ML24247A140
| ML24247A140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/2024 |
| From: | Phil Brochman NRC/NSIR/DPCP/MSB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ML24247A139 | |
| Download: ML24247A140 (1) | |
Text
Enclosure 3
Meeting Transcript (Polished and Edited)
Public Meeting - Preview of Limited-Scope Revisions to Guidance Supporting the Published Final Enhanced Weapons Rule August 23, 2023, 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. ET
0:0:0.0 --> 0:0:6.150 Leah Smith During the Q and A [question and answer] portion of today's session, there are two ways to ask questions of the presenter, depending on how you joined the meeting today.
0:0:6.670 --> 0:0:17.370 Leah Smith If you've joined the via the webinar link included in the public meeting announcement, please just use your raise hand feature in this platform and you'll be recognized by the facilitator when you're called upon.
0:0:17.380 --> 0:0:22.320 Leah Smith Please state your name and affiliation and then ask your questions so that we can record it for the record.
0:0:22.820 --> 0:0:28.210 Leah Smith If you have joined today's meeting from your phone, you'll need to dial Star 6 to unmute your microphone.
0:0:28.360 --> 0:0:33.460 Leah Smith Again, we ask that you introduce yourself and your affiliation and then ask your question.
0:0:34.130 --> 0:0:36.400 Leah Smith We look forward to a robust and productive meeting today.
0:0:37.350 --> 0:0:46.840 Leah Smith So with those administrative announcements out of the way, I'd like to turn the microphone over to Phil Brochman, a senior policy analyst in NSIR who serves as the technical lead for the enhanced weapons rule.
0:0:46.850 --> 0:0:48.430 Leah Smith So Phil, over to you.
0:0:50.550 --> 0:0:50.980 Phil Brochman Thank you.
0:0:50.990 --> 0:0:57.180 Phil Brochman As Leah said, I'm Phil Brochman.
0:0:57.190 --> 0:1:3.760 Phil Brochman I'm a senior policy analyst in NSIR in the.
0:1:3.830 --> 0:1:7.0 Phil Brochman Division of physical and cybersecurity policy.
1 Enclosure 3
0:1:7.710 --> 0:1:11.400 Phil Brochman I've been in the technical lead on this rulemaking for a number of years.
0:1:12.10 --> 0:1:21.230 Phil Brochman This rulemaking being the Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications and their supporting guidance documents.
0:1:22.690 --> 0:1:26.60 Phil Brochman Hereafter, we're going to just refer to this as the enhanced weapons rule.
0:1:29.870 --> 0:1:32.20 Phil Brochman Leah already touched on the fact we're going to split this meeting into two Presentations.
0:1:32.100 --> 0:1:39.770 Phil Brochman One Housekeeping Note, this is considered an information meeting with question and answer session.
0:1:39.780 --> 0:1:43.590 Phil Brochman Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions at various points throughout the meeting.
0:1:44.140 --> 0:1:50.430 Phil Brochman We've also blocked out question periods at the end of each presentation.
0:1:50.980 --> 0:1:58.150 Phil Brochman We also note that the NRC is not actively soliciting comments towards a regulatory decision in this meeting.
0:1:58.860 --> 0:1:59.870 Phil Brochman Slide #2 please.
0:2:2.20 --> 0:2:13.850 Phil Brochman Our first objective in this presentation is to preview the staffs proposal to conduct limited scope revisions to three regulatory guidance documents.
0:2:13.860 --> 0:2:19.460 Phil Brochman Leah mentioned what they are and that they will support the final enhanced weapons rule.
0:2:21.110 --> 0:2:35.330 Phil Brochman The revisions to these guidance documents will be contained in three draft guides, which are known by the acronyms DG-5080, DG-5081, and DG-5082.
0:2:35.370 --> 0:2:48.990 Phil Brochman Our second objective today in this process portion of the presentation is to discuss the potential for licensees to request exemptions regarding compliance with the final enhanced weapons rule.
0:2:49.190 --> 0:3:3.860 Phil Brochman We're talking about this because the compliance date for implement for licensees to implement the final enhanced weapons rule is specified as January 8th, 2024.
2 Enclosure 3
0:3:4.740 --> 0:3:5.530 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:3:11.90 --> 0:3:17.30 Phil Brochman So here's our overall meeting agenda for the first portion of the meeting, we're going to talk about key dates.
0:3:17.950 --> 0:3:28.540 Phil Brochman Some background information in case of some people that are participating, are not familiar with all the details, our objective in conducting limited scope revisions, 0:3:30.840 --> 0:3:34.760 Phil Brochman Conceptual schedule, and the need for exemptions.
0:3:34.770 --> 0:3:38.80 Phil Brochman And then we will have a question period at the end.
0:3:39.450 --> 0:3:40.200 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:3:44.440 --> 0:3:46.390 Phil Brochman From the key dates.
0:3:46.500 --> 0:3:52.630 Phil Brochman The final rule and supporting guidance documents were published on March the 14th of this year.
0:3:53.910 --> 0:4:10.700 Phil Brochman We've included a link to the Federal Register notice, the rule took effect on April the 13th, and the compliance date or as is sometimes referred to as the implementation date is January 8th of 2024.
0:4:10.770 --> 0:4:11.500 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:4:25.750 --> 0:4:48.170 Phil Brochman To support efficient and effective implementation of the rule, the NRC staff has been engaged in a number of outreach efforts with a range of licensees, and the public, and so we conducted 3 workshops in the May time period of this year.
0:4:49.150 --> 0:4:55.660 Phil Brochman And I also attended 2 industry lead forums or symposiums in June of this year.
0:4:56.610 --> 0:5:17.40 Phil Brochman In the course of those meetings, licensees raised to the NRC several issues regarding the guidance documents and the rule itself on whether there was sufficient clarity or there were inconsistencies, et cetera.
3 Enclosure 3
0:5:17.340 --> 0:5:22.490 Phil Brochman And they requested that the NRC provide clarification on these issues.
0:5:23.250 --> 0:5:27.380 Phil Brochman The NRC has reviewed these issues.
0:5:27.670 --> 0:5:45.360 Phil Brochman We haven't finished completly all our actions, but we've gotten to the point where we have concluded that it would be advisable to issue revised regulatory guidance supporting implementation of this rule.
0:5:49.820 --> 0:5:59.650 Phil Brochman So to accomplish that, the staff is proposing to issue 3 limited scope revisions to the guidance documents.
0:6:0.790 --> 0:6:12.130 Phil Brochman Draft Guide 5080 is going to be a proposed revision 3 to Reg Guide 5.62 on event notifications.
0:6:16.30 --> 0:6:34.500 Phil Brochman Draft Guide 5081 is going to be proposed revision 1 to Reg Guide 5.86 and this deals with preemption authority, enhanced weapons authority, and firearms background checks under section 161 A of the Atomic Energy Act.
0:6:34.790 --> 0:6:46.910 Phil Brochman And finally, Draft Guide 5082 will be proposed revision 1 to Reg Guide 5.87, which is focused on suspicious activity reporting under 10 CFR part 73.
0:6:48.740 --> 0:6:53.470 Phil Brochman I'm using the phrase limited scope revisions very deliberately.
0:6:54.300 --> 0:6:57.790 Phil Brochman The NRC intends to focus on those issues.
0:6:57.800 --> 0:7:4.750 Phil Brochman That industry had asserted may affect a licensee's ability to implement the final rule in a timely and efficient manner.
0:7:6.640 --> 0:7:13.770 Phil Brochman There may be other issues that industry may consider needs to be addressed.
0:7:14.110 --> 0:7:24.790 Phil Brochman We will look at those issues. Those can be reserved for the next periodic update of the Reg Guide, but that is where our focus is on the big picture items.
0:7:26.350 --> 0:7:27.390 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:7:33.430 --> 0:7:44.830 Phil Brochman
4 Enclosure 3
The three draft guides when we've got them completed, we're going to issue them for public comment via individual Federal Register notices.
0:7:47.460 --> 0:7:51.370 Phil Brochman We plan on holding a public meeting during the comment period.
0:7:52.110 --> 0:8:0.540 Phil Brochman That meeting will allow for discussion on what the NRC was intending or why we were doing certain things.
0:8:0.830 --> 0:8:12.330 Phil Brochman And this will be in order to help licensees and other stakeholders developed informed comments to submit on these guidance documents, if any.
0:8:14.490 --> 0:8:41.480 Phil Brochman As I noted here in the third bullet comments that go beyond these limited scope revisions, we may consider them in developing the final rule or we may defer them to the next periodic update of these Reg Guides. As you may or may not be aware of the NRC periodically reviews and updates regulatory guides to see if there's any changes that need to be made apart from changes due to rulemaking.
0:8:44.800 --> 0:8:45.570 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:8:53.230 --> 0:9:6.140 Phil Brochman In terms of proposed schedule we are working towards getting the three draft guides created and internally reviewed and published in the Federal Register before the beginning of November of this year.
0:9:8.270 --> 0:9:16.640 Phil Brochman At this point we are we have not settled on a potential duration of the comment period for these Federal Register notices.
0:9:17.600 --> 0:9:23.720 Phil Brochman And so any feedback you may wish to provide the NRC in this meeting would be appreciated.
0:9:24.460 --> 0:9:36.380 Phil Brochman As I noted in an earlier slide, we're going to conduct a separate public meeting during this comment period to discuss in detail the specific changes that are being proposed by the NRC staff.
0:9:37.240 --> 0:9:50.770 Phil Brochman And then after we get all the comments, we will review and disposition any comments and then publish the final revised regulatory guides before April of next year.
0:9:56.950 --> 0:9:58.140 Phil Brochman Next slide, please.
0:10:3.400 --> 0:10:26.80 Phil Brochman As you can see, with the projected schedule for revising these three regulatory guides, extending beyond the current compliance or implementation date of January 8th of next year, the NRC staff
5 Enclosure 3
recognizes that multiple licensees may need to seek exemptions from some or all of these regulations under the final enhanced weapons rule.
0:10:27.130 --> 0:10:45.520 Phil Brochman NRC staff understands that exemption request are individual to a particular licensee and may be both informed by the projected schedule as well as other licensee specific considerations.
0:10:45.770 --> 0:10:54.890 Phil Brochman We recognize things such as outage schedules and the duration of procedure development, personnel training, depend on the number of personnel that need to be trained.
0:10:56.820 --> 0:10:57.590 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:11:0.150 --> 0:11:13.400 Phil Brochman In the past, for exemptions that were needed relatively quickly, and that's sort of a situation we're in here today.
0:11:13.410 --> 0:11:23.620 Phil Brochman January 8th is not that far off and staff and industry have engaged in developing an exemption template.
0:11:23.930 --> 0:11:37.330 Phil Brochman This was done during the COVID emergency in our recent past to support the efficient a consideration of multiple exemption requests.
0:11:37.340 --> 0:11:49.30 Phil Brochman There's a potential large number of licensees, pretty much every licensee that is subject to part 73, could be considering the need for an exemption request.
0:11:49.40 --> 0:12:0.270 Phil Brochman So we're indicating that we intend to be available in this fall to work with industry, to have an efficient and effective process as we go forward.
0:12:4.990 --> 0:12:16.940 Phil Brochman And now that I've reach the point of the end of my first slide presentation, I want to pause and see if there's any questions or feedback.
0:12:16.950 --> 0:12:24.30 Phil Brochman And so, Brett, if you want to open the mics for people that are in here and, umm, I'll just wait and hear.
0:12:27.120 --> 0:12:27.980 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So welcome everyone.
0:12:27.990 --> 0:12:29.290 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
My name is Brett Klukken.
0:12:29.390 --> 0:12:36.790 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
6 Enclosure 3
I'll be helping to facilitate the meeting this afternoon, so to ask a question or to post a comment, please raise your hand if you're participating.
0:12:36.800 --> 0:12:43.470 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
In the Teams app if you're participating via phone, press star 5 again, that is Star 5 on your phone to raise your hand.
0:12:43.820 --> 0:12:49.30 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Once you've been called upon, and if you're on the phone, I will read the last four digits of your phone number.
0:12:49.520 --> 0:12:52.380 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
You will then need to hit star 6 again.
0:12:52.390 --> 0:12:53.490 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thaen hit Star 6 again to mute yourself.
0:12:54.280 --> 0:13:3.590 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So first its Star 5 to raise your hand and then Star 6 to unmute yourself and I will call on people in the order in which teams is indicated they have raised their hands.
0:13:3.650 --> 0:13:7.90 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So with no further ado, we will start with Charlotte Shields.
0:13:7.100 --> 0:13:8.510 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I'm going to aunute you.
0:13:11.580 --> 0:13:16.340 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And you should be able to unmute yourself.
0:13:16.410 --> 0:13:16.920 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Charlotte.
0:13:16.930 --> 0:13:19.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And so whenever you're ready, go ahead and begin.
0:13:19.290 --> 0:13:23.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And if you wouldn't mind stating your name and any affiliation for the transcription.
0:13:36.770 --> 0:13:41.600 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, let me go in and make sure that the setting is correct.
0:13:41.610 --> 0:13:42.780 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, give me one second.
0:13:49.970 --> 0:13:51.970 Phil Brochman This is why I'm not the facilitator.
7 Enclosure 3
0:13:52.900 --> 0:13:54.270 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, Charlotte, try again.
0:13:53.270 --> 0:13:55.440 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hey, how is that?
0:13:55.450 --> 0:13:56.120 SHIELDS, Charlotte Can you hear me now?
0:13:56.800 --> 0:13:57.910 Phil Brochman Now we can hear you.
0:13:56.250 --> 0:13:57.930 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Yes, we absolutely can hear you.
0:13:58.640 --> 0:13:59.690 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK, perfect.
0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:12.610 SHIELDS, Charlotte So recognizing that on Slide 9 and 10, you know talking about the need for exemptions and the projected finalization of the revision to the Reg Guides go beyond the.
0:14:15.270 --> 0:14:17.430 SHIELDS, Charlotte Compliance date of January 8th.
0:14:18.240 --> 0:14:18.340 Phil Brochman Yes.
0:14:17.740 --> 0:14:47.850 SHIELDS, Charlotte So if licensees are looking at submitting exemption requests and you know there will be site specific needs and as they draw out their timeline for that and the that'll be based on, I'm going to assume the April time frame that the final revisions of the Reg Guides get published should that date slide, what's the mechanism to ensure that licensees don't have to?
0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:50.840 SHIELDS, Charlotte Expend additional.
0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:56.700 SHIELDS, Charlotte Billable hours to submit repeat extension request.
0:15:3.20 --> 0:15:6.160 Phil Brochman Leah do you want to address that question?
0:15:11.20 --> 0:15:13.910 Leah Smith Charlotte, are you saying that this schedule might slip?
8 Enclosure 3
0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:14.710 Leah Smith No, ma'am.
0:15:15.110 --> 0:15:17.850 Leah Smith We expect that this [schedule] will be met.
0:15:17.860 --> 0:15:19.230 Leah Smith So that's our Reg Guide projection.
0:15:19.240 --> 0:15:30.610 Leah Smith We have recognized that there are public comments that will need to be incorporated into the final Reg Guides, but the anticipated publication date of those is in April of next year.
0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:36.710 Leah Smith We do encourage licensees to make their site-specific exemption requests, recognizing their own individual circumstances.
0:15:37.540 --> 0:15:45.900 Leah Smith If something were to happen that would cause the schedule to shift, we would probably have to look at doing some sort of initial exemption request.
0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:53.480 Leah Smith Again, the expectation here is that the Reg Guides are published according to this timeline, it was a thoughtfully developed project plan.
0:15:53.790 --> 0:15:57.70 Leah Smith So that is the expectation that we are operating under at this time.
0:15:58.110 --> 0:15:58.420 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
0:15:58.430 --> 0:15:58.770 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.
0:15:59.750 --> 0:16:0.480 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Hey, Charlotte.
0:16:0.490 --> 0:16:2.600 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I'm going to jump in and add a little bit too.
0:16:2.610 --> 0:16:3.900 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
This is Becca legas.
0:16:3.910 --> 0:16:7.300 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I'm the deputy division director for this division [of physical and cybersecurity policy].
0:16:7.310 --> 0:16:20.240 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
9 Enclosure 3
So, Charlotte, I would say just like you know, schedules can slip on your end for various reasons or things might get rescheduled on your end that might affect you know the amount of time that you would need for an exemption.
0:16:20.970 --> 0:16:27.100 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I would make sure that you consider that in what the amount of time that you're requesting in the exemption request, right?
0:16:27.110 --> 0:16:38.160 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So give your give everybody needs to give some extra time to make sure that we can accomplish what needs to be accomplished and attempt to avoid multiple exemptions, right?
0:16:38.170 --> 0:16:38.920 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So it goes on.
0:16:38.970 --> 0:16:46.20 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
It's on both sides of our schedules and just keeping that in mind when you're looking at what date you would be requesting for the exemption.
0:16:47.0 --> 0:16:47.430 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:47.820 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.
0:16:48.300 --> 0:16:48.560 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Yep.
0:16:50.830 --> 0:16:52.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, thank you very much for that.
0:16:52.820 --> 0:16:53.880 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Those questions.
0:16:54.110 --> 0:16:57.520 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going to turn to Steven Reese.
0:16:57.890 --> 0:17:3.360 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Steven, whenever you are ready, please feel free to unmute yourself and state your name and any affiliation.
0:17:5.570 --> 0:17:8.420 Reese, Steven Richard Yeah, this is a Steve Reese from Oregon State University.
0:17:8.770 --> 0:17:10.700 Reese, Steven Richard I haven't heard Steve and Richard Reese since.
10 Enclosure 3
0:17:11.70 --> 0:17:11.800 Reese, Steven Richard I don't know my mom.
0:17:14.350 --> 0:17:19.760 Reese, Steven Richard But uh, so just to have a, I don't know, a procedural question.
0:17:19.770 --> 0:17:29.80 Reese, Steven Richard So this is going to be taking effect in January and the Reg Guides are going to be published on or about March, April timeframe, correct.
0:17:29.910 --> 0:17:31.460 Reese, Steven Richard So here's my question.
0:17:31.990 --> 0:17:45.490 Reese, Steven Richard I assume that from an inspectors inspection point of view that licensees can use the existing draft Reg Guides to inform implementation without to and too much undue risk.
0:17:49.380 --> 0:17:57.200 Phil Brochman Well, so the answer to your first question is yes, the licensees can use the existing regulatory guides.
0:17:59.690 --> 0:18:9.840 Phil Brochman To inform any procedures or other training that they may implement and it may be for instances such as your facility.
