ML22252A174
| ML22252A174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/2022 |
| From: | NRC/NSIR/DPCP/RSB |
| To: | |
| Zaleski B | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML22252A169 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2062 | |
| Download: ML22252A174 (51) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting on the NRC's Draft Regulatory IssueSummary(RIS)ClarificationofPers onnel Access Authorization Requirements for Non-Immigrant Foreign Nationals Working at Nuclear Power Plants
Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Work Order No.: NRC-2062 Pages 1-50
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING ON THE NRC'S DRAFT
REGULATORY ISSUE
SUMMARY
(RIS)
CLARIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACCESS AUTHORIZATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-IMMIGRANT FOREIGN NATIONALS
WORKING AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
+ + + + +
TUESDAY
AUGUST 9, 2022
+ + + + +
The Public Meeting was convened via
Microsoft Teams at 10:00 a.m. EDT, Brad Baxter,
Facilitator, presiding.
PRESENT:
BRAD BAXTER, Facilitator
MICHELE SAMPSON, Division of Physical and
Cybersecurity Policy
MARK RESNER, Office of Nuclear Security and
Incident Response
TRACY HIGGS, Office of Investigations
NORM ST. AMOUR, Office of the General Counsel
HOWARD BENOWITZ, Office of the General Counsel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 2
P R O C E E D I N G S
(10:00 a.m.)
MR. BAXTER: Good morning, everyone, and
welcome. My name is Brad Baxter, and I'm a security
specialist in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Security
and Incident Response. I'm one of the Access
Authorization Program managers here within NSIR, and
today I'll be serving as the meeting facilitator. My
role is to ensure that today's meeting is informative
and productive.
I want to welcome everyone and thank you
for participating in today's public meeting to
discuss the NRC's draft RIS on Personnel Access
Authorization Requirements for Non-Immigrant Foreign
Nationals Working at Nuclear Power Plants.
I'd like to note this is an informational
meeting with a question and answer session. The
purpose of this meeting is for NRC staff to meet
directly with individuals to discuss regulatory and
technical issues. Attendees will have an opportunity
to ask questions of the staff or make comments about
the issues discussed throughout the meeting, however,
the NRC is not actively soliciting comments toward
regulatory decisions at this meeting.
Any feedback provided today by meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 3
attendees to the staff is not considered a formal
comment, therefore, no formal response will be
provided regarding any of today's discussion. Please
submit any comments on the draft RIS by August 12,
2022, and we'll explain that in greater detail on
slide 14 in our presentation.
Please note this meeting is being
transcribed. For today's meeting we're also using
the Microsoft Teams format. Should we have any
communication issues with Teams during the
presentation, we may need to turn off the video
presentation of the slides.
This helps minimize any internet
bandwidth issues. In addition, we ask that you
please turn off your camera when you're not speaking
to the staff. Next slide, please.
The agenda. Here industry
representatives and stakeholders can ask questions of
the staff or meeting participants at the designated
open discussion time frame, and on the meeting agenda
we have about an hour time slot set aside around
eleven o'clock. The meeting is scheduled from 10:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
I'd like to note the draft RIS reminds
licensees of requirements under 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3),
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 4
Verification of True Identity, that prior to granting
or reinstating unescorted access or certifying
unescorted access authorization to non-immigrant
foreign nationals for the purpose of performing work,
licensees shall validate that the foreign national's
claimed non-immigration status is correct, and that
verifying employment eligibility is an important
component of required validation.
Next slide. Now at this time I'd like
to introduce Michele Sampson, Director of the
Division of Physical and Cybersecurity Policy, who
will give the opening remarks for today's meeting.
Michele.
MS. SAMPSON: Thanks so much, Brad.
Good morning. We're here today to share
information on the background and purpose for NRC's
draft Regulatory Information Summary titled
Clarification of Personnel Access Authorization
Requirements for Non-Immigrant Foreign Nationals
Working at Nuclear Power Plants, which was published
in the Federal Register for public comment on
June 13.
The staff presentation will describe the
regulatory history and recent information that led us
to develop the draft Regulatory Information Summary.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 5
We appreciate the wide industry interest in this
topic and the commitment by staff and industry alike
to ensuring the safe and secure operations of the
nation's nuclear power plant fleet.
A robust multi-faceted security
framework, including access authorization, fitness
for duty, and insider mitigation programs will
minimize the likelihood of a licensee allowing the
wrong person to gain access and enable licensees to
have a trustworthy and reliable workforce. This RIS
provides a reminder of those necessary steps to
validate the true identity of a foreign national
seeking unescorted access to a nuclear power plant.
The RIS is intended to clarify the
existing regulatory requirements. The RIS does not
introduce any new requirements for the access
authorization program. Licensees have the ultimate
responsibility for granting unescorted access to
their facilities, not contractors or contractor
employers.
The draft RIS describes one means that a
licensee may use to validate the claimed
non-immigration status of foreign nationals.
Licensees are free to use other means that will
effectively validate the status of these personnel.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 6
The purpose of the RIS is not to enforce
immigration law. The steps in the RIS describe how
a licensee can independently validate information
provided by foreign nationals seeking unescorted
access to a U.S. nuclear power plant, rather than
taking a piece of paper and an individual's word for
it that they are who they say they are.
I look forward to a very productive
meeting today, and now I'll turn it back over to Brad.
MR. BAXTER: Yes. Thank you, Michele.
Now I'd like to introduce the NRC staff
who will be leading the discussion for today's
meeting. Mark Resner, Senior Security Specialist in
the Reactor Security Branch of NSIR, will be leading
the technical presentation. Today we also have Tracy
Higgs, Director of the Office of Investigations, and
senior attorneys from the Office of the General
Counsel, Norm St. Amour and Howard Benowitz. Each
may provide general remarks throughout the
presentation.
