ML25070A276
| ML25070A276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/2025 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS/RRPB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2024-0167, NRC-0210 | |
| Download: ML25070A276 (39) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting on Proposed Interpretive Rule Consideration of Law Enforcement Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, February 19, 2025 Work Order No.:
NRC-0210 Pages 1-36 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
+ + + + +
MEETING ON PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE RULE CONSIDERATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via Video conference, at 2:00 p.m., EST, Soly I. Soto Lugo, Facilitator, presiding.
PRESENT:
SOLY I. SOTO LUGO, Facilitator KAYLA GAMIN JOHN MCKIRGAN GAYA MOSTAGHIMI WELLINGTON TEJADA JUSTIN VAZQUEZ
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com ALSO PRESENT:
JANA BERGMAN, Curtiss-Wright CLIFFORD CHAPIN, New York State Department of Public Services BRIAN KLOIBER, Oklo Inc.
EDWIN LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists ALYSE PETERSON, NYSERDA DAVID YOUNG, NEI
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2:00 p.m.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Good afternoon, everybody, it is 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time, so its time to start this meeting.
So, I want to welcome everybody that joined us today and thank you for participating in the public meeting, in which we will be discussing the proposed interpretive rule associated with the role of law enforcement response in power reactor physical protection programs.
My name is Soly Soto Lugo, and I am the Rulemaking Project Manager for the NRCs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or NMSS, and I will be serving as the facilitator for this meeting.
My role is to help ensure that this meeting is informative and productive.
But first, I would like to introduce John McKirgan, who will give the opening remarks for this meeting.
John McKirgan is the Director of the Division of Physical and Cyber Security Policy in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, or NSIR. And then after Johns remarks, I will go over
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com some important logistics and the agenda items. And then we will get into the technical and regulatory discussion of todays meeting.
John.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Soly, thank you. And thanks to everyone whos joining us today. I really appreciate people taking the time to engage with us on this important topic.
And so, were talking today about the interpretive rule that Soly just mentioned. It was published in the Federal Register. And the interpretation were talking about today will allow NRC licensees to consider, you know, the very important role played by law enforcement partners with the licensees, as well as additional operator actions and equipment, and reflect these in their physical security protection strategies.
And so, this is a matter thats been under consideration for a while here at the NRC. And the implementation of this rulemaking has potential to offer the NRC licensees some flexibilities and some capabilities that hadnt been available previously.
And these flexibilities will really open the door for some of the licensees to introduce
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com greater realism into their site security strategies.
And so, we see this as a very valuable element for everyone. So, the NRC team has been working very hard on this rulemaking effort, and I want to thank and applaud the team for the work that they have done so far.
There is yet more work to do. We really, we need to hear the comments and the feedback, and this meeting is a wonderful forum for us to explain a little bit more about what were proposing with this interpretive rule.
So, I want to thank the team for their efforts. And again, I want to thank the members of the public and industry that are here with us today to listen to the staff, and we certainly want to listen to your questions of the NRC staff during this.
And so, without any further ado, Im going to kick it back to Soly, whos going to facilitate.
And Soly, thank you for your efforts in facilitating this meeting.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Well, thank you, John, for those remarks. So, the purpose of this meeting today, as we just mentioned, is to discuss the proposed interpretive rule that was published in the Federal
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Register for public comments last month for a 45-day comment period that closes on March 3, 2025.
This is an information meeting with a Q --
questions and answers session at the end of the staffs presentation. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions to the NRC staff about the topics discussed throughout the meeting. However, the staff will not be actively soliciting or gathering comments on the proposed interpretive rule during the meeting.
Participants are encouraged to submit written comments by March 3 through regulations.gov using the docket ID that is shown in the slide. No regulatory decisions will be made at this meeting today.
I should also note that the Federal Register notice itself, published last month, also provides other options for submitting comments. A direct link to the Federal Register notice is provided in the references slide at the end of the slide presentation.
Slide No. 3 provides the agenda items for todays meeting. First, Ill go over some meeting logistics and then I will transition to the
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com presentation over to Wellington Tejada, who is a Security Specialist in NSIR and the subject matter for this rulemaking.
