this challenge to their 18 integrity upon access into the facility.
19 In my opinion, it was true that security 20 organizations of facilities didn't suffer a shock. They 21 felt that that meant jobs, and they loved that operation.
22 But the security organizations also carry weapons, and they 23 seem to be on a plateau above the employees.
24 I never liked that too much. I felt that the 25 employees were on a plateau above them if they were all ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
4 4620 01 12 13 DAVbur 1 properly selected.
2 But you are saying that not many people have 3 filed adverse comments with respect to this challenge to 4 their integrity and their normal arrival at the workplace?
5 You know, in the aircraft security business they 6 -walk around with their badges and go anywhere they want to.
7 Yet in nuclear power plants we insult these people at each 8 entry.
9 MR. MC CORKLE: That is a perception that I 10 -couldn't discount if somebody felt that way. The comments 11 that we received ran a range from there should be no search 12 at all, some people thought it was not stringent enough, 13 they should have pat-down searches. Oddly enough, industry, (m
d 14 when sometimes back we wanted to relax the search 15 requirement to a random basis and only search 20 percent by 16- equipment, industry responded that they preferred 100 17 percent equipment search of all employees.
18 MR. REED: At that time they had got all the 19 equipment, and security forces probably a'nswered the letter, 20 not the employees.
21 So apparently we have made them do all this, we 22 ~have made them jawp through all these hoops, and the 23 employees haven't had enough of a voice. So the 24 demotivation in fact is there. It has quieted down, and it
{) 25 will go on.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 01 13 14 DAVbur 1 MR. MC CORKLE: Apparently, that must be it if 2 that is the reason we have not had any adverse comment in 3 that regard.
4 As I say, we did have one or two comments which 5 did say it should be eliminated for employees. We had other 6 comments which we did not respond to. As I say, there were-7 very few comments in this area numerically.
8 others said if you had a failure, a random
. 9 failure of equipment, you should discontinue any type of 10 search, let alone a pat-down search, unless the failed 11 equipment lasted more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
12i MR. REED: "For cause" means what with respect to p 13 I what you said?
U '
14 MR. MC CORKLE: When you are coming through, if
~
15 there is an indication in the equipment that tnere is 16 something amiss, supposing you do get a positive sign on the 17 explosives detector.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 02 01 15 DAVbw 1 MR. REED: Supposing the equipment has failed, 2 and -- the equipment has failed. Are you going to let him 3 through on his badge?
4 MR. MC CORKLE: No.
5 MR. REED: I think you're making a mistake.
6 You're just insulting the employee further. Maybe that will 7 cause some employees to think, well, how can I embarrass 8 these people by putting a ball peen hammer into the 9 generator manifold. The Trojan hammer.
10 I mean, you've got to face the fact that 11 employees, no matter what you do in this search, and so on 12 and so forth, that employees can defeat your security inside e' 13I a system, if their heads are turned in the coposite k I -
14 direction.
15 Ouite frankly, I believe in having the employees 16 with their heads and minds and loyalties turned in the right 17 direction and not give them desires to beat the system or 18 show the system up or put ball peen Trojan hammers in the 19 manifold.
20 I guess I've rescusitated the the essence of all 21 I want to say.
22 MR. MC CORKLE: I understand. It's a point of 23 view, and really, the recuirement as it's in the proposed 24 rule, as it's in the Commission for consideration, is not
(~T 25 much different than that which is in effect today.
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 02 02 16 DAVbw 1 Insofar as commenting on that, I can't disagree 2 or agree with that. I'm briefing you on the regs.
3 MR. REED: I'm sorry that it's coming out finally 4 this way. I believe in the high caliber of people in 5 nuclear facilities and their loyalty to their jobs and not 6 challenging them with these kinds of activities.
7 MR. WARD: Glenn, in my experience, I think most 8 workers who have those attributes, loyalty and whatver, are 9 willing to do this sort of thing, as part of the job.
10 Unfortunate, but necessary. I don't really see where 11 there's a major problem.
12 MR. REED: I think you should realize that in the
, 13 nuclear power plant, there are the regular employees to V
14, which we should look for all our success and their shoulders 15 to the wheel, and then there are guards.
16 MR. WARD: Glenn, I have been going through 17 problems with guards for 35 years.
18 MR. REED: I can't help it, if you don' t sense 19 the demotivation of this or the challenge of this.
20 Now I know people, real responsible people who 21 have great concern about armed guards. In fact, I know of 22 control rooms that are secured against armed guards. I 23 think there are some people who feel there is a plateau of 24 security on this that is more important and rise above and r's 25 live above the regular employee.
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 6 6646
4620 02 03 17 DAVbw 1 MR. WARD: You're bringing up a couple of 2 different issues, I think.
3 MR. MICHELSON: You have a different definition 4 of " insider." An " insider" is not an employee of a power 5 plant. Those are the people you are trying to protect, and 6 so forth, against the armed guards. Are the armed guards 7 there for everybody but employees. Is that what you're 8 saying? The insider is not an employee?
9 MR. REED: Most guard forces are not direct 10 employees.
-11 MR. MICHELSON: I'm trying to find out -- do you 12 think we need an insider rule or provision?
g- 13 MR. REED: I think we need an insider rule that
(>
14 concentrates on psychological testing and evaluations, and 15 so on, for regular employees, and that regular employees 16 should have more or less free access to any piece of 17 emergency eouipment or anything, if they are in that status 18 of evaluated, screened employees, and they actually are on 19 the highest plateau in the power plant facility.
20 The guards are there for the purpose of contract 21 workers, visitors reviewing and to do certain things to help 22 the regular employee who should be the chief guard of the 23 facility. And one time I recall in the early days when 24 security was starting to move, where the employees of one
(-
\g) 25 plant were asked to become the safeguarders of the security, .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8'U-33MM6
6 4620 02 04 18 DAVbw 1 and then later on, the security people said that every 2 person who was an employee had, as a mission , to safeguard 4 3 and keep secure the facility.
4 I recall what happened when the guard activity 5 started to happen. Most people said they would no lenger 6 bear that responsibility or help in that, because they felt 7 they were being challenged.
8 I'm just telling you some of the inner thinking 9 of the workman in the workplace.
10 MR. WARD: It's a question of loyalty there? I 11 understand. -
12 MR. REED: If you're going to challenge him, let 7 s. 13 the guard come in free and easy and carry his gun. It
\_) I 14 sometimes turns people off. Now there's nothing we can do 15 about it. It's down the pike. If it comes up in full 16 committee, and there's an opportunity for a letter, I'll and 17 make this point.
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. MC CORKLE: Moving on to the miscellaneous 20 amendments.
21' First of all, it does include authority to 22 suspend safeguards measures during emergencies. By that I 23 mean responding to a fire, a medical emergency, something 24 like a heart attack. Things of that nature.
25 The site superintendent, the senior man on the
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ll02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 02 05 19 DAVbw 1 site makes that determination. He's also responsible to 2 suspend only those safeguards measures necessary to handle a 3 particular emergency.
4 And these people are admitted with escort.
5 MR. REED: I'm got to tell you a story. I'm 6 sorry about this, but I've heard of an incident which will 7 probably be in an LER, where a fence was locked in the 8 wintertime during a snowstorm, and the person who wanted to 9 go through the fence in an emergency, the key wouldn' t go 10 into the lock, because the lock was full of ice. So then he 11 went and got a blow torch, so he could suspend the measure, 12 shall we say, and all kinds of things. Well, you'll see the 13 LER in a few days.
~)
J 14 MR. MICHELSON: Your last comment relative to 15 escorting outsiders, in the case of a police response, you 16 certainly wouldn't expect the plant people to start 17 escorting police around during the possible encounter with 18 whatever, or do you?
19 MR. MC CORKLE: I think during an emergency of 20 that nature, that that could be a mixed bag. I think under 21 somd instances, you have to have somebody escorting you in 22 the plant in the right direction.
23 MR. MICHELSON: But you don't have a requirement 24 in the regulations that people be escorted.
<~T 25 MR. MC CORKLE: The requirement exists as
, \)
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
4620 02 06 20
-DAVbw 1 guidance, only in the support-oriented part of the 2 regulation.
3 The Staff is reviewing the revised plan, and I 4 think you'-- then when we handle this sort of thing, we can 5 look at'it.
6 ~Now again, any plan that they have is also 7 subject to the procedures on site, which are the inspection
~ ~
8 organization. The objective of this provision is"to take 9 the licensee off the hook, so he can respond to an emergency 10 without violating the regulations of his plant. Again, I 11 guess, common sense is very difficult to define, but it has 12 to come into play, and that's why we have placed the fs 13 responsibility concerning these emergencies and the extent
.O 14 to which safeguards measures be suspended temporarily with 15 the senior site person.
16 'Now we don't believe it appropriate to delegate 17 that to a lower level. This was an honest attempt to
-18 anticipate the types of things we've seen in the past.
-19 We've actually had inquiries from licensees who felt they 20 were honor bound to stop the fire department, when it ,
21 arrived in response to a fire, to have people identify 22 themselves.
23 It's very difficult to look at that as a 24 practical method of combatting fire. So we had to put 25 something in there, and I-believe we've made an honest t , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M 3 W l646
4620 02 07 21 DAVbw I attempt to put it in the most practical way to control.
2 Admittedly, it's very difficult to legislate every possible ,
situation that can come up,.and I'm not.able to.
3 x, I('
4 DR. MARK: Could I ask on that -- lets me pretend 5 somebody has had a heart attack, and the stretcher crew is 6 supposed to come and carry him off. The~ senior person on 7 site, the senior plant superintendent at,that moment, 8 anyway, is there to say we drop the usual rules at the gate, 9 showing badges, identification and'so forth, to let these 10l fellows in. He, however, isn't at the gate. Someone at the 11 gate cannot make that decision, I presume.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: We don' t anticipate that the r~ 13 gentleman at the gate would have to make that decision.
14 DR. MARK: The superintendent would have to call 15 him nonetheless.
L 16 MR. MC CORKLE: In the case of a heart attack, if 17 I'm there, the offsite ambulance support squad is only two 18 or three minutes away. I would presume that if the 19 supervisor had a heart attack --
20 DR. MARK: -- you would call the gate.
21 MR. MC CORKLE: I would call the ambulance and 22 the gate.
23 DR. MARK: And let this ambulance go through.
24 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, sir. You have to look at it s
N 25 from that practical standpoint.
(G ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
L:
c.
4620 02 08 22 DAVbw 1 DR. MARK: It would be the same with the fire.
2 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes. We don't anticipate there L 3 would be a needless delay in going through a bureaucratic 4 process. It would be within their procedures, the hierarchy 5 of responsibility. You're not going to delay the time to 6 run down a site superintendent, if he's n'ot available. When 7 we bring the site superintendent in, though, we expect him 8 to verify that this emergency existed and suspend only those 9 safeguards measures needed to handle the emergency and 10 to resore te safeguard standards, as soon as the emergency 11 is over.
12 DR. MARK: But he is the one who can suspend some
, 13 regular procedure.
14 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, sir. He has all the regular 15 responsility.
16 DR. MARK: It sounds like he might phone the gate 17 and say, "Let this ambulance crew through."
18 MR. MC CORKLE: Well, I suppose so. The site 19 superintendent could also be included.
1 20 DR. MOELLER: I have a question concerning -- i t 21 relates to this slide. It concerns protected areas and 22 vital areas. Now in ANSI N-18.17, in paragraph 2.2.2.5, it 23 defines a protected area as "an area encompassed by physical 24 barriers, and to which access is controlled."
Then it defines in 2. 2.7, a vital area as "an
{} 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 22 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Mi646
14620 02 09 ./
23 DAVbw 1 area located within a protected area" -- da da, da da.
W s 2 i? '
Now in the newest guide that you're referenced,
', 3 ANSI ANS-3.3, if you look up these same definitions there --
4 see, that first definition leads me to believe that all 5 vitai areas are within protected area, the protected area 6 being locked up or a fence or something around it.
7 ,
MR. MC CORKLE: General, by a sense, but a vital a'ea 'has another barrier to it.
~
~ ' ~8 r 3 DR. MOELLER: Now in your newest ANSI standard 10 that you're referencing, a protected area is the same, an 11 area encompassed by physical barriers, to which access is 12 controlled, but a vital area now, the definition has been 13 changed. It's an area that contains vital equipment. Well, 14 it'doesn't say it's within a protected area or anything, and 15' I wondered if there was any significance in the change in 16 > this definition?
17 MR. MC CORKLE: In applying the regulation -- in 18 10 CFR 73, by definition, a vital area is within a protected
}
,19 area, and there is a second area you have to go through.
t
, 20 DR. MOELLER: And that's clearly in your portion 21 of the regulationsa.
( :
22 ,
MR. MC CORKLE: Absolutely. 73.2, I believe.
23 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
i 24 g' MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question?
r~ 25 Am I to regard this rule as a.backvies of the
[ - \.
l /
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433 H 646
-s -
-4620 02 10 24 DAVbw 1 fact that we built this plant with places of vulnerability, 2 for instance, to preclude the removal of decay energy, 3 broadly scattered all over the place, with a modest amount 4 of protection, due to barrier designs of various sorts?
5 Doers, walls, fences, but by no means have we approached the 6 design of the plant in an orderly way, to reduce the 7 sabotage vulnerability to the practical minimums.
8 I regard the rule as written in the usual context 9 of patching the situation that preexisted with, 10 unfortunately, no forward view as to what we could do to 11 design the plant to minimize vulnerability to the two 12 aspects of safety which we must consider. We must fit the 13 plant to decay heat levels. That's one. Then we must get
(;)
- u. .
14 rid of the decay heat. That's two. If we do both of those, 15 we've accomplished the sabotage objectives. Right now, 16 though, we can go into the plants and intercept these 17 functions in a variety of ways, rather highly exposed to the 18 I inside.
19 I see the rule as a look back to a situation
- 20 which has simply been promulgated by inattention to the 21 sabotage problem for some 40 years.
22 MR. REED: How about evolution instead of .
23 inattention?
24 MR. EBERSOLE: dre you going to say anything in
/" 25 the rule about, let's do better next time?
b' -
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 02 11 25
.DAVbw- 1 KR. MC CORKLE: I can' t disagree with what you 2 state, insofar as perhaps design deficiencies from the 3 beginning, we're going back many years.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: The rule is common to all the 5 plants we have.
6 MR. MC CORKLE: We have a rule which applies to 7 all plants, the recently licensed, sometime in the past. I 8 don' t believe that rule would be an appropriate vehicle to 9 say we should not design plants differently.
'10 MR. EBERSOLE: What bothers me is, that-it's a 11 kind of indirect blessing to continue the practice of 12 design as we have in the past, to leave these 13 vulnerabilities scattered throughout the plant and leave a 14 broad vulnerability to virtually any insider to disrupt, 15 particularly, the shutdown heat removal.
16 DR. SIESS: It could well apply to future 17 plants.
18 MR. MC CORKLE: The rule in toto looks at a 19 number of ways to increase our insurance as to our 20 capability to protect against that.
21 DR'. SIESS: Have you talked about design 22 adherence?
23 MR. MC CORKLE: I'm not talking about design of 24 the plant. Regardless of the design of the plant, it seems 25 that we always could have a problem with an insider ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
4620 0'2 12 26 DAVbw 1 operating alone.
2 MR. EBERSOLE: You can diminish-it. That's all 3 we can do.
4 MR. MC CORKLE: That's all we can, and that's the 5 attempt of this rule. That's a different way of saying 6 " increased assurance." Diminish the possibility through 7 adversarial acts.
8 MR. EBERSOLE: As you know, a plant, GESSAR-2, 9 which is currently under investigation in this very matter, 10 and there's nothing done in it that's any different from a 11 boiler built 20 years ago, in this context.
12
.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.
19 20 21 22 23 24
. 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
i 4620 03 01 27 DAV/bc 1 DR. SIESS: If you had a plant in which the RHR 2 circuits were all in a single vital area, could you change 3 the ruling?
4 MR. MCCORKLE: In other words, we had a single 5 vital area for all items of vital equipment? That's not the 6 purpose for which this rule is intended. The primary thrust 7 of this rule, remember, is the one I'm getting to next, the 8 access authorization portion, which is to give you 9 additional assurance concerning the trustworthiness of 10 individuals. ,
11 The rest of these things and the miscellaneous 12 amendments and the search procedures are refinements to
- 13 existing rules. -
14 The other is a new program. The access 15 authorization is new. There is no regulatory requirement 16 for a screening program. That is the major portion of this 17 action. The insider backfit. This exists today and we 18 believe it to be an improvement in the direction we wish to 19 go.
20 MR. REED: Jesce, I sympathize with what you say, 21 but it seems to me we're in a chicken or egg situation. I 22 would be hopeful, if it was to pass that designs were to be 23 able to accomplish these two fundamental basic functions in 24 a separate, dedicated arrangement, that somebody would think 25 about a new rule for a new design that would suspend lots of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
l 4620 03 02 28 DAV/bc 1 the entrance search and all these other kinds of things, and 2 have only a small cadre of people deal with these types of 3 things.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: Very few people indeed would be 5 required to monitor and maintain these critical function 6 devices.
7 DR. SIESS: That wouldn' t change the screening 8 criteria.
9 MR. EBERSOLE: No. It makes it easier to believe 10 that you would succeed in having fewer people to deal with.
11 MR. MCCORKLE: Another feature is specified 12 physical security equipment. Protection is vital for the 73 13 uninterruptable power supply for the computer and other
()
14 aspects of the power system. At the present time, that's a 15 vulnerable area, we believe.
16 With a power failure, you could have your entire 17 security system go out.
18l MR. EBERSOLE: That always raises the cuestion:
19 When you have that failure occur, do you open up the plant 20 to everybody or close it down to everybody?
21 MR. MCCORKLE: Internally?
22 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes.
23 MR. MCCORKLE: Your internal controls would fail 24 open or failsafe.
25 MR. EBERSOLE: I don' t know what " failsafe" is,
.(]
\.s i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 03 03 29 DAV/bc 1 whether that's open or shut.
