Text

Enclosure 2: Meeting Transcript
	ML18249A119
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/13/2018
From:	Williamson A; NRC/NSIR/DSO/ISB
To:	;
	Williamson A
Shared Package
ML18249A114	List: ML18249A115; ML18249A119; ML18249A177;
References
	NRC-3853
	Download: ML18249A119 (33)
	v • d • e

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Mock Adversary Force Options/Alternatives Public Meeting Docket Number:

N/A Location:

Rockville, Maryland Date:

August 22, 2018 Work Order No.:

NRC-3853 Pages 1-27 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + + + +

3 PUBLIC MEETING 4

MOCK ADVERSARY FORCE OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES 5

+ + + + +

6 WEDNESDAY, 7

AUGUST 22, 2018 8

+ + + + +

9 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 10

+ + + + +

11 The Public Meeting convened in the 12 Commissioners' Hearing Room at the Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 14 Pike, at 9:00 a.m., Marissa Bailey, Director, 15 Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear 16 Security and Incident Response, presiding.

17 18 BEFORE:

19 MARISSA BAILEY, Director, DSO, NSIR 20 DAVID BRADFIELD, DSO, NSIR 21 DANTE JOHNSON, DSO, NSIR 22 23

2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ALSO PRESENT:

1 ALICIA WILLIAMSON, NSIR, Project Manager 2

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CONTENTS 1

Welcome and Introductions 3

2 Alicia Williamson, Project Manager, NSIR 3

Introduction of Panel Members 6

4 5

NRC Staff Presentation 6

6 Marissa Bailey, Director, Division of Security 7

Operations, Office of Nuclear Security 8

and Incident Response 9

David Bradfield, Force-on-Force Program 10 11 Discussion 14, 26 12 13 Next Steps 24 14 David Bradfield, Force-on-Force Program 15 Marissa Bailey, Director, Division of Security 16 Operations, Office of Nuclear Security 17 and Incident Response 18 19 20 21 22 23

4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

2

5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

9:01 a.m.

2 MS. WILLIAMSON: (presiding) Hi. Good 3

morning, everybody.

4 I want to welcome everybody to NRC's 5

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response's 6

public meeting on stakeholder feedback regarding 7

potential long-term options for the Mock Adversary 8

Force used in NRC-conducted force-on-force 9

inspections.

10 My name is Alicia Williamson, and I am a 11 Project Manager within NSIR's Division of Security 12 Operations.

13 Before we get started, I would like to 14 quickly step through a few housekeeping items and 15 meeting groundrules. First off, for anyone who may 16 not be familiar with NRC facilities, we are located 17 in the One White Flint Commissioner Hearing Room 18 today. The badges you have will allow you to access 19 this first level of the building, which includes the 20 cafeterias, the convenience store, and bathroom. If 21 you need to go to the bathroom, just go out these two 22 doors here, turn left. The women's room is on the 23

6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 lefthand side, and the men's room is on the righthand 1

side. If you past the double doors, you've went too 2

far.

3 Next, if there's a fire drill or any type 4

of emergency, we will proceed right out those same 5

doors, go right up the steps to the right, and out on 6

the front plaza. Please stay with an NRC staff member 7

until the emergency is over, so that we can return 8

back to the building, we can return you back to the 9

building.

10 I would also like to ask if folks who 11 have cell phones, if you could keep them on silent or 12 vibrate, so we do not interrupt today's meeting, 13 since we are having it transcribed. We have a 14 transcriptionist here with us today to capture the 15 meeting.

16 Also, if you need to speak, for folks in 17 the room, we ask that you please come up to one of 18 the freestanding microphones here or the podium, or 19 I could bring you the cordless mic as well, so that 20 we can get a clean transcript, as well as the folks 21 on the phone can hear you.

22 Speaking of getting a clean transcript, 23

7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we have Brittany, our conference call operator, 1

working the conference line. Brittany, could you go 2

ahead and describe the directions again to the folks 3

on the line on how they can ask questions or provide 4

feedback?

5 OPERATOR: If you would like to ask a 6

question, please press *, then 1, and record your 7

name clearly when prompted. If you need to withdraw 8

that question, you may press *, then 2.

9 MS. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Brittany.

10 And finally, please keep in mind that 11 this is a public meeting, and no safeguards, 12 proprietary or sensitive information will be 13 discussed here today. Therefore, while in the 14 discussion portion and the feedback section of the 15 meeting, please be mindful of what you're saying.