He will be providing some background information of this regulatory action and will be explaining the proposed interpretation and the concept of security bounding time. We will then go over the next steps before opening the Q&A session.
Now just a few quick logistical things.
We would like to request that you hold your questions until the end of the presentation. And please keep yourself muted when youre not speaking.
To facilitate an orderly discussion during the Q&A session, we request that you use the raise-hand feature in Teams so we can see who has a question. The raise-hand button is along the top row in the Teams display area.
If you join the meeting using the Microsoft Teams dial-in number, you can also use the raise-hand function by pressing star-5. You will also have to press star-6 to mute and unmute yourself. We will do our best to take your questions in the order in which the hands were raised.
The public meeting slides are available in
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com ADAMS using the accession number projected in the slide. However, since we are using PowerPoint live, you should be able to click through the slides and the links at your convenience if you are using Microsoft Teams.
I also want to note that this meeting is being transcribed, so to get a good transcription and also to minimize distractions during the meeting, I would again remind everyone to keep yourselves muted when youre not speaking. And also, please speak clearly and identify yourself and your affiliation when youre doing so, so that everyone can hear you and know who you are.
Please keep your questions focused to ensure that there is time to discuss as many questions as possible. And as I mentioned before, we will not be actively soliciting formal comments at this meeting. So, if you do have a comment, we highly encourage you to submit those comments through regulations.gov.
- Lastly, a
meeting summary and the transcript for this meeting should be publicly available within approximately 30 days.
I will now transition the presentation
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com over to Wellington Tejada.
Wellington.
MR. TEJADA: Thanks, Soly.
My name is Wellington Tejada, Im a Security Specialist with the Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty and Policy Branch with the Division of Physical and Cyber Security Policy in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
As John has
- said, we have been entertaining this for a couple of years now. So in 2016, the Commission instructed the staff to provide recommendations on providing credit for a broader set of operator actions, including the use of FLEX equipment and providing credit for the law enforcement response in the security inspection program while recognizing that the NRC has already codified its recommendations in the ERO realm, stating that the reality that in an actual emergency, State and local government officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public. Next slide, Soly, please.
So, a little bit of background, you know.
In response to the Commission guidance, the staff presented the Commission with a methodology for the
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com licensees to incorporate the law enforcement response into their physical security programs.
This would allow them to leverage operator actions and potentially use additional FLEX equipment.
This methodology was introduced as a site-specific security bounding time.
The staff proposed two implementation options to the Commission. Option one was to reinterpret the existing security regulations to an interpretive rule to allow for the security bounding time. And the second option was to revise the security regulations in 73.55 to enable the licensees to adopt the same concept. Next slide, Soly, please.
The path that we chose was to reinterpret the existing regulations. So, in the SRM, the Commission approved the staff recommendation to reinterpret existing regulations through a notice of interpretation.
We also directed the staff to develop, and issue associated guidance that licensees could use in the development or their site-specific SBTs.
The Commission also directed the staff to also evaluate whether the existing guidance for determining whether a change in the security plans
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com decreases the effectiveness of those plans and if such guidance clearly delineates a threshold where it requires a license amendment pursuant -- using the 50.54(p) process. Next slide, Soly.
All right, so the proposed interpretation.
Today the Commission has interpreted the regulation 73.55 to mean that the licensees physical protection program does not consider the assistance of law enforcement in their programs.
Under the proposed interpretation, licensees and applicants may incorporate law enforcement response into their physical security programs using a site-specific security bounding time and can revise their security plans and implementing procedures to reflect this consideration.
The proposed interpretation seeks to provide flexibility and regulatory clarity for licensees to consider such response for law enforcement as part of the physical protection program. The staff also intends to develop regulatory guidance to assist licensees in determining whether a Commission approval will be required prior to implementing a site-specific SBT.
The regulatory guidance would include a
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com method that the NRC considers acceptable in determining whether a change will decrease the safeguards effectiveness or the security plans, particularly as it relates to the security bounding time implementation to ensure that the appropriate level of NRC oversight is provided.
