ML19207B716

Transcript of 790705 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Order Per Request for Hearing on Facility Operation. Pp 1-15

ML19207B716
Person / Time
Site:	Crane, Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/05/1979
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B717	List: ML19207B716 ML19207B722 ML19207B725
References
FOIA-79-98, REF-10CFR9.7 TAC-11649, NUDOCS 7909050126
Download: ML19207B716 (16)

Text

%

h NUCLEAR REGUL ATO RY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR HEARING IN DAVIS-BESSE

(

Place -

Washington, D. C.

Date.

Thursday, 5 July 1979 Pages 1 - 15

.encr.:

(202}347 3700 ACE - FED ERAL REPORTER *, INC.

OfficialRepor:srs 444 Nc.ch C:citei 3 tree?

Wes.9gten, O.C. CCC1 NATlCNWICE COVERAGE. D AILY i9090501Xo'

IR5760 DISCLAIMS _R This is an unofficial transcriot of a meetinc of che United States Thursday, 3 July 1979 in the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission held on Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, M.W.,

Washing cn, D.

C.

The meeting was open to public attendance and cbservation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Cc= mission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

912040

1 2

l i

1l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

I 3 I i

j 4l 1

5' PUBLIC MEETING 6;

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR HEARING 7i IN DAVIS-BESSE a;

Room 1130 9

1717 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

t 10 ;

Thursday, 5 July 1979 The Commission. met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m.

11 BEFORE :

12,

DR. JOSEPH M.

HEND RIE, Chairman 13 ;

l VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 RICHARD T.

KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 I l

JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 16 '

ALSP PRESENT:

I' 17 Messrs. Bickwit, Snyder, and Hoyle, 18 '

i 6

I I

19.

i 20 '

I 21 22 i

23 '

t 24 '

a m;wersi aeocners, inc.

-c Sn:011

i 1

3 I

i i

i I

2R5760 1,

_P _R O_ C E _E D _I N _G S_

ELTIER/mm1 l

2 i CHhIM1AN HENDRIE :

If we could come to order.

I, 1

3-The first thing I would like to do this morning is 6

l 4;

to ask my colleagues to join me in voting to hold, on less than '

i I

I one week's notice, a meeting of the Cemnim ica reg 1rding an 5

i 6'

order in the Davis-Besse case.

7!

Those in favor?

l 8

COMMISSONER GILINSKY: Aye.

l 9,

CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Aye.

1 10 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Aye.

II CHAIRMA'i HENDRIE: Aye.

12 So ordered.

i 13 l We have in hand a draft from the General Counsel l

14 '

of an order which would deal with the request for a hearing in 15 the case of the Davis-Besse unit, one of the 3&W designed i

16 '

reactors that has been shut dcwn by an order of the Cc mission.

17 '

Len,would you like to outline any peculiar circum-l l

13 stances or any interesting points that go with it?

I understand l

19 it is patterned fairly cicsely on the order of scme days ago 1

20 on Rancho Seco.

21 <

MR. BICKWIT:

That's correct.

Under the draft we i

22 have directed dat the chairman of the Atcmic Safety and 23 Licensing Board panel set up a heard :

determine whether 2d rhe request of Senator Tim McCormack of Chio meets the requisite

. # f.c.ru aeoore m. nc. 1 i

,c perscnal interest test. And to conduct any hearing which may j

3 q

i

$h

• ?

O s..<

s!*tA, l

4 I

t i

1 be required if it is determined that he does.

t mm2 i

2l Then you list the subjects to be considered at the hearing, which are basically whether some paragraphs (a) i 3'

4, through (g) of your original order are necessary and sufficient t

5 to provide reasonable assurance that the facility will respond 6'I safely to feedwater transients; whether the Licensee should be required to accomplish the long-term modifications and whether i

7j these are sufficient again to provide reasonable assurance that g

9 the plant can operate safely.

10 And finally, you direct that you would articulate the 11 view that the plant can come up if (a) through (g) is -- those 12-conditions are met to the satisf action of the Staf f, and that 13 l a hearing need not proceed on the restart of the plant.

I 14 '

Now, Commissioner Gilinsky has suggested three changes I

15 '

to this order, and I think I will simply read them.

i 1-6!

The first, on page 2, he would add language at l

the end of the first sentence under 1, so that the 17 la sentence would read:

19 "Whether the actions required by subparagraphs 20 (a) through (g) of Section IV of the May 16, 1979 21 Order are necessary and sufficient to provide I

22 reasonable assurance that the f acility will respond l

l l

23 safely to feedwatr transients, pending completion of I

i 24 the long-teen mcdificatic. set forth in Section II and

-* B 5"def 81 RfDorfert. It'C.

