ML25070A275
| ML25070A275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/14/2025 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS/RRPB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2024-0167, 20250151 | |
| Download: ML25070A275 (6) | |
Text
U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting Summary March 14, 2025
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Interpretive Rule Addressing Law Enforcement Response in Power Reactor Physical Protection Programs Meeting Identifier: 20250151 Date of Meeting: February 19, 2025 Location: Webinar Type of Meeting: Information Meeting with a Question and Answer Session Purpose of the meeting:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) discussed the proposed regulatory interpretation addressing the consideration of law enforcement response in power reactor physical protection programs that was published for public comments on January 17, 2025, in the Federal Register (90 FR 5743). This proposed interpretation of regulatory requirements clarifies that a power reactor applicant or licensee may, when designing or updating its physical protection program, incorporate law enforcement response considerations through the implementation of a site-specific Security Bounding Time (SBT).
General Details:
The NRC conducted a virtual public meeting scheduled from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern time, which ran for approximately 50 minutes. The meeting was attended by 69 people, including NRC staff and members of the public. Meeting attendees included representatives from the nuclear industry (e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute, Constellation Energy, Oklo Inc.) and other stakeholder organizations (e.g., New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York State Department of Public Services, Union of Concerned Scientists). The meeting was transcribed, and the transcript is available in the NRCs Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML25070A276, and at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0167. A list of attendees is provided as an attachment to this meeting summary.
The meeting consisted of an NRC presentation on the topics covered in the interpretive rule, and a question-and-answer session where the public was invited to pose questions to the NRC to receive any needed clarifications on the presentation and to facilitate submittal of public comments by the closing date of March 3, 2025. The staff did not solicit comments towards regulatory decisions at the meeting and encouraged participants to submit written comments on the proposed interpretation by the closing date via the options provided in the Federal Register Notice (FRN).
2 Summary of NRC Presentation:
Soly Soto Lugo, the rulemaking project manager, opened the meeting by welcoming the audience and introducing herself as the meeting facilitator. Ms. Soto Lugo introduced John McKirgan, Director of the Division of Physical and Cyber Security Policy in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), who provided some opening remarks. Ms. Soto Lugo then discussed the purpose of the meeting, the agenda, meeting logistics, and encouraged the audience to submit written comments on the proposed interpretation through www.regulations.gov or through the other means provided in the FRN.
Ms. Soto Lugo then introduced Wellington Tejada, Security Specialist in NSIR and the subject matter for this rulemaking. Mr. Tejada started the technical discussion by providing some background information on this regulatory action that included the following:
(1) The staffs recommendation to the Commission through SECY-20-0070, Technical Evaluation of the Security Bounding Time Concept (SBT) for Operating Nuclear Power Plants (ML21312A058), to reinterpret existing security regulations through a notice of interpretation (2) The Commission direction through Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SRM-SECY-20-0070 - "Staff Requirements - SECY-20-0070- Technical Evaluation of the Security Building Time Concept for Operating Nuclear Power Plants" (ML24158A083), in which the Commission approved the staffs recommendation to reinterpret existing security regulations through a notice of interpretation, directed the staff to issue guidance for SBT development, and directed the staff to evaluate current guidance for determining if a plan change decreases the safeguards effectiveness of a security plan Mr. Tejada then explained the proposed interpretation and the concept of site-specific SBT.
Mr. Tejada indicated that with the proposed interpretation, licensees and applicants may incorporate law enforcement response into their site physical protection programs using a site-specific SBT. In addition, Mr. Tejada clarified that the proposed interpretation seeks to provide flexibility and regulatory clarity to licensees and applicants to consider response from law enforcement as part of the physical protection program, and provided some key messages that further clarified the notice of interpretation.
Additionally, Mr. Tejada discussed alternative approaches to crediting law enforcement response being considered as part of two other parallel rulemaking activities currently in progress, which also allow for law enforcement or other off-duty personnel as part of the physical security program. These rulemaking activities are the "Alternative Physical Security for Advanced Reactors proposed rule (89 FR 65226; August 9, 2024), and the Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors" proposed rule (89 FR 86918; October 31, 2024).