16 Also, I understand that there's a lot 17 of.. variety of issues behind this particular 18 meeting. We're going to ask folks to stay focused 19 and stay within the scope of what the meeting is here 20 today.

21 Now, before I turn things over to the 22 panel, are there any questions about the groundrules 23

8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 or the housekeeping items that I just mentioned?

1 (No response.)

2 Are there any questions from anyone on 3

the phone about the groundrules or housekeeping 4

items, although I know you're not necessarily in the 5

room and they don't apply to you all?

6 OPERATOR: No questions on the phone.

7 MS. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

8 All right. With that, I'm going to go 9

ahead and turn the meeting over to the panel members, 10 and ask them, first, to all three introduce 11 themselves. And I think Marissa is going to start us 12 off.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. BAILEY: Thanks, Alicia.

15 I'm Marissa Bailey. I'm the Director for 16 Division of Security Operations in the Office of 17 Nuclear Security and Incident Response.

18 MR. BRADFIELD: Dave Bradfield. Work for 19 NRC in the Force-on-Force Program.

20 MR. JOHNSON: Dante Johnson. I'm the 21 Chief of the Security Performance Evaluation Branch 22 in the NSIR Division of Security Operations.

23

9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. BAILEY: So, good morning. And, 1

first of all, I'd like to thank all of you here in 2

the room, and also on the phone, for participating in 3

this meeting and, also, for your interest in this 4

subject matter.

5 For this

meeting, we are seeking 6

stakeholder input on the options for the Mock 7

Adversary Force and, also, for the criteria that we 8

use to evaluate those options. And specifically, 9

we're asking for input on two things: are there other 10 options that the NRC should be evaluating, and are 11 there other criteria that we should be using to 12 evaluate those options?

13 Can you go to the next slide, please?

14 I'll start with some background 15 information. In April of this year, the Commission 16 approved the use of the Joint Composite Adversary 17 Force for exercises at NextEra and Entergy sites for 18 2018 and for 2019 only.

19 In that same Staff Requirements 20 Memorandum, the Commission also directed the staff to 21 provide an assessment of the JCAF and, also, options 22 for a long-term alternative to the NEI-managed CAF.

23

10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Next slide.

1 And as I've mentioned before, the purpose 2

of this meeting is to solicit input on the options, 3

what options we should be considering, and on the 4

criteria we're using. And I would like to emphasize 5

the scope of this meeting. It is to ask you the 6

question, though, there are other options we should 7

be looking at? Are there other criteria we should 8

be using? The purpose of this meeting is not to seek 9

input on the options themselves. We're not asking 10 you to give us your thoughts on what the advantages 11 or disadvantages of the options are. It's simply, 12 should we be looking at other options and should we 13 be looking at other criteria?

14 As for the agenda, we're going to start 15 off with Dave Bradfield giving you a pretty high-16 level overview on the preliminary options that we're 17 looking at, at this time, so that you have a sense 18 for what they are and, also, for the criteria that 19 we're using. And then, we'll open it up to the floor, 20 to the stakeholders, for input.

21 So, Dave?

22 MR. BRADFIELD: So, as Marissa indicated, 23

11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I want to just cover quickly kind of what we're 1

looking at right now. Our goal, obviously, is to put 2

the most viable options in front of the Commission.

3 And part of that, in doing so, we wanted to vet a 4

number of different options. So, some of the 5

preliminary options that we're looking at you could 6

basically break into two categories, industry options 7

and, then, NRC options.

8 Under the industry options, so far, what 9

we're considering is a single Mock Adversary Force 10 that would be provided by the industry via NEI. So, 11 that would be kind of the previous status quo where 12 we were before this SRM came out and the events that 13 occurred back in January-February.

14 And then, also looking at a single Mock 15 Adversary Force provided by the industry via some 16 type of independent advisory or oversight board that 17 essentially would perform the function that NEI had 18 performed in the past, where we would still have a 19 single Mock Adversary Force.

20 Another option would be to have multiple 21 Mock Adversary Forces in that each utility, or if it 22 was an independent site, would have their own 23

12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 adversary, and that would similar be to what we're 1

doing with the JCAF option, but everyone would do 2

that on their own. There would be no NEI or 3

independent advisory oversight.

4 And then, the last option under the 5

industry-provided options would be multiple MAFs, 6

which is really the current status quo. And that is 7

to have the JCAF for NextEra and Entergy and, then, 8

an NEI CAF for the rest of the industry.