For those individuals who may have dialed
in using the telephone bridge line and are not using
Microsoft Teams to attend this meeting, you can
obtain an electronic copy of today's presentation by
going to the NRC website, select the August 9 meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 7
on the calendar that appears under public meetings.
The slide presentation is also available in the NRC
ADAMS document database by searching for the
accession number ML22217A114.
To help facilitate the discussion, we
request that you use the raised hand feature in Teams
so we can identify who would like to speak. When
called upon, please state your first and last name
and affiliation since the meeting is being
transcribed.
At the appropriate time, staff will then
call on individuals to ask questions. The raised
hand button, which is shaped like a small hand, is
along the top row in the Teams display area. To
minimize interruptions, staff will call on
participants who have used the raised hand feature to
identify they have a question.
Additionally, if you joined the meeting using
the Microsoft Teams bridge line and would like to ask
a question or provide a comment, you need to press *6
to unmute your phone. The staff will pause at the
end of each topic to ensure all participants have the
opportunity to ask questions before the next topic.
After your comment has been discussed, your phone
will be muted again. If you want to ask an additional NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 8
question, you have to press *6 to unmute your phone
again.
And with that, I'd like to turn the
meeting over to my counterpart and good friend, Mark
Resner, to start the discussion of the draft RIS.
Mark.
MR. RESNER: Well, thank you, Brad, and
good morning, everybody.
Two messages: this Regulatory Issue
Summary, this RIS, reminds licensees that verifying
employment eligibility is an important component of
the requirement to validate that a foreign national's
claimed non-immigration status is correct.
Licensees are required to take steps to access
information, in addition to that provided by the
individual, from other reliable sources to validate
the information is authentic. Visual inspection of
documents alone does not meet the intent of the
requirement of 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3) to validate a
foreign national's claimed non-immigration status is
correct.
Next slide, Brian.
As Brad mentioned in the beginning of the
meeting, the actual regulation, 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3):
"Licensees, applicants, and contractors or vendors NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 9
shall verify the true identity of an individual who
is applying for unescorted access or unescorted
access authorization in order to ensure that the
applicant is the person that he or she has claimed to
be. At a minimum, licensees, applicants, and
contractors or vendors shall validate that the social
security number that the individual has provided is
his or hers, and, in the case of foreign nationals,
validate the claimed non-immigration status that the
individual has provided is correct. In addition,
licensees and applicants shall also determine whether
the results of the fingerprinting required under
10 CFR 73.57 confirm the individual's claimed
identity, if such results are available."
Again, just to reiterate what is meant by
validate. A foreign national's immigration status
determines what they are allowed to do in the United
States. For example, a B-2 tourist visa allows a
person to visit, not to do work.
An H-2A farm labor visa allows you to do
agricultural work. Other types of visas allow
foreign nationals to do other kinds of work.
Importantly, validating that the claimed non-
immigration status is correct involves determining
that they are eligible for the kind of work they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10
seeking or applying for.
Next slide, Brian.
The initial draft, as you can see, was
issued on March 31, 2020, and that was followed with
a public meeting which had an open comment period for
the public until June 15 of 2020. The staff received
15 comments from 14 people through Regulations.gov.
Comments were provided by industry stakeholders,
private citizens, and from the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
To summarize the general theme of the
comments, the comments asserted that the verification
of employment eligibility for contractor employees to
work in the U.S. is the responsibility of the
contractor employers and not a requirement for
licensee access authorization staff under 10 CFR
73.56(d)(3), True Identity. Therefore, NRC was re-
interpreting the regulation, constituting a backfit.
All stakeholder comments were considered
in a comment resolution matrix that can be found in
NRC ADAMS under ML22147A097.
Based on the information obtained as part
of the staff's retrospective review, which included
engagement with industry stakeholders, staff learned
that some licensees use only a visual verification of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 11
documents provided by the foreign national to
validate the foreign national's claimed non-
immigration status.
As discussed more fully in the revised
draft RIS, simple visual verification of documents is
not sufficient to accurately verify a foreign
national's eligibility to work in the United States.
Visual verification of documents provided by the
foreign national is necessary, but without consulting
other sources or reliable information, it is not in
itself sufficient to meet the regulatory requirement
at 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3), and it's not consistent with
the Commission's intent for the validation process.
In addressing the issue, four options
were considered for addressing a licensee's practice
of only conducting a visual verification of documents
to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3).
These options included, number one, issuing a RIS
that clarifies that accurately and reliably verifying
a foreign national's employment eligibility is an
important component in validating a foreign
national's claimed non-immigration status. Number
two, seeking Commission approval of a traditional
rulemaking to make verifying employment eligibility
explicit in 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3).
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 12
The third option considered was
developing a notice of interpretation, that is an
interpretive rule, that would require the use of a
Federal database to verify a foreign national's
employment eligibility. And the fourth option
considered was developing a notice of interpretation
allowing a licensee's visual verification of the
documentation provided by a foreign national to
validate the foreign national's claimed non-
immigration status.
Overall, balancing the time and resources
needed to implement options two and three against the
benefit of clarifying the requirements through
rulemaking, the staff is not pursuing these two
options. With respect to the fourth option, a visual
verification of documents provided by a foreign
national would not enable the licensee to verify
employment eligibility. Relying solely on a visual
verification does not meet the regulatory requirement
in 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3) and would weaken the safety and
security provided by the requirement to validate the
foreign national's claimed non-immigration status as
part of establishing the foreign national's true
identity.
Therefore, the staff pursued option one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 13
and published a RIS in the Federal Register for public
comment, and you can see that was published June 13
of 2022. The comment period -- as Michele mentioned
earlier, the comment period closes August 12 of 2022,
and we welcome your comments.
Next slide, please, Brian.