0:18:9.850 --> 0:18:23.440 Phil Brochman Since you're a research and test reactor facility that only some of the regulations would apply to you, and therefore you may not need an exemption, you may be able to complete things [by the implementation date].
0:18:24.270 --> 0:18:44.450 Phil Brochman What we've recognized is that because of the breadth of the potential changes that I'll be talking about in a couple of minutes, that there was a need to revise the regulatory guide and we need to do that through the notice and opportunity for comment process.
0:18:48.20 --> 0:18:49.890 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Yeah, I'll add on Phil.
0:18:50.820 --> 0:18:55.980 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I just want to make sure we focus on the regulations and on what's required.
0:19:0.310 --> 0:19:0.430 Phil Brochman Yes.
0:18:55.990 --> 0:19:3.570 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I I understand the Reg Guide helps you understand one way of meeting the regulations, but at the end of the day, the regulations are what are required so.
11 Enclosure 3
0:19:4.670 --> 0:19:10.820 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Our expectation is that you would come into compliance with the regulations.
0:19:10.830 --> 0:19:18.220 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
If you need the Reg Guide in order to figure out how to do that in certain areas, and it's unclear that's where the exemptions will come into play.
0:19:18.310 --> 0:19:23.440 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
But again, meeting the regulations is the requirement and the Reg Guide itself is not.
0:19:24.140 --> 0:19:24.260 Phil Brochman Yes.
0:19:23.450 --> 0:19:28.10 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So while we know it's beneficial and helpful for you all, that's why we're going through this effort.
0:19:28.980 --> 0:19:31.110 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
The regulations are all that is required.
0:19:34.0 --> 0:19:34.410 Reese, Steven Richard OK.
0:19:34.420 --> 0:19:34.740 Reese, Steven Richard Thank you.
0:19:36.90 --> 0:19:36.330 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright.
0:19:36.340 --> 0:19:38.90 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you very much for those questions.
0:19:38.230 --> 0:19:41.20 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going turn to David Schwartzbart.
0:19:41.470 --> 0:19:48.320 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
David, whenever you are ready, please feel free to state your name and any affiliation and then begin your questions and or comments.
0:19:48.900 --> 0:19:50.610 David Schwarzbart Hi, my name is David Schwartzbart.
0:19:50.620 --> 0:19:52.40 David Schwarzbart I work at Rancho Seco.
0:19:52.50 --> 0:19:58.570 David Schwarzbart We're an ISFSI site outside of Sacramento, and my question is about the implementation date.
12 Enclosure 3
0:19:58.580 --> 0:20:10.280 David Schwarzbart If we're expecting multiple exemption requests, could you not slide that to the right after the expected regulatory guides are published?
0:20:15.390 --> 0:20:15.750 Leah Smith Thank you.
0:20:15.70 --> 0:20:22.580 Phil Brochman You're, go ahead Leah, and David just to make sure is the question you're asking can the implementation date be changed?
0:20:23.460 --> 0:20:23.600 David Schwarzbart Yes.
0:20:26.530 --> 0:20:26.940 Phil Brochman Leah.
0:20:26.610 --> 0:20:28.560 Leah Smith I'll take that question, Phil.
0:20:29.410 --> 0:20:32.120 Leah Smith Thank you for the question about the implementation date.
0:20:32.130 --> 0:20:42.240 Leah Smith We did evaluate multiple options for trying to navigate the different legal and regulatory requirements, while also balancing expediency and completeness in our Reg Guide revisions.
0:20:42.630 --> 0:20:46.420 Leah Smith Unfortunately, we were unable to extend the compliance date.
0:20:46.530 --> 0:21:5.410 Leah Smith There were some significant challenges that would have also pushed us past that implementation window, and so this was the option that we decided upon revising the Reg Guides and doing a prompt review of exemption requests as the more expedient and best path forward for trying to navigate this situation.
0:21:6.400 --> 0:21:7.150 David Schwarzbart OK. Thanks.
0:21:7.640 --> 0:21:8.10 Leah Smith Thank you.
0:21:10.490 --> 0:21:12.420 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you again for your question.
0:21:12.490 --> 0:21:16.200 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going turn to Jeanne Johnston.
13 Enclosure 3
0:21:16.650 --> 0:21:21.270 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Jeanne Johnston, whenever you are ready, please feel free to unmute yourself.
0:21:21.280 --> 0:21:22.720 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and any affiliation.
0:21:23.860 --> 0:21:24.740 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Thank you very much.
0:21:24.750 --> 0:21:26.90 Johnston, Jeanne D.
This is Jeannie Johnston.
0:21:26.140 --> 0:21:31.960 Johnston, Jeanne D.
I work for Southern Nuclear in Birmingham, AL, and I'm representing The Reg Affairs Department.
0:21:32.20 --> 0:21:40.210 Johnston, Jeanne D.
So my interest in this topic is primarily around the notification and reporting guidelines.
0:21:41.100 --> 0:21:58.560 Johnston, Jeanne D.
So you mentioned I heard that there was a final date of April and my question is, does that assume a 60 day public comment period for the draft guide if those were to be scheduled and or published for comment in November or is that based off of a 30 day comment period?
0:22:3.850 --> 0:22:14.920 Phil Brochman Based on my the last discussions, I think it was either a 30 day or 45 day comment period.
0:22:15.810 --> 0:22:37.350 Phil Brochman But as I mentioned earlier, one of the things that the NRC wants to use in this meeting is to solicit any feedback as to what would be an appropriate duration of the comment period given the number of the number of Reg Guides that we're going to issue as draft guides.
0:22:38.250 --> 0:22:43.330 Phil Brochman And so if we go to a 60 day comment period.
0:22:43.940 --> 0:22:48.440 Phil Brochman April is theoretically doable, but it's very tight.
0:22:49.330 --> 0:22:50.740 Johnston, Jeanne D.
OK, understood.
0:22:51.310 --> 0:23:1.280 Johnston, Jeanne D.
So speaking, you know, on behalf of my utility, I've been certainly, you know, November and December are busy times with holidays and all of that.
0:23:1.550 --> 0:23:17.580 Johnston, Jeanne D.
I would think that a 60 day public comment period for three red guides, given the extent of the challenges and the concerns that were raised previously, but that's just speaking for my utility.
14 Enclosure 3
0:23:18.170 --> 0:23:28.740 Johnston, Jeanne D.
My second question I had there is on NUREG 1304 that has clarification and that understand is going to be updated.
0:23:28.870 --> 0:23:33.70 Johnston, Jeanne D.
So is there a schedule or time frame for the NUREG 1304?
0:23:35.90 --> 0:23:51.800 Phil Brochman At this point, no. The staff's initial concept in NUREG 1304 was we were going to do it sometime after the implementation date was completed.
0:23:52.530 --> 0:23:59.200 Phil Brochman With this effective implementation date.
0:23:59.510 --> 0:24:2.680 Phil Brochman Now, sliding later into 2024.
0:24:3.190 --> 0:24:5.970 Phil Brochman I'm not sure exactly when that will be [the Q&A workshop on NUREG-1304, Rev 1].
0:24:8.400 --> 0:24:18.600 Phil Brochman Depending on how licensees go [regarding implementation and exemptions], I could see that moving to 2025, but I don't know for certain at this point.
0:24:18.650 --> 0:24:28.940 Phil Brochman Right now, our focus is on getting the draft guides finished and published, and then reviewing [and dispositioning] the comments.
0:24:28.950 --> 0:24:33.790 Phil Brochman And then once we get all that done, I think we'll be thinking about when we might be holding a.
0:24:36.50 --> 0:24:39.990 Phil Brochman Public meeting to do the revision to NUREG 1304.
0:24:43.520 --> 0:24:44.170 Johnston, Jeanne D.
OK.
0:24:44.360 --> 0:24:56.110 Johnston, Jeanne D.
And then just so that I can take back to our licensing folks, if we do submit exemptions, what is a reasonable time frame for the turnaround?
0:24:56.220 --> 0:25:4.670 Johnston, Jeanne D.
So if we submit and December, could we reasonably have a 30 day turnaround so that it's approved before the implementation date?
0:25:8.750 --> 0:25:15.760 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Or is that something that will be discussed later when we work together on the template in the process?
15 Enclosure 3
0:25:18.760 --> 0:25:26.560 Phil Brochman I think at this point, unless you have some more information, I think that might be something that will be discussed down the road.
0:25:27.910 --> 0:25:39.680 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Yeah, I don't have an exact date, Jeannie, but I think that, you know, if you think exemptions are going to be necessary for your sites, then I would suggest you know the sooner the better to get them in.
0:25:40.30 --> 0:25:55.330 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Our goal is to work through the process as efficiently as we can to turn them around, but yeah, I don't have an exact date yet and this would be kind of like the last date you could get it in and still get it approved, right? So.
0:25:56.400 --> 0:25:56.810 Johnston, Jeanne D.
OK.
0:25:56.880 --> 0:25:57.510 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Thank you very much.
0:26:2.360 --> 0:26:4.750 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you again for your questions and your comments.
0:26:5.440 --> 0:26:13.860 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're not going to go to Stan Day, Stan, whenever you are ready, please feel free to state your name and affiliation and then begin your questions and comments.
0:26:15.100 --> 0:26:16.350 Stan Day Hello, my name is Stan Day.
0:26:16.360 --> 0:26:20.790 Stan Day I'm the licensing engineer for Connecticut Yankee, Main Yankee, and Yankee Atomic [ISFSIs].
0:26:21.960 --> 0:26:33.550 Stan Day So my question is, given that you haven't, no, you decided not to slide the implementation date we it will the NRC be amenable to schedule or exemptions.
0:26:34.890 --> 0:26:45.340 Stan Day OK, it took for that because I know that our site, we have generic concerns with the regulations, not just the Reg Guides.
0:26:45.850 --> 0:26:51.440 Stan Day So I could see a fairly complex set of exemption request on our part.
0:26:51.770 --> 0:27:9.350 Stan Day You know, dealing with disease causing agents, dealing with the continuous manning of a phone line, dealing with the FAA control towers, and a host of other generic issues that are concerned with the language in the rule itself.
16 Enclosure 3
0:27:9.880 --> 0:27:20.500 Stan Day So we could either have a simple schedule exemption request, or we could have a complex multipart exemption request.
0:27:21.840 --> 0:27:26.940 Stan Day So what would the NRC be willing to consider a scheduler exemption?
0:27:32.170 --> 0:27:38.220 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Stan, I think we're going to have to take that back and discuss it with our legal counsel because I'm.
0:27:38.290 --> 0:27:39.800 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I'm not sure of the answer to that.
0:27:39.810 --> 0:27:42.380 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I understand the concerns.
0:27:42.470 --> 0:27:47.920 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I know that we have spoken about some of those generic issues that you guys were looking at.
0:27:47.930 --> 0:27:51.130 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So we will have to get back to you on that response.
0:27:53.940 --> 0:27:54.120 Stan Day OK.
0:27:59.940 --> 0:28:0.290 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright.
0:28:0.560 --> 0:28:2.990 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you very much for your question.
0:28:5.40 --> 0:28:7.430 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
At this time, I don't see anyone else in the queue.
0:28:7.440 --> 0:28:21.630 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So again, if you would like to ask some question or post a comment on the process presentation, we just went through, please feel free to raise your hand if participating via the Teams app, you can find that right at the top of the screen.
0:28:21.640 --> 0:28:27.70 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Looks like a little hand symbol or if you're participating via phone, press Star 5 again.
0:28:27.80 --> 0:28:28.530 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
That is Star 5.
0:28:28.660 --> 0:28:45.840 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
If you're having trouble raising your hand, please feel free to add that in mute and I'll see what I can do
17 Enclosure 3
to help you out, but I'll give individuals to you a couple more half a minute to figure out if they if there's any other questions they might want to ask related to this presentation before we move on to the next one.
0:28:55.920 --> 0:28:56.830 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, come on.
0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:57.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Once.
0:28:58.410 --> 0:28:59.50 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Twice.
0:29:0.360 --> 0:29:0.830 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright.
0:29:0.840 --> 0:29:3.290 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you everyone who asked questions.
0:29:3.560 --> 0:29:6.430 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So far, we really appreciate it and for your comments as well.
0:29:6.580 --> 0:29:11.790 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're now going to turn over to the second presentation, if you would just give me one second.
0:29:11.800 --> 0:29:12.760 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
To switch that up.
0:29:26.440 --> 0:29:26.820 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Hopefully.
0:29:29.190 --> 0:29:32.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
The content slides or displaying now and with that I'll turn it over to Phil.
0:29:33.950 --> 0:29:35.770 Phil Brochman Thank you, Brett.
0:29:37.420 --> 0:29:39.970 Phil Brochman So we didn't take any break because we were.
0:29:40.100 --> 0:29:44.970 Phil Brochman Only about the 30 minutes into the into our present into our discussion.
0:29:45.380 --> 0:29:56.750 Phil Brochman So, right now we're going to the Staffs intent is to preview the potential technical content of these limited scope revisions.
0:29:59.190 --> 0:30:11.30 Phil Brochman
18 Enclosure 3
As I stated earlier, this is still an information meeting with question-and-answer session in this portion as well.
0:30:11.350 --> 0:30:26.60 Phil Brochman I'm going to pause after each of the draft guide areas we've sorted this into if you've had a chance to, to look at the slides however briefly, they're broken down into three draft guides.
0:30:26.130 --> 0:30:33.960 Phil Brochman I'll pause at the end of each one in case there's questions on a particular draft guide.
0:30:34.250 --> 0:30:41.950 Phil Brochman And then there's we've got a block [of time] at the very end of the slides for any other questions.
0:30:43.770 --> 0:30:58.360 Phil Brochman So as I noted previously, the NRC is not actively soliciting comments towards a regulatory decision in this meeting as this is an information meeting with question-and-answer session.
0:30:58.550 --> 0:30:59.770 Phil Brochman So next slide please.
0:31:1.950 --> 0:31:12.730 Phil Brochman So our purpose of this particular portion [of our presentation] is to preview the proposed technical content for these limited scope revisions.
0:31:13.750 --> 0:31:21.360 Phil Brochman We're going to discuss the staff contemplated approach to address the most significant issues raised by stakeholders.
0:31:21.970 --> 0:31:36.700 Phil Brochman And as I've noted in the previous discussion, the actual changes themselves will be contained in draft guides, and they'll be highlighted in the manner to help you focus on what the changes are.
0:31:36.890 --> 0:31:40.60 Phil Brochman And we'll publish those draft guides in the Federal Register for comment.
0:31:40.510 --> 0:31:41.350 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:31:45.210 --> 0:31:59.100 Phil Brochman So first, before we get to the technical changes that disclaimer, the information that is going to be discussed in these slides reflects the Staffs current contemplated approach to addressing issues raised by stakeholders.
0:31:59.910 --> 0:32:14.790 Phil Brochman However, a specific technical approach resolving any issue that is discussed in this meeting may evolve as these draft guides move through the NRCs review and approval process prior to their publication for public for comment.
19 Enclosure 3
0:32:20.180 --> 0:32:20.950 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:32:24.220 --> 0:32:36.870 Phil Brochman Our agenda for this portion of the meeting is to focus on, the three guides.
0:32:36.960 --> 0:33:2.220 Phil Brochman And you'll notice that I have them sorted in reverse sequence order, and I've done that deliberately because the changes to draft guide 5082 and 5081 are not as substantive in number, and I wanted to make sure we got through all of those in case we had extended discussions on draft guide 5080.
0:33:2.230 --> 0:33:5.450 Phil Brochman Reg Guide 5.62 seems to have engendered the most questions.
0:33:8.790 --> 0:33:10.940 Phil Brochman Alright, so next slide.
0:33:10.950 --> 0:33:17.540 Phil Brochman So here we are, draft guide 5082, this draft guide, if adopted, would become revision 1 to.
0:33:17.550 --> 0:33:23.620 Phil Brochman Reg Guide 5.87, which is suspicious activity reporting under Part 73.
0:33:23.730 --> 0:33:24.500 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:33:27.910 --> 0:33:37.690 Phil Brochman The NRC is considering two potential changes in draft guide 5082 relating to the aircraft suspicious activity reporting process.
0:33:39.450 --> 0:33:44.200 Phil Brochman The first is in Section B and you'll see the topic there.
0:33:44.370 --> 0:33:50.380 Phil Brochman The topic is the heading in the regulatory guide where this particular information is located.
0:33:50.650 --> 0:33:53.370 Phil Brochman This deals with the coordination and precedence language [for reporting suspicious activites].
0:33:54.730 --> 0:34:20.760 Phil Brochman What we're thinking about is clarifying a question that was raised to us that in this following scenario, if a licensee thinks that something that potential aircraft activity is suspicious but they're not sure, they haven't reached a conclusion, and they contact their local FAA aircraft control facility to ask some questions to gather more information.
0:34:20.910 --> 0:34:29.480 Phil Brochman
20 Enclosure 3
And, in the course of that discussion, the licensee reaches a conclusion that the aircraft activity is, in fact suspicious.
0:34:29.970 --> 0:35:7.560 Phil Brochman Can they make the notification to the FAA at that point, or do they need to revert back to the standard order and precedence of notifications which is local law enforcement first, FBI second, and NRC third, and the FAA fourth. The Staffs thinking at this point is it would be more effective and efficient to allow licensees to make the notification at that point described to the FAA and then to revert to the remainder of the standard order of precedence.
0:35:13.530 --> 0:35:24.780 Phil Brochman So we would view this as approach as more efficient for both licensees and the FAA and it eliminates the need for a repeat call to the FAA.
0:35:26.550 --> 0:35:34.570 Phil Brochman In the second bullet here we're talking about the same reporting, timeliness and order of precedence and notification process.
0:35:35.860 --> 0:36:2.40 Phil Brochman One of the items that was pointed out to us was that, in for some licensees, the nearest FAA control tower, may be a major airport and in reflection we thought that a better choice of words may be the at local or appropriate FAA aircraft control facility [at the FAAs discretion].
0:36:2.370 --> 0:36:5.300 Phil Brochman That could be a control tower.
0:36:5.590 --> 0:36:25.610 Phil Brochman It could be a facility called a TRACON, which is the FAA's lingo for a terminal radar approach control facility, which has responsibility for a much larger area and higher altitude than an individual control tower.
0:36:26.800 --> 0:36:41.210 Phil Brochman We also recognize that for some facilities, there may be multiple control towers, both civilian and military, within a within a short distance of their facility location that may need to be contacted.
0:36:41.400 --> 0:36:46.160 Phil Brochman And so we are looking to make this language a little bit more generic.