This proposed interpretation does not release the licensees from meeting all the regulatory requirements currently in 73.55, and licensees maintain the responsibility for providing their defense against a
site-basis threat at their facilities. Next slide, Soly, please.
So, what is the security bounding time?
The security bounding time is the last time following the recognition of an attack after which additional offsite resources, either LLEA or law enforcement, and/or the recall of off-duty site personnel are available so that further adversary interference is reasonably assumed to be precluded and additional security -- additional actions to prevent adverse effect of biological sabotage can be taken by the licensees.
If implemented, the SBT could increase the realism of the licensees physical protection programs
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com by increasing the coordination and planning with their law enforcement partners.
Allowing the licensees to account for law enforcement several hours after the initiation of an attack does not mean that the licensees cannot defend against a design-basis threat. NRC regulations requires that the licensees defend against the DBTs at all times. However, theyre not meant to imply that the licensee must defend the site for all times or indefinitely.
After some period of time following the initiation of attack, law enforcement and other state and federal agencies, as well as the recall of off-duty personnel, will respond to this site to help with either tactical or recovery operations at the sites.
Next slide, Soly.
So clearly, the NRC has three rulemaking efforts that -- all three allow for licensees to account for law enforcement to be incorporated into the physical security programs.
However, I would like -- theyre listed here in the slides, you can go read it. But I would like to point out one of the differences, and it is B its an important distinction, because this rulemaking
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com activities is that the limited scope of Part 53 established new provisions. Basically, they wrote new rule language.
The interpretive rule, however, does not change the existing text or language currently in 73.55. While these rulemaking activities referring --
might defer in whether they revise existing regulation, it is the staffs intent that the consideration of law enforcement by the interpretive rule align as much as practical with approaches and guidance used by the limited scope of Part 53 rulemaking.
If any stakeholder has any feedback regarding if the NRC has clearly achieved this objective with the proposed interpretation, we encourage you to provide the comments, as noted by Soly, under the docket of the one of the previous slides. Next slide, Soly.
Here are some of the key messages. It is important to point out that these power plants are very robust facilities. They have trained and qualified officers that possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities. They have demonstrated that in the past. You know, the site-specific SBT is a voluntary
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com effort, its not a requirement for the licensees.
The proposed interpretation would apply to Part 50 and 52 licensees and applicants. And the proposed interpretation would not eliminate or replace any physical protection strategies currently permitted and implemented under the NRC regulations.
And as I said earlier, licensees are still responsible for the protection of the sites against a design-basis threat, up to and including a DBT. Next slide, Soly.
MS. SOTO LUGO: All right, thank you, Wellington.
Now on to the next steps. Once again, I would like to remind you that the proposed interpretation is out there for comments, and the comment period closes next month on March 3. And the staff will be considering public comments during the development of the final interpretation, and the estimated publication date is January 2026.
In
- addition, the staff anticipates revising existing guidance to align with the interpretation. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments on it. And the estimated publication of the draft guidance is December of this
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com year.
I should note that the specific B that specific topics related to the interpretation -- to the implementation guidance, Im sorry, are not part of the scope of this meeting. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to engage on this at a later time.
Lastly, the staff estimates completion and publication of the guidance by summer 2026.
So, some additional information here.
Theres a direct link to regulations.gov and the docket number for providing comments. And also, were always looking for ways to improve our public meetings, and your feedback is important to us.
You can click on the link on the slide to provide feedback on this meeting, or this same form will also be available by going to the NRC public meeting schedule. Look for the meeting announcement, and the meeting feedback form link will be at the bottom of it.
With that, we will now open the forum for the Q&A session.
- David, David
- Young, please unmute yourself.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Soly. David Young,
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com NEI. I just had a question. Did the staff give any consideration -- well, let me back up.
Given some of the similarities between 73.45 and 46 for fuel cycle facilities and some of their requirements, requirements to protect against a DBT and law enforcement coordination, etc., some of those similarities that they have with power reactors, did the staff give any consideration to also having this interpretive rule apply to fuel cycle facilities?
MR. TEJADA: Hey, David, thanks for the question. Me personally, no. The interpretive rule was targeted to the light water reactors under Part 50 and 52. That is a great comment that we could take back and see the applicability for the fuel cycle facilities as well.
