ML19211A605
| ML19211A605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/06/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7912200223 | |
| Download: ML19211A605 (68) | |
Text
$$k i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
'l IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON POLICY, PLANNING, AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE
.c
~
Place - hashington,D.C.
"I'~
8"
~
Thursday, 6 December 1979
'1633 089
(
7.i. phen.:
V, (202)347 3700
/
ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficzalReponers 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 7 912200N A
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY
1 CR8675 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, 6 Decerber 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W.,
Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
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 Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
9 1633 09'O
i 2
CR8 675 dspl UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
2I i
i 3l l
PUBLIC MEETING j
4 l
5 BRIEFING ON POLICY, PLANNING, AND PROGRAM 6
GUIDANCE 7
8' l
9:
1 I
10 i 11 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
i 12 Washington, D.
C.
13,l Thursday, 6 December 1979
- l ja ;i The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:37 p.m.
BEFORE:
15 ]
16l l
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman l
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner j7 RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 18.l j
i 19 a VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i
ll i
20 il JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner i
i l
ALSO PRESENT:
21 i
i J. HOYLE N.
HALLER l
22 l l
i L. BICKWIT E.
HANRAHAN 23 l 24 l L. GOSSICK
. Federal Reporters, Inc. l 1633 09l l
8 25 '
S. CONVER i
I
3 i
isp3
- R 8675 1l PROCEEDINGS i
2 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY (presiding) :
I think we'11 i
3 get started, here, to discuss the paper you prepared on Policy 4
Planning and Program Guidance.
5, MR. GOSSICK:
In August, the Commission endorsed the,
I 6
concept of a Policy Program and Guidance document, PPPG, which I
7 would set forth the Commission's policies, major priorities, 8'
goals, objectives and planning assumptions with the intent that l
9 this guidance would be used by the staff in preparing program l
l 10 plans and proposed budgets.
II i On October 19th, I sent to you and distributed to 12 the office directors, a proporsed draft of such a document.
We i
13 received comments from some of the commissioners and from the a
14 office directors; and will summarize those in the briefing that 15 MPA will give on the PPP document.
l i
16 On November 30th, the memorandum from the secretary 17 indicated that the Commission had decided to pursue further the, i
18 ? development and approval of the PPPG document, and provided the:
1 l
19 ' staff with a schedule for the -- for the completion of this 20 action.
21 '
I think you're aware that we had a schedule conflict i
22 l this afternoon with the effort to try to finalize the action l'
i i
23 plan.
Some of us decided that we would come here.
The other l
24 program directors that were involved, they are taking part in Federal Reporters, Inc.
i 25 that meeting this afternoon, which is aimed, of course, at i
1633 092 1
i
4 t
dsp4 I'
getting the briefing before next Monday morning.
I 2
Unless there are any questions, I'11 ask Norm to 1
3j go ahead with the briefing on the document.
Norm?
i I'm pleased to have thel 4
i MR. HALLER:
Thank you, Lee.
5 opportunity to brief you, today, on the PPPG, because I feel I
6 the basic concept of thi.s document is important.
The basic 7
concept, of course, is one, envisioning a broad Commission 8
policy level guidance early in the NRC planning cycle so that the 9
cuidance can directly shape the programs and the budgets; 10 developed and later implemented by the operating arms of the l
Il i agency.
12 (Slide.)
13 Before getting into the PPPG, itself; I would like to a
1 I# " refer to the first vu-graph, which is on the slide, there.
You I
15 may recall this chart, that I provided to you a few weeks ago.
I think the relevance of this chart is that it shows the PPPG I7' document in relationship to the other NRC planning, budgeting,
{
I6 and operating activities.
j 19 'i I
Very quickly going through it, the arrows kind of l
20 lead you from the beginning step, which is the issuance of the 1
policy planning and program guidance document through various l
2I 22 other activities which culma.nate in the issuance of an NRC 23 budget request and an NRC annual report to the White House and 24 I
to the Congress.
I Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 This would complete the planning cycle of activities.i 1633 093
5 l
r l
dsp5 I
This would then be followed by the operations cycle which is 2 i shown in the bottom part of the chart.
I 3l l
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you regard the annual l
l report as part of the management system?
S MR. EALLER:
Yes, I do, be cause one of the aspects 6
of the law is that the Section 307(c) of the Energy Reorganizati'on 1
7:'
Act, indicates that the dccument should contain a clear statement 8;
of the short range and long range goals priorities and plans of the commission.
To that extent, I feel it's important, both l
10 I l
from the standpoint of looking ahead or looking forward.
That's:
11 why I've emphasized the word " outlook" for the first part of 12 '
the document.
13
'Then, later, you'll see down at the bottom at the 14 end of the operations cycle, I have emphasized the words l
15 ' " accomplishments" and " problems", which is the backward looking 16 portion of the document.
'7 I feel it is a relevant part.
l 18 '
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that is true.
I was i
19 ]surprisedwhenIwentaroundayearorsoagotovarious 20 1 Congressional offices, in the nomination process to. find out
{
21 how many of them were using the annual report as; this is not 22 just a summary of what was done a year ago, but here is what 23 the NRC is and here is what it is doing.
24 l
I think that a lot of people tend to view it that
- Wwal Rmorurs, lm:.
i 1
25 l
way.
I thing we ought to spend more time on it.
It ought to j
i 1633 094 I
6 dsp6 j
1; be an integral part of that system.
I 2 ll l
MR. HALLER:
I would like to add one other short i
3i remark about the bottom portion of that vu-graph.
The operation;s l
4 cycle -- you are aware that we are now into that, but of course,l 5
it is fo the FY '80 prJgram phase; and not for the FY '82.
6 Obviously, since this is farther down the pike, in j
l l
7; particular, I want to call your attention to the block in the l
l 8:
lower left hand corner; the operating plan.
i 9
Just recently, Mr. Gossick forearded to you the i
i 10 !
operating plan for the five major program offices for fiscal l
l 11
'80.
This plans represents, then, what the offices intend to 12 ]! do; and intend to spend during fiscal 1980.
.I i
13 That plan, of course,.is the thing that will, of l
14l course, be changed as we go through the year; as new activities 151 occur; like the action plan that is now being worked on by the l
1 16 staff which will have a significant impact on resources of the j
17 ' agency and also program activities of the agency.
i
'l 18 '
I would like now to turn the briefing over to d
I 19 ' Steve Conver, who is the chief of our analysis and planning l
20 branch.
It was Steve who had the lead within my organization I
21 for the drafting of this first version of the PPPG.
1 22 MR. CONVER:
May I have the next chart, please?
l 23 (Slide.)
l l
24 l In this brief presentation, we would like to review l Fewal Rmorwrs, lm. '
l 25 for you, this afternoon, a brief history of the evolution of l
1633 095 l
i 7
l 3l dsp7 j
the PPPG, as well as the content of the document.
We'd like 2ID to summarize for you the comment that we received from the 3
office directors.
Finally, we would like to identify several l
4' l unresolved topics that we feel must be considered in the next 5
version of the PPPG.
6' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Before you start, could you i
7:
I distinguish between policy planning and program guidance?
I i
0l MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
By policy guidance -- well, 9l there really are two distinctions, primary disctinctions.
The 10 '
l front end of this document, which you have received so far; the 11 nine page policy document; provides general policies that 12 encompass the scope of the agency's activities.
It's not
, - l."l comprehensive, in the sense of 1 it's not inclusive of all 4
14 '1 activities of the Commission, but the ones which the Commission l ~a '!l regard as the most important.
16 l I'
So those are general policy statements.
There's
'7 another type of policy statement that we will produce in the 18 i
j second part of this, which is the program guidance.
j 19 l Program guidance is specific to each of the specific !
i 20 l 19 program areas that we are using, both in this context as well!
i i
21 '8 as in the unit tracking systems.
We have policies of two types;j 22 the general policy, which you reviewed in the short document and; i
23 I
program guidance which would be forthcoming, here, over the next; i
24 l
several months.
,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,
i 25 i i
l; Now, the planning is a little bit different from 1633 096
f 8
i dso8 i
Ifeitherofthosetwotypesofpolicies; in that planning we are i!
21 looking at assumptions that we foresee -- that we forecast will I
3' occur over the next several months; or the next -- the period 4
i of this thing; short term, long term, that will influence the S
environment which NRC operates, i
6 Those are planning assumptions, I guess, would be 7
the best way to characterize those.
So, there are really three :
l 8:
things.
There's general pclicy guidance; there are planning 9
assnmptions; and then there is PTL program guidance.
i 10 ;
The document which you have before you, today, i
i 11 encompasses the first two of those.
Primarily, the first; the i
12 policy guidance.
i i
I3 (Commissioner Kennedy entered the Commissioner's I
14 conference room at 1:45 p.m.)
15 '
I l
We believe that the PPPG document taken as a whole 6
has several uses; we believe will be quite valuable to the l
7!
Commission.
'"> il First, we think that the PPPG provides a very convenie i
10'i vehicle for the Commission to provide its policy guidance to the
'O staff in the areas which the Commission considers most important.
21 Moreover, we feel that tPs PPPG will help the Commission t
22 promote consistent decisionmaking by reducing the case by case 23 decisionmaking,<<which could exist in the absence of such a l
24 document.
Finally --
Federal Reporters, Inc.
75 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do you mean by " case by; 1633 097 i
j g
i i
i dsp9 i
If case?"
Do you mean issue by issue?
2 f MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
In other words, having a 3
PPPG document, we feel will preclude the situation in which 4t the Commission might decide a series of small issues which in 5
total would represent Commission policy, but which would never 6'
be stated.
7 I would be possible, in other words, say, in the O
safeguards area to mcke a series of somewhat related decisions on similar by different topics.
The sum total of which would I
lo i represent the Commission policy, but nowhere would there be a 11 single statement of that policy.
