ML19257C442
| ML19257C442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/17/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257C443 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-138, REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001290132 | |
| Download: ML19257C442 (43) | |
Text
3RIGINil
-.. e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING with Representatives of Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union regarding NFS-Erwin and
' financial relief and related matters i
J Place -
Washington, D. C.
Date.
Thursday, 17 January 1980 Pages 1 - 41 Telephone:
(202)347 3700 ACE -FEDERAL REPORTFRS,INC.
OfficialReporters s
' 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE - DAILY a001200
/32-
1 CR9225 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, 17 January 1980 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Straet, 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 CPR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision cf 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 witi; the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1833 002L h
la Gloom /wbl 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t^225 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3, l
4j l
I I
S' I
6 7
PUBLIC MEETING 8
with I
9 Representatives of Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers l
10 International Union regarding NFS-Erwin and 11 financial relief and related matters i
12 13 14 Commissioners' Conference Room, Room 1130, 1717 H Street, N.W.,
i 15 Washington, D.C.
I 16 l Thursday, 17 January 1980 I
i 17 l The public meeting was called to order at 3:30pm.q i
18 pursuant to notice, Commissioner Gilinsky presiding.
l' l
19 IN ATTENDANCE:
20 COMMISSIONER VICTOR GILINSKY, Acting Chairman 21 COMMISSIONER RICHARD T. KENNEDY 22 COMMISSIONER JOSEPH M, HENDRIE 23 COMMISSIONER PETER A. BRADFORD 24 wat Recomes, im i
i
'9225 I
wrb/agbl P_ R_ O_ C E_ E,D_ I_ N_ G_ S_
2l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We 're here to -- principally! tc 3{
hear from the members of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers' i
l International Union, who expressed an interest in talking to thc I
5 Commission about the situation in Erwin, Tennessee.
I'd like i
i 6,
to invite tihem to come up to the table here and join us.
t 7li Because of constraints on our time and, in particula'r, l
8 my time, I'd like you to stick to the schedule which we've laid 9
out which will carry this portion of the meeting until 4:00.
I 10 We've agreed to let the NRDC address the Commission for 10 l
11 minutes after that, and we will ask if anyone else in the 12 audience has anything to say at that point to add.
I3 Gentlemen, welcome.
14 The chairman is sick, he's not here and that's why 15 1'm chairing t%
eeting.
He would have wanted to have been l
6 here otherwise.
17 Please let us know what is on your mind.
I i'
18 MR. HANCOCK:
My name is Nolan Hancock.
I'm the Legislative Director.of OCAW here in Washington.
Our Inter-20 national President, on December 6, had requested or asked for i
i 21 i
a --
l CO3DiISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have to interrupt you i
l 23 one moment, because I just realized that we have to vote to 24 hold the meeting on less than one week's notice.
.l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Aye.
1833 004 '
I I
I agb2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is a little sample i
4!
of the rules under which we have to live.
I'm sorry I i
5 interrupted you.
Go ahead.
0 MR. HANCOCK:
Our International President had 7
requested a meeting with the Commission regarding the shutdown 8l of the Erwin, Tennessee plant.
We were concerned because we 9
had many bargaining unit people who were laid off because of i
I 10 the decision you made,because of the financial impact you were 11 have upon the members of the bargaining unit in Erwin, Tennessee.
12 That financial condition was not subjected upon the non-
+
I3 bargaining unit people.
Id Since we were not aware of the type of hearing 15 that you have put together here, we're going to do it in a 16 little different fashion.
I'm going to'ask Mr. Steve Wodka.
I7 the International Representative, to speak for a few minutes 18 on a couple of issues.
The District Director, John Williams, l
i on my far left, and then three members of the Local, including i
20 the Local Committee Chairman, who is here from Erwin, Tennesse 21 and will discuss some other issues.