25 '

whether management ccmpetence and control provide i

912013 I

5 1

sufficient assurance that accident sequences of the mm3 i

T kee Mlle Island 2 type do not develop."

2j This has been circulated to you and my understanding l 3

l 4

is that that language has met with some resistance, and in an I

l' i

3 cffort to provida language that could forra :ne basis for consensus, we have suggested striking the additional language 6;

i that would be proposed by the Commissioner and instead inserting i

7; the words 3l after the words "are necessary and sufficient,"

9' "and whether management competence and control are adequate."

10 His second suggestion --

l 11 '

CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You then go on and say, 12 "to provide reasonable assurance.

"?

i MR. BICKWIT: To provide reasonable assurance,yes.

13 l

l 14

'he second suggestion is that the second sentence 1

15 of the first full paragraph on page 3 would read:

i 16 :

"It shall bring the matter before the Commission i

17 l in a briefing as to the basis for its conclusions prior i

i 18 l to permitting restart of the facility."

i 19 And his third suggested change would be to drop 20,

the phrase, "In receiving this briefing," frcm the fourth 21 sentence of that paragraph So the sentence would then read:

f l

22 "The Commission will in no n.anner prejudge 23 the merits of the adjudicatory hearing authorized i

i 24 by this Crder."

.w.cerai a,pon rs im 25 My understanding is tharthe last two things led to

'l 91.u'O ~i4

6 i

ll' no expressions of dissent, but I am willing to be corrected on I

mm 2,

that if that is incorrect.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't I ask for comments and I.

i discussion on the Order as draf ted by the General Counsel and l

4 l

l 5

On the proposed first change.

l I am willing -- let me just say for myself, I am 6

i

! willing to go along with the language suggested by the General 7l' 8

Counsel, which includes, as I read it, the essence of the i

9 thought it. the propcsed --

10 '

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You mean the original language I

11 as modified by the General Counsel to take account of 12 Commissioner Gilinsky's --

13,

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : Just so.

i I

14 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Okay.

I 15 '

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me explain why I saw 16 a dif f erence between the two.

I felt that feedwater transients I

l

~

17 is not a suf ficient explanation of what is in f act in (a) 13 :

through (g).

That discussion of small LOCAs and operators l

at least as 19 are required to be familiar with circumstances, i

20,

I understand it, which may not necessarily originate feedwater l i

21 trans ien ts.

i 22 So I wanted to capture the brcader scope of those I

i 22.

coints.

I think by saying"that accident sequences of the i

t 24 Three.NEle Island type is a more accurate description.

arf.ceral Recor*ers. Inc.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As I say, I wouldn't have read

-c

-s 4

I (3 4....,) = (-4.$/'kt) l A 4

.I

l~

l 7

mm5 1l your language as being successful. "Three Mile Island type d

2; is kind of an ill-defined term, and certainly, I don't know 3> whether that would be a little broader than feedwater transients ii 4

or not.

S' But you did leave in the language feedwater transients.

l 6!

(a) through (g) i 7I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I think that was not 8,

a good way to put it, in my view. And that is why at least t

9 in the language tha t I added, I brcught in the scope.

I would l

be interested to hear what others think is the subject of (a) 1 11 through (g), whether it is merely feedwater transients, or 12 whether it is broader.

13 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : My view is that it deals with that 1

I 14 class of events that can originate out of feedwater transients, 15 that ama ascociated with the peculiar configuration of the i

16 i B&W plant, in this regard; frequent opening of relief valves 17 and so on.

l 18 Scre of the measures, I guess, would extend on

! past tha t, but I think to look across the broad range of 19 20 h reactor safety matters, the (a) through (g) items were meant I

21 to deal on a more rapid response basis with a more limited 22 l perceived need, and they don' t purport, never have purported

\\

23 '

to apply and solve all orcblems that may exist in reactor i

24 ;

safety plans.

.+;ece u am:,nm. i. c. ;

25 There are, we have all reccgnized, Icnger-term l

m.,,., tyi b-l

e 8

i i

mm6 I.

things ccming down the line.

t 2)

The language here, f eedwa ter transients, covers i

3' ic seems to me, a fairly broad class of off-normal conditions I

j that can originate frcm events in the secondary system and

{

4 5:

propagate into the reactor system, l

6(

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Why don't you add "and i

7 small LOCAs" to that?

I 3

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, because I'm not sure diat i

i 9

the items (a) through (g) are calculated with a view to deal i

10,

with all small LCCAs.

Used to have a good deal to do with 11 the likelihood and mitigation T.easures for small LOCAs that 12 occur because relief or safety valves stick open.