0:36:47.250 --> 0:36:51.30 Phil Brochman The language on FAA control tower may have been too precise.
0:36:53.480 --> 0:37:22.60 Phil Brochman And the second point I would make is we would recommend deferring to what the FAA recommends as their most appropriate location to contact in reporting suspicious activities and the language that the staff had used might be viewed as too prescriptive and not providing the FAA sufficient flexibility to direct the communications where it deems most appropriate.
21 Enclosure 3
0:37:23.910 --> 0:37:24.760 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:37:28.620 --> 0:37:37.150 Phil Brochman All right, so let me pause at this point and say that's those were the changes that we've identified in draft guide 5082.
0:37:41.700 --> 0:37:58.140 Phil Brochman At this point, we can stop and if anybody has any questions on those particular changes, I can address them there or we can proceed on and you can raise the raise any questions at the end of this presentation.
0:38:0.260 --> 0:38:7.210 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Hey again to ask a question, please raise your hand within the Teams app or hit Star 5 if you're participating via phone.
0:38:7.220 --> 0:38:12.0 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We do have a number of people who would like to ask questions at this time.
0:38:12.870 --> 0:38:13.200 Phil Brochman OK.
0:38:12.10 --> 0:38:14.70 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're going start with Jeanne Johnston.
0:38:14.220 --> 0:38:19.80 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So, Jeanne, whenever you are ready, please feel free to unmute yourself and begin your questions and or comments.
0:38:20.810 --> 0:38:23.390 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Thank you Jeannie Johnston again with Southern Nuclear.
0:38:23.670 --> 0:38:32.280 Johnston, Jeanne D.
I have not been following the entirety of this rule, so forgive me, this is going to be a very easy question, but does this topic of suspicious activity?
0:38:32.290 --> 0:38:38.240 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Is that limited to aircraft, suspicious activity and drones and things of that nature?
0:38:38.250 --> 0:38:40.650 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Or is it any type of suspicious activity?
0:38:43.310 --> 0:38:43.840 Phil Brochman Thank you, Jeanne.
0:38:43.850 --> 0:38:44.660 Phil Brochman Good question.
22 Enclosure 3
0:38:45.170 --> 0:38:49.820 Phil Brochman The Regulation addresses a broad range of suspicious activities.
0:38:50.530 --> 0:39:5.230 Phil Brochman The particular questions that were raised in the previous public workshops and in the forums that seemed to be the most significant focused on the issues that I've just discussed.
0:39:5.380 --> 0:39:11.820 Phil Brochman And so that's what the potential changes in draft guide 5082 would focus on.
0:39:12.580 --> 0:39:12.850 Johnston, Jeanne D.
OK.
0:39:12.860 --> 0:39:13.210 Johnston, Jeanne D.
Thank you.
0:39:15.480 --> 0:39:16.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you very much for your question.
0:39:16.820 --> 0:39:18.550 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we'll turn to Stan Day.
0:39:18.560 --> 0:39:21.220 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Stan, whenever you are ready, please feel free to unmute yourself.
0:39:23.210 --> 0:39:41.100 Stan Day OK, now Stan Day once again with uh Connecticut YY atomic in Maine Yankee has the inner C considered possibly issuing an enforcement guidance memorandum for some of these generic issues that are attempting to be resolved via these changes to the draft.
0:39:41.110 --> 0:39:49.380 Stan Day You know, to the Reg Guides and this one dealing with the FAA, local control tower is a good example because the rule is very prescriptive.
0:39:49.460 --> 0:39:52.690 Stan Day It tells us to contact the FAA local control tower.
0:39:53.0 --> 0:40:6.30 Stan Day You know, in some cases that's not even going to be in the same state, but the practicality of us being able to contact the control tower is probably going to be 0.
0:40:7.30 --> 0:40:17.30 Stan Day So The thing is, is that we're probably going to be calling into an operation center and they would take the action to contact the applicable control towers.
0:40:17.950 --> 0:40:22.100 Stan Day So yeah, in this case that's a generic item that's applicable to all of us.
23 Enclosure 3
0:40:22.110 --> 0:40:44.750 Stan Day And I would assume that every licensee would need to submit an exemption request associated with the FAA local control tower as described in the rule, and so it seems to be that that would be something that would be ripe for an enforcement guidance memorandum to develop a uh limited time frame resolution.
0:40:45.680 --> 0:40:49.110 Stan Day So just wondering if the NRC considered that.
0:40:52.850 --> 0:40:53.910 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Phil, do you want me to jump in?
0:40:54.820 --> 0:40:55.150 Phil Brochman Oh, yes.
0:40:55.160 --> 0:40:55.680 Phil Brochman Please, Becca.
0:40:56.690 --> 0:40:57.80 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Stan.
0:40:57.90 --> 0:40:58.470 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Yes, the answer is yes.
0:40:58.480 --> 0:41:2.220 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
We have considered it and are still considering whether that would be appropriate.
0:41:3.500 --> 0:41:3.780 Stan Day Got it.
0:41:4.40 --> 0:41:4.640 Stan Day Alright, thank you.
0:41:7.350 --> 0:41:8.520 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you for your question.
0:41:8.750 --> 0:41:11.280 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going to go to Michael McNally.
0:41:11.550 --> 0:41:14.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Michael, whenever you're ready, please feel free to state your name.
0:41:14.190 --> 0:41:15.20 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Unmute yourself.
0:41:15.30 --> 0:41:16.830 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and any affiliation.
24 Enclosure 3
0:41:17.850 --> 0:41:18.470 Mcnally, Michael Hey, thanks.
0:41:18.480 --> 0:41:24.90 Mcnally, Michael Uh might be valley with the Luminant Power Security manager, Air Comanche Peak, just a clarifying question.
0:41:24.100 --> 0:41:32.830 Mcnally, Michael So suspicious activity, the clarification being suspicious activity determination is made by security management at that site.
0:41:33.60 --> 0:41:37.130 Mcnally, Michael It's solely sets with them as far as making the determination and suspicious activity.
0:41:37.760 --> 0:41:38.420 Mcnally, Michael Is that correct?
0:41:40.390 --> 0:41:42.620 Phil Brochman Thank you for your question.
0:41:42.830 --> 0:41:52.160 Phil Brochman Yes, it is correct that the determination rests solely with the licensee and the personnel they have assigned that responsibility.
0:41:52.610 --> 0:42:9.490 Phil Brochman However, the regulation and the guidance discuss the fact that the licensee may contact external entities in order to obtain in obtain additional information to reach a conclusion.
0:42:12.40 --> 0:42:15.40 Phil Brochman That could be local law enforcement.
0:42:15.50 --> 0:42:18.180 Phil Brochman It could be the FAA, et cetera.
0:42:18.250 --> 0:42:22.640 Phil Brochman We've had instances in the past with suspicious activity.
0:42:23.320 --> 0:42:27.930 Phil Brochman where the licensee is reached out [to gather more information and there was a problem].
0:42:27.940 --> 0:42:37.190 Phil Brochman The best example I have that comes to mind is contacting campus police at a research and test reactor where the licensee thought there might have been something suspicious.
0:42:37.460 --> 0:42:44.930 Phil Brochman They went and interacted with their campus police and there was a there was an issue that arose because of that.
25 Enclosure 3
0:42:45.100 --> 0:42:54.600 Phil Brochman So what the NRC did in crafting the final regulation was to make clear that the licensee could reach out and gather information.
0:42:55.30 --> 0:42:58.420 Phil Brochman That reaching out was not necessarily a conclusion.
0:42:58.590 --> 0:43:0.740 Phil Brochman That something was or was not suspicious.
0:43:1.150 --> 0:43:37.330 Phil Brochman So in my hypothetical, what I was indicating was that you reach out, you see something, they're not sure if it's suspicious or not suspicious that you reach out to your local FAA aircraft control facility, and based on that interaction, you then have enough information to reach a conclusion and the thought was if the conclusion is that the that this is suspicious aircraft activity, you could notify the FAA at that point in time rather than hanging up calling everyone else in the order of precedence and then returning back to the FAA.
0:43:38.110 --> 0:43:39.230 Phil Brochman Does that answer your question, Sir?
0:43:39.780 --> 0:43:41.10 Mcnally, Michael Yeah, that helps, Phil. Thanks.
0:43:43.410 --> 0:43:43.760 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
All right.
0:43:43.770 --> 0:43:45.120 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you again for that question.
0:43:45.490 --> 0:43:47.700 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going to turn to Steven Nayak.
0:43:47.970 --> 0:43:51.40 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Steven Nayak, whenever you are ready, please feel free to unmute yourself.
0:43:51.50 --> 0:43:54.900 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and any affiliation, and then begin your questions and or comments.
0:43:55.10 --> 0:43:55.390 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you.
0:44:7.380 --> 0:44:8.740 Phil Brochman Don't think he's unmuted himself.
0:44:9.600 --> 0:44:13.760 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
It looks even it looks like I can see your microphone, but we can't hear you.
26 Enclosure 3
0:44:16.860 --> 0:44:17.470 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Good afternoon.
0:44:17.480 --> 0:44:18.630 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
This Corey Daniels actually.
0:44:18.150 --> 0:44:18.740 Phil Brochman Well, there you are.
0:44:19.250 --> 0:44:19.690 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
There we go.
0:44:20.920 --> 0:44:21.560 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Hi.
0:44:21.630 --> 0:44:36.20 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Steven Naeck with North Star nuclear decommissioning at Vermont Yankee and also by proxy representing other folks on the call from our affiliate, say Crystal River 3 with the [other] North Stars decommissioning [plants] there as well.
0:44:36.350 --> 0:44:45.450 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
And there is busy, mostly want to echo Stan Days comment, but then extrapolated slightly further and extended.
0:44:46.410 --> 0:44:50.200 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
No, spending a good amount of time trying to coordinate with the FAA.
0:44:50.210 --> 0:45:7.230 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Who the appropriate contacts would be and the answer of the and implementation of the rule and having little success other than learning that it would be in fact the East Coast Operation Center and that they would prefer we contact [them] and not meeting The Regulation or Reg guidance as prescribed.
0:45:8.650 --> 0:45:30.730 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I think that enforcement [discretion] will be important to a lot of licensees and additionally with respect to the other reporting requirements, including to the FBI or potentially a local military airfield or nearby military airfield, which we found are even more difficult to arrange liaisons with.
0:45:32.320 --> 0:45:51.990 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Has the NRC considered whether or not it would be more appropriate for the NRC to make these ancillary notifications, or these other agencies through the more appropriate fusion processes that exist instead of burdening the licensees individually with his activity.
0:45:52.140 --> 0:46:0.520 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Therefore, we could just make a single report to the NRC and allow more efficient activity of reporting to the other agencies.
27 Enclosure 3
0:46:2.350 --> 0:46:3.650 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
And that's my question. Thanks.
0:46:8.260 --> 0:46:13.860 Phil Brochman Well, I think there could may many ways to answer tha.
0:46:13.870 --> 0:46:21.250 Phil Brochman But let me let me just point out that that would be a significant change to the structure of the final rule.
0:46:23.350 --> 0:46:28.340 Phil Brochman And that's going a bit beyond what we're looking at here.
0:46:28.470 --> 0:46:34.560 Phil Brochman But I think you're raising some very good questions that we need to.
0:46:35.130 --> 0:46:56.170 Phil Brochman Dialogue with and I think the NRC also has the ability to interact with the FAA on a federal agency agency level and some of these questions you're raising, maybe things that we can propose to that portion of the Department of Transportation.
0:46:57.100 --> 0:47:0.870 Phil Brochman Becca, would you like to amplify, correct me.
0:47:1.460 --> 0:47:2.230 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
No, no, no.
0:47:2.240 --> 0:47:3.50 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Correction Phil.
0:47:3.60 --> 0:47:3.930 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I think you're right.
0:47:3.940 --> 0:47:8.860 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
It was a good comment and we'll take that back and consider that.
0:47:15.960 --> 0:47:16.240 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright.
0:47:16.250 --> 0:47:18.30 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you very much for that question.
0:47:18.800 --> 0:47:20.500 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're next going to turn to Edward.
0:47:22.70 --> 0:47:22.800 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Allow.
28 Enclosure 3
0:47:23.270 --> 0:47:26.750 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
If I again, if I am mispronouncing anyone's name, I apologize.
0:47:26.760 --> 0:47:30.660 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
But we're going to go turn to Edward next when you are ready.
0:47:30.670 --> 0:47:31.530 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Feel free to meet yourself.
0:47:31.540 --> 0:47:32.820 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and any affiliation.
0:47:33.640 --> 0:47:35.510 Edward Lau (Guest)
Alright, my name is Edward Liao.
0:47:35.520 --> 0:47:36.80 Edward Lau (Guest)
Can you hear me?
0:47:37.130 --> 0:47:37.670 Phil Brochman Yes, we can.
0:47:38.70 --> 0:47:41.980 Edward Lau (Guest)
Yes, I'm with the MIT nuclear reactor lab.
0:47:42.750 --> 0:47:52.370 Edward Lau (Guest)
Umm, we have, uh, multiple uh aircrafts suspicious of flying over the reactor or circling the facility.
0:47:52.970 --> 0:47:54.780 Edward Lau (Guest)
Let's say in the in the last 20 years.
0:47:55.710 --> 0:48:13.550 Edward Lau (Guest)
And what I found out is that the best way to do is to, uh, call the local FBI point of contact and then have them contact FAA for us and we get result that way much faster.
0:48:14.570 --> 0:48:25.100 Edward Lau (Guest)
We do not have a local point of contact with the FAA and I so far they have been resisting in as establishing so.
0:48:25.660 --> 0:48:37.560 Edward Lau (Guest)
So in the past I've my experience is that when we called it FAA they spend a lot of time you know trying to get our identity, our names, our contact, you know how to call back and so on.
0:48:37.570 --> 0:48:41.310 Edward Lau (Guest)
And by the time when we were done with the call, the aircraft are gone.
0:48:42.20 --> 0:48:42.630 Edward Lau (Guest)
Umm.
29 Enclosure 3
0:48:42.840 --> 0:48:50.240 Edward Lau (Guest)
And also, I found out that they, uh, they were not allowed to release any information to civilians.
0:48:51.260 --> 0:48:51.880 Edward Lau (Guest)
Umm.
0:48:52.260 --> 0:49:0.320 Edward Lau (Guest)
And it's usually that they jot down our information and the callback later or even the next day, or sometimes they don't even call back.
0:49:1.0 --> 0:49:17.940 Edward Lau (Guest)
Umm, I just want to make sure that you know when NRC writes rules that, uh, that NRC has coordinate with FAA and let them know that FAA will be contacted by many nuclear facility licensees to establish a point of contact.
0:49:17.950 --> 0:49:24.300 Edward Lau (Guest)
So that FAA is ready to, you know, to establish local contact with us.
0:49:26.150 --> 0:49:33.420 Edward Lau (Guest)
Otherwise, I'll say that you know best approach is still to, you know, call the local FBI contact.
0:49:36.370 --> 0:49:37.180 Phil Brochman Thank you.
0:49:38.180 --> 0:49:39.320 Phil Brochman Thank you for that feedback.
0:49:39.800 --> 0:50:5.690 Phil Brochman The voluntary suspicious Activity reporting program that started in I think was about 2005, 2006 time frame has included contacting the local FAA control tower and so it may have been that the staff assumed that there was not any major problems in this area.
0:50:6.40 --> 0:50:34.290 Phil Brochman I think what you what you and some of the previous speakers are pointing out is that the language that we used in the rule, which sort of followed the direction of the voluntary program guidance or NRC security advisories may not have been the most effective and efficient, but we're going to have to, I think that will that will be this may be a longer term takeaway issue.
0:50:34.560 --> 0:50:37.550 Phil Brochman Becca, do you have anything else that you want to add to this?
0:50:41.230 --> 0:50:42.520 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I think you covered it well. Thanks.
0:50:46.290 --> 0:50:46.670 Phil Brochman Alright.
30 Enclosure 3
0:50:47.120 --> 0:50:47.980 Phil Brochman Next question.
0:50:50.210 --> 0:50:55.300 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And this time it doesn't look like we have anyone else with their hand raised.
0:50:55.310 --> 0:51:5.840 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So if you would like to ask a question, I'll give you a couple seconds here in in case you think of a question you'd like to ask or coming in like to make regarding this particular section of the presentation.
0:51:5.970 --> 0:51:12.280 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So again, if you're participating via phone, press Star 5 again, that is Star 5 to raise your hand.
0:51:12.390 --> 0:51:17.570 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Or if you're participating via the app, just press the raised hand function.
0:51:20.410 --> 0:51:26.570 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, I'm not seeing anyone, so it looks like we can move on with the presentation.
0:51:26.580 --> 0:51:27.230 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you everyone.
0:51:35.820 --> 0:51:37.280 Phil Brochman All right, be right back.
0:51:44.910 --> 0:52:0.500 Phil Brochman So let me now switch to draft guide 5081, that would if adopted, be revision 1 to regulatory guide 5.86 0:52:0.510 --> 0:52:10.220 Phil Brochman Reg Guide 5.86 dealt with preemption authority, enhanced Weapons Authority, and firearms background checks.
0:52:10.630 --> 0:52:19.420 Phil Brochman As I said, this was all pf the provisions of the enhanced weapons rule that dealt with implementation of section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act.
0:52:27.60 --> 0:52:37.800 Phil Brochman So in draft guide 5081, the NRC staff is considering two potential changes related to enhanced weapons issues.
0:52:38.730 --> 0:52:52.520 Phil Brochman 1st in Section B Topic, the NRC created the terms standalone preemption authority and combined preemption authority and enhanced weapons authority as terms of art in the rule under Section 161A for when you get enhanced weapons authority.
0:52:52.980 --> 0:53:5.440 Phil Brochman The language in the guidance document indicated that a licensee must first apply for stand-alone
31 Enclosure 3
preemption authority before it can apply for this combined preemption authority and enhanced weapons authority.
0:53:6.560 --> 0:53:9.390 Phil Brochman This language is incorrect.
0:53:10.300 --> 0:53:22.610 Phil Brochman It's certainly allowed that a licensee could apply first for standalone preemption authority, but it's not required.
0:53:22.620 --> 0:53:30.190 Phil Brochman That is, a licensee can proceed directly to the application for combined preemption authority and enhance weapons authority.
0:53:30.380 --> 0:53:32.640 Phil Brochman We would clarify that in DG-5081.
0:53:33.700 --> 0:53:39.70 Phil Brochman Second, there was some questions on staff regulatory guidance.