1 I
1 So, it would be an evolutionary thing.
13 l COMMISS.IONER AREARNE:
A more serious problem l
I 14 '
l arises, Vic, in that there are many decisions that people on j
i IS ;
the staff have to make, which in the small, don't rise to j
i 6l the level of a Commission decision; but in the absence of a i
r 17
- policy framework to give them guidance on how those -- the 1
18 ll drection to take those decisions.
q
.l A series of them can be made as Steve just described; 1
'0 and you would never see them, until at some point you would 1
21 find that policy has evolved.
1 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Exemptions, for example.
23 I MR. CONVER:
I guess, we could summarize the response 24 Y
Y Y
9 9
E b
Federal Reporters, Inc.
2S put the Commission in an active role of setting Commission i
1633 098 l
i
i j
10 dsp10 1l policy, rather than the reactive role of responding to a series 2 l! of, sort of, random occurrences or staff initiatives; and acting f
3 en each of those separately; not necessarily in an altogether 4, consistent manner.
5 Okay.
Finally, we believe that the PPPG is quite 6
useful; in that it provides the basis for budget deliberations 7
in the spring of each year and the detailed program plans that 3
flow directly fromthose deliberations.
9 Now, in putting this document together, we considered' 10 a variety of sources, of information.
We have reviewed all i
11 Commission papers over the past year or year and a half in an l
i 12 attempt to identify issues and in an attempt to infer what i
13 : Comm.ssion policies were in certain areas where those policies i
14 weren't explicitly stated.
i 15,
In some areas, however, we did have Commission j
16 ' directives in which the Commission policy was quite clear.
We IT' incorporated those to the extent we were able.
We. also, have
't la reviewed all recent Commission speeches; and that, indeed, was li quite a good source of information.
20 (Laughter.)
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Did you include that?
22 MR. CONVER:
There's a lot of information in there i
23 l that it gave us.
24 l (Laughter.)
Sederal Reporters, Inc. I 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's true.
l 1633 099 i
l 11 i
dspil I
MR.CONVER:
There were important topics --
i 2l MR. BICKWIT:
Talk about case by case.
I 3'
(Laughter.)
4 MR. CONVER:
I think I'11 let that ride.
1 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sometimes we say a lot more i
6' than we do, so I --
1 i
7' CCreiISSIONER BPAD DRD:
I haven't gotten into anything -.
8 MR. CONVER:
I think you'11 find in reading the 9
documents, that the flavor of many of the speeches of many 10 individuals of the Commission have been reflected in the PPPG, l
II l
and that is intentional.
Moreover --
I2 COMMISSIOhER AHEARNE:
Was that drawn in, Steve, to j
13 make sure that those who have not read it; then I'll quickly read 14 !
t.
i (Laughter.)
15 16 MR. CONVER:
We have also looked at Congressional i
,7, l testimony by members of the Commission and staff; both oral I3handwrittentestimony.
Now, another valuable surce in developing il lthaPPPGwereourdiscussionswithseniormembersoftheEDO
.I 20
! staff.
I 21 l We went around and had interviews with office 22 directors and other senior members of the staff.
I guess I would 23 like to summarize those interviews by saying that one point on l
24 i which all of the senior staff members that we interviewed,
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 agreed, was that the Commission had a serious need for the type 1633 100
l 12 l
l dsp12 I
I of document we were talking about, now.
When they actually 2
see what we wrote, there are, abviously, some disagreements as 3
to, you know, I don't think this should be in, but I like this; 4l I dont like that, but the senior staff was nearly unanimous in 5
agreeing that such a document was, indeed, needed.
I 6
K'9 felt that was significant.
The office directors, 7
also, 10cacified a number of areas that they felt needed i
l 8
additional emphasis; both agency-wide management type issues 9
as well as specific issues in their own areas of expertise.
10 We got a lot of comments on the NRC regulatory l
II philosophy, for lack of a better term, perhaps, because the 12 senior staff members had recently concluded that their deposition 13 with the -- some of the investigating bodies.
So if I could Id have the rext chart, please?
J 15 j' (Slide.)
16 l In the August 27 guidance that the Commission I
i 17 i i
i provided, the Commission called for a " participatory developement I
.l process."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me take you back for a 20 minute.
In describing the distinction between policy planning 21 and program guidance, did I understand you correctly to be 22 saying that the program guidance differed from the policy 23 guidance in being more specific?
2# '
MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
T'.lat is correct.
I
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
A different level of detail?
1633 101
13 dspl3 i
I
, MR. CONVER:
Yes, exactly.
If I could digress for 2
i a moment; you may recall the document last spring was a fairly 3
tedious package in which we had two or three page write-ups on
- ! each of about 16, 17, 18 programming areas.
We wrote that 5
document, the detail program guidance without having first prepar 6
the more general statement.
7 I think we recognize, now, that we were doing that 1
0 exactly backwards.
It's necessary, first, to build this thing 9
from the top down by developing general overall agency guidelines i
10 ; from which this more dc'. ailed program guidance would flow l
11. logically; and with which it would be consistent.
12 I
(Chairman Hendrieentered the Commissioner's 13 '
' conference room at 1:52 p.m.)
I In this participatory development process, the EDO 15 l
j staff and the Commissioners and their staff are jointly 16 {producing this PPPG.
We're right in the middle of that process r-
", right now.
It appears to be gorking quite well.
i l
Now, the schedule for completion of this document and!
I p'
the detail program guidance which follow, dictated that we
,o,
proceed with this effort despite some uncertainties that existed.
21 in the outcome of the various investigations.
22 Indeed, when we -- when we completed this document, 23 the results of the Kemeny Commission were not yet available, so 24 s.Federsi Reoorters, Inc.
Y 9
I 25 also asked that we make the PPPG document; that is, this front 1633 102
14 i
1 dspl4
{
l l i
! end or general policy document, both succinct and readable, a
2 9 So, we have developed a document that is less than 3
10 pages.
As I mentioned before, the detail program guidance, 4
1 the 19 program areas are in the process of bering written, now, 5
and will be complete within several months.
6 Now, based primarily with our interviews of the l
7 office directors and from our other sources; we have identified 3'
in the PPPG what we considered and what we felt the staff I
9 considered the most important programs; but it is important I
10 '
to note that it is not an all inclusive document.
There are 11 some programs that we have not included in this write-up and l
12
- the office director comments, by and large, reflect that each I
13 1 l person thinks there should be some things added.
i 14 h
Another caveat, here, the PPPg document is, in theory',
i 15 '
I supposed to apply to the time period FY '82 to
'86.
- Since, 16 '
however, it's the first document of its type, we believe it ought 17 !
to apply in the near term, as well.
Could I have the next chart, please?
'l 10' '
(Slide.)
'O I'd like to, very quickly, run through a summary of 21 the content of the PPPG document.
Basically,khat we did in those nine or ten pages was provide a series of policy statements 23 in each of three major areas protecting the public.
24 l i
nese are 6 hgs dat have to do, I wo d say, d 6
.r.oer.i n.co,teri. ine.
25 the technical aspects of our regulation; two, our external 1633 103
15 dsp15 1
affairs; and three, internal NRC management.
1 2,'
Now, in each of these sections, we've had some general 3
policy statements, which I'm not going to go into in great 4l detail, unless there is some interest in that.
5 However, in the largest dissection of the PPPG 6
protecting the public, we did highlight a number of areas that 7: we felt needed additional emphasis or improvement.
These include 8{lthelist, here.
9 Operating power reactor safety; NRC presence at 10 major license facilities, those are primarily inspection issues; 11 oversight by third parties, that basically involves matters l
12 - involving states and state inspections, third party inspections i
13 by the ASME an,d other national standards organizations; 14 l qualificaions of licensee employees, that is simply not limited !
15 to reactor operators, although they play a major part in that.
i 16 l We had a variety of statements about improving NRC's 17 ! emergency response capabilities, as well as those of licensees i
- Sjand state's.
i9 ;
We talked about risk assessment; the need to do a bette.
t 20 job of collecting and analyzing and taking advantage of 21 operational data; strengthening the enforcement program, making 22 it more timely; the need to establish priorities of various I
I 23 programs; and finally, the need for continuing self-examination ;
24 ' in each of our major program areas.
9 Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 In the external affairs section, we had severa.1 1
1633 104
16 l
1 policy statements dealing with how NRC should relate to members 2,
of the public, to state and local governments, and other federal i
3 agencies and, perhaps, most importantly, to the Congress.
4.
Finally, in the section entitled internal NRC i
t 5'
management, we had a variety of policy statements on 6
miscellaneous management topics including the need to coordicate.
7-office activities better.
We need to do a better job of 8,
management, t
9 That includes the need for a new NRC building.
Unless 10 there is some interest in the detailed policy statements in eachi II of those areas, I would like to move on to the staff comments.
l 12 I'd like to go to the next, chart, please.
I 13 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you do that, Steve, l.
I 14 l could I just ask a procedural question?
As this briefing or i
15 discussion goes on, what do you see unfolding?
That is, aa you 16 i going to talk about the staff comments and then at some stage, I
17 ;
is Ed going to talk on -- is that what you had in mind?
i l
13 ]
MR. CONVER:
Yes.
l9 MR. HALLER:
Yes.
t 20 ;
MR. CONVER:
As I mentioned before, by far, the 21, majority of the staff comments as for additions of various 22 material as to what was contained in the nine page document.
l l
i 23 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With some word changes.
24 MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
Of course, there were a r-Feceral Reporters, Inc. l l
25 number of suggestions that were editorial in nature; clarification i
1633 105
17 i
dspl7 I
I minor modification.
Primarily, however, the nature thrust of i
2 them was, we would kike a little bit more information about the 3' programs generally; a little bit more information about my i
- program in each case.
5 So, just to summarize this, briefly -- and I've 6
indicated in parentheses, here, which office requested the 7
addition of each topic.
We had a number of requests for l
8; addition that fell into, basically, technical regulatory areas; i
t9' citing policy, for example.
I !
I wanted to add that as one of the program areas in 11 ' the program section.