9 Under the NRC-provided Mock Adversary 10 Force options, there's really two primary categories.

11 That would be for us to enter into some type of MOU 12 or MOA with a federal partner or to look at an RFP 13 via third-party vendor, essentially do a contract.

14 Under the federal partners, there's a 15 number of different options that we're currently 16 vetting. Right now, what that looks like -- and this 17 kind of goes back to some of the options that existed 18 back in 2007, when we did the notation vote at that 19 time for the Commission, which would include DOE, 20 DTRA, and we are also looking at a potential 21 partnership with the National Guard Bureau.

22 Under the

contract, that's pretty 23

13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 straightforward. It would be putting out a Request 1

for Proposal for a bid for vendors to come in and, 2

basically, fulfilling that need for the MAF under 3

that.

4 You want to go to the next slide.

5 So, essentially, that's the current 6

options that we have on the table, which his really 7

what kind of facilitated this meeting and what we're 8

hoping to get. Are there some options that we're not 9

considering? Whatever options we have today, plus 10 whatever we get that comes out of this meeting, we're 11 going to evaluate against certain criteria. And a 12 lot of this criteria was developed previously in 13 2007, and we wanted to have some type of consistency 14 in that regard. But we also wanted to look at other 15 factors that weren't necessarily part of that 2007 16 criteria.

17 So, to kind of start off there, we're 18 going to continue to look at the credibility of a 19 Mock Adversary Force. And really, what that means 20 is, the consistency and reliability regarding 21 tactical application. Can they perform to the 22 expectations of the NRC and meet the standards that 23

14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we have set for what an Adversary Force should look 1

like? And then, what is the team composition? Where 2

do those folks come from? And what is the makeup of 3

the team? So, we'll continue to do that.

4 And then, one of the criteria would be 5

sustainability and risk. That really encompasses a 6

few things. When we talk about sustainability, we're 7

concerned with how do we go forward and what are our 8

contingencies if another event occurred like this 9

January-February where the agency isnt able to meet 10 its requirements to meet the Energy Policy Act and 11 what that looks like, And then, what risks are 12 associated with each of these options as we go 13 forward?

14 And then, of course, we'll, again, as 15 before, look at impact on licensee activities. This 16 is really the non-financial piece of that. And what 17 we're looking at there is, what is the impact on a 18 site with regard to logistics? It could involve 19 things from fitness for duty, any number of 20 administrative tasks that would be an additional 21 burden to the site that maybe hasn't been before, or 22 currently is, and that wouldn't be in the future.

23

15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And then, the next would be knowledge 1

transfer. This was a big piece of our last 2

assessment, and we wanted to include it. This is 3

really referring to what happens when you take an 4

adversary member who is part of the Mock Adversary 5

Force, and you give him a little bit of extra tactical 6

training, and teach them about target sets, and what 7

happens when he's done with the team; where does he 8

go? Is he going back to the site to enhance their 9

program? Is he going somewhere else? And so, we're 10 definitely interested in analyzing the knowledge 11 transfer piece as a piece of that criteria.

12 And then, the conflict of interest, or 13 really what we should say is the perception of or 14 potential for conflict of interest. This is 15 something that we've worked with in the past and we've 16 mitigated it in the past. And there shouldn't be any 17 reason that we couldn't mitigate it in the future, 18 but it's something that we have to consider as part 19 of the analysis.

20 And

then, obviously, the financial 21 impact, both on the industry and the agency, as we go 22 forward, and what that looks like long term.

23

16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And then, implementation schedule. You 1

know, with our main goal being to put viable options 2

in front of the Commission, one of the things that we 3

need to consider is, when the Commission decides what 4

option we're going to go with long term, what does 5

that look like with regard to impact of getting it in 6

place and up and running? And we'll talk a little 7

bit later about what some of our next steps and goals 8

are with regard to timeline.

9 And then, the last would be oversight, 10 and that's regarding the administrative and 11 operational oversight. I think everyone kind of 12 knows the current structure that we had, or I should 13 say the past structure we had with NEI with regard to 14 administrative and operational oversight, and how 15 that plays a part going forward with the various types 16 of options that might exist.

17 So, that's currently the criteria that we 18 have. Part of why we're soliciting, is there 19 something that we're not thinking of that maybe we 20 should be considering or something on here that maybe 21 isn't relevant anymore that maybe we should do away 22 with? So, that's kind of where we're at now.

23

17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I think, with that, we open it up for any 1

discussion or questions with regard to potential 2

options and/or additional criteria.

3 MS. WILLIAMSON: And this is a quick 4

reminder. Anyone that comes to the microphone, could 5

you please introduce yourself and your affiliation?