2 MR. MCCORKLE: Open. Failsafe... pardon me.
3 Failshut or failsafe.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: Fail shut or fail open.
5 MR. MCCORKLE: Fail shut or open, that's what you 6 said. It's easier.
7 MR. EBERSOLE: What do they do? Do they fail 8 open?
9 MR. MCCORKLE: There's no requirement. You'll 10 find it both ways.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: Nobody's been able to make that 12 decision.
13 MR. MCCORKLE: From the safety standpoint, if it tf,) -
14 fails shut during a safety emergency, you have a problem.
15 Therefore, operators are issued keys. There's a mechanical 16 override.
17 In the other extreme, if they fail open, then you 18 would have a security vulnerability. When they're in that 19 posture, then they have to be able to deploy a guard and 20 control entrance at every one of the doors.
21 MR. EBERSOLE: What makes the guard so much more 22 reliable than the employee?
23 MR. MCCORKLE: At the present time?
24 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes.
r- 25 MR. MCCORKLE: At the present time, the guard is j (-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
-4620 03 04 30 DAV/bc 1 probably the only person there who goes through a complete 2 screening program, psychological assessment, behavioral 3 observation.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: Is that just because of past 5 practice that you only think the guard is meeting that level 6 of reliability?
7 MR. MCCORKLE: No, I wouldn't say that. The 8 guard is the only one that's required to have at the present 9 time a standardized screening program. Employees are not.
10 MR. EBERSOLE: Why shouldn't that be true of the 11' operator?
12 MR. MCCORKLE: Why hasn' t he got it? That's the 13 idea of control the access authorization.
14 MR. EBERSOLE: You're going to raise the level to 15 match the guards?
16 MR. MCCORKLE: Yes. The guards, they' re going to 17 come up.
18 MR. EBERSOLE: I see. Okay.
~
19 MR. REED: Some plants already to have 20 psychological evaluations and activities with respect to 21 regular employees.
22 MR. EBERSOLE: What's the current view on 23 polygraphs? It's a popular topic.
24 MR. MCCORKLE: We have not even considered the 25 use of polygraphs.
(~}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
- - c
-4620 03.05 31 1 DAV/bc 1 MR. REED: Can you tell me the protection of 9 2 - specified physical security equipment? I have the feeling 3 that only relates to power supply and the computer 4 mainframes and it doesn' t relate to the doors, as an 5 example , throughout the f acility.
6 MR. MCCORKLE: Oh, no.
7 MR. REED: But just the key overall.
8 MR. MCCORKLE: To maintain the integrity of your 9 hardware, your alarm system, its capability to locate an 10 alarm, it also has your backup power for your communications 11 for offsite. Key and lock controls, we think is a fairly 12 simple one. The present requirement as it appears in the 13 regulations says that when an employee leaves, all keys and O 14 locks to which he had access must be replaced.
15 The rule indicates that that is necessary only 16 when an employee leaves for cause. In other words, when 17 he's fired. Then, at.least once a year, they would have to 18 change it. But it does give some relief in that regard.
19 It's quite expensive to change all keys and locks every time 20 anybody leaves, like a retirement. Or if he got a new job i
21 and leaves under good conditions.
22 MR. REED: As soon as they retired, Jesse, they
-23 changed all the keys and all the locks.
I 24 (Laughter.)
p- 25 MR. REED: And not because of security.
L.)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 4620 03 06 32 DAV/bc 1 DR. MARK: We can understand.
2 MR. MCCORKLE: Vital area access controls. You 3 may recall that the rule that went out for public comment, 4 and as you were briefed in the past, included a vital island 5 concept. We have dropped that from this version of the 6 rule, for a couple of reasons.
7 There was some confusion based upon public 8 comments as to whether or not it was mandatory for them to 9 preconfigure their site to go with the vital area concept.
10 We could have handled that by clarification.
11 There was no mandatory change. The real reason that we 12 dropped it at this time is because there is a vital area
(^ 13 committee studying the assumptions upon which vital
't-) ,
14 equipment is identified which will drive areas which are to 15 be vital to the plant.
16 That committee has not completed. It's close to 17 it right now, but it has not completed its work. It's a 18 multi-disciplinary effort. It's headed up by Frank Moralia 19 of NRR. It's comprehensive research. It's got oversight in 20 the Office of Directors of NMSS and NRR and from the EDO's 21 office.
22 We felt that it would be unfair to come out with 23 any change in the way vital equipment or vital areas were 24 identified until such time as the assumptions that the 25 committee is coming up with are finalized.
[}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 M46
4620 03 07 33 1 DAV/bc 1 This could change what is vital and what is not O 2 vital in our present program.
3 DR. MARK: Will that call for a new section in 4 the rules?
5 MR. MCCORKLE: That would probably call for a i
6l change but it would not be very extensive.
7 DR. CARBON: Before you leave the last slide, 8 it's my understanding that the keys or locks have to be 9 changed once a year. That's a new requirement.
10 Is that correct?
11 MP. MCCORKLE: Yes.
12 DP. MOELLER: As you go along, I find I have a 13 more basic question I'd like for you to comment on. I don' t 14 understand, again, in reading these ANSI standards, why it 15 is you're only interested in preventing acts of sabotage 16 that would result in release of radioactivity that could 17 i have an impact on the health and safety of the public.
I 18 ! I'm sure I guess your thinking is if your 19 protection program is this adequate, then it will protect 20 against many other things. ,
But why aren't you interested in 21 protecting against an act of sabotage that overexposes or 22 unduly exposes the workers within the plant and allows no 23 release of radioactive materials into the environment?
24 Why aren't you interested in preventing an act of
, ^; 25 sabotage that would have tremendous psychological impact
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
4620 03 08 34 DAV/bc 1 upon the public? Why do you restrict yourself to this one 2 objective?
3 MR. MCCORKLE: I guess we can approach that a 4 couple of different ways. If we open the door completely on 5 this to protect against sabotage, then we are interjecting 6 ourselves into normal industrial security, against 7 industrial sabotage.
8 .
Which would mean the man goes out and he wants to 9 disable a couple of the company vehicles. He wants to do
.10 this, that and the other. I don' t think that is the proper 11 role of the NRC to concern itself with.
12 I do believe that the controls that we have in 13 place discourage acts of sabotage such as you've 14 hypothesized that would not result in a release. It's very 15 difficult to draw that line as to what particular act might 16 cause an offsite release.
17 I think that we cover a broader range than the 18 pure objectives set forth in the ANSI standards.
19 MR. REED: I've got news for you before you go to 20 that one. I suspect your armed guards who are being tested 21 for their physical ability, their ability to run, and so on, 22 and as a result of this that many of them -- I'm trying to 23 think of the degree that many of them carry, not so much 24 police science. They are young. They are obviously, if 25 they are selected, they're pretty good people. And you get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 03 09 35 DAV/bc 1 down to the issue of the turnover rate of guards at your 2 facility.
3 And I suspect that the turnover rate for guards 4 might be 15 percent per y3ar.
5 MR. MCCORKLE: It's a function of management, we 6 find. At some facilities where management does not put 7 forth a positive attitude toward the security force, and the 8 pay is low, you'll have a high turnover rate.
9 MR. REED: You can always take care of the pay.
10 MR. MCCORKLE: I address those in series though 11 in combination. Many places have programs where they 12 identify guards for exceptional work, bonus programs, morale g-) 13 incentives. They indoctrinate their operational personnel
'm) 14 in security and what they're there for.
15 The security people, on the other side of the 16 coin --
17 MR. REED: You are singing a song that doesn't 18 hold up in the workplace. The song that you're singing is 19 I that a guard, if you just pay him enough, pat him on the 20 shoulders enough, he will be satisfied, that his boring job 21 is a challenge for his lifetime.
22 Now, that's not true. Good guards will turn 23 over. They will have a high turnover rate because they look 24 on to police forces in cities, becoming detectives, and so r~s 25 forth.
O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ll02 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-33MM6
-4620.03 10 36 DAV/bc 1 So, the more you demand of the guard at the 2 outset of his qualifications, the more you will some day say 3 after two or three years at this job, that he will wind it 4 up. I guess it gets boring after a while. He will say, 5 "I'm going to go on to something else."
I 6 So you get a high turnover rate and the turnover 7 rate is perhaps double or triple that of the regular 8 employee. In the guard force, you place so much faith in 9 the employee on access and yet the employee, he has 10 opportunities.for skill development and all these kinds of 11 things. The more that are there, the better.
12 But I just don' t know the answer to this r~ ~ 13 question. There's going to be a high tu.nover rate and 14 those guards will go out in the community. And they carry 15 with them. . .you cannot degrade them but I have to turn 16 around to Jesse's formula that someday, in my opinion, with 17 respect to nuclear plants, there are a couple of areas, a 18 couple of systems that take care of the protection of the
~
19 core.
20 And there's only a small group of people that 21 have access to that.
22 MR. MCCORKLE: Incidentally, I did not intend to 23 give that impression, to say that the manner in which you 24 decrease the turnover rate among guards is to of fer them 25 more pay. I don' t dispute you that you have a high turnover ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
4620 03 11 37 DAV/bc 1 rate among guards. But the management techniques have shown 2 up favorably in some facilities. The turnover rate has been 3 drastically reduced, and it is lower than in other 4 facilities.
5 MR. REED: I think if you adopt progressive 6 management techniques, you'll get a reduction. But, sooner 7 or later, there's going to be a return of high turnover.
8 MR. MCCORKLE: I can't dispute the point.
9 (Slide.)
10 MR. MCCORKLE: Now we get on to the least 11 controversial part of this little package, the access 11 authorization program, which, as you'll recall, consists of 7s 13 three elements -- background investigations, psychological
<-) .
assessment and behavioral observation.
14 15 (Slide.)
16 I might point out before I go into these that the 17 GAO two years ago did a followup to a previous examination 18 on safeguards requirements and developed this entire package 19 and said that this entire package was a step in the right 20 direction, especially the access to authorization program.
21 And so indicated in their report, and requested 22 that when we were further along, that we follow up on it.
23 24
, 25 u
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433H646
, . ~- . .~ - _ . . . . ~ . . - . -.- --
L4620 04 01- 38 DAVbur- Just 'to refresh your memory, a bac kground 1
- , 2. investigation consists of the elements indicated here and
.3 .the criteria. The comments did not have any particular
'4 impact on this. They ranged from why not only three. years, 5 why not two years instead of five years. Others felt it
?
i 6 should go further.
t 7 We held to the five years, primarily because it 8 is consistent with other investigative programs and 9 government-sponsored programs for industry.
!' 10 MR. REED: 'Now, this is for guards and employees?
l- 11 MR. .MC CORKLE: This is all employees'who are to i 12 have unescorted access. We have knocked that distinction
-13 out. We do not want a' distinction.
.{ )
. 14 DR. CARBON: Do guards currently meet this?
1.
15 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes.
f 16 ,
DR. CARBON: And have they for a long time?
MR. MC CORKLE: Quite a few years. Appendix B 3
17 l I
j- 18 was published, I guess, what, seven years ago?
$ 19 MR. MICHELSON: Contract guards also meet.these L . .
20 criteria?
21 MR. MC CORKLE: Contract guards meet this. On 22 that line I guess there is a split. I don't have the exact 23 figures.
24 I might' also indicate that we have found some 25 contract forces superior and vice versa.
-( }
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwidt Coverage 800 33H646
4620'04-02 39 jf*jDAVbur 1 DR. CARBON: But all guards meet this?
V' 2 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes.
3 MR. REED: One thing I notice up there, and you 4 . hear about this a. lot, I notice drugs are not there per se.
5 MR. MC CORKLE: A user of controlled substance.
6 MR. REED: Oh, down there.
7 (Slide.)
8 MR. MICHELSON: Is booze a controlled substance?
9 MR. MC CORKLE: We put alcohol down separately.
10 I guess it is controlled in the circumstances.
11 ! DR. MARK: They are looking for those cases where 12 it isn't.
13 MR. MC,CORKLE: Psychological assessment, written
- (]}
14 personality test, clinical interview if needed.
15 Now, I am not going to spend any time on this 16 because in a couple of slides I will get to a response to a 17 couple of comments on the subject, and I think we will 18 probably incorporate anything you might have to say.
19 (Slide.)
20 Again, on behavioral observation, the same.
21 There are four major features. It requires a supervisory 22 training program so the supervisors can be in a position to 23 have responsibility for observing employees so that they 24 don' t go of f on a tangent, also to make them aware of the 25 things they are looking for. It could take one day, it
(]}
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
14620 04 03- 40 l DAVbur 1 could take two days. I am not talking about a 10-week 2 . training period.
3 MR. REED: I would like to believe -- are these
-4 the same supervisors who are doing this observation of 5 others? They have their objects and themselves checked ~when 6 they.go through the screening devices?
7 Let me tell you why I am particularly sensitive-8 on this. I wear a steel brace. I have had to do this off 9' and on for some 30 years. I have always felt I was a
.10 reliable, ethical, honorable nuclear plant employee. Yet I 11 remember occasions when the Haddam plant was having some
- 12. -kind of anniversary, 10 years in operation or something, and the security s'ituation was just beginning to formulate, and t)
V 13 14 I was an invited guest, and they had just put in their 15 security system. And in order to go into the plant, two 16 Washingtonians had to come up there and do my body strip and 17 checking me, and I was involved at the time in managing the 18- plant.
19 And you know, even for special cases there seems 20 to be a problem. These people -- with all this reliability, u
21 really-the security structure sometimes go through tedious 22 trivia.
l 23 Gee, that quieted the place down.
i 24 MR. MICHELSON: You haven't asked why.
() 25 MR. MC CORKLE: Supervisory training is directed i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646 L
4 5
~
4620 04 04 41-
- (>g DAvbur.
1 .at pointing out to the supervisor things he should look 2 for. . The primary thing-is to detect any radical changes in 3 the person's behavior pattern, not just because somebody 4 comes in late one day or might be a little hung over. . I am 5 talking about changes over a period of time.
F
.6 There is an access program director which we 7 would anticipate would be designated to make decisions, not ,
8 the individual supervisor. We want to take it out of the r
9 direct bias that somebody might have about an employee -- ,
4 10 employee oversight, in other words, and also that employees 11 are aware of the provisions of the program. We don't 12 anticipate that that should be a secret type of an 13 operation.
}
14 Primarily, I think behavioral observation, even
-15 .though this formalizes the program, is something that is a 16 normal extension of supervisory responsibility. Any good
) 17 i supervisor does keep an eye on his employees and does detect 2 l 18 ' changes, things of that nature.
- 19 l DR. MARK: A couple of years ago or three, there 20 was a little pamphlet of about four or five pages on the 1 21 things that should be looked at to detect changes, like if i
- . 22 the guy works less hard than he used to, watch out; if he 23 works harder than he used to, watch out. I hope that thing 24 has been buried and lost.
(} 25 MR. MC CORKLE: It has been modified.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
[4620 04 05 42 1 (Laughter.)
(~}DAVbur
\--
2 'MR. MC CORKLE: It was certainly -- again, I 3 really think in all honesty that it is very easy to take a 4 list of things like that and, you know, to question it.
5 There sre many indicators a person could look at.
6 Some guy walked in one day this way, another day 7 another way, and you don't say this man ought to go to the 8 funny farm. There are indicators over a period of time, 9 changed patterns of behavior. Those are the t'ypes of things 10 that somebody might look for, not to concentrate on any 11 one.
12 DR. MARK: There wasn't a checklist?
13 MR. MC CORKLE: It is not a checklist. It is
(])
14 kind of a reminder.
15 DR. MARK: Well, I hope never to see it again.
16 MR. MC CORKLE: How far was it revised?
17 MR. MERRICK: Was it lengthened or shortened?
18 MR. MC CORKLE: Shortened.
19 DR. MARK: Good.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: The young lady over there is 21 responsible for that guide book.
22 No comment?
23 It was shortened, was it not?
24 MS. JAMGOCHIAN: I am Chris Jamgochian, with the
() 25 Office of Research at the NRC.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. _ . . . _ _ . - . . - _ , . _ - . _ . ~ _ _ _ . ~ , _ . _ . . - _ _ _ _ . _
4620 04 06 43
'3 DAVbur 1 Primarily, what we did was put in a paragraph at
[G ~
2 the onset of this checklist stating that this is just to be 3 used as not a bona fide item for item type of thing to 4 really concentrate on one item, to bury a person, you know, 5 so to speak, but to just use it as a general guidance type 6 of thing. It shouldn't be taken all that specifically, 7 seriously.
8 MR. MC CORKLE: I think the key word is 9 awareness, supervisor awareness. I think any of us who ha"e 10 been in a supervisory position at one time or another have 11 had employees that started to deviate in one way or another 12 from their normal behavioral patterns, depending on the
{} ,
13 14 sensitivity of their position.
What constitutes something you might want to use 15 as a signal, you might want to be a little more alert on 16 it?
17 I don' t know how to quite get this across to 18 remind people that there are indicators without listing 19 them. It is a difficult problem, but it certainly was never 20 intended to be used as a checklist. ,
21 okay. Now, there are some other considerations 22 in connection with this rule -- or are, I should say.
23 Licensees will come in with a written access authorization 24 which, we would repeat, an access program director should be
(} 25 appointed to put people on an acceso list, approved after ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2)2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
4620 04 07 44 I
1 their training has been completed.
V[-(DAVbur 2 Another feature is how we handle temporary 3 workers, a feature for reciprocity of temporary workers.
4 The temporary workers provision would go through the same 5 program, screening program, as permanent employees would.
6 Then if they go to another plant or another portion of'the' 7 country, reciprocity will exist if the screening has been 8 accomplished and has been less than a one-year 9 interruption.
10 During cold shutdown, temporary workers will bo 11 permitted unescorted access to the vital area concerned with 12 the particular type of work. All other phases -- entry
(~T 13 controls, need to be there, things of this nature -- will be U
14 in effect. In other words, we are not suspending the 15 balance of the rule. .
