ML24339B839

Transcript of Meeting with External Stakeholders Discussing Limited Scope Revisions to Guidance Documents Supporting the Published Final Enhanced Weapons Rule Transcript Enclosure 3

ML24339B839
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/12/2024
From:	Phil Brochman NRC/NSIR/DPCP/MSB
To:
Shared Package
ML24339B819	List: ML24339B839
References
Download: ML24339B839 (1)

Text

Enclosure 3 1

Meeting Transcript (Polished and Edited)

Public Meeting - Discussing Limited-Scope Revisions to Guidance Documents Supporting the Published Final Enhanced Weapons Rule November 28, 2023, 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. ET 0:0:0.0 --> 0:0:1.470 Lynn Ronewicz Good afternoon, everyone.

0:7:45.890 --> 0:7:55.860 Lynn Ronewicz Welcome to this virtual public meeting to discuss limited scope revisions to guidance documents supporting the published final enhanced weapons role.

0:7:56.330 --> 0:8:4.100 Lynn Ronewicz The purpose of this meeting is for the NRC staff to meet directly with individuals to discuss regulatory and technical issues.

0:8:4.650 --> 0:8:11.580 Lynn Ronewicz Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff or make comments about the issues discussed.

0:8:11.770 --> 0:8:18.820 Lynn Ronewicz However, the NRC is not actively soliciting comments towards regulatory decisions at this meeting.

0:8:19.610 --> 0:8:26.140 Lynn Ronewicz Consequently, the NRC is not formally accepting comments on the draft regulatory guides in this meeting.

0:8:26.610 --> 0:8:34.180 Lynn Ronewicz Stakeholders should instead follow the directions for submitting comments on the draft guides, as described in the Federal Register notices.

0:8:34.950 --> 0:8:43.80 Lynn Ronewicz The NRC staff will discuss the proposed limited scope revisions to three draft regulatory guides, also known as DG's.

0:8:44.240 --> 0:8:53.330 Lynn Ronewicz These draft guides are intended to support industries timely and efficient implementation of the published final enhanced weapons rule.

0:8:54.60 --> 0:8:58.370 Lynn Ronewicz Everybody, please mute your lines because we did not automatically mute.

0:8:58.800 --> 0:9:8.120 Lynn Ronewicz This meeting is intended to facilitate the public, licensees, and other stakeholders informed submission of comments on these draft Reg Guides.

0:9:8.840 --> 0:9:18.60 Lynn Ronewicz My name is Lynn Ronewicz and I will be facilitating today's meeting. Before I hand the meeting over for introductions and to get started with the staff presentations.

2 0:9:18.390 --> 0:9:21.0 Lynn Ronewicz I just wanted to run through some housekeeping items.

0:9:21.630 --> 0:9:26.660 Lynn Ronewicz This meeting is being transcribed in Teams for accessibility purposes.

0:9:26.910 --> 0:9:28.780 Lynn Ronewicz You may turn on the closed captioning.

0:9:28.950 --> 0:9:29.190 Lynn Ronewicz For this.

0:9:29.330 --> 0:9:33.80 Lynn Ronewicz Meeting by selecting the three dots on the top of your screen.

0:9:33.130 --> 0:9:43.320 Lynn Ronewicz More from the drop down menu depending upon your version of Microsoft Teams, you can select language and speech or accessibility to turn on live captions.

0:9:44.60 --> 0:9:52.490 Lynn Ronewicz The draft guides being discussed are available in the public meeting notice on the NRC's public meeting schedule page and in our agency.

0:9:52.500 --> 0:10:1.730 Lynn Ronewicz Wide documents access and management system, known as ADAMS at ML233268048.

0:10:2.280 --> 0:10:4.590 Lynn Ronewicz I copied the link into the Teams chat.

0:10:5.40 --> 0:10:11.70 Lynn Ronewicz They are also available in the regulations.gov website at the docket numbers listed in the slides.

0:10:11.820 --> 0:10:14.690 Lynn Ronewicz Today we will discuss the changes in these three DGs.

0:10:14.850 --> 0:10:24.660 Lynn Ronewicz We have included public question and comment times after the staff discussion of each draft guide, we will conclude the meeting with a wrap up.

0:10:24.850 --> 0:10:30.990 Lynn Ronewicz We will take a 10 minute break after the second Q&A session on DG-5081.

0:10:31.0 --> 0:10:36.400 Lynn Ronewicz Please mute your microphones as they are not automatically muted in this meeting.

0:11:19.750 --> 0:11:28.0 Lynn Ronewicz And finally, we do have the teams chat open, but we would like to limit the chat use to just communicating any technical issues.

0:11:28.490 --> 0:11:38.200 Lynn Ronewicz 3

So if you're having a technical issue with teams, you can let us know through the chat and we will try to help you, but please don't use the chat to submit technical questions or comments.

0:11:38.550 --> 0:11:50.260 Lynn Ronewicz We would like to hear those from you directly via the teams audio and OK, and with that, I'm going to hand the meeting over to Jose Cuadrado, chief of the Material Security branch.

0:11:55.680 --> 0:11:57.310 Jose Cuadrado Thank you, Lynn, for the introduction.

0:11:57.580 --> 0:11:58.700 Jose Cuadrado Good afternoon, everyone.

0:11:58.710 --> 0:12:0.770 Jose Cuadrado My name is Jose Cuadrado.

0:12:1.260 --> 0:12:10.910 Jose Cuadrado I am the chief of the Material Security Branch and NRCs Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Phil works for me.

0:12:10.920 --> 0:12:24.800 Jose Cuadrado He's a senior policy advisor and he is a lead technical lead for the implementation of the Enhanced Weapons rule and the effort to revise due the limited scope revision of these Reg Guides that we are discussing.

0:12:25.630 --> 0:12:39.660 Jose Cuadrado So as Lynn stated, the purpose of this meeting today is to seek any questions that you may have about the three draft Reg guides that the NRC has published recently.

0:12:40.10 --> 0:12:54.760 Jose Cuadrado You will see later in the presentation that we'll be showing the specific numbers of these records, but essentially, it's DGs 5082, 5081, and 5080, which corresponds to specific revisions and draft version of [three] Reg guides.

0:12:58.20 --> 0:13:23.270 Jose Cuadrado So the purpose of this meeting today is to seek any questions that you may have. You can also make comments during today, but understand that although we will be transcribing [the meeting]

the official way of submitting comments on the specific Reg guides is through the instructions that we provided on the Federal Register notice which is written comments submitted through the regulations.gov website.

0:13:23.540 --> 0:13:35.980 Jose Cuadrado Each one of these Reg guides has a docket number assigned to it, so if you have any comments that you would like to make today, you just need to make sure that you put those in writings and send them to us [via the regulations.gov website].

0:13:36.210 --> 0:13:45.420 Jose Cuadrado We cannot fix what we are not aware of, so please feel free to submit as many comments as you feel are necessary for us to address and consider.

0:13:45.590 --> 0:14:4.930 Jose Cuadrado 4

We have incurred substantial efforts and we're making everything possible to make sure that you know these revisions address all of the concerns that members of the industry and stakeholders have provided to us in the past regarding implementation of the revised reporting requirements and other items associated with the enhanced weapons rule.

0:14:5.100 --> 0:14:13.390 Jose Cuadrado So you just want to make sure that we get it right to the extent possible and you can support us in that by making sure that you send those comments in.

0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:15.390 Jose Cuadrado So I just want to thank Phil and.

0:14:15.620 --> 0:14:21.280 Jose Cuadrado Vince Williams, also from my staff for supporting the meeting today, and Lynn, who is going to be our facilitator today.

0:14:21.480 --> 0:14:32.610 Jose Cuadrado I look forward to a lively discussion and substantial engagement on this topics and I will hand it over then to Lynn or to Phil to begin our presentation on the topic. Thanks.

0:14:34.780 --> 0:14:36.790 Lynn Ronewicz Phil, you have the floor OK.

0:14:37.130 --> 0:14:37.810 Phil Brochman Thank you, Jose.

0:14:38.310 --> 0:14:42.640 Phil Brochman Vince, do you want to share your screen so we can see the slides.

0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:3.50 Phil Brochman If you would, I think go to slide #2.

0:15:6.480 --> 0:15:8.950 Phil Brochman So for those who don't know me, let me back up.

0:15:8.960 --> 0:15:11.150 Phil Brochman My name is Phil Brochman.

0:15:11.160 --> 0:15:16.400 Phil Brochman I'm a senior policy analyst in the Material Security branch.

0:15:17.610 --> 0:15:21.520 Phil Brochman First, I want to apologize for my throat is a little bit sore today.

0:15:21.530 --> 0:15:25.10 Phil Brochman I think I'm coming down with a cold and I hopefully can get through all of this.

0:15:27.240 --> 0:15:33.470 Phil Brochman What we see here is this is a recap of what Lynn talked about a moment ago that this is a question and answer session.

5 0:15:33.780 --> 0:15:44.490 Phil Brochman We're not actively soliciting comments towards a regulatory decision, and as you've heard twice already, any comments on these guidance documents should be formally submitted [via regulations.gov].

0:15:44.660 --> 0:15:45.430 Phil Brochman Next slide, please.

0:15:49.370 --> 0:15:52.0 Phil Brochman We have our tentative agenda.

0:15:52.350 --> 0:15:53.980 Phil Brochman We've done the opening remarks.

0:15:54.330 --> 0:16:1.640 Phil Brochman I'm going to give you an overview of what we're doing and then we're going to talk about the three draft guides we have issued for comment.

0:16:1.680 --> 0:16:3.410 Phil Brochman I'm doing them in sort of a reverse order.

0:16:4.680 --> 0:16:8.230 Phil Brochman And we plan to break after the first two.

0:16:8.590 --> 0:16:13.330 Phil Brochman And you'll notice that we have a question and answer time budgeted at the end.

0:16:16.910 --> 0:16:20.210 Phil Brochman Could you please mute your microphones please?

0:16:25.570 --> 0:16:42.40 Phil Brochman We've got a question period set aside at the end of each of the discussions of an individual draft guide and then we have a question session at the very end, plus we have a break time.

0:16:44.610 --> 0:16:45.620 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:16:47.550 --> 0:16:54.590 Phil Brochman This is the wrap up we our goal is to be done by 4:00 o'clock, but if we need more time, we'll keep on talking.

0:16:54.660 --> 0:16:55.380 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:16:59.510 --> 0:17:1.350 Phil Brochman So what's kicking this off?

0:17:2.790 --> 0:17:7.600 Phil Brochman In March of this year, the NRC published the final enhanced weapons rule.

6 0:17:7.910 --> 0:17:11.620 Phil Brochman You see the date there on March 14th in the Federal Register.

0:17:11.690 --> 0:17:13.680 Phil Brochman Including the Notice number and citation link.

0:17:13.690 --> 0:17:38.810 Phil Brochman If you wish to go see it, and we also issued [with the final rule] 3 draft regulatory guides [issuing or revising] RGs 5.87, 5.86, and 5.62. Subsequent to the publication of those guides, there have been several workshops that the NRC staff has conducted with industry and the NRC staff and myself have attended.

0:17:41.140 --> 0:17:59.290 Phil Brochman

[We have also attended] several industry forums and symposiums, and in the course of all those meetings, industry raised issues on clarity [of the RGs] and confusion with language that appears to be inconsistent with the rule text.

0:17:59.340 --> 0:18:5.690 Phil Brochman And because of all that, the NRC staff looked at those issues and agreed, yes, there are [valid]

questions.

0:18:5.800 --> 0:18:14.200 Phil Brochman And so we've issued these three draft regulatory guides DG 5082, 5081, and 5080 for public comment.

0:18:15.860 --> 0:18:23.240 Phil Brochman The other thing I would note is the bottom bullet on this page, that not all of the issues that were raised by industry [could be addressed].

0:18:25.470 --> 0:18:48.860 Phil Brochman The staff has not been able to address in these draft guides some of the issues [raised by industry and this] will potentially require a rulemaking. Meaning a notice and opportunity for comment rulemaking; and therefore, we were not able to resolve these issues at this point, we may resolve them at some point in the future, depending on what path we proceed on, but we tried to resolve as many things as we possibly could.

0:18:49.150 --> 0:18:49.940 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:18:56.60 --> 0:19:7.840 Phil Brochman One thing to note is that we were not able to publish the Federal Register notices that offered these draft guides for comment all on the same day. Two were published.

0:19:8.400 --> 0:19:22.730 Phil Brochman On October 27th and that was Reg Guide DG 5080 and 5082 and the third one [DG 5081] was published on October 30th.

0:19:25.760 --> 0:19:44.100 Phil Brochman These draft guides, the Associated Federal Register notices and any comments that are 7

submitted eventually can be found on the regulations.gov website under the following docket ID numbers and you see them listed here.

0:19:45.600 --> 0:19:53.590 Phil Brochman Essentially, they're [Docket ID Nos] NRC 20230171, NRC 20230172 and NRC 20230173.

0:19:54.460 --> 0:20:1.20 Phil Brochman I was told as of yesterday we don't have any comments yet, but I'm sure there will be some coming.

0:20:1.30 --> 0:20:2.70 Phil Brochman So next slide please.

0:20:11.500 --> 0:20:18.30 Phil Brochman The Federal Register Notices indicated that comments were due within 45 days of the date of publication of the Federal Register notice.

0:20:18.300 --> 0:20:22.600 Phil Brochman So that's why you see two dates listed here for the first two guides.

0:20:23.680 --> 0:20:28.800 Phil Brochman This December 11th [for DG 5080 and DG 5082], and then for the third guide [DG 5081], it's December 14th.

0:20:30.290 --> 0:20:46.280 Phil Brochman Comments may be submitted directly via the regulations.gov website, or there's also instructions in the Federal Register notices. And then just to just to be clear, as I mentioned before, there are three separate Federal Register notices, one for each of the draft guides.

0:20:46.490 --> 0:20:52.560 Phil Brochman They all have identical language on submission, but it gives you different methods to submit them.

0:20:52.670 --> 0:21:8.580 Phil Brochman Ultimately, all the comments wind up on the regulations.gov website so that the public and other interested individuals can see the comments and if necessary provide any further comments on the comments.

0:21:13.10 --> 0:21:21.160 Phil Brochman We're not intending to receive comments formally at this meeting and the last bullet is important right now.

0:21:21.210 --> 0:21:23.630 Phil Brochman The staff current goal is to disposition.