In 2002, the NRC recognized the need to
improve controls for screening individuals for access
to nuclear power plants when it discovered that a
foreign national was granted unescorted access to a
site based on fraudulent documents. The case
demonstrated the vulnerability that exists when
visual examination of documents alone is used to
authorize access.
Following discussions between the NRC and
the Immigration and Naturalization Service at that
time on August 27, 2002, the NRC issued RIS 2002-13,
the title of which was "Confirmation of Employment
Eligibility". It's a non-public document; it is in
ADAMS at ML021720225. That document has been
provided to NEI.
The NRC determined that as a result of
the lapse in security, and given the existing threat
environment, it was crucial that licensees exercise
greater diligence in implementing the access NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 14
authorization program. The RIS made clear that
confirming employment eligibility was an important
element of a background investigation undertaken to
verify an applicant's true identity.
Now, post-9/11 and the attacks on New
York in September 2001, the Commission determined
that the current threat environment would require
additional enhancement in the area of access
authorization. One of the security measures involved
the validation of true identity. So on December 17,
2002, the Commission approved Order EA-02-261 that
imposed access authorization enhancements, which
included employment verification. And on January 7,
2003, the Commission issued interim compensatory
measures and implementing guidance.
Specifically Section B.1.3.c of the order
stated: Licensees should confirm eligibility for
employment through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service and thereby verify and ensure to the extent
possible, the accuracy of a social security number or
alien registration number. Additionally, licensees
should confirm the eligibility for employment through
a federally acceptable database, thereby verifying
and ensuring, to the extent possible, the accuracy of
the alien registration number. Now this particular NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 15
attachment to the order, B.1.3.c, later became also
a supplement to the industry guidance of NEI 03-01.
Next slide, please, Brian.
The enhancements of true identity
expanded upon the original 1991 access authorization
rule for verification of identity. Specifically, it
expanded upon the current rule that required entities
who are subject to these requirements, at a minimum,
to validate the social security number, or in the
case of foreign nationals, the alien registration
number, that the individual has provided to the
licensee, applicant, contractor or vendor is
authentic.
NRC revised its regulations for access
authorization in March of 2009 to incorporate lessons
learned during the implementation and application of
the original rule published in the Federal Register
on April 25, 1991, and to incorporate the enhanced
requirements that were provided in the interim
compensatory measures following the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
The requirements in 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3)
were promulgated on March 27, 2009. NRC Order
EA-02-261 was still in effect at this time and
included the requirement to confirm a foreign NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 16
national's employment eligibility.
On November 28, the Commission rescinded
the Order EA-02-261 because of the requirements for
access authorization in the order to include
employment eligibility had been incorporated into the
regulatory requirements codified in the 2009 Power
Reactor Security rulemaking. The rescission letter
stated that all of the requirements in the Order EA-
02-261, including the requirement to verify
employment eligibility, were incorporated into the
NRC's 2009 Power Reactor Security rulemaking.
An early discussion in the NRC's security
regulations of a licensee's responsibility to
validate that a foreign national's claimed non-
immigration status is correct is found in 10 CFR
73.56(d)(3). Accordingly, consistent with the Order
EA-02-261 requirements incorporated into NRC's
security regulations, the process of validating a
foreign national's non-immigration status is correct
includes verifying the foreign national's eligibility
for employment.
To recap. The issuance of the 2002 RIS,
the 2003 Order EA-02-261, and the November 2011
rescission letter, the 2009 Power Reactor Security
Requirements Rule, and subsequent endorsement of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 17
industry guidance to licensees on acceptable methods
of implementing those requirements demonstrates the
NRC's consistent position that verifying employment
eligibility is an important component of validating
a foreign national's claimed non-immigration status
and thereby verifying the foreign national's true
identity. The draft RIS does not articulate a new
or different staff position, and therefore does not
constitute a backfit under NRC's requirements in 10
CFR 50.109.
Next slide, please, Brian.
In the statement of considerations to the
2006 Power Reactor Security Requirements Proposed
Rule, the Commission made clear what it meant by the
term "validation". In the Commission's words,
validation would require the licensees to access
information other than that provided by the
individual to ensure that the information provided is
authentic. The Commission further stated that
validation could be accomplished by a variety of
means, including accessing information from databases
maintained by the Federal Government.
It is clear from this discussion that
rather than just relying on information presented by
an applicant for unescorted access or unescorted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 18
access authorization, the Commission expects
licensees to take steps to obtain additional
information to independently authenticate a foreign
national's claimed non-immigration status is correct.
To revisit the Commission's intent, the
requirements in 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3) obligate licensees
to verify the true identity of individuals applying
for unescorted access or unescorted access
authorization. As part of this obligation, licensees
must validate that the Social Security number
provided by an individual is in fact his or her Social
Security number. The term "validate" is not defined
in the regulations, however, the Commission addressed
its understanding of this term in the Power Reactor
Security Requirements Proposed Rule issued for public
comment on October 26 of 2006.
In discussing the proposed 10 CFR
73.56(d)(3), the Commission stated, "The term
"validation" would be used to indicate that the
licensees, applicants and contractors or vendors
would be required to take steps to access
information, in addition to that provided by the
individual, from other reliable sources to ensure
that the personal identifying information the
individual has provided to the licensee is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 19
authentic."
Next slide, please, Brian.
Again, the Commission's expectation
about the significance of the validation. The visual
inspection of documents provided by a foreign
national alone does not meet the intent of the
requirement of 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3), because visual
inspection alone may not detect fraudulent documents.
The use of a Federal database, such as a U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, i.e. the USCIS,
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or
the SAVE, commonly called the SAVE, or E-Verify,
together with a visual inspection of a passport and
visa meets the intent of the true identity
requirement to validate the authenticity of the
information provided by an individual.