MR. YOUNG: Okay, great. Yeah, we plan on submitting that. I just wanted to see if, again, if any prior consideration had been given to it. Thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Thank you.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Ed, Edwin Lyman, please.
DR. LYMAN: Thank you. This is Ed Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Can you hear me?
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. SOTO LUGO: Yes, we can.
DR. LYMAN: So, I see something that looks to me like a logical inconsistency in the rule. So, my question, so the Federal Register notice says that the licensees responsibility to interdict and neutralize with its own security personnel has not changed, it still applies.
But obviously if theyre going to rely on offsite law enforcement to neutralize, then that would no longer be a responsibility.
So, I should say, I know youre not accepting comments, but weve long opposed this entire project, and we do not agree that its going to increase realism. We do not agree that its going to maintain the same effectiveness of the physical protection programs. And well submit those comments.
But this question, what is it to stop a licensee from applying for an exemption from the neutralization requirement based on their claim that they can achieve neutralization through equivalent manner through law -- offsite law enforcement response? And if such an exemption were to be submitted, what would the NRCs view be?
MR. TEJADA: Thanks, Dr. Lyman, for the
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com question. Let me see if I remember the entirety of it. So, the licensees are still currently required to develop their programs to provide the defense against the design-basis threat.
What the security bounding time allows them to do is to do a site-specific assessment or an analysis to see how, if any law enforcement credit could be provided. You mentioned the interdiction and neutralization piece of it, and that is acceptable, right. But they will have to develop the plan, submit it to the NRC, and we will have to evaluate it.
Secondly, is that that is just one extreme of one equation. They could also depend on law enforcement to, lets say, establish a checkpoint, right, that they command their OCAs that will also be available.
So, the scope of the credit that the licensees will take will be site-specific when they do their plan changes and submit it to the NRC, or we will provide the 50.54(p) oversight when we do the inspection process.
In regards to what's stopping the licensees from submitting an exemption or a request, we cannot stop them. I mean, we could -- all we could
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com do is accept them and evaluate it or provide a response once we receive them.
Does that answer your question, sir?
DR. LYMAN: I guess. So, do you think that such a change, would that be something they could file under 50.54(p), or would it require an actual exemption if they were to say we do not -- we no longer want our security force to have the responsibility to neutralize? Do you think B MR. TEJADA: That would depend -- go ahead, sir.
DR. LYMAN: Yeah.
MR. TEJADA: Im sorry, I didnt mean to cut you off.
DR. LYMAN: Yeah, no, I -- no, its fine, I made my -- I asked my question. Thank you.
MR. TEJADA: In regards of if its a license amendment request for the 50.54 public process will depend on the scope of the changes. And the licensees have their own internal processes. We dont dictate their implementing procedures.
But thats what we kind of hinted towards.
The guidance development will clearly delineate if a plan change or a license amendment request is
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com appropriate once we develop the guidance.
DR. LYMAN: But you do see my concern here. I mean, they could apply for a greatly reduced scope of what their armed response is if they no longer have to be equipped and trained for neutralization. And that I think could be a big problem. Thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Dr. Lyman, I appreciate the concern. And you know, thats for something for us to take back and evaluate. We encourage you to submit it in writing so we could provide also a response on the record.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Any other questions?
Clifford Chapin?
MR. CHAPIN: Yes, so Clifford Chapin with New York State, New York State Department of Public Service. Can you hear me okay?
MS. SOTO LUGO: Yes, we can.
MR. CHAPIN: You know, I remember reviewing the ruling when it first came out and looking through it.
And what I recall is that the NRC really wouldnt have any kind of dominion over the training of the law, the external law enforcement. And unlike
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com security forces that are at nuclear plants now that are, you know, fall under the regulations and have to have a systematic approach to training and are tested.
And so, I guess the thing I was struggling was trying to understand how we could gain confidence in external law enforcements ability to consistently meet a particular standard if we -- if the company itself doesnt have any kind of dominion over them with regards to their training.
Can you help me understand that a little bit?
MR. TEJADA: Yes, thanks for the question.