0:53:39.80 --> 0:54:23.660 Phil Brochman Position 5 of this of Reg guide 5.86 what is meant by training on enhanced weapons for security personnel with different responsibilities and the distinction was being made between security personnel who have access to enhance weapons versus security personnel whose duties requires the use of enhanced weapons and the I think the best example of this would be security personnel who have access to armories or ready service lockers but don't actually use the weapons in implementing the licensees protective strategy.
0:54:26.440 --> 0:54:53.590 Phil Brochman And so in that circumstance it did not did not seem to make sense that the Reg Guide would indicate that the licensee would need to have those personnel who just have access to areas where the weapons are located would require them to train and qualify at the proficiency standards necessary to be able to use weapons.
0:54:53.980 --> 0:54:56.840 Phil Brochman So we would clarify that particular aspect.
0:54:58.560 --> 0:54:59.360 Phil Brochman Next slide please.
0:55:4.950 --> 0:55:27.430 Phil Brochman There was also some questions regarding the issues of firearms background checks and in particular the question was raised if a licensee has security personnel whose duties do not include access to firearms or more particularly covered weapons.
0:55:32.180 --> 0:55:42.380 Phil Brochman Are those personnel required to have a firearms background check and our conceptual thinking at this point is the answer to that is no.
32 Enclosure 3
0:55:42.650 --> 0:55:49.510 Phil Brochman If the persons duties did not require access, I use access in a very broad sense.
0:55:50.660 --> 0:55:55.810 Phil Brochman They're not required to have a firearms background check.
0:55:56.180 --> 0:55:57.730 Phil Brochman Practical example.
0:55:57.920 --> 0:56:3.210 Phil Brochman You have a security officer who performs badging duties, and they are not armed.
0:56:3.760 --> 0:56:8.70 Phil Brochman What they do is they process issue [security] badges, et cetera, et cetera.
0:56:8.630 --> 0:56:39.940 Phil Brochman That person would not require a firearms background check.If they were reassigned at some point in the future to duties that did require access to weapons, they would require a firearms background check, and so the decision on whether a licensee submits a particular individual for a firearms background check is at your discretion based upon your plans for what duties that individual may likely perform.
0:56:41.300 --> 0:56:53.650 Phil Brochman The next question is regarding on the on-boarding process for newly hired personnel who do have firearms duties and are undergoing a firearms background check.
0:56:53.660 --> 0:56:59.290 Phil Brochman The question relates to, well, how much training and on boarding can we do?
0:56:59.620 --> 0:57:21.560 Phil Brochman The NRC has looked at this. In our conceptual approach [in DG-5081] you can do all of the items that you would do as part of your onboarding training process, except for those activities that require handling and use of covered weapons.
0:57:22.100 --> 0:57:27.370 Phil Brochman So you could have classroom instruction on use of deadly force.
0:57:27.810 --> 0:57:41.710 Phil Brochman What you couldn't do is have hands on firearms training at the firing range until such time as the individuals have completed the satisfactory firearms background check.
0:57:42.290 --> 0:58:1.140 Phil Brochman So we think that that balances out and will provide sufficient flexibility to licensees and those are the four areas in draft guide 5081 that the NRC is considering addressing.
0:58:3.350 --> 0:58:11.240 Phil Brochman I know that there are only a few licensees who may be interested in this, so we'll see how many comments and questions I get in this area.
33 Enclosure 3
0:58:11.450 --> 0:58:16.810 Phil Brochman So, Brett, why don't you, this back up for questions and comments on this area.
0:58:18.320 --> 0:58:18.650 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright.
0:58:18.660 --> 0:58:19.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thanks, Phil.
0:58:19.340 --> 0:58:23.710 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Before we go to questions, I just wanted to capture some things that were put in the chat.
0:58:23.720 --> 0:58:29.270 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So and again, if you do write something in the chat, we will capture in our notes from this meeting.
0:58:29.480 --> 0:58:35.90 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Janet Shutler of NEI writes regarding slide eight of the last presentation.
0:58:35.340 --> 0:58:43.30 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I applaud the NRCs plan to conduct a public meeting, specifically to provide feedback on how comments were dispositioned prior to ewvising the guidance.
0:58:43.100 --> 0:58:46.450 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
This should be, but is not, standard practice with rulemakings.
0:58:46.600 --> 0:58:48.230 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you for that comment, Janet.
0:58:48.810 --> 0:58:50.300 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I'm Sue Perkins wrote.
0:58:50.770 --> 0:58:52.470 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Excellent points being made.
0:58:52.480 --> 0:58:58.880 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Licensees are committed to interact with the FAA, but it is not reciprocal, being or with the private sector.
0:58:59.200 --> 0:59:18.550 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And then Charlotte Shields, wrote as a follow up, if a licensee finds themselves in a situation where the FAA refuses to establish a point of contact, is Mr Lau articulated clarification on how licensees will be able to comply since it is specific in the rule language?
0:59:18.560 --> 0:59:20.640 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you all for your comments and the chat.
34 Enclosure 3
0:59:21.480 --> 0:59:26.190 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And with that, again, if you do post comments in the chat, we chat, we will capture them.
0:59:26.300 --> 0:59:29.530 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
But let us now turn to questions on this particular section of the presentation.
0:59:29.660 --> 0:59:36.710 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
If you have any questions on this section, please feel free to raise your hand using the Teams app or press Star 5 on your phone.
0:59:47.540 --> 0:59:53.830 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, it looks like we don't have any takers for questions or comments on this section.
0:59:53.840 --> 0:59:58.250 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Fine, so I think we can move on to the next section.
1:0:0.800 --> 1:0:1.530 Phil Brochman Very well.
1:0:1.940 --> 1:0:11.500 Phil Brochman I was thinking the next time I do this, I'm gonna have to get the theme music from Jeopardy to play during while we're waiting for comments to arise.
1:0:14.470 --> 1:0:15.100 Phil Brochman All right.
1:0:15.270 --> 1:0:21.580 Phil Brochman So we're in the third stretch, which I think will also be the long stretch of this particular discussion.
1:0:24.210 --> 1:0:28.160 Phil Brochman The staff is now going to talk about our conceptual approaches.
1:0:28.930 --> 1:0:33.260 Phil Brochman Preview what we're thinking about in draft guide 5080.
1:0:35.990 --> 1:0:44.550 Phil Brochman This would be revision 3 to Reg Guide 5.62, which is physical security, event notifications, reports and records.
1:0:46.620 --> 1:1:5.910 Phil Brochman We've got a number of topics here [in DG 5080] and as we get to the end of this, there will be some slides that we'll talk about issues where questions have been raised, that we that the staff thinks does not think will require changes to the regulations, but to the guidance documents.
1:1:6.170 --> 1:1:11.160 Phil Brochman But we wanted to highlight the issues of significance and we wanted to go over that a bit.
35 Enclosure 3
1:1:11.570 --> 1:1:22.850 Phil Brochman And then there's also like 1 slide where the where we acknowledge that the NRC is still trying to work through how to address the ideas is those issues.
1:1:23.340 --> 1:1:25.170 Phil Brochman So let's go to the slides.
1:1:25.210 --> 1:1:26.260 Phil Brochman Go to the next slide, please.
1:1:33.470 --> 1:1:37.710 Phil Brochman There were questions raised about the distinction between.
1:1:40.120 --> 1:2:9.110 Phil Brochman Contraband being discovered inside the site boundary, the specific language where the challenge was pointed to staff regulatory guidance position 7.1 example four and the language of within the site boundary and this was in contrast with language elsewhere regarding 4 -our event notifications for actual introduction of contraband.
1:2:10.540 --> 1:2:23.290 Phil Brochman The NRC recognizes that this language didn't appear to flow smoothly and wasn't focused on the significance of the event.
1:2:23.880 --> 1:2:43.370 Phil Brochman So in this particular case, what we're thinking about doing is removing the language of within the site boundary and bringing it in a little closer to something of concern, and also to clarify that we're talking about unauthorized explosives.
1:2:43.420 --> 1:2:46.720 Phil Brochman And unauthorized incendiary material.
1:2:48.530 --> 1:3:24.420 Phil Brochman Improvised explosive devices and improvised incendiary devices was one of the things the staff thought about to change with the inside boundary language as well to within the facility itself or in direct contact with the facility because we recognize that an explosive device would could be placed next to a large external structure {e.g., a safety-related water storage tank], or even something like a spent fuel storage cask, and so.
1:3:26.640 --> 1:3:51.150 Phil Brochman The staff used this approach of having the contraband get to the point where it was iwithn the facility or directly in contact with the facility would be a more significant event than something being just discovered at the protected area boundary and so therefore it was something that would warrant the 15 minute notification for a hostile action.
1:3:51.380 --> 1:3:57.530 Phil Brochman So that is, what we're thinking about on this particular example.
36 Enclosure 3
1:4:3.580 --> 1:4:5.160 Phil Brochman Can we go to the next slide please?
1:4:6.60 --> 1:4:6.390 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Sure.
1:4:6.400 --> 1:4:8.660 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I think we actually have a question from Charlotte.
1:4:9.30 --> 1:4:9.320 Phil Brochman OK.
1:4:10.250 --> 1:4:10.850 Phil Brochman That's a good idea.
1:4:11.350 --> 1:4:16.120 Phil Brochman Thank you, Brett, for reminding me I'm going to pause after each one of these slides and see if there are any questions.
1:4:16.210 --> 1:4:17.270 Phil Brochman So go ahead.
1:4:18.420 --> 1:4:18.620 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hi.
1:4:17.920 --> 1:4:20.120 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So Charlotte, you know, go for it.
1:4:20.630 --> 1:4:22.640 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hi, this is Charlotte Shields.
1:4:22.700 --> 1:4:23.470 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'm.
1:4:23.530 --> 1:4:31.400 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'm on loan to NEI from Palo Verde Generating Station, so I just wanted to make sure I understand what you just said.
1:4:31.410 --> 1:4:49.870 SHIELDS, Charlotte Phil, when you talked about revising the example language and moving in closer from the site boundary, some of the words that you used were still the word incendiary, which is still a part of the definition of contraband.
1:4:50.560 --> 1:5:16.750 SHIELDS, Charlotte And so when we're looking at the four hour reporting requirement of contraband discovered within the protected area and I guess, how are you going to clarify from within the protected area or are you going
37 Enclosure 3
to clarify an example like physical like a physically attached to a, you know, a safety related systems structure or component?
1:5:16.860 --> 1:5:20.640 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just want to make sure I understand if the clarification.
1:5:22.370 --> 1:5:23.630 SHIELDS, Charlotte Will help us.
1:5:23.380 --> 1:5:26.890 Phil Brochman We understand what you're asking, Charlotte.
1:5:26.900 --> 1:6:6.80 Phil Brochman Here's what I think I've heard is your question that that you're you're sort of asking if unauthorized explosive material or unauthorized incendiary material is discovered within the protected area but not inside of the facility or in direct contact with the facility, which is sort of what the NRC staff was thinking that the question you're asking is, does there need to be some more significant safety Nexus, meaning it's adjacent to safety related equipment or some system that's important to safety?
1:6:8.290 --> 1:6:10.280 Phil Brochman To make it a 15-minute notification.
1:6:11.0 --> 1:6:11.950 SHIELDS, Charlotte I yeah.
1:6:11.960 --> 1:6:17.150 SHIELDS, Charlotte And I guess maybe using the word facility isn't congruent across the industry either.
1:6:17.160 --> 1:6:34.970 SHIELDS, Charlotte So when you just say facility I, I would, I would just ask you to just be as specific as possible when you're looking for the criteria for a 15 minute notification because umm, there's some ambiguity left there.
1:6:37.770 --> 1:6:38.920 Phil Brochman OK, that helps me.
1:6:38.930 --> 1:6:39.820 Phil Brochman That's a good question.
1:6:39.830 --> 1:6:41.860 Phil Brochman Help me understand what you mean.
1:6:42.110 --> 1:6:43.400 Phil Brochman In other words, what's the issue?
1:6:52.960 --> 1:6:53.310 SHIELDS, Charlotte Correct.
1:6:43.410 --> 1:6:53.890 Phil Brochman
38 Enclosure 3
Is the issue that the facility could be viewed as the entire complex rather than the specific building like the power block or so?
1:6:54.250 --> 1:6:59.380 Phil Brochman OK, so in your perception here's what I'm hearing.
1:6:59.530 --> 1:7:13.220 Phil Brochman Your concern is that facility could be everything inside the protected area fence and I may be thinking that the facility is an actual building inside that has some significance.
1:7:13.880 --> 1:7:14.250 SHIELDS, Charlotte Correct.
1:7:16.920 --> 1:7:17.220 Phil Brochman OK.
1:7:18.900 --> 1:7:21.90 Phil Brochman And just to clarify.
1:7:20.340 --> 1:7:31.520 SHIELDS, Charlotte I will also just say the term the word facility is just used is used interchangeably with station licensee or site.
1:7:31.790 --> 1:7:36.550 SHIELDS, Charlotte So facility is not as specific as you're thinking in your mind?
1:7:37.930 --> 1:7:38.170 Phil Brochman OK.
1:7:41.370 --> 1:7:41.790 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.
1:7:42.650 --> 1:7:43.360 Phil Brochman Thank you, Charlotte.
1:7:44.180 --> 1:7:44.520 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Yes.
1:7:44.980 --> 1:8:3.750 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you very much and Timothy Graf I see that you posed a comment in the chat on regarding the prior section essentially and questioning understanding, you know, heard the statement that licensees could not have access to covered weapons until a firearms background check is completed.
1:8:3.870 --> 1:8:11.740 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
However, the rule says that security personnel may continue to have access to covered weapons pending the results of initial firearm background check.
1:8:11.810 --> 1:8:20.890 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
39 Enclosure 3
I suggest we circle back to that at the end, since we you've moved on, but what we will definitely come back to that or do you want to talk about it now Phil?
1:8:22.500 --> 1:8:23.40 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, great.
1:8:21.250 --> 1:8:24.380 Phil Brochman I I can talk about it now.
1:8:26.620 --> 1:8:51.150 Phil Brochman The issue the language that you're the language that's being talked about there is, is sort of a bridging language, it recognizes it was written in a manner that a licensee applies for either stand-alone preemption authority or combined preemption authority to enhanced weapons authority.
1:8:51.480 --> 1:8:57.430 Phil Brochman And once it submits its application, it begins to conduct firearms background checks.
1:8:57.680 --> 1:9:2.170 Phil Brochman So these are existing security personnel in that circumstance.
1:9:2.600 --> 1:9:15.160 Phil Brochman In that circumstance, the security personnel may continue to have access to weapons while the firearms background checks are being accomplished.
1:9:16.120 --> 1:9:27.210 Phil Brochman The NRC's thinking was we did not want to place a licensee in a position where all the security guards were unarmed because they were still conducting.
1:9:27.550 --> 1:9:45.630 Phil Brochman They were being subject to firearms background checks. So, what that regulation requires is that they allow those security officer to continue duties that require access to covered weapons, while the firearms background check is underway.
1:9:46.750 --> 1:10:10.120 Phil Brochman If the licensee receives adverse results, either a delayed response or a denied response, then the individual must be taken off of armed duties promptly. For the case we were trying to talk about [in DG 5081] this guidance would apply to new security personnel.
1:10:10.570 --> 1:10:31.700 Phil Brochman In other words, after the licensee has received their approval of, say, their preemption authority, and now two years later, they're hiring some new security personnel, the question is I understood it was at what point or what can the onboarding process for those new security personnel allow access to covered weapons?
1:10:31.870 --> 1:10:33.210 Phil Brochman What can it [the onboarding activities] consist of?
40 Enclosure 3
1:10:35.70 --> 1:10:36.510 Phil Brochman Or, what is it limited to?
1:10:36.820 --> 1:10:39.880 Phil Brochman And that's what we were trying to clarify.
1:10:45.320 --> 1:10:45.970 Graf, Timothy OK.
1:10:46.20 --> 1:10:46.590 Graf, Timothy Thank you.
1:10:47.400 --> 1:10:51.740 Graf, Timothy Yeah, perhaps I mentioned in the guidance that that will clarify that.
1:10:54.770 --> 1:10:57.680 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And that was uh Timothy Graf just served the transcript.
1:10:57.690 --> 1:10:58.530 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we captured that.
1:10:58.540 --> 1:11:1.530 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you very much Timothy for the comment.
1:11:2.150 --> 1:11:5.280 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I'm so next we will turn to John Cherubini.
1:11:5.290 --> 1:11:8.120 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
John, whenever you're ready, please feel free to unmute yourself.
1:11:8.170 --> 1:11:9.510 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and any affiliation?
1:11:11.510 --> 1:11:12.800 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Hey, good afternoon all.
1:11:12.990 --> 1:11:16.750 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
John Cherubini, I'm a senior manager for security compliance with Entergy.
1:11:17.880 --> 1:11:25.70 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Phil, I wanted to go back to, I think the confusion in Charlotte got you there, but we didn't quite get it defined.
1:11:25.80 --> 1:11:32.430 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So in the Reg Guide it it says the discovery of an unauthorized explosives materials, incendiary, blah blah blah.
41 Enclosure 3
1:11:37.640 --> 1:11:43.90 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Is that we use so because site boundary could be to somebody.
1:11:43.100 --> 1:11:48.270 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Hey, we get to our checkpoint once you go through it, you're in our you're on our site.
1:11:48.420 --> 1:11:54.920 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So do we really want to make a 15 minute report and an incendiary device at a training center?
1:11:54.930 --> 1:11:56.900 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
That's a quarter mile away from the reactor.
1:11:56.910 --> 1:12:3.480 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
It's in the site boundary, so why don't we use the terms PA protected area?
1:12:4.0 --> 1:12:9.670 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Somebody may have an external ISFSI, so you have two site boundaries at that site.
1:12:9.680 --> 1:12:15.240 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You have your ISFSI and its protected area and you have your reactor and its protected area.
1:12:15.530 --> 1:12:17.510 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
When we say site boundary, you're gonna.
1:12:17.570 --> 1:12:19.920 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Confuse folks as to what a site boundary is.
1:12:19.930 --> 1:12:22.180 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Is it my overall site?
1:12:22.730 --> 1:12:30.860 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I think the intent the NRC had was to say, hey, if we find that inside our PA or inside our ISSFI, we need to call in 15 minutes.
1:12:31.250 --> 1:12:36.690 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
If we find it at the warehouse and quarter mile away from the plant, we need to call it in in four hours.
1:12:38.910 --> 1:12:40.10 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I think that's what you mean.