Standards pointed out that low level 12 waste was not explicitly mentioned in the document, but probably 1
I3 should be.
We had a number of suggestions for addition or I
i I#0 clarification of emergency planning material.
15 ;
We also had a call for additional emphasis on 6
de-commissioning off site instrumentation.
We need more I7lemphasisonthelicensingprocess;moreemphasisonCP'sas 3
opposed to operating reactors; and the need to say some more on
'l 17 ;backfit.
'O Now, there was another general comment that we got f from a couple of offices that said this document really 22 emphasizes the operating power reactor situation too much.
We 23 need to have a little bit more, on some of the other kinds of 24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 Under that general comment, it is possible to put i
1633 106 i
i
18 dspl8 I1lsome of the ID and research comments which, basically, said we 4
2 } need to give a little more attention to, not only the resident 3
policy inspection program, but to other miscellaneous 4
inspection programs and materials, et cetera.
5 Several people pointed out that we should, in calling 6
for reexaminations of every program area, include one for I &E.'
7 We agree that that is a good suggestion.
There are a number of 8
Research comments which basically said, " Add references to 9 ' research, throughout. "
10 '
I guess we didn't really put quite enough of that in.
11 ' We had several comments that fall into management type areas.
12 State programs made the observation that we should have a f
13 lpolicy to the effect that our personnel and contracts people do l
14 i a better job of supporting the technical endeavors of the staff.
i 15 '
We had several NRR comments that called, again, for 16 ' an agency-wide reexamination of our regulatory philosophy and 17 practices; and called for a reference to what has now become I3 the NRC management study.
.-l May I have the next chart, please?
i 20,
(slide,)
21 Continuing, there are a number of suggestions for 22 l additions.
One person mentioned that we should have the 23 anti-trust area, and discuss that in the PPPG.
We have a l
24 Commissioner comment that suggests exactly the opposite.
3-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Several people suggested that we --
1633 107 i
19 i
dspl9 1l (Laughter.)
i 2'
MR. BICKWIT:
You better hurry on that one.
3 MR. CONVER:
Several people commented that we should 4
add something on export licensing and international.
We have 5
Commissioner comment that supports that particular one.
6 There is another topic, here, that is rather l
7' interesting.
We had considered it in writing.
This is licensee-8 responsibilities.
9 NRR pointed out that we should comment in the l
10 document, but NRC can only write the rules.
The licensees are 11 basically responsible for implementing those.
We thought very 12 seriosly about that, and we argued about that a lot in writing i
13 i the document.
i 14 l We decided that we didn't want to sound like we were 15 j putting the main burden on licensees; although we don't argue 16 i with the point.
We question the possibility for appearances 17:
sake, for featuring this prominently.
So that is kind of an 18 ll open issue, at this point.
17 We had a suggestion from NRR for adding a bunch of 20, material on the environmental responsibilities and programs.
21 One NRR comment also suggested that we be a little bit more 22 upfront in addressing the inherent conflicts between the speed 23 of the licensing process and its rigor.
i 24 We haven't come out four square on that; and I'm
-FMwal Rmortars, ine.
25 not sure if that's appropriate or not.
We had a number of l
1633 108
20 I
I dsp20 I
li comments on the degree to which the public -- the degree and the-
'l 2 j way to which the public ought to participate in the regulatory 3
procesJ.
4, NRR suggested that that topic be added as one of the i
5 program areas.
All the comments that I've mentioned so far i
6 call for additions of material.
We also had a number of 7:
suggestions for deletion, which are summarized, here, at the a
bottom of the chart.
9 Just about everybody who commented on this i
10 i document found some' problem with the statements in the very I
11 front end that talked about the role of the public.
l 12 Basically, the statement that is contained in the l
13 ldocument is that -- it's basically the public judgment determines i
i I
14, what level of protection determines adequate protection or d
15 safety.
l l
l 16 We had two types of disagreements with those 17 statements, collectively.
I guess one type could be characterized 13q as semantic.
People didn't like the way we said it or perhaps G
didn't understand what we were tyring to convey.
I 20.
A more troubling disagreement is the philospohical 21 question that " Gee, really, the public doesn't have a role to j
22 play in the determination of adequate protection; that what 23 we're dealing with is basically hard engineering judgment."
24 i I think that is quite a serious question that needs
. Frterai semmrs. ine.
25 to be resolved.
1633 109 i
21 e
dsp21 1l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Am I reading the chart s
2 ; correctly in understanding that five offices felt something to j
3 the effect that the public didn't have a role to play?
4 MR. CONVER:
Not quite, sir.
Some of those offices 5
didn't like the way we phrased what we said.
Others didn't 6
really appear to believe that the determination of adequacy 7
was basically a public function; that that was an NRC function.
8, Again, it's some combination of semantic problems and 9
philosophical differences, but I guess the message we got from 10 it is this is a serious issue; rather fundamental to the I1 regulatory process, and one which should be addressed head-on.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you want to talk about l
13 that particular item, now?
Or would you rather -- I guess it's i
14 I better if we just, keep going through your charts.
i 15 Obviously, it's going to be one where there's a 16 certain amount of feeling.
- 7 l MR. CONVER
When we were talking about the bri-fing,
- 3 we mentioned the briefing would probably go off on a 45 minute 19 ; briefing, because the subject is a challenging one; and one in 20 i which everyone would have an interest in.
21 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The only question is, when i
22 l the 45 minutes would begin.
23 (Laughter.)
24 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I tell you what; it's clearly a
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 highly important and, indeed, a central sort of point in an 1633 110
l 22 dsp22 1! overall policy guidance document.
I I
l 2 i.
So -- and furthermore, I must say, I have a selfish i
3 interest in it because it relates to particular comments I have 4
about performance; some of the language in the first -- the i
5' initial pages.
6 You know, this document starts very general, and 7j comes down and becomes very detailed.
The level of my 4
3, satisfaction with it is almost the reciprocal of that.
It i
9 starts here and increases as we get to the details.
i 10 '
(Laughter.)
11 But why don't we have that -- why don't we see
.I 12 we can get Steve through the -- his slides and comments and then; 13 l come back?
i i
i la i MR. CONVER:
I'd like to personally thank you for that 15 suggestion.
16,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have to do as I say; not 17 emulate what I do.
13 I (Laughter.)
.I 19 But I think this is, in fact, a good point to come 1
20 back to as sort of an initial first particular to chew on.
21 MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
Okay.
A related point, I 22 ! guess, had to do with a question of various types of support for' I
i.
23 l intervenors.
I really meant to put members of the public, there.
24 That, of course, includes the questions of intervenorl r.FeNaH4emnon, Inc.
25 funding.
We had one office that pointed that out as something 1633 111
23 i
dsp23 1l they didn't feel chat we should be doing, i
2:
Now, we had a number of comments on the notion of 3
involving third parties in various NRC programs; primarily, 4,
inspection programs.
I didn't highligh SP there as being one of:
5 l the commenters, by they were.
1 6
ELD suggested that involving third parties, particular 7:
states in the inepection process, would be scandening of federal 3'
supremacy; the traditional federal suoremacy.
i 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Their concern was with the 10
- states, i
Il MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
Specifically, states.
IE 12 curiously suggested eliminating the whole paragraph on this.
I I
l 13 I say curiously, because IE has been the proponent of this.
I Id '
Finally, SP's comment was really quite the opposite i
15,
of that provided by EOD and SP's suggesting the use of state 16 '
inspectors as a supplement to NRC inspectors.
17 We had a number of suggestions for deletion, that 13, basically involved the sections that were background, introductory 19, sort of philosphicial things.
Perhaps comeof the things that l
20 may have bothered you, Chairman Hendrie; but there were a 21 l whole variety of those throughout the document to eliminate this
/
22 paragraph or that.
j 23 Now, I'd like to move to the next chart.
24 (Slide.)
1
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I'll summarize for you, based on staff comments, what; 1633 il2 I
24 l
t I
dsp24 Ilwebelieve, remain as some of the unresolved topics in this
.s
'l 2harea.
One issue that was raised by a number of the comments is 3
comprehensiveness, or inclusiveness of the document.
Should 4
this document really cover everything in our programs or should 5
it just cover selected topics?
6 I guess our view would be there is certainly no 7
reason why we can't add any number of things to the document, 8
recognizing that as we add things, we're diluting the attention 9
that is focused on the more importaint issues.
I 10 l So, that is basically a matter for judgment.
Anotherj II '
troubling aspect is the document does not yet include the insights I
12 that we might gain from the Kemeny and Rogovin reports.
i 13 !
Of course, the Presidential decision which we expect i l:
to follow the Kemeny Report; so the schedule that has been I
Id
- I i
15 i laid out by the Commission provides for incorporating the f.
16 l Kemeny response and the Rogovin insights, as those are available:
I7 to us in January.
I3 ::
That's primarily a policy question, however.
We feel:
1 I9 that in preparing the TMI response action plan, which the staff 20 is currently doing, we're going to have a lot of impact on our 21 '
programs.
Specifically, in the operatin plants.
s 22 The list of activities with the Commission plans i
23 to undertake over the next year or so.
By introducing new 24 activities, I think we raised the question of what are we going Fecef al Reporters, Inc.
25 to give up in doing all these new things?
I think that is 1633 113
I 25 I
I dsp25 Ilsomething that is not yet resolved in the PPPG.
i
_s 4
2 1E Maybe it's not approriate for the PPPG; nevertheless,-
3 we think it ought to be addresses.
We also would like any Commission guidance on what the program area lists ought to be.
5 At the moment, we have 19 program areas which we have developed,,
6 working with the Commission and the staff over the past year or
' so.
i 8
If there is any suggestion for change to that, we 9
would certainly like to get your views on that.
Now several of 10 the staff comments suggest that we need to do a little bit better 11 '
i job of treating priorities; Commission priorities.
i 12 I guess part of the problem, there, is it is kind of l i
13 i hard to figure out what priority means.