13 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well', I tell you, on the i

Id scope here, I guess I would rather err on having it a bit i

I 15 larger than a bit smaller than it ought to be.

i 16 [

My questien is that.feedwater transients is an I7 overly narrow description of what we are interested in.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

I have just registered a view.

19 John?

l i

1 i

20 '

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, my main concern with j

21 Davis-3 esse for a long time has been the question of the 22 overall management of it.

And I was very glad to see the l

l i

2 *'

inclusion of that as a question.

And I think it can be just l;

i I

I 74 as.vell examined with the General Counsel's language as we

l 24 m oni aem nen inc.

25 >

i as Victor's.

t d} } * :* tr k 4)

O*V I

n..,....

\\

s

~

9 t

i nm7 l'

So I am willing to go with General Counsel.

2f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Dick?

I 3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I guess I couldn't have l i

I 4

expressed my view more accurately than Mr. Hendrie has i

5 expressed it.

I 6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

7 I will read it three-one that the reccmmendation 8

of the Counsel for that language would stand.

9' Why don't we lock at the second change he proposed, 10 which should be on the next page.

i 11 Any ccmments on that?

12 I guess my question is, what is the difference?

i I3 COMMISSIOSER GILINSKY: Between what and what?

I4 CHAIRMM HENDRIE : Between the language in the 15 '

draft Order as it stood, and your language which would change 16 ;

a sentence which reads, originally:

I I7 '

"It shall provide.

" -- the Staff --

18 )

"It shall provide the Commission with an 19 +

informational briefing as to the basis for its 20 conclusions prior to permitting restart of the f acility."

'1 And it changes to, "It shall bring the matter 1

22, before the Ccamission in a briefing as to the basis.

• 3 CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY: Well, the original language

's underlines the f ac t that this is purely for information.

.,-eswe newnen. nne.

I i

ne ; And is nec -- no Commission action is contemplated.

At least l

l l

).p

. f oe

t i

10 I

I mm8 tha t ' s the way it looks to me.

2 i

Or even to be left as a possibility. " Informational t

i I

3 briefing" seems to me to carry that sort of connotation.

l i

4l I don't know that I am looking for particular 5

Commission action here, but I certainly don't want it excluded 6i in an order.

7l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I must say I didn' t realize i

3 that was the cause for concern, because I was looking at the 9'

last phrase of the sentence in the draft Order, " prior to 10 l permitting restart of the f acility."

And hence, acccmplishing 11 precisely the purpose that you had in mind, which is to give.

12 ',

the Commission the opportunity to express itself in this regard, I3 '

which would certainly be taken by the Staff as instructive, 14 I

and I would therefore assume, directive.

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I'm sorry, what sentence are 16 '!

you referring 'to there?

'l 17 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It says en page 3 of the 18 '

draft, it shall -- the sentence in cuestion:

l 19 l "It shall provide the Ccmmission with an I

O informational briefing as to the basis for its I

,j 4 conclusions crior to permitting restart of the i

'2 facility."

I COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Right.

24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well it seemed to me that wecerai aeocners, inc.

4<

7 did

't knew what tha t said everything that needed to be sa4" q>t,:.019 e

11 i

mm9 Il the difference was, either.

l 2

Now I unders tand that you don' t -- because I assumed I

l that that last phrase, " prior to permitting restart of the f

1 facility" certainly put in the Commission's hands whatever 5

control it wished to have 1

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I thought the informational I

7i was superfluous here if that is what you intended.

I 8

I don't care for it.

1 t

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me ask the Counsel, to see if 10 he reads anything of profound significance in here. There must 11 ' be a dozen ways to state the proposition, and I am not sure that 12 -

they dif fer in substantial ways.

i 13 \\

l MR.3ICKWIT:

I read a different cast tothe two 14 sentences.

The sentence in the original draf t Order suggests 7 ',,

to me communication is going one way.

16 '

The sentence that Commissioner Gilinsky was suggesting i

17 suggests to me that communication is going both ways.

13 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let me just restate my view.

19 I would have thought that were true if the last l

l 20 '

phrase of the sentence weren' t there.

But, once one says tha t

,I the Staff is obligated to provide aibriefing--and I don' t care how one characterizes it--to the Commission prior to taking an action, which is otherwise authorized to take, it seems to i

74 me it must contemplate something.

What is the language for?

M eederal AfDOrters, Inc.

25 l It must contemplate there will be communication.