1:12:40.820 --> 1:12:43.730 Phil Brochman I think that's part of it.
1:12:43.740 --> 1:12:53.950 Phil Brochman I think also, John, the NRC recognized that that just like Charlotte said there could be a lot of interpretations.
42 Enclosure 3
1:12:53.960 --> 1:12:55.690 Phil Brochman What is meant by the site boundary?
1:12:56.80 --> 1:13:3.630 Phil Brochman Someone may say that that is the boundary as defined in the updated final safety analysis report.
1:13:4.60 --> 1:13:24.890 Phil Brochman Someone else might say, well, it's the protected area boundary and so the NRC staff thinking at this point was to move away from the term site boundary to something that was closer in and to the facility to the, I'll call it the components of the facility that are significant, which is a very wordy way of saying things.
1:13:25.630 --> 1:13:26.210 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Right. But.
1:13:26.570 --> 1:13:43.760 Phil Brochman But, but the idea is that the whole concept of the the 15 minute one hour, 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is that the security significance is decreasing as you move further away and therefore more time is allowed.
1:13:44.10 --> 1:13:49.460 Phil Brochman So in this case, unauthorized, explosive, by the way.
1:13:49.950 --> 1:14:8.600 Phil Brochman I'm being very careful here about saying unauthorized because we recognize that there may be instances where explosive or incendiary material is authorized to be brought on the site to use for construction, demolition or other necessary purposes.
1:14:8.750 --> 1:14:11.680 Phil Brochman And so we're talking about unauthorized materials.
1:14:11.950 --> 1:14:20.860 Phil Brochman And the question is how do we create a focus that narrows down what says this is a really significant issue.
1:14:21.580 --> 1:14:25.610 Phil Brochman As opposed to sort of the question Charlotte was posing.
1:14:25.960 --> 1:14:39.40 Phil Brochman If you find something suspicious sitting out next to next to a storage tank that contains water may not be significant.
1:14:39.50 --> 1:14:39.960 Phil Brochman Water, potable water.
1:14:39.970 --> 1:14:42.700 Phil Brochman Let's replace potable water on this site with a refueling water storage tank.
43 Enclosure 3
1:14:44.230 --> 1:14:47.40 Phil Brochman Is that something that requires a 15 minute notification?
1:14:47.550 --> 1:14:58.310 Phil Brochman It sounds like this topic is going to engender some lively comments as we move forward into the draft guide and further discussions.
1:14:59.540 --> 1:15:0.70 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Yeah.
1:15:0.180 --> 1:15:21.130 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And I think you're right, but just keep in mind the four-hour report at the at the search train, those primary access facilities are in many cases, uh, you know, a few feet away from the PA and then maybe only 50 to 75 yards away from, you know, power blocks.
1:15:21.140 --> 1:15:25.340 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So I think we're, we're in the right place there with the four-hour report, right?
1:15:25.350 --> 1:15:33.900 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
We we're gonna figure out what we had and but a 15-minute report on something that's found out at your site boundary.
1:15:33.990 --> 1:15:35.280 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Determine what that is.
1:15:35.330 --> 1:15:38.680 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Some folks may think that's out in the OCA somewhere.
1:15:38.750 --> 1:15:41.110 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I just think that language is gonna be confusing to.
1:15:43.710 --> 1:15:44.410 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Many of us.
1:15:44.930 --> 1:15:45.750 Phil Brochman I agree.
1:15:45.800 --> 1:15:48.880 Phil Brochman That's why maybe I was misunderstood.
1:15:48.890 --> 1:16:11.180 Phil Brochman Misheard what I was saying is that the NRC was thinking about changing from the language of at the site boundary to something that was, I think what we were talking about was either quote within or in direct contact with the facility.
1:16:11.550 --> 1:16:12.980 Phil Brochman That's what we were thinking of.
44 Enclosure 3
1:16:13.90 --> 1:16:21.940 Phil Brochman That's what I'm saying the NRC is conceptually thinking about, but we take your point that this, question needs to be thought about thoroughly.
1:16:22.490 --> 1:16:26.880 Phil Brochman Becca's hand up on the screen, so, what do you want to add?
1:16:26.890 --> 1:16:28.370 Phil Brochman What do you want to clarify for me?
1:16:28.780 --> 1:16:30.550 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
No, no, no, you got it right there, Phil.
1:16:30.560 --> 1:16:34.360 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I was just wanted to make sure so we got the comment.
1:16:34.370 --> 1:16:38.610 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Thank you, John, for following up with the extra clarification.
1:16:38.620 --> 1:16:39.630 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
We've got that.
1:16:39.640 --> 1:16:46.220 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
I think what we need to focus on is making sure that we use the language that's.
1:16:46.230 --> 1:16:47.830 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
That's going to make sense for everyone, right?
1:16:47.840 --> 1:16:59.230 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So if there's other groups and the industry here that have thoughts on what language makes sense for their facility versus another facility, that's important information for us to have as we're considering what the change may look like.
1:17:3.430 --> 1:17:3.990 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Appreciate it.
1:17:5.240 --> 1:17:5.750 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Thanks John.
1:17:5.510 --> 1:17:9.920 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, thank you very much for the question and the comments.
1:17:10.170 --> 1:17:11.700 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Anyone else at this time?
1:17:11.850 --> 1:17:15.100 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Again, please feel free to raise your hand if you're participating via phone.
45 Enclosure 3
1:17:15.110 --> 1:17:18.170 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Press Star 5 again, thats Star 5, to raise your hand.
1:17:25.320 --> 1:17:29.930 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I'm not seeing anyone at this time, so I think we can move on.
1:17:31.810 --> 1:17:33.980 Phil Brochman We've got but 90 minutes left.
1:17:35.790 --> 1:17:36.560 Phil Brochman So let's go to the next slide.
1:17:41.390 --> 1:17:52.740 Phil Brochman So on this slide, we're talking about two potential changes to draft guide 5080 regarding events involving lost versus uncontrolled authorized weapons.
1:17:53.450 --> 1:18:8.760 Phil Brochman The term authorized weapons is meant to indicate those weapons that are authorized by the licensee, typically described in the physical security plan.
1:18:8.770 --> 1:18:36.280 Phil Brochman In terms of what types of weapons they are, calibers, et cetera, and the issue involves a weapon that's lost versus the term lost versus uncontrolled and there was a suggestion from industry that in staff regulatory guidance position 9.1 that there was number duration of how long a licensee could look for a lost weapon.
1:18:36.630 --> 1:18:38.690 Phil Brochman If it was lost.
1:18:38.790 --> 1:18:57.80 Phil Brochman It must be reported, and this the suggestion was that a reasonable amount of time, for example, one hour, be allocated to searching for a lost weapon, and, if that happen, is not found at that point, that a notification be made.
1:18:58.190 --> 1:19:9.690 Phil Brochman Umm, the second example is in staff regulatory guidance position 18.2 example 8, this is a recordable event.
1:19:9.700 --> 1:19:16.460 Phil Brochman So the first position guidance in position 9.1 is an event notification.
1:19:18.70 --> 1:19:52.870 Phil Brochman The second one is a recordable event in the safeguards event log or other program, and they're the thought was to clarify that either the weapon was found within the quote, reasonable time frame, whatever that is, that the weapon, or that the weapon was only briefly left unattended, or the weapon was briefly out of the line of sight of the authorized security personnel so that those would be viewed as examples of what would go into position 18.2.
46 Enclosure 3
1:19:52.880 --> 1:20:3.290 Phil Brochman Here you see 10 CFR 73.1210 paragraph which discusses decreases in effectiveness under the licensees security program.
1:20:7.960 --> 1:20:17.620 Phil Brochman Let's pause at this point and see if there are any comments on those issues before I go on to anything else.
1:20:19.30 --> 1:20:32.500 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, if you have any comments or questions on what Phil just spoke about, please feel free to raise your hand within the app using the raise hand function or if you're on the phone, press Star 5, again that it's Star 5 to raise your hand.
1:20:32.610 --> 1:20:41.500 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
If you have any problems using the raising your hand within the app, please feel free to let us know via the chat.
1:20:49.30 --> 1:20:53.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, I'm not seeing any hands raised at this time so I think we can move on.
1:20:54.580 --> 1:20:55.980 Phil Brochman Alright, next slide please.
1:21:2.650 --> 1:21:6.700 Phil Brochman Did we skip over something or is my sequencing is off here?
1:21:10.510 --> 1:21:32.480 Phil Brochman So let's talk about this malevolent intent issue. There are some questions that were raised regarding malevolent intent, and in particular, the questions were the NRC has indicated that this, is a function that's appropriate for law enforcement, government agency, et cetera, Intelligence community.
1:21:33.70 --> 1:21:46.800 Phil Brochman And the question was posed well, if the licensee has an actual sworn law enforcement component, and I don't know that may only be one or two licensees.
1:21:47.0 --> 1:22:2.40 Phil Brochman But if they do have that capability, would those personnel be capable of evaluating whether malevolent intent was present in an event for uses of screening purposes and the NRCs view?
1:22:2.410 --> 1:22:5.80 Phil Brochman Essentially, it preliminarily would be yes, that is.
1:22:5.410 --> 1:22:7.620 Phil Brochman That would seem to be appropriate because they would.
1:22:7.680 --> 1:22:11.880 Phil Brochman The individual would be viewed as trained and qualified law enforcement personnel.
47 Enclosure 3
1:22:12.250 --> 1:22:28.260 Phil Brochman The corollary question to that just for some licensees, a number of their security personnel are also reserve police Officers, reserve sheriff's deputies.
1:22:28.330 --> 1:22:41.320 Phil Brochman But wherever it is, depending on the locale and the question is, would those personnel be capable as sworn law enforcement officers of performing such an evaluation?
1:22:42.350 --> 1:22:52.550 Phil Brochman The NRCs preliminary view would be that yes, that could be something that could be accomplished in that circumstance.
1:22:53.20 --> 1:23:0.150 Phil Brochman The second question that was raised to me in one of the workshops or forums.
1:23:0.430 --> 1:23:23.180 Phil Brochman Was there may be circumstances in which local law enforcement is unable to respond to a site to evaluate whether an event is the potentially malevolent or not, and the question then became what is the licensee supposed to do?
1:23:24.820 --> 1:23:26.730 Phil Brochman Are they [licensees] supposed to just make the call anyway?
1:23:30.400 --> 1:23:33.730 Phil Brochman Are they to reach a decision themselves?
1:23:33.840 --> 1:23:40.350 Phil Brochman And so our goal here is to try to provide a little clarity about what the options are in that circumstance.
1:23:42.910 --> 1:23:45.420 Phil Brochman Are there any questions on this particular slide?
1:23:48.890 --> 1:23:53.680 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Uh, it looks like Phil, we do have one hand raised at this time.
1:23:53.690 --> 1:24:0.340 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
And so John Cherubini, whenever you're ready, please feel free to unmute yourself and begin your question and or comment.
1:24:2.320 --> 1:24:19.960 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Hey, Phil, I appreciate that clarification on what you're looking at, but one of the big issues we had when we talked about this back in May, uh, and understand the example in the Reg Guide is a bomb threat, right?
1:24:19.970 --> 1:24:24.780 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And honestly, in talking with my peers, we used to get those a lot back in the old days.
48 Enclosure 3
1:24:24.790 --> 1:24:25.790 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
We don't really.
1:24:26.150 --> 1:24:39.30 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Not a lot of people have talked about these in recent events, but the one we're concerned with is we used the term malevolent intent.
1:24:39.760 --> 1:24:45.140 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Previously, when somebody would introduce contraband to the search equipment.
1:24:45.930 --> 1:24:55.240 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
We would log it based on the fact that we determined there was no malevolent intent on the employees part.
1:24:56.270 --> 1:25:17.640 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
It looks now the way this is written that if we have an employee mistakenly introduced a handgun to a search train, we are not capable as the licensee to determine whether that was a human performance event or was it somebody trying to circumvent our process.
1:25:17.650 --> 1:25:23.340 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And that's, I think the big question on malevolent intent that we're worried about.
1:25:23.350 --> 1:25:34.460 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And I know there's some peers out there that have, you know, sheriff's departments that are, you know, spread out over hundreds of miles and you gotta [have something significant to] get them to come in.
1:25:34.470 --> 1:25:38.620 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And they the example I used back in May was a security officer goes.
1:25:38.630 --> 1:25:40.180 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
To the range the day before.
1:25:40.280 --> 1:25:42.940 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
He forgets that he has his handgun in his backpack.
1:25:42.950 --> 1:25:45.490 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
He comes to work, puts it on the belt.
1:25:46.220 --> 1:25:47.350 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
It's captured.
1:25:47.900 --> 1:25:52.760 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
We know that person's not trying to get a weapon in the protected area.
1:25:52.770 --> 1:25:55.640 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
We're going to issue him one in five more minutes when he goes to guardrail.
49 Enclosure 3
1:26:2.250 --> 1:26:2.390 Phil Brochman Yeah.
1:25:57.320 --> 1:26:9.450 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
But yet we're going to need to call an outside local law enforcement agency into determine that this security employee who's in a behavioral observation program who's background checked.
1:26:10.990 --> 1:26:13.620 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
That's where the rub is right now, with malevolent intent.
1:26:13.950 --> 1:26:16.80 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And in my opinion anyway.
1:26:19.300 --> 1:26:21.900 Phil Brochman John, I I think I understand.
1:26:21.910 --> 1:26:24.560 Phil Brochman I've heard this question before.
1:26:25.430 --> 1:26:56.290 Phil Brochman The NRC took a different view in crafting the rule, but it seems like this is a significant issue that industry is presenting in one of the meetings that the NRC staff held with various security managers, there was indication that there's an increase in the number of weapons events where weapon is found during the security screening.
1:26:56.300 --> 1:27:7.670 Phil Brochman That number is gone up significantly compared to the past and so that it's not clear to us what you know the event [warrants a] notification.
1:27:7.680 --> 1:27:15.940 Phil Brochman Is it the root problem or is the root problem that you've got weapons people forgetting that they've got weapons and bringing weapons in?
1:27:18.780 --> 1:27:26.650 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Yeah, I think the real problem is we live in a very crazy world now that people feel the need to carry handguns as what we have.
1:27:26.840 --> 1:27:40.910 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And if you look, most of these events are occurring in uh, areas that people are more easily, you know, have more easy accessibility to a handguns, let's say.
1:27:43.70 --> 1:27:55.840 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And you know, nine times out of 10, you know, the story is, you know, hey, I switched bags or I went, you know, I switched cars or I was in a hotel and I was only going to move from the hotel to my car.
1:27:55.850 --> 1:27:58.760 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And I was going to then take it out of my car and I got sidetracked.
50 Enclosure 3
1:27:58.770 --> 1:28:0.30 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And here we go.
1:28:1.330 --> 1:28:2.680 Phil Brochman Yeah, alright.
1:28:2.430 --> 1:28:4.240 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So you know.
1:28:3.630 --> 1:28:6.220 Phil Brochman I I think we understand, John.
1:28:6.230 --> 1:28:13.740 Phil Brochman I think the NRC understands the concerns that have been raised by industry.
1:28:15.260 --> 1:28:22.950 Phil Brochman I don't have an immediate answer as to how best to address this unless management has anything else to add.
1:28:22.960 --> 1:28:34.730 Phil Brochman I think this is just as Becca said earlier, this is an issue we're going to have to think carefully about and we'll have a position in the draft guide.
1:28:35.540 --> 1:28:35.790 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Yeah.
1:28:35.800 --> 1:28:38.370 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And I'll just leave you with the last piece here, which is.
1:28:38.380 --> 1:28:43.430 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So we're going to call this sheriff's deputy out this 20 something [old].
1:28:43.440 --> 1:28:50.540 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Sheriff's deputy and the first thing my manager's going to do is basically tell them what malevolent really means.
1:28:50.630 --> 1:28:58.330 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Alright, cause that city is not going to know and he's really not going to know anything about a nuclear power facility other than.
1:28:58.340 --> 1:29:4.730 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Hey, you know, there's some security guys there, and to be honest with you, they're going to look for us to tell them what we think.
1:29:5.80 --> 1:29:10.340 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So all I'm trying to do here is eliminate the middleman of calling the local law enforcement person out.
51 Enclosure 3
1:29:10.350 --> 1:29:11.630 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Who's going to say what?
1:29:11.640 --> 1:29:12.850 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Would you think about this, John?
1:29:12.860 --> 1:29:21.390 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Did the guy tried to introduce it or was this a mistake because they really are not trained to deal with this and our folks are?
1:29:24.320 --> 1:29:50.780 Phil Brochman So, so just so everybody understands, one of the reasons why the NRC went down this pathway as there were examples now, maybe they were a small number of examples, but there were examples in the past where licensees did them a level int intense screening that took a substantial period of time a week for example.
1:29:51.710 --> 1:29:54.350 Phil Brochman And then they went up.
1:29:54.360 --> 1:29:58.940 Phil Brochman Yeah, this was malevolent intent and then they made the notification to the NRC.
1:29:59.430 --> 1:30:20.670 Phil Brochman This event happened a week ago and now if we are going to do any follow up or we need to do something and so this is, you know, whatever clarification we come up with here in this area there may need to be a balance between reaching a prompt conclusion about such an event.
1:30:20.680 --> 1:30:26.340 Phil Brochman If licensees do the screening as opposed to an extended period of time.
1:30:27.720 --> 1:30:44.620 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Yeah, I don't think anyone on this call and I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself, would be opposed to if you could not make a malevolent intent determination based on your process in an X amount of time that you would then involve local law enforcement.
1:30:45.50 --> 1:30:54.370 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I don't know if anyone would have a problem with that right, but I'm going to tell you the norm is you can pretty much figure this out relatively quickly.
1:30:54.380 --> 1:30:57.20 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
What you have based on what's occurring in front of you.
1:31:0.110 --> 1:31:27.70 Phil Brochman John, could you clarify that something that you said your last statement, are you indicating that based on your other programs like trustworthiness and reliability in evaluating human performance for events, is it your view is that industry would have a degree of capability to evaluating such a potential issues on whether there was malevolent intent or not?
52 Enclosure 3
1:31:27.990 --> 1:31:28.640 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Absolutely.
1:31:28.650 --> 1:31:49.80 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I believe our training and our you know our knowledge of the employees, of the processes and then you know when you interview that employee and determine why do you have X in your bag whether it be uh prohibited item or contraband.
1:31:49.920 --> 1:32:0.10 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Umm, you know, our process is set up that we can do that and make a determination whether it was a malevolent act or human performance error.