6 Thank you.

7 MR. FENCL: Mark Fencl, NextEra Energy.

8 Under the evaluation criteria, one thing 9

I think is missing is long-term benefits from 10 establishing a national standard, as an example, by 11 having a national standard for CAF expectations for 12 your site teams, training expectations for your site 13 teams, and the benefits you could receive from that.

14 So, being a partaker of JCAF and seeing the work we 15 put into it, and the benefits I'm seeing outside of 16 triennials, how is that going to be evaluated under 17 the criteria? Because we can talk financials; that's 18 an easy number. But what's the downhill effect of 19 establishing, as an example, an industry team with 20 sites performing their own exercises to the site 21 programs? And how is that evaluated?

22 So, that's, I think, something that has 23

18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to be put into each of the actions, right, impact to 1

site and impact to site programs? Because if I have 2

a strong annual Force-on-Force Program with strong 3

CAF performance, and I'm challenging myself, I'm not 4

really worried about triennial exercises. You guys 5

are just a check in a box.

6 MR. BRADFIELD: Thank you, Mark.

7 MR. LaPLANTE: Yes, I'm Jon LaPlante from 8

Entergy.

9 And looking at the industry-provided Mock 10 Adversary Force options that you have listed here, 11 you do make reference to multiple Mock Adversary 12 Forces. Each utility or independent site would 13 maintain their own. There's a piece to that that I 14 think could enhance that. With standardizing 15 qualifications, selection,

training, and re-16 qualification, I think that we could put together a 17 program where the industry sends their folks to be 18 qualified, selected, go through the whole process, 19 sort of like what Mark and I did with just the two 20 utilities. It may take multiple selection courses or 21 multiple training courses, but I think it's an option 22 that the industry could implement.

23

19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. BRADFIELD: Thank you, Jon.

1 MR. ELLIS: Jim Ellis. I'm Director of 2

Nuclear Security and Emergency Protectiveness for 3

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company.

4 One of the things I'd like to share a 5

view of, when we look at all the options going 6

forward, I previously worked in Region III as an 7

Operator Licensing Examiner and was an SRO on shift 8

earlier in my career.

9 And when I came to security, I owned 10 fleet emergency protectiveness and security. One of 11 the things that struck me was it's done a little 12 differently. Within the operator license programs, 13 the NRC does an assess and audit of our programs to 14 our training programs, to our commitments, and we 15 relicense our Senior Reactor Operators and Reactor 16 Operators every cycle within our program, and the NRC 17 inspects it.

18 Within emergency preparedness, which is 19 also a very important function for public health and 20 safety, we write our annual drills; we conduct 21 training; we conduct full-blown integrated drills 22 with FEMA, the state, the counties. And NRC comes 23

20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 out and assesses. They assess our ability to run the 1

drill and meet the standards we committed to, which 2

is an NRC-approved plan.

3 And in the security world, we have an 4

NRC-approved security plan, working to a series of 5

regulatory documents, but in that world the NRC comes 6

out and runs the drill for us. We run those same 7

drills every year on an annual basis. And at least 8

for my utility, we approximately have 10 former CAF 9

members. We run a training program similar to what 10 the other previous speakers have spoken to, and we 11 get very positive feedback when the NRC assesses 12 those drills.

13 When we look at this holistically, I 14 would be curious why we do it in security different 15 than we're doing it in the Operator Licensing Branch 16 and the way we're doing it in emergency preparedness, 17 you know, to perform the same level of risk and 18 preparedness to protect the public.

19 MS. BAILEY: Could I just ask a question?

20 Because I want to make sure I understand the option 21 that you're suggesting that we consider. Are you 22 suggesting that the NRC consider an option where we 23

21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 develop the standard for the Mock Adversary Force, 1

and then, give it to the licensees to implement?

2 MR. ELLIS: That's correct.

3 MS. BAILEY: And then, we would assess 4

how licensees, through an inspection program, are 5

implementing those standards?

6 MR. ELLIS: If you look at the suite of 7

the five major modules in the Inspection Manual as 8

it's written today, you inspect my equipment, that it 9

functions and we're testing it and maintaining it.

10 You also look at how we put that equipment, when 11 there's issues, in the corrective action program.

12 You look at my training and qualification. You look 13 at my target sets. And you come out and spend the 14 whole week watching us run our annual drills, and we 15 share with the inspectors, here's our training 16 program; here's how we select the members to the team.