0:21:25.710 --> 0:21:37.270 Phil Brochman All the comments we receive and any changes to the draft guide and [develop] the final Reg Guides and publish the final revised Reg Guides before April of next year [2024].

0:21:38.860 --> 0:21:39.680 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

8 0:21:52.60 --> 0:22:0.0 Phil Brochman Draft Guide 5082 is the proposed revision 1 to Reg Guide 5.87.

0:22:0.950 --> 0:22:4.50 Phil Brochman On suspicious activity reports under Part 73.

0:22:4.980 --> 0:22:11.210 Phil Brochman The major change to this draft guide is revising guidance on contacting the Federal Aviation Administration.

0:22:13.10 --> 0:22:20.720 Phil Brochman We'll use the acronym FAA hereafter regarding suspicious aircraft event reports.

0:22:21.330 --> 0:22:32.500 Phil Brochman One of the things that became clear is that there was confusion on exactly how the FAA should be reached and in discussions with FAA.

0:22:32.510 --> 0:22:44.500 Phil Brochman Since then, we've clarified that the wherever the FAA directs the licensee to establish its point of contact, that that's where you should go.

0:22:44.510 --> 0:22:52.40 Phil Brochman And so we would view it as that FAA direction would supersede what we might say in the guidance document.

0:22:52.900 --> 0:22:53.660 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:22:58.240 --> 0:23:3.410 Phil Brochman The biggest change is in Appendix A to this draft guide.

0:23:3.420 --> 0:23:24.790 Phil Brochman A-2.1 contains the new guidance we've got on establishing a 24/7 point of contact with the FAA and to establish the point of contact if you're the typical licensee, we refer you to the [applicable]

FAA Flight Standards District Office.

0:23:25.140 --> 0:23:28.550 Phil Brochman They use the acronym FSDO for the point of contact.

0:23:28.700 --> 0:23:39.910 Phil Brochman There's an FAA website that shows geographically where they're located throughout the country, and we've got a link to that location for further information.

0:23:40.830 --> 0:23:57.630 Phil Brochman Secondly, in several places in the draft guide, there was previous language about applicable FAA, local control tower and we have replaced [in the DG] that more specific language with the more generic term applicable FAA facility.

0:24:2.300 --> 0:24:2.900 Phil Brochman Depending on.

9 0:24:2.940 --> 0:24:19.220 Phil Brochman Where your facility is located, you may be still directed to contact a nearby local control tower, but in other circumstances, depending on the site and where you are in airspace considerations, you may be directed to contact somewhere else.

0:24:23.820 --> 0:24:35.830 Phil Brochman The Bullet on page page 8 of the guidance document there was a question regarding departure from the standard order of precedence for notification of suspicious activities.

0:24:36.340 --> 0:24:45.900 Phil Brochman In that standard, order of preference procedure has contacting the FAA as the last item. The question was raised if we can reach out to.

0:24:46.300 --> 0:24:57.580 Phil Brochman The FAA to obtain additional information about whether an event is suspicious or an aircraft is suspicious or is not suspicious, and we.

0:24:58.350 --> 0:25:2.470 Phil Brochman Then (the licensee) reach a conclusion during that call that it is suspicious.

0:25:2.480 --> 0:25:5.740 Phil Brochman Do we have to hang up?

0:25:5.970 --> 0:25:12.780 Phil Brochman Make all the other notifications and then come back to the FAA because they were the last on these standard order of precedence.

0:25:13.450 --> 0:25:31.930 Phil Brochman The NRC has revised that guidance to make clear that the licensee can take advantage of the fact they're already talking to the FAA and can make the notification that they believe something is suspicious and then they can revert back to the standard order of precedence for the remaining notifications.

0:25:32.550 --> 0:25:34.290 Phil Brochman Next item please, next slide please.

0:25:37.10 --> 0:25:42.80 Phil Brochman I'm we added some additional clarifications based on questions that were asked [at wokshops].

0:25:42.680 --> 0:25:49.800 Phil Brochman We clarified that human performance errors are not considered suspicious activity per se.

0:25:51.450 --> 0:25:58.770 Phil Brochman We've also clarified some language on manned and versus unmanned aerial systems and aircraft and we clarified that.

0:25:59.740 --> 0:26:4.830 Phil Brochman Certain events that enrichment facilities in restricted areas are suspicious activities.

0:26:7.100 --> 0:26:12.590 Phil Brochman 10 I'm not going to go into great detail because what I've done is instead provide you the page reference.

0:26:13.230 --> 0:26:26.520 Phil Brochman So you can see the language and you can look at it yourself, but we can answer questions and I have the documents available to pull up on my screen to look at if there's any questions you have. Next slide please.

0:26:31.700 --> 0:26:38.790 Phil Brochman And heres an additional point where you see the parenthetical word new issue or new issues.

0:26:39.440 --> 0:26:48.550 Phil Brochman Those are items that were identified by industry subsequent to the publication of the draft guide for comment.

0:26:51.40 --> 0:26:57.970 Phil Brochman They are not reflected in the draft guides that have that were published, but they are issues the NRC staff.

0:26:58.20 --> 0:27:6.360 Phil Brochman Is considering and may, depending on getting those as a formal comment, may address them in the final Reg Guide.

0:27:8.90 --> 0:27:14.720 Phil Brochman So one of the first item you see here, page 16, is a query.

0:27:15.150 --> 0:27:21.180 Phil Brochman If there's there is an issue on or, there's a guidance on elicitation of.

0:27:23.720 --> 0:27:40.980 Phil Brochman Information being a suspicious activity and the query was well for vendors that deal with our facility that we'd have a relationship with are and they're asking questions about how certain things are done or how things certain things work.

0:27:41.50 --> 0:27:43.480 Phil Brochman Would that be considered as suspicious activity?

0:27:43.690 --> 0:27:47.30 Phil Brochman We have clarified that that would not be a suspicious activity.

0:27:50.900 --> 0:27:56.730 Phil Brochman On page #20 in position 5.7 these are two examples.

0:27:56.740 --> 0:28:3.90 Phil Brochman In example one and example three, we're talking about willful actions.

0:28:3.340 --> 0:28:8.140 Phil Brochman We've provided some guidance in example one on what might be considered willful actions.

0:28:8.540 --> 0:28:29.40 Phil Brochman The second issue, an example three, was viewed that there was a conflict between the 11 requirement in 10 CFR 95.57(b) that deals with infractions and other issues related to the protection of classified information.

0:28:29.630 --> 0:28:36.540 Phil Brochman 95.57(b) there requires that infractions only be recorded in a log.

0:28:36.670 --> 0:28:46.760 Phil Brochman It doesn't require they be reported verbally to the NRC, and the question was, is this inconsistent with the language in 10 CFR 1215(f)(2)?

0:28:50.790 --> 0:28:58.690 Phil Brochman What we've done is we've clarified that that exception in (f)(2) applies to both reports and records regarding classified issues.

0:28:59.560 --> 0:29:0.410 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:29:12.230 --> 0:29:22.230 Phil Brochman And that at this point, I think we're going to pause because we've gone through all of the comments on draft guide 5082.

0:29:22.690 --> 0:29:32.870 Phil Brochman And so if anyone has any questions on what I've said so far, be glad to try to address them at this point.

0:29:35.450 --> 0:29:47.360 Lynn Ronewicz So now we're going to open up for public comments and questions on DG 5082. To make a comment using the teams audio, please click on the hand icon to raise your hand.

0:29:47.370 --> 0:29:49.980 Lynn Ronewicz I do see one hand so far after I call on you.

0:30:23.380 --> 0:30:29.370 Lynn Ronewicz The very first is Charlotte Shields, please unmute and go ahead with your comment or question.

0:30:32.80 --> 0:30:35.490 SHIELDS, Charlotte I'm from Palo Verde [NPP] on loan to NEI.

0:30:36.60 --> 0:30:49.310 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just wanted to refer back to your slides 8 and 9 where you just discussed the FAA local control tower point of contact and I appreciate the attempt to get to.

0:30:51.900 --> 0:31:2.590 SHIELDS, Charlotte An acceptable method to meet the code language that just reading the words that are in the guidance document and then also reflecting back on what the code language says.

0:31:2.980 --> 0:31:7.280 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just want to validate that this topic is still on the table for a future rule making 0:31:8.280 --> 0:31:21.500 SHIELDS, Charlotte 12 I just feel like, you know, the last sentence at the and of Appendix A, A-2.1, that licensee should defer to the FAA's recommended point of contact, even if that.

0:31:22.100 --> 0:31:24.150 SHIELDS, Charlotte Departs from the NRC's guidance.

0:31:24.800 --> 0:31:34.710 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just feel like some folks in the industry, we may feel like we're still in jeopardy of not actually meeting the code requirements specifically.

0:31:34.840 --> 0:31:42.180 SHIELDS, Charlotte So I just want to validate that this is still on the table for future rulemaking to completely clarify this issue.

0:31:48.750 --> 0:31:50.570 Phil Brochman So the question just so everybody's clear.

0:31:53.640 --> 0:32:4.740 Phil Brochman Understanding what Charlotte is talking about is, as I mentioned earlier, some of the some of the issues may not be resolvable by.

0:32:6.820 --> 0:32:10.370 Phil Brochman Revising the guidance, we may require changes to the regulations.

0:32:12.420 --> 0:32:15.20 Phil Brochman This was one of the issues that was in question.

0:32:16.430 --> 0:32:31.910 Phil Brochman What we've done is we have tried to try to include as many things as possible, and we're still looking at exactly how we would do a rulemaking, what it would consist of, etcetera.

0:32:32.20 --> 0:32:40.800 Phil Brochman And those questions include the fact that a rulemaking requires prior requires approval by the Commission to begin that effort.

0:32:41.60 --> 0:32:53.380 Phil Brochman So we're still considering all those implications regarding the question you have, Charlotte, because the objective in this case is to get the information to the FAA.

0:32:54.550 --> 0:33:8.640 Phil Brochman That's why the NRC took the view in the guidance that if the FAA says to go to, for example, a terminal area radar control facility, watch desk.

0:33:10.250 --> 0:33:20.510 Phil Brochman At one site, which might be in a very busy area there from an aircraft airspace, versus somewhere else, they may say just go to the local control tower.

0:33:22.40 --> 0:33:34.730 Phil Brochman What we what we concluded is the best solution is to defer to whatever the FAA says because the FAA has a better understanding of their how busy their.

13 0:33:35.890 --> 0:33:38.420 Phil Brochman Their various facilities are and.

0:33:38.430 --> 0:33:42.310 Phil Brochman What's the most appropriate place to receive this information in a timely manner?

0:33:43.870 --> 0:33:55.800 Phil Brochman Sepecifically, remember the objective here is on something suspicious is get the information to the appropriate entity as quickly as possible, so that's what we're leaving it at.

0:33:55.930 --> 0:34:13.440 Phil Brochman We understand this may not be the solution that makes everybody happy at this moment, but we think it's an acceptable bridge between now and the future ultimately assuming we do rulemaking that we clean up this language and it will match what we're saying here is the applicable FAA facility.

0:34:17.180 --> 0:34:17.640 SHIELDS, Charlotte Thank you.

0:34:56.310 --> 0:34:58.200 Phil Brochman Let's move on to the next question.

0:34:58.210 --> 0:35:22.470 Phil Brochman We'll circle back at the end of the presentations if someone has a question on draft guide 5082 they hadn't thought of or it came to them after we've moved on, what we'll do is we'll have a sort of a pause at the end of the meeting to make sure there are no questions and we can circle back and look at issues as need be.

0:35:23.530 --> 0:35:33.720 Phil Brochman So let's go back to slide #12. We should be ready to start on DG 5081.

0:35:37.780 --> 0:35:54.750 Phil Brochman So draft guide 5081 is going to be proposed revision 1 to Reg Guide 5.86 and applies to what we call preemption authority, enhance weapons authority, and firearms background checks.

0:35:55.120 --> 0:36:3.720 Phil Brochman Those are all terms in the final rule that arise from the NRC's new authority under Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act.

0:36:7.600 --> 0:36:21.870 Phil Brochman On Page #10, we've made a staff identified change to clarify that licensees may directly apply for the term combined preemption authority and enhanced weapons authority.

0:36:22.620 --> 0:36:27.560 Phil Brochman Without first applying for stand-alone preemption authority.

0:36:27.790 --> 0:36:48.710 Phil Brochman So in other words, when you look at this guidance, there are two pathways a licensee could use.

[First,] initially apply for stand-alone preemption authority and then at some point down the road 14 apply for the combined authority; or [second] a licensee could apply directly for combined authority without going through stand-alone preemption authority.

0:36:50.180 --> 0:36:55.570 Phil Brochman Meaning it's a simpler one step application instead of a 2-step [application process].

0:36:56.80 --> 0:36:59.510 Phil Brochman So we clarified that. Next slide please.

0:37:4.650 --> 0:37:13.310 Phil Brochman There was a question posed by industry on security personnel who are not assigned armed duties.

0:37:14.520 --> 0:37:23.540 Phil Brochman So in other words, you have a security officer, hypothetically, that operates the badging program and they're not armed.

0:37:23.790 --> 0:37:32.190 Phil Brochman

[The questions is] Are they required to have a firearms background check and the presumption is you're at a licensee that has stand-alone preemption authority.

0:37:32.550 --> 0:37:33.520 Phil Brochman The answer is no.

0:37:34.150 --> 0:37:38.860 Phil Brochman If they're not assigned to armed duties, they're not required to have a firearms background check.

0:37:39.890 --> 0:37:42.380 Phil Brochman That was on Page 15. Next on page 17 [of DG 5081].

0:37:42.530 --> 0:38:3.410 Phil Brochman We clarified that onboarding activities [for new armed security personnel], and I guess that's the term of art for starting somebody new in your program (for those that haven't heard that term before). The question was, can the onboarding activities begin before a satisfactory firearms background check is received back from the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

0:38:4.60 --> 0:38:13.0 Phil Brochman Our answer is yes, you can begin the onboarding activities, including training activities.

0:38:14.890 --> 0:38:24.300 Phil Brochman Before the satisfactory firearms background check is received, however, that training may not include access to [covered] weapons.

0:38:25.130 --> 0:38:26.510 Phil Brochman So as a practical example.

0:38:30.110 --> 0:38:33.540 Phil Brochman You could begin onboarding activities.

0:38:33.970 --> 0:38:46.660 Phil Brochman 15 There could be training about requirements for deadly force, what the authority is, when appropriate, what the circumstances are, and that could all proceed actual training and qualification on [the covered] weapons themselves.