16 And subsequent to work in areas such as that, it 17 will be subjected to a complete preoperational testing 18 inspection.
19 MR. MICHELSON: Temporary workers -- are you 20 including in your comments the vendor personnel who might 21 come onsite?
22 MR. MC CORKLE: It depends on frequency and if 23 the licensee determines that he wants that individual to 24 have access, yes.
() 25 MR. MICHELSON: Clearly, there is a large number ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 4 646
4620 04 08 45
/~3 DAVbur 1 of these, probably one of the more likely sources of V
2 possible insider action. They don't have the same personal 3 -attachments as the workers themselves, same institutional 4 loyalties.
5 I didn't find too much said, though, in the 6 rulemaking paper about how you are going to handle the 7 vendor personnel.
8 MR. MC CORKLE: I guess I would put it in the 9 character of a management decision.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Clearly, you are trying to write 11 some reasonably prescriptive rules here that require the 12 manager to make certain kinds of decisions.
13 So why aren't they detailed in there?
('>T s- .
14 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe it is management's 15 prerogative to indicate those individuals for whom he wishes 16 to have unescorted access.
17 MR. MICHELSON: But what kind of requirement 18 should there be concerning identification, knowledge of past 19 experience?
20 MR. MC CORKLE: The same as for permanent 21 employees.
22 MR. MICHELSON: And how about the psychological 23 screening?
24 MR. MC CORKLE: Exactly.
() 25 MR. MICHELSON: I don't find in here, I don't ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 346M6
4620 04 09 46 DAVbur- 1 think, a' requirement that the. vendor from which this 2 individual comes has a screening program in ef fect.
3 MR. MC CORKLE: All nonregular employees who are 4 to have escorted access authorization are required to 5 undergo the same program.
6 MR. MICHELSON: How can they undergo it, though,
-7 'unless their employer has it because the fellow only comes 8 '.onsite for a few days?
9 So you can' t have onsite observation as a very 10 effective tool. So the observations of his behavior have to 11 come from the employer of that person,- wherever he may be.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: The requirement depends on the 13 individual providing the service.
14 MR. MICHELSON . Is that the employer?
15 MR. MC CORKLE: It should be, yes.
16 How is that handled specifically?
17 MS. DWYER: My name is Priscilla Dwyer. I work 18 for George.
19 In that situation you have two choices. You can 20 either escort the guy, or you can give the person a full 21 screening.
22 MR. MICHELSON: It is the unescorted access that 23 I am concerned about.
24 MS. DWYER: This person's employer snould perform 25 the screening. Now, it is the licensee's responsibility to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 ' NaskmwWe Coverage 800 336 46d6
1 l
-4620 04 10 47 l
/"N DAVbur 1 assure'that that screening is performed and that it meets Q) 2 the requirements of this rule.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Even though a fellow comes on for 4 a few days?
5 MS. DWYER: That is his decision.
~
6 MR. MICHELSON: You don't even know who this 7 fellow is going to be. You have a valve problem. You call 8 in a val'e vendor. I mean, you don't know.
9 MS. DWYER: That is what we are trying to do with 10 this reciprocity program for temporary workers, is to have 11 in place temporary people who can be called onsite. They 12 have already been cleared, and this clearance would be
{} 13 accepted at the different sites. ,
14 MR. MICHELSON: It wasn't clear, though, from the 15 rulemaking what regulatory requirements there were.
16 MS. DWYER: If they have unescorted access, they 17 are to be under the same requirement as a regular site 18 employee.
19 MR. MICHELSON: A five-year background check, 20 full observation by the employer wherever he may be, and so 21 forth?
22 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe the rule is fairly 23 specific.
24 MR. MICHELSON: What do you do in the case of the
() 25 utilities that hire union shop people to come in and do ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 900 33H646
4620 04 11 48 1 their welding, and so forth? Who is the observer in that
-('}DAVbur-(_-
2 case?
3 MS. DWYER: Everybody has a supervisor.
4 MR. MICHELSON: No, not everybody does. These 5 are usually trade people who get their jobs out of the job.
~
6 shop, your union halls.
7 MR. MC CORKLE: You anticipate that the 8 individuals or are hypothesizing they will be coming on 9 frequently?
10 MR. MICHELSON: If he is the one interested in 11 doing something, he will arrange to get on. This is the 12 route he most likely will take. He won' t go and try to go He will go the easiest wa'y
() 13 to work for the utility company.
14 that there is to get in.
15 MR. MC CORKLE: I guess that the only way I can 16 answer is to go back to the management decision, whether 17 they feel that the frequency of this individual's entry on 18 l there necessitates or justifies going through an entire 19 screening process. If he decides no, then the gentleman is 20 escorted.
21 MR. MICHELSON: What par t of this package of 22 paper deals with this question?
23 I just didn' t recall very well.
24 Mainly you are saying he will have to go through
() 25 all the same requirements that an onsite person does. It ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
4620 04 12 49
- I ] DAVbur I wasn't clear to me in my reading where to look.
xs 2 MS. DWYER: There is a section that talks about 3 the submittal of a generic plan for contractors, page 59 of 4 Enclosure A(1). Paragraph A(4) talks about licensees may 5 include.in their excess authorization plan a generic plan 6 used by all licensee contract $rs, manufacturers, and
-s 7 suppliers for screening and observing their employees.
8 9
10 11 12 O 13 d .
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -
s 24 s
25 .
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nalonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
50 46{0105 01
'bAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: But it doesn't state that 2 that plan shall include the same things.
3 MR. MC CORKLE: You have to go to the 4 regulations.
5 MR. MICHELSON: That's what I'm saying.
t.
6 MR. MC CORKLE: It says anyone can have who has 7 unescorted access. That includes employees or 8 nonemployees. You don't care where they're coming from.
9 You just care where they're going. If somebody's going to 10 -have unlimited access, they're either screened or escorted, 11 whether they are a janitor or an ACRS member.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: If they are to be granted
'V 13 unescorted access, they must go_through the elements of the O 14 , program that we're talking about.
15 DR. SIESS: I think that's a "yes" answer; am I 16 right?
s.
E_ 17 MR. MC CORKLE: No, it is not a "yes" answer.
18 DR. SIESS: _Then what was wrong? I said 19 everybody that is going to a vital area is either escorted 20 or has-been screened.
21 MR. MC CORKLE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.
22 Yes, that's correct.
23 DR. SIESS: No matter who he is or where he comes 24 from.
25 DR. MARK: Unless he works for the NRC.
~
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwkle coverage 2 33 Mi646 t
4620 05 02 ,
51 l
DAVbw 1 ! DR. SIESS: Unless he works for the NRC? Is that
)
2 still true?
3 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes. Does NRC have a screening 4 p'lan for its own employees?
5 MR. MC CORKLE: NRC has a different program, 6 which they feel handles a differential, because they have a 7 "O" clearance.
8 '
DR. SIESS: A "O" clearance is equivalent to the 9 screening?
10 MR. MC CORKLE: A "O" cicarance has an additional 11 requirement concerning the scope of the investigation.
12 'There,are some things that are more specific. They're run 13 by the bureau, or they're run by a national investigative 14 program.
I
> 15j DR. SIESS: Do they have psychological
/ 16
- evaluations?
-17 MR. MC CORKLE: No psychiological evaluation.
18 DR. SIESS: Observation?
19 MR. MC CORKLE: No, except in the course of 20 normal supervisory extension.
21 DR. SIESS: Now, I'm worried.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. MC CORKLE: Grandfathering. We're going to 24 grandfather everybody under this program that is employed as
(} 25 of the date that the rule is effective. We will include a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33M
e
- 4620 05 03 52 DAVbw 1 few procedures for use by individuals who are subject to 2 adverse action and, of courss, it has provisions for the 3 protection of the privacy of the individual. In other 4 words, the records concerning the screening. Observations 5 and psychological assessments will not be commonly 6 distributed throughout the plant.
7 These will only be given to persons who have a 8 need in making a decision for an access authorization.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Grandfathering does not pertain 10 to vendor peisonnel; is that correct?
11 MR. MC CORKLE: It pertains to the vendor 12 personnel who presently have unescorted accesss. If they 73 13 have unescorted access today, they have been through a
\_) -
14 screening program and will get to the requirements when we 15 consider grandfathering. It's a little bit more expansive 16 than I have indicated here.
17 Everybody who is grandfathered, who has been 18 through a screening program that meets present standards 19 spelled out in the ANSI, some industrial programs submitted 20 to in their security plan. Now that grandfathers. That's 21 more restrictive than the last version. The last version 22 clearly stated everybody who is employed and has unescorted 23 access is grandfathere.
24 We have now restricted that only to those who had -
(~T 25 a screening program that was in compliance with
\m -
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 05 04 53 DAVbw 1 established industrial programs.
2 DR. MARK: This last item, " Protection of 3 Privacy." You've put a considerable amount of attention on 4 that, and it will be one of the things which your licensees 5 will have had to pay attention to. I was not able to 6 imagine how this can be transferred to the vendors. The 7 vendor will have to have this background check, the 8i psychological test, behavioral observation and certify that 9 to the licensee, who has done all this. The licensee may 10 then say, "Okay. I will give him unescorted access 11 privileges," but nobody that I could picture can protect the 12 record side of this business in the vendors outside r- 13 employers hands.
(
14 MR. MC CdRKLE: Of course, what you said, the 15 licensee can grant the unescorted access. Therefore, the 16 records that are a result of the screening program have to 17 be provided to him to make that determination, and those 18 shoould be filed with the licensee.
19 DR. MARK: Okay. And he's committed to 20 protecting them.
21 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes.
22 MR. REED: What I gather from that is, that a lot 23 of licensees under the present program are doing the 24 testing.
{} 25 MR. MC CORKLE: To varying degrees; yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 05 05 54 DAVbw 1 MR. REED: But the contractors have been using 2 more the three-year employement records, and so on. Youy're 3 tightening up this area.
4 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes.
5 MR. REED: I wish I knew throughout which was 6 tightened up and which was relaxed.
7 MR. MC CORKLE: The grandfathering provision was
~ - '
8 tightened up.
9 (Slide.)
10 This next list may be of scrie interest --
11 actually, the next two. By popular demand, the public 12 comment period was extended to 180 days. We received 143 fs 13 comments. The paper said 142. There is an additional one 0 14 included since that time.
15 Perhaps the word "significant" is not 16 appropriate. The majority of the revisions made were 17 clarifying, in the snese that they attempted to resolve any 18 ambiguities in the way the regulation was written. They 19 were not of great substance. In other words, they did not 20 come in and cuestion on any ground why this, why that. They 21 were more in the sense of an observation. Now incidentally, 22 of the 143 comments, many of them commented on six, eight or 23 nine different aspects of the rules.
24 We have to give Priscilla credit here. She did rN 25 all the collating.
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H64
~
I 4620 05 06 55 l
DAVbw 1 The access authorization program, again, that we 2 are proposing, and this came out in public comments, the 3 three-component program is currently used in varying degrees 4 by the industry. In the absence of a regulatory 5 requirement, most utilities have embraced, to varying 6 degrees, the elements of the ANSI standards, whether it's 17 7 or 3.3. One of the big things, of course, we want, is a 8 standard that's going to be even from one utility to the 9 next. That's one of the main reasons for the ruling.
10 Our paper includes the NUMARC proposal as an 11 option. NUMARC proposed that this not be a rule, that it 12 come out as a policy statement, endorsing guidelines that 13 were to provide essentially the same elements that the 14 criteria did. We worked with the working committee to come 15 up with some, and I'll also get to that guideline in 16 subsequent charts. Notwithstanding the proposal given by C 17 NUMARC, it left the question open, which we attempted to 18 resolve -- and I'll also get to this -- as to what 19 oversight enforcement there would be of such a procedure as 20 a policy statement. We've again -- I'm summarizing. We've 21 made no changes to the search requirements, and we dropped 22 the vital island conception in the miscellaneous amendments 23 at present.
24 DR. MARK: A trivial point. You say a 180-day 25 public commant period. In the written stuff we have, it's
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66M
4620 05 07 56 DAVbw I sometimes 90 plus 90 and 90 plus 120. In actual fact, it 2 was seven months. It was more like 210.
3 MR. MC CORKLE: Right.
4 DR. CARBON: The preceding slide, I'm a little 5 bit puzzled. Public comments, search requirements, no 6 change.
7 I would interpret that to mean public comments 8 suggested that there be no change; is that correct?
9 MR. MC CORKLE: First of all, we did not have i 10 very many comments on the search requirements. Sc=cbody 11 would comne in and say, make a flat statement, " We don ' t 12 think there should be any search requirement, period."
Other said, "We feel that we should have pat-down
~
fs 13 d 14 search requirements."
15 That's the other extreme, as an example, but in ,
16 th absence of any position that was backed up by the 17 production of any input that was considered meaningful, we 18 did not make a change in the way in which we proposed.
19 DR. CARBON: And there were only a few comments.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: There were only a few comments in 21 the area of search.
22 DR. CARBON: That's fine.
23 MR. MC CORKLE: I think I've characterized them.
24 (Slide.)
25 These are some of the major areas that we did get O~j.
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
4620 05 08 57 DAVbw 1 statements on, and I'd like to comment on.
2 You may recall that we require positive 3 identification of the individual to be screened. The photo 4 identification or utilization during the screening program.
5 The question came in, well, how could this 6 possibly be utilized, when you're transferring authorization 7 from one facility to another, how do you they know it's the
~ ~
8 same individual. We have send a photo from one place to the 9 next. We relaxed that requirement by indicating at the time 10 of his transfer, they could check such personnel information 11 as mother's maiden name. that it would obviously be 12 g difficult to know, which we've outlined in the accompanying
( x, guidance.
13 l x_/
The guidance, incidentally, has all been changed 14 li 15 to coincide with changes in the rules and also to amplify 16 the provisions.
17 Appeal procedures. I like -- well, appeal 18 procedures we included. We left it in the rules. There 19 were some people that did not want appeal procedures. I s 20 ,
guess, notably, would be NUMARC, EEI and Vepco, who all came l-21 in with essentially the same proposal that they have an 22 industry-run program with a policy statement and no rule.
! 23 And in each of these instances, the appeal procedure was 24 lacking.
/^g 25 Now some commentors came in and they heavily V
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4620 05 09 58 DAVbw 1 endorsed the appeal procedures.
2 Others said it was an intrusion into management 3 prerogatives to describe the appeal procedure.
4 Our legal staff felt that it was a 5 government-required program, a program that could result in 6 adverse action. It was mandatory that we include appeal 7 procedures by regulation to assure due process. It was a 8 legal decision, which was expanded on, I believe, in the 9 package.
10 Background investigations. Quite a few comments
'll said this is the interview necessary for education and 12 employment. They felt that was burdensome, although we feel g 13 .that interview is the preferred method. We provide for 14 correspondence to provide us with other data, and that is 15 provided for in the sheet. As I indicated earlier, 16 grandfathering. We permit it for all employees. This is a 17 change,-providing that they had been screened under an 18 industry standard, and that they were on board at the 19 effective date of the rule.
20 We had quite a bit of comment concerning 21 contractor programs an6 audits, nonlicensee programs.
22 We have a vendor, we have a contractor, or 23 whatever, and the same firm is providing person..al.
24 There's a requirement for auditing the program.
25 Now would all three run out and get the same l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
4620 05 10 59 4
DAVbw 1 audit? It's a good question, we had not anticipated. We 2 resolved that by indicating that we would accept the audit 3 of the XYZ utility. Two utilities could accept that, 4 provided that they assure themselves it was a governmental 5 program.
6 That simplified it. And it's a rationale 7 approach to solving the problem, and it's not noticeably 8 burdensome, especially on the individual who might be 9 subject to audit by three or four different people during 4
10 the same period for the same period, presumably for the same 11 people.
12 Behavioral observation and psychological r^s 13 assessment. We had many, many comments that covered the d
14 entire range we would anticipate. We had comments that said i
15 psychological assessment is terrible. We had others that 16 said we have to have it.
17 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me. On the nonlicensee 18 employment, do you envision that it would be permissable to 19 have a central clearinghouse? That is perhaps the 20 contractor function somewhere, somebody does this, but to 21 have a central clearing house that simply vouches for the 22 individual, that does all the good things you ask for.
23 MR. MC CORKLE: I think this is something that 24 some of the industry groups are considering.
25 MR. MICHELSON: That wouldn' t be ruled out by
{')
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M64
4620 05 11 60 DAVbw 1 this.
2 MR. MC CORKLE: No. For the purpose of the audit )
3 of somebody's program, that would still stand, but you know, 4 on a separate action, there is still legislation which has 5- to be passed by the Senate -- it's now in the House -- to 6 get access to FBI records for a national criminal check, and 7 that will be part and parcel of the screening program. And 8 there are some industry initiatives to determine how we can 9 do all of this, funneled through one place. The FBI is not 10 required to interface with every licensee, so there has to 11 be some clearinghouse.
12 MR. MICHELSON: But that wouldn' t be ruled out by
,r~x 13 what you've got.
\_) -
14 MR. MC CORKLE: No. Anyway, we kept the 15 psychological assessment and behavioral observation in for 16 several reasons. One, they're presently used. I'd say, 75 17 percent of the licensees use one or the other today.
18 Probably more than 65 percent use both. We had a lot of 19 comment on one versus two tests. The guidance accompanying 20 the regulation requires the administration of two 21 psychological examinations to be followed by a clinical 22 interview, only if the results of the tests indicate that 23 it's necessary.
24 Many commenters wanted to have a psychological 25 test plus interview in every case.
(~}
s-1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3.W646
1
. l 4620 05 12 61 DAVbw 1 So based on the preponderance of opinion in the 2 professional field, not just those in the behavioral science 3 business, the comments from miscellaneous sourcas, the fact 4 that industry is presently using the programs and that 5 they're both in industry standards, it was felt appropriate 6 to include them in the program. -
7 ME. REED: Make that clear to me.
8 What do you mean "one versus two tests?" You 9 mean one is a writtent test?
10 MR. MC CORKLE: There's several tests. You have 11 the MMPI, you have the 16 PF, and there's others.
12 MR. REED: You are requiring two written tests?
-r3 13! It seems to me that the behavioral science test L) 14 people are controlling your empire.