1:32:1.570 --> 1:32:9.360 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I I'm not sure of the events that you're talking about where somebody could make that now I'll tell you a bomb threats a little different, right?
1:32:9.370 --> 1:32:10.600 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You get a bomb threat.
1:32:10.610 --> 1:32:12.530 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
All you have is the facts in front of you.
1:32:12.540 --> 1:32:15.940 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You're going to call your local law enforcement and tell them that you just had a bomb threat.
1:32:17.120 --> 1:32:17.240 Phil Brochman Yeah.
1:32:18.90 --> 1:32:22.440 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And I don't know what they're going to do to determine whether that was malevolent or not either.
1:32:22.450 --> 1:32:22.640 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Right.
1:32:22.650 --> 1:32:25.60 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You're going to react to what information you get.
1:32:25.70 --> 1:32:28.400 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You're going to get into your procedures and process, and you're going to deal with it, right?
1:32:28.990 --> 1:32:29.180 Phil Brochman Mm-hmm.
1:32:28.410 --> 1:32:38.990 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And that that may warrant notification to the NRC sooner than something like somebody who's a based employee forgot their handgun in the wrong backpack.
53 Enclosure 3
1:32:40.130 --> 1:32:40.380 Phil Brochman Yep.
1:32:39.840 --> 1:32:40.700 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
That, I guess that's my.
1:32:42.730 --> 1:32:46.550 Phil Brochman I I think we touched on this enough.
1:32:46.560 --> 1:32:51.350 Phil Brochman Is there anybody else who has any other comments or questions on this particular topic?
1:32:53.320 --> 1:32:58.690 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we do have a a couple other hands raised in, so next we'll go to Michael McNally.
1:32:58.700 --> 1:33:1.440 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Michael, whenever you're ready, please feel free to unmute yourself.
1:33:3.970 --> 1:33:5.0 McNally, Michael Thanks again.
1:33:5.10 --> 1:33:6.740 McNally, Michael It's Mike McNally, but yeah.
1:33:6.750 --> 1:33:13.750 McNally, Michael So Phil, just maybe just understanding how the process works when that actually happens out here would be helpful for the NRC.
1:33:14.120 --> 1:33:40.670 McNally, Michael So when we have a contraband item introduced or even a prohibited item introduced, that person is pulled aside, set off on the side, and gets interviewed by the security manager or security director, along with their chain of command folks, whether it be their manager, director or whatever the case may be in, and you take a cooperative effect or a stance as to that information about that individual, he's got problems going on.
1:33:40.680 --> 1:33:49.570 McNally, Michael Whatever the case may be, to make the determination of whether that type of employee is a utilize BOP process in that determination on the spot.
1:33:49.810 --> 1:33:57.200 McNally, Michael So it shouldn't be a drawn-out process to make an determination of whether there was 11 and 10, or whether there's a willful.
1:33:57.210 --> 1:34:4.140 McNally, Michael And I know in the Reg Guide there's a willful definition and not a definition, but a reference to willful act.
54 Enclosure 3
1:34:4.150 --> 1:34:8.80 McNally, Michael Also which is which is, you know an intentional or something deliberate like that.
1:34:8.270 --> 1:34:9.120 McNally, Michael So is he just?
1:34:9.350 --> 1:34:15.130 McNally, Michael Is he deliberately trying to introduce that for a reason, or does he have?
1:34:15.220 --> 1:34:16.470 McNally, Michael Does he have ill intent?
1:34:16.480 --> 1:34:18.530 McNally, Michael Which would leave us to malevolent right?
1:34:18.540 --> 1:34:21.720 McNally, Michael So, but that's not a long process.
1:34:21.730 --> 1:34:24.580 McNally, Michael As John said, that's what the process that we make right on the spot.
1:34:24.590 --> 1:34:30.390 McNally, Michael And then then it falls into their consequence category is that person relieved from duty and then sent home for three days.
1:34:30.400 --> 1:34:50.720 McNally, Michael Whatever the case may be, whatever the consequences are, but it's not a long process and I sat down and had this conversation with my local sheriff, we're in the second smallest county in the state of Texas, and I'm not going to get a deputy out here on somebody that's introduced a contraband into the search process.
1:34:53.580 --> 1:34:55.690 McNally, Michael He said you guys are the experts at that.
1:34:55.700 --> 1:34:56.750 McNally, Michael You know these people?
1:34:56.830 --> 1:34:58.470 McNally, Michael They're coming to your plant every single day.
1:34:58.480 --> 1:35:13.340 McNally, Michael They're badged personnel and in 99.9% of the cases, I'm not going to send the deputy out there that's been on the beat for two weeks to make a determination on whether they intentionally were trying to put that in or they were going to do something malevolent with that particular weapon.
1:35:14.780 --> 1:35:14.920 Phil Brochman OK.
55 Enclosure 3
1:35:13.350 --> 1:35:16.500 McNally, Michael So that's just the way it happens in the real world.
1:35:16.510 --> 1:35:18.280 McNally, Michael So maybe that maybe that will help.
1:35:18.390 --> 1:35:22.380 McNally, Michael Maybe that will help in this decision and how you want to move forward on this.
1:35:23.720 --> 1:35:24.970 Phil Brochman So, thank you.
1:35:24.980 --> 1:35:33.600 Phil Brochman And I think it's best if we always we always try to recognize the real world.
1:35:33.610 --> 1:35:38.250 Phil Brochman Sometimes it takes some a little effort to get there.
1:35:38.440 --> 1:35:45.640 Phil Brochman That's our goal in the in the end, we want to recognize reality and what's reasonable and what's not reasonable.
1:35:46.650 --> 1:35:48.300 McNally, Michael We appreciate you taking a look at it.
1:35:48.310 --> 1:35:50.790 McNally, Michael Hopefully get to a reasonable conclusion on that.
1:35:51.650 --> 1:35:52.260 Phil Brochman Thank you.
1:35:52.610 --> 1:35:54.670 Phil Brochman Is there another question, Brett?
1:35:54.970 --> 1:35:59.60 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we have two additional hands raised, one next turn to Michael Whitlock.
1:35:59.70 --> 1:36:4.490 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Michael, whenever you're ready, please state your name and any affiliation and then begin your questions and or comments.
1:36:5.650 --> 1:36:7.390 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
Michael Whitlock, from Dominion Energy.
1:36:8.690 --> 1:36:9.710 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
Uh, thanks, Phil.
56 Enclosure 3
1:36:9.970 --> 1:36:16.560 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
Both John and Mike kind of touched on, you know the licensee being able to make that determination there.
1:36:16.570 --> 1:36:19.620 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
I wanted to talk more about the use of the Reg Guide.
1:36:19.630 --> 1:36:45.770 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
How it's currently being used so as far as a Reg Guide is supposed to be one acceptable method in meeting the regulations and So what we have in this current Reg Guide that you guys are looking at revising is an NRC position and not only just the position but a position of what should not be done which can often have unintended consequences in other areas.
1:36:46.470 --> 1:37:2.160 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
Umm, this was intended to be just for reportability, but because the NRC states that their position is only government officials have resources and qualifications to determine malevolent intent, I think that that could have unintended consequences on the use elsewhere.
1:37:2.290 --> 1:37:14.50 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
And so I'm proposing that if the NRC determines that they need from the licensee, the report, regardless of intent, the code stands alone and the Reg Guide can remain silent.
1:37:14.430 --> 1:37:26.860 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
If John and Mike points are taken into consideration and you determine that the licensee can determine the level intent, that could be added as one acceptable method.
1:37:27.130 --> 1:37:34.110 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)
But the Reg guide should not be used to state an NRC position of what not to do. Thanks.
1:37:35.210 --> 1:37:36.150 Phil Brochman Thank you for that comment.
1:37:36.950 --> 1:37:38.210 Phil Brochman We'll take it under consideration.
1:37:39.10 --> 1:37:39.880 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you very much.
1:37:39.950 --> 1:37:45.390 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we'll move on to Steven Naeck.
1:37:49.980 --> 1:37:50.870 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Thank you again.
1:37:50.880 --> 1:37:56.680 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Corey Daniels with the North Star at Vermont Yankee and I appreciate all of the comments.
57 Enclosure 3
1:37:57.450 --> 1:38:7.240 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Yeah, I've a particular item was important enough that I thought I can, adding additional insight to it would be valuable for your decision making.
1:38:7.590 --> 1:38:27.230 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I know this was talked about in May [workshops], as John had mentioned, and there were several licensees that were somewhat perplexed by the number of locations and the Reg Guide that state the licensee is in the best position to perform these type of assessments.
1:38:27.730 --> 1:38:31.220 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
And I recognize this particular component of malevolence.
1:38:32.10 --> 1:38:46.20 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
You guys are taking some additional controls with based on at least in part, what Phil said was prior licensees and ability to perform timely malevolence determinations.
1:38:46.570 --> 1:38:58.470 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
And for one with respect to that, I would hope that the NRC manages those on a case-by-case basis with those individual licensees.
1:38:58.820 --> 1:39:10.690 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Is that element of their performance were promptly executing their commitment to meet the regulation, but more to Mike's last comment.
1:39:11.710 --> 1:39:46.380 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
No, I think this is another area where it appears the answer maybe through their Reg guidance, no creating expectation or again saying what it should not be done that reaches beyond the licensee and touches other organizations and in the areas where this is occurring at least with this new rulemaking, I'm seeing challenges with the ability of licensees.
1:39:56.510 --> 1:39:58.440 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Hey, Steve, I just muted everyone.
1:39:58.450 --> 1:40:6.560 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So if you could just unmute yourself again, because if we were getting some, I think other comments, so just go ahead and unmute yourself.
1:40:8.500 --> 1:40:31.770 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
And in those instances where the Reg Guide expects coordination with outside agencies and assumes a certain level of cooperation, or anticipates that those activities will happen in the way the Reg Guide describes it, it makes it more complicated for the Reg Guide to be effective.
1:40:31.920 --> 1:40:39.690 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
So I would just offer that in with the right guidance development going forward to keep it more specific for the licensee.
1:40:39.820 --> 1:40:46.90 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
58 Enclosure 3
And again, I can't overstate that all the other great guidance really does say the licensees is in the best position.
1:40:46.100 --> 1:41:2.560 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I think everybody else's comments reflect and they believe that as well and making this type of determination and it really goes against historically the way all the nuclear security management organizations have performed and continue to perform their duties. Thanks.
1:41:2.20 --> 1:41:4.940 Phil Brochman OK, thank you very much.
1:41:5.790 --> 1:41:6.900 Phil Brochman Any other questions?
1:41:8.480 --> 1:41:10.560 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we have a question from the chat.
1:41:10.690 --> 1:41:18.80 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Charlotte Shields asks as a follow up to the determination, and 11 and 10 potentially taking up to a week.
1:41:19.560 --> 1:41:28.930 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Licensees have already reached out to their LAEA and some are clearly stated they will not support responding for that determination and those cases.
1:41:48.270 --> 1:41:50.760 Phil Brochman I'm just thinking that, let's say I wanna be careful here.
1:41:50.770 --> 1:42:12.520 Phil Brochman I think I can see an approach and I'm not saying that this is the the way the NBC would go, but and approach could be if you know if a licensee has the capability you know based on its behavioral observation program or insider mitigation and all the things that we've talked about the previous commenters talked about the interview of the person.
1:42:13.30 --> 1:42:27.910 Phil Brochman If a licensee can accomplish all of that and reach a decision within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> because we're talking for the most part here, contraband events which are 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> event notifications.
1:42:28.370 --> 1:42:40.910 Phil Brochman If it can accomplish that within the four hours and make a determination, then it can either make the report or not make the report depending on what's going on.
1:42:42.790 --> 1:43:9.800 Phil Brochman Perhaps some of the challenges that were described to me anecdotally in the past were necessitated by the fact that the event notification [timeliness limit] was a one hour notification and so therefore there wasn't really time for a reasoned evaluation of what was going on or should we say, time for a more deliberate and thorough discussion of what the problem is.
59 Enclosure 3
1:43:9.810 --> 1:43:24.400 Phil Brochman It required a a quicker evaluation and perhaps and that may be a factor that the NRC should evaluate as it looks to revise this draft Reg Guide.
1:43:27.40 --> 1:43:32.290 Phil Brochman And I think I will just stop at this point unless my management wishes to provide further clarification.
1:43:37.30 --> 1:43:38.300 Leah Smith No further clarification.
1:43:38.310 --> 1:43:42.340 Leah Smith I've taken through a notes on what we've discussed here today, so we'll take it back and review it.
1:43:42.610 --> 1:43:43.30 Leah Smith Thank you.
1:43:44.600 --> 1:43:47.270 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright Corey, it looks like you are something to add to that.
1:43:47.280 --> 1:43:48.820 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So please feel free to go ahead.
1:44:1.550 --> 1:44:2.60 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Find it.
1:44:2.490 --> 1:44:2.910 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I'm here.
1:43:56.380 --> 1:44:3.490 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Corey, whenever you're ready or Steven Nayak, are the account using Steven Nayak umm, there you go.
1:44:2.920 --> 1:44:3.690 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Thank you.
1:44:4.190 --> 1:44:13.840 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I do and I just I wanted to probably say what multiple licensees are thinking with respect to those comments and that is the general expectation.
1:44:13.850 --> 1:44:43.330 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
I believe industry wide and regulatorily as well is a licensing would make a conservative report and if information became available afterwards, it would retract the reportability and have the right guidance suggested that I think everybody would further appreciate the examples that you just gave and the NRC's position as to why they're trying to make this rule work better.
1:44:44.420 --> 1:44:44.780 Steven Naeck (Vermont Yankee)
Thank you.
60 Enclosure 3
1:44:48.320 --> 1:45:24.80 Phil Brochman Thank you for reminding me and everyone else that the regulation does have a provision in it, the regulation in 73.1200(q), that if the licensee obtains information subsequent to making an event notification that the event was invalid or it should be recorded in the safeguards event log instead of being reportable that the licensee can retract the notification so that component is addressed in the Reg Guide already.
1:45:26.110 --> 1:45:30.730 Phil Brochman I want to make sure we have enough time to go through all of the topic areas.
1:45:32.380 --> 1:45:40.790 Phil Brochman I think we've talked about this in detail and there's a lot of things to consider.
1:45:40.860 --> 1:45:42.410 Phil Brochman So why don't we go on to the next slide?
1:45:44.250 --> 1:45:45.260 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, will do.
1:45:45.330 --> 1:45:47.70 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thanks everyone for your questions and comments.
1:45:58.350 --> 1:46:54.900 Phil Brochman This is regarding staff regulatory guidance position 9.9.1 and it deals with a difference or is there duplicative language and part 50 [event notifications and 73.1200] and the particular I'll give you the citation just so you can have that. Those you at reactors are familiar with it 10 CFR 50.72, paragraph B, subparagraph Roman numeral 11, and the question was is this duplicative from the Evette notification and Part 73 under 10 CFR 73.1200(e)(3)(i) and the NRC staff view is that it's not duplicative, it's not an exemption per se.
1:46:56.170 --> 1:47:1.560 Phil Brochman It could be viewed as an exception, but the precise language is does not [indicate] otherwise.
1:47:1.890 --> 1:47:16.100 Phil Brochman So the way the NRC is interpreting the language in part 73 is saying, yes, this could be a notification if not otherwise already reported under Part 50.
1:47:16.750 --> 1:47:34.930 Phil Brochman And we also agree with industry that the view that you're not gonna have a response because the question was that the underlying event is involving a law enforcement response to the facility that results in public or media inquiry.
1:47:35.320 --> 1:47:59.950 Phil Brochman The part 50 regulation for that notification deals with communication or notification to, if I remember correctly, a government entity and the question that was posed is well, if law enforcement is responding to the site, isn't that based on the fact that a licensee has communicated with them and request that a response.
61 Enclosure 3
1:47:59.960 --> 1:48:1.560 Phil Brochman Yeah, that's that's likely.
1:48:1.750 --> 1:48:5.100 Phil Brochman So this is our attempt to clarify this.
1:48:6.530 --> 1:48:30.380 Phil Brochman The last bullet on this slide I would note, as I was looking at this issue, I also went and looked at the event notifications for part 70 facilities, Part 70 licensees which are fuel cycle facilities and part 72 licensees which are spent fuel storage facilities.
1:48:30.390 --> 1:48:40.210 Phil Brochman The similar problem did not exist, however, part 72 in the regulation under 10 CFR 72.75.
1:48:40.340 --> 1:48:46.320 Phil Brochman It has the same identical language as the part 50 regulation, however.
1:48:48.630 --> 1:48:51.820 Phil Brochman The exception does not exist.
1:48:51.830 --> 1:49:9.110 Phil Brochman Otherwise, language in 73.1200(e)(3)(i) does not include references to 72.75, so resolving that issue would nominally require some type of rulemaking.
1:49:10.200 --> 1:49:34.310 Phil Brochman Staff would note that licensees can use the provisions of 73.1200(s) on the elimination of duplication, and what that refers to is a licensee can make a single communication to the NRC, regarding events that are reportable under multiple regulations in different parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
1:49:34.480 --> 1:49:41.850 Phil Brochman And what's necessary is that they [licensees] have to communicate what are all the relevant regulations.
1:49:42.670 --> 1:49:47.120 Phil Brochman So let me pause at this point and see if there are any questions on this issue.
1:50:8.320 --> 1:50:11.850 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, Phil, I'm not seeing any hands raised.
1:50:23.640 --> 1:50:58.640 Phil Brochman There have been issues raised by a small number of licensees regarding the changes of the NRC made in the enhanced weapons rule to add a definition of contraband to include electronic devices that were not permitted in facilities that have programs that deal with classified national security or restricted data information.
1:51:0.650 --> 1:51:19.720 Phil Brochman All I can say at this point is that the NRC is still evaluating this question and one of the issues we're trying to get clarity on in our minds is, is this a duplication in an event notification space?
62 Enclosure 3
1:51:20.380 --> 1:51:20.980 Phil Brochman Umm.
1:51:21.700 --> 1:51:45.480 Phil Brochman And that gets to the particular language in 10 CFR 95.57(a) versus a notification versus a recording because 95.57(b) deals with recording of events and the record those events are submitted to the NRC at a 30-day frequency.
1:51:50.560 --> 1:52:2.80 Phil Brochman The second bullet here addresses the issue where the NRC is not the Cognizant Security Agency for a licensee and.
1:52:5.870 --> 1:52:12.930 Phil Brochman There are a small number of licensees who have such classified programs, where the NRC is not.