0:38:51.740 --> 0:38:56.440 Phil Brochman So we've also clarified an issue on page #18 [of DG-5081].

0:38:56.590 --> 0:39:7.640 Phil Brochman This is a new issue and we came to recognize that there was an error in the Reg Guide that was issued in March 2023.

0:39:11.220 --> 0:39:18.190 Phil Brochman There was language in the DG about a 72-hour exception [if a security officer, subject to a firearms background check, self-identifies a disqualifying event or condition to the licensee] then that event did not require a licensee notification to the NRC within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

0:39:18.200 --> 0:39:30.980 Phil Brochman However, that specific provision was removed by the Commission in the final enhanced weapons rule, it is no longer in [10 CFR 73.17(g)].

0:39:30.990 --> 0:39:40.160 Phil Brochman It was identified in the previous guidance as referencing 10 CFR 73.17(g)(2), but that paragraph

[as originally intended] no longer exists. [The result of removing the draft language on 10 CFR 73.17(g)(2) is that under the final rule a licensee must notify the NRC of all instances where a security officer informs the licensee of a disqualifying event or condition. The revised RG 5.86 will reflect this reality.]

0:39:40.510 --> 0:39:55.350 Phil Brochman It's not in 10 CFR 73.17(g)(1) either right now and the current 10 CFR 73.17(g)(2) is basically an action that applies to the NRC that we will notify the FBI.

0:39:55.360 --> 0:40:5.990 Phil Brochman If we receive notification from a licensee that a security officer has been removed because of a disqualifying event or condition [the NRC will notify the FBI]. Next slide please.

0:40:13.860 --> 0:40:22.830 Phil Brochman We've clarified some language on page 20 [of DG-5081] regarding the requirements for security personnel to remove enhanced weapons from a licensees facility.

0:40:25.0 --> 0:40:43.200 Phil Brochman We've clarified on page 20 that the date for removal of the preemption designation and confirmatory orders is still intended to be January 8th of 2024, meaning those orders go away by operation of law.

0:40:44.670 --> 0:40:59.420 Phil Brochman And finally on page 32 position #5 [of DG=5081] there was a question regarding security personnel whose duties require access to enhanced weapons.

0:40:59.670 --> 0:41:4.260 Phil Brochman For example, people who staff armories or conduct inventories [of enhanced weapons].

16 0:41:4.670 --> 0:41:11.880 Phil Brochman But for these individuals their duties do not require them to use these enhanced weapons.

0:41:12.170 --> 0:41:17.880 Phil Brochman The question was, are those personnel required to be trained and qualified on the use of these enhanced weapons?

0:41:18.440 --> 0:41:24.300 Phil Brochman The answer is no, they're not required to be trained and qualified on these enhanced weapons.

0:41:25.800 --> 0:41:26.600 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:41:32.560 --> 0:41:43.160 Phil Brochman In example 19, on page 36 [of DG-5081], we've clarified some requirements for firearms background checks for security personnel who were transferring from one licensee to another.

0:41:45.20 --> 0:41:56.880 Phil Brochman On page 40 [of DG-5081] weve clarified break in service firearms background check requirements and on page 40 in position 6.8 and this is a new issue.

0:41:57.90 --> 0:42:10.220 Phil Brochman We've clarified that the requirement for annual refresher training on disqualifying conditions and events must be accomplished initially, before January 7th, 2025.

0:42:10.290 --> 0:42:20.890 Phil Brochman Let me repeat that, January 7th, 2025, that date is one year from the implementation date of January 8th, 2024.

0:42:22.70 --> 0:42:35.520 Phil Brochman We also believe the current guidance provides flexibility for licensees to use any training approach specified in the licensees approved training and qualification plans.

0:42:36.170 --> 0:42:43.240 Phil Brochman For example, read and sign or more formalized discussions.

0:42:43.890 --> 0:42:48.400 Phil Brochman In any case, that's is how we've added some clarification because of that issue.

0:42:48.750 --> 0:42:49.610 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:42:52.190 --> 0:42:55.680 Lynn Ronewicz And I, and I think we're done with the second presentation.

0:42:59.150 --> 0:43:12.680 Lynn Ronewicz We're gonna open it up for public comments and questions, and if you can raise your hand, if you have a question and then I meet yourself after your call done, please state your name and any affiliation you may have.

17 0:43:39.610 --> 0:43:41.860 Lynn Ronewicz Carlos Flores, please go ahead with your question.

0:43:45.170 --> 0:43:45.700 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Thanks Lynn.

0:43:46.930 --> 0:44:5.760 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Constellation generation, Phil, on your last comment on the annual training of conducted for disqualifying events for preemption authority, understand you spoke to the flexibility of that training, whether it's a read and sign or more formalized training.

0:44:5.970 --> 0:44:13.670 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

I think the comment was also more revolved specifically around the actual periodicity on what that annual training requirement is.

0:44:15.60 --> 0:44:20.140 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

I understand its proposed under Appendix B to Part 73.

0:44:20.290 --> 0:44:32.350 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Under that definition of what annual training is in under our training and qualification plans as a licensee, but the DG is somewhat silent on what annual training is actually defined as.

0:44:35.40 --> 0:44:47.850 Phil Brochman Yeah, I've had some discussions with my colleagues who are more familiar with this topic and the thought that was put forth is.

0:44:49.920 --> 0:44:54.510 Phil Brochman It's basically on an individual security personnel basis.

0:44:54.520 --> 0:45:2.920 Phil Brochman In other words, if a new officer comes in today and they complete their training by the end of December.

0:45:4.360 --> 0:45:9.110 Phil Brochman Their one year period would end December of next year.

0:45:11.230 --> 0:45:14.80 Phil Brochman So in other words, you could do things on an individualized basis.

0:45:14.90 --> 0:45:17.120 Phil Brochman Or, you could do things on a more group basis.

0:45:20.840 --> 0:45:23.540 Phil Brochman There's just a need that we want people to understand.

0:45:23.780 --> 0:45:43.800 Phil Brochman They need to disclose this [disqualifying] information [to their licensee] and we wanted to remind them [annually of their obligation]. If industry has any suggestions on language that would help clarify this particular provision, we would be pleased to look at that in any comments that you may submit.

18 0:45:45.830 --> 0:45:52.520 Phil Brochman Otherwise, our goal is to try to give you as much flexibility [as possible] to accomplish this

[requirement].

0:45:46.150 --> 0:45:46.490 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Understand.

0:45:56.270 --> 0:46:1.140 Phil Brochman It was trying to be relatively straightforward as a reminder to a [security] officer.

0:46:2.920 --> 0:46:11.450 Phil Brochman Because if they have a disqualifying condition or event, we want them to notify you and [you]

notify us as soon as possible.

0:46:15.370 --> 0:46:17.880 Lynn Ronewicz And waiting for other questions and comments.

0:46:38.130 --> 0:46:40.250 Lynn Ronewicz OK, well it looks like no hands raised.

0:46:40.720 --> 0:46:44.650 Lynn Ronewicz Phil, did you want to go ahead and take a 10 minute break now or what is your thought?

0:46:52.880 --> 0:47:4.810 Phil Brochman Given the lack of comments from everybody, I think they want they either they're still suffering from Thanksgiving Turkey or they want me to get through this as quickly as possible so they can get on to other things.

0:47:6.320 --> 0:47:8.440 Lynn Ronewicz So if you want to move on to the last presentation DG-5080.

0:47:18.130 --> 0:47:22.880 Phil Brochman Alright, so this is our last draft guide [to discuss today].

0:47:25.150 --> 0:47:32.70 Phil Brochman Draft Guide 5080 is going to be the proposed revision 3 to Reg Guide 5.62.

0:47:33.880 --> 0:47:39.670 Phil Brochman RG 5.62 deals with physical security event notifications, reports and records.

0:47:41.140 --> 0:47:47.110 Phil Brochman It covers the new regulations in Subpart T of Part 73.

0:47:47.360 --> 0:47:53.620 Phil Brochman That's regulations 10 CFR 73.1200, 73.1205, and 73.1210.

0:47:54.870 --> 0:47:56.870 Phil Brochman So there's a there was a question.

19 0:47:58.110 --> 0:48:3.120 Phil Brochman Regarding the footnote at the bottom of Page 3 [of DG-5080].

0:48:5.800 --> 0:48:11.970 Phil Brochman The NRC staff had indicated that there will be a new question and answer session.

0:48:11.980 --> 0:48:19.690 Phil Brochman That will become Revision 1, to NUREG 1304. NUREG 1304 provided additional guidance on security event notifications.

0:48:19.700 --> 0:48:31.70 Phil Brochman It was last updated in 1987 and it's not only significantly out of date, but it doesn't match up with the new language [ in Subpart T].

0:48:31.280 --> 0:48:52.170 Phil Brochman So the NRC had indicated in the final enhanced weapons rule was we were going to suspend this particular NUREG and then have a new question and answer workshop at some time after licensees had completed their implementation of the new regulations.

0:48:52.620 --> 0:49:0.840 Phil Brochman The NRC wanted to get licensees feedback and examples on how things were working or questions that they had.

0:49:2.510 --> 0:49:7.130 Phil Brochman So given that set up, the question that was asked.

0:49:7.750 --> 0:49:23.500 Phil Brochman Is are we going to have that [Q&A workshop] sometime in the near future - or for those licensees that are looking to ask for exemptions and in some cases, these exemptions have asked to go to the end of December of 2024?

0:49:23.570 --> 0:49:25.280 Phil Brochman When would this workshop be?

0:49:25.350 --> 0:49:39.40 Phil Brochman We don't have a specific timing at this point, but we do believe that any workshop should be, after any extension of the implementation period that occurs by these exemptions.

0:49:41.30 --> 0:49:49.910 Phil Brochman So, I think that means that we're looking at having a Q&A workshop sometime in 2025.

0:49:54.930 --> 0:50:0.360 Phil Brochman Next on page 7, there was a new issue recommending that we clarify that.

0:50:0.370 --> 0:50:3.740 Phil Brochman This will be revision 3 to Reg Guide 5.62.

0:50:4.270 --> 0:50:5.300 Phil Brochman Yes, we agree with that.

20 0:50:11.890 --> 0:50:19.20 Phil Brochman On page 8 [of DG-5080], for a 15-minute event notification we have a new issue that there was confusion on the language.

0:50:19.750 --> 0:50:27.300 Phil Brochman The NRC replaced the phrase a security condition with an imminent or actual hostile action. We think that seems reasonable.

0:50:29.420 --> 0:50:46.50 Phil Brochman On Page 9, there seems to be some confusion or questions regarding the applicability of 15-minute event notifications. These acronyms you see here refer to the term independent spent fuel storage installation [ISFSI].

0:50:46.280 --> 0:50:50.200 Phil Brochman Monitored, retrievable storage.

0:50:50.210 --> 0:51:5.860 Phil Brochman Installation [MRS] is a Department of Energy facility that can store both spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste under an NRC license and the last term is geologic repository operations area

[GROA].

0:51:6.170 --> 0:51:8.520 Phil Brochman That's a facility for the permanent disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

0:51:9.130 --> 0:51:12.510 Phil Brochman The Department of Energy would operate a GROA, but is licensed by the NRC.

0:51:14.220 --> 0:51:24.480 Phil Brochman All three of these facilities are subject to the security regulations in 10 CFR 73.51.

0:51:24.490 --> 0:51:29.220 Phil Brochman They're also subject to 10 CFR 73.55 depending on the type of ISFSI license.

0:51:29.950 --> 0:51:44.20 Phil Brochman Under 10 CFR 73.1200(a), licensees subject to 10 CFR 73.51 and 73.55 are subject to the 15-minute event notifications. Because of this regulation all three of these classes of facilities

[ISFSIs, MRSes, and GROAs] ae subject to 15-minute event notifications.

0:51:45.670 --> 0:51:57.600 Phil Brochman We do note the comment was made regarding confusion ISFSIs that are located at decommissioned reactors or production facilities.

0:51:57.770 --> 0:52:0.820 Phil Brochman And yes, we do think there is some confusion there.

0:52:0.910 --> 0:52:17.30 Phil Brochman The intent was that if there is an event at the ISFSI that still would be reported, but the that events that might occur at a separate but adjacent decommissioned reactor, for example, where all the spent fuel is removed.

21 0:52:17.240 --> 0:52:32.340 Phil Brochman The answer might be no, and so we are going to go back and look at that language and try to clarify. That is what we're looking to do in the comments that we've received an advance.

0:52:33.260 --> 0:52:43.250 Phil Brochman There's been also questions raised about how does this [guidance language in DG-5080] relate to the provisions of the Bulletin the NRC issued in 2005.

0:52:45.0 --> 0:52:59.210 Phil Brochman Regarding independent spent fuel storage installations, the NRCs view at this point is that the provisions of the final enhanced weapons rule that were issued by the Commission supersede any [staff] direction in the Bulletin [BL-2005-02].

0:53:0.0 --> 0:53:24.10 Phil Brochman This issue on the bulletin is one of the things we need to we will need to address in the final Reg Guides that come out next year. We may need to have a supplement to it [BL-2005-02] or revision, or issue a new bulletin to provide new guidance that now matches up with the issued regulations 9i.e, the notification on imminent or actual hostile actions).

0:53:24.20 --> 0:53:29.900 Phil Brochman These are all things the staff needs to evaluate, and there may be further discussions on that as we go forward.

0:53:30.970 --> 0:53:31.950 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

0:53:36.860 --> 0:53:51.660 Phil Brochman There was a question regarding whether an individual that is monitoring a continuous communications channel that has been requested by the NRC for a security event may perform other non-impacting assigned duties.

0:53:52.300 --> 0:53:54.210 Phil Brochman The answer is yes that is permitted.

0:53:54.640 --> 0:54:6.730 Phil Brochman The individual does not have to be solely dedicated [to the continuous communications channel]

and we understand from the comment was there may be a limited number of personnel to do all the [security and communication] tasks that need to be done.

0:54:6.740 --> 0:54:10.80 Phil Brochman And [a dedicated individual] would require increased staffing.

0:54:10.180 --> 0:54:11.980 Phil Brochman That was not the NRC's goal.

0:54:12.380 --> 0:54:20.670 Phil Brochman The same issue is also located on page 35 [of DG-5080] in [staff regulatory guidance]

position 16.1. The NRC has the same response.