And I have i

i 43.g ').. s > Gl) u 1

12 i

1 I

mm10 l

1 no doubt in my mind either under our rules, the statute or

^

2l common sense, that if the Ccmmission in its wisdom then, i

2l listening to that briefing, chose to state a view or communicate 4l a thought, that thought would be, as I said earlier, certainly l

5 instructive and therefore, would in my judgment without any i

I 6i doubt, direct it in the minds of the Staff.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Le t me ask --

8:

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Therefore, I continue to say, l,

9

_his is another one of those theological discussions about 1

10 i language, and I really don't give a darn.

11 It just seems to me that; change for its cwn sake, 12 eats up a lot of time.

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What is the difference i

14 i between a " briefing" and an "informationa briefing."

l 15 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY: None that I am aware of.

16 I CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Perhaos in the interests of i

1 17 moving along, I will vote for Commissione Gilinsky's version.

18 l CHAIFF.AN HENDRIE: Ckay.

19 l COMMISSICNER KENNEDY: I don't care.

I 20 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me just ask and make sure with 21 the Counsel's of fice, that they see no difficulty, that 22 perhaps it should go in that direction.

l l

23 With that understanding I have no dif ficulty with the i

i 24 langaage either, i

spewas nexmn. noe.

25 CCMMISSICNZ2 KENNEDY.

No, not a t all.

91:2031 l

i

i 13 I

all CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

l g

Then we will adopt that.

COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

I will also vote for his 3

I version on the third change.

4 I

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Before we do that, again I 5

w uld like to know what the purpose is. of that one, since it 6,

seems to me that is a statement whiddreally goes without saying.

7 THat is what the law already says, what our own regulations i

8, say in 17 dif ferent ways, and all of the case law with which I 9

have been so of ten briefed by our erainent Counsel say.

10 ;

i Of course"the Commission will in no manner j;

prejudge the merits of an adjudicatory hearing authorized by 12 this Order. "

It would be illegal for it to do so.

13 I

So to instruct itself in this regard is to imply ga l that otherwise it might have taken an illegal action. And I 15 16 l can' t possibly accept tha t.

So I am trying to figure out -- I'm i

sure that is not the purpose, and therefore I am trying to -

17 i i

i figure out what the purpose is?

18,

CCMMISSICNER G!LINSKY: I didn' t change the wording 19 there, I simply removed some wording or proposed scme words be 20 removed.

Simply removing "In receiving this briefing."

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Take the whole sentence cut.

22 I

MR.3ICKW7"-

'ka -aasen the sentence was included i

n

~

I n.1 in the first place, the Cc= mission --

A S-EWjef al P?OOrtert, Inc.

C COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Because of the briefing.

25,

'k S.

vahudh

'[

i l

14 I

will make a decision or at least mm12 1'

MR. BICKWIT:

i 2,

indicate a reaction in the course of this briefing, or may well 3'

do so on the basis of what it knows as a result of this briefing 4l; and prior information received.

i 5

And it is felt that it would be usol to provide i

6 in this Order that down the road the Commission would rc, e its l7 d decision based on other factors, factors included in the i

8 record.

And those f actors alone.

?

uOMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

So therefore, the sentence

" remains.

10 does have meaning only if "m receiving this briefins, 11 Otherwise, it is a gratuitous sentonce, which says what must 12 be a fact in all Commission proceedings.

13 Isn't that correct?

l 14 l That's what I've got to figure out.

Otherwise I 15 don' t unders tand the purpose of it.

16 MR. BICKWIT:

I don't want to speak for the 17 Commissioner, but my assumption as to why "In receiving this la '

briefing" was deleted is it suggests a change. It suggests that 19 the Commission would be sitting in a passive role.

20 '

You could make sense of the sentence and remove 21 that possible inference by changing "In receiving this 22 briefing," to the words, "In the course of this briefing."

i 23 One, that would make sense of the sentence to l

f 1stisfy your concern.

I don' t knew whether it satisfies l

24 remerat Amo,ters. tne.

e M

Ccmmissioner Gilinsky's.

l t

I 139:053 i

i

~

15 l

I mm13 I!

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It does. And my concern was I

,l precisely tie one thatyou indicated.

l 3

It simply underlines again the one-way character 4

of communication.

"l MR. BICKWIT: Well then the Counsel's Office would i

6' suggest it be changed to "In the course of this briefing."

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's all right.

0' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Fine. THat's okay.

I 9

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I can go eith that.

l l

10 May I ask for a vote of the Ccmmission on the 11 order as amended?

l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Aye.

'i COMMISSICNER KENNEDY: Aye.

Id COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Aye.

15 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Aye.

16 l So ordered.

j I

I7 !

Thank you very much.

I 18 j I think we can move on.

19l (Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m.,

the heari:

in the I

20 above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

21 l 22 l 1

l 23, I

2d XEMM98 8 tDortef t,1N.

I 25

3120:3<1

.