15 I know that there's 600 questions in one of those 16 tests, because I've taken it several times.
17 Do you mean to tell me that you're going to put i
18 l potential employees through and the employees, on an annual 19 basis, through two tests?
20 MR. MC CORKLE: On an annual basis; no.
21 22 23 24 5
C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
4620 06 01 62
, /w DAV/bc 1 MR. REED: This is all new hires then? There is
(
2 no written testing annually? Some companies do it.
3 MR. MCCORKLE: That's up to them. I understand 4 that.
5 MR. REED: But, for initial employment, you've 6 got to take two written tests. I personally don't think 7 that's a good idea. I think you'll get some weird 8 situations.
9 MR. MCCORKLE: I'm not qualified in that field; 10 all I can do is repeat what I've been told from profoscional 11 sources, that the tests complement each other. They do not 12 measure the same thing. The deficiencies in one test for 13 measurement of personality defects are picked up by the
('}
s
(_/
14 other one.
15 MR. REED: I might go along with two tests for 16 guards but, again, I don't see this for regular employees.
17 Short-term workers or anybody. I think that's overcooking 18 I it.
19 MR. MCCORKLE: I've already discussed temporary 20 worker access during cold shutdown. That's in the rules.
21 We didn' t have any comments on that. We felt that temporary 22 workers should have access to any place unescorted. They 23 thought all controls should be dropped.
24 MR. MICHELSON: The controls right now on the
{} 25 rule are the same whether you're in cold shutdown or not.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 , Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 06 02 63 DAV/bc 1 Is that right?
2 MR. MCCORKLE: For cold shutdown, it's temporary 3 and has unescorted access without having been screened, 4 provided all other aspects of 55 and 56 remain in effect.
5 And that the area to which he has access is subjected to a 6 detailed, preoperational examination and search prior to 7 assigning him.
8 MR. MICHELSON: The assumption is he won't for 9 any other reason wander into any area where he's told not to 10 wander.
11 MR. MCCORKLE: Those were the controlled access; 12 he wouldn't be able to.
13 MR. MICHELSON: He can' t get beyond that area, G(~N -
14 and that area is thoroughly checked.
15 MR. MCCORKLE: Yes, exactly.
16 DR. MARK: These are the so-called devitalized 17 areas?
18 MR. MCCORKLE: Yes.
19 MR. REED: Let me just make sure now. Two 20 written tests and the clinical interview?
21 MR. MCCORKLE: No. Clinical interview only if 22 it's indicated.
23 MR. REED: Two written tests, each one different 24 from the other.
(} 25 MR. MCCORKLE: Now, interim clearances, when we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 4620 06 03 64 i DAV/bc 1 went out, we said an interim clearance would be granted 2 without the criminal history having been obtained, because 3 sometimes there was a delay on that, providing other aspects 4 of the screening program had been completed.
5 We had considerable comment that it sometimes 6 takes a considerable period of time to get a military 7 history. So we changed that provision to say the interim 8 clearance will be granted under the conditions given -- six 9 months to get both criminal and military history. That was 10 a response to public comment.
11 DR. MARK: What assurance do you have that it's 12 reasonable to expect the military to give full screening at
(")
U 13 six months?
14 MR. MCCORKLE: If you don' t get it, they'll have 15 to suspend the clearance.
16 DR. MARK: I understand that's how this reads.
17 But, somewhere, it was written that the Commission thinks 18 six months is a reasonable time, or put those happy words in 19 the Commissioners' mouths. It seems to me entirely possible 20 to write to someplace and not get an answer for six months.
21 MR. MCCORKLE: I think it's possible but I think 22 it would be the exception.
23 MR. MCCORKLE: Do you have any practical 24 experience of how long it takes to get a military history?
25 MR. MCCORKLE: Normally, I understand 30-60 days ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
p 4620 06 04 65 DAV/bc 1 but, occasionally, there have been delays up to four or five 2 months.
3 DR. MARK: I knew someone who spent 12 months 4 waiting for their O clearance for no reason on earth, 5 because they weren' t processing stuff very fast. It's 6 usually three months for a O clearance. That took six.
7 MR. MCCORKLE: Many things in the O clearance 8 which takes a year to 15 months go far beyond the ,
9 unavailability of a military history.
10 DR. MARK: But I'm reasonably f amiliar with a O 11 clearance. It can certainly be done in three months if the 12 agents are free to go to Ithaca or Espanola and talk to the
.f 3 13 landladies. Six months just seems it should be a little bit V
14 uneasy because thinking of the bureaucracy, thinking of the 15 time it takes the NRC staff to respond to a letter, and so 16 on, I don' t know why you shouldn' t have a little flexibility 17 in there rather than putting six months on top of both the 18 FBI and the military history in San Diego, or something like 19 that.
20 MR. MCCORKLE: The military history is all in one 21 location. It's out of St. Louis.
22 DR. MARK: All right.
23 MR. MCCORKLE: You're going to one spot. You're 24 not going to where the individual was in the service. The 25 military history is in St. Louis and it's the Military ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33fW5646
-- = _ -
4620'06 05 66 i
DAV/bc 1 Records Center. Their turnaround time is generally good.
2 There have been exceptions but since we do not have any 3 exceptions in the rule since the rule has come out, we put 4 that in the six month category.
5 So, really, it's a fairly reasonable...
- 6 DR. MARK: Is that an item which could be 7 adjusted to fit facts, if the facts make it look as if six 8 months?
c 9 MR. MCCORKLE: If it looked like there were 10 hardship in granting clearances to key personnel due. to, 11 unavailability of information af ter an honest ef fort, then
- 12 we could make an exception.
> 13 MR. MICHELSON: What do you do about the case ,
14 where an individual has an adverse military history and it 15 simply indicates he never really belonged in the military?
$ 16 MR. MCCORKLE: Falsification of the records?
17 MR. MICHELSON: No. I mean, how do you catch it?
! 18 MS. DWYER: We check everywhere.
19 MR. MICHELSON: Even though they indicated no 20 military service? Okay.
21 MR. MCCORKLE: Yes, we pick that up.
22 MS. DWYER: We have to do a military history 23 check on everybody. If you have an 18-year old. secretary 3; who needs unescorted access, we check on her. We discussed 25 it, because of the possibility of falsification.
1 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
', 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
- J llt 4620 06 06 67 DAV/bc 1 MR. MICHELSON: So it's a requirement.
2 MS. DWYER: Yes.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Even though it's not in the 4 regulation, it's in the discussion when it comes to 5 requirement, somehow?
6 MS. DWYER: The discussion is part of the 7 supporting statement.
~
8 MR. MCCORKLE: The NUMARC in}tiative I previously 9 mentioned was for more of an industry self-regulation and 10 the staf f recommended to the Commission that a rule is 11 desirable rather than to have the policy statement in lieu 12 of the regulations. I believe it's here on our next chart.
f-) 13 DR. CARBON: Question before you leave. Number V
14 one there, I'm a little bit surprised that you don' t require 15 photo identification. Is that a controversial issue?
16 MR. MCCORKLE: We do initially. That's only on 17 the transfer authorization from Utility A to Utility B.
18 DR. CARBON: It's in the transfer that I'm a 19 little bit surprised.
20 MR. MCCORKLE: We lo,ok at it from this l
21 s tand point. First of all, it would be cumbersome if 22 somebody, say, went from Maine Yankee and went out to Diablo 23 Canyon. It could be an imposition on the licensee.t'o 24 maintain extra photographs and things like that. And
(~T 25 somebody looked at the guy and said, Yes, this is you. We
\)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 06 07 68 DAV/bc 1 believe that when the individual went out there, he would go 2 to the other place and go back to verify his employment.
3 Part of that, we're saying we can get away from 4 the photo if the man can answer, say, several basic 5 questions. If you're an imposter, would you know the 6 indivioual's maiden name of your mother, social security 7 number, and things like that?
8 . DR. CARBON: If it were a random case, they 9 certainly wouldn't. But if, for example, you had a clearing 10 house that was mentioned and if you know that some temporary 11 workers worked in the East.
12 MR. MCCORKLE: The clearing house would be good.
rm- 13 Personal information, I think we would have to, well, the tj s
14 personal data, the verification of identity is spelled out.
15 It would not be through a clearing house.
16 DR. CARBON: I know. But if a person wants to be 17 an Lmposter, he knows what he has to learn. It just 18 surprises me. Go ahead.
19 MR. MCCORKLE: We accommodated the public comment
-20 and we thought we dealt with the public comment within a 21 reasonable framework.
22 DR. CARBON: Go ahead.
23 (Slide.)
24 MR. MCCORKLE: Incidentally, we did work with the 25 NUMARC people on guidelines and under Issues, there are both ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336-6646
4620 06 08 69 DAV/bc 1 main areas. Then we show what the guidelines and the rules 2 do. They went all through the criteria; they are 3 essentially the same.
4 But with these significant differences. First of 5 all, appeal procedures. The guidelines did r.ot provide for 6 any appeal procedures in'the event of an adverse action; 7 they ruled it out.
8 The NUMARC working committee did not wish to 9 include a provision for appeal procedures relative to 10 temporary and interim clearance for access. The guidelines, 11 psychological assessment, plus a credit check, plus one 12 developed reference, tha t's good for 180 days. The rule 13 would say: Full screening pending receipt of criminal and 7-]
v 14 military history. For 180 days. There's quite a difference 15 there.
16 On the grandfathering issue, individuals granted 17 unescorted access authorization on or before the ef fective 18 date of the guidelines. Whereas, we have included only for 19 those screened under a published industry standard. Tha t' s 20 a significant dif ference.
21 Inspection and enforcement. The guidelines are 22 silent. Initially, NUMARC had indicated -- this is not in 23 writing but, initially, they had indicated that they would 24 exercise oversight of the program through INPO or through a 25 NUMARC mechanism.
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
~4620 06 09 70 !
DAV/bc 1 At the last meeting we had with them, we 2 indicated that they did not intend that that should be the 3 case. In the final analysis, we expect that NRC would 4 exercise that oversight.
5 On reciprocity, their guideline would say it 6 applies to all grandfathered or screened individuals. It 7 does not apply to temporary individuals. Whereas, we say it 8 applies to all individuals.
9 Now you'll note there is an adverse impact on the 10 NUMARC guidelines for temporary interim access. The psch 11 assessment, credit check plus one reference, 180 days, if 12 they get it at 90 days and move on, they stop the 13 investigation. The next place you can go, they have to 14 start all over again on partial clearance.
15 Whereas, under the rule, we're continuing the 16 investigation and that would apply to individuals granting 17 them. So, in effect, they, I think, increased the burdens 18 on themselves by that particular provision.
19 MR. REED: Do the utilities and the licensees 20 have to recommit over again? Do they have to recommit over 21 again to the NUMARC option or the rule?
22 MR. MCCORKLE: No. It's up to the Commission 23 whether they're going to adopt NUMARC's suggestions or go 24 with the rule. The staff has recommended that they go with 25 the rule, not with the policy statement. But we had to give
.\/
r-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Wrionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620'06 10 71
.DAV/bc 'l the Commission that option to make their determination.
2 MR. REED: The Commission has the option? It 3 isn't the licensee?
[ 4 MR. MCCORKLE: No. The licensee does not have 5 the option. If the Commission chooses to go with the 6 policy statement and endorse the criteria and the 7 guidelines, then that is their decision.
8 If they decide to go with the rule, the rule 9 takes effect. There will be no industry guideline. In each 10 instance,'the staff recommends the rule.
11 MR. REED: What I see here as the big difference 12 on this page is the appeal proceedings, the appeal process.
13 MR. MCCORKLE: There are others, too.
14 ,
MR. REED: That's the really significant one I 15 can see that the licensee would be worried. Here you've got 16 a rule you're trying to protect and safeguard the facility, 17 and you're getting bogged down time and time again with 18 challengers to the determinations. You get tied up in 19 court, and all this kind of thing.
20 You can' t win. The government tells you to do 21 something but they don't provide you with the mechanism to 22 do it effectively.
23 MR. MCCORKLE: Well, the rule actually indicates, 24 and the guidance supports it, that if the licensee is a
- 25 union shop, every time we have an appeal procedure.
[}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
'4620 06 11- 72 DAV/bc 1 MR. REED: The point is they have a union shop.
2 Nobody becomes a member of a union shop, that I know of, 3 until he's an employee.
4 MR. MCCORKLE: In many places, whether they're 5 members of a union or not, they're still under the aegis 6 under the bargaining agreement.
7 MR. REED: There's a probation ~ary period.
8 MR. MCCORKLE: I can' t comment on that.
9 MR. REED: 1+e l l , I see that appeal procedure as a 10 real sticking point.
11 MR. MCCORKLE: There's that and other things.
12 MR. REED: Le t's suppose a licensee goes through 13 a. process and through the permissiveness of courts and the 14 ' aggressiveness of attorneys, you know that's happening every 15 day. A licensee gets clobbered by a $10 million settlement, 16 which can happen.
17 Doesn' t this unbind the whole security process?
18 MR. MCCORKLE: I think that would fall back to 19 the impartial application of the criteria if that 20 justifies an adverse action based on the results.
21 MR. REED: There's no interest in citis way and 22 that way. You'd be surprised what lawyers and courts can 23 do . .
24 MR. MCCORKLE: You have a government program; you
- l
{} 25 have specific criteria spelled out. And you have the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 H M 6
4620'06'12 73 DAV/bc 1 results-of.your screening program. Granted, there are gray 2 areas involved. But it's been my experience that 3 normally--I'm talking experiencewise with the government, 4 -and I'm talking Top Secret clearance -- it would be a 5 -judgment factor. They lean in favor of the individual.
6 MR. REED: They lean in favor of the individual?
7 As a security person, you'd want them to lean in favor of 8 the individual?
9 MR. MCCORKLE: I'm commenting on my experience 10 somewhere between 20 and 25 years with security and 11 investigative work. I have seen the results of 12 investigations on individuals who were supposed to be for 13 Top Secret clearance that I wouldn' t have cleared to go to 14 the bathroom.. And the board cleared the individual.
15 I can' t comment that this would be the case in 16 .all cases but, certainly, there's a judgment call if you're 17 in doubt. There's a gray area. If it's pure black and 18 white, I don' t think there's any question. If the criteria 19 have' been violated that are established by the government, 20 then the individual is denied access.
21 I think that if there had been a gray area, it 22 would seem logical for me to assume on legal advice that 23 they would then consider whether or not they should take the 24 adverse action. I can' t comment on that.
25
(:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTdRS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620-07 01 74
( ^g DAVbur 1 MR. REED: The present system, does it provide
.V 2 the right of appeal?
- 3. MR. MC CORKLE: There is no present system unless 4 there is a union shop and there are collective bargaining 5 agreements.
6 MR. WYLIE: Ivery utility has a grievance 7 procedure.
8 MR. MC CORKLE: But they may not yet to this 9 extent. I don't know. I can't comment on that.
10 MR. WYLIE: If a man feels like he hasn't been 11 treated fairly, he has a right to a grievance.
12 MR. REED: The new employee is probationary, and 13 they don' t have this protection.
.( } ,
14 MR. MC CORKLE: I am not disagreeing in any way 15 with what you say. Again, I think the lawyers insist that 16 we have to have an appeal procedure.
17 l MR. REED: I am sure they would like to build l
I 18 their business and their salaries.
19 MR. WYLIE: I would like to ask a question here.
20 I note that the hearing board which was meeting to review 21 this process recommended a private sector program and that 22 most utilities already have this program of screening and 23 this access control process, and reading the report under 24 Disclosure A(1), the staff found considerable merit in the
() 25 proposal.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(HM46
4620 07 02 75 j DAVbur 1 At least the gist of it was that while there were 2 some inconsistencies in the application of the programs they 3 felt that by proper oversight by utilities that these could 4 be worked out.
5 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe the report also shows 6 that while there may be some merit the staff believes there 7 is more merit in this rule. Nothing is totally black and 8 white.
9 MR. WYLIE: I am not sure what it is that I read, 10 but my question is: is there overwhelming evidence that the 11 present program as proposed are failures and that there is a 12 need for this rule?
() 13 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, there is a need for the rule 14 because~right now there is no rule.
15 MR. WYLIE: I am not talking about the rule. I 16 am talking about a need for proper screening of personnel for access.
17 l i
18 ' MR. MC CORKLE: Do we think there is a need for 19 it?
20 MR. WYLIE: I am not saying what you think. I 21 know what you think.
22 MR. MC CORKLE: The staff believes there is.
23 MR. WYLIE: The staff is coming back to you. I 24 am saying: is there overwhelming evidence available that
() 25 you have amassed that says you need this rule?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 07 03 76
["'N DAVbur 1 MR. MC CORKLE: As opposed to the NUMARC O
2 initiative?
3 MR. WYLIE: Regardless of what it is. I am 4 saying the present program, is it a failure?
5 MR. MC CORKLE: Only to the extent that we have 6 had problems in some areas.
7 MR. WYLIE: That isn't produced as part of your 8 report.
9 MR. MC CORKLE: There are places that were noted 10 that have no effective screening.
11 MR. WYLIE: If I read this, you said the majority 12 of the utilities already have this program in place.
[} 13 MR. MC CORKLE: Parts of it.
14 MR. WYLIE: And it is the case that there are i 15 parts of it that could be corrected?
16 MR. MC CORKLE: There are parts of the program 17 that are in place, but there is no standardization, we would 18 agree, but it is not as good as we think it is.
19 MR. WYLIE: You can always improve some.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: That is the objective of the 21 rule, is to increase your assuran's.
22 MR. WYLIE: We could get into this forever.
! 23 MR. MC CORKLE: That is true. I agree 100 24 percent.