22 0:54:23.50 --> 0:54:25.440 Phil Brochman Bottom second, major bullet page 15.

0:54:25.450 --> 0:54:25.970 Phil Brochman New issue?

0:54:28.250 --> 0:54:42.510 Phil Brochman In the language regarding transportation events, the NRC talked about the licensee could be the entity performing the monitoring of a shipment or it could be a Movement Control Center.

0:54:45.0 --> 0:55:4.250 Phil Brochman The comment was if it's a licensee performing [monitoring duties] that they should have the same flexibility as with a facility that the individual staffing a continuous communications channel may perform other duties, non-impactful duties as assigned.

0:55:5.710 --> 0:55:6.500 Phil Brochman And so we're going to.

0:55:8.160 --> 0:55:9.610 Phil Brochman Replicate that language and make it consistent.

0:55:11.540 --> 0:55:12.430 Phil Brochman Next item please.

0:55:16.170 --> 0:55:17.730 Phil Brochman I'm on page 15.

0:55:17.870 --> 0:55:30.260 Phil Brochman There's been some confusion we thought we would take the opportunity to be clear that an emergency declaration takes precedence over a 15-minute security event notification.

0:55:30.590 --> 0:55:37.840 Phil Brochman I think there is confusion in terms of what happens if both notifications need to go [in to the NRC] at the same time, et cetera.

0:55:38.290 --> 0:55:55.780 Phil Brochman The position of the NRC position is that because the emergency declaration is going to state officials and state officials may need to take actions, protective action measures or other things; therefore, it is more important that [the emergency notification] occurs before the security event notification.

0:56:6.820 --> 0:56:14.590 Phil Brochman Licensees should make the security event notification as soon as possible thereafter, but we're going to try to clarify this language.

0:56:15.40 --> 0:56:24.790 Phil Brochman As I said earlier, if there are specific language provisions that industry or other licensees think is particularly helpful.

23 0:56:25.460 --> 0:56:29.330 Phil Brochman In clarifying some of these issues, we would appreciate you submitting that as comments.

0:56:32.370 --> 0:57:0.230 Phil Brochman One of the things that also relates to this on page 15 [of DG-5080] is there seems to be an impression that the flexibility that the NRC intended in 10 CFR 73.100(s), which was that in a single communication a licensee could notify the NRC of two separate requirements.

0:57:0.870 --> 0:57:16.550 Phil Brochman The goal of that when we wrote it was to try to increase flexibility and reduce burden, and it seems like the industries reading of that is, well, that's going to force event notifications to be tied together.

0:57:16.840 --> 0:57:27.930 Phil Brochman So one of the things we thought about saying here is that this discretion on making a single communication, it is at the licensees discretion and this is not a mandatory action.

0:57:28.620 --> 0:57:30.530 Phil Brochman We're just trying to make life simpler.

0:57:44.150 --> 0:57:47.540 Phil Brochman Next, we're going to talk about.

0:57:57.410 --> 0:57:59.20 Phil Brochman I'm on page 20 [of DG-5080].

0:57:59.560 --> 0:58:14.340 Phil Brochman And 22 in regulatory guidance position #2 we split that as a major update into two separate provisions, one on malevolent intent and the other on bomb threats.

0:58:15.450 --> 0:58:40.260 Phil Brochman In considering the comments that were provided in these meetings and interactions with industry, the NRC has accepted the view that licensees have a capability, and have used that in the past, for example, in their trustworthiness and reliability, decision making process.

0:58:40.630 --> 0:58:42.780 Phil Brochman And so what we've done is.

0:58:43.230 --> 0:58:53.0 Phil Brochman We have revised the language such that licensees can use malevolent intent as a screening process.

0:58:53.610 --> 0:59:6.430 Phil Brochman However, we have made clear that such screening, or let's call it interviews, needs to reach a conclusion before.

0:59:7.840 --> 0:59:11.940 Phil Brochman The time limit on a particular event notification ends.

24 0:59:15.580 --> 0:59:17.110 Phil Brochman So let's give you a practical example.

0:59:19.60 --> 0:59:30.50 Phil Brochman Contraband event where an individual unintentionally attempts to bring a firearm into the protected area.

0:59:30.430 --> 0:59:35.570 Phil Brochman They were at the firing range this weekend and they forgot that they had the firearm in their bag.

0:59:37.230 --> 0:59:40.400 Phil Brochman Licensee can conduct interviews.

0:59:41.70 --> 0:59:51.810 Phil Brochman Look at other information, however, because this is a four hour event notification, they need to reach a conclusion [by the end of the 4-hr time limit].

0:59:51.820 --> 0:59:55.710 Phil Brochman If they can't reach a conclusion by the end of the four hours, then they must make the notification.

0:59:56.560 --> 1:0:12.510 Phil Brochman Now the language in the regulation and the guidance document says that if subsequent to the event notification, the licensee either receives additional information or reaches the conclusion that there was no malevolent intent.

1:0:14.540 --> 1:0:16.930 Phil Brochman It can retract the event notification it [previously] made.

1:0:17.220 --> 1:0:26.360 Phil Brochman So what we've done is giving you more flexibility, but basically said you need to reach the conclusion within the timeliness limit as specified.

1:0:27.700 --> 1:0:28.500 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:0:33.700 --> 1:0:36.860 Phil Brochman In this example on page 25 [of DG-5080].

1:0:39.80 --> 1:1:13.760 Phil Brochman Because of the confusion on site boundary, we have removed that term and what we've done is tried to clarify that this 15-minute notification example applies to explosives or incendiary materials that are actually discovered within a licensees facility or are in contact with or immediately adjacent to a significant external structure, [for example] that could be like a storage water tank.

1:1:14.540 --> 1:1:16.790 Phil Brochman An emergency power transformer.

25 1:1:18.250 --> 1:1:21.70 Phil Brochman Or an independent spent fuel storage, cask, et cetera.

1:1:21.910 --> 1:1:33.680 Phil Brochman So we recognize that the site boundary language was just causing more problems and essentially what we're doing is.

1:1:33.690 --> 1:1:43.170 Phil Brochman We're clarifying a 15-minute event notification [includes] if something has been found that is significant [for example] an explosive or incendiary [device or material], and it's inside the protected area already.

1:1:44.300 --> 1:1:46.500 Phil Brochman And so that's way we've written it.

1:1:46.510 --> 1:1:58.560 Phil Brochman On page 28 [of DG-5080], there was a question regarding a 1-hour notification on thefts or diversion of special nuclear material.

1:1:59.110 --> 1:2:5.20 Phil Brochman Did the quantity of material that was stolen or diverted need to be greater than a Cat I quantity or?

1:2:5.190 --> 1:2:19.450 Phil Brochman A Cat II or a Cat III quantity [of SNM] and the answer was no. Rather, it's the description of who those terms were meant applyto, but not to set a floor or threshold for reportability. For example.

1:2:25.540 --> 1:2:47.170 Phil Brochman If a licensee possessed two kilograms of plutonium, which would be a Category I quantity, if there was an actual theft of 600 grams, it's not a theft of a Cat I quantity, but it certainly is a theft of Cat I material; and therefore, it is something that would be of significant interest to the NRC as well as other federal agencies.

1:2:48.130 --> 1:2:52.560 Phil Brochman We also clarified reportability on human performance errors.

1:2:53.450 --> 1:3:5.240 Phil Brochman This is dealing with issues where you have something that could appear to be a tampering event, but it's a concluded that it was due to a human performance error then that event was not reportable.

1:3:7.190 --> 1:3:22.280 Phil Brochman The challenge here is that for any assessment or conclusion on human performance errors, just like with the malevolent intent, you need to have accomplished that within the timeliness limit of the particular event notification.

1:3:24.780 --> 1:3:40.880 Phil Brochman On page 29 [of DG-5080], there was a suggestion on how long a licensee could search if an authorized weapon was lost and the NRC took the approach.

26 1:3:42.720 --> 1:3:45.90 Phil Brochman This is a four hour event notification.

1:3:45.140 --> 1:3:50.710 Phil Brochman A licensee can search for as long as you want to within that 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> period.

1:3:50.840 --> 1:4:4.820 Phil Brochman But if you haven't recovered the weapon before the four hours is up, then you need to make the notification if the if the weapon is recovered within the four hour time window then.

1:4:10.560 --> 1:4:22.930 Phil Brochman The NRC would direct that the event should be reocreded in your safeguards event log under 10 CFR 73.1210(f) as a decrease in effectiveness as opposed to reporting it to the NRC under 10 CFR 73.1200(e).

1:4:23.620 --> 1:4:24.480 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:4:29.450 --> 1:4:42.210 Phil Brochman We added some clarifying language regarding law enforcement responses [to the licensees facility] that are not reportable, especially when the licensee has made a request for assistance.

1:4:43.160 --> 1:4:53.900 Phil Brochman There was a question on whether this language was in opposition to language in part 50 for similar law enforcement responses. It's an event notification.

1:4:56.10 --> 1:5:11.0 Phil Brochman In my page 34 [of DG-5080] in guidance position #14, we clarified malevolent intent language and we did so in a manner that's consistent with the approach we have taken in guidance position 2.1 that I described a couple slides previously.

1:5:15.750 --> 1:5:20.360 Phil Brochman And on page 39 [of DG-5080], we added a new example to guidance position #9.

1:5:25.670 --> 1:5:33.610 Phil Brochman That example clarified that for contraband where there was no malevolent intent present, then that is considered a recordable event under 10 CFR 73.1210.

1:5:35.980 --> 1:5:40.550 Phil Brochman Not a reportable event. However, in looking at that, we would note that not all contraband is the same.

1:5:45.460 --> 1:6:2.460 Phil Brochman The example I gave couple minutes ago about a person possessing a handgun and forgetting that they had it with them when they when they came through the security screening [to enter the protected area] would be contraband.

1:6:2.470 --> 1:6:5.620 Phil Brochman But you may conclude that there was no malevolent intent.

27 1:6:7.110 --> 1:6:10.780 Phil Brochman The same person having an explosive device in their bag.

1:6:12.760 --> 1:6:25.520 Phil Brochman That's a little bit more troublesome and not clear how no malevolent intent could be reached there, since the person wouldn't have a lawful right to possess that explosive device.

1:6:30.330 --> 1:6:31.740 Phil Brochman Can I go to the next slide please?

1:6:37.50 --> 1:6:47.390 Phil Brochman There was an issue on page 15 [of DG-5080] regarding emergency declarations that suggested there should be some cross-referencing language that would go in guidance position 7.3.

1:6:52.600 --> 1:6:58.450 Phil Brochman Guidance position 7.3 provides a process discussions for a 15-minute event notification.

1:7:0.920 --> 1:7:2.280 Phil Brochman What is most important? What should be done first?

1:7:5.470 --> 1:7:14.790 Phil Brochman And also a reference the elimination of duplication guidance under 10 CFR 73,1200 as we also talked about previously.

1:7:18.230 --> 1:7:20.20 Phil Brochman next on page 17 [of DG-5080].

1:7:20.30 --> 1:7:25.640 Phil Brochman There were a number of questions regarding written follow up reports under 10 CFR 73.1205.

1:7:31.350 --> 1:7:35.580 Phil Brochman 10 CFR 73.1205(c) discusses the contents of those reports.

1:7:37.730 --> 1:7:38.860 Phil Brochman So one of the questions [from industry] was.

1:7:41.310 --> 1:7:44.920 Phil Brochman Is it necessary to submit a written follow-up report under 10 CFR 73.1205?

1:7:44.930 --> 1:7:47.910 Phil Brochman If the report is also being submitted under 10 CFR 50.73.

1:7:50.360 --> 1:7:57.170 Phil Brochman We know that a licensee that is subject to 10 CFR 50.73.

1:7:58.920 --> 1:8:2.810 Phil Brochman Is expected to use NRC form 366 to submit written follow-up reports.

1:8:3.180 --> 1:8:7.30 Phil Brochman 28 We note that for this form the requirements are similar [but not identical between 10 CFR 50.73 and 73.1205]..

1:8:7.40 --> 1:8:10.290 Phil Brochman However, they are intended to be separate.

1:8:10.660 --> 1:8:15.360 Phil Brochman They're not viewed as duplicative, even though there may be elements of them that are the same.

1:8:17.360 --> 1:8:26.260 Phil Brochman In looking at this issue we identified that there was relevant language in [the previous] 10 CFR 73.71(e) that provided flexibility if a written follow-up report was being submitted following notifications under 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 73 for the same event.

1:8:26.270 --> 1:8:45.10 Phil Brochman NRC staff notes that language was [unintentionally excluded from the final enhanced weapons rule.

1:8:46.330 --> 1:8:59.820 Phil Brochman We are not sure exactly what happened but that's an issue we are going to look at as potentially part of any future rulemaking to see if that should be reinserted.

1:9:0.690 --> 1:9:1.540 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:9:6.550 --> 1:9:8.30 Phil Brochman I'm on page 7 [of DG-5080].

1:9:8.840 --> 1:9:14.0 Phil Brochman There is a question should the NRC consider referencing to NUREG-1020?

1:9:14.710 --> 1:9:26.890 Phil Brochman Which includes guidance for licensees completing licensee event reports under 10 CFR 50.73.

1:9:28.660 --> 1:9:52.930 Phil Brochman Here is a case where the staff disagrees with what industry is suggesting, and in part we're disagreeing because the regulations in 73.1205 need to apply to not only part 50 and 52 licensees, but they would also apply to licensees under Parts 70 and 72 [for which NUREG-1020 would not be applicable].

1:9:54.360 --> 1:10:6.970 Phil Brochman And therefore a reference to a regulation [10 CFR 50.73] and guidance [NUREG-1020] that is specifically reactor focused is not necessarily going to assist those licensees under Parts 70 and 72.

1:10:7.510 --> 1:10:15.390 Phil Brochman So it may be framed as [relevant] information, but not but not as a clear linkage.

1:10:15.480 --> 1:10:17.190 Phil Brochman It's something we need to think about.

29 1:10:17.260 --> 1:10:31.480 Phil Brochman Fundamentally we have a concern with something that's focused solely on reactors, but we

[also] need to talk about fuel cycle and spent fuel storage licensees as well.

1:10:34.910 --> 1:10:38.0 Phil Brochman So here on page 17 [of DG-5080], a new [similar] issue [on] duplicate reports.

1:10:44.0 --> 1:10:51.540 Phil Brochman Are duplicate reports required if an event [notification] involves both 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 73.1200 [requirements]?.