17 As most of the utilities, I've talked to 18 my peers. We had a weighting of former military 19 personnel, a wide range of skill sets, Navy Seals to 20 Navy Master Divers, Marines, Rangers, blending those 21 with people that have went through a specific 22 Composite Adversary Force Training Program. We 23

22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 believe we can run very effective drills and 1

challenges ourselves.

2 And one of the interesting aspects of 3

this is we actually believe we have a really good 4

challenge where we run an internal drill. Because I 5

have an officer who knows the physical layout of the 6

site, he knows the physical layout of the site well 7

enough, when we run a drill, that individual is very 8

proficient to implement the maneuvers that's in the 9

drill, because he does know the site. He knows how 10 to get from point A to point B efficiently with cover.

11 And we believe it gives us a very effective drills.

12 MS. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you.

13 MR. WHITE: Good morning. I'm Rob White 14 from Xcel Energy.

15 I had a couple of comments. One on the 16 MAF options, and it may be part of what in your list 17 here is item 3, where the multiple MAFs are done by 18 each utility or independent site. Another variation 19 to that would be regional, whether it be by the NRC 20 region groups or just through MOUs with utilities, 21 such as the STARS Alliance or USA or a few sites get 22 together to develop a team. I don't know if that 23

23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 falls under the utility or independent or not, but 1

that would be a variation of that to consider. So, 2

for the single sites, they could form a group to 3

develop their team. I don't know if that's what was 4

intended in that option or not, but one to consider.

5 MR. BRADFIELD: Initially, Rob, no, it 6

wasn't. That wasn't something we had considered with 7

regard to like the STARS group. I think that's 8

something we can easily incorporate into that option 9

and put through the same criteria.

10 MR. WHITE: Okay. Good.

11 And then, with respect to the evaluation 12 criteria, a few comments. One, I don't see in here 13 any comparison. It may be of some value to compare 14 the effectiveness of the current program, the CAF, 15 the National CAF, and the performance and execution 16 of that as compared to what we're seeing right now 17 using the JCAF as an example, the comparative 18 analysis relative to performance. I don't know if 19 there's value there or not, but I sense there might 20 be. I don't know if that's in the evaluation criteria 21 or not.

22 With respect to the financial impact, it 23

24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 struck me, you put in the parenthetical there 1

"industry and NRC". And if I'm not mistaken, most of 2

the cost for the NRC would be passed on to the 3

licensee. So, ultimately, I think the majority of 4

the financial impact of any decision is going to be 5

bared by the licensee. So, that was one other thought 6

I had.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. BRADFIELD: So, to comment on part of 9

your comment, Rob, with regard to the credibility 10 piece, we were initially trying to avoid the 11 comparison. Mainly, we wanted to make sure that we're 12 comparing to the standard and not one team to another.

13 And so, when we look at the National CAF or the NEI 14 CAF, what we're looking at is do they meet the 15 expectations of the established standards. And we're 16 doing the same thing with the JCAF. And so, it really 17 wasn't about comparing one team to another team. If 18 that's something that you guys think we need to 19 consider, you know, I can talk with Marissa and our 20 team internally and see how we shape that criteria.

21 But thanks for the comment.

22 MR. FENCL: Mark Fencl again, NextEra.

23

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 On that measure, Dave, I'm not trying to 1

throw my own team under the bus, but you've got a 15-2 year established program to 15-week established 3

program. So, that's going to be hard to compare.

4 You know, you can compare, but there's a lot of "What 5

if's?" in that scenario, right?

6 I agree with the model, too, are they 7

meeting the standards of what the NRC has 8

established? But there may be some criteria that is 9

how well the JCAF has accelerated compared to the 10 National CAF at age one. If you have people, enough 11 on the teams that remember how it was in cycle one 12 for the National CAF, that would be the only 13 comparison when you're looking at that model.

14 Going back to Jim Ellis' comment on 15 evaluation criteria, as you said, the '05 module 16 itself has evaluations of your site CAF as part of 17 that. I think with a slight adjustment to training 18 modules, without increasing hours, you could add 19 something to your training qualification IT to assess 20 ongoing training similar to a security officer for a 21 National CAF standard for each site.

22 So, by establishing that, I think the 23

26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 other measure you need to take in the evaluation, 1

based upon the '05 assessments on site programs, 2

could you improve the overall industry by making that 3

change? Everybody's at a different level. I felt 4

they had a pretty established program. I think I've 5

taken it to the next level with JCAF, as the ability 6

for my teams to evaluate ourselves.