So, like I said earlier, yes, the NRC doesnt have the regulatory authority over the local law enforcement agencies. However, as the Commission has said in the past and what we have seen through the years is that a lot of the LLEA agencies, law enforcement agencies, they have similar type of training as provided to the nuclear security officers.
Your concern of how do we ensure that its equal to or greater than, or that they maintain the level of proficiency, that needs to be described when the licensees, who still own the protection of the
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com site, you know, I will point you back to regardless of the credit that the licensees take on their security bounding time. Under their license, they are still required to provide all the requirements of 73.55 to provide a reasonable assurance of adequate protection against a design-basis threat.
With that big umbrella, the licensees have to develop their law enforcement plan and coordinate with law enforcement. And its not just a one time and done.
There are requirements for them to revisit the plan, make sure that the commitments made in the plan, so we dont get into safeguards what the equipment and personnel were committed. That is still applicable.
It's up to the licensee as well that if the plan changes or the -- or the law enforcement agencies are no longer capable of providing their response that theyre committed to, its up to the licensees to adjust their security plans to meet such changes.
Ill give you one example. You know, if law enforcement says one day hey, you know, we cant respond today, its up to the licensees through their
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com site-specific analysis to develop that plan to say okay, well, heres how were going to compensate for the changing in environment that we just found out.
Does that answer your question, sir?
MR. CHAPIN: Well, it kind of does. I guess its one thing if they call up and say, hey, were short today, we cant do it. Its another thing if you have an event at the site and you call them up to respond and they say, you know, hey we -- one of our officers just had a car accident and now we cant meet our requirement.
And so now theyre in the middle of an event and they have to figure out how to compensate.
So, I think what Im hearing, though, is I think youre saying that their analysis would have to be able to answer I guess those types of questions in order for the NRC to accept that?
MR. TEJADA: I cant speak for the licensees, but heres what I would expect to see, is that in their analysis, they have to provide redundancies and defense-in-depth. Just like in our safety systems, we very seldom have a single point of vulnerability.
We dont expect that those law enforcement
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com response plans dont have any redundancy or defense-in-depth that just one law enforcement official calling off will derail their law enforcement response plan.
But even if it does, you know, I will go back to the licensees still own the site protection.
And they see it -- they need to demonstrate it to their site-specific analysis. And like I said, its not a one thing and done, right.
It's a continuous effort to make sure that the plans reflect the reality at the site. And we will provide the appropriate oversight to their ROP process.
But please also, like I told Dr. Lyman, please put your comments out there so we could provide a response on the record as well.
MR. CHAPIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Yes, sir.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Next question? Brian, Brian Kloiber. I think I saw your hand raised first.
Please go ahead, ask your question.
MR. KLOIBER: Thanks. Something I --
- saying, I
appreciate the realism aspect and performance-based nature that the staff is taking in
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com this interpretive rule. My question is, is this interpretation, is it intended to only apply to existing licensees? Or is it intended to also be available for new applicants kind of starting from scratch?
And then as like a follow-up to that, wheres the intended location of the security bounding time guidance? Because I have seen it in those other draft rules, but those are, you know, like separate things. And if this was going to have its own development of that guidance.
MR. TEJADA: Thanks for the question. So, Ill start with the latest one since I cant, forgive me, I forgot the first one you asked me.
So where does the guidance will reside is still up -- were still debating that. We understand that the limited scope part rulemaking does have guidance out there. Initially we thought the guidance could be placed on a SGI reg guide. But the devil is in the details, right.
How detailed do we get in the development of the guidance will dictate how do we protect it. Is it up for the public domain or do we put it on a SGI reg guide. Is it OUO-SRI, or is it publicly
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com available? Today we have not made that decision, sir, because thats on the guidance development process.
So thats all I have.
What was the first question? Forgive me, I forgot about it. I forgot -- I missed it.
MR. KLOIBER: Thats okay, I threw them both out there because I wanted to get them all out.
So, the first question was if the interpretative rule, is that intended to be only for existing licensees modifying their existing plans, or is it also to be available for new applicants starting from scratch at a new facility?
MR. TEJADA: Its also available for new applicants.
MR. KLOIBER: Okay.