Ms. Soto Lugo then discussed the next steps, which include publication of the final notice of interpretation and publication of the implementation guidance document for public comments in the future. In addition, Ms. Soto Lugo indicated that the staff plans to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on the draft guidance at a later time and that questions specifically related to the implementation guidance were outside the scope of this public meeting.
3 Public Feedback and Questions:
Ms. Soto Lugo opened the question-and-answer session. Participants asked clarifying questions on the topics discussed, including questions regarding the applicability of the proposed interpretation, the level of involvement of local law enforcement in physical security programs, licensee responsibilities, and State involvement.
For a detailed description of the meeting, please review the meeting transcript (ML25070A276).
Additionally, the NRC presentation slides are available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML25044A041.
Action Items/Next Steps:
There are no action items as a result of the public meeting.
Additional Information:
Meeting summary and related materials package: ML25070A273 Meeting notice and agenda: ADAMS Accession No. ML25049A255 NRC staff presentation: ADAMS Accession No. ML25044A041 Transcript: ADAMS Accession No. ML25070A276 Meeting Summary: ADAMS Accession No. ML25070A275
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE RULE ADDRESSING LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE IN POWER REACTOR PHYSICAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 2025 LIST OF ATTENDEES No.
Name Organization 1
Soly Soto Lugo NRC 2
Justin Vazquez NRC 3
Wellington Tejada NRC 4
Gaya Mostaghimi NRC 5
James Maltese NRC 6
John McKirgan NRC 7
Kayla Gamin NRC 8
Krupskaya Castellon NRC 9
Hamida Sallman NRC 10 Mallory Rosso NRC 11 Philip Negrete NRC 12 Charles Bustamante NRC 13 Kara Smith NRC 14 Lou Cubellis NRC 15 Steve Sarver NRC 16 Jason Tokey NRC 17 Marshall Kohen NRC 18 Vince Williams NRC 19 Terrence Barry NRC 20 Stacy Prasad NRC 21 Beth Reed NRC 22 Tony Bowers NRC 23 Doug Garner NRC 24 Gary Purdy NRC 25 Johari Moore NRC 26 Jefferson Clark NRC 27 Michael Soucie Entergy Nuclear 28 Dedrick Dent Entergy Nuclear 29 Patrick King Court Reporter 30 Marci Catlett Maryland Department of Emergency Management 31 David Young Nuclear Energy Institute 32 Bradley Chambers APS 33 David Gerads Xcel Energy 34 Michael Kunzwiler Constellation Nuclear
5 35 Allen Fulmer Dominion Energy 36 Jeremy Lafon Entergy Nuclear 37 Brian McWilliams Holtec Security International 38 Charlotte Shields Nuclear Energy Institute 39 Carlos Flores Constellation Nuclear 40 David Burke Holtec Security International 41 Steven Hayes Constellation Nuclear 42 Austin Langer Xcel Energy 43 Christopher Paul Chwasz Idaho National Laboratory 44 Edwin Lyman Union of Concerned Scientists 45 Cory Moren Xcel Energy 46 Gerald Glen Durham Jr.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company 47 Bergman, Jana CurtissWright/Scientech 48 Michael Whitlock Nuclear Energy Institute 49 Clifford Chapin New York State Department of Public Service 50 Alyse Peterson New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 51 Zac Keesee BWXT Nuclear Operations Group, Inc.
52 Brian Kloiber Oklo Inc.
53 Ariel Cockfield Duke Energy 54 Michael Long Southern Nuclear (Vogtle Security) 55 Susan Perkins Nuclear Energy Institute 56 James Ways Maryland Department of the Environment 57 Marci Catlett Maryland Department of Emergency Management 58 Anthony Clore Westinghouse 59 Spencer Toohill The Breakthrough Institute 60 Matthew Grantham Southern Nuclear Operating Company 61 Whiteside, Jacob Arkansas Nuclear One 62 Cyneetha Evans Southern Nuclear Operating Company 63 Vaibhav Yadav Idaho National Laboratory
6 64 Jim Andersen Excel Services Corporation 65 Christopher Crook APS 66 Brian Hasemann DHS/FEMA Region 2 67 Niry Simonian 68 AJ Scheuermann 69 Name not provided Attended via Teams dial-in number