() 25 MR. WYLIE: The question is whether it is i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
A, i
s ,
4620 07 04 '
1 working adequately. g
/~S DAVbur A V
-2 MR. MC CORKLE: All I can say is that the 3 Commission not quite 10 years ago made the statement that l
. \
4 they would like to consider adequate protective mepsures
5 against the insider pending development of a regulatory 1
6 trustworthiness program, and the staff was directed to(,
e ,
7 develop this program. 't. -
8 MR .' WYLIE: I understand that, but that isnbt 9 necessarily a rule.
10 MR. MC CORKLE: But the alternative to the rule
.11 at the present time is the NU ARC measures, and as you 12 indicated, our paper pointed' out that the NUMARC initiatives s
13 did have some merit. ..
(~} ,
14 But we feel on the other hand that therc iare 15 sufficient overriding considerations in favor of the rule, 16 which, if I could, we will go on to the next slide, which I 17 will be glad to discuss.
,s h
18 i MR. WYLIE: Maybe you can convince me. YQu 19 -haven' t convinced me so f ar. .
20 MR. WARD: m Does it just come down to the bottom 5 N
s %
21 one there? Congress says so? -
22 There i,c'some sort of objective evidence. I think that
'A is what Mr. Wylie said.
23 24 MR. WYLIE: Yes. I haven' t seen any evidence 3
()
i 25 that says a rule is'needed.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 07 05 78
-IN D 1 MR. MICHELSON: I think you have to ass: is
'fd AVbur 2 there'an insider problem or not? If the answer is no, there 3 is not, then you don't need this. If there is an insider 4 problem, how are you going to tackle it?
5 MR. WYLIE: No. The question is -- well, this is 6 one way to deal with it. Is it being adequately dealt with 7 by the industry already?
8 MR. MICHELSON: That is hard-to deal with.
( 9 MR. WYLIE: I don't know. Where I came-from they 10- do.
11 MR. MICHELSON: It is half full or half empty.
12 How do you decide?
13 MR. WYLIE: Well, I don' t know. I haven't seen
[}
14 anything cited that shows that what is in effect today is 15 not adequate.
16 DR. MARK: But there was a case, certainly long 17 after Three Mile Island, where a newspaper reporter pawned 18 j himself off as something or other, got into a plant and .
19 spent three weeks thera. Then he wrote about it, how fun it 20 was.
21 MR. WYLIE: Was that cited here?
22 DR. MARK: It must have been in the minds of the 23 people working on this.
24 MR. MC CORKLE: There's many instances.
- ['(]) 25 MR. WYLIE
- Well, it wouldn' t occur in the detail
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 07 06 79
[ %DAVbur 1 that I came from.
'w) 2 DR. MOELLER: Have the Commissioners voted or i
3 xpressed their views on this?
4 You know, it went to them in December, and I
,, } 5 wonder if they have responded.
6 MR. MC CORKLE: Not as yet. I would anticipate 7 they would probably express their views at least by next 8 month.
J 9 MR. EBERSOLE: How many incidents of unsuccessful 10 sabotage have been picked up so far?
11 MR. MC CORKLE: Unsuccessful sabotage?
, ,12 MR. EBERSOLE: Unsuccessful. Just' damage but no
,- \
(~'i
' u/ 13 I integral pattern at all.
14 MR. MC CORKLE: If you were to define sabotage as 15 where an offsite release actually took place --
16 MR. EBERSOLE: No, I am talking about an attempt 17 to impede the performance of critical equipment.
18 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes. Beaver Valley was one.
19 Deliberate mispositioning of a valve, the chains that held 20 it in place, several years back.
21 There bave been others. They are summarized in 22 the publication we put out every six months. A lot of them 23 were not sabotage or even attempts at sabotage.
24 What is sabotage?
() 25 But in the context that you phrased your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 07 07 80 DAVbur 1 question, yes, there have been attempts in that regard that
[']s
\_
2 were successful.
3 DR. SIESS: Do you have any correlation between 4 the plants at which those incidents occurred and the 5 screening procedures in effect at those plants?
6 MR. MC CORKLE: No, we have not.
7 DR. SIESS: At Beaver Valley are they screening 8 their employees?
9 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, they do.
10 DR. CARBON: Did they at the time?
11 MR. MC CORKLE: That is about four or five years 12 ago. I am a little fuzzy. I can't answer your question f,.']/ '13-j with precision.
l 14 DR. SIESS: There was recently an incident where 15 they found a hammer in the diesel generator.
16 MR. REED: The Trojan hammer.
17 MR. EBERSOLE: But that could bu left in there 18 inadvertently.
19 DR. SIESS: Right.
20 but. MC CORKLE: Those are the things you can' t 21 prove.
22 DR. SIESS: The question is: does Trojan have a 23 screening program?
24 MR. MC CORKLE: I am not a walking index. They
() 25 all have a screening program of some sort, yes. Some are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4 4620 07 08 81 1 just better than others.
)DAvbur 2 DR. SIESS: The effectiveness of the screening 3 program that is being proposed under the rule is something 4 we take on faith.
5 MR. MC CORKLE: Well, hopefully the screening 6 program which we propose will not only raise the level- at 7 least to the highest that is out there, but it will be able 8 to standardize it. We do not have a standardized program.
9 MR. MICHELSON: It is a judgment call.
10 , MR. MC CORKLE: Some places definitely, I know, I
11 l have nothing but a good guy, a member of the union, and he 12 has been a member for three or four years, and that is the 13' screening program.
(])
14 , DR. SIESS: Do they have more sabotage incidents?
l 15 MR. MC CORKLE: They have had problems, but I 16 don't know if that would be a statistical basis.
17 , DR. SIESS: So it is a question of faith.or I
18 belief?
19 MS. DWYER: It is a little bit more than that, 20 too, since this is based on professional opinion and
. 121 judgment, as is clear by the comments that we have
+
22 received.
23 Granted, a lot of these people have self-interest 24 involved, but experts at the National Institute of Mental
() 25 Health told us that they believe that the program that we 4
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 07 09 82 DAVbur 1 propose, the three-component screening program, was the best 2 that is currently available to detect potential instability 3 of individuals. That is what we are going on.
4 MR. WYLIE: But the question is: is the program 5 proposed by NUMARC not adequate by those same individuals?
6 Did they analyze that?
7 MS. DWYER: The program proposed by NUMARC takes 8 the same element as our rule. The problem we get into is 9 that the inspection and enforcement of the NUMARC 10 guidelines --
11 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe if I can go through 12 this particular chart it might respond to your questions, 13 perhaps not totally satisfactorily but at least partly.
(~j) m .
14 We believe that a program with more positive 15 oversight would assure more 2niform protection of the rights 16 of the individual, privacy rights.
17 DR. SIESS: I am sorry. I read that a few days 18 ago, and I didn't understand it, as I still don't.
19 But how does a program that probes into a 20 person's background assure their privacy rights?
21 MR. MC CORKLE: I am talking about the privacy 22 rights as far as the maintenance of records, access only to 23 individuals authorized access to, and things of that 24 nature.
(). 25 We believe that under the regulation in i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 9 3364646
4620 07 10 83 DAVbur 1 combination with the next bullet here, wo have a d("N 2 standardized program with appropriate oversight.. The 3 appropriate oversight is the key.
4 In the industry proposed program, NUMARC 5 proposed, they indicated that they thought initially they
~
6 would provide the oversight. Next they weren't sure how the 7 oversight would be provided.
8 Perhaps that should be provided by the NRC 9 inspection program. The NRC inspection organization I think 10 would find it very difficult to inspect and enforce against 11 the program that is not required by regulations.
12 So we get back to our present problems.
() 13 Nonstandardization, especially from the oversight ,
14 standpoint, is one of the compelling reasons the staff felt 15 that we should go with a rule rather than the NUMARC 16 position. We are interested in standardization throughout 17 i the industry.
I 18 ' DR. CARBON: Why do you hear about 19 standardization? Don't you really want adequates?
l 20 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes, we want adequate. Today we 21 do not have standardization. We feel that that is the 2T position. But we don't fee.1 that we have under the NUMARC 23 initiative the standard oversight.
l 24 DR. CARBON: A standard oversight perhaps, but
() 25 what you have implied here and you have stated earlier is l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
-4620 07 11 84 7' 1 that you wanted a standardized program. Maybe you want G)DAvbur 2 , standard oversight.
3 MR. MC CORKLE: We kind of put them hand in 4 hand.
5 .DR. CARBON: But you really want an adequate
~
6 program. You don't care about standardization.
7 Wouldn't you rather have some organizations that 8 do an even better job than your minimum requirements?
9 MR. MC CORKLE: One thing about regulation is 10 that it is not proscribed, doing more than the regulation 11 asks for. Certainly we would endorse anybody that wants to 12 go out and do more.
(J 13 DR. CARBON: But when you say you want a 14 standardized program, you are saf ing they can't do that.
15 MR. MC CORKLE:. We are hitting a minimum 16 standard. I think it would be difficult to have a 17 standardized program if we do not have standard oversight or 18 adequate oversight. That is a problem with their 19 initiative.
j 20 I am not convinced myself --
21 DR. CARBON: I am not arguing against what you 22 are doing. I am simply saying I think you mean adequate 23 rather than standard.
24 MR. MC CORKLE: It could well be.
() 25 MS. DWYER: But I would like to add, too, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l'
. 4620 07 12 85 DAVbur 1 initially our big-push for standardization was because there 2 seemed to be an interest on the part of licensees to have If you had people screened throughout industry
~
3 reciprocity.
4 at one level and an adequate level, then that screening, 5 that clearance could be transferred to the facility.
6 DR. . CARBON: Fine. That is adequate, but that is 7 just part of it, and I still think you really mean an <
. i 1
8 adequate program, which includes some standardization.
9 DR. SIESS: You are presenting some very powerful 4
10 arguments against self-regulation by the industry, something 11 that I thought the NRC is supporting to a certain extent, by 12 putting the responsibility on the industry.
13 This is not the first instance, and it is not the
(] ,
14 last one, I am sure.
I 15 l MR. MC CORKLE: Another thing, in December of ' 83 i
the Commission asked the unions to appear before them to
, 16 l
^
l 17 give their views on the entire access authorization program,
- . 18 and at that time, although the NUMARC initiative did not r 19 surface as an alternative, the IBEW voiced the opinion that 20 they preferred an NRC-administered program for one that was l 21 industry, for whatever that is worth. That is just a 22 point.
l 23 And that part of the recommendation took into 2
'4 consideration that view, along with the other views that we 25 have.
~ (]) .
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
- . . . . _ . - - - _, _ _ . . _ - , - . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . - . . . . . ~ _ . . . - _ - . . _ _ _ , . . , _ _ _ . _ , . .
i
. -4620106 01 86 3 OAV/bc 1 We felt that a regulatory recuirement like a 2 policy. statement was consistent'with NRC security programs.
. 3 It was some process to put out the insider rule package, 4 that no proposal was made for industry to administer the 5 search program. The miscellaneous program.
6 But of all the security programs out there today, 7 No. 7355, the access authorization program was selected.
.8 That seemed inconsistent from a regulatory standpoint.
9 We're taking a broad security program and it 10 should go out and-handle in one direction, and all the rest 11 of.it is handled in another. For consistency, we felt, 12 again, that the regulation was more appropriate.
13 And, again, as I indicated in that report, as you
- 14 pointed out is indicated in the report, I didn' t indicate .
L L 15 it, the staff did. There is some merit to the NUMARC 16f objective.
17 We're not saying it's not a viable option. We j 18 presented it as a viable option to the Commission. We 19 merely had to state that the staff prefers regulation.
20 Under the present program, we feel that 21 regulation provides us the mechanism to assure a more 22 prompt, effective method of instituting remedial action and I
l 23 enforcement action.
l-24 As I indicated, a program which.would bo l
(} 25 administered with industry oversight would not permit l-I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 4 6646
'4620 06 02 87
'DAV/bc 1 uniform. enforcement of the program. That's another thing 2 2 that if it can be resolved satisfactorily, I suppose it 3 could be improved upon.
4 But, at the present time, we have not reached 5 that point. There was some suggestion made that NUMARC 6 would require all of our members -- the policy statement 7 would require them to submit a change in their security
~8 requirements to commit to the NUMARC guidelines if you're 9 proposing a security plan.
10 The thought was then it would go to Inspection 11 and Enforcement. Our legal staff tells us that if that goes 12 into the security plan, there could be enforcement by the 4
- (-
13 NRC. Then it's encumbent upon the NRC, since it's a 14 government program under our license applications, to 15 institute an appeal procedure. That's to assure due 16 process. That's from the legal staff.
17 And, last, and let me just toss this out.
j 18 Consis ten tly, the Commission has referred, responding to 19 Congress concerning insider problems, that a rulemaking 20 concerning access authorization, screening and these things 21 would increase assurance against the insider was in the 22 making and it was due to be published.
23 So for. consistency, we do that.
24 MR. REED: Let me just go back.s People have 25 always had access. There has been a question in the l }
L 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
. _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _ - - . , _ _ _ _ . - - - ~ , _
-- m 4620 06 03 88 DAV/bc 1 industry for.a long time. As all these access screening 2 things grow, you've got to go through this and go through 3 that, the equipment takes time. And in some facilities, 4 particularly in refueling.
-5 I'm wondering if perhaps there's a hidden agenda 6 of taking care of union considerations. If a rule were 7 passed, rather than the NUMARC objectives, if it comes to 8 pass that portal "., portal is now automatic - was that ever 9 mentioned in the meeting with the union?.
10 MR. MCCORKLE: I think what the union -- at the 11 time of the rule, was before the Commission in 1983. One or 12 two of the Commissioners said that they believed it to be 13 appropriate to obtain the views of industry and of the
[
14 union.
15 Actually, it was the unions. They were invited 16 at that time. Some utilities felt that they had to support 17 the policy. I forget who else.
18 Then we had a representative from IBEW and from 19 the UPGWA, I believe. These were some of the things. We 20 went through the transcript recently of that. The IBEW
'21 understood the need for the requirements. They made the 22 statement ti.it they'd rather see NRC responsible for the 23 program for uniform policy and endorsed the reciprocity 24 concept.
('~T 25 The UPGWA did not believe the components of the
\-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4620 06 04 89 DAV/bc, 1 program would be uniformly applied. So, no, they were not 2 asked the question. They were merely asked to give their 3 views on the rule.
4 This was the text of the briefing given by the 5 IBEW. So that forms the background for that statement on my 6 summary chart. And I don' t say that that describes it in 7 the whole concerning the consideration of views brought up.
8 I don' t know.
9 (Slide.)
10 With the status of the Of fice concurrences 11 received in August of '85, it went to the Commission on 12 November 27th. They recommended final rule approval for (3 13 each one of the three rules and, of course, that last one is L) 14 really personal bowling when I say publication in January of 15 '86. But that's when we were originally scheduled.
16 Also, there does seem to be some inconsistency, I 17 might add, from the standpoint of industry, that _ I don' t 18 know how to account for. NUMARC states they do not take a 19 position unless 80 percent of their members endorse it.
20 At the same time, they made their statement with 21 a proposal that they would speak to the industry, we had 22 some of their authority saying that they favored the rule.
23 That puts the staff in a peculiar position.
24 I don' t know if 80 percent, 90 percent or 50 25 percent of the utilities would go with the policy statement.
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(HM46
4620 06 05 90
,f^) DAV/bc 1 It could be 100 percent, but I don' t have that assurance.
V 2 And that would be necessary also. Otherwise, we would be 3 faced with a policy statement and no rule. And I just don' t 4 know what its universal applicability would be.
5 DR. CARBON: I'd like to ask a question that 6 relates to what you just said. It s3 ems to me that 7 something is needed. I have io problem with that. But the 8 question of whether it should be the NUMARC proposal or the 9 rule approach, it seems to me also that the Commission is 10 trying to and should do what Dr. Siess was saying a little 11 while ago -- move in the direction of letting industry 12 police itself, carry the ball, keep the NRC staying back and 13 looking over its shoulders.
(~s]
\-
14 You have indicated that the staff feels that a 15 NUMARC approach is good, a lot of good things in it. I 16 gather that probably you and the staff feel that you could 17 take the NUMARC proposal and go further and get all the 18 minimum requirements that you feel would be necessary.
19 Is that so? And if the NUMARC proposal could be 20 brought to the point of meeting your minimum, requirements, 21 wouldn' t there perhaps be a lot of merit in going to that 22 approach instead of going to the rule approach?
23 MR. MCCORKLE: I certainly wouldn' t have any 24 occasion to argue with your statement, providing certain
(} 25 things would be done.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 06 06 91 DAV/bc 1 DR. CARBON: And do you believe those can be?
2 MR. MCCORKLE: I'll put it this way. We spent 3 many staff hours sitting down at a conference table with i 4 NUMARC representatives. And we got to the point exactly as 5 presented to the Commiscion in the paper attachment to the 6 Commission and it's characterized in the Commission paper 7 and as I characterized here today.
8 We did not resolve the question of oversight. We 9 did not resolve the question of enforcement. We did not 10 resolve the question of appeal. The staff had some 11 questions.
12 And of course, this would be subject to the 13 resolution as to the number of utilities that endorsed the
{}
14 NUMARC proposal. We had some indication from the public 15 comment process that quite a few utilities favored the 16 rule. But, again, there are some areas that are pretty 17 soft.
18 DR. CARBON: Would you feel quite alarmed if the 19 Commission said, No, we're going to go the NUMARC route?
20 And let's see if we can' t fix it that way?
21 MR. MCCORKLE: I would not feel alarmed. I would 22 settle for it. If the Commission said to go the NUMARC 23 route, there are quite a few barriers that have to be 24 surmoun ted first.
/'3 25 DR. CARBON: But I guess you wouldn' t feel V
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 4 646
4620 06 07 92 DAV/bc 1 alarmed that those couldn' t be resolved. You wouldn' t feel 2 that the and product would be quite unsatisfactory?
3 MR. MCCORKLE: No. As I indicated to a fairly 4 large extent, the present NUMARC guidelines, which we worked 5 out with NUMARC representatives, constitute a reasonable 6 program providing that you can have assurance that the 7 program will be subject to good oversight and implementation 8 and enforcement.