22 We want to say we were not given advance notice.
23 Our International President had planned on presenting our 24 petition in person, along with our legal counsel.
Since a.cersi Reponen, Inc.
25 they were unable to be here present because of the time 1833 005
4 1
agb3 constraints, we will proceed in this manner.
l 2
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you.
3 WODKA:
What I'd like to do is to lay out a 4
little history as to how we see the situation and biing forth i
5 some information that does not seem to be discussed, at least 61 in the press release that was issued, about the situation j
l at Erwin.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you have the press I
9i release that was issued yesterday?
l l
10 '
'I MR. WODKA:
Yes, we do.
i 11 Our local union at Erwin went on strike on 12 April 14.
It was a legal strike.
The collective bargaining 13 agreement had expired, and they went back to work on August 6.
14 It was about a four-month strike.
15 It is our understanding from discussions with the 16 NRC Staff that the accounting period during which the material 17 i
loss occurred was between June the 18, 1979 and August 14.
18 This period of time nearly met the period of time that our i
19 I
people were on strike.
20 Now I bring this up for one very important reason:
I i
21 ;
4 the Nuclear Fuel Services Corporation employs 270 of our members i
22 l
at their plant; obviously they do some specific functions, i
23 I
The people at the plant who are in the bargaining 24 5%., Reponm. ine.
unit that we represent have to go through minimum periods of 25 time of training and also, of course, on-the-job trair4ng.
1833 006' i
5 agb4 l
Obviously they are skilled'in what they do.
They receive this,
2 d j
training, they have to pass various kinds of tests forcertainl 3 I kinds of reasons.
When they went on strike in April, the local union !
4 5
quick.'.y perceived the situation that management was bringing 6l non-qualified people inside the plant to handle special nuclea 7l material that had not been trained, that had not gone through I
8 the periods of training that our pecole had had to ao throuch..
f I
9l On July 6, 1979 the OCAW International Union filed 10 a ccmplaint with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stating 11 the situation precisely:
the highly trained and qualified 12 people who regularly operate the plant were on strike, l
13 that salaried personnel who did not have -- and in this case 14 we mentioned 18 months of training -- were operating the plant, 15 were handling special nuclear material.
We mentioned in our 16 complaint several instances that we had been able to find out of where we thought potentially, well, contaminationJ. incidents l
18 involving health and safety had occurred while our people j
19 were on strike and while these untrained peopAe were trying i
I I
20 l
to operate the plant.
'l The complaint was filed.
Your Staff did commence 22 with an investigation almost immediately.
But the basic thrust 23 of the request was essentially how can the NRC, which has i
24 control over this facility, allow this plant to continue to Feueral Reporters, Irtc.
25 operate by people who did not know what they were doing while 1833 007 l
I agb5 the trained people were out on strike, particular1? with the 2#
kind of material that these people were handling?
?
3' On July the 18, in somewhat of an unusual kind of 4l fashion, I guess, for our feelings to be expressed to the NRC,l' I
l the local union came up ana olcketed vour building here at 1
f 6
1717 H Street and we handed out a leaflet which, I know, was 7
given to some of the people who are sitting at this table 8
here and in which we came right out in ' bold letters and asked i
9 the NRC to shut the plant dawn during the strike because of the t
10 fact that untrained people were running the plant.
11 Now I don't know if you've seen this, Commissioner 12 Gilinsky, but I will leave"you with a copy of it now.
That's l
13 the leaflet that we handed out on July the 18.
14 (Handing document to Commissioner Gilinsky.)
15 Nonetheless, the strike, as you know, it ended on 16 l
August the 6.
The accounting period in question ended on 17 August 14.
On August 30, in a letter to NFS from Mr. Kenna, 18 Chief of the Safeguards Branch, I guess here in Washington l
i 19 I
or in Atlanta, sent a report to NFS and said that,in regaru 20 to our complaint that routine health and safety physical 21 '
security, material control and accounting program requirements; I
22 were executhd properly and according to approved procedures.
i I
i 7
Now that was the position as of August 30.
i 24 l Then on September 17, of Course, is when the-Fou.rst Reportm, Inc.