Importantly, to facilitate licensees'
verification of a foreign national's employment
eligibility, on September 26, 2007, the NRC entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services to allow NRC
licensees to use the agency's Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system
electronic database. The use of the SAVE database
is one acceptable means of verifying a foreign NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 20
national's employment eligibility as part of
validating the foreign national's true identity.
The draft RIS does not mandate that
licensees use the SAVE system database to verify a
foreign national's employment eligibility. As noted
in the draft RIS, the SAVE program is simply one
method that licensees may use to confirm a foreign
national's eligibility to work in the United States.
Licensees may use other independent and
reliable sources of information that will allow them
to verify a foreign national's employment
eligibility. Consequently, the RIS does not
establish a new requirement, and therefore, no
rulemaking is required.
A visual verification of documents
provided by a foreign national would not enable the
licensee to verify employment eligibility. Relying
solely on a visual verification, again, of such
documents does not meet the regulatory requirement in
10 CFR 73.56(d)(3). It would weaken the safety and
security provided by the requirement to validate the
foreign national's claimed non-immigration status is
part of establishing a foreign national's true
identity.
Next slide, please, Brian. I think back NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 21
up one, next.
Since the codification of the
requirements there have been three incidences
identified in the 2017-2018 time frame, but no other
adverse trends or inspection violations were noted.
In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security Homeland
Security Investigations collaborated with the NRC's
Office of Investigations to look at these three
instances and they did not determine there was a
security significance in those instances. And based
on those three incidences, an enforcement guidance
memorandum was put in place which expires in June of
2023.
Back up to slide 10, please.
I'd just like to comment on the use of
the SAVE system in general. From January 1, 2013,
to May 25 of 2018, we did a five-year retrospective
look at the individuals who were granted unescorted
access. And of a total population of 764,354 total
population granted during that period, only 7,944 of
those, or approximately 1.04 percent, were foreign
nationals.
And additionally on the use of the SAVE
system, based on the billings to the NRC from the
USCIS, the average cost to do a check for a foreign NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 22
national's employment eligibility using the SAVE
system is approximately $25 per month, and at a
maximum per search of $1. And that would be 50 cents
for the initial, and if there's an additional search
required, additional verification, it would be
another 50 cents, totaling one $1.
From the inception of the SAVE program,
NRC has funded the use of the SAVE system. And to
get access to the SAVE system, licensees must enter
into an MOU with the NRC and we'll then set up an
account for the particular licensee, a secure
web-based account that can easily be accessed using
the internet with a computer connected to the
internet. In looking at this in detail,
approximately 60 percent of the licensees for the
nuclear plants have had access to the SAVE system.
Under normal circumstances, once the
information from a non-immigrant foreign national's
passport and visa are entered into the SAVE system,
the return from the USCIS SAVE system on employment
eligibility and identity are within three to five
seconds. Interestingly, in FY21, USCIS completed
17,800,000 verifications through the SAVE system.
During the COVID pandemic, which USCIS
employees were working remotely for unusual periods NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 23
of increased immigration activity, response times
were additional. Secondary searches were needed to
be done by hand in the USCIS offices. Response times
were affected.
To ensure this matter is broadly
understood by the nuclear industry, NSIR has
developed this RIS, draft RIS, and issued this
generic communications to notify NRC licensees the
means by which true identity must be validated in
accordance with 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3) requirements.
And at this time, I'd like to hand it off
to Michele Sampson for the summary. Go to the next
slide.
MS. SAMPSON: Thanks so much, Mark.
As we've identified in the meeting today,
the purpose of the RIS is to remind licensees of the
requirement for verifying employment eligibility, and
how that requirement fits into the overarching need
to validate that we have trustworthy and reliable
personnel inside the plant. So verifying employment
eligibility is really an important component of
validating that a foreign national's claimed non-
immigration status is correct.
Licensees are required to take steps to
access information from other reliable sources that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 24
can independently verify and validate that the
information is authentic. The responsibility for
granting access authorization rests with the
licensee, and the NRC is issuing the RIS to remind
licensees of the requirement and also to provide
information on the availability of the SAVE program
as one method that can be used to perform that
independent validation.
Next slide, please.
MR. BAXTER: Thanks, Michele.
This is the portion of the slide
presentation where stakeholders and the public can
ask questions of the NRC staff. We had scheduled 60
minutes for this dialogue. If the discussion period
ends early, we'll adjust the agenda accordingly and
conclude the meeting for the day.
But at this time I'd like to ask, do we
have any comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute?
I know they're represented here today, so if they
would like to provide any comments, feel free to have
the floor.
MR. MOGAVERO: Good morning, Brad. This
is Rich Mogavero from the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Can you hear me?
MR. BAXTER: Yes, Rich, we can. Thank NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 25
you very much.
MR. MOGAVERO: Thanks, Brad. As I said,
this is Rich Mogavero from the Nuclear Energy
Institute. I'm senior project manager here.
We certainly appreciate the NRC
scheduling a public meeting to talk about this very
important topic, and I appreciate the opportunity to
make a few remarks. And separately, I do want to
note that NEI will be providing a written response as
well.
The nuclear industry is absolutely
committed to ensuring the ongoing safety and security
of our nuclear power plants. The personnel who
perform access authorization functions for our plants
play a vital role in achieving our safety and security
mission.
Plant access staff are the first line of
defense in ensuring that individuals accessing our
plants are trustworthy and reliable, such that
workers gaining access don't constitute an
unreasonable risk to public health and safety or the
common defense and security, including the potential
to commit radiological sabotage. We do extensive
background checks for individuals that we plan to
bring on site.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 26
It's important to note that our station
reviewing officials are not trained immigration
personnel. We continue to have concerns with the
revised draft. We're here to listen to all the
additional remarks, but we would like to ask some
clarifying questions on the NRC presentation we just
heard, and as I stated earlier, Brad, NEI will be
providing a written statement to the RIS.