We kind of think it I
14Iought to be more than simply an ordered list of NRC programs I
15 ;'from 1 to 100 and something, because that doesn't really doesn't' 16 make the disctinctions that we Eeel are necessary.
I7!
On the other hand, it's kind of hard to figure out how
,,1
'# -lto incorporate priorities into this document.
What effect those 1
priorities would have.
'O We had several suggestions including a Commission 21 that the PPPG include fiscal guidance and I guess the comment; 22 danger in that is we don't want to preempt the normal budget 23 process.
24
- s. Federal Reporters, Inc.
the process without preempting it.
1633 114 i
i
26 j
I
'l isp26 l
i l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have to challenge that.
i m
I li,d MR. CONVER:
All right, sir.
3' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fiscal guidance doesn't l
preempt the budget process; it guides the budget process.
4 1
i MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
Okay.
f 5
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And it depends on how l
3 l
detailed it is, obviously, but fundamentally it's an j
appr ach by the people who have to make the final decision on 3
the budget to say -- to give whatever guidance they see in l
9 jg i advance as being appropriate to the people who are putting the '
11.
MR. CONVER:
Yes, sir.
I I
),'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Really, at least on l
1 occasions where I've seen it used or used it, it ends up 13 y
being an advantage because if you have some sense in the beginning of where you are going to -- the direction you're going on your resources, it really avoids a lot of pain for a
the people who are trying to put those budgets together.
I MR. CONVER:
Okay.
jg g
Finally, we've had some comments on the final 20 section of the PPPG which we call " internal NRC management."
i
,j l Bearing in mind that this document was written before the l
l l
22 Kemeny Report came out, we felt that the PPPG provided a continued vehicle for raising some management issues that we j
23 i
24 felt needed to be raised.
- .ami nesuun inc.
25 j In retrospect, the Kemeny Commission Report has r
1633 115 l
27 I
dsp27 come out,and it did overlap the PPPG to some extent.
It's ia
~
!l clear to us that some modification or elimination of.this section is probably appropriate, probably preferred to have a somewhat more positive tone in this section and talk about 4'
the positive things we ought to do, rather than the self-S.
flagellationthatmayhavecharacterizedseveralparagraphsofl 6
that section.
I I
So those are what we feel are unresolved topics.
3 The final chart that I have -- and we may want to 9,
e i
return to unresolved topics -- the final chart summarizes the 10 -
j schedule that we just received from the Commission.
11 l
(Slide.)
12 ;
I took some liberty of putting specific dates on i
i it where the guidance had said early in the month or late in j
i l
the month.
I put a specific date on it.
'E Basically, the schedule calls for the Commission taking a look at the document as it now exists, sending it back to the staff, another round of staff review, culminating
- 3 in Commission apprcval of this front end, short, general
- 9 policy document toward the end of January.
20 l
The work on the detailed program guidance summaries !
21 ll is now in progress, and the schedule calls for those things 22 to be completed toward the end of February.
}h33 }l6 l
23 Now, there are several possible problems in the 24 i
-Federal Reporters, Inc. !
Schedule.
One is that it sort of depends on our getting the l
25 Rogovin Report in time, and of course we would also like to have I
I
28 3
a i
i I !l the benefit of the President's decision on the Kemeny Report.
l dsp28
!l s.
Secondly, the schedule is vulnerable to slips in the
,p program area briefing schedule.
Mr. Gossick, in the briefings -
i he is getting briefings from the lead offices for the various 4
programs every week or so.
5'!
If this schedule should slip, it makes it difficult l 0
i to write those detailed program summaries on time.
7 Finally, we feel there will be a number of demands 3
on the Commission and the staff's time as a result of the 9,
{
TMI action planning activities that are going on right now.
10 'j l
We see this as a possible problem in the schedule that the i
11 8 l
Commission has laid out.
12 i With those caveahs, that concludes the formal l
12 portion of the briefing.
l i-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before we go away from the l
?S l
schedule -- before we go away from the schedule, I would like a
you to know that as of this time, we are on schedule.
(Laughter.)
Mi Ed?
l
!s MR. HANRAHAN:
I wanted to say a few things about 20 '
l sort of what next in the -- I have read over all of the 21 comments from the staff, and I thought by and large they were very g d and very perceptive.
l 23 l
There was a certain element of parochialism --
24 Federal Reporters, ine-my program Wasn't here, and what not -- but taking that aside,,
25 l
1633 117 l
l
.i 29 i
l i
l dso29 I
it was easy to say, I think, that there were -- they were i
l looking at something they thought was useful in the sense of l
'l they would welcome some guidance from the Commission on 4
direction and priority, whether it was through this l
5 particular piece of paper or something else.
i I
6 But that was latent in all of what they had to i
i 7
say.
l I,
3' Clearly, I think Sol Levine summarized it very 9l well at the beginning of his, saying that what he saw was too i
i 10 i general; he wanted specifics.
i II.
He said specificity -- I can't say that word.
I2 I think that is sort of a next step to get that specific I
I I
nature of it in there, point out particular activities and j
i U
programs to provide that sense of direction, a priority which i
15 will reflect and call on resources which gets to the point i
I of fiscal guidance.
I think those need to be linked; just a priority 4
3 listing of programs doesn't -- doesn't help unless there is l
t U
some notion of what that means in terms of a program director's 1
20 ability to call on resources, either money or people.
i 21 So that, I think, needs to be linked in here.
And 22 therefore I think in my mind it says something about the 1
23 question of fiscal guidance, at least in the broad sense, l
24 what programs, what activities are eligible to call for i
Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25 additional resources, or should those see a decrease or remain 1633 11A
30 I
i
!sp30 the same, in very broad terms, without getting into the a
' Ol
~
l
. specific dollar issues involved, which will then allow the j
I formulation of projects.
l t
l Some time of completion -- some time of implementatilon l
1 geared to some required status -- reaching some plateau which S1 l
then requires the reflection of resources and priorities as l
6 i
well.
i 7
I think there is a need to focus on key activities, rather than on the whole list of Commission programs and deal 9,
i l
with that limited set.
[
10 '
i of course, from the standpoint of ability to do j
i i
l it, as well as the ability to implement it, if necessary.
I s
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you suggesting i
there should not be a comprehensive policy and planning 1
guido?
l 15 l
l MR. HANRAHAN:
I think it should be comprehensive in terms of those activities that the Commission feels at this time are most important to look at.
I think the l
18 i l
others we'll have to deal with in some sort of an ad hoc manner.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me suggest it is 20 precisely on those which the Commission feels are most 21 important that the Commission will give the greatest attention 22 to, and therefore there may be the least need for such a 23 i
policy and planning guide by the staff.
It's in the area in 24 i
- .oerai neponen, inc. j which the Commission is least likely to devotr 8.ts own direct 2S i 1633 1l9 l
31 I
dsp31 1 - attention that is most needed by the staff, it would seem to Il i
2 i me.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think it's a mixture,
- though, the areas that we think are most important.
It is, I 5
think, critical for us '
be able to both tell the staff that t
6
, we think those are the most important and then to describe the 7
general outlines of the policy we want the staff to be 8
implementing in those areas.
9 MR. HANRAHAN:
There's also the relative importance 10 l among the most important things; the more important things.
i I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But my sense of what the 12 document we're working with is is very much in line with what i
13 you are saying.
Here are the most important things.
j i
Jg
- MR. EANRAHAN:
I think it is going -- but there is 15 '
' some thought that had ought to be explained beyond that.
16 '
17 i sa 1633 120 i
19,
20 !!
21 -
i i
23 24 e Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
32 i
i dsp32 l
1l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I suppose ultimately the PPPG l
2i ought to include everything.
1 I
3i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
After a separate iteration l
l 4j cycle, it ought to get to where all of the major things are 5
there, but at that point you end up -- this is the experience i
6l I've had -- you have a point where you have to stop and 7l keeping pushing out, as both Steve and Ed have pointed out.
l t
I i
8 Everybody who is down in the organization wants i
I 9
to get a description of their program in there, and you do I
have to watch out that it doesn't gradually become just a 10 11 listing of every identifiable program in the agency.
12 MR. HANRAHAN:
What has been started here is a
\\
13 l Very good process that needs to be itereated:
what is it 14 that the staff and the managers feel they need guidance on, i
15 as well as:
what is it that the Commission feels they want to
- (
16 3 give guidance on?
'i i
i 17 j No, those at this point may be going like that, but l 18 I think with a continual iterative process here, we can come 19 I to where -- and I think that is the benefit of the document.
20 It starts to get the two together on one giving the i
1 21 guidance it feels it needs, and the other getting the 22 guidance it feels it wants.
/
23 And they're both now coming together in a knitted 24 fashion so that there is an assembly of things here.
Fede<si Reporters. Inc.1 25 So I think our next step ouught to be to go around 1633 121 l
i 33 I
dsp33 I
that loop again.
You know, this has been a forcing function, j
l this document, of those areas that both the Commission and 2
3 the staff want to give guidance on.
I 4l Clearly, I think the one that would be -- I l
l 5l shouldn't say "almost preeminent" -- is this level of I
6' protection.
That raised everybody out of their chairs on I
i 7
both sides of the table for all kinds of reasons.
And I 8
think it is a very important piece of Commission policy 9 i business that ought to be at the top of the list; not l
I l
10 that over the next weeks or months perhaps that is going to II l be resolved in any great detail, but it's something that is 12 continually worked between the staff and the Commission to I
13 get a notion of what we really -- the Commission really feels Id it wants to see in that area.
15 ll I think that will go a long way to seeing a more 16 y even application across all of the NRC activities.
I think l
17 "
it's a principal policy issue, and I would suggest the one 18ll needs attention, but it's not a short term, resolvable l9 business at all.
l 20 That's kind of what I have to say at this point.
2I I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Where did the schedule i
22 that we have envision when the Commission comes back to l
23 the staff on these issues?
That's the 21st; is that correct?
I MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
~ deral Reporters, Inc.,
e 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So what had you hoped to 1633 122 l
l 34 l
dsp34 I
have us discuss today?
..s l
I 2
MR. HANRAHAN:
Where you want to give guidance --
3l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, we've got --
4 MR. HANRAHAN:
It's proposed.
Right.
They l
5 are different.
Is it even cast in the right sort of thought, f
I 6
the right sort of nuances.what programs or activities ought i
7:
to be because it's very general.
8 That's fine.
But -- you know -- in the formulation 9l of the general, is there a specific in your mind that you i
i i
10 think that ought to be applied to first or foremost?
i II l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Steve, could you talk a 12 l little bit about what you see as the difference between the l
13 y December 21 effort and the January 31 effort?
Do you
/
1 Id J contemplate having a final -- I guess actually maybe we 15 should tell you -- but anyway, somebody better decide whether j
16 you want a final -- but for the Rogovin and office comments --
,t i
e u
17 l if it is as of December 21, or whether December 21 is really 18 ]
a preliminary cut and the bulk of the work will hit us l
1 I9 around January 31.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before Steve answers, could i 21 i I just suggest one thing, one very valuable thing that could i
22 happen in the interim.
23 If the five of us can reach some agreement -- and 24 whether it's by majority vote -- on a number of issues, that Federal Reporters, Inc. ;
25 '
hereisthegeneraldirectionwebelievetheCommissionpolicyf 1633 123 l
t 35 dsp35 1
is going to go in.
Now, what we have is a document which I l
2 think is a pretty good document in the sense that it's got l
3l the right flavor, the right format.
l t
i I
4 It's got, as far as I can see, most of the right l
5' programs.
There are debates; some of the debates have come l
6' up from the staff, and I think that when the five of us I
i 7l look in detail through it, I wouldn't be surprised if we 3
had some differences.
I 9
What is important is on the 21st to have us have i
10 made our first pass on those a:jor differences and say, "Here 11 is where we are coming out."
12 ;
One of the valuable things that can happen af ter 13i' that is for those members of the staff who are most affected i
14 by those major decisions to have a last chance to say, "We
?
15 ll disagree with that, and we want to come in and explain why l
1 i
16 '
we think that is going in the wrong direction. "
l l
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
WhatI'mafterreallyatthe!
18 'l moment is just making sure that we come out of here today i
I i
19l with a schedule that accommodates that process.
I mean, if I
20 "
in fact we go in the direction you suggest, it looks as though i 21 we ought to set aside at least a day between now and -- oh --
I
/
22 two or three days before the 21st.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean this side of the 24 table?
FMwal Recomes, im:.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, thissideofthetable;!
i 1633 124 j
f 36 dsp36 i
1l just to go through this document and try to have something i
I 2l that we're all more or less in agreement on.
i 3!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
At least a majority, i
i 4l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do the best we can, whatever.
I l
4 5;
I don't think it's going to take less than a day to --
i i
6!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it's going to take l
7; a lot more.
You're talking about spending as much time as i
I 8l you spent on preparing testimony on state programs or something I
9!
like that.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We haven't spent that much II I time on preparing testimony for state programs in quite awhile.
12 j All right, two days, then.
All I'm trying to do is make sure we -- December 21 l i
13 '
14 ll is not all that far away.
We should come out of today with 15 0 a schedule that accommodates our ambition.
l 16 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sorry, Steve.
l i
17 MR. CONVER:
I can't think of anything to add l
18 l to the answer you gave, sir.
l i
19 !,.
MR. BECKERLEY:
I think if you look at the revised 20 [
draft we gave you with our memorandum, the Commissioners' l
i 21 !l comments, the objections the Commissioner have to the draft i
22 were echoed in staff comments.
So I think it's a little l
23 closer approximation to something that's a little farther along 24 down the road than you were in October.
FMwal Rmonen, Inc.,
25 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if you don't have all 1633 125
\\
I
I 37 i
i dsp37 1
the Commissioners' comments --
l s
l 2
i MR. BECKERLEY:
Not for lack of effort.
i 3!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To have it really be I
l 4l useful, we all ought to have at least commented on it.
If I
l 5j the final product is not something we agree with, at least i
6!
it should be clear where we disagree.
7!
MR. CONVER:
I be19ae it would be useful if the 8;
next version on December 21 also considers the staff comments 9!
as well as those provided by the Commission.
That would i
I 10 l save a step.
l 11 l MR. BECKERLEY:
That is what we proposed because l
12 that's the only thing that makes sense.
I 13 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commissioners can certainly l
14 provide additional comments.
It would probably be useful to J
15 ll do markups on the OPE version, since it already steps forward 16,
a little bit from the October 1 version.
i 17 j (Laughter.)
i 18 And then indeed we'll have to gather and debate 19 a bit and see where we come out with staff iterating on t
20 :
drafts as we do for rules for emergency planning and assorted 21 other enterprises.
6 22 I think it is appropriate; will the secretary i
l 23 please note the need for this enterprise in the near term.
l l
24 This is the 6th.
We might allow a week for the Commissioners l
FWwat Resmners, Inc.
l 25 to read and provide individual markups, cross-outs, and 1633 126 i
l 38 i
~
dsp38 l
1 whatever, and then -egin to schedule fairly heavy time to f
2l complete the front end as staff is able to.
I I
3l MR. HOYLE:
(Nods in the af firmative. )
i 4l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you have a set of staff l
l 5,
comments which are incorporable in this front end document 6!
now?
7 ll:
MR. HALLER:
Yes, sir, and we have provided those 8
to OPE.
I don't know whether they have had time to give 9l a thorough review of all of those.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My impression is the OPE thing 11 that came around did not have all of those.
12 :
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But they are incorporable.
l 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIS:
There isn't anything that i
i 14 l keeps you from working on it right now?
15 :i MR. BECKERLEY:
They are incorporable, but not i
l 1
1 il i
16 i in the sense that some of them are contradictory.
I 4
17 ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Theyareincorporableinthel 18 g sense that they are explicit and could be incorporated.
s i
19 d COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there any reason why h
20 we don't have them?
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We have them.
i 22 MR. HANRAHAN:
We just got them yesterday.
We'll 23 see that you each get a copy of them.
l t
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it s big thick package?
i FWwal Rmorurs, tm:.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's not that thick, Joe.
l 1633 127
l l
39 l
1l l
dsp39 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it in here?
Operating plants;,
2l this is all operating plants, so apparently they're not in tha l
3 particular stack.
3 4
MR. HANRAHAN:
We'll see that you each get a copy.
l l
5 If you don't --
l 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know quite whether to l
i 7l askyoutogoaheadandmakearecutonyourfrontendsectionl 8'
and do staff comments or let us read the staff comments and l
9; then try to make our individual markups and do one after that. I t
l 10 !
MR. HANRAHEN:
I would prefer to do the latter and 11 :
come and spend some time with each of you individually while I
12 you're doing that.
l i
l 13 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
While I think there are 14 i
a number of staff comments which are clarifying and which are
?i 15 :!
also in the form that might be useful, particularly here, j
i 16 ]
a list of areas that are proposed for inclusion; I think i
17 '!
you might try to break out -- here's the section -- these l
18 j are the -- because at some stage I think we're going to have i
19 to be in a situation where this side of the table is going to I..
i 20 '
have to start just working through something.
21 l And whether that is a document with alternate l
I
/
22 I versions in it with emergency rules or whether it's a separate,
23 document that lists -- but there has got to be --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Given our experience that FMwal Reponers, lm.
25 you have now cited, I would suggest that you might take 1633 128 i
40 l
I dso40 l
1 another look at that schedule, particularly as to the years.
s I
2 j-I wouldn't worry about the months.'
i I
3i (Laughter.)
4l MR. HANRAHAN:
There are no MPA -- we didn't l
5, put in a year.
i I
i 6[
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Although, I think when they 7
use the term "multiyear planning," they don't mean that.
i 8,
(Laughter.)
i I
9 Get the guidance document out, at least so far 10 as that notion.
I 11 i rell --
12 '
MR. BECKERLEY:
We could work with MPA to give you i
l 13 F a cleaner document that starts with Commission comments and la !
adds staff comments and then we're a little farther along 15 lI before --
f
- I' l
i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How long will it take you to 17 '
do that af ter this meeting?
i 18 MR. BECKERLEY:
We were proposing to give you i
- i.,
19 ]
something at the end of next week, but --
l l
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The end of next week is the l
21 time I expect to see individual Commssioners' scratchings I
I
/
22 in to you and the beginning of your putting together a j
23 l revised front end so that about a week from now, why, the 24 secretary can start scheduling a heavy series of meetings in f
s e nst a n m n m.ine.
j 25 which we hammer out the final form.
So --
i 1633 129 j
I 41 i
i i
dsp41 j
1l MR. HANRAHAN:
The beginning of the week --
2 MR. BECKERLEY:
MPA, of course, can give you I
i 3l manpower on that; we'll make whatever date you say.
I I
i 4l MR. HANRAHAN:
We'll have to do it by the 5
beginning; it doesn't make any sense otherwise.
h 6!
We will give you the package this afternoon -- you i
know -- the whole list, the whole stack.
And then we will l
7 j]
I 8l begin to do something with that over the next few days.
I I
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
If you want to try it, 10 '
we'll agree on that.
I think the Commissioners need to
!i 11 I understand that that is being done because there's not much l
12 point in marking up this one if another piece of paper is i
i 13 h coming.
~
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Although, Joe, the 1
i 15 ll comments really don't -- are not sweeping comments across those d.
16 ;
documents.
So it would still be very valuable if any l
17 Commissioner hasn'.t gone through and read this to go through i
18 ;l and read it and provide their comments.
l I9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
J l
20 ;
(Laughter.)
21 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are some words that 1
22 apply in that --
l 23 (Laughter.)
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Also, I think visiting around the FMwal Hmorters, le.
l 25 circle would be a useful thing.