1 2~5 l
company, the Licensee reported to you about the loss, the; 1833 008 1
7 I
tgb6 accounting loss that had occurred.
I 1
l
'l We simply want to make the point that we think that I
i 8
i f
had the NRC heeded our request, had required the plant to be i
I shut down while the trained people are on strike, that the loss
,t would not have occurred and that the security or tne material 6'
would have been maintained.
I
'j And that is simply it.
We see no mention of that, 8
no acknowledgement of that by NRC in its release or in its
~
9 order acknowledging their responsibility in what happened 10 i
here.
11 We would be interested if you have any comments 12 in terms of this facility or any other facility when trained 13 people who happen to be members of a bargaining unit exercise 14 a lawful right to go on strike, yet the NRC continues to allow 15 that facility to operate.
I think that's a very crucial issue i
16 that this Commission has to address and in this particular situation you can see how disastrous the results can be.
l 18 I
Again we would also, of course, like to bring up l
the fact that -- and then of course beginning in mid-September l 19 20 and running to now the middle of January, another four months --
21 four times, from anywhere from one-half *o three-quarters of 22 the bargaining unit people were laid off.
They did suffer i
i l
23 a severe financial loss.
24 They're quite bitter about this because, again, l
aE Al Reportsrs, Inc.
25 they knew that the plant should have been shut down during the 1833 009 i
m
8 8
f agb7 I
strike when the loss occurred, and yet they have to bear the l
2 full financial brunt of both the NRC's mistake as well as 3l NFS's mistakes.
And they will comment in particular to show 4
you how disastrous that kind of financial beating can be.
5 The last thing that we would like to bring up is j
6' we would like to know more detail, perhaps -- maybe you can 1
7' tell us how it can be done, since we're limited on time -- how 8
the new security arrangements will bs conducted at the plant.
9 i
I" Some of this may conflice with our collective bargairdng II agreement, obviously the federal regulations do proceed on 12 collective bargaining agreement, but we have a right to know 13 how, in what ways and what's going to be e pected of our I#
people in the future.
We would like to know more detail of 15 these new security arrangements and what they mean, 16 i
Lonnie, would you like to pick it up regarding the l
I7 financial impact?
18 MR. TOLLEY:
Since the plant has been shut down, I
it has really caused a great financial burden uoon the i
20 bargaining people.
We have now roughly, I guess, 205 people i
21 that's been laid off and hopefully they'll be going back to i
22 work.
j 23 But the thing about it is we'll face this every 24 f
60 days, every time we have a re-inventory, well'we'.11 face
-Foowal Reporters, Inc.
25 the fact that we could very well be lai.d.off and we're looking 1833 010 1
9 I
agb8 at part-time work.
2 l
And we feel that we have one of the safest i
3, j
as far as the Erwin plant, one of the safest plants that therel 4'
could be.
We have a good record as far as accidents are concerned and as far as security-wise, I don't see how it could I
63 any better than what it is in the plant.
But yet it seems like 7
that NRC keeps coming in and putting more and more and more 8
regulations on or even they'll come and tell us this and, you 9
l know, sometimes we feel it really gets ridiculous.
And it's really putting the hardship on our people.
11 l
And we've had people that's been laid cff, some j
12 i
of their unemployment, I guess, is pretty close to running l
13 out now.
Their insurance has been cancelled.
And we've 14 faced this in the past.
15 But we feel, and we would like to see, something l
16 l
set up.
We don't want the plant shut down, we want to work.
17 But we want to know that we've got a job in the future, we 18 want to know that at least we're going to work more than 60 19 i
days at a time.
l 20 l l
And we feel that somebody's responsible forithe 21 !
losses that we've had as far as being laid off, because we I
1 22 i
did come up here, we tried to get NRC to shut the plant down.