Thank you. I'll turn it back over to
you.
MR. BAXTER: Thank you, Rich.
Do I have any questions or comments from
industry stakeholders at this time?
MR. ZALESKI: I see no raised hands,
Brad. If anyone would like to make a comment and
present some information or ask some
questions -- okay, Rich, I see that your hand is
raised.
MR. MOGAVERO: Let me see if I can take
my hand down now. All right. Thanks, Brian.
So the initial draft RIS strongly asserts
that verifying eligibility or employment eligibility
is required, then the revised draft RIS -- you don't
have to back, but the first bullet on slide 4
indicates that it's an important requirement. So my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 27
question is: Is it the NRC's view that verification
of employment eligibility is required in order to
verify the claimed non-immigration status?
And I can repeat my question. So, my
question is: Is it the NRC's view that the
verification of employment eligibility is required in
order to meet the claimed non-immigration status?
MS. SAMPSON: This is Michele Sampson.
MR. MOGAVERO: Hi, Michelle.
MS. SAMPSON: I think the RIS is
relatively clear. Perhaps I'm not following your
question exactly. The RIS requires that the licensee
independently verify the employment eligibility.
Does that answer your question?
MR. MOGAVERO: Yeah. I think it was the
inconsistency between the initial draft RIS that said
verifying employment eligibility is a requirement,
versus the revised draft RIS that says it's an
important component. And we wanted to make sure that
the NRC's perspective is that the verification of
eligibility is required to verify the non-immigration
status.
MR. ZALESKI: Brad, there are additional
hands raised. I'm not sure if Norm wants to speak
first or if Andy does.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 28
MR. BAXTER: Andy, would you like to
speak first? Because I think I saw yours raised
before Norm's.
MR. ANDERSON: However you'd like to do
it, Brad.
MR. BAXTER: Go ahead, Andy, you have the
floor.
MR. ANDERSON: All right. Thank you.
So Andy Anderson from Constellation.
So the prior draft RIS required a
detailed verification that visa codes match the
specific work to be performed. Is that level of
detailed verification required in order to verify the
claimed non-immigrant status?
MR. RESNER: Andy, Mark Resner here.
Certainly in the three instances that we
cited during the discussion, those individuals had
B-2 tourist visas, so certainly that would not
qualify as eligibility for employment.
MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make sure
you're saying yes, it is required.
MR. RESNER: Yes, that's correct.
Employment eligibility is a requirement as part of
being the correct non-immigration status.
MR. ANDERSON: Understand. Thanks, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 29
Mark.
MS. SAMPSON: I think, Brad, if we could
add some additional information, he might be able to
provide some clarification.
MR. BAXTER: Yes, Norm.
MR. ST. AMOUR: Norman St. Amour, senior
attorney with OGC for nuclear security matters.
And I just want to clarify, there was no
intent to create an inconsistency between the
language in the original draft RIS and what was
published in 2022. The emphasis is, in order to meet
the requirement in 73.56(d)(3), a licensee needs to
verify the employment eligibility of a foreign
national seeking unescorted access.
So yes, it is a requirement in fulfilling
the obligations in 73.56(d)(3), the licensee must
verify the foreign national's employment eligibility
in the United States. Now, as we've tried to
emphasize in this presentation, use of SAVE is one
acceptable means of doing that. That will give you
a clear indication of whether or not the foreign
national is eligible to work in the United States,
but there are other acceptable means that the NRC
knows about and industry may have access to others
that they can inform us about, which would be fine.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 30
But it is a requirement in meeting
73.56(d)(3) to verify the employment eligibility of
a foreign national seeking unescorted access. That's
one component of what you have to do in verifying the
claimed non-immigration status of the foreign
national is correct.
So I hope that helps, and I now I hope I
can figure out how to turn my hand off.
MR. ZALESKI: I think I did it for you,
Norm.
Andy has another comment or question,
Brad.
MR. BAXTER: Yes, Andy, go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
So the revised draft -- and this goes
along with the comment that was just made -- the
revised draft RIS states that relying solely on
visual verification is unacceptable. So when I'm
processing a request for UA or UAA for not only
foreign nationals but also U.S. citizens, we review
a number of records, right, that are not provided by
the individual.
So is that review of the government-
issued immigration documents combined with the review
of these other elements truly unacceptable still?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 31
MR. ST. AMOUR: This is Norman again.
In answer to your question, I don't think
we can answer that, because we don't know what other
elements each individual licensee is reviewing. And
so in any given instance, we can't determine if what
you're doing is acceptable with the intent and the
regulatory requirement in 73.56(d)(3).
Other databases, other U.S. Government
sources that you are consulting, reviewing, in
addition to the visual verification of the documents,
if they reliably allow you to determine employment
eligibility may be perfectly acceptable, would be
perfectly acceptable in that case. But we don't know
what each licensee is doing, and so we can't speak
generically to reviewing other government
documentation is adequate.
The Commission was trying to address a
specific problem that they identified in 2002 and
then two subsequent incidents that happened up until
this date. And that was, individuals presented
fraudulent documents that enabled them to get
unescorted access -- or nationals presented
fraudulent documents that enabled them to get
unescorted access to a plant when they weren't
entitled to such access.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 32
And so they created a RIS in 2002 to
address that problem. They issued an order in
January of 2003 to say take effective steps to make
sure that doesn't happen again, licensees, and to
ensure the integrity of your access authorization
program.
And that's what this RIS is designed to
do, to remind licensees that they have to ensure the
integrity of their access authorization program. And
that is accomplished by verifying -- that is
accomplished, in part, by verifying a foreign
national's claimed non-immigration status is correct.