If the other offices are like '
1633 130 l
t 42
\\
i 1
dsp42 l
1l I am, it takes a fair amount of time to get -- to get l
2 organized and sit down and collect thoughts and write out a I
3; considered, general paper on a subject.
l 4l And oft times you can talk about it and communicate 1
5; the general thoughts verbally much faster.
6!
You were about to -- please do.
I 7
(Laughter.)
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I just looked at this 9!
briefly, to be honest, but there is something about it that i
10 l bothers me, and I can't quite put my finger on it.
I think --
11 l I can't figure out why some of the statements are here, what 12 l they do for budget planning.
t 13 l And maybe OPE has lined them out.
But things l
14 '
like the public being acrimoniously divided on acceptability il i
15 ]
of risk --
l ll
~
16 '
MR. HANRAHAN:
Those were some of the things the 17.!
Chairman spectically wanted in there.
l 18 [
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please, give Commissioner l9 Gilinsky opportunity to fully discuss his thrust here.
r 20 !
(Laughter.)
f I
21 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I've written documents 3
22 like this in the past; in fact, in cooperation with Ed.
I 23 (Laughter.)
f 24 And I have found that it is useful to lay out the FMwal Ressners, lrm, i
I 25 questions that need to be answered.
In other words:
this is i
1633 13I l
i 43 l
dsp43 l
I I
the answer to what question?
2 And I just found that a very useful way to organize i
3l what needs to be put down: decide what should be in the
.l 3
i 4l paper and what shouldn't be in the paper.
Now, I'm just 5l throwing that out as a suggestion.
You may in the end want i
1 0
to take the questions out or put them in a statement form.
i 7
But I think it is very useful.
i 8:
Frankly, I would like t.o see them there in the i
I 9!
final version just to lay out the questions to which we 10 j
need answers; and these are the answers.
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Some of the questions are:
l 12 j what is the mission of this agency?
How do we go about 13 !l fulfilling this mission?..
l l
Id l Those are some of the general questions to which it j
15 the general policy provides answers.
l 16 )
CHAIRMAN HENLRIE:
But that is very good, you know;!
i I70 there's an identified question, and there's the answer.
18 ;l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are questions latent l
d.i I9 in the statements, and as a mechanism of getting there --
20 l to the answers -- that is as good as any other approach.
21 !
I'm not sure whether putting the explicit series of questions --
)
22 but certainly working down to that is good.
j 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think, Vic, you know --
24 I think we had sort of a similar -- that your first flavor i
Federal Reporters, Inc,,
i 25 off of it is similar to the one I had; that it seemed to me --
1633 132 l-
44 i
i dsp44 well, I think my impression is that the document still asks l
I i
2
!i us to don one or two too many hair shirts; a modest amount i
l i
3l of self-flagellation is probably useful in the guidance
)
I 4
documents, but I don't see a need to agonize at great length I
5 over the matter, but rather to get on to the "what are we 1
6 going to do about it" aspects of the thing.
7l Well, would people -- there are two things that i
8l I would like to do.
One of them is to give opportunity to 9l l
pick up particular points a Commissioner might have on any I
10 point in the document, and then that one that we rose to l'
II l and saved for my smuggled comment that we came away from.
i 12 It's certainly a good place to start.
l 13 i The other thing that I would like to do is to 0
I#
try to have this meeting reflect to the staff at least the o
15 ]
individual Commissioner comments on some of the unresolved
- i 16 ]
topics so that whatever guidance can be developed there, I7 in fact, can be developed.
l 18 There is another -- there is another list of those {
19 things in the OPE memo; in effect, five questions saying 0
1 20,
these -- there are a number of basic questions.
21 Between Steve's unresolved topics slide and the j
22 OPE five, which some of them overlap, why I would like to try l
23 at some point to scan down those and see what the thoughts l
24 are up and down the table for the value of that guidance.
I Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 i
Why don't we -- why don't we go back to the -- pick i
1633 133 j
I 45 i
i dsp45 l
up points that you're particularly interested in, and why 1
s don't we go back to that level or protection proposition and j
2 scratch that a little bit more since it was a major point.
3 !
Peter, you restrained yourself before.
Please-4l I
plunge ahead.
Si l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I don't know that 6;
j one needs to single it out too much fran the other items that i
7 !
l we'll be commenting on and finalizing over the next couple 8,
of weeks.
9 I
But I was just going to remark when I saw the 10,
number of offices that seemed to feel that the public 11 l has not or a limited role to play, because I must say my 12 '
own instinct is it goes in the oppos'.te direction.
l 13 i.
O And back during our last budget go-round, I think 14 ll 1
Research indicated that they had some small amount of money 15 '
l 5
devoted to a project involving the definition of " acceptable 16 '
risk."
17 h
And I thought there was at least some feeling from i
18 our side of the table that that ought to be pointed in a 19 j j
l direction towards public participation as quickly as possible.
20 [l t
[
Anyway, I would certainly feel that way in the context of this item.
l 22 John,yourcommentscertainlyhitinthisdirection,1, 23 l
and I would make even more explicit the proposition that this 24 FMwal Rumners, Inc.
Was a good area for some type of public proceeding at an early; 25 i
1633 134 l
I
46 i
e dsp46 i
1 date.
I
'(
i 2 l, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think -- and Steve pointed i
3l out -- that that was a summary statement, and that them are, i
4' if you go back into details, it's not quite as harsh as you 5!
could infer.
6!
For example, one of the comments in it was that 7
that item seems to state that the NRC will determine adequate 8
levels of protection solely based on public judgments.
This 9;
leaves out other factors; for instance, research studies that 10 l determine safety factors, et cetera, which also establish I
11 levels of protection.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm much less concerned i
l 13 j' with the individual office comments that that was -- that
~
l 14 [
that gave me the reaction in the first place.
But that was e
15 '
using this document to make clear that this is a direction 16 ]
that we feel is important.
17;l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right, yes.
1 I
18 [
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think there is no question l
l.
19 that this is an appropriate vehicle to make it clear.
I must i
l 20 lj say that sort of the apparent conflict here is not real; I
i i
21 really don't know anybody on the staff whose view is other i
22 than that definition of " adequate level of protection" is i
23 ultimately a social and political judgment in the broadest l
24 sense.
I FMwal Recrun, lm.
25 And if there is any unamimous feeling on the staff i
1633 135 l
l 47 l
dsp47 l
ll that I can detect, it is that -- a feeling of desire for a I
I 2
clearer definition fran the appropriate bodies.
3l That goes beyond the Commission, in fact; so I I
4l think it has to do, as John points out, with detail.
l l
5 Well, in the absence of initiatives at higher l
6; levels of the government, why, I think we have a responsibility!
7 to dowhat we can to try to enunciate what seems to us to be 8;
a clearer definition of an adequate level of protection and 9;
expose it to comment.
t 10 l And, you know, if the Congress wanted to then take 11 l the matter up and put something into a law that either accepts that or changes it, whatever, you know, we'd have better 12 13 ;
guidance.
14 h And at the very least, the discussion in the I
15 broader forum would be valuable in settling it.
But I do j
i 16 think if we don't get legislative guidance, why, we're l
17 [
going to have to go ahead and do the best we can and discuss ii 18 i it publicly and get inputs, and so on.
i i
19 I really don't think there are any staff offices i
20,
that would argue with that process, the appropriateness of it,I i
21 the necessity for it.
I 22 You know, Mattson was up here with the long term l
23 lessons learned a few weeks ago saying, "One of my primary 24 messages, Commissioners, is you've got to tell us what does
- Merat Reporurs, lm.
l 25 adequate protection mean to help us get on and do it."
I i633 136 i
l 48 i
i i
dsp48 I
I I I think when it comes to specifics, why, as I say, I
I 2
the kind of thing that John indicated is right.
But I don't j
i I
3' see any differ ice of opinion around the table with regard t
4 to this being an appropriate element for the policy guidance 5
nor any difference of opinion, really, as to what the thrust l
6 of that policy is.
j 7:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say, " appropriate 1
8, element," are you looking at this as a vehicle to spell out k
9' what that adequate level is?
i i
10 {
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, but simply to -- as a matter p-11 as a policy document, and particularly the front end, which 12 ;
sets some very general policy directions, and so on.
I think j
13 ;
this is an appropriate place for it to say, as it does in 14,
some fashion in here already, that it is our intent to plunge i
15 l in and try to develop a better enunciated and more detailed a
I 16 j definition of what is adequate protection for the benefit of l
i 17 ',
everybody, us and everybody else.
l I
18 And part of that process will be seek public input I
i 19 and discussion, and so on.
Then the -- you know -- then the l
i 20 i document that says, "Here is what adequate protection means" - i 21 ! draft one -- no, no, that is not what we're trying to do here. !
/
22 It's just to enunciate the policy, that that's the direction 23,
ie ' re going.
24 MR. BECKERLEY:
If you look at page 4, I think you FMwal Rmorun, lx.
25 can see where the problem was there.
Commissioner Ahearne 1633 137
l 49 I
l i
dsp49 l
1l suggested some changes in wording there to flesh it out more, i
i 2 l.
but the original statement was sort of flat footed.
You're 3I going to go out somewhere in the public and pick up a definition.
I 4
So it was probably the way it was worded.
5; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
6l MR. BECKERLEY:
And if you can see the way we've l
7 I got it marked over, you can see where the problem was.
8' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think part of the problem is 9:
going away in the changed language.
i 10 {
Other elements or more on this one?
l I
11 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I have no more on this 12 one.
But do you really want to try to work through this 13 f item by item now?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Pac of the comments you would 15 make, are not -- if you think an appropriate way to deal with I I
i 16 !
the comments would be to forward the markups and then chew l
17,
on them as we come again to it, why, that it probably i
18 j preferable because the most valuable thing we could do here l
N I
19 j would be to deal, as best we can, with some of the unresalved i
20 l or "we need further guidance in order to take the next step" I
I 21 l sort of things.
i 22 Now, if one of yours appears to fall into that 23 category, why, go ahead.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think this ought to be FMwM Reporars, lm.