1:52:12.940 --> 1:52:19.40 Phil Brochman The Cognizant Security Agency, there are other licensees where the NRC is the Cognizant Security Agency.
1:52:19.270 --> 1:52:22.550 Phil Brochman So we're trying to determine what's the best way to address this issue.
1:52:23.470 --> 1:52:33.720 Phil Brochman Right now, the regulations specifies that the licensee notify their Cognizant Security Agency and the the applicable regional office.
1:52:34.90 --> 1:52:37.190 Phil Brochman So we're looking at this at what's the best way to address this?
1:52:39.60 --> 1:52:46.400 Phil Brochman I don't have a I don't have a complete answer at this point, so I'll just stop and I think there may have been a question, a hand up or something.
1:52:49.670 --> 1:52:54.280 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Uh, yes, Charlotte, it looks like you have your hand up whenever you're ready.
1:52:57.950 --> 1:52:58.760 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK, sure.
1:52:58.770 --> 1:53:0.720 SHIELDS, Charlotte I wasn't Charlotte Shields again.
1:53:1.370 --> 1:53:2.500 SHIELDS, Charlotte NEI and Palo Verde.
1:53:3.190 --> 1:53:20.330 SHIELDS, Charlotte So while we're on the topic of contraband, I I see the slide for the part 95 overlap, but I was wondering
63 Enclosure 3
for the rest of the definition of contraband as it pertains to disease causing agents, I would like to get some insights on how we're gonna resolve that.
1:53:22.530 --> 1:53:47.880 Phil Brochman OK, Charlotte, you are speaking of that question had come up in one of the previous meetings and at that time what the NRC was thinking about was if disease causing agents could fall within the broader definitions found in the Atomic Energy Act.
1:53:48.850 --> 1:53:55.620 Phil Brochman The thinking was if a licensee found something like that.
1:53:55.630 --> 1:53:56.230 Phil Brochman They could.
1:53:56.280 --> 1:53:57.770 Phil Brochman They would be reporting it.
1:53:57.780 --> 1:54:20.330 Phil Brochman However, the question that was posed to me was, well, how is a licensee going to search for that
[disease causing agents], and what we were thinking at the time was that searching for that type of item was not something that was going to be included in the licensees security instructions.
1:54:20.800 --> 1:54:24.190 Phil Brochman They're challenging words because it would be very hard to do well.
1:54:24.200 --> 1:54:25.960 Phil Brochman What is disease causing agent?
1:54:25.970 --> 1:54:27.50 Phil Brochman What's it going to look like?
1:54:27.100 --> 1:54:28.290 Phil Brochman How are you going to find it?
1:54:28.980 --> 1:54:29.970 Phil Brochman Et cetera, et cetera.
1:54:29.980 --> 1:54:39.710 Phil Brochman That was not a workable issue, and so that that may be also an issue that is addressed in these draft guides.
1:54:40.170 --> 1:54:41.750 Phil Brochman I didn't think I included it.
1:54:42.140 --> 1:54:44.350 Phil Brochman It was not included in my slides here.
1:54:44.360 --> 1:54:57.650 Phil Brochman
64 Enclosure 3
I apologize for that, but I that is something that we do need to address and provide some clarity in the guidance now at least be my recommendation to management at this point.
1:54:59.110 --> 1:54:59.730 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
1:54:59.820 --> 1:55:0.320 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.
1:55:0.330 --> 1:55:2.960 SHIELDS, Charlotte I see John's hands raised, so I'm gonna let him go next.
1:55:11.200 --> 1:55:12.130 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You have filled it.
1:55:12.420 --> 1:55:32.100 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Charlotte beat me to the punch, but this is one of the ones that I think a lot of us are apprehensive about in implementing the new rule, because as you know, set Part 73 requires us to search for these items when it says to search for contraband.
1:55:32.110 --> 1:55:45.720 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
And when you define contraband as a disease causing agent, you're going to have many of us say, how do we do that and really, you know, we interact with the NRC at the inspector level.
1:55:45.910 --> 1:55:57.610 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So that's our, that's our usual interaction with the NRC and we and a lot of times are subject to what the inspector believes is the definition.
1:55:57.620 --> 1:56:7.200 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So the more clarity that gets provided to this helps us and the inspectors, umm, you know, get to the same place.
1:56:8.50 --> 1:56:11.680 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So that's the big concern.
1:56:11.870 --> 1:56:14.120 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I think I knew what you all meant by that.
1:56:14.130 --> 1:56:19.900 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Which was, hey, if we find some white powder that we think is anthrax, we should call y'all right away.
1:56:21.310 --> 1:56:26.930 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
But we don't have a sniffer out of the search floor looking for, you know, Percocet.
1:56:26.970 --> 1:56:29.820 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So or we're, you know, that's a bad example.
65 Enclosure 3
1:56:34.620 --> 1:56:34.810 Phil Brochman Yeah.
1:56:29.830 --> 1:56:36.80 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
But you know, we don't have that [capability of] looking for a disease-causing agent, some bacteria or anything like that.
1:56:36.90 --> 1:56:38.200 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
So that's our concern.
1:56:40.340 --> 1:56:52.870 Phil Brochman I think that the NRC has received that concern, that the language you're referring to is in a parenthetical
[example] in the definition.
1:56:53.420 --> 1:57:10.880 Phil Brochman And I think it says for example, and I guess the conclusion I've reached is that that what was intended to be a potential example is causing more confusion and more problems than it's doing [as a solution].
1:57:10.890 --> 1:57:15.570 Phil Brochman But hey, that's the current regulation and we need to we need to figure out how to deal with this.
1:57:17.170 --> 1:57:19.140 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
You know, and I don't know if this is possible.
1:57:19.150 --> 1:57:34.180 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
I am not intimately familiar with all the inner workings of how and the regulations get interpreted, but like when the work hour rules came out, there was an FAQ on the NRC's website that said, hey, this is what we meant.
1:57:34.700 --> 1:57:58.580 John Cherubini (Entergy HQ) (Guest)
Is that something that could happen quicker than Reg Guide changes, you know, the you say, hey, the industry asked a question about contraband, and here's the NRC's position that might make people feel a little bit more at ease and they may move forward with their new reportability procedure if they know that that's where the NRC is going to land.
1:58:0.90 --> 1:58:26.390 Phil Brochman On this topic there has been discussion in the NRC about creating, as you said an FAQ web page, on the nuclear security tab on the NRC's public facing website for a number of topics.
1:58:26.400 --> 1:58:32.490 Phil Brochman One being this preemption, enhanced weapons firearms background checks, questions in those areas.
1:58:32.800 --> 1:59:1.980 Phil Brochman The other was questions on these event notifications in suspicious activity reporting the idea that was posed was by putting it there and it, having gone through an NRC review process, it would serve to memorialize it, at least in the interim until, as was somebody mentioned earlier, NUREG 1304 is revised where it could be more formally incorporated.
66 Enclosure 3
1:59:2.580 --> 1:59:21.310 Phil Brochman Umm, I think we still that's still something that we can we're thinking about it, it gets to the question of resources as to how management wants to apply and if I will defer to them if they have any further comment on that aspect.
1:59:23.920 --> 1:59:32.550 Leah Smith Short film, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of resource constraints making us have to choose between various alternatives here.
1:59:32.560 --> 1:59:38.470 Leah Smith So at the moment we're pursuing the Reg Guide revisions as a more sustainable and durable path for memorializing this content.
1:59:38.480 --> 1:59:41.170 Leah Smith But we do take your point and we appreciate that comment.
1:59:44.660 --> 1:59:47.110 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you very much John for your comment.
1:59:47.860 --> 1:59:58.780 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're now going to take note of a comment left in the chat by Charles Cole Coles, on 10 CFR 73.55.
1:59:58.790 --> 2:0:10.40 Brett Klukan (He/Him) 10 CFR 73.55(g) specifically calls out searching for contraband, with the new definition in 73.2 contraband, licenses can be held to searching for other dangerous materials.
2:0:10.50 --> 2:0:11.920 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So quote unquote other dangerous materials.
2:0:12.230 --> 2:0:17.780 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
What is, you know, NRC's intent for Charles.
2:0:17.790 --> 2:0:30.410 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
It says that specific clarification is needed for the NRCs intent for commercial reactors with respect to this new definition, I'm assuming as it applies to what constitutes other dangerous materials.
2:0:30.620 --> 2:0:33.480 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So thank you Charles, for adding that to the chat.
2:0:35.30 --> 2:0:46.510 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Ohh and then I think Charlotte, you had your hand up, so please feel free to add something if you would or whenever you're ready.
2:0:47.290 --> 2:0:47.760 SHIELDS, Charlotte Yep.
67 Enclosure 3
2:0:47.770 --> 2:0:48.80 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thanks.
2:0:48.90 --> 2:0:53.400 SHIELDS, Charlotte It's just an as a follow up, based on what Chuck Coles had put into the chat, right?
2:0:53.410 --> 2:1:10.160 SHIELDS, Charlotte So with the specific expanded definition of contraband now being in the code language itself, and 73.55(g), requires licensees to expand their physical search program.
2:1:10.390 --> 2:1:35.170 SHIELDS, Charlotte That essentially puts the every licensee in a situation where they're where they will either be needing to put in an exemption request to be exempt from the new definition of contraband period, and, based on historical experience with the decommissioning rule, when essentially every licensee submits an exemption for a part of the rule, I believe someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
2:1:35.180 --> 2:1:38.90 SHIELDS, Charlotte It has been determined that you can't do that.
2:1:38.100 --> 2:1:46.920 SHIELDS, Charlotte You can't just issue out an exemption for the entire industry, because that's essentially doing rule changing without going through the rulemaking process, so.
2:1:47.570 --> 2:1:57.170 SHIELDS, Charlotte And I I guess I'm kind of stuck where here where like how do we advise or how we as how do we as the industry move forward with?
2:1:59.870 --> 2:2:8.780 SHIELDS, Charlotte Not all of us, being exempt from the new definition of contraband, knowing that, OK it might come out in the Reg Guide revision.
2:2:8.790 --> 2:2:17.260 SHIELDS, Charlotte But in the meantime, with the compliance date being January 8th, I'm, you know, the success path moving forward it as it relates to that.
2:2:27.100 --> 2:2:40.630 Phil Brochman I'm not sure that the I don't know, Charlotte, that I can [answer] the question you posed about an extremely broad exemption request.
2:2:40.640 --> 2:2:47.250 Phil Brochman That's applying across multiple types of classes of licensees.
2:2:47.260 --> 2:2:50.990 Phil Brochman Is that something that can only be addressed by rulemaking?
2:2:51.0 --> 2:2:51.510 Phil Brochman I don't.
68 Enclosure 3
2:2:51.740 --> 2:3:2.30 Phil Brochman I don't have the wherewithal to be able to answer that question, but I think we will take that as a takeaway from this particular discussion.
2:3:4.270 --> 2:3:9.840 Leah Smith I'd echo that Phil will take that back to our OGC colleagues and give an answer for folks.
2:3:11.190 --> 2:3:11.480 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
2:3:11.490 --> 2:3:11.870 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.
2:3:12.870 --> 2:3:14.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you again, Charlotte.
2:3:14.190 --> 2:3:16.280 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Alright, we have two hands raised.
2:3:16.290 --> 2:3:18.460 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We're gonna first go to Mike McNally.
2:3:20.790 --> 2:3:22.590 Mcnally, Michael Yeah, just a quick comment on that.
2:3:22.710 --> 2:3:36.100 Mcnally, Michael So we, just don't have the means, we don't have the means to do what the rule is asking us to do with just search for those dangerous [materials] as John already stated, we don't have sniffers out there that are looking for anthrax.
2:3:36.530 --> 2:3:41.300 Mcnally, Michael We don't ask our security officers to go through water bottles looking for a liquid substance.
2:3:41.910 --> 2:3:44.860 Mcnally, Michael We don't have the means to implement that portion of the rule.
2:3:44.870 --> 2:3:56.790 Mcnally, Michael So when an inspector sitting there and we're not doing that in the rule tells us to be looking for items we don't have the means to do it.
2:3:56.800 --> 2:3:59.270 Mcnally, Michael So I think that's the dilemma that we're that we're in.
2:3:59.280 --> 2:4:2.680 Mcnally, Michael We're sitting here on the licensee side now with that rule, so.
69 Enclosure 3
2:4:9.350 --> 2:4:9.510 Phil Brochman Yeah.
Oh no, go on Phil. Sorry.
2:4:12.750 --> 2:4:14.140 Phil Brochman I'm just looking at something.
2:4:14.230 --> 2:4:22.820 Phil Brochman I think, just so everybody understands, because there may be people from different aspects of industry
[in this meeting].
2:4:22.870 --> 2:4:25.950 Phil Brochman I think the question that's being posed is this.
2:4:27.500 --> 2:4:49.100 Phil Brochman A new definition was added to Part 73 that defines contraband in a number of ways, and before that
[was enacted] an existing regulation in 10 CFR 73.55 - which is power reactor security regulation -.
2:4:49.430 --> 2:5:0.600 Phil Brochman Contains a provision about searching for contraband or the searching for contraband before personnel or vehicle enter the protected area.
2:5:0.710 --> 2:5:15.900 Phil Brochman And the question that's being pointed out [by participants], if I'm understanding correctly, is that this new definition of contraband is posing challenges with respect to the existing regulation [in 10 CFR 73.55].
2:5:16.10 --> 2:5:20.670 Phil Brochman On searching for contraband, that's what I think I'm understanding.
2:5:23.410 --> 2:5:25.400 Phil Brochman I see you nodding but what?
2:5:30.730 --> 2:5:36.440 Phil Brochman You [Charlotte], you've acted sort of as a spokesperson. Am I understanding that correctly?
2:5:39.760 --> 2:5:51.610 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just think fundamentally the expansion of the definition of contraband goes beyond the requirements to for to protect against the DBT and so licensees aren't set up for that.
2:5:51.620 --> 2:5:59.450 SHIELDS, Charlotte And then, you know, going through the past, items that were made publicly available to the industry, right?
2:5:59.460 --> 2:6:6.440 SHIELDS, Charlotte So there was never an opportunity to publicly comment on the definition of contraband and how it looks today.
70 Enclosure 3
2:6:6.550 --> 2:6:10.460 SHIELDS, Charlotte And then the backfitting evaluation didn't include that discussion.
2:6:10.470 --> 2:6:18.990 SHIELDS, Charlotte So licensees are at of point where they just can't comply with that new definition and it's not regulatory required somewhere else.
2:6:19.310 --> 2:6:22.670 SHIELDS, Charlotte So umm yeah, I guess that's the gist of it.
2:6:27.700 --> 2:6:34.750 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We will say thank you, Charlotte for stepping in there and then helping us out.
2:6:34.760 --> 2:6:36.930 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we're not gonna turn to Stan Day.
2:6:41.450 --> 2:6:41.910 Stan Day All right.
2:6:42.170 --> 2:6:48.890 Stan Day My you know, this is another example associated with the use of an enforcement guidance memorandum.
2:6:49.750 --> 2:6:55.280 Stan Day Another generic item that could be [applied to] all by using that type of memorandum.
2:6:57.590 --> 2:7:4.740 Stan Day One thing that we have at Connecticut, Yankee main YY atomic is that this definition is forcing a physical security plan change.
2:7:4.850 --> 2:7:16.320 Stan Day I'm sure that's true at other places as well, so I guess we could take determination that the NRC is a previously approved the definition of contraband that's different than this.
2:7:16.650 --> 2:7:40.770 Stan Day You know, if we wanted to, you know, say that that's an alternative measure under § 73.55(r) that we have because you have approved it in the past or we you know we can include that as a site specific item to say that our definition of contraband that's in our approved PSP's is different than the definition that's in the revised guidance document or excuse me, the revised rule.
2:7:41.660 --> 2:7:47.270 Stan Day So I don't know if that's one way that the NRC may permit us to power past this [issue].
2:7:48.360 --> 2:7:56.680 Stan Day Uh, you know, to allow us to utilize that as an alternative and as an approved alternative measure that's already established in our PSP.
71 Enclosure 3
2:7:57.640 --> 2:8:4.110 Stan Day Otherwise, I think that that's something else that's ripe for being resolved via guidance and enforcement kind of been random.
2:8:15.60 --> 2:8:17.560 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, thank you for that comment, Stan.
2:8:18.270 --> 2:8:25.160 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Again, we appreciate your contribution as well as everyone else is contributions to this conversation thus far.
2:8:25.570 --> 2:8:31.380 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I just want to highlight in the chat that Sue Perkins added.
2:8:31.390 --> 2:8:34.120 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Wouldn't there be backfit implications associated?
2:8:34.130 --> 2:8:36.520 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I'm assuming with this definition of contraband.
2:8:36.590 --> 2:8:47.150 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So thank you for that comment from an unknown user, we have the definition of contraband is currently defined and the NEI approved it in 03-12 REV 7.
2:8:47.800 --> 2:8:53.410 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
This new definition expands upon that definition, and then finally we have from John Cherubini and the chat.
2:8:53.420 --> 2:8:57.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
This definition will drive a [security] plan change and is defined.
2:8:57.190 --> 2:9:7.580 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
[In] Another reg guide such as RG 5.76 and one may interpret this as we have to defend against this in our security defensive strategies.
2:9:7.590 --> 2:9:10.860 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So thanks for adding that as well, John, so.
2:9:11.550 --> 2:9:18.440 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK, it looks like we have no other hands raised at this time.
2:9:27.480 --> 2:9:29.750 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So I will turn to the next slide.
2:9:33.270 --> 2:9:42.500 Phil Brochman Yeah, this this issue I think this is more spent fuel storage particularly.
72 Enclosure 3
2:9:44.510 --> 2:9:48.880 Phil Brochman I'm on slide to make sure we're on the right slide here, but I may not be in the right, so OK, there we are.
2:9:52.660 --> 2:10:24.970 Phil Brochman Yes, in the 15 minute event notification a comment was made in the previous meetings that there's a difference between the language used in the regulations for transportation based 15 minute about notifications of hostile threat versus the language used in the in the facility based 15 minute which is hostile action.
2:10:26.360 --> 2:10:34.250 Phil Brochman The NRC went back in looked at this and the language in the existing guidance document.
2:10:34.640 --> 2:10:48.670 Phil Brochman It uses hostile action in both for both facilities and transportation, and hostile action is used in what is sometimes called the preamble or the statement of consideration for the rule.
2:10:48.840 --> 2:11:4.860 Phil Brochman But it's not used in § 73.1200(b)(3)(ii). The NRC is is assessing how to address that aspect and that's all I have on that issue.