An important component of that is verifying
employment eligibility.
MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate that. So
obviously I'm still uncertain on what compliance will
look like then. So if my licensee or any licensee
out there is not using SAVE, then what would the NRC
find acceptable?
And maybe I can ask it -- so if I'm
following the rest of the regulation, right, criminal
history report, credit reports, et cetera, and I'm
not using SAVE, but I'm using all those additional
resources that are found within the regulation -- and
I'm not using SAVE, again -- what would be acceptable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 33
then?
MR. RESNER: If I may. This is Mark
Resner speaking.
We want the information validated, as we
said, against other documentation. So if the
individual is a foreign national, they must have an
I-9 Form if they're working in the United States, if
they're hired by the employer, having the employer
provide that information to the access staff. The
I-9, whatever validation they did of that
individual's status, requiring that and matching that
information against the visa and passport information
would be an independent validation.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mark, I
appreciate your response.
MR. BAXTER: Thank you, Andy.
MR. ANDERSON: You're welcome.
MR. BAXTER: Next question. Dawn Odom,
I see your hand is up.
MS. ODOM: Yes. I just wanted to provide
that we had an individual who applied for access -- we
do use the SAVE program. The individual was here on
a B-1/B-2 visa, and we did the SAVE check. It does
not indicate whether the individual is here on the
B-1 or the B-2.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 34
MR. RESNER: Dawn, this is Mark Resner.
I had a little difficult time hearing you what your
question was. Could you please repeat that?
MS. ODOM: Yes, sir. We had an
individual who applied for access, the individual was
here on a B-1/B-2 visa, and we conducted the SAVE
check. And SAVE does not indicate whether the
individual is here on the B-1 or the B-2, so how would
we know whether or not they were eligible to work?
MR. RESNER: Well, if the individual had
a B-2 visa, the I-94 which should be submitted, if
you're using SAVE, to the SAVE system -- the I-94
that comes with the visa determines how long they can
stay in the United States, their duration. So that
would be the B-2 aspect of it.
And if I understand you correctly, you
did submit an inquiry to the SAVE system?
MS. ODOM: That's correct, and it was
approved. It showed the individual was eligible.
MR. RESNER: Okay.
MS. ODOM: But it did not designate
whether they were here on the work visa or the
pleasure. It validated that the visa was a valid
document.
MR. RESNER: And the return didn't speak NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 35
to employment eligibility at all?
MS. ODOM: It did not. No, sir.
MR. RESNER: Interesting. But again,
with the B-2 there should have been a time duration,
how long that B-2 was in effect if that would have
been the I-94. But I'd be happy to look at that
example, if you want to provide that to me. I would
be more than happy to look into that.
MS. ODOM: Understood. Yes, sir.
MR. BAXTER: I'm not seeing any further
questions. Any further questions from industry
stakeholders at this time?
Rich, I see your hand has been raised.
Rich.
MR. MOGAVERO: Yeah. You know, Dawn
raises a pretty good point, Mark. Before I go into
some concluding comments that I have, you know, if
the SAVE database will say what their stay in the
U.S. is and kind of the type of immigration status
they are, if it doesn't provide the ability to
determine the employment eligibility, I think the
question that Andy Anderson raised earlier regarding
what is acceptable would be very helpful for the
licensees so they can pivot or transition to another
way to validate or verify that the person has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 36
employment eligibility, if that is a requirement.
MR. RESNER: Thank you, Rich.
You know, on the SAVE system, normally
the responses coming back will have a code in there
that determines why they're here, what they're
authorized to do. That's in the SAVE system if you
go into the help part of the system and check. It
will tell you, it will have, a certain code in there
what they're authorized for.
I don't know if that helps you or not.
MR. MOGAVERO: Thanks, Mark.
I think if there are no other questions,
I just have some closing remarks, but I'll stand by
if anybody else has any questions or comments.
MR. BAXTER: Rich, I'm not seeing any
further questions. I wanted to ask the general
public if they had any general interest, feel free to
have the floor, and if I don't hear anything -- excuse
me, I do see one, Rich.
Rani Franovich, I see her hand raised.
MS. FRANOVICH: Yes. Thank you.
MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, Rani. Go ahead.
MS. FRANOVICH: Can you hear me?
MR. BAXTER: Yes, I can.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay, thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 37
This is Rani Franovich. I'm a senior
policy advisor for the Nuclear Energy Innovation Team
at the Breakthrough Institute, and I appreciate this
opportunity to ask a couple of questions about the
draft RIS.
As a preliminary matter, the Breakthrough
Institute is an independent 501(c)(3) global research
center that identifies and promotes technological
solutions to environmental and human development
challenges. As such, we represent society and its
collective interests.
We advocate for appropriate regulation,
licensing and oversight of advanced nuclear reactors
and currently operating reactors to enable the timely
deployment of safe, innovative and economically
viable emerging nuclear technologies. We believe new
and advanced reactors represent critical pathways to
climate mitigation and deep decarbonization, same
thing for the currently operating fleet. The
Breakthrough Institute receives no funding from
industry.
So I have a few questions. It's my
understanding that this RIS is new. It's not an
existing RIS that is being updated or revised, it's
a brand new RIS. Correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 38
MS. SAMPSON: Yes, yes. There was a 2002
RIS that spoke to the same topic, but this is a brand
new RIS.
MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Thank you,
Michele.
So on April 27, 2022, the Breakthrough
Institute and Steve Nesbit, then president of the
American Nuclear Society, wrote a letter to the
Commission to express concern regarding the NRC
staff's regulatory posture and proposed language for
a limited scope change to Title 10 CFR Part 73.55,
Requirements for physical protection of licensed
activities in nuclear power reactors against
radiological sabotage. I reiterate those concerns
here.