23 i
i And we feel that we're well trained to operate the plant, 24 t
t e Reconm. ine.
we're people that have had training in this area but yet the 25 l
salaried people, we feel that they're not trained to operate the 1833 UII i
10 I
igb9 plant under the circumstances.
l 2
And in the future we feel that if another strike I
3 occurs, than definitely the plant should be shut down until 4
any labor dispute might be settled.
We have good relations I
5l with the company, but there's occasions that there can't be i
6l agreement reached and you have strikes.
But we feel that 7
in the future, if we do have a strike, that the NRC should i
8 come in and shut the plant down.
9 And also we would like to know where we stand as 10 far as work in the future is concerned and if we're going to 11 be able to operate now for maybe another few months and then l
12 you-all are going to come in and there's going to be more l
13 restrictions put on us to right now where we're faced with Id being checked about three times before we leave the facility.
15 And it really puts a hardship on us.
16 But I think that if you people would..make up your I7 mind or make a decision on what it's going to take to operate 18 that plant,.then we can operate under those conditions.
19 MR. METCALF:
My name is Hubert Metcalf, Jr.
20 I I'm a Committee Member of Local 3677 of Erwin, Tennessee.
21 The plant that we refer to, which is NFS, I've 22 worked at it for 17 years, I have 17 years service.
23 And there during this time there have been layoffs 24 back and forth, but since about three, four,five years ago that Foel Reporten, Inc.
the NRC came in and took control of the security and safeguprds 1833 012 I
11 I
agbl0 of.this plant there's always been, every 60 1 xys, the possi-2i l
bility of a layoff, inventory discrepancy.
3" And up until recently, me with 17 years service, l
\\
I I didn't think it would bother me, I thought I was so far I
c"l down on the notem cole that they couldn't get me.
Well i
I 6
gentlemen, it did.
It did.
l 7
And my wife, she's had to go to work.
And the 8
kids at Christmas was cut short, not knowing what to expect 9!
from this Comoany.
i i
10 Plus the City of Erwin is only about 8,000 people.
11 And there's approximately 450 people working at this plant, 12 somewhere near there, salary and the bargaining unit.
And 13 it's a big impact on the community of Erwin, Tennessee when 14 this plant goes down.
Not only have we suffered, our kids 15 suffered, the whole community is suffering during this time.
16 And I feel like that it's directly the fault of you-all for 17 l
not closing the plant while we were on strike and having 18 untrained personnel operating that plant.
19 MR. HARRIS:
I'm Ted Harris.
20 I think the other guys have covered it pretty well
,)
but I would like to add a couple of things:
that I feel j
22 that it's your people's responsibility, you haven't acted 23 in good faith in doing some things we requested you people 24 to do when we were on strike, sJeuvrsl Reporters, Inc.
25 As you people are well aware, that's one of our 1833 013 -
I
I 12 t
I agbil national security suppliers.
And if it comes down to where 2l you people have to take that long to make a decision on whether 3{
to operate that plant or not, then I'd hate to be the people f
i 4
i to have to make the decision on, if it came down to going into I
5' war or something.
6 But like I say, these people -- I'm not laid off, 7
I'm very fortunate -- but I feel that you people should have 8
stepped in there and done something to get that plant either 9
closed to the extent that it was say fortunate conditions l
10 or closed it down until we settled the contract.
But you 11 people dids't act upon that.
12 And another thing.
I feel that you people should 13
-- it took us about a month or longer to get a meeting set up with you people.
And I don't feel that you're criving us 15 legitimate time on this which, we're all aware that you're 16 l
pretty busy people.
I7 But anyway, I think you people ought to take 18 steps further to correct these, and they are a problem, and j
19 get on with it, because we're the people that pay your salary.
20 And that's something that I think you pTople are overlooking.
l 2I MR. WILLIAMS:
I'm John Williams.