9 DR. CARBON: And at the risk of repeating myself, 10 undue repetition, you believe that probably could be 11 accomplished?
12 MR. MCCORKLE: It could be accomplished. I don' t 13 know, having sat down with the NUMARC representatives, I do
(~}
x_,
14 not know to what degree they will wish to accommodate any 15 further than they have. We came a long way.
16 You have to understand we are on opposite poles 17 to start with and we came to that paper that was attached 18 there. And I think it's a reasonably good document. As 19 I've indicated, we have very good relations with the people 20 we worked with, and I thought they were very competent.
21 They were qualified people.
22 DR. CARBON: And, presumably, in these 23 discussions, they were fully aware of your concern?
24 MR. MCCORKLE: Yes. As a matter of fact, they
(} 25 were informed as recently as -- well, I talked to one of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 06 08 93 DAV/bc 1 them about two weeks ago, and the head of their working 2 group at the time that the paper went to the Commission and 3 informed them of the staff recommendation, and the basis for 4 those recommendations.
5 I briefed the EEI group, which of course has many 6 NUMARC members in it, essentially the same way -I have you 7 gentlemen, and pointed out the reasons for the staff 1
8 recommendations. And in that group are some of the people 9 from our working group.
10 So I mean this is no surprise to NUMARC because 11 NUMARC was very open all the way through the program.
12 MR. MICHELSON: In the process of doing this, you g w, 13 resolved a lot of differences. Have you resolved a few V.
14 fundamental differences, or just the easy ones? Because a 15 thing like the appeal process, that's a pretty fundamental 16 difference. I don' t see how the government can enter into 17 such an agreement wi thout an appeal process.
18 And NUMARC ought to know that already. If 19 they're still taking a hard line on it, you'll never get 20 it.
21 MR. MCCORKLE: That was the primary one right 22 straight through. And it was obvious, at least to me, that 23 one of the underlying reasons that they preferred the policy 24 statement rather than the rule --
- 25 MR. MICHELSON
- It's not clear you'll ever get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-1700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
- 4620 06 09 94 7' DAV/bc 1 over that one.
g) 2 bR. CARBON: It's not clear to me to the extent 3 that they're taking a hard line that they have. Maybe that 4 resolves it right there.
5 MR. MICHELSON: We expected that at this point.
6 DR. CARBON: I don' t have any feeling for whether 7 they said it's a hard line, and we'll never do it, or what.
8 , R. MCCORKLE:
M Well, I think, and this is my own 9 opinion, if the appeal process were to become a requirement, 10 I feel reasonably certain that they would drop the NUMARC 11 measure. I think that's the only reason they want it.
12 That's just a personal opinion.
13 DR. MARK: I have a couple of questions which
}
14 are, to some extent, repetitive. You mentioned the NUMARC 15 option or the rule. Is there not another option of the 16 Commission's issuing a policy statement which contains all 17 the things which you've got in the rule?
18 MR. MCCORKLE: Of course, the NUMARC option 19 really is to come up with a, policy statement which will set 20 forth guidelines. They will actually endorse guidelines 21 that they'll distribute to the industry. That's the NUMARC 22 proposal exactly.
23 The question that gets into the legal standpoint, 24 the degree of oversight and the enforcibility of criteria D, 25 that are merely blessed by a policy statement as opposed to i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 06 10 95 DAV/bc 1 the Commission.
2 DR. MARK: Now, what's fitness for duty as a 3 policy statement would be?
4 MR. MCCORKLE: That started out as a regulation 5 that's gone back and forth quite a bit. Yes, at the present 6 time, it's a policy statement. We think it's a much more 7 simple initiative. It's tot as complex as this. It does 8 not have as many controversial aspects to it. There are 9 certain fundamental differences.
10 DR. MARK: Is there any problem about enforcing 11 that? Of a licensee not paying any attention to what's in 12 the fitness review?
13 MR. MCCORKLE: I'm sorry that nobody in r-}
(/
- 14 Inspection and Enforcement is here. I do recall that at 15 about the time the policy statement was to be issued and
~
16 industry was in a position to oversee it, they had one 17 installation where there were -- I can' t exactly 18 characterize it -- drugs being used and/or sold in the 19 parking lot. A couple of them were workers and one was a 20 supervisor and they wished to take no action against the 21 supervisor.
22 This caused the Commission, NRC second thoughts 23 about the manner in which they were policing it. How that's 24 been resolved, I don' t know. There are certain refinements
{} 25 that were added to the things at the time to put some teeth ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33HM6
' 4620 06 11 96 DAV/bc 1 in it. But, see, that belongs to - Inspection and
- 2 Enforcement. That's not an NMSS balliwick. ,
3 I
4 s
6 4
7 8
4 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 ,
16 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 I
( 24
- 25 i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3364646
_ _ _ . ~ ~ . . _ _ _ , _ . . _ ~ _ . . . - _ _ _ - - - . _ , . _ . _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ . . _ _ _
9
.4620 09 01 97 1 DR. MARK: You are under the impression, and you
[]DAVbw v
2 certainly know much more about it than I, that there is a 3 real difficulty about forcing plants to observe the policy, 4 if that is the way it is left.
5 MR. MC CORKLE: Yes. And as to how you achieve 6 uniformity without good oversight and enforcement. I think 7 that's my main statement.
8 DR. MARK: Well, as I read this, I thought the -
9 arguments for rule versus policy statements were one of the 10 really weak places in the text. One of the things brought 11 out there was, there's no uniformity. Of course, that's 12 because you don't have a policy at all. If you had a 13 h policy, that's a means of saying you will commit to follow a
(~)/
s-14 policy, otherwise you don' t do it.
15 It seems to me the Commission must be able to do 16 that, and I thought the arguments, the fact that there was 17 , no uniformity, that's a consequence of no policy or of no 18 rule, but it doesn' t reali; argue for one against the 19 other.
20 MR. MC CORKLE: Perhaps in that context, the 21 potential for lack of uniformity without proper oversight, 22 the policy statement needs to be a rule.
23 DR. MARK: It needs to be a rule, in order to 24 give the inspectors the chance to observe that it's being
() 25 followed.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4620 09 02 98
(^'pDAVbu 1 MR. MC CORKLE: With a policy statement, even L)
~2' though that would be a program without oversight, strict 3 oversight, you'd have tendency -- I think that was the 4 attempt.
5 DR. MARK: I was, perhaps simplemindedly, 6 proposing that they would get all the licensees to commit to 7 follow the policy, in which case inspectors would come in 8 and see if they're following a policy.
9 MR. REED:' They have to follow guidelines for 10 equipment too.
11 MR. WARD: What's the dif ference between that and 12 the rule?
{} 13 MR. MC CORKLE: Then what's the next stage? What 14 if they're not following policies?
15 DR. MARK: If we find people selling drugs in the 16 parking lot, I hope there is something that can be done.
17 Perhaps this is important for some things covered 18 here.
19 MR. MC CORKLE: Listen, this is probably one of 20 the most complex matters we've ever tackled, we've gone 21 through.
22 DR. MARK: I have a few other trivial details, 23 and one major.
24 You made a great point of credit checks, which
() 25 must be one of the weakest items you've got.
If the guy ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043366646
~4620 09 03 99 j^hDAVbw- 1 has a history of poor credit, you'll-find out.
\_/
2 If he's always paid everything cash, you get a 3 blank card back. Does that count against'him? Should he 4 rush out and borrow some money, so he would have a good 5 credit check?
6 MR. MC CORKLE: I think a O credit check with 7 'nothing against the individual, that would not disqualify 8 him.
19 DR. MOELLER: To comment on that, Carson, I like 10 the credit check, because of experience in other fields.
11 For example, when you checked at the School of Public 12 Health, they've-done studies of automobile drivers, who'are
{} 13 ; the good' drivers versus the poor drivers? Well, the good 14 drivers are those with good credit ratings. It's a very 15 good -- well, sure, there's be a few exceptions, but the 16 history is that people with good credit ratings are 17 reliable people.
18 DR. MARK: How about people who nevered a nickel?
19 i DR. MOELLER: As you know, as I say, that's an 20 unusual exception, but in general, it's a very good guide to 21 reliable people.
22 DR. MARK: Another thing of the same sort.
23 DR. MOELLER: You drive as you live.
24 l DR. MARK: You might find out this guy is a poor
{} 25 risk. That's all you could check. The military history, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 - Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
4620 09 04 100
^
rN DAVbw 1 in a sense, ignores the fact that some fraction of your O
2 applicants are going to be females or have no military 3 history at all or even some males.
4 So that, I guess, doesn't cause a problem, if you 5 learn they have a dishonorable discharge.
6 MR. MC CORKLE: Right.
7 DR. MARK: Or that he never was in the Army.
8 Okay. It's crossed my mind reading all through 9 this, that there's something not touched here that I worry 10 about a little, and that is the noncitizen. You don't 11 mention any provision for handling a foreign national.
12 Now if you mean that foreign nationals may not be
(~T 13 employed, I don't mind, but you don't say so.
v' 14 MR. MC CORKLE: That's not intended.
15 DR. MARK: Are you sure yo wouldn't like to?
16 MR. MC CORKLE: I guess we' re looking at what?
17 DR. MARK: I just mentioned it. There's no provision here. You can't get a five-year background check 18 l l
19 ' on most nonnationals. By the time he's been in the country 20 five years, he's capable of being a citizen.
21 MR. MC CORKLE: You can't pick up background 22 information from many countries.
23 DR. MARK: You can, but if he's a refugee from 24 Honduras or something.
25 MR. MICHELSON: What does the rule provide, if
( })
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
m 5
-l4620 09'05 101 DAVbw. 1 you cannot'get five years?
2 MR. MC CORKLE: I believe, like many other 3 . things, if the licensee has completed the total 4 investigation -- supposing he's only gone back two years and 5 everything.is positive,~and three years before that is a 6 -total blank? He could ask for a waive
-7 DR. MARK: I didn't find anything either in the 8 rule or even the Reg Guide that seemed to me aimed at that.
9 It must not be uncommon.
10 MR. MC CORKLE: I guess one reason we didn' t 11 address that-is,.first of all, there's a remote possibility 12 of this happening. Very few foreign nationals apply.
13 MR. REED: I employed two at Point Beach. So
(
14 it's not unusual.
15 DR. MARK: Are we being so generous to refugees 16 from God-knows-where all over the place, and they'll need 17 jobs. They might pass.the. aptitude test like a wizard.
18 MR. MC CORKLE: Defense and other departments are 19 faced with the same problem and defense contractors. People 20 are here with a work permit. It-doesn't present a problem.
21 DR. MARK: Well, it seems to me that there ought 22 to have been something there which indicated that in such an 23 event, you refer to NMSS to settle things. And it's not 24 there.
/~T 25 MR. MC CORKLE: That's something that might have V
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 80433 H 646
24620 09 06 102 g/s) DAVbw 1 have been an oversight.
v 2 MR. MICHELSON: This was pointed out, of course, 3 in an ACRS letter sometime back. Don't these ever get ,
. 4 incorporated into the discussion part of the policy or the
'S rulemaking process?
6 DR. MARK: 'We did hit this point when we talked 7 about this before.
8 MR. MICHELSON: But it's nct mentioned in the 9 preamble at all. And I just wondered if this was not a 10 custom.
11 MR. MC CORKLE: As I recall, that was from a 12 previous briefing of the Commission.
(^}
%/
13 ; MR. MICHELSON: What was the justification for 14 not doing it?
15 MR. MC CORKLE: Let me just not even recall. My 16 memory is too hazy on that. If I say it's never been 17 discussed, I could get one discussion mixed up with another.
18 MR. MICHELSON: I expect the full Committee is 19 going to ask how that came out.
. 20 DR. MARK: That was a thing that we did mention.
, 21 DR. CARBON: Before we leave this point, you say 22 they would have to apply for a waiver.
23 Would you give them a waiver, unless an example was cited?
24 l
() 25 MR. MC CORKLE: That would depend on the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
4620 09 07 ,
103 DAVbw I circumstances.
2 DR. CARBON: Suppose it was that Honduran person 3 who's been here two years, and everything for two years 4 looks good. There's a total blank for the preceding three _
5 years.
6 MR. MC CORKLE: I'd be inclined ot favor him at 7 this point.
8 DR. CARBON: Would you also, for three months 9 instead of two years?
~10 MR. MC CORKLE: I just painted myself in the 11 j usual corner. Three months is not very much, because you i
12 have nothing to go on.
{} 13 DR. CARBON: You really don' t have very much to 14 go on in two years.
15 MR. MC CORKLE: Maybe I should give it three 16 , years. What if we go three years back?
i 17 ! DR. CARBON: I guess in my personal view, I l
18 j wonder if you should give them a waiver.
19 MR. MC CORKLE: Perhaps in three years I should.
20 That would be consistent with what we do.
21 MR. MICHELSON: Is there a provision for waivers 22 in your policy?
, 23 MR. MC CORKLE: There's not in anything. There's 24 always provisions in exemptions in any rule. 4
() 25 MR. MICHELSON: But you don't write them in?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
~ __ .. -- , _. . _ , _ _ _ , . - - . . - . . _ _ _
-~ . - . .
4620 09 08 104 DAVbw 1 MR. MC CORKLE: -No.
2 MR. REEC; It seems to me, the type of foreign 3 national that might be employed would be able to get some 4 sort of paper documentation about his former --
5 DR. CARBON: Perhaps he could, but I'm asking 6 about the regulation.
7 MR. MC CORKLE: The regulation is silent on 8 that.
9 DR. MARK: Supposing it was somebody who came 10 ) from Iran? It isn't so easy to get stuff if you're a 11 refugee.
12 DR. CARBON: What's the justification for giving
.( ) 13 the individual a waiver, if you can't see him in the same 14 objective --
, 15 MR. MC CORKLE: You have to look at all these 16 circumstances and see what country he comes from. Is there 17 information available to you? I don't know.
- 18 j DR. CARBON
- But you wouldn't, an American, if 19 you could only get two years. That's a hypothetical, 20 j fictitious case. But a U.S citizen, you have to have five 21 years.
22 MR. MICHELSON: We'll trust them.
23 DR. MARK: Glenn, I'm sensitive on this point, II 24 because I've had a few periods for about five years when I 25 was an alien.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
4620 09 09 105 DAVbw- 1 DR. CARBON: But I'm not against that.
[')S 2 Anyway, it's a poi.nt that isn' t touched, and it's.
3 inconvenient. It would not be spurprisiq3 that had there ,, -
4 been a clause, that in suel1 [an event, this must be brought tg 1 5 to the Director of NMSS to sit on. , ,
6 Now my last complaint. Why is a lut ot this 7 stuff that has been relegated to the Reg Guide -- doesn' t 8 have the force of law -- not in the Rule? For initance, 9 there's no mention of the five-year clause in-,thehueN w ,
10 It's only in the Reg Guic?e. The Reg Guide, incidentally ,
N.'
11 , says that you'll never do it for less than three years, but 12 I mean, is that not just a way to accentuate the confusing
)t
() 13 l nature of regulations? ,
14 You prepare a rule, and you get comments on the
'.g V ,
15 rule, and you say we didn't change the rule, but we . stopped i
l
) s 16 I at the Reg Guide. And you hide the Reg Guide somewhere.,
s ~
I know yoit can change the Reg Guide, and th Q t' 17 l, 18 I looks attractive, but it sure is a way to make things l .
19 unclear, obfuscate them and perpetuate the complaint that 20 the regulations the NRC puts out are very difficult to 21 follow. 3 22 MR. MC CORKLE: I can't disagree with you. I've 23 gone through a complete cycle of the NRC, where we went 24 from specific regulations to direction, and we come,ont with
() 25 confirmatory and other regulations, and the specifica .{thould
\ .s s s
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 2 33 6
4620 09 10 106
['T DAVbw 1- be eliminated from the regulatins to the greatest extent
-V
- 2 possible.
3 The Reg Guide and acceptance criteria which will 4 be published for this would provide the licensee with 5 acceptable positions for our review when he comes in with
~
-6 the next authorization. The plan has to be approved. We 7 will not approve the plan unless it meets our acceptance 8 criteria, but that is a Commission policy, and it has been 9 for years, to go with performance-oriented regulations.
10 DR. MARK: I think I was first surprised that the 11 five years wasn't right up front in the background material.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: I agree with you. From a
(} 13 personal standpoint, I'm inclined toward a little bit more 14 specificity. When we put them in, we're criticized, too 15 much specificity and not being performance-oriented.
16 Now in this particular rule, that happened to us 17 in the past versus being around for about nine years.
18 We've been criticized on the other side of that 19 coin.
20 DR. MARK: Yes. Well, I wanted to raise that 21 question, but 7.'m not sure we know enought to say any more.
22 There's a representative from KNC who has some 23 comment son the fitness for duty situation.
24 MR. KNUTH: My name is Don Knuth from KNC.
() 25 Those of us in industry are sitting here in the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
~
e 4620 09 11 107 7" 1 audience listening, and we have not seen the paper before C'DAVbw 2 you, so we are eavesdropping on your meeting today to find 3 out how you incorporated the industry comments and how the 4 Staff has incorporated the industry comments into the Rule.
5 But there was a question regarding fitness for 6 duty, which I believe I can give you some factual 7 information on that situation.
8 Fitness for duty, in July 1984, was considered by 9 the Commission, and they went out with a Rule. They voted 10 to issue a Rule on fitness for duty, which dealt with 11- alcohol and drug abuse. In the latter part of that month,
?. 2 July 1984, NUMARC came before the Commission in one of its 13 period 1c meetings that it has with the Commission, with the
(]'] ,
14 proposal that the industry would include the fitness for 15 duty aspects, the Commission would include that as a policy 16 statement and that NUMARC through its organization, its 17 utility organizatio, would adopt that policy statement, and 18 ' through INPO, would have that element inspected on the 19 periodic visits that INPO does. And the NRC, at that time, 20 Inspection Division could oversee what INPO is doing and 21 select a certain percentage to see how the enforcement 22 aspects were going.