In short, a proposed change or insertion
of the term "high assurance" in this RIS, it
constitutes regulatory overreach beyond NRC's legal
mandate for nuclear security, which is no different
than its mandate for safety: to provide reasonable
assurance of adequate protection of public health and
safety. So the question of "reasonable" versus "high
assurance" for nuclear security has already been
decided by the Commission.
On October 5, 2016, the Commission issued NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 39
its staff requirements memorandum SRM for Commission
Paper (SECY) 160073, Options and recommendations for
the Force-on-Force Inspection Program in response to
SRM (SECY) 140088. In its SRM, the Commission
explicitly and unequivocally defined the assurance
standard for security and directed the staff to
modify its regulatory posture accordingly.
And I'm quoting from their SRM: "In
implementing the NRC's regulatory program, either in
developing new regulations, inspecting licensee
compliance with regulations, or executing the Force-
on-Force Program, the staff should be mindful that
the concept of high assurance of adequate protection
found in our security regulations is equivalent to
reasonable assurance when it comes to determining
what level of regulation is appropriate. The NRC
should not be applying a zero-risk mentality to
security any more than we should be doing so with
respect to safety. The staff would operate and
should operate under this paradigm and eliminate
ambiguity on this point" -- and I'll repeat
this -- "eliminate ambiguity on this point in its
guidance documents or other internal directives,
instructions or training materials to the extent such
ambiguity exists."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 40
The Commission provided this explicit
direction in uncharacteristically strident terms, sua
sponte, to curb an overly zealous regulatory posture
in the NRC staff's Force-on-Force exercise program
and other areas of nuclear security.
So I have a couple of questions now. How
does the NRC staff square this unequivocal direction
with the conclusion in the draft RIS, specifically
this sentence, "Licensees must have an access
authorization program that provides high assurance
that individuals UA or certified UAA are trustworthy
and reliable." How does the staff square this
insertion of "high assurance" in a brand new RIS with
prior Commission direction saying don't do it?
MR. ST. AMOUR: Rani, this is Norman St.
Amour and I'd like to take the first shot at
responding to your question. And it's nice to hear
you. I haven't talked to you for quite a while, it's
good to hear you.
MS. FRANOVICH: Likewise, Norm. Thank
you.
MR. ST. AMOUR: As you noted, the RIS
gave explicit direction to the staff and it didn't do
certain things. It did not change the regulatory
language in 73.55 to go from "high assurance" to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 41
"reasonable assurance" so the regulatory language
remains the same.
What the RIS reminded the staff about is
that use of the term "high assurance" in our security
regulations has the equivalent meaning as "reasonable
assurance" in the safety realm. And the staff should
be mindful of that and not seek, as you point out,
zero risk regulatory solutions.
So the use of the term "high assurance"
is consistent with the regulatory language, and it is
understood to mean that the staff doesn't expect zero
risk; it expects that licensees will take reasonable
steps to ensure high assurance. And what we have
typically done -- certainly in SECYs what staff has
done is they have -- always when they use the term
"high assurance", what I typically request and staff
does is put in a footnote saying what is said in the
RIS, that the use of the term "high assurance" as
directed in the SRM is the equivalent of "reasonable
assurance" in the safety realm.
I don't know who brought up it but there
is a footnote here.
MR. ZALESKI: I put it up there, Norm,
just so everybody sees what both of you are speaking
about in the RIS. It's in the conclusion paragraph, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 42
and then footnote 3 at the bottom.
MR. ST. AMOUR: Yeah. And so we're
mindful of what you're saying. Staff is not asking
for a zero-risk policy, staff is saying using what
continues to be the regulatory language, the
Commission has not directed staff to change that
regulatory language, and then footnoting it to say
high assurance is equivalent to the concept of
reasonable assurance.
So I think that's how we tried to address
the concerns that you articulated in the letter that
came in and as this term is used here in this RIS as
well. There is no intention on the part of the staff
to say that high assurance involves a different
standard than reasonable assurance in the safety
realm. So I hope that answers your question.
And, Brian, if you can take my hand away,
I haven't figured out how to turn it off yet.
MS. FRANOVICH: I appreciate that, Norm.
I would just offer that if the staff really wanted to
follow the Commission's direction and eliminate
ambiguity wherever it exists, it would use the term
"reasonable assurance" in its RIS, in its proposed
regulations, in its guidance documents. It would use
the term "reasonable assurance" to eliminate that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 43
ambiguity, and I don't see that changing and it
concerns me why that is.
MR. ST. AMOUR: Well, I understand what
you're saying. I think the staff's concern is that
then creates an ambiguity with the existing
regulatory language. You have approved regulatory
language in 73.55 that uses the term "high
assurance".
OGC has gone back as far as 1978 to figure
out where that term came from and why it's different
from "reasonable assurance," and the use of that term
is not anywhere adequately explained, but it is the
approved regulatory language. And to use other
language that differs from the existing regulatory
language in 73.55 creates its own ambiguity.
So there is a dilemma there, I agree.
And we've tried to address that by always -- I won't
say always, but hopefully always when we use the term
"high assurance" inserting the footnote that explains
what we mean by that term.
So that's why I think staff continues to
use the term "high assurance" in formal documentation
like this, like SECYs, et cetera. Either way,
there's going to be some ambiguity and we tried to
address it by inserting the footnote that will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 44
clarify why we're doing that.
MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Norman.
I think Bill Ostendorff, when he was an
NRC commissioner back in 2016, also had his legal
assistant, Jason Zorn, research the epidemiology of
this "high assurance" phrase and could find scant
evidence to support it.
Why does the staff not undertake a change
to the rule to correct this assurance standard to
reasonable assurance of adequate protection?