1:10:53.460 --> 1:10:57.40 Phil Brochman First, let me clarify.

1:10:57.50 --> 1:11:2.260 Phil Brochman There could be circumstances in which both regulations apply.

1:11:2.550 --> 1:11:14.400 Phil Brochman I'll give you an example that we came up with a tampering event that results in a reactor scram or an engineered safety feature actuation.

1:11:15.370 --> 1:11:25.480 Phil Brochman That would require an event notification under 10 CFR 50.72 and may also require an event notification under 10 CFR 73.1200.

1:11:27.460 --> 1:11:38.70 Phil Brochman As I noted before, the former language under 10 CFR 73.71(e) on elimination of duplication or minimization of duplication was [unintentionally] removed [from the final EWR].

1:11:38.280 --> 1:11:42.620 Phil Brochman We need to look at this issue. However, we think that it would require rulemaking to resolve.

1:11:45.710 --> 1:12:7.310 Phil Brochman One other thing to note is that if we do include this as a rulemaking issue, we will also need to look at the applying this and not just 10 CFR 50,72 event notifications, but also to 10 CFR 70.50 and 10 CFR 72.75 event notifications where written follow up reports are required.

1:12:8.20 --> 1:12:8.850 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:12:16.800 --> 1:12:22.150 Phil Brochman Here we have a new issue regarding root cause and conditions adverse to security.

1:12:24.560 --> 1:12:33.100 Phil Brochman So one of the first questions that was asked was the language and the regulation in 10 CFR 73.1205(c)(3).

1:12:35.230 --> 1:12:41.920 Phil Brochman Includes as applicable in terms of items that items that are should be included in the contents of a written follow-up report?

30 1:12:42.670 --> 1:12:50.940 Phil Brochman The regulation broadly specifies the contents of a written follow up report and was intended to provide licensees sufficient flexibility [while providing necessary information for the NRC to assess the event and any corrective actions].

1:12:51.210 --> 1:12:58.470 Phil Brochman So for a licensee to include something or excluded if it wasn't known [is a reasonable approach].

1:12:59.790 --> 1:13:2.340 Phil Brochman For example.

1:13:2.670 --> 1:13:6.640 Phil Brochman Shots are fired into the licensees facility.

1:13:8.720 --> 1:13:11.950 Phil Brochman But the individual is not apprehended.

1:13:12.60 --> 1:13:16.400 Phil Brochman You don't have any further information on what they did or why they did it.

1:13:17.170 --> 1:13:23.510 Phil Brochman It would seem to us that at that point the root cause is that you don't know.

1:13:25.300 --> 1:13:29.830 Phil Brochman You can say what happened, but why it happened or what was behind it is not clear.

1:13:29.980 --> 1:13:35.670 Phil Brochman So the NRC thinks there is sufficient flexibility in the current language [in 10 CFR 73.1205(c).

1:13:35.930 --> 1:14:4.900 Phil Brochman If you think there's additional flexibility, descriptions that need to be put in the guidance, please provide that in any comments on that issue or regarding the phrase conditions adverse to security. In considering the questions industry was posing we were thinking about using the language you see here in the quotes, which is security related conditions, adverse to quality.

1:14:5.350 --> 1:14:16.100 Phil Brochman In other words, we're trying to take the standard phrase conditions adverse to quality, but to indicate that they have a security related flavor to them.

1:14:17.30 --> 1:14:18.730 Phil Brochman And that would be used in.

1:14:19.430 --> 1:14:24.610 Phil Brochman Multiple places in this Reg guide besides page 17 [of DG-5080].

1:14:26.160 --> 1:14:27.670 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:14:33.860 --> 1:14:48.110 Phil Brochman There was a suggestion that the phrase procedures important to security be replaced with 31 security plan implementing procedures and in this case one of the things that always confuses me is is.

1:14:48.120 --> 1:14:52.300 Phil Brochman The term security plan singular or is security plans plural?

1:14:54.450 --> 1:15:1.700 Phil Brochman Please, please provide comments on that, but it fundamentally is working solution to this question?

1:15:6.520 --> 1:15:20.10 Phil Brochman On page 23, position six, [of DG-5080] there was a question regarding clarifying whether weapons carried by vehicle operators or escorts are considered contraband per se.

1:15:24.570 --> 1:15:27.560 Phil Brochman We need to go back and work on this a bit more.

1:15:28.110 --> 1:15:34.220 Phil Brochman I think one of the things we need to address is the discussion of declared versus undeclared weapons.

1:15:35.90 --> 1:15:38.390 Phil Brochman You know, for example, you have an armed escort that is going to.

1:15:38.750 --> 1:15:44.370 Phil Brochman Escort a shipment of spent fuel that [is departing from your facility and the escort] comes into your protected area.

1:15:44.380 --> 1:15:45.940 Phil Brochman They declare that they have weapons.

1:15:47.80 --> 1:15:48.290 Phil Brochman Are those [weapons considered] contraband?

1:15:48.300 --> 1:15:49.0 Phil Brochman We would say no.

1:15:50.230 --> 1:16:2.720 Phil Brochman Versus somebody that has a permit to carry a weapon, but they leave it in the glove box of their of their semi-tractor.

1:16:4.790 --> 1:16:15.350 Phil Brochman And it's found during the search, so that's something that we agree [is potential contraband] and we want to make sure we've got that correct.

1:16:15.560 --> 1:16:33.290 Phil Brochman The other thing I noted in looking at this language is that it talked about licensee security escorts, but it didn't include provisions for Department of Energy, federal agents, and contractors who are performed performing armed security duties.

1:16:33.620 --> 1:16:47.660 Phil Brochman 32 We may be seeing more of that in the future if we get wide scale transportation of spent fuel to consolidated interim storage or a Department of Energy storage facility. We are just trying to think ahead.

1:16:55.390 --> 1:16:56.190 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:17:2.790 --> 1:17:6.280 Phil Brochman I've got two or three more slides.

1:17:6.850 --> 1:17:14.860 Phil Brochman They are discussing definitions in some cases, and what I'd like to do is continue through them and then we'll take any questions on draft guide 5080 and these issues.

1:17:20.440 --> 1:17:24.220 Phil Brochman So first on definitions.

1:17:24.230 --> 1:17:28.550 Phil Brochman They are found in 10 CFR 73.2.

1:17:31.550 --> 1:17:44.310 Phil Brochman There's been issues raised regarding the definition of contraband, this definition is replicated in draft guide 5080, and so the comment was this should be revised.

1:17:47.590 --> 1:17:51.790 Phil Brochman However, the NRC staff view is that this will likely require a revision [to the underling regulation].

1:17:59.510 --> 1:18:5.40 Phil Brochman Second, this term is used in more than one place in 10 CFR Chapter I.

1:18:6.630 --> 1:18:13.730 Phil Brochman There may be impacts in both 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 95.5.

1:18:15.650 --> 1:18:18.0 Phil Brochman And so we need to figure out how best to proceed.

1:18:19.50 --> 1:18:32.590 Phil Brochman This is one of these issues that, as I mentioned earlier, maybe need to be addressed in rulemaking and at this point, we think that such a revision is significant enough to require notice and opportunity for comment process.

1:18:32.860 --> 1:18:36.960 Phil Brochman So therefore it can't be resolved in this draft guide.

1:18:37.750 --> 1:18:38.570 Phil Brochman Next slide please.

1:18:42.250 --> 1:18:43.980 Phil Brochman Definition of time of discovery.

1:18:45.670 --> 1:18:56.420 Phil Brochman 33 Industry in communications with the NRC has indicated that this language is different than the previous definition.

1:18:56.710 --> 1:19:0.90 Phil Brochman In Reg Guide, 5.76 and some other documents.

1:19:1.320 --> 1:19:9.490 Phil Brochman However, it's not clear to staff what is the impediment that would prevent industry from implementing the revised definition [from the rule text in 10 CFR 73.2 and DG-5080].

1:19:10.610 --> 1:19:22.940 Phil Brochman For example, the term Cognizant individual from our perspective appears to provide licensees enough flexibility to define such personnel in their implementing procedures.

1:19:23.550 --> 1:19:29.0 Phil Brochman I've heard formally, what is the impediment.

1:19:32.740 --> 1:19:48.400 Phil Brochman Anecdotally, the concern may be this new language on time of discovery may mean that any person who saw something untoward could start the time of discovery clock on notifying the NRC.

1:19:48.940 --> 1:20:0.570 Phil Brochman The NRCs view is that a licensee can define in their [security] procedures who are the appropriate [i.e., cognizant] personnel, who can make this determination and start the time of discovery clock.

1:20:0.800 --> 1:20:7.160 Phil Brochman The examples I gave here are for typically a reactor.,.

1:20:8.180 --> 1:20:29.620 Phil Brochman The on-shift security supervisors, certain managers, and licensed senior reactor operators. So, it would be helpful to the NRC to understand beyond just what industry saying, what is the fundamental concern on why this requirement can't be met, and exactly why it can't be met?

1:20:31.80 --> 1:20:32.990 Phil Brochman Let's see, we got one more slide, I believe.

1:20:36.470 --> 1:20:40.990 Phil Brochman There was a question regarding updating the definitions in NUREG-2203.

1:20:42.880 --> 1:20:55.170 Phil Brochman At this point, what we would think about is in conjunction with any rulemaking and that raises an interesting point.

1:20:55.880 --> 1:21:1.340 Phil Brochman As I said earlier, I'm looking to the staff.

1:21:2.290 --> 1:21:12.800 Phil Brochman The NRC's goal is to have these three final Reg guides that reflect these changes in the draft guides and any comments that have.

34 1:21:13.790 --> 1:21:20.780 Phil Brochman Been received and then dispositioned for incorporation by April 2024, in parallel with that.

1:21:20.850 --> 1:21:25.960 Phil Brochman We're looking at this question of a rulemaking.

1:21:25.970 --> 1:21:33.840 Phil Brochman Also, in the context of a rulemaking, it is very possible that one or more of these issues may require additional changes to Reg Guide 5.62.

1:21:34.190 --> 1:21:38.160 Phil Brochman A practical example is the definition of contraband.

1:21:38.730 --> 1:21:48.770 Phil Brochman The definition of contraband, if it was revised in 73.2, would require a revision to Reg Guide 5.62.

1:21:49.750 --> 1:22:5.300 Phil Brochman So there may be other definitions that would need to be revised in NUREG 2203 and so that could be one of the guidance documents that wouldn't be necessary to be updated as part of a potential rulemaking.

Phil Brochman While Lynn asks if there are any questions?

1:22:14.540 --> 1:22:18.890 Lynn Ronewicz And we do have several hands raised.

1:22:40.950 --> 1:22:45.540 Lynn Ronewicz So now moving forward, firsthand raised is Michael Whitlock.

1:22:48.0 --> 1:22:48.790 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

Yes, thank you.

1:22:48.800 --> 1:22:50.280 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

Michael Whitlock, Dominion Energy.

1:22:51.960 --> 1:23:0.110 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

I just wanted to go back and touch on slide 17, the 15-minute notification for certain licensees.

1:23:0.120 --> 1:23:21.100 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

Specifically, it was my understanding up to this point until I saw this slide that that the intent of the rule was to codify the [NRC[ Bulletin (BL) 2005-2 and so for those licensees that were already doing it, there was no change.

1:23:2.460 --> 1:23:2.580 Phil Brochman Yes.

1:23:21.330 --> 1:23:24.220 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

It was just basically codifying it in the rule.

35 1:23:24.750 --> 1:23:26.510 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

However, for the for those that BL-2005-02 didnt apply to.

1:23:32.800 --> 1:23:39.470 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

That would be a new position, a new implementation for those classes of licensees.

1:23:39.940 --> 1:23:48.10 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

And so I'm curious as the NRC provided a basis for needing 15-minute event notifications now when they haven't had it for the last 18 years.

1:23:53.380 --> 1:23:57.620 Phil Brochman I don't know that we provided anything specific in [DG-5080 on the basis for the 15-minute event notifications].

1:23:59.490 --> 1:24:3.530 Phil Brochman We haven't had any 15-minute events anywhere in the last [20 years].

1:24:4.320 --> 1:24:6.300 Phil Brochman Basically since 9/11.

1:24:7.640 --> 1:24:22.910 Phil Brochman If my understanding is correct, but I I take your point, the question you're raising gets more to the applicability of the regulation itself in 10 CFR 73.1200(a).

1:24:25.900 --> 1:24:31.840 Phil Brochman And so it may not be an issue that we can address here, but it may be an issue that has to be raised.

1:24:31.960 --> 1:24:32.150 Phil Brochman In a future rulemaking.

1:24:35.990 --> 1:24:44.640 Phil Brochman I would urge you to please provide comments on that so that the NRC has a record so that we can consider that as we go forward. [Subsequent to this public meeting, the NRC staff clarified that the Agency had provided a specific discussion of the rationale, need for a mandatory requirement, and licensee applicability for the 15-minute imminent or actual hostile action event notifications in the February 3, 2011, enhanced weapons proposed rule (78 FR 6200). The specific discussion of this topic is found in Section III.G of the proposed rule on pages 6207-6208.]

1:24:46.600 --> 1:24:47.640 Michael L Whitlock (Services - 6)

Alright, I think thank you.

1:24:49.230 --> 1:24:50.880 Lynn Ronewicz And next we have Carlos Flores.

1:24:53.310 --> 1:24:56.230 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Carlos Flores, constellation generation.

1:24:56.470 --> 1:25:5.580 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear) 36 Phil, I'm going to expand on Mike's comments or seek it maybe a little bit more based on your specific comments.

1:25:5.590 --> 1:25:18.640 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

When you went over that page 9 [on DG-5080], 15-minute issue for ISFSIs. MRSs, and GROAs, I think what I recall hearing you say is that you you're going to attempt to provide.

1:25:19.250 --> 1:25:50.680 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

More clarification on who's specifically it applies to, whether it's an ISFSI at an operating

[reactor power] plant or for those that it may not apply to like an ISFSI at a decommissioned site where all of the spent fuel has been removed and placed at the pad, similar to the note that's within the DG-5080 already states for power reactor facilities and production facilities.

1:25:51.340 --> 1:25:57.540 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

That are in a decommissioning status and have removed all spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pool.

1:25:57.550 --> 1:26:5.220 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Need not report events under 10 CFR 73.1200(a) at face value.

1:26:5.230 --> 1:26:15.370 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

This bullet here seems to indicate that that note no longer applies, but I think I heard you comment that it does.