MR. TEJADA: Under Part 50 or 52.
MR. KLOIBER: Is the -- on the topic of the regulatory guidance location, was that one of --
is that a -- I havent seen the posting yet. Is that one of the areas on requested comment?
MR. TEJADA: We will have public meetings and we will request public comments on the guidance development. We will have stakeholder engagement moving forward.
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. KLOIBER: Okay, thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Yes, sir.
MS. SOTO LUGO: And I may have missed it, but Brian, could you please state your affiliation?
MR. KLOIBER: Oh, yes, Brian Kloiber, Oklo, industry.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Okay, thank you. All right, Clifford Chapin?
MR. CHAPIN: Thank you. Ill ask a second question. So just -- were talking about security-type things and you have safeguards information. And so external stakeholders, for instance a State, doesnt necessarily have that type of clearance to be able to review, you know, a security plan or things of that nature.
And so, but you know, as it currently is, we do know that, you know, what the regulations are associated with its training of the security force and things of that nature. In this instance, for instance, now maybe if it required State police, that maybe the State would have some insight to what they would be responsible for.
But I guess my point Im getting at is as a State, if were trying to review or, you know, also
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com somebodys asking to implement this type of rule, and not having access to safeguards-type information, how would we I guess get the additional information we would need to either comment intelligently about it by knowing the information or just, you know, getting some level of comfort, you know, say at a State level?
MR. TEJADA: So, let me see if I understand the question. The question basically says if we are an integral part of this law enforcement response plan but we dont have direct access to SGI, how can we be part of the solution.
If that is the question is the law B the state and law enforcement officials could, through the licensee, establish a need to know and access the safeguards information they need.
Most of the time, those plans are SGI.
But when we see law enforcement agencies at the site, either through an integrated response drill, the HAB drill, the state and local officials who establish a need to know. And the licensees most likely would allow you to see the plans that, well, you are a part of them, right. So, youre a part of the development of those plans.
I cant speak for the licensees, but there
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com is a process where you could establish a need to know to access that information, if that is where your question was going with.
MR. CHAPIN: Well, I think so. But so, I guess really its we wouldnt -- we wouldnt be able to, Ill say rely on the NRC to make sure that we got that information. We would have to rely on the licensee to, and their willingness to give us that information. Is that what, basically what youre saying?
MR. TEJADA: No, I dont want to give you an answer off the cuff, but I am pretty sure the agency has a process to allow, you know, law enforcement agencies to access information if they could establish a need to know.
And I personally havent seen a licensee that will decline a law enforcement agency access to the SGI if theyre a part of the development of the licensees law enforcement response plan.
MR. CHAPIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Because if you really think about it in the context, you are actually signing on to that law enforcement response plan, so you are part owner of it. Where the information resides is
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com typically, you know, in a safeguards vault inside of the licensees locked facilities.
But we also have seen it where the law enforcement agencies do have facilities where they could keep SGI. The safeguards information, Im sorry.
MR. CHAPIN: Yeah, no, and I appreciate that. I guess like at a state level, though, you know, theres many agencies. And so, like Im Department of Public Service, kind of a regulatory branch for the State. State police are, you know, maybe a different entity.
And so I guess, you know, trying to figure out do I reach out to the State police, and do they have the authority to pass on SGI information, or do I have to go to the licensee to get that SGI information so that I understand at the State level as a regulator, not so much as a law enforcement individual, but more, you know, different kind of requirement.
And Im just trying to understand like how we would go about being able to get the approval for that type of information so we could feel comfortable with a licensee that is requesting this.
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. TEJADA: Again, I dont want to speak for the agency. Justin or John, if you guys know the internal process for our state partners.
MR. MCKIRGAN: So, Wellington, thanks.
You know, I think thats a great question. This is John McKirgan. I think its a great question because
-- and if I understand the question correctly, its really about secondary information transmittal amongst the State entities.
So, the State troopers may be part of the licensee strategy and may have been briefed and trained on the safeguards information. But I think, and Cliff, forgive me for being familiar, but, A, thank you for joining us today because I think you really raise a great insight.