25 a pretty spare document.
We ought to go through it sentence 1
1633 138
50 l
I dsp50 I
by sentence and ask why this has to be in here.
i l
2l I don't know what the answer is to a lot of it.
l l
MR. BECKERLEY:
You'll note we suggested a number i
of them.
S j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That happens to be number i
6 one on the unresjlved topics list.
I I
7!
(Laughter.)
i 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think as we go along we 9
can quibble, and as we come to final forms we can -- why 10 :
don' t we cut over then to unresolved topics.
11 i
Why d on' t we start down Steve's list.
Then we'll 12 l pick up the OPE list.
13 i
Comprehensiveness.
'l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Should EEO be included?
i 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me say for myself that I 16 l q
think it's impossible to make it comprehensive for this 17 I
round, A; and B, from some of the limited dicsussions so far i
i 18 l
on this subject,that may not be a good thing, even in the l
19 "-
l steady state, long term conditions.
I i
20 So I guess I vote, let's not have every. blasted a
I i
21 1 I
item that the agency does included in this document.
But let 22 us please hear from other Commissioners and maybe particular 23 things; the one Commissioner Kennedy raises is a good question.
24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
i 25 i
some sentiment for taking antitrust out.
I think maybe what l
l 1633 139 i
i j
51 dsp51 1
I would be included to do is put that somewhere near the i
2l beginning, saying that there are a host of other things:
j I
3l l
antitrust, EEO.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
That would be a very 5
valuable thing to do.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just to acknowledge that 7l we have statutory responsibilities in this area.
8, MR. CONVER:
Excuse me, the only reference to 9i antitrust in the document itself is in the Commissioners' l
10 i statement.
There is no reference that antitrust is --
11.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, but that doesn't run i
12 counter b the thought here that a useful footnote early on 13 would he the list of items that a reader may find as he 14 progresses through the PPPG, that it includes all the 15 responsibilities of the agency.
I 16 '
Other comments in this area?
17 (No response.)
h 18 g The response to the Kemeny and Rogovin reports --
i l
19 l and in a sense, that gathers up the impact of the TMI Action 20 Plan on programs and operating plants -- well, looking at the 21 4 schedule, I don't know what's unresolved about it, except I i
l
/
I 22 guess we'll have to do the best we can.
23 And what is unresolved about it is it isn't clear 24 that we're going to be able to make this schedule and do all I
- ederal Reporters, Inc. l 25 that stuff.
1633 140
52 I
i dsp52 i
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I'm a little puzzled in i
i 2 ll the following sense:
clearly, the Rogovin report, that 3l really depends upon if it meets it schedule and how much has i
4l to be changed and incorporated in this document as it stands l
i 5
.now.
6' A vast amount of our response we sent over to Press 7;
on the Kemeny has a much more significant impact on the 8;
program plans than this document.
So I'm not -- I don't i
9 see any problem with trying to inentporate the results of 10 our deliberations on the Kemeny report, which I think is 11 in that report we sent to Press.
12 But I'm not sure having said that -- I'm not sure 13 j what would change here.
- l h
14 ]
MR. CONVER:
That item reflects that nobody has l
15 'h physically gone through the process of taking the Press i
16 letter and sitting down with it and looking for Commission 17 policies which in curn would be transferred to the PPPG.
18 g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think this raises one o
19 particular case.
20 MR. GOSSICK:
I think there is going te be one i
21 l aspect, and that deals with priorities; what I understand of l
22 l the actior: plan and what you're going to see next Monday, that 23 research impact can't but help affect consideration of 24 priorities, the things we have to get done, and the cost F.e.r.: necon.n anc.
25 thereof.
So it will impact your judgment on prier 4. ties.
I 1633 141 l
l 53 I
dsp53 l
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's less than it's unresolved i
i 2
than it's th'e' labor lies before us.
l l
3' MR. HALLER:
I think that may be right.
This is l
l 4l more a flag.
i 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
More a flag.
You're not asking l
6, us if we should ignore it.
The answer is no, we should not 7l ignore it.
We should do it.
l 8'
The problem is it's going to take some time.
I 9
MR. BECKERLEY:
We were hoping on getting a first i
10 i cut on incorporating any significant input from Kemeny on Il !
this next go-round.
It seems to me we can go through the 12 Frank Press letter and identify some things.
So we anticipate l
13 leaving the Kemeny thing off until --
14 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By all means.
15 'i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think you will find --
16 the Press letter, really, there's a lot of specifics, and the 17 specifics track with overall policies, and those policies are 18 g pretty well represented herc.
19 MR. BECKERLEY:
There might be something on the li 20 !
man-machine interface sort of thing that we could pick up.
t 21 l CRAIRMAN FENDRIE:
Okay.
Content of program area l
22 list.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my question there 24 was whether you should have a specific, identified item which FMwat Rmomrs, lm:. l I
25 '
is the action plan.
1633 142 l
I 54 -55 l
I, dsp54 I
MR. HALLER:
That may very well be one of the things l
l 2l that the Commission would like us to track as a separate i
3 program.
I 4l We thought ebout that, and should you wish us to i
5 do that, we would like to hear about that.
Also on that l
6 particular topic, there were comments from the offices that l
7 went in a couple of directions.
One is that you cught to l
8, include some more programs in the current list of programs; 9l and I believe NRR and NMSS had some suggestions along that 10 line.
i II There was also another type of a comment that was 12,
made by NMSS, and that was that you ought to align the programsj 13 l more so they are identical to unique decision units, so that Id 3 in your tracking systems you don't have to cut across decision l
15 units, but in fact you have identified the program so they I
16 ;
are along the diagonal of the matrix, if you will.
l i
s I7 $
Right now we have in fiscal '80 identified, as j
18 J Steve has said, 19 program areas, several of which do cut Ul across the decision units; others of them are identified i
20 uniquely with a decision unit.
t l
21,
For lack of a better list, we included that list 22 in the FY '82 to FY '86 PPPG, but it may very well be 23 appropriate that the Commission may wish to see others or may wish to have them aligned in a different way.
24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What comes to mind is I l
1633 143 i
56 l
dsp56 I
think it exists for the transformation, but I don't know if l
j
.i '
2d I can find it.
l 3l; t
(Laughter.)
I i
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see; among the 19 --
5 there are 19 program areas, and there are about how many 6!
decision units?
7l MR. HALLER:
Approximately 50 in the five major 8l program offices.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
We're finding come difficulties in i
10 reviewing these program areas and being able to pick out the II decision units,.that part of the decision unit that applies 12 ;
to that program.
And there is some additional work to be done.
I3 ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There isn't much difficulty when l'
Id !!
you have a program area that has, say, three discreet decision 15 )l l
units that may fall into it.
The problem is where you get l
16
- units that have legs in one or more programs.
I7 MR. HALLER:
Yes, sir.
l l
18 l l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well --
l l
l MR. HALLER:
Would it be helpful for me to --
r i
20 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know whether_it would 1
21 be handy to try to change the program areas or change the
,1 22 decision units or do it cross-cut.
What were you going to say?
l 23 24 MR. GOSSICK:
Let me suggest that we were trying Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 to get -- you know -- further along and do what needs to be i
1633 144 l
I 57 l
dsp57 i
1 done with the current reg guide.
l 2j I guess we could probably work along that and j
l i
3!
come up with a solution.
You've got one here that isn't l
3 t
i I
4l all that bad.
l 5.
There probably are other things that we could
~
6:
use our time on more profitably.
I'd go with this for some i.
7l period of time until you see things that are obviously wrong 8
and have to be changed.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is there a number -- were there 10 14 program areas at the time --
11 l MR. HALLER:
There are 19.
12 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Were there 19 when we had the i
13 previous --
d l'
14 ]
MR. HALLER:
Yes, sir; there were 19, right.
I 15 I CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It wasn't all that far off the i
16 '
diagonal of the matrix.
i 17 l MR. HALLER:
That's correct.
U l
18 "
MR. CONVER:
They're listed on the back page of i
19 your package here, Chairman Hendrie.
20 (Commissioner Gilinsky left the Commissioner's i
21 '
conference room at 3:02 p.m.)
i 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, yes.
23 Okay, let me scan down my unresolved -- let me
~
24 find it again.
Better treatment of priorities:
we're going i
FWwal Rooruts, Inc.
25 to have to find something better than a rank ordering from I
1633 145 l
i
i 58 dsp58 l
1 one to 70 or 100 or whatever it is.
I'm getting sick and 2l tired of seeing letters from Congressmen coming in and i
3 saying, "This decision unit is only ranked 37 in the agency.
i I
4j How come it isn't number one?"
l 5:
The answer is:
there's only one number one, i
6; dummy.
l l
i 7i (Laughter.)
l 1
1 8l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I haven't seen that answer I'
91 yet.
10 (Laughter.)
11 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You've got to select one to be l
l 12 '
number one, and the fact is that another has to be number two l
t l
13 or number 37; there are assorted responsibility areas.
I
~
h 14 1 think it sounds to me like it's going to have to come off
'l 15 !
with classes, red, blue,and green, or one, two, and three, or 16.;
A, B,
and C, or something like that.
i
- l 4
17 And even then it is going to be pretty agonizing 18 3 because we're all going to want everything in A, I bet.
19!l MR. HANRAHAN:
That's a problem.
But if you can ll l
20 put them -- some things may be highest priorities but don't 21 need additional resources.
You have all the people in the i
/
22 world working on it.
Something that may be second priority i
23 may need additional resources.
24 You don 't want to give the appearance,because Federal Repo, tera, Inc.
25 you're putting resources on something and not something else, 1633 146 l
59 i
dsp59 I
li that there is a priority choice there.