1:26:15.880 --> 1:26:18.220 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

But your intent is to provide more clarification.

1:26:19.380 --> 1:26:27.690 Phil Brochman Yeah, I so in thinking about this question that first we agree that there needs to be some clarification one way or the other.

1:26:28.660 --> 1:26:31.160 Phil Brochman One way to look at this is.

1:26:34.300 --> 1:26:39.680 Phil Brochman Let's think of a hypothetical where there's a there's an ISFSI.

1:26:39.690 --> 1:26:48.90 Phil Brochman That's been created and it's half a mile away from the reactor, and the reactor facility has transferred all of their spent fuel to the ISFSI.

1:26:55.380 --> 1:27:9.970 Phil Brochman Now at that point in time, if there's a security event within the reactor complex, the reactor facility building is the position that I think was espoused in the guidance is that's not a reportable event.

1:27:10.700 --> 1:27:19.430 Phil Brochman Under 10 CFR 73.1200, since there is no potential for radiological sabotage because the spent fuel has been removed.

37 1:27:19.940 --> 1:27:27.650 Phil Brochman However, if the security event was occurring at the ISFSI, would that be reportable?

1:27:30.720 --> 1:27:40.650 Phil Brochman By extension, you take that to the situation where the ISFSI is still there, but the reactor has been completely dis decommissioned.

1:27:43.830 --> 1:27:49.830 Phil Brochman I can think of several sites where that's the case, and so then the question becomes, is that event reportable?

1:27:53.670 --> 1:28:0.520 Phil Brochman So essentially it comes down to the types of events such as an attack or something against the ISFSI.

1:28:0.810 --> 1:28:7.580 Phil Brochman Is that something that should be reported [to the NRC] within 15 minutes, or is that something that should be reported [to the NRC] within one hour?

1:28:8.30 --> 1:28:11.830 Phil Brochman That's essentially because it would be reportable in either circumstance.

1:28:13.600 --> 1:28:16.130 Phil Brochman The question is what is the appropriate timing?

1:28:16.320 --> 1:28:19.230 Phil Brochman So that's what we're thinking about clarifying.

1:28:19.240 --> 1:28:21.660 Phil Brochman But as I've said a couple times.

1:28:23.540 --> 1:28:25.120 Phil Brochman Where we'd appreciate [industry providing]

1:28:25.600 --> 1:28:32.340 Phil Brochman Some specific language that that is intentionally more clarifying.

1:28:32.770 --> 1:28:39.350 Phil Brochman But this may be an issue that ultimately, we will have further discussions on as we consider potential [future] rulemaking.

1:28:43.480 --> 1:28:43.620 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

I'm.

1:28:44.580 --> 1:28:46.540 Lynn Ronewicz Did you have anything further on that before we move?

1:28:48.250 --> 1:28:52.580 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Yeah, if I may and I appreciate that information, Phil.

38 1:28:52.590 --> 1:28:53.980 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Certainly understand it.

1:28:54.70 --> 1:29:20.730 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

And to bridge that gap, based on my comments to Mike Whitlock's comments before me, you know that's where it comes into play where you know another hypothetical where you have an ISFSI at an operating reactor that followed that bulletin for the expedited reporting for 15-minute notifications for a security hostile event, then through license amendment approvals.

1:29:22.940 --> 1:29:34.730 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Revise their emergency plan and their a decommissioned facility and that bulletin no longer applies, and that became a 60 minute or one hour notification.

1:29:36.980 --> 1:29:40.660 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

The note seems to codify that order that it would.

1:29:41.500 --> 1:29:47.840 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Apply that 15 minute notification to a facility as such, but again.

1:29:49.910 --> 1:30:0.320 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

Ensuring that we're specific to what facilities these apply to, it would be newer for a decommission facility as opposed to just simply codifying it for operating reactors and such.

1:30:2.40 --> 1:30:13.260 Phil Brochman I think the bottom line is that the way the issue you're presenting is we have different facility.

1:30:13.270 --> 1:30:33.200 Phil Brochman In other words, we have the same potential facility, the base facility, the independent spent fuel storage installation, but the circumstances in which it's located is it at an operating reactor facility, or is it at an operating reactor facility that's in decommissioning but is not yet transferred all of its spent fuel?

1:30:33.210 --> 1:30:34.820 Phil Brochman Is it a facility that is in decommissioning or one it's been completely decommissioned?

1:30:38.460 --> 1:30:39.820 Phil Brochman Do we need to provide any clarity?

1:30:40.640 --> 1:30:43.730 Phil Brochman On what the [regulation] applies or doesn't apply to?

1:30:43.740 --> 1:30:54.490 Phil Brochman Or is it simply that the view that for an ISFSI, that an attack against an ISFSI is sufficient to warrant a 15-minute notification?

1:30:54.720 --> 1:31:10.170 Phil Brochman Or is it that they had a view that an attack against an ISFSI, given its defensive capabilities inherent within the within the storage system, is a 1-hour notification appropriate?

1:31:10.900 --> 1:31:19.490 Phil Brochman 39 I think that this is a question that we didn't have enough discussion of in the past and so I think we understand that there is an issue here.

1:31:19.940 --> 1:31:25.70 Phil Brochman Not sure that I know exactly how it's going to wind up [in the final Reg Guide], but I think we understand what the issue is.

1:31:27.690 --> 1:31:29.120 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

I appreciate that Phil.

1:31:29.130 --> 1:31:34.690 Flores, Carlos A:(Constellation Nuclear)

And back to your original comments [we] will ensure to provide all comments necessary during the public comment period.

1:31:35.890 --> 1:31:37.870 Phil Brochman Thank you. Next.

1:31:38.730 --> 1:31:40.190 Lynn Ronewicz And we have Hillary Lane.

1:31:40.200 --> 1:31:41.360 Lynn Ronewicz Please go ahead, Hillary.

1:31:44.340 --> 1:31:46.570 LANE, Hilary Thanks everyone. This is Hillary Lane with NEI.

1:31:46.650 --> 1:31:50.150 LANE, Hilary So Phil, I had a question related to slide 20.

1:31:53.720 --> 1:31:56.10 LANE, Hilary And basically that's slide is referring back to.

1:31:58.310 --> 1:32:5.280 LANE, Hilary A 1-hour notification that shows up on the top of page 28 of the DG, which is related to...

1:32:7.200 --> 1:32:8.830 LANE, Hilary Basically it says [10 CFR] 73.1200.

1:32:10.620 --> 1:32:20.100 LANE, Hilary A licensee should report the theft or diversion of any quantity of SNM so you probably picked up there.

1:32:20.110 --> 1:32:22.750 LANE, Hilary So our concern is with the word any.

1:32:24.740 --> 1:32:32.460 LANE, Hilary So that's not what the regulation says. Is the code is referring to quantities, right?

1:32:32.470 --> 1:32:36.600 LANE, Hilary Quantities of SNM.

40 1:32:36.770 --> 1:32:41.400 LANE, Hilary I recognize what you said a few minutes ago was that that was not the intent.

1:32:41.410 --> 1:32:48.740 LANE, Hilary The intent was meant to qualify who it applies to in the regulation, but that's not.

1:32:48.220 --> 1:32:51.740 Phil Brochman As opposed to the material, OK.

1:32:49.820 --> 1:32:50.700 LANE, Hilary Correct, right.

1:32:50.710 --> 1:32:52.720 LANE, Hilary But that's not the plain language.

1:32:53.200 --> 1:32:56.270 LANE, Hilary Interpretation of what we're reading in the code.

1:32:56.360 --> 1:33:0.110 LANE, Hilary So we're seeing it as a discrepancy between the code and the Reg Guide.

1:33:0.120 --> 1:33:6.590 LANE, Hilary So, it does seem like the NRC's change in the Reg Guide was intentional to say any.

1:33:7.140 --> 1:33:11.890 LANE, Hilary So I guess for our understanding, let me ask the question this way.

1:33:12.220 --> 1:33:14.20 LANE, Hilary What quantity [of SNM that has been stolen or lost] does need to be reported?

1:33:15.830 --> 1:33:23.570 Phil Brochman Well, first off, Hillary would thank you for the for the comment.

1:33:25.520 --> 1:33:27.530 Phil Brochman At this point I want to be very careful.

1:33:29.280 --> 1:33:33.910 Phil Brochman I would say the intent in the guidance document was to say any and I used [that in] the example.

1:33:38.710 --> 1:33:46.630 Phil Brochman So first, let me just say if industry thinks there should be a de minimis floor for reporting [the theft or loss of SNM], I'm [thinking] that should be in guidance.

1:33:47.260 --> 1:34:0.780 Phil Brochman What we didn't want to do was essentially wind up where we're saying a formula kilogram needed to be stolen before it was reported to the NRC.

1:34:0.790 --> 1:34:3.420 Phil Brochman We thought that was not appropriate.

41 1:34:3.730 --> 1:34:9.690 Phil Brochman However, the question you're raising is.

1:34:9.700 --> 1:34:16.650 Phil Brochman What exactly does the language that was approved by the Commission say, and what is the plain language reading of that [rule text].

1:34:19.780 --> 1:34:26.50 Phil Brochman That's a question that we're going to have that we would have to go back and discuss internally.

1:34:26.420 --> 1:34:29.710 Phil Brochman And so, but I think we understand what you're saying.

1:34:30.820 --> 1:34:35.520 Phil Brochman From my standpoint, I [would] use the [previous] example (refer back to what I said a while ago).

1:34:36.670 --> 1:34:47.50 Phil Brochman You know, [the theft or loss of] 1/2 of formula kilogram or 1/4 of a formula kilogram if it was strategic special nuclear material would be something that is definitely significant [and therefore requires reporting [to the NRC].

1:34:52.900 --> 1:35:2.590 Phil Brochman And so if we unintentionally created language that is not clear, then that's something that we can address.

1:35:2.600 --> 1:35:8.680 Phil Brochman And [as a note] to myself, that's a potential topic for this rulemaking that I've mentioned

[previously].

1:35:10.890 --> 1:35:11.440 LANE, Hilary Thanks for that.

1:35:11.670 --> 1:35:28.20 LANE, Hilary We're seeing it [as] a definite discrepancy on this one and you know to us the terminology when you start using terminology like all or any, you know that that can very quickly get us into some hot water as we've seen with past regulatory efforts.

1:35:28.30 --> 1:35:34.780 LANE, Hilary It's also hard to argue that those terms, you know, line up with what's considered reasonable assurance about adequate protection.

1:35:35.430 --> 1:35:38.450 LANE, Hilary You know, even if we look at [10 CFR] Part 74, for example.

1:35:39.340 --> 1:35:41.550 LANE, Hilary Which of course, serves a different purpose here.

1:35:41.560 --> 1:35:47.970 LANE, Hilary That's material control and accountability, and we've got the NMNSS reporting system as well.

42 1:35:48.340 --> 1:35:52.550 LANE, Hilary Under Part 74, you know they start at 1 gram, for instance.

1:35:53.30 --> 1:35:59.170 LANE, Hilary So, you know, we're looking at this and we're saying, OK, are we supposed to report less than one gram?

1:35:59.180 --> 1:36:0.540 LANE, Hilary Are we being more stringent than?

1:36:1.260 --> 1:36:6.730 LANE, Hilary What Part 74 is outlining and what the NMNSS database [reporting system] is requiring of the licensees?

1:36:7.480 --> 1:36:10.10 LANE, Hilary We're just trying to better understand that.

1:36:11.80 --> 1:36:19.600 Phil Brochman I think Hillary this is an interesting question.

1:36:19.610 --> 1:36:35.750 Phil Brochman I'll put it this way, I think the staff's desire would be that if there is an event involving the theft of nuclear material that we set an appropriate threshold [for reporting such events].

1:36:36.800 --> 1:36:42.230 Phil Brochman There are, as you mentioned, [separate] reporting requirements in the material control and accounting regulations.

1:36:42.290 --> 1:36:55.240 Phil Brochman In Part 74, in terms of reporting discrepancies. Whether it [should be] s a cross reference to that

[requirement in Part 74] or it's some specific value [in the final Reg Guide] that is.

1:36:57.90 --> 1:37:0.90 Phil Brochman Appropriate for the category of the [special nuclear] material?

1:37:1.200 --> 1:37:16.150 Phil Brochman

[For example,] do you have the same reporting threshold for HELU level material [less than 20%

U-235 enrichment] versus 93% enriched uranium U-235 or plutonium?

1:37:17.160 --> 1:37:25.480 Phil Brochman I think those are all some questions that would require further consideration and so we'll look at whatever comments you have.

1:37:32.870 --> 1:37:41.320 Phil Brochman This may be an issue we are not able to solve in this revision of the Reg Guide, but maybe something to requires rulemaking and notice an opportunity for comment.

1:37:43.830 --> 1:37:49.0 LANE, Hilary Yeah, certainly. We'll outline these comments in any future correspondence [comments on the DGs].

43 1:37:49.10 --> 1:37:55.100 LANE, Hilary It's just like I said, it's just really hard to justify that sort of blanket terminology like any and all.

1:37:55.110 --> 1:38:0.480 LANE, Hilary And you know, looking at the regs, we have thresholds and other parts of the regulation, you know, for good reason.

1:38:0.880 --> 1:38:4.220 LANE, Hilary And there's been strong regulatory basis for those thresholds.

1:38:4.230 --> 1:38:7.340 LANE, Hilary So we certainly think that could apply here too.

1:38:8.10 --> 1:38:9.610 LANE, Hilary So thanks for your consideration of that.

1:38:14.600 --> 1:38:35.440 Phil Brochman Hillary, one of the things we would be looking at is the previous language in 10 CFR 73.71 and see how it compares to the current language. We would ask you to go back and look at this what it what it talked about in terms of if it used the words any or anything.

1:38:37.220 --> 1:38:45.490 Phil Brochman If you can try to draw a contrast with that in terms of where you're at going forward, because if that is, as we said, that language was there for many years.

1:38:45.910 --> 1:38:55.580 Phil Brochman And therefore is this just an issue that just hasn't been clarified appropriately over a long period of time or are we really departing from what was previously done?

1:38:57.390 --> 1:38:57.680 LANE, Hilary Great. We'll do thanks.

1:39:0.260 --> 1:39:3.0 Lynn Ronewicz And then the next is Charles Coles.

1:39:6.150 --> 1:39:11.110 Charles Coles Chuck Coles, Arizona Public Service on loan with the Stars Alliance.