23 The Commission, at that time, in '84, agreed to 24 go along with the NUMARC proposal. NUMARC then submitted,
() 25 in December of '84, a proposed draft policy statement, which ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 09 12 108 7- DAVbw 1 Vic Stello and NUMARC apparently had worked out as an k_)3 ,
2 agreed-upon position.
3 The Commssion for one reason or another never did 4 publish the policy statement.
51 In December of Novemeber of this past year, due 1
6l to some other incidents, that George McCorkle talked about, i
7 so problems with drug abuse or sale of drugs at some 8 facility -- I'm not too sure what the problem was -- and 9 lack of enforcement or difficuties with enforcement, the 10 Commission reconsidered how they should face fitness for 11 duty. Then at that meeting, in the meeting within NUMARC, 12 they indicated that they were reconsidering their agreement 13 i to go with a policy statement for two years and thought they
{ '
14 may change and issue a regulation.
15 NUMARC prevailed that they should stick with a 16 two-year trial period, which the Commission ultimately said, 17 l yes, we will do that. But we put in our policy statement, 18 which we will publish very policy, some words that say we 19 would expect the industry to take rigorous enforcements to 20 follow through on its commitments toward fitness for duty.
21 That fitness for duty policy statement has still 22 not been issued, either as a regulation or as a policy 23 statement.
24 DR. MARK: It is, in some respects. It
() 25 parallels.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
4620 09 13 109 1 MR. KNUTH: Basically, we argued at the time it
[V~N DAVbw 2 came out as a proposed rule, but the continued observation 3 aspects of the aspect authorization really had broader 4 aspects and the fitness for duty was a subpart of that.
5 The Commission felt at that time that, due to the 6 history or the incidence that they were experiencing of drug 7 abuse or alcohol abuse, I'm not too sure what they were, at 8 selected utilities around the country, that they wanted to 9 move fairly promptly and have this rule come about prior to 10 going through the access authorization.
-11 As it turned out, it didn't move that promptly.
12
() 13 I 14 I
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
, 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4920 10 01 110
[ 1 DR. MARK: Thank you.
V] DAVbur 2 This marvelous lack of certainty is just where 3 things stand.
4 MR. MC CORKLE: I didn't think it had gone out.
5 MR. WYLIE: While we have the gentleman from KNC 6 here, I understand that KNC recommends that this proposed 7 rule move forward in its present form.
8 Is that correct?
9 MR. KNUTH: As I indicated before, we have not 10 seen the rule as it exists today. We commented on the rule 11 well before NUMARC provided its comments. In fact, at the 12 time we provided our comments we were unaware that NUMARC
{} 13 was going to have any comments on this issue.
14 MR. WYLIEe I am reading from the Enclosure 1(a) 15 in this report, which says:
16 "KNC, representing 23 utilities, 17 specifically recommended that the 18 l rule move forward in its present l
19 form."
20 MR. KNUTH: That was our recommendation when we.
21 filed our comments. We have been involved with this 22 particular issue since it was first issued for rulemaking 23 back in 1977. I participated in the hearings when there was 24 a prooosal to have R and U clearances, which were basically l
() 25 0 clearances. .I have been involved with this issue for nine ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4920 10 02 111
'iDAVbur 1 years.
[G 2 It is our view that this issue be moved to 3 conclusion, that is correct.
4 MR. WYLIE: 'To conclusion.
5 That doesn't say whether it should be a rule or 6 whether it should be an industry self-administered program?
7 MR. KNUTH: I think from the utilities' 8 standpoint , if this would bring this matter to an end and 9 'would end the issue, I don't think I would have any 10 preference.
11 The NUMARC proposal as written is basically the 12 ! same thing as what the rule is, as I understand it. They 13 are very similar. It is just a matter --
])
14 MR. WYLIE: There are some differences.
15 l MR. KNUTH: It is just a matter of who enforces i
16 l it.
17 But the.t was our written comments, and we have 18 not had a meeting or discussed the issue since we filed them 19 maybe a year ago.
20 MR. WYLIE: I also road that the Atomic 21 Industrial Forum appears.to support the rule.
22 MR. KNUTH: I am glad you are not looking at me.
- 23 MR. MC CORKLE
- We didn' t say that exactly.
l 24 MR. WYLIE: That is what I read.
() 25 " Finally, a fourth major group, the l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800 33tWi646
1 4920 10 03 112 DAVbur 1 Atomic Industrial Forum, AIF, appears 2 to support the rule, at least by 3 inference."
4 MR. BIVENS: May I say something? I am Mark 5 Bivens, from the Atomic Industrial Forum, and I have been a 6 secretary to our subcommittee on Security and Safeguard's.
l 7 We have dealt with this issue over the last several years, i 1
8 too.
9 We were one of the people tilat testified on 10 this. Joe Williams, I believe, was our chairman, who l 11 testified at that NRC meeting you were talking about, where 12 the union people were there, and also Saul Burstein.
13 And at the time, and later in our written
)
14 comments, we did not profoundly go against a rule. There 15 were several reasons.
16 If the rule was changed drastically, such as 17 taking out appeal procedures and making such things as the 18 i various psychological assessments not so rigorous and doing 19 some other tnings, but we still believed -- and I think we i 20 thought that the behavior observation for both the rule,and 21 the fitness for duty were one and the same and there wasn't 22 a whole lot of difference, and why duplicate those?
23 We had various comments like that. But 24 subsequent to our filing our comments -- and also a lot of 25 utilities -- NUMARC got into the act, and you made the l (~%
s/
l L
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
4920 10 04 113 DAVbur. 1 comment that you weren' t eilre how many people supported it.
O('
2 Well, when they got into the act and they decided to take 3 this aboard and get an extension of the time, then I think 4 most of the utilities, along with EEI and the rest of us, 5 got on to support NUMARC.
6 And I think when NUMARC says they have got 80 7 percent of the utilities' support on this, they really do, 8 and I wouldn't take it that the old comments apply that 9 strictly after they got together and decided how they wanted 10 to do it. It took them a little bit of time to figure out 11 just how they wanted to approach this.
12 MR. MC CORKLE: I would like to make one
)
k/
m 13 statement in that connection.
14 The comments from all industry groups were dated 15 the same day. They came in on the last day of the public 16 comment period, every one of them. That is EEI, AIF, KNC, 17 ; and NUMARC.
18 DR. MARK: What a coincidence.
19 MR. MC CORKLE: I think I should make that 20 statement.
21 MR. REED: So you are saying they may not be all 22 the comments?
23 MR. MC CORKLE: We got them all the same day.
24 DR. SIESS: That may simply mean it took that
() 25 long to get agreement.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433H646
4920 10.05 114
/
DAVbur 1 MR. MICHELSON: What it said was where they
(-]/
2 finally felt they stood. So there is some inconsistency in 3 the approach. You can't be for both, can you?
4 DR. SIESS: Sure.
5 ?!R. MICHELSON: There's important provisions in 6 one that aren't in the other. AIF just got done saying they 7- must take out the appeal process. The other utility says 8 they will buy the rule as it is and didn't mention the 9 appeals.
10 DR. SIESS: The other one said that they would do 11 1 ' anything to quit.
12 MR. KNUTH: No, we had comments on the appeal
(} 13 process. It was our feeling that the appeal process should
- 14 not be prescriptive, having a statement that due process 15 should be allowed. It was our' feeling that there were many 16 appeal routes available to employees as it exists today.
17 MR. MICHELSON: But you didn't want any new ones i
I 18 prescribed?
19 MR. KNUTH: We did not want the prescriptive 20 ones.
-21 MR. MICHELSON: Is that in your comments?
22 MR. KNUTH: Yes. They should be.
23 MR. MC CORKLE: The comments were all taken into 24 consideration, and I think you have to address the ELD.
25 MR. KNUTH: I don't know what you have before
_ ({ }
4 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
-. , - - , , _.. . . - _ , . . . . ~ . . ~ . . _ . - - . _ - .
_ ~ _ - - - . . - - - . . .,
4920 10 06 115 DAVbur 1 you, but that was our comment. The appeals process should 2 basically be just a statement that there should be an 3 appeals process, a very simple dire et statement. ,
4 DR. CARBON: But you did not oppose having --
5 MR. KNUTH: Having an appeal process? Our 6 feeling was that there already were appeal processes in 7 place, either through the NLRB, through the union contracts,.
8 through whatever. There was no requirement for the NRC to 9 inject itself into this area. That was our feeling.
10 MR. BIVENS: That is the AIF position.
. 11 MR. REED: The~ appeal process worries me a great 12 deal. If the Commission opts for the rule, then the appeal
(} 13 g process is in, and that bothers me a great deal because I ,
14 .think that it could make the utilities again the bag men for 15 lawsuits while they are trying to' do their best job in the 16- interest of security.
17 DR. CARBON: That is if the rule goes forward.
18 j DR. MARK: And contains an unqualified 19 statement.
20 DR. CARBON: As is the proposed rule.
21 DR. MARK: Mandates as it is. I think it is in 22 there.
23 MR. MC CORKLE: It is unfortunate that I couldn' t 24 get our legal staff representative here today -- there was a l
25 conflict -- because he was the gentleman who wrote the f })
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
, - . - - . _ , . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _. - . , _ . - . _ _ . _ - - - _ . _ ~ . ,
4920 10 07 116 DAVbur 1 comments attached there, which actually are responses to 2 Mr. Knuth's statement concerning AIF's -- and so on --
l 3 summary concerning the legal position of the staff on the 4 appeal process and the need for it.
5 That was not written by NMSS. That was legal 6 input.
7 DR. CARBON: Carson, are we going to have 8 discussion Thursday at the full committee?
9 DR. MARK: That is what I wanted to ask right 10 now. I think we have made all the gratuitous remarks that 11 most of us dredged up.
12 There is time on the program -- when is it, John?
()
~
13 Thursday morning at 10:45, we have an hour on the agenda for 14 this.
15 Do we think that we want to take this to the full 16 committee?
17 We almost had a quorum here this afternoon?
18 MR. MICHELSON: Were we asked to by anybody, to 19 , prepare. comments?
20 DR. MARK: I don't think so.
21 MR. WARD: It looks like the staff is presenting 22 the Commission with a proposal and an option versus the 23 NUMARC option and it is for the Commission's Advisory '
24 Committee.
() 25 MR. MICHELSON: But we haven't been asked ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4920 10 08 117
(~
V; DAVbur 1 specifically to advise on this matter. Is that right?
2 DR. MARK: Well, look, the history, I think, is 3 that last March Burnett notified us of the appearance of 4 this proposed rule and wondered if we chose to comment. We 5 answered that we didn't think we would comment on it then.
6 We had commented on something very similar two years before, 7 and we would reserve -- we chose to reserve comments until 8 we would have a chance to look at the public comments that 9 Mike gathered.
10 Now, that came in sight last November; that is, 11 the comments and staff's responses, and we then learned that 12 this whole thing was on its way rather promptly up to the
- (} 13 Commission, and the question was
- did we wish to look at 14 the revised, updated statement?
15 That is what this meeting was in effect to cover, 16 and if possible -- and if it is arranged at the end of the 17 day today, because this is the last meeting before we expect 18 the Commission to sit down with this -- that is where we 19 stand.
20 So do we want a full committee discussion on 21 Thursday or do we not?
22 The Chairman, being here, might have the most 23 weighty opinion on that subject.
24 MR. WYLIE: I would suggest we do.
() 25 MR. REED: I would vote we do, and certainly the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4920.10 09 118
[' DAVbur 1 presentation should be tailored to talk about the 2 differences between what is presently going on and what is I
\
3 our requirement and the changes, the specific, very 4 important changes, because the full committee can gas for 5 h'ours on this one, as we have.
6 DR. SIESS: We could also go another hour on it.
7 MR. WARD: But this group has asked all the 8 questions it needs to, right?
9 MR. REED: Yes.
10 DR. SIESS: Do you believe they won't ask any 11 Thursday morning?
12 MR. WARD: That is what I am trying to ask.
13 DR. SIESS: Do you want to make a sworn
.( }. ,
14 commitment?
15 DR. CARBON: If you do, I would like to urge that 16 this point of the appeals be clearly spelled out in the 17 discussion.
18 MR. MICHELSON: I would like to hear an industry 19 presentation to the full committee on the issue of this 20 question. If they are all together on it, they can 21 certainly pick a spokesman, I would think.
22 DR. SIESS: If they are all together, we can read 23 their letters.
'24 MR. MICHELSON: I would like to hear the final
() 25 word.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
-- . . . _ - - . ,y.,.e., - , , , - , , - ....,e a. , - - - ,,,--
4920 10 10 119 y'~) DAVbur l MR. WYLIE: It might be worthwhile having i'
\/
2 somebody give a synopsis.
[ 3 MR. REED: I think there may be some obsolescence 4 in the letters in spite of the single date because of 180 5 days of massaging.
~
6 DR. MARK: A number of the comments -- one gets 1
7 the feeling in reading Enclosure A(1) here that a large 8 fraction of it is devoted to explaining why we are not 9 paying cny attention to those comments. There are a number 10 of places -- and I think they are rather significant 11 places -- where a comment t.1s been picked up and the wording 12 has been changed,.some in the rule and some in the reg
- 13 g u'ide .
.14 - And I guess the people from CMF and AIF have not 15 seen the format that has developed with all of the 16 comments.
17 I MR. MC CORKLE: I am sorry, I misunderstood one I
t 18 thing. Some of the comments that we received from the 19 public were changed?
20 DR. MARK: lio . They led to changes in the 21 wording of the rule. Some did not. And where somebody 22 complained that something was vague, you.put the words in i 23 the mouth of the Commission, saying the Commission does not 24 agree. I read it, and I thought that the commenter was 25 r ig ht.
t-ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 %.4646
=
-.e. ..
.4920 10 11 120 1 But anyway we do want a discussion. So we will r^') DAVbur v
21 -leave our schedule time for this purpose.
3 Now, we would like Mr. McCorkle to give a very 4 quick summary of what has changed, either from the present 5 situation or from the proposal which the full committee 6 lociod at in May of '83, I believe, and commented on.
7 DR. SIESS: I would think his presentation might 8 include his reasons.
9 DR. MARK: Just that?
4 10 DR. SIESS: No, include that, as well as the a
11 changes.
12 DR. MARK: We want somewhat less than a-()
13 three-hour presentation.
14 DR. SIESS: Yes. But this was 15 minutes, plus 15 two hours and 45 minutes.
16 MR. MICHELSON: I think you have to remind the
, 17 committee, though, of those things that are in the rule yet 18 that weren' t changed in case they have forgotten the rule, 19 since they have all this background material.
20- DR. MARK: Are we interested only in the access 21 authorization?
22 MR. MICHELSON: That is all I am interested in.
23 DR. MARK: How does that sound, Dave?
24 MR. WARD: This means you are probably going to
() 25 want to write a letter.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ , . - . , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _
4920 10 12 121 DAVbur 1 DR. MARK: That was my next question.
2 Max?
3 DR. CARBON: I would like to personally hear from 4
4 -a NUMARC representative, someone NUMARC has said can speak..
5 MR. MICHELSON: 80 percent of the utilities are 6 represented by NUMARC, isn't that right?
7 1U1. WARD: You know, I think that statement about 8 80 percent was that NUMARC said they don't take a position i 9 unless 80 percent support them.
10 MR. MICHELSON: That is right. The views of 80 11 percent are represented. That is an 16portant view.
12 DR. MARK: Mr. Schiffgens has the feeling -- I am 13 not quite sure why -- that it would be very. difficult to get j}
14 a NUMARC representative to come to the meeting.
15 MR. SCHIFFGENS: G$?su the longer notice they 16 have had on other issues.-
-17 DR. CARBON: Maybe they could designate someone, l
18 though. If they say that the KNC gentleman could speak for 4
19 them --
20 DR. MARK: Do you think that is likely?
i 21 MR. KNUTH: Could I speak for NUMARC?
22 MR. WARD: Would you be willing to give a short 23 presentation which would express the consensus industry
., 24 position, I think? Are you in a position to do that?
25
(:)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage J00 336 6646
4620 11 01 122
-1 MR. KNUTH: I could try to. I could certainly
[~'}DAV/bc s-2 talk to the NUMARC people. I heard, and it's all second-3 hand, I heard on this particular issue that the vote, when 4 they had their board meeting in Atlanta, was 51 to 4 to 5 support their comments as submitted.
6 It was overwhelming. I think there were 55 7 utility members and 51 voted to approve it. So it was more 8 than 80 percent. But I really can't speak for them because 9 I don' t really interf ace with them. I don't even know who 10 it is.
11 MR. BIVENS: Bruce Kenyon is the chairman of the 12 NUMARC committee that put this together from Pennsylvania
(} 13 Power and Light. He's a senior vice president. I think 14 he's the appropriate guy.
15 MR. MCCORKLE: Bruce made the presentation down 16 in Atlanta.
17 , DR. CARBON: NUMARC ought to be able to have 18 someone.
19 DR. MARK: John can see what he can do.
20 DR. SIESS: Does it make a difference that these
~
21 people would have not seen the revised?
22 DR. MARK: It would seem to me it would put them 23 at a terrible disadvantage.
24 DR. SIESS: Because they have not seen it.
() 25 DR. MARK: I think that's what we heard.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
4620-11 02 123 1 MR. KNUTH: It does not get released when it goes
}DAV/bc 2 before the Commission until the Commission has its first 3 decisional meeting,-which is not scheduled. So it has not 4 been released at this point in time.
5 DR. SIESS: This is not a closed meeting, it's a 6 subcommittee meeting.
7 MR. WARD: On the other hand, we really have a 8 sense of what the industry people -- NUMARC, KNC and AIF --
9 think about it. I don' t know what more we need, what 10 additional information.