2 But nonetheless -- you know -- it's the i
3!
actualization of that -- you know -- we're going to put 10 3
1 4
more guys and $10 million or take 10 guys off of that job; i
l 5
those are the real important decisions.
l 6:
And I think they've got to be linked together.
l 7;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You weren't hoping to get II 8
priority categories out of us today, were you?
9 MR. HALLER:
No, sir.
Let me comment --
i 10 f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Be as ambitious as you like, 11 i but --
12 (Laughter.)
I 13 '
MR. HALLER:
Let me comment on that one just 14 a little bit; our approach to the priority setting part of 15 '
the document was, I think, typified in the section which l
l 16 immediately follows.the first 10 policies statements under i
17 l section A,
" Protecting the Public."
18 Behind those 10 policy statements are a number I? q of items which I would call. planning guidance, as opposed to c
i 20 '
policy guidance.
And in there we suggested certain things I
21 j like emphasis on this, emphasis on that.
Do a little more of 22 this, this type of thing.
23 This was our approach to the priorities, and we 24 tried to steer away from actually saying, you know, here is a Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 long ranking -- although we did identify operating reactors, 1633 147 I
l 60 i
I l
dsp60 1
I believe, as kind of a top priority.
l t'
i 2 l, Now, my sense of the comments within the staff is j
3!
that they would like a little more delineation of priorities 4l along the lines of some sort of a ranking, perhaps.
I don't 5
know whether that is going to be possible, and I guess I 61 personally believe that if you get too much into that, it l
i 7:
would not serve a very useful purpose.
(
8, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I guess I -- well, okay.
l 9i There are certain general principles that follow, activities I
I 10 !
that don't have much to do with the possible contacting of I
11 ]
members of the public, working staffs' facilities with 12 ;
radiation.
These seem fundamentally to me to have somewhat I
13 J less of an urgency behind them than those elements of 14 0 activities that do have that feature.
15 MR. BECKERLEY:
You could always order priorities t
16 l in order of consequences.
In other words, the consequences 17 of not doing a good job or prompt job on this would negligiblej 18 ?
as far as the public is concerned.
l I
19 ll In some cases they would be lower priorities.
I a
20 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, yes.
Let's see; inclusion 21 of fiscal guidance.
Isn't that -- you want to stick it in
't.
22 in some sort of broad range?
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I believe it's just about 24 central.
3 1633 148 l
~..a_,.~..
25 l l
i
61 i
i l
I dsp61 l
l' (Commissioner Bradford left the Commissioner's 2l conference room at 3:07 p.m.)
t 3i The other one has left me in the lurch now.
l 4l MR. GOSSICK:
Could I ask a question on that?
5 Is the intent to give a feeling that an office director 6
or EDO would not come to the Commission?
l 7s COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's guidance.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It hasn't reached the l
9 question of limitations, but it certainly would be a strong l
10 j indication.
11 !
MR. GOSSICK:
An indication, to my own thinking, i
12 -
is useful, 1
i 13..
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The resource priorities c'
i 14 '
which the Commission has; and substantially altering that 0
15 would require pretty clear cut justification.
l i
16 MR. HANRAHAN:
It's a budget process; this is 17 one of the clear decision making processes where real decisions 1
i 18 '
get made.
It's all right to close ceilings; you know what's 19 l really going to be coming in there.
l l
20 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
It's going to be an l
l 21 interesting exercise which everybody will have bound in a l
l 22 proper volume on their bookshelf never to open again.
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
Absolutely.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Practical opposition.
I FMwat Aneners, Inc.
25 (Laughter.)
l 1633 149 l
\\
62 l
dsp62 1i The Commission guidance on fiscal guidance is:
f 2) do it.
I 3l The internal management section?
I don't know.
I i
i 4
MR. HANRAHAN:
Mr. Ahearne had strong views on that,.
5 as I recall.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which way were they?
Go ahead.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It wasn't that I think we 8l need not have some strong actions in the management area, I
9f but my view of a policy guidance document wasn't one where l
10 the Commission then turns around -- the Commission --
Il !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Tells itself what to do; I
12 agree with that.
I agree with that.
Okay.
l 13 On the OPE things, we've dong, fiscal guidance.
I la l The program areas, are they listed appropriately?
- Well, 15 nobody so far has screamed about those, so I guess the first f
i j
16 '!
cut there is fine.
l l'
17 !
The international area?
18 ll MR. BECKERLEY:
We've provided you with an enclosure I
l9 three which discusses that.
l i
0 20 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And -- enclosure three?
l 21 !
MR. BECKERLEY:
It may be out of place.
I 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Between enclosure two and 23 page 12.
24 (Laughter.)
Federal Reporters, Inc.
i l
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Right, right.
Yes, I see.
I l
l 1633 150 l
i j
63 l
l
.,dsp63 j!
thought it was part -- I thought it was part of internal h
2 ll management or " delete this."
l 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there anything we can i
4l do about putting in a priority for the acquisition of a 5
collating machine?
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. HANRAHAN:
That's internal management, sir.
8 !
(Laughter.)
I I
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We decided not to do anything i
10 !
like that; that's right.
I 11 i MR. BECKERLEY:
The trouble is, I think, they 12,
ran off the thing and page 12 was --
l 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, anyway, what's the l
la thrust of this comment on guidance for international a
15 !
activities?
Obey the law or --
16 MR. BECKERLEY:
No, the thrust is -- the thrust is I
17 premature.
18 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What?
e MR. BECKERLEY:
The thrust is premature.
f 19 g
20 ;!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I'll buy that.
21 i The internal management we've settled.
I 22 l What guidance concerning risk assessment and i
l 23 acceptable risk can be provided in the PPPG document; let's see, page 3.
24 Fewet Rmorurs, inc. !
{
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That really gets to part of 1633 151
i 64 l
dsp64 I
I the question that Steve raised.
2 ll MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes, the very first one, the 3
level of protection, the question I think you have answered.
I 4
MR. BECKERLEY:
There was also question of whether i
5 there was some inconsistency among the policy statements.
6 MR. HANRAHAN:
That might well be.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm not sure there is 8
inconsistency in what I at least would read as the thrust --
l 9
MR. BECKERLEY:
Yes.
I i
10 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- of the January deliberations 11 !
and what we are currently doing.
l 12 i MR. BECKERLEY:
Right.
t l
13 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But I -- but at the sama time, l
14 I wouldn't want to say it is all written down in a way l
I I
15 !
which is quite clear, and I think there might usefully be 16 some -- we might find it to be useful to provide some I
i 17,
clarification because there is a fairly powerful set of I
18,
tools, analysis tools out there which we are using, which I
l 19 '
are important to use.
l l
20 l And I have found the impression -- occasionally l
21 '
even in a staff person who isn't that close to it -- lots on 22 the outside -- that the Commission essentially forbade that 23 kind of activity back in January, which I didn't read our l
24 thrust to be at any point.
FMwal Reporurs, inc.
25 And it may be that some clarification would be 1633 152
65 t
dsp65 l
1 appropriate.
2 Now, is this document the place to do it?
3' Maybe, but I don't know.
I I
4l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If that clarification is 5
necessary, are we going to make that clarification?
I'm not i
6, sure if this document is a way to initiate such action.
It 7l only reflects it.
8l Be awfully careful.
If we're going to initiate i
9 new policy making in this document, everybody has to understand 10 i that that is the name of the game.
i Il f COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think to some extent it i
12 may be initiating new policy.
l 13 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is supposed to articulate l
14 existing policy, not make new policy.
I 15 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think it does both, Dick, 16 ;
because there are some issues that the Commission may not haveI i
17; faced;at that point where it faces them and lays them out, 18 then it is making policy.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Right.
It certainly has that t
I 20 potential.
i l
l 21 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The act of the Commission, I
~
/
22 specifically facing that question and saying yes, this is 23 what we wanted to say; the Commission has to do this.
/
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, yes.
l FMeral Reorwrs, tx.,
l 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And everybody has to understand i
1/77 C7
- 1. 3
- DJJ
66 J
l
- i i
dsp66 1
,i
' l that the document itself may be saying something that the i
i n
I public didn't otherwise know.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Correct.
Correct.
Or the 4
4 staff.
l l
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or the staff; that's right. ;
i 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I don't know; it wouldn ' t i 7'
strike me really as a front end sort of an item, unless it's l
become that glaring a difficulty throughout the staff.
Somewhe're 3
i 9;
down in the body, it might be appropriate to cover it in this 10 i document.
i t]
l On the other hand, there are other ways to do it I
too.
I'm not sure.
Did you have anything in mind, since you I.
guys brought it up?
l l
MR. BECKERLEY:
No.
i-MR. HALLER:
May I make a comment on that, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
94 MR. HALLER:
Risk assessment is one of the major 13 program areas, one of the 19, and my suggestion would be we i
could handle that as part of a program write-up.
If we 20 feel anything ought to go in front of it, other thm what is i
'l i there, then we simply --
-f 22 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The solution is so eminently 23 !
sensible that I hate to embrace it.
l 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before it gets away, you Fwerai neportm. ine.
I 25 ll just got three votes for that.
l 1633 154
.l 67 i
I 1
dsp67 I ]'i (Laughter.)
.i I
I CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other items?
l (No response.)
Okay, so what should I do, mark up the December 5 l
4 l
5 OPE one and sail it off to OPE?
i 6
MR. EANRAHAN:
And we will get you the copy, if 7'
you don't already have it, of the staff comments.
And I will 3
be around to discuss it with you.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Chat.
And then you will --
MR. HANRAHAN:
Make our best effort on it.
l 10,
l II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We'll try to bash something l
12 out by the first of the week, and starting sometime af ter a week from now, why SECY will be scheduling its instructions to try to move upon this.
'5 All right?
l Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you disappear, I'd i
like to congratulate all of you people who worked so hard in i
n getting us so far along.
l 20 MR. HALLER:
Thank you very much.
It was a challenge 21 to write the document,and we're very pleased to be a part of c'
22 it.
i 23 l (Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.!)
l 24 l Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 j 1633 155
.