1:39:15.640 --> 1:39:17.340 Charles Coles So I just want to take us back.

1:39:17.710 --> 1:39:22.950 Charles Coles I'm still on my soapbox with contraband on slide 26.

1:39:25.720 --> 1:39:35.790 Charles Coles What we were hoping to see in the draft Reg Guide was an option that you may have taken to avoid rulemaking around the definition of contraband.

1:39:35.800 --> 1:39:38.450 Charles Coles We understand the change in the definition and why the NRC did it.

44 1:39:41.600 --> 1:39:58.880 Charles Coles And I think through the conversations that you and I've had security working group and sidebar at the at the Symposium last June was, these other types of dangerous material [criteria],

specifically the disease causing agents, that's beyond what we currently search for.

1:39:59.390 --> 1:40:14.650 Charles Coles And we know that 10 CFR 73.55(g)(ii)(B) requires me to search for contraband in vehicles that are coming into my protected area [PA], I have some inspectors that are going to seize on that

[not searching for disease causing agents] issue.

1:39:59.750 --> 1:39:59.910 Phil Brochman We understand the concern.

1:40:14.660 --> 1:40:22.570 Charles Coles And as you and I have discussed the {NRCs] expectation wasn't that you had have to have a new capability to search for these things.

1:40:22.580 --> 1:40:28.520 Charles Coles But if you were to find them [during a PA entrance search] to [then] report those kind of things to

[the NRC]. So what we were hoping was that.

1:40:29.470 --> 1:40:48.430 Charles Coles There wasn't going to be a need to pursue rulemaking to deal with the definition of contraband, but rather an opportunity in the Reg guide for a footnote or a note under contraband to say, hey, the intent is to continue to search for the things that you currently search for, no new requirement there.

1:40:48.480 --> 1:40:54.320 Charles Coles However, if you do discover these things, please do report them in the applicable time frame.

1:40:54.330 --> 1:40:58.300 Charles Coles So I just wanted to offer that you know, a lot of things were going to rulemaking.

1:40:58.310 --> 1:41:0.640 Charles Coles I'm not sure that we need to go to rulemaking on this.

1:41:0.650 --> 1:41:3.100 Charles Coles If we can clear it up in the draft Reg guide [that would be preferable].

1:41:4.630 --> 1:41:14.510 Phil Brochman Chuck, I would say that what you've suggested [is interesting], please submit that. The one thing that I would offer in a counterpoint in this came from a different perspective, I'll call it the fuel cycle side.

1:41:18.950 --> 1:41:29.610 Phil Brochman Their [is a separate] question on the new language in the contraband definition that referred to recording devices or electronic devices.

1:41:31.890 --> 1:41:44.850 Phil Brochman The NRC staff is [provisionally] thinking for this question [this new language] should that be 45 removed completely from 10 CFR Part 73 and instead placed in the definitions in 10 CFR Part 95.

1:41:46.60 --> 1:42:20.510 Phil Brochman Removing [the language on electronic devices] doesn't affect the reactors because you all don't have classified information, but it may be something that affects other facilities and so there I think that I think there can be some additional clarifying language that would perhaps go along the lines you said that if something was discovered that it should be reported, but getting to the question of is there a search capability is this is this, is this notification regulation intending to imply a search capability?

1:42:21.890 --> 1:42:22.960 Phil Brochman I think the answer to that is no.

1:42:24.430 --> 1:42:29.250 Phil Brochman That was not the intent, but now we're back to sort of like what is in the rule?

1:42:31.540 --> 1:42:38.200 Phil Brochman Are we having unintended consequences just like the previous discussion with Hillary on the quantity [limit for lost or stolen SNM]?

1:42:39.670 --> 1:42:41.360 Phil Brochman Is that where we're at here? [Supplemental to this meeting: The NRC staff has concluded that the language in Reg Guide 5.62 on the definition of contraband will require rulemaking to address the issues raised by industry.]

1:42:43.120 --> 1:42:46.280 Phil Brochman You know, please send any comments in.

1:42:48.600 --> 1:42:59.670 Phil Brochman I take your point which is it seems reasonable [to address the contraband issue] on an event notification, but we need to fix some other things [as well] and some of those other things involve other types of licensees than reactors.

1:43:3.750 --> 1:43:4.570 Charles Coles Perfect call.

1:43:5.300 --> 1:43:6.630 Charles Coles I'll make sure that comes in.

1:43:7.140 --> 1:43:8.830 Charles Coles We'll submit through NEI to you.

1:43:8.900 --> 1:43:9.590 Charles Coles Thanks Phil.

1:43:12.80 --> 1:43:13.730 Lynn Ronewicz And then next we have Jeannie Johnston.

1:43:16.950 --> 1:43:19.720 Johnston, Jeanne D.

This is Jeannie Johnston with Southern Nuclear.

46 1:43:20.420 --> 1:43:30.850 Johnston, Jeanne D.

I have a question about the draft Reg guide section 2.1 malevolent intent considerations, so I appreciate the, you know, the changes in the draft Reg guide that were made to the section.

1:43:32.110 --> 1:43:39.860 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So I'm a licensing person, not a security person, so I'm kind of reading this, you know, from a different angle.

1:43:39.930 --> 1:43:43.860 Johnston, Jeanne D.

But the example that is mentioned in at the.

1:43:44.470 --> 1:43:52.440 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Bottom of 2.1 the example is a contraband example and you spoke to a contraband example in your presentation.

1:43:53.390 --> 1:44:13.160 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So this example it says if a licensee concludes malevolent intent was not present for such an event then the event should be should not be reported under 10 CFR 73.1200 but instead recorded as a decrease in effectiveness under 10 CFR 73.1210 and so that makes sense for contraband event.

1:44:13.550 --> 1:44:23.740 Johnston, Jeanne D.

But if you then read this for a tampering event, or like an equipment misposition event, whereas you also mentioned, you have to make a determination that there was no.

1:44:24.230 --> 1:44:39.950 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Malicious intent then, if it was a tampering event of a non-security equipment or an SSC

[structure, system, or component] for safety, that would not necessarily mean that there was a decrease in security.

1:44:40.340 --> 1:44:44.520 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So then to me this paragraph doesn't apply or make sense.

1:44:46.490 --> 1:44:50.600 Johnston, Jeanne D.

It'll only makes sense for contraband, not for an equipment mispositioned event.

1:44:50.730 --> 1:45:0.680 Phil Brochman I agree with what you're saying. I pulled up the document and I'm looking at looking at page 22 and I agree with what you're saying.

1:45:1.210 --> 1:45:13.740 Phil Brochman This language was intended to deal with contraband, but the question you're posing is can there be other malevolent intent screening considerations.

1:45:14.30 --> 1:45:44.380 Phil Brochman The example you gave of a miss positioning event, a miss positioning of a switch or a valve or other component, or going to the wrong component, and so I would request that you make a comment on this [issue] and we can look to clarify the language, and then determine also if those the example you pose like somebody goes to the wrong component or the wrong item that may just be a condition report.

47 1:45:45.810 --> 1:45:46.140 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Correct.

1:45:46.190 --> 1:46:5.580 Phil Brochman If the conclusion is that there's there was no malevolent intent, the individual went to the wrong component and it caused some sort of event, some transient or something happened that may not even need to be in the security event log, but it may be dealt with as a condition adverse to quality.

1:46:6.600 --> 1:46:8.990 Phil Brochman What action you going to take to prevent recurrence?

1:46:10.610 --> 1:46:16.990 Phil Brochman But I see your point, which is this paragraph above right above section 2.2.

1:46:18.600 --> 1:46:26.390 Phil Brochman It is applicable to contraband, but may not be applicable to other type of malevolent intent screenings.

1:46:27.250 --> 1:46:28.240 Johnston, Jeanne D.

OK, fantastic.

1:46:28.430 --> 1:46:36.700 Johnston, Jeanne D.

And I'll absolutely make sure that a written comment gets submitted either through NEI or through our comment process.

1:46:37.70 --> 1:46:49.700 Johnston, Jeanne D.

My second question, so you talked a little bit about 10 CFR 50.72 and I think mentioned 10 CFR 50.73, which is the written LER requirements that we do.

1:46:50.670 --> 1:47:8.280 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So when you do a comparison to 10 CFR 50.73, the code you know the contents for what's required to be informed [in NRC Form] 366 and you compare that to the 10 CFR 73.1205 requirements which also requires you to use the same form.

1:47:8.550 --> 1:47:22.730 Johnston, Jeanne D.

There's a lot of similarities, but there are some differences in those two portions of the code when you compare them side by side and so as somebody that's very familiar with the 10 CFR 50.73 code requirements.

1:47:22.740 --> 1:47:26.310 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Now I'm reading the 10 CFR 73.1205 requirements and trying to understand them.

1:47:26.680 --> 1:47:30.100 Johnston, Jeanne D.

There's some differences.

1:47:30.270 --> 1:47:54.830 Johnston, Jeanne D.

I'm not quite sure if those differences were intentional or what they mean, and so some examples of those differences would be the 10 CFR 73.1205 code mentions root cause that you 48 should include the root cause of the event or condition, and so at most utilities there's a certain threshold for whether or not the root cause investigation gets done.

1:47:54.960 --> 1:48:5.530 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Sometimes it's a lower-level effort of investigation, and so, you know, it's just not clear if a root cause investigation wasn't done.

1:48:5.580 --> 1:48:11.950 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Do you could you say that that is not applicable, or do you really mean the cause?

1:48:12.340 --> 1:48:17.950 Johnston, Jeanne D.

You know, regardless of if it's a root cause, I understand what you're wanting?

1:48:16.280 --> 1:48:17.0 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Does that make sense?

Phil Brochman Here's what I heard you say.

1:48:20.480 --> 1:48:23.710 Phil Brochman The term root cause may have a specific.

1:48:24.410 --> 1:48:31.920 Phil Brochman Technical connotation that it implies a certain degree of depth or detail for a cause evaluation.

1:48:32.440 --> 1:48:33.560 Johnston, Jeanne D.

That's correct.

1:48:34.50 --> 1:48:39.910 Phil Brochman And what you're saying is that there may need to be a description of.

1:48:40.710 --> 1:48:43.430 Phil Brochman An event, but the term root cause.

1:48:43.490 --> 1:48:47.610 Phil Brochman May have a more specific meaning that was intended [by the NRC staff].

1:48:51.50 --> 1:49:0.440 Phil Brochman So the question then is does the NRC want to have a cause specified for an event, or does it mean [something else] as opposed to the term root cause which may mean something else?

1:49:1.460 --> 1:49:2.990 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Yeah, that that's correct.

1:49:3.60 --> 1:49:4.700 Johnston, Jeanne D.

And there's similar requirements on.

1:49:8.20 --> 1:49:10.310 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

1:49:10.370 --> 1:49:15.570 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So we call those capers and those are, you know it's a threshold thing.

49 1:49:15.580 --> 1:49:24.770 Johnston, Jeanne D.

So some events they could be corrected, but they don't reach a level of needing a caper, and so it's a similar type of comment.

1:49:24.780 --> 1:49:26.490 Johnston, Jeanne D.

There is that language.

1:49:28.120 --> 1:49:42.670 Johnston, Jeanne D.

It's unclear if you know if you really mean well, what we would call a caper or is it a corrective action that was, you know, intended on preventing something like that from happening.

1:49:45.250 --> 1:49:48.700 Phil Brochman Please clarify [in your formal comments] what words you're seeking.

1:49:48.710 --> 1:50:6.810 Phil Brochman What I would say to you is if you have, if there were specific items in the list in 10 CFR 73.1205(c) where you think there should be revised guidance as opposed to a more a broader statement of these items [please clarify in your comments].

1:50:6.900 --> 1:50:14.770 Phil Brochman

[If] There's a disconnect or a dissimilarity between 10 CFR 50.73 and 10 CFR 73.1205.

1:50:15.260 --> 1:50:34.120 Phil Brochman If you could be more specific in terms of what those individual items are and if you have suggestions on how they should be changed [please include them in your comments], and we can look at that. As was said earlier, if that's something [that needs to go through rulemaking] I think now is the time to.

1:50:34.960 --> 1:50:44.370 Phil Brochman Get all these issues raised up and identified so that if we do bring a rulemaking we can identify all of the issues [that need to be addressed].

1:50:48.330 --> 1:50:49.760 Johnston, Jeanne D.

That concludes my comments.

1:50:51.310 --> 1:50:57.480 Lynn Ronewicz OK, so let's, let's see, are there any other questions or comments on draft guide 5080?

1:51:3.890 --> 1:51:5.600 Lynn Ronewicz And it looks like there none.

1:51:6.90 --> 1:51:12.250 Lynn Ronewicz So far on Phil, did we want to go back and see if there are any questions or comments on the first two draft guides at this point?

1:51:13.790 --> 1:51:22.570 Phil Brochman Yes, Ill do that. If there are any questions or comments on any part of the presentation that we've given today.

1:51:24.950 --> 1:51:32.930 Phil Brochman 50 I'll just say let's open it up to anything on the three draft guides and see if there's any further comments before we go on.

1:51:35.290 --> 1:51:40.260 Lynn Ronewicz So we'll wait a moment and wait for any hands raised, and thereafter we'll do the wrap up.

1:51:40.430 --> 1:51:42.200 Lynn Ronewicz OK, Hillary Lane, please go ahead.

1:51:44.980 --> 1:51:46.10 LANE, Hilary Hillary Lane, with NEI.

1:51:46.20 --> 1:51:50.910 LANE, Hilary Phil, you had mentioned a few times a potential future rulemaking effort.

1:51:51.370 --> 1:51:55.670 LANE, Hilary What would be the potential time frame for such a rulemaking?

1:51:57.220 --> 1:52:1.300 Phil Brochman Becca, are you still here?

1:52:5.50 --> 1:52:5.980 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

Yes.

1:52:7.540 --> 1:52:11.60 Phil Brochman Would you care to respond to Hillarys question?

1:52:14.180 --> 1:52:15.190 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

I don't know that I'm going to be much more help.

1:52:15.500 --> 1:52:22.550 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

Hillary, I think we're still working through [what that will entail and] you know what the process would be like and how we can go about that.

1:52:22.560 --> 1:52:26.150 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

So we'll have to follow up on timing [of future rulemaking efforts].

1:52:26.700 --> 1:52:31.460 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

It is still on the [staffs] list to figure out.

1:52:31.470 --> 1:52:33.190 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

You know how we can move forward.