7 The second part of it, too, that is a 8

measurable that could be a change to the national 9

program also is, I see real-time input from the 10 adversaries in a critique process on my team's 11 performance. So, by being involved with a joint 12 adversary/controller critique, one of the benefits 13 I've seen that really came to light early is the 14 adversaries are providing input real-time on security 15 officer performance. An example being a guy left the 16 door open; he was flagging himself. An example being 17 that port was wider open than I would have expected 18 to see it, and I was able to snipe him.

19 So, we're seeing some real-time benefits 20 to our training program from having our own adversary 21 team. So, that is a measurable. I know we're not 22 getting with that, but --

23

27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. BAILEY: Okay. Thank you. And I do 1

want remind everyone, though, that we're not here to 2

discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the 3

options. So, I'd like to ask all of you to please 4

stay within the scope of the meeting.

5 Any more input from the room?

6 (No response.)

7 Should we ask the phone?

8 MS. WILLIAMSON: Hi, Brittany. It's 9

Alicia Williamson. Are there any folks on the phone 10 that have any feedback or would like to ask a 11 question?

12 OPERATOR: As a reminder, if you would 13 like to ask a question, please press *, then 1.

14 One moment as we wait for any questions 15 or comments.

16 (Pause.)

17 And there are no questions or comments on 18 the phone.

19 MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.

20 MS. BAILEY: Okay. I'll come back to the 21 room. Is there anybody else that would like to 22 provide input on options that we should be looking at 23

28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 or the criteria that we should be using to evaluate 1

those options?

2 (No response.)

3 Okay. So, with that, then, I will ask 4

Dave to talk about next steps.

5 MR. BRADFIELD: And we might also want to 6

offer, we know this meeting was kind of put together 7

on short notice. We didn't have a lot of time. And 8

so, if there is any input as you leave today, we do 9

have some time before we're putting this product in 10 front of the Commission. I would encourage you to 11 reach out to us and let us know, either through 12 Marissa or Dante and give us some feedback if 13 something does come up with regard to an option or 14 criteria.

15 MS. BAILEY: So, that's a good point that 16 I forgot to bring up. It's that we will accept any 17 input that you have. If you would like to provide us 18 input on those two questions in writing, we will 19 accept input in writing. The sooner you give it to 20 us, the better; we're more able to consider it in the 21 paper that we're writing. So, I think if you provide 22 us any input, we would prefer that you do it by the 23

29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 first week of September. We'll take written input 1

from you at anytime, even beyond the first week of 2

September, but it's better for us, and we're able to 3

better consider it, the earlier that you provide it 4

to us.

5 MR. BRADFIELD: So, with that, really 6

where we're at, next steps, at a very high level, is 7

that our goal is to provide the Commission with a 8

notation vote paper in December. We would anticipate 9

that the Commission would vote sometime early in 10 2019.

11 And for those that may be privy to the 12 SRM, we were given one year for the assessment and to 13 provide these options. The reason we're moving that 14 timeline up, and we want to get that product in front 15 of the Commission sooner, is that we want to make 16 sure that we have time on both sides to be fair to 17 the industry and internally, that as we analyze this 18 and we look at the implementation schedule, can we 19 get this in place? And our goal would try to have 20 this option in place, whatever that option might be, 21 by January of 2020, which would start the new cycle.

22 So, that's part of the reason why we would anticipate 23

30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a vote sometime in early 2019. And that's really the 1

next high-level steps for us.

2 And I'll turn it back over to Marissa.

3 MS. BAILEY: All right. So, I don't 4

really have anything more to add. Again, I would 5

like to thank all of you for participating in this 6

meeting and giving us feedback on the options and the 7

criteria.

8 I guess we have one more person who wants 9

to come up and give us feedback.

10 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Marissa. A 11 question on the next steps. Again, this is Rob White 12 from Xcel Energy.

13 MS. BAILEY: Okay.

14 MR. WHITE: Regarding the assessment in 15 the paper that you're going to present to the 16 Commission, is there an opportunity for the industry 17 to comment or be part of the evaluation, or simply 18 respond once the paper is submitted?

19 MS. BAILEY: I would say we'll take a 20 look at our schedule and see whether we can 21 accommodate that. I'm not sure at this point.

22 MR. WHITE: Okay. Fair enough. Thank 23

31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you.

1 MS. BAILEY: Any more questions on the 2

next steps?

3 (No response.)

4 Okay. Again, thank you very much for 5

your participation.

6 MS. WILLIAMSON: Make sure there's no 7

ML18249A119

Text

Title:

Navigation menu

Search