I'm District i
l 22 Director of District 3.
I was che represenrative representing 23 the locr' during the strike.
I also worked in the plant for i
24 I
13-1/2 7 before I went on the strike.
Fa at Reporters, Inc.
25 I think that NRC failed to do their job during the j
1833 014
I tgbl2 strike.
They were -- they contended that they worked under safe conditions.
I don't think anybody in their right mind j
3l would believe that.
I don't think anyone's going to believe l
4l that.
I i
5 And the fact is that the material was lost during i
i 6'
the strike.
He was warned about it, NRC was warned -- they're!
l 7'
not doing their job.
They haven't done their job.
O COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure I 9
1 understand your point when you said you don't believe that, 10 I you mean what?
11 i
MR. WILLIAMS :
That the conditions were safe in 12 that plant during that strike.
How could it possibly be safe l
13 '
to meet the conditions, the operating requirements when it i
14 takes 450 or 60 people to run the plant and under safe 15 conditions.
Then when you have a strike you take 272 of the 16 people out of the plant, all the qualified operators, all the I
maintenance people, all the laboratory technicians, all the 18 health and safety technicians, all the clerks and then you 19 I
take these other 150 or 160 people and replace them and run i
20 i i
the plant and then NRC tries to tell us -- and apparently 21 !
you-all believe it -- that they were running under the require-22 ments of the regulations, i
23 NRC is responsible basically for the loss.
They're I
i 24 '
also responsible for the loss of the wages of these peopl'e wei neoomn. Inc.
25 l here.
And there's no way you can get around it.
You might 1833 015 1
gbl3 1,
as well face up to it. Beca e yc may wash it off, this,that Il I
2, and the otner, but the fac
. they lost, these people i
l 3,
took a financial loss " hat
. have been taken, there's 4:
a loss of material that shouldn ' t exist.
j i
5' You people take for months to decide whether you'll i
6; open the plant up.
At the same time, the company is setting 7
down there hiring each week salary pecple, non-bargaining unit 8
people, plus retaining the.non-bargaining unit people in the 9
plant.
Nobody tcok a loss.
10 ;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Of the non-bargaining?
II lI MR. WILLIAMS:
Right.
The only people that took 12 a loss in this was the bargaining unit employees.
We had l
13 employees in thst:: plant that worked less than three months 14 this year.
Could you live on less than three months' salary?
15 Someone has to be responsible.
And the responsibility 16 l of this falls right back on NRC, they didn't do their job.
i 17 It's probably not the first time, it won't be the last time.
18 Because we have no confidence in them, nobody else does either4 19
'We don't have any confidence in them coming in on 20 their health and safety inspections.
These guys should have i
21 l got into that a little more, because they deal with them i
22 directly, I don't in a long time but I didn't when I did deal i l
23 ;
with them.
24 They were in there, resident inspectors, you'd 4
, Recomrs, Inc.
file complaints, they sent all kind of people in.
All we'd 25
~
1833 016 i
15 I
agbl4 get was Well, you know, they're running, they're meeting all 2
the requirement", and the operating procedures.
And there's 3
And there's no way in hell that they could have 4l been met.
You can't meet the requirements in a plant, running i
e!
l a facility when it takes 450 or 70 people, and take 270 of i
6' those people out, the qualified, the skilled people out of that!
7 plant and run, there's no way.
i 8
So I'm finished.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Go ahead.
I MR. TOLLEY:
I failed to mention my name a while 11 ago, my name is Lonnie Tolley, I'm President of the other i
l 12 Local there and also the President of District 3.
l l
13 And anc ther thing:
we keep talking about loss of I#
material, why we, as far as we're concerned there never was 15 a loss of material.