11 MR. MICHELSON: I'd like to hear the arguments on 12 what the problem is with the appeals process. What does 13 industry foresee the problems to be that make them leery
(])
14 about this particular provision. I haven't heard that from 15 the staff. Unless the staff knows. If someone could come 16 and tell me what's really on their minds with the appeals 17 j process. That's most of my particular concern.
18 DR. CARBON: That's my concern, too. That's the 19 main point, I think, between whether this should be a rule 20 or whether it should be a NUMARC.
21 MR. MICHELSON: I haven't heard from either side 22 why we need one and why we don't. The lawyers at the NRC 23 aren' t here to tell us why we need it, and the industry 24 hasn't come in to tell us why they don't want it.
() 25 So I have to say I went to hear something on that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
4620 11 03 124
/'m DAV/bc 1 point, d
2 DR. CARBON: Either that or postpone it.
3 MR. WARD: You can do that.
4 DR. MARK: They are hoping that the Commission is 5 going to take it up within about 10-15 days.
6 MR. WYLIE: I beliove they're scheduled to this 7 month.
8 MR. MCCORKLE: I don' t believe it's on schedule 9 for this month, unless something was snuck in that I haven't 10 seen. That was our target date for January, but I said 11 " hopefully".
12 MR. WYLIE: I anticipate it was January 1986.
() 13 l DR. SIESS: If the issue on the appeal process is 14 simply prescriptive, I don' t think I need to hear why. I 15 know the industry doesn't like prescriptive and that NRC 16 does. I've heard it enough times.
17 If that's the issue, I don't know what there is 18 to hear.
l 19 MR. MICHELSON: If that's all the issue is.
I 20 MR. WYLIE: Then that's all he can say, but I'd i
21 like to hear him say it.
, 22 MR. MICHELSON: I'd like to know that's the case.
(
23 DR. MARK: Do either of you gentlemen have any 24 words that could be helpful on this point?
() 25 MR. KNUTH: We have a counsel that has worked in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l- Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646 202-347-3700
4620 11 04 125 1 developing our comments on the appeals issue. He's a
{}DAV/bc 2 counsel to our group. As I say, I don' t know. I know what 3 was in the original filing a year ago. I know what we 4 commented on and what the objection of the utility group was 5 a year ago when we filed our comments last January, or 6 whenever it was.
7 As I say, I don' t know what's in there today.
8 DR. MARK: That part of it has not been changed, 9 has it?
. 10 MR. MCCORKLE: .The appeals procedure? No.
11 MR. KNUTH: It was a very prescriptive, a certain 12 . number of days and all that.
(). 13 DR. MARK: I didn't think there was a change on 14 that point.
15 MR. MCCORKLE: The only thing that the present 16 . package has is an analysis conducted by our legal staff
. 17 l concerning the comments received on the appeal process, with 18 all the legal so-and-so versus so-and-so, and coming up with 19 a conclusion that the appeals process would be a 20 requirement.
21 Now, again, I say if this is an NRC program where 3
22 it's cranked into the plan, and we have to have oversight 23 from Inspection and Enforcement.
24 Secondly, if it was only a policy statement that
()~ 25 blessed the guidelines and they were not part of the plan, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
4620 11 05 126
/N DAV/bc 1 then I don't see that an appeals process would be required
- Q 2 by the agency. They make the distinction that if it come.=
3 into an NRC oversight enforcement and inspection type of 4- thing, that then due process has to be considered and an 5 appeals process would be required.
6 MR. MICHELSON: It sounds like as if we have no 7 choice in the matter, but I'd like to hear the legal people 8 say that.
9 MR. MCCORKLE: I would prefer that they were 10 saying that myself, believe me.
11 { MR. MICHELSON: Because they'll give you all the 12 extra words.
i 13 < MR. MCCORKLE: They might not say it the way I
[ }-
14 said it.
l 15 DR. MARK: You had a remark?
16 MR. BIVENS: Our position with AIF is that there 17 are suf ficient grievance procedures in place now through the 18 Department of Labor and union agreements, et cetera, et 4
19 cetera. And one more appeals process run by the NRC, I 20 think much of the industry felt this is really not NRC's
. 21 business.
~
22 MR. MCCORKLE: I don't think it was ever intended 23 that the NRC would run the appeal process. It was assurance 24 that an appeals process existed to assure due process. I
() 25 think that was the requirement.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
, . _ . ~ . - . . . _ - _ .---_ . _ - _ . _ . . _ . -__ _ - ._, - . -
1 4620 11 06 127 DAV/bc. 1 MR. BIVENS: But we weren't against, you know,
{
2 normal grievances.
3 MR. MCCORKLE: As a matter of fact, if I recall 4 correctly, the . initial package that went out accepted 5 appeals as part and parcel of a collective bargaining .
6 agreement. In those instances where there was a nonunion 7 ' shop, they requested that a description of the method that 8 'would be utilized be sent in, and that was to be reviewed by 9 the NRC staff for adequacy against due process 10 considerations and would not be administered, carried out by 11 the NRC.
12 I hope there is no confusion. We don't want to
'( ) 13 start getting into the appeals process, believe me.
14 MR. MICHELSON: That provision as reworded 15 apparently gave the industry troubles.
16 MR. KNUTH: I can talk to our counsel in the i
17 morning and have him talk to your staff tomorrow. I'll find 18 out his availability and call your staff tomorrow as to i 19 whether or not he can be here.
'20 DR. MARK: What's your pleasure? Do we want to 21 proceed with Thursday, providing we can get some specific 22 comment on the-different requirements with respect to s
23 .appe al? . You just asked that they provide for one and have 24 an impartial person available who can hear the aggrieved
() 25 person, which I don't suppose even most utilities are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 1
4620 11'07 128
~i DAV/bc 1 objecting to. What they object to is the NRC saying how you (G
2 must do it.
3 MR. KNUTH: That was our objection as we saw the 4 original rule was a certain number of days that you had to 5 set up a certain board. You had to have a reaction in a 6 certain period of time, and so forth.
7 DR. MARK: There isn't much of that in there now.
8 MS. DWYER: That's not in the rule. Are you 9 talking about the proposed reg guides?
10 DR. MARK: They haven't seen them.
11 MR. KNUTH: We saw the original reg guide and our 12 comments as to how it was to be run.
(} 13 MR. MICHELSON: It's not in ,the rulemaking 14 package.
15 MS. JAMGOCHIAN: It's detailed more in the 16 regulatory guide.
17 l DR. MARK: Look, if we can get this on Thursday, l
18 ' we want it to be about 20 minutes for Mr. McCorkle, or a 19 reasonable facsimile. And I guess there's a strong feeling 20 we want something from outside.
l
- . 21 DR. CARBON
- From NUMARC, as far as that goes.
22 DR. MARK: From NUMARC or able to describe 23 NUMARC's position.
24 DR. CARBON: If they can speak for NUMARC. But a l
() 25 big question in my mind is whether this ought to be a rule l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
-4620 11 08 129 f
1 -or whether it ought to follow the NUMARC approach. And the
)DAv/bc.
2 answer to that question I'd like to hear directly from 3 NUMARC.
4 MR. WYLIE: I agree. Let me just make an attempt 5 to get whatever the chairman's name was from Pennsylvania 6 Power and Light, or somebody he designat6s.
7 DR. MARK: Supposing he cannot make it this week?
8 MR. WYLIE: Designate somebody else.
9 DR. MARK: Do we leave it for February?
10 DR. SIESS: I think, for coming into the full 11 committee cold with some of these other views is really not 12 the best way to do it. We've only got an hour. I think we
.() would have trouble covering in an hour. We have sat here 13 14 for two or three hours listening to the industry views and 15 the staff, and so forth, and have been able to sort out just 16 what this has said. But, here, we've spent three hours 17 [ roughly talking.to the staff.
18 To ask the industry to come in and share an hour 19 with the staff and the ACRS, what I'm saying is I think we 20 should have had a longer subcommittee meeting, and maybe 21 have another one.
22 I know we're not supposed to have a lot of 23 -subcommittee meetings, but the chairman isn't here. So we
- 24 have time for the full committee meeting.
() 25 I'd say we should save some subcommittee 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- a. .
4620 11 09 130 1 meetings by doing this thing before the full committee. But
(']DAV/bc U.
2 I don't think we can squeeze it to an hour when we've got 3 presentations from one or two groups that we haven't even 4 heard from at all.
5 And even the nine or eight, or however many are 6 left here, are going to have questions because they couldn't 7 get them asked. It's really a question of time.
8 DR. MARK: So your suggestion would be that we 9 schedule more time, which we probably can't do this week.
10 DR. SIESS: Schedule more time for the full 11 committee, or try to have another submittee meeting at which 12 we could narrow the issues down. Some of them might go away 13 at a subcommittee meeting and then we'd really save the full l{}
14 . committee time. Whether the objective is to save the full 15 committee time or to save the subcommittee traveling time --
16 MR. MICHELSON: Do it just before the February 17 ; meeting. It may mean an extra day of the person's time.
18 DR. MARK: But you would include the idea of, if 19 necessary, deferring from this week to next month?
20 DR. SIESS: Yes.
21 MR. WYLIE: By then, won' t it be too late?
22 MR. SCHIFFGENS: What we could do is we could ask 23 the Commission to wait.
24 MR. MICHELSON: At least tell them what our plans l
() 25 are.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ -
~ '~'~' ~
4620 11 10 131
(~} DAV/bc 1 MR. SCHIFFGENS: We could write a letter and ask V
2 them to wait, to consider delaying their decision. I've 3 been told by the Commission staff that they anticipated 4 voting on the issue before our February meeting, which was 5 why we tried to squeeze this meeting in. Now, that may have 6 changed.
7 DR. MARK: Mr. McCorkle has the unhappy feeling 8 that the Commission is going to take one look at this and 9 then start to talk and have all kinds of questions and 10 I suggestions. They'll have to do that next month.
I 11 MR. MCCORKLE: I'd be amazed if the're weren't a 12 lot of questions. I really don't think that it will occur
/~S 13 ! this month.
V 14 DR. MARK: Why can't you find out if that's so?
15 In which case, we'll see what we can do about it.
16 DR. SIESS: I think it's a question of whether 17 the Commission wants our advice or not. And I don't think l
18 they're going to get very good advice from an hour spent on 19 it tomorrow. And they may not get very good advice with 20 four hours spent on it next month. But that I'd rather be 21 -sure of.
22 DR. MARK: Well, I guess we'll leave it up to 23 John to see what can be forthcoming. If the Commission is 24 going to run immediately ahead with this, perhaps we'll keep
() 25 our hour on Thursday. If February would seem like a good ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4620 11 11 132 1 time to have comments considered, I guess we do wish to have
[]DAV/bc v
2 the option to have some comments. But we'll aim at February 3 with a wider window and try to fill in with comments from 4 the outside.
5 MR. MCCORKLE: Depending on your final decision 6 centering on the appeal process, I have no objection, of 7 course, to making some comments. Maybe you would want to 8 have Mr. Finer from our legal staff.
9 DR. MARK: Yes.
10 MR. MCCORKLE: IIe can best characterize the legal 11 issues, but I'm sorry he couldn't make it today. There was 12 a conflict.
13 DR. MARK: I guess that's all we can do. I'll
~ (] ,
14 leave it up to John to see what he can do and he'll let us 15 know tomorrow.
16 (Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the meeting was 17 , adjourned.)
18 l l
19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 3)2 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER .% ;
\m ,/
This 'is 'to certify that the attached ' proceedings before
- the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: .
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.
(j) f DATE: TUESDAY,' JANUARY 7, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
. Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) s
/
__ _ n &_ ,r -
(TYPED)
DAVID L. HOFFMAN Oificial Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation, W
1 v r. - . .- ,em- , , r, , - - - -
MeBuGMN N'N4O6p@ .
e e
THE XRC 1
INSIDER SAFEGUARDS
.I 1
I i .
! RULES i
i -
'I
- O O 9
INSIDER SAFEGUARDS RULES o COMPRISED Of:
Access Authorization Progra m -
Sea rc h Req uirem ents Miscellaneous Amendments o PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE INCREASED ASSURANCE AGAINST INSIDER THREAT AT POWER R EACTO RS.
D e
9 ,
I SIMRCH REQUIREMENTS o 100% EQUIPME:HT SEARCH OF ALL INDIVIDUALS o PAT- DOWN S E,tRC H FOR CAUSE OR FAILED EQUIPMENT o PRESENT REOL.XREMENT
- SITE EMPLO'1EES, 100% EQUIPMENT SEARCH, 5% RANDOM PAT-DOWN
- VISITORS, 1 00% EQUIPMENT SEARCH, 100% PAT- DDWN O O 9
5 MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS o AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND SAFEGUARDS MEASURES DU RING EMERGENCIES o P ROTECTION OF SPECIFIED PHYSICAL SECU RITY EQUIPMENT o KEY AND LOCK CONTROLS o VITAL AREA ACCESS CO NTROLS
_g e O'
COMPONENTS OF ACCESS AUTIIORIZATION PROGRAM o BACKGROUND INVESTIC;ATION o PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT o BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION 9 0 9
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS SCOPE -
O True ide n tity O Ernployrnent History ( five yea rs past)
O Ed uca tiona l History (five years past)
O Credit History (five ye a rs past)
O Crirninal Convictions (five yea rs past)
O Personal Reference Checks O Milita ry Service Histo ry CRITERIA O Sa bota g e O Falsified Application O Illness Affecting Judg rnent O Habitual Crirninal Tendencies O User of Controlled Substance ,
O User of Alcohol to Excess e G G
m m +.mW e + = 9 e we- as w me e.ei, -w
.a w
4
. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT i .
1
! O Writte n 3 e rso n a li :y l es :s i
i O Clinical I.nte rview , i f Needed i
a 1
d I
i I
i -
i f
e G G~
- eP BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION 1
o SUPERV!SiORY TRAINING o SUPERVISiORS DETECT CHANGES o ACCESS PROGRAM DIRECTOR DECIDES o EMPLOYEE AWARENESS PROVISIONS e G G
/
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS o LICENSEE 5 WRITTEN ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PLAN o ACCESS PROGRAM DIRECTO R o TEMPORARY WORKERS RECIPROCITY COLD SHUTDOW'N o GRANDFATHERING o APPEAL PROCEDURES o PROTECTION OF PRIVACY 9
e G #
PUBLIC COMMENT o 180 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, 143 COMMENTERS o MAJORITY OF REVISIONS CLARIFYING, NOT SIGNIFICANT o ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
- 3 COMPONENT PROGRAM CU R RENTLY USED TO VARYING DEGREE BY INDUSTRY NUMARC PROPOSAL INCLUDED AS OPTION .
- OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT UNRESOLVED ISSUE o SEARCH REQUIREMENTS - NO CHANGE o MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS - VITAL ISLAND CONCEPT '
e 9
e9 ACCESS AUTHORIZATION RULE - COMMENT ISSUES O Photo Identification for Authorization Transfer O Appeal Proc edu res O Background investigations
- Ed uca tiona l/Ernplayrnent Data -- I n terview vs.
Correspondence
- Assu ra nce vs. Objective O Gra ndf a thering - Screening under an Industry Standard O Non-licensee Ernployee s: Contractor Programs and Audits O Behavioral Observation and Psychological Assessment
- Industry Standard
- One vs Two Tests -- Clinical interview O Temporary Worker Access During Cold Sh utdown O Interim Clearance Pending Cornpletion of Full Screening
- Six Months, Crirninal/ Military History O Industry Self Regulation - the NUMARC Initiative a 9 #
MAJOR DIFFERENCES; GUIDELINES VS. RULE ISSUES GUIDELINES RULE APPEAL PROCEDURES NO YES TEMPORARY / INTERIM PSYCH. ASSESS. + FULL SCREENING PEND-CL ARANCES FOR CREDIT CHECK + 1 ING RECEIPT OF CRIMI-PA VA ACCESS ENCE M RY HISTORY "GRANDFATHERING" INDIVIDUALS GRANTED INDIVIDUALbWHOHAVE UNESCORTED ACCESS BEEN SCREENED UNDER AUTHORIZATION ON OR A PUBLISHED INDUSTRY BEFORE EFFECTIVE STANDARD COMMITTED DATE OF GUIDELINES TO IN AN NRC-LICENSED SECURITY PLAN INSPECTION / ENFORCE- *
? NRC 8EGIONAL INSPEC-MENT TION / ENFORCEMENT RECIPROCITY APPLIES TO ALL APPLIES TO ALL INDI-GRANDFATHERED OR VIDUALS GRANDFATHERED QCREENED INDIVIDUALS OR SCREENED UNDER
':tp/ UOES NOT APPLY TO TEMPORARY __
RULE INDIVIDUALS .. -
4 e G G
o WHY A RULE 7 O Assures Protection of Privacy Rights O Assu res Standardized Pro g ra m, Consistent Application, Appropriate Oversight O Assu res Consideration of Union Views (12/1/83 Comrnission Meeting)
O Reg ulatory Requirernent is Consistent With NRC Security Progra ms O Mecha nisrn to Assure Prompt Effective, Rernedial Action on Deficiencies O Assures on Appeal Procedure for "Due Process" O Consistent with Comrnission Response to Congressional Inquiries O
h M
STATUS O Office Concurrences in August, 1985 O Package to Comrnission November 27, 1985 O Commission Paper Recommends Final Rule Approval for Each Rule O Publish Final Rule Anticipated J a n ua ry, 1986 2
< > e O
UNION VIEWS o 12/1/83 COMMISSION BRIEFING Internationai Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Understand ne'ed for requirement Would rather 'see NRC responsible for program with unifom policy
- Endorses reciprocity concept ,
United Plant Guard Workers of America
- Does not believe components of program will be unifomly applied by individual utilities o INSIDER RULES PUBLIC COMMENTS (8/84- 3/85)
Associated Maintenance Contractors Strongly supports appeal procedures and protection of individuals' rights International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
- Concerned with possible program abuses. Procedures in R.G. provide adequate niechanism for appeal / review United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
- Strong need for adequate means of redress Sheet Metal Workers International Association
- Oppose psychological assessment and behavioral observation
/
s 9 9 vptop vfGWi i