And so, then State regulators that have oversight over the State troopers, or even at the local level, what is their need to know and what is their process for getting that information. And I think its a great question. Its something well have to think about a little bit internally.
And I would urge you to make that comment both on this, and perhaps even more pointedly, on the, when we come out with the guidance. Its an
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com interesting point, and its something well have to think about going forward. But thank you for raising it.
MR. CHAPIN: Thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Thank you, John.
MS. SOTO LUGO: All right, I see that Alyse Peterson raised her hand. So please identify yourself and ask your question.
MS. PETERSON: Hi, Im Alyse Peterson. I am a Senior Advisor for Nuclear Energy at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. I am New York States liaison officer to the NRC and I am B I work directly with Cliff, who you spoke with a minute ago.
I guess I raised my hand to kind of chime in a little bit. The issue of states= -- state access to SGI is one that we have been -- that has been a struggle for the states for quite some time.
Specifically in regard to the security issues, I encourage you and implore you to look at the comments that New York State submitted for the limited scope rulemaking, the alternative physical security for advanced reactors that lays out this issue in detail for you.
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com We will be submitting similar comments for Part 53, I believe, and likely on this interpretation as well. It is a thorny issue for which there appears to be no good solution currently.
So, I do very strongly implore you to look very carefully at this and what changes you might be able to make to accommodate the States very valid need to be able to receive this information and you know, be a part of security plan preparation and be able to comment on it, etc., without being a law enforcement entity.
MR. TEJADA: Those are very good comments, I appreciate it. Well look into them. And please do submit the comments so we can respond on the record as well.
MS. PETERSON: Thank you.
MR. TEJADA: Yes, ma=am.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Next question? Anybody else has a question? Jana Bergman, please identify yourself and ask your question.
MS. BERGMAN: Hi, Jana Bergman from Curtiss-Wright. What is John McKirgan's title --
sorry, I missed it at the beginning.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Certainly. So, John
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com McKirgan, I am the Director of the Division of Physical and Cybersecurity Policy in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
MS. BERGMAN: Okay, because the NSIR page is looking very out of date on your website, so.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Thank you for that comment as well.
MS. BERGMAN: Theres a comment for yall.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Well have to look at that.
MS. BERGMAN: Okay, thank you.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Thank you.
MS. BERGMAN: Okay, great, thanks.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Next question? Any other questions out there that you would like to ask the staff?
(Pause.)
MR. TEJADA: This is the awkward silence we were talking about.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Once again, if you cant think of a question right now, feel free to submit your comments or questions before March 3 through regulations.gov or any of the other options available in the Federal Register notice.
(Pause.)
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. MCKIRGAN: Soly, not seeing any more questions, I wonder if I might just make a few closing remarks.
MS. SOTO LUGO: Sure.
MR. MCKIRGAN: Great. So, I do want to thank you all for participation. I really appreciated the questions, and Wellington, thank you for providing the answers when you could. I thought that was great.
I really also am super grateful to everybody that attended. And I was really, it is incredibly valuable to the agency to get that broad perspective from different stakeholders, from state entities to individuals to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the industry. Having that broad feedback and getting those comments is critical to us developing a really sound regulatory position on this issue. So, I really want to thank you all for the comments.
Soly, I wonder if we might flip back to the schedule slide and just, youve told everybody a dozen times already, but the -- it closes March 3. I will ask you all to please submit your comments through regulations.gov. Ill commit again that as the guidance goes forward, well have another
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com opportunity for folks to have public comments.
And its really at that guidance stage where I think some of these issues will be fleshed out even further. And I think it may raise -- it may hopefully answer some questions, but may raise some new questions. And so, Ill really look forward to the participation and the engagement at that stage.
Unless Im missing anything, Soly, maybe Ill just thank everybody and we can wrap up the meeting for today.
MS. SOTO LUGO: All right. I dont see any other questions or anybody, you know, any hand raised. So, I echo what John McKirgan said. Thank you for taking the time to engage with us on this rulemaking activity. And we will look -- we look forward to the continuous engagement as we move forward with the guidance development.
And I guess seeing no other questions, I think this meeting can be adjourned. Thank you so much for joining.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:46 p.m.)
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com