1:52:34.510 --> 1:52:51.560 Jose Cuadrado Yeah, I think I think the only other item that I could offer to expand on that is that we're in the beginning stages of identifing the scope of items for a potential corrections and clarification rulemaking.

1:52:51.570 --> 1:53:7.410 Jose Cuadrado So we'll continue and as we have gone through this meeting today, we have actually seen that 51 there may be additional items that are ripe or more appropriately dealt with through the rulemaking process rather than [via] guidance [documents].

1:53:10.230 --> 1:53:14.830 Jose Cuadrado We're right now in the planning stages of those efforts [to consider future rulemaking].

1:53:16.340 --> 1:53:34.490 Jose Cuadrado As you may be familiar with rulemaking processes, they are very elaborate and we do have certain different thresholds and criteria for what can be corrected and implemented without public common and treat it as corrections to the [published] rules.

1:53:34.500 --> 1:53:46.40 Jose Cuadrado But there's other items that may require public notice and opportunity to comment.

1:53:46.50 --> 1:53:48.880 Jose Cuadrado

[That rulemaking process includes both] proposed rules and final rules.

1:53:50.230 --> 1:53:56.240 Phil Brochman I'm let me do one thing first, Becca, could you please introduce yourself? Since I did not do that previously.

1:54:0.420 --> 1:54:1.350 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

Hi, Im Becca Lagios.

1:54:1.360 --> 1:54:5.220 Becca Lagios (She/Her)

I'm the deputy director for the division of physical and cyber security policy [DPCP].

1:54:7.520 --> 1:54:40.290 Phil Brochman The other thing I would say is that I think as we make progress in looking at a rulemaking and what might be the scope [of a rulemaking], I think that there will be further opportunities for engagement with industry so that we can have a more mutual understanding of what issues we need to address and so that to me what I what, I don't think we want to do is go all the way is actually do a rulemaking and go through that whole effort and then have somebody at the end go well excuse me.

1:54:42.220 --> 1:54:47.730 Phil Brochman There were some more issues that we thought we needed to fix and we missed the opportunity.

1:54:50.490 --> 1:54:59.120 Phil Brochman So I think there will be continued dialogue and communication on this matter, and so I'll just leave it at that.

1:55:1.430 --> 1:55:4.260 Phil Brochman I don't know if there's any other questions or comments.

1:55:6.610 --> 1:55:7.840 Lynn Ronewicz Jeannie Johnston, please go ahead.

1:55:10.70 --> 1:55:11.790 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Hi, Jeannie Johnston with Southern Nuclear.

52 1:55:11.890 --> 1:55:25.310 Johnston, Jeanne D.

Again, I'm just wanted to ask about how the agency is bridging the time from now and potential rulemaking, is there still consideration of an enforcement guidance memorandum?

1:55:27.700 --> 1:55:28.790 Jose Cuadrado Yes, that is correct.

1:55:30.860 --> 1:55:44.410 Jose Cuadrado The right now we are in the final stages of issuing an enforcement guidance memorandum (EGM) that and the intent of that is to provide enforcement discretion [on several issues].

1:55:45.860 --> 1:56:1.190 Jose Cuadrado But I have to say that it's unspecific items related to subpart T requirements [of 10 CFR Part 73]

and it specifically [addresses] those two [issues] that relate to the definition of contraband and the requirements for reporting [suspicious activity] to the FAA.

1:56:2.430 --> 1:56:8.660 Jose Cuadrado And we also have language in the enforcement guidance memorandum that.

1:56:10.340 --> 1:56:30.490 Jose Cuadrado Also provides discretion and puts on hold any enforcement actions until such time the NRC reaches a conclusion on whether an exemption request from any of those requirements is still being considered and a decision has not yet been made on that [issue yet].

1:56:30.500 --> 1:56:34.200 Jose Cuadrado So yeah, that is the scope of the EGM that we're planning to issue.

1:56:37.790 --> 1:56:41.460 Lynn Ronewicz And I will wait to see if there are any other questions or comments.

1:56:40.790 --> 1:56:41.200 Phil Brochman Thank you.

1:56:41.470 --> 1:56:43.280 Lynn Ronewicz If so, please raise your hand.

1:56:43.290 --> 1:56:47.940 Jose Cuadrado Before I go, so for Hillary or for Jeannie.

1:56:49.830 --> 1:56:59.640 Jose Cuadrado Any others I didn't follow up to to figure out if what the answer is that either failed me or that Becka provided satisfied you.

1:57:0.70 --> 1:57:1.250 Jose Cuadrado I just wanted to check on that so.

1:57:3.180 --> 1:57:4.130 LANE, Hilary No, that was helpful.

1:57:4.140 --> 1:57:13.350 LANE, Hilary 53 I'm I assume there might have to be kind of a a rulemaking plan as you guys outline the scope of any potential rulemaking and there would be future engagement related to that.

1:57:8.570 --> 1:57:9.30 Jose Cuadrado Of course, yeah.

1:57:13.360 --> 1:57:14.40 LANE, Hilary So that's helpful.

1:57:14.670 --> 1:57:26.450 Jose Cuadrado And obviously the associated communications that we normally undergo with any of those kinds of rulemaking efforts, whether it's advanced notice of proposed rulemaking or regular proposed and final rulemaking.

1:57:27.910 --> 1:57:28.720 Johnston, Jeanne D.

You addressed my question.

1:57:36.850 --> 1:57:38.560 Lynn Ronewicz 1:57:42.430 --> 1:57:44.100 Charles Coles Hey its Chuck Coles again.

1:57:44.160 --> 1:58:1.280 Charles Coles Arizona Public Service on loan to the Stars Alliance, I was just wondering on retention of records, just a a real simple question and I didn't know if you had a basis for it under the current Reg Guide 5.62 Revesion.

1:58:1.290 --> 1:58:19.470 Charles Coles One I keep my security event logs for period of three years in the new draft Red Guide, I'm keeping those event logs three years or until the license is terminated, which is an awful long time for some of us going through subsequent license renewal.

1:58:19.480 --> 1:58:26.890 Charles Coles So I was just curious if there was a basis that the NRC's thought on keeping event logs for that long a period.

1:58:28.760 --> 1:58:30.590 Phil Brochman A good question.

1:58:32.90 --> 1:58:34.120 Phil Brochman I haven't researched that one recently.

1:58:34.130 --> 1:58:35.120 Phil Brochman I would go back.

1:58:35.230 --> 1:58:48.510 Phil Brochman I would go back and start with what does 19 CFR 73.71 say today and go from there to Appendix G and then go back take a look at the [new] regulation.

1:58:48.660 --> 1:59:5.900 Phil Brochman I know that in the regulation in the final rule there was a number of provisions in terms of record 54 keeping that was revised to the duration of the license or three years after the duration of the license, whichever is longer.

1:59:6.50 --> 1:59:9.560 Phil Brochman And that [provision] was implemented in a number of places [in the final rule].

1:59:10.20 --> 1:59:15.180 Phil Brochman So, not sure beyond that without doing further research.

1:59:18.900 --> 1:59:20.930 Phil Brochman But please provide a comment on that.

1:59:20.940 --> 1:59:24.290 Phil Brochman We can certainly look at that and respond to it. [Subsequent to this public meeting, the NRC staff concluded that the whichever is later language of the final rule was not appropriate and would need to be corrected via rulemaking.]

1:59:25.180 --> 1:59:47.480 Phil Brochman And the other thing that you raise as a good point - you made me think of something - just as with the final rule and the final guidance documents, we created a summary document that included all of the incoming comments and the annotations as to how they were binned.

1:59:47.670 --> 1:59:53.920 Phil Brochman And for the actual comment response document [for the final Reg Guides] we're looking to do something similar [regarding the comments] on these draft guides.

1:59:55.310 --> 2:0:2.460 Phil Brochman One of the questions that there's been raised to me is, are we going to issue all the draft of the final red guides all at the same time?

2:0:2.470 --> 2:0:4.820 Phil Brochman Or, are we going to issue them as we get them done?

2:0:5.90 --> 2:0:15.260 Phil Brochman I don't think we have an answer to that [question] at this moment, but it to me it's helpful to have all of the [final Reg] guides, and all of the comment dispositioning at one time. [Subsequent to this meeting, the NRC staff issued the three revised final Reg Guides separately.]

2:0:26.150 --> 2:0:29.140 Lynn Ronewicz And waiting to see if there are any other questions or comments.

2:0:39.20 --> 2:0:40.420 Lynn Ronewicz No hands raise.

2:0:40.430 --> 2:0:43.970 Lynn Ronewicz Did you want to go ahead and wrap [this meeting] up?

2:0:47.220 --> 2:0:48.530 Phil Brochman Yeah, Jose, up to you.

55 2:0:53.830 --> 2:0:56.80 Jose Cuadrado I think Charlotte chimed in last minute.

2:0:59.850 --> 2:1:0.840 Lynn Ronewicz Please go ahead, Charlotte.

2:1:1.540 --> 2:1:2.730 SHIELDS, Charlotte I dont know if we were all done.

2:1:2.250 --> 2:1:2.370 Phil Brochman No, not yet.

2:1:2.740 --> 2:1:6.930 SHIELDS, Charlotte This is Charlotte Shields, on loan to NEI from Palo Verde.

2:1:6.940 --> 2:1:21.90 SHIELDS, Charlotte I just wanted to just take a minute and thank everyone that's on the call, you know, feels tremendous efforts and the rest of the staff over there at the NRC and additionally with all the industry support that has gone into this effort.

2:1:21.100 --> 2:1:29.830 SHIELDS, Charlotte So I just wanted to express my appreciation and say I look forward to continuing the productive movement forward, OK.

2:1:31.310 --> 2:1:32.120 Jose Cuadrado Thank you, Charlotte.

2:1:32.130 --> 2:1:36.880 Jose Cuadrado I appreciate the compliment, and I would like to echo those [sentiments].

2:1:37.240 --> 2:1:59.790 Jose Cuadrado Thanks to all of you today that attended the meeting and provided very useful and meaningful comments and observations about the scope of the changes that we have made on the draft Reg Guides and that we will continue to consider as we proceed on publishing a final version of these Reg Guides.

2:2:2.930 --> 2:2:16.640 Jose Cuadrado As you've noticed, the changes range from the grammar type of those that may have relevance and to really deep technical matters and it goes all the way to very specific [language].

2:2:18.600 --> 2:2:51.160 Jose Cuadrado

[Some of the] issues identified [by industry] that may be inconsistent with final rule language. I think that it just highlights the broad nature of the types of revisions that we're addressing and how comprehensive the efforts that we have undertaken is have been to make sure that we hit on all these points because we want to make sure that the implementation of these new requirements proceeds in a way that is orderly and that properly meets both our responsibilities at the regulator side and at the implementer side.

2:2:51.170 --> 2:2:59.100 Jose Cuadrado So I really want to thank all people attending today and I want to say a special thanks to Phil.

56 2:2:59.520 --> 2:3:13.770 Jose Cuadrado For his efforts on ongoing efforts [in leading these] events [and to other NRC staff] for attending and helping us with the conduct of the meeting, and especially to Lynn for facilitating the interactions that we've had today.

2:3:14.100 --> 2:3:18.830 Jose Cuadrado I think this has been extremely useful and really look forward to continuing engagement on this topic.

2:3:18.840 --> 2:3:20.360 Jose Cuadrado So that's all I have.

2:3:20.370 --> 2:3:22.450 Jose Cuadrado I appreciate the time that you've been here.

2:3:22.460 --> 2:3:26.180 Jose Cuadrado So, Lynn, if you want to have any closing remarks before we go or [any remarks] from Phil.

2:3:28.30 --> 2:3:33.20 Lynn Ronewicz I will say we want to thank everyone for their time and again, you know it last opportunity.

2:3:33.30 --> 2:3:36.750 Lynn Ronewicz If there's anything else, and then Phil, did you have anything?

2:3:38.950 --> 2:3:41.460 Phil Brochman No, it this point I just want to thank everybody.

2:3:41.470 --> 2:3:47.600 Phil Brochman I'm looking forward to seeing all the comments and.

2:3:48.230 --> 2:3:57.20 Phil Brochman In particular, that the more you can provide us with suggested alternative language.

2:3:59.170 --> 2:4:3.770 Phil Brochman Or corrections as opposed to just identifying concerns.

2:4:4.530 --> 2:4:8.250 Phil Brochman The greater assistance it is to the NRC staff as we move forward [in developing the final Reg 2:4:11.940 --> 2:4:14.400 Phil Brochman Will be busy in the next few months.

2:4:16.690 --> 2:4:28.130 Phil Brochman Working on all of this and other projects but hopefully given the nature of the discussion we heard today and what I've seen coming.

2:4:28.890 --> 2:4:41.830 Phil Brochman That we should be able to accomplish the schedule objective as we've as was put forth and I will just say to Jose, I'm much happier to be here in my home doing this meeting.

57 2:4:47.20 --> 2:4:52.320 Phil Brochman Then I was at going to Ohio to that symposium.

2:4:54.440 --> 2:4:57.660 Jose Cuadrado Alright, Phil, I really appreciate your contributions today, so.

2:4:57.810 --> 2:5:8.800 Phil Brochman Well the reason I'm appreciative of being at home is I had a workplace injury leaving the hotel

[for the Ohio symposium] that night.

2:5:10.590 --> 2:5:18.520 Phil Brochman And I wound up injuring my knee, my shoulder, and was in physical therapy for several months.

2:5:18.590 --> 2:5:24.530 Phil Brochman So I've worked hard on trying to resolve all these issues as best I could.

2:5:26.710 --> 2:5:29.980 Jose Cuadrado Alright, Lynn, I'll let you close the meeting then, so sure.

2:5:30.590 --> 2:5:31.670 Lynn Ronewicz So again, we want to just thank just thank all the participants.

2:5:31.770 --> 2:5:42.100 Lynn Ronewicz Everybody for their time, their comments and if anybody has questions or wants to provide feedback, you can go to the public meeting site and there are forms there that you can fill out.

2:5:42.270 --> 2:5:43.660 Lynn Ronewicz And I will say thank you everybody.

2:5:51.120 --> 2:5:51.660 Phil Brochman Signing off.

ML24339B819; ML24339B839 OFFICE NSIR/DPCP/MSB NSIR/DPCP/MSB NSIR/DPCP/MSB NAME PBrochman JCuadrado-Caraballo PBrochman DATE Dec 9, 2024 Dec 10, 2024 Dec 10, 2024