16 And another thing I'd like to mention is that we I7 feel that NRC has got the limits set so low that it's just I8 about impossible to operate a plant that low because the amount 19 of material is so low versus so much material that goes through 20 }
the plant that it's easy to come up with a discrepancy of that 21 '
amount, and given due time you could come up with the material, 22 it's probably inside the plant because you..have so nany lines 23 and places where the material could be.
24 But being that the limits are set so low, we're A J Reporters, Inc.
25 just faced with a layoff every ti.ne you inventiory.- And like 1833 017 i
16 I
aqbl5 John said, the salaried people weren't laid off, it was just 2l>
the bargaining unit people.
In fact, I think the company mustj 3i i
have been convinced that they were going to go on but, heck, l
4l l
we didn't know whether we had a job or not, we didn't know I
5l whether you people were going to release us or not.
And yet 6l we saw the company hiring more people but wen were on the 1
7 street.
8 And I think that it's only fair to us if you're l
I 9
going to set the regulations and let a plant operate, then 10 -
i you should set some kind of regulations to take care of the l
11 l people when you :p'ut them on the street.
i l
12 l MR. HANCOCK:
Let me just kind of sum up here 1
l 13 quickly.
14 C' 3MISSIONER GILINSKY:
I want to respond to a 15 couple of points.
16 MR. HANCOCK:
We 'd like to hear your response, 17 i
but just to kind of recap:
we believe that the plant should 18 have been shut down during the period of the strike, and i
19 l that we would not have been in this position that we are today l t
20 had the plant not been allowed to operate during that period of time.
l 22 We're concerned now about what are your intentions,j i
your short-term intentions for the operation of the plant.
l 24 We're concerned about the long-term, your long-term intentions FA m Recrun. lw-25 in the operations of the plant.
We want to know what
~
l833 018'
17 acbl6 I
specifically -- what specific steps you're going to take in 2
the future that you haven't taken in the past.
3 And we have not heard of any evidence of criminal 4
activity out there regarding the loss of the material.
But we look at your news release with a little concern about how l
5i 6
your improved security is going to affect our people in the 7
bargaining unit, and we believe we're entitled to information 8
as to where we're going to be, how we're going to be affected.
9 We believe that
.a.
- i..ancial impact has been i
I 10 caused upon the bargaining unit members that have been off 11 for a long period of time, some of them now over eight months 12 l and you people have the responsibility, at least the Federal l
13 Government has a responsibility in the loss of those wages.
We'd like to explore R.at with you, probably at 15 another time since we don't have' time today.
16 Also just a couple 1of comments that was made I7 or that was not made at the table that should have been:
I 18 After the bargaining unit people went back to work 19 during the period that the plantwas operated by non-bargaining 20 unit people, there were no citations, no problems, no regula-l 21 tions that the NRC seen or at least made known,that evidence 1
-- th evidence we hear was everything was all right during l 22 23 that period of time.
Yet the first day that the bargaining 24 I
unit came back to work the same people, the same NRC people Federesneporms.Inc.
25 who do the investigation found several violations and wrote-1833 019 1
18 I
agbl7 them up and the company was put on notice at that particular 2
time.
3 So it's very unusual to us that during the period l
i I
4 of ' tine when the plant was operated by non-bargaining unit l
i t
5j people that there were no citations issued, but'cc the first I
i t
6' day back the citations were issued.
We're a little concerned 7
about the implications that that leads to.
8i We're also concerned that during this past i
9l investigation the officers of the union that worked in the l
10 l plant were not contacted regarding the investigation.
We think 11 that those particular people who worked at the plant and who 12 have knowledge of the plant certainly ought to have been 13 advised because of..the impact and the responsibility they have Id as officers of the union, representing the union.during the 15 material investigation.
We think there was some negligence 16 there, that those people should have been involved in the I7 investigation and at least should have been contacted.
18 One of the last things that I wanted to mention 19 was when the union files a complaint, when a member of a local i
20 union files a complaint out there, that the NRC never seems I
21 to bother to contact the individual filing the complaint to l
22 sit down and discuss that complaint with him.
l 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What sort of complaints 24 '
are you talking about?