MR. ST. AMOUR: The Commission hasn't
directed that action, and I understand what you're
saying, and perhaps many people would like that
rulemaking activity. Given the resources that would
be involved, it would obviously have to go up to the
Commission for approval of that rulemaking and they
haven't directed that. They could but they haven't.
That's the best I can give you on that.
MS. FRANOVICH: Could the staff propose
it?
MR. ST. AMOUR: The staff, as you well
know, can propose many things. Getting it through
the whole management chain and up to the Commission,
et cetera, that's not for me to say what staff would
do. Certainly, staff has the legal authority to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 45
propose a rulemaking.
MS. SAMPSON: If I could add also -- so
we do really appreciate the letter from the
Breakthrough Institute that we received on the
limited scope rulemaking, and we have added that
letter to the docket for that advanced reactor
physical security rulemaking docket and we'll
certainly be considering it with the comments.
As you're aware, there's a number of
important rulemakings going on at the agency. And
as Norm stated, there's certainly the ability to
propose rulemakings, but we don't have anything
currently where that's on our rulemaking docket right
now. But we do really appreciate the comment and are
aware of the concern that the two terms has raised.
MS. FRANOVICH: Thanks, Michele.
And so I'll just end by saying thank you
again for allowing me to ask these questions. I
understand that the intent of the staff, at least as
I understand it from Norm, is to use that footnote.
But when you make a statement that
there's no effort underway to make this change to the
regulation itself, I'm a little bit troubled by that
because the staff admits this is the law, this is
confusing, this is a problem. And a little more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 46
proactiveness on the part of the NRC staff, I think,
would go a long way to establishing some kind of a
good faith indication that the staff recognizes this
is a problem and won't wait for the Commission to
direct them to change it -- will actually take action
to initiate the rule change, as it's going through
the limited scope rule change now.
So I'll just leave it at that. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak, and thank you
very much.
MR. BAXTER: Well, thank you, Rani.
I see Rich Mogavero had an additional
question.
MR. MOGAVERO: I'm off mute. I'm going
to turn it over to Sue Perkins who has a question
from NEI.
MS. PERKINS: Yes. Thanks, Rich.
Hi, everyone. This is Sue Perkins from
the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Rani, I appreciate you bringing up the
term "ambiguity" because I think that's what sums up
my take-away from this discussion. Because I think
what I'm hearing from this discussion -- there's
still ambiguity on how to comply with the requirement
to validate eligibility for employment. Because as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 47
Dawn brought up an example, going into the SAVE
database doesn't necessarily provide that tool to
validate eligibility.
So it looks like there are many ways, but
there are no definitive ways. You know, when do you
stop trying to validate this employment eligibility?
So I think there's still work to be done there.
And Mark, I'm glad that you have asked
Dawn to reach out for that specific example because
it seems that there is some false confidence in the
SAVE database, that it's going to hit the mark for
the licensees to validate employment eligibility.
So I just leave you with that.
MR. MOGAVERO: Thanks, Sue.
Brad, Mark, I'm going to move into some
closing remarks from the Nuclear Energy Institute, if
that's okay.
MR. BAXTER: Yes, that's okay.
MR. MOGAVERO: All right. So from NEI,
as you reviewed the proposed RIS, we noted the
following. Like I said earlier, NEI will be
providing a written response to the RIS.
But from our review, we believe that this
expands the existing requirement for access personnel
to verify immigration status beyond just determining NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 48
trustworthiness and reliability. If imposed, we
believe it will constitute an unanalyzed backfit, as
we stated in the past.
We see the intent of the existing
requirements and current guidance to be clear: to
verify true identity by ensuring that the applicant
is the person that he or she claimed to be.
Verifications of identity is part of
conducting the background investigations for
purposes, like we discussed on this call, for
determining trustworthiness and reliability. While
tools such as SAVE can be useful in verifying an
applicants status information, determining
eligibility for employment is simply not required by
73.56, as we review it.
Lastly, I wanted to note that the revised
RIS or the new RIS continues to confuse rather than
clarify actions, as discussed during this call today,
that are necessary to comply with 10 CFR 73.56(d)(3),
and it does continue to consume a considerable amount
of NRC and industry resources on an issue that may be
of very low safety or security significance.
Despite the absence of what we heard
earlier today with the 1.04 percent from Mark Resner,
the NRC and industry have spent over two years on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 49
development of this RIS. We continue to believe that
the existing methods used by licensees for validation
of non-immigration status comply with the 10 CFR
73.56(d)(3) requirements.
Mark and the NRC team, I just wanted to
thank you again for the opportunity today, and I'll
turn it back over to you. Thanks.
MR. BAXTER: Well, thank you, Rich. We
look forward to receiving that letter in the near
future.
Before I move on to the next slide, I'd
like to ask if there's any additional public comment
stakeholders that want to address anything at this
time before I move on.
(No response.)
MR. BAXTER: Okay. I'm not seeing any.
How about NRC staff? Would any NRC staff
like to make any closing remarks before I move on to
slide 14?
(No response.)
MR. BAXTER: Okay, Brian, I'm not seeing
any at this time, so if you will go to slide 14,
Public Comment Submission.
As previously mentioned, the 60-day
public comment period on the draft RIS will close on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 50
August 12, 2022. The NRC encourages electronic
comment submissions by going to the Federal
rulemaking website, Regulations.gov, and search for
Docket ID No. NRC-2022-0119.
Next slide. And finally, we're always
looking for ways to improve our public meetings and
your feedback is very important to us. At the end
of the meeting, please go to NRC's public web page,
click on the Recently held meeting button and look
for today's meeting. The meeting feedback form will
be at the bottom of the meeting announcement.
And with that, I'd like to thank everyone
for participating in today's meeting, I hope everyone
has a good rest of the day, and this meeting is now
closed.
(Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m. EDT, the
meeting was closed.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com