2:11:4.950 --> 2:11:12.770 Phil Brochman So bottom line is there's the staff does not view that there's a need to change this in the draft guide 5080.
2:11:16.150 --> 2:11:16.520 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
OK.
2:11:16.530 --> 2:11:19.470 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Any questions on this section?
2:11:36.810 --> 2:11:38.690 Phil Brochman This is what I was thinking of a moment ago.
2:11:38.880 --> 2:11:42.890 Phil Brochman I jumped ahead on my when I prefer other material.
2:11:45.440 --> 2:11:56.920 Phil Brochman Regarding the 15-minute hostile action event timing and when it's the notification is due to the NRC and then there's a separate question on the continuous communication channel staffing.
2:11:57.700 --> 2:12:5.20 Phil Brochman Umm so that the NRC looks at the language that we have here in.
Phil Brochman 10 CFR 73.1200(a)(6) indicates that a licensee can delay.
2:12:17.310 --> 2:12:36.540 Phil Brochman Their notification of a 15-minute notification until after they've accomplished certain things,
73 Enclosure 3
implementing contingency responses and in particular notifications to state officials of the declaration of or classification of an emergency.
2:12:37.410 --> 2:12:57.80 Phil Brochman In talking to the emergency preparedness personnel in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, they've indicated to me that for some types of licensees the notifications are required within 15 minutes.
2:12:57.370 --> 2:13:2.50 Phil Brochman For other licensees, a longer time period is permitted [of] 30 minutes.
2:13:4.840 --> 2:13:23.470 Phil Brochman The NRC staff view in this situation is that the language of the current regulation and the current guidance, which is licensees may delay the 15-minute notification until after they've made the state notification, provides sufficient flexibility.
2:13:23.480 --> 2:13:25.10 Phil Brochman That's what we would understand.
2:13:26.890 --> 2:13:41.120 Phil Brochman Regarding the second bullet, which is establishment of a continuous communications channel, we would note that would occur after the licensee has made the [security event] notification of the NRC.
2:13:42.130 --> 2:13:48.40 Phil Brochman That's been the presumption that the NRC's not going to request a communications channel before the licensee.
2:13:48.50 --> 2:13:50.510 Phil Brochman Notifies the NRC of such an event.
2:13:51.310 --> 2:13:58.310 Phil Brochman It also provides the licensees sufficient flexibility. In looking at some of the comments.
2:13:59.650 --> 2:14:8.70 Phil Brochman I got the impression that there were some licensees that said this was a new requirement and that posses some.
2:14:8.80 --> 2:14:26.490 Phil Brochman Confusion on our part, because in going back and looking at the previous regulation [10 CFR] 73.71 under paragraph (B)(2), there is a reference to establishing a continuous communications channel.
2:14:28.120 --> 2:14:36.390 Phil Brochman If requested by the NRC, it's done in a manner that it's referencing a paragraph in [10 CFR] 73.71.
2:14:36.400 --> 2:14:49.470 Phil Brochman I believe it's [in 73.71] (a)(3), but it's still there and so the base requirement to establish a continuous communications channel in our perspective is not something new.
74 Enclosure 3
2:14:49.480 --> 2:15:1.930 Phil Brochman It's there all the time and so that's our so bottom line is we don't see that there's a need to make changes in [what was proposed] DG-5080 regarding this topic area.
2:15:2.440 --> 2:15:9.230 Phil Brochman And I think I will stop talking at this point and see what the questions I see a number of hands raised.
2:15:12.100 --> 2:15:14.50 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we do have two hands raised.
2:15:14.120 --> 2:15:15.710 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
First, we're going to turn to Charlotte.
2:15:19.90 --> 2:15:20.440 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hi, Charlotte again.
2:15:20.650 --> 2:15:23.860 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hey so I was hoping that maybe I could help out with some of that clarification.
2:15:23.870 --> 2:15:30.560 SHIELDS, Charlotte So previously there was not a 15 minute notification requirement under part 73.
2:15:30.650 --> 2:15:36.220 SHIELDS, Charlotte So I think that's the perspective of where the continuous open line of communication comes in.
2:15:36.230 --> 2:15:43.820 SHIELDS, Charlotte Being new because from that perspective the 15 minute you know that's a new notification requirement.
2:15:43.910 --> 2:15:55.860 SHIELDS, Charlotte However, licensees have implemented the accelerated call to the NRC within their station processes and procedures, but that was just to notify the NRC.
2:15:56.530 --> 2:16:5.640 SHIELDS, Charlotte But those provisions from that 2005 bulletin didn't prescribe maintaining an open line of communication.
2:16:5.690 --> 2:16:14.170 SHIELDS, Charlotte At that point it just gave guidance on as soon as as soon as you're aware, please implement this accelerated notification to us.
2:16:14.180 --> 2:16:15.310 SHIELDS, Charlotte So I think that's for the.
2:16:15.360 --> 2:16:46.120 SHIELDS, Charlotte That's where that, you know, maybe that helps with your confusion a little bit, but I think from you know what you have laid out that it's and I'm only speaking from the power reactors perspective because
75 Enclosure 3
that's my only perspective that I have is that knowing that state notifications need to be made under Part 50 and that this security notification and then maintaining an open line can be done after that state notification or you know state and local government.
2:16:46.130 --> 2:16:48.300 SHIELDS, Charlotte You know, notifications are made.
2:16:48.370 --> 2:16:50.900 SHIELDS, Charlotte That clarifies it for me and my station.
2:16:54.410 --> 2:16:57.480 Phil Brochman But Charlotte, let me make sure I'm understanding something.
2:16:57.590 --> 2:17:4.740 Phil Brochman So based on what you were saying that previous to this rule [under 73.71] a 15-minute notification didn't exist.
2:17:5.70 --> 2:17:8.340 Phil Brochman But essentially with this [new 73.1200].
2:17:8.430 --> 2:17:20.470 Phil Brochman Am I correct in understanding that in the past, if a licensee made a 1-hour notification, they could at that point be requested to establish a continuous communications channel?
2:17:23.650 --> 2:17:35.280 SHIELDS, Charlotte I guess are you asking me if based on when it was just a 1-hour notification for security events or if it was loggable, did the requirement exist?
2:17:33.710 --> 2:17:35.450 Phil Brochman Yeah, I'm saying a 1-hour notification.
2:17:36.850 --> 2:17:39.300 SHIELDS, Charlotte I mean, I guess I'm not sure [what] you're asking me.
2:17:39.310 --> 2:17:45.560 SHIELDS, Charlotte Like if the regulation was maintained an open line after you make the 1-hour notification if requested after you make the 1-hour notification.
2:17:46.270 --> 2:17:48.600 SHIELDS, Charlotte If that existed, then yes.
2:17:48.770 --> 2:17:54.400 SHIELDS, Charlotte But I'm just saying because the 15-minute notification is a new notification requirement.
2:17:54.410 --> 2:18:0.100 SHIELDS, Charlotte That's the perspective of maintaining an open line after 15 minutes.
76 Enclosure 3
2:18:0.110 --> 2:18:2.780 SHIELDS, Charlotte That's just the industry perspective.
2:18:5.70 --> 2:18:18.390 Phil Brochman So it's not you know from it sounds as if you're saying it's not so much the timing of the of the continuous communication channel, not the fact of.
2:18:19.330 --> 2:18:19.660 SHIELDS, Charlotte Correct.
2:18:21.250 --> 2:18:23.190 Phil Brochman Alright, I just want to make sure I understood that correctly.
2:18:28.940 --> 2:18:30.80 Phil Brochman There's another hand up.
2:18:34.60 --> 2:18:35.370 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Next, we're going to turn to Stan.
2:18:38.630 --> 2:18:41.640 Stan Day Stan Day Connecticut Yankee, Maine Yankee Atomic.
2:18:41.800 --> 2:19:2.240 Stan Day I think one of the differences filled with regard to the existing or the previous rule in 73.71 was that the method of implementation was that you could open that up to like a conference line where it would be in the room and that you could have your operator in your alarm station be the source of communications.
2:19:2.250 --> 2:19:3.420 Stan Day But it would be in the background.
2:19:3.430 --> 2:19:8.20 Stan Day It was not a dedicated handheld person that was holding the phone.
2:19:8.900 --> 2:19:13.310 Stan Day You in being a dedicated individual, that was the dedicated phone holder for the NRC.
2:19:13.900 --> 2:19:29.470 Stan Day I think that's the difference between how the rule was stated in 73.71 and how the rule is stated now is that it has to be a dedicated person with an ear on the phone versus somebody that was able to address that situation in an alarm station or a control room.
2:19:30.30 --> 2:19:31.50 Stan Day So I think that's that.
2:19:31.60 --> 2:19:34.960 Stan Day That's where the issue comes in, you know, so.
77 Enclosure 3
2:19:36.790 --> 2:19:58.580 Phil Brochman I get that so a dedicated, in other words, what you're telling me is that there may be a perception that that the continuous the continuous communication channel requires a person who's dedicated to that task only as compared to being able to multitask and.
2:20:0.280 --> 2:20:8.780 Phil Brochman Respond to questions that the NRC may have, which may be at some interval or periodicity, and do other things at the same time.
2:20:9.750 --> 2:20:10.40 Stan Day Correct.
2:20:27.520 --> 2:20:29.520 Phil Brochman I see some more another hand up on.
2:20:31.180 --> 2:20:33.190 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Well, I think that's still Stan Days [hand].
2:20:33.990 --> 2:20:35.210 Phil Brochman Oh, Dan [is] OK.
2:20:33.200 --> 2:20:38.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So thank you very much on any other questions on this particular topic.
2:20:55.740 --> 2:20:59.290 Phil Brochman Think we got the next slide, which is.
2:21:3.310 --> 2:21:4.270 Phil Brochman My favorite slide.
2:21:26.930 --> 2:21:28.240 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
So we'll start with Charlotte.
2:21:31.680 --> 2:21:32.150 SHIELDS, Charlotte Hi.
2:21:32.280 --> 2:21:34.730 SHIELDS, Charlotte So a couple of things that I have notes on that.
2:21:34.740 --> 2:21:41.870 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'm looking just to validate that will be covered in the clarification in the Reg Guide revision.
2:21:42.360 --> 2:22:6.420 SHIELDS, Charlotte The first thing would be and can the new term used in the language conditions adverse to security and if that is equivalent to what licensees have determined to be conditions adverse to quality as it relates to the security programs as licensees are required to implement a formal corrective action program.
78 Enclosure 3
2:22:6.600 --> 2:22:8.50 SHIELDS, Charlotte So that's question number one.
2:22:8.140 --> 2:22:8.490 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'll.
2:22:8.600 --> 2:22:12.210 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'll pause there to see if that's on your radar to include in the guidance clarification.
2:22:13.430 --> 2:22:15.490 Phil Brochman Umm, it wasn't previously.
2:22:17.100 --> 2:22:19.550 Phil Brochman That sounds like that may be something for a glossary.
2:22:21.460 --> 2:22:21.680 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
2:22:22.760 --> 2:22:36.270 SHIELDS, Charlotte And then, umm, another item is time of discovery definition and clarifying acceptable methods to comply with this definition, possibly as it aligns.
2:22:36.280 --> 2:22:42.530 SHIELDS, Charlotte We talked about this in the main meeting, possibly clarification that aligning with the NRC endorsed.
2:22:45.340 --> 2:22:50.570 SHIELDS, Charlotte Definition in NEI-0312 and then what's also exists in Reg Guide 5.76.
2:22:51.980 --> 2:22:54.400 SHIELDS, Charlotte We're looking for that clarification in the Reg Guide revision [to 5.62] as well.
2:22:55.660 --> 2:22:58.150 Phil Brochman Yeah, I think that's going to be something.
2:23:5.140 --> 2:23:9.350 Phil Brochman It's certainly something we need to we need to align upon.
2:23:12.310 --> 2:23:12.840 SHIELDS, Charlotte OK.
2:23:9.740 --> 2:23:13.380 Phil Brochman What we're going to do, so we'll address that.
2:23:12.910 --> 2:23:15.860 SHIELDS, Charlotte Those are those are the two items I have for right now.
79 Enclosure 3
2:23:16.690 --> 2:23:17.900 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'll let others chime in.
2:23:46.450 --> 2:23:47.810 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Oh, there we go, John.
2:23:53.180 --> 2:23:54.860 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
State your name and your affiliation.
2:23:57.520 --> 2:23:58.100 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
Alright, Josh.
2:23:58.110 --> 2:23:59.940 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
Harper's Energy harbor ciphertext.
2:24:2.190 --> 2:24:2.870 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Yes, we can.
2:24:0.830 --> 2:24:3.870 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
I can everyone hear me alright?
2:24:3.950 --> 2:24:8.300 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
So uh question is on implementation timelines, I guess.
2:24:8.310 --> 2:24:18.670 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
So with some licensees continuing to move forward with implementation of the rule and have no intention of uh providing an exemption request.
2:24:20.150 --> 2:24:24.740 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
With these outlying conditions that are still questions.
2:24:24.790 --> 2:24:29.290 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
Uh for procedural implementation as well as training on [the new regulations].
2:24:29.300 --> 2:24:47.930 John Sharpless BV Security Manager (Guest)
Could the licensees expect the draft regulatory guidance, so you don't want to be issued or to be answered so that we can appropriately put, uh, these procedures in place in order to meet the January 8th time period?
2:24:50.350 --> 2:24:51.590 Phil Brochman Uh, thank you, John.
2:24:54.550 --> 2:25:10.800 Phil Brochman The staff at indicated before at the beginning of this meeting, before we got all these questions [that]
was our goal was to try to issue the draft guides for public comment before the beginning of November.
80 Enclosure 3
2:25:11.790 --> 2:25:18.160 Phil Brochman And then there was still uncertainty about what was the duration of the comment period.
2:25:18.590 --> 2:25:23.550 Phil Brochman I've proposed something that might be potentially 45 days.
2:25:23.820 --> 2:25:34.0 Phil Brochman I had one feedback item that said no, it should be closer to 60 days given that it's during the holidays during the end of year holiday.
2:25:35.600 --> 2:25:57.120 Phil Brochman The comment time period and then we were still looking to and then the third data point we had was issue the final guidance, the final revisions to the regulatory guides by April of 2024, that was the schedule that we discussed.
2:25:59.160 --> 2:26:22.800 Phil Brochman That said, I've heard a lot of things today that some, including some new items and so there's there are few challenges here but we but we are going to try to do the best we can and I will defer to management to see if they have any uh additional statements in this regard.
2:26:26.340 --> 2:26:33.460 Leah Smith I just wanted to ask before I close this out, if there was a hand raise that we need to address before we close the meeting.
2:26:37.560 --> 2:26:40.330 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
I don't see any additional hands raised at this time.
2:26:41.250 --> 2:26:44.90 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Charlotte, did you have other things you wanted to add?
2:26:46.300 --> 2:26:47.610 SHIELDS, Charlotte Umm, I do not.
2:26:47.620 --> 2:26:52.170 SHIELDS, Charlotte I think Sue is still on and I'll just let her make a couple of closing comments.
2:26:52.180 --> 2:26:55.40 SHIELDS, Charlotte From the NEI industry perspective.
2:27:2.570 --> 2:27:2.950 PERKINS, Susan Thank you.
2:27:2.960 --> 2:27:5.270 PERKINS, Susan This is Sue Perkins from NEI.
2:27:5.520 --> 2:27:6.870 PERKINS, Susan Thank you for the meeting.
81 Enclosure 3
2:27:6.880 --> 2:27:16.130 PERKINS, Susan I think this dialogue, the questions really underscore the need for precision and going forward with these Reg Guides.
2:27:16.140 --> 2:27:25.450 PERKINS, Susan The other thing you know, it's still a little concerning that we have to or NRC positions have to be stated in a Reg Guide, which is one way of interpreting the rule.
2:27:25.740 --> 2:27:32.140 PERKINS, Susan So I'm just looking for regulatory certainty going forward and how whether we you guys decide to go the EGM [enforcement guidance memorandum] route.
2:27:32.290 --> 2:27:44.700 PERKINS, Susan But I think you heard some real valid concerns among the industry as far as trying to make this successful and looking at what success looks like in order to implement this with the appropriate level
[of] regulatory certainty.
2:27:44.710 --> 2:27:46.460 PERKINS, Susan So again, thank you for listening.
2:27:46.470 --> 2:27:47.940 PERKINS, Susan I look forward to the next steps.
2:27:47.950 --> 2:27:53.890 PERKINS, Susan I look forward to seeing what the red guides will state to resolve some of these very, very important issues, but thank you.
2:28:7.200 --> 2:28:10.400 Leah Smith Well, we very much appreciate your robust participation today.
2:28:10.410 --> 2:28:24.190 Leah Smith We know that this is a topic that you're keenly interested in and we appreciate this open and candid dialogue back and forth as we try to determine the best way to modify the Reg Guide so that it provides that clarity and that regulatory uncertainty that you need moving forward.
2:28:24.200 --> 2:28:26.660 Leah Smith So we do very much appreciate your input.
2:28:26.770 --> 2:28:30.940 Leah Smith I've been furiously taking notes throughout of this to capture your comments and questions.
2:28:30.950 --> 2:28:37.440 Leah Smith So we will take that back and continue to move ahead with the regard revisions of RG 5.62 with the intention of publishing those for public comment later this fall [in DG-5080].
2:28:38.100 --> 2:28:40.760 Leah Smith Thank you again and I hope you have a great rest of your afternoon.
82 Enclosure 3
2:28:42.170 --> 2:28:44.170 Phil Brochman Becca, do you have anything else that you need to say?
2:28:45.100 --> 2:28:46.90 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Leah covered it.
2:28:46.100 --> 2:28:46.770 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Thank you.
2:28:46.780 --> 2:28:52.350 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
Appreciate the dialogue as well and you know this is a priority for us to work through these challenges.
2:28:52.360 --> 2:28:55.440 Becca Lagios (She/Her)
So we will continue to do so and appreciate everyone joining us today.
2:28:58.120 --> 2:29:2.880 Phil Brochman Well, I guess that then closes out our meeting, we'll say thank you all for participating.
2:29:2.890 --> 2:29:7.280 Phil Brochman And thank you for everyone else who assisted in this matter.
2:29:8.290 --> 2:29:8.820 Phil Brochman Thank you, Brett.
2:29:9.540 --> 2:29:9.910 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
Thank you.
2:29:9.920 --> 2:29:11.180 Brett Klukan (He/Him)
We'll be ending the meeting now, everyone.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
83