1833 020 Fewal Rgomn, l%
25 MR. EANCOCK:
Health and safety complaints filed I
19 I
agbl8 by members of the bargaining unit out there on the job.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Filed with NRC7 3
MR. METCALF:
The health and safety inspectors,
{
l the recriticality and licensing inspectors.
I 5
MR. TOLLEY:
We feel that you have health and 6
safety inspectors out there,.but we feel that we get the 7
run-around when they come in.
They come in and they do their 8
job, they come in for an inspection.
We feel that we get the 9
run-around, you know, if we have complaints or anything, if 10 we report on things that cohld be a problem.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
These are verbal or 12 written complaints?
3 MR. TOLLEY:
It's all verbal to NRC, to the 14
.Inspector.
COMMISSIONER GILISNKY:
I suspect that this is 16 sanething that we will just have to look into.
MR. TOLLEY:
Okay.
To give you an example, Commissioner Gilinsky, what they'll do, they'll say if you file something i
20 t or tell the inspector something, that you think say this tank i 21 needs to be cleaned out more often than once a year, you 22 don't agree with that standard operating procedure, SOP.
23 He says Well they're doing it by the license.
That's all i
24 we can force them to do.
And that's the last you hear of it.
Foowral Reporters. Inc.
25 I'll mention it to him and suggest.to him.that theyl 1833 021
20 agbl9 1
put an agitator in there where this keeps stirred up and you 2
wouldn ' t have to clean it out.
I'll mention it and suggest 3
it to him, I think it's a good idea, but I cannot force him 4
to do it.
That's the type of thing.
j l
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
That's the response you l
l l
6!
get?
7 MR. METCALF:
That's the response.
S COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We'll look into it.
9 MR. HANCOCK:
Lastly, we want to tell you that we 10 l support the operation of that plant out there, the Local 11 union and the International union.
We do believe, though, 12 that we lack the ability to communicate with you people who 13 have such an impact upon the bargaining contract between the 14 two parties.
We hope that that can be corrected in the future, 15 because we feel that we do now have a serious communication 16 problem with you people and certainly it is borne out by the i
17 fact that we sent a letter from our International President 18 and we sent a letter to you people dated on the 6th of December.
19 I.had a call from.one of your attorneys about a 20 month ago asking if we wanted a formal hearing or an informal 21 meeting, and I said we would certainly accept the informal 22 meeting if we could just sit down and talk with you people 23 about that particular plant out there because it was our 24 concern of getting back on the line as quickly as possible
.A._; st.co,tm, Inc.
25 to reduce the financial impact.
1833 022 I
21 tgb20 I heard no more from NRC until two days ago whe:. I I
2 was called in the afternoon and said there was a meeting 3
today at 3:30.
They did not give us ample cpportunity to bring
- l the people in that we needed to bring in, our International l
5 President, our attorney, that was an injustice to us.
6' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well I apologize for that, j
i I
7 and I hope that we will communicate in the future and that we O!
will do it on a basis that is fair and reasonable.
9 1
MR. HANCOCK:
We hope so, too.
We hope you can i
10 '!
respond back to some of the things we've brought out.
I 11 We also would like to make one request:
we would 12 like to request that any of the investigative reports re-13 garding the incident out there, that we he able to see those 14 reports.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
Well on that one, l
areclassified.
I believe the reports, or at least some of them, 17 To the extent they are, they would not be available.
Anything I 18 which is not classified and publicly available, we'll certainlf supply you with as well as the answers to a number of questions!
19 1
20 that came up here, I think that probably are not going to be 4
91 answered in full today.
We'll try to make sure that you gets i
22 responses.
'3 Did you have something you wanted to add?
24 l
MR. TCLLEY:
I would like to see if I could get a 1
-Fmwel Rmomn. ix.
l 25 copy of the release to where they did have to go back to work ;
1833 023 I
22 I
and under what conditions.
i agb21 l
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wanted to address that.
I l
3:
i The Commission's decision of yesterday will get i
l 4'
I translated into a Commission order momentarily.
That hasn't i
5 happened yet but it will happen almost immediately, I hope.
i 6'
In any case, almost.immediately.
MR. TOLLEY:
I think we're going to be off work.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And that's an order which I
9l'.
you will be supplied with.
The Commission's instruc+i.cns are I
10 being transmitted, are in the process of being transmitted 11 to the Staff and the Staff will prepare an order.
12 On the question of the shutdown of the plant 13 and the error limits and so on raised here, the Commission la modified those as you've seen in the press release.
And the 15 result ought to be that they'll be violated less frequently 16 and, therefore, shutdowns of the plant ought to be a good 17 deal less frequent.
18 on the matter of health and safety that was brought 3
19 up here a number of times, I think if you have health and f
safety concerns,really serious concerns, you have to transmit 21 them to the agency in writing and that engages the process I
i 27'I i
in a way that making a comment to someone doesn't.
l i
23 As I said, we will try to supply detailed answer,s 1
24 to other points that were raised, not fully responded to e e.Fewat Reporters, Inc.
~
here today.
g}
4 l
23
- b22 I!
I think other C0=missioners -- I see Commissioner I
2 i
Kennedy writing down a number of points.
I don't know whetherl 3
he intends to make a comment....
l 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
l I
i 5 'I Let me say as to the specific requirements that i
6' will be laid on and what their effects will be which, in fact, 1
7 I suspect you can judge better than most, that's something i
8 that seems to me would be useful for the NMSS staff to sit I
9 down with whoever the people would like to discuss it with 10 i i
and try to explain it to be sure that everybody understands 11 l
everybody else.
And that ought to be something that could l
12 be arranged fairly readily.
I3 My understanding is that that order should be ready
'4 to be issued this afternoon.
And therefore, as to when the 15 plant starts up, I can't answer that until the company is 16 able to say when they're going to be able to do the specific i
I7 I things that are going to be required.
18,
My impression is, however, none of them is so 19 '
i extensive or se difficult as to require any protracted period 20 1 i
j of time.
That's something we could ascertain later.
'l 9
MR. TOLLEY:
We've been going through extensive 22 i training, the ones that hadn't been laid off, in order to try 23 to get the plant started back.
I believe '.in the future, 24,
.p u n e rs, w.l though, that if the company would put more trust,and the 25 '
NRC woQld put more trust in the bargaining unit people then 1833 025 1
I agb23 we could have a better relationship and we could operate chat 2
plant a lot more efficiently than it has been in the past.
l 3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Letmeaddsomethingtowhatl
- li Mr. Gilinsky said about the health and safety concerns.
l I
l 5i I must say that youi-raising those questions herei I
6l gives me concern, because I hope you will accept that this i
7 institution is in the business of health and safety and that 8
if there is something that is seriously wrong, we want to knowi 9
about it.
And if you tell somebody, that should get through 10 the system.
It may be true that in fact he can't do anything 11 about it, but it is also true that he can tell somebody who i
12 can.
13 And I think that while it is helpful if you have I#
a serious question, and very helpful indeed to engage the 15 system, if you can put it in writing.
By the same token, I 16 think that if you tell one of our people, in the future, I7 we will expect to know about it.
Let me just make a comment regarding lI 19 that, Mr. Commissioner.
t 20 I came out of a nuclear plant in. Idaho Falls with 21 25 years service in that plant, and over thefyears I've seen times of excellent health and safety within the plant.
And I i!
22 23 was active all during that particular time in the bargaining l
24 unit, so I did have some knowledge of what was going on' l
Few.<st Reporters, Inc.
25 throughout the facility.
1833 026' I
25 b24 I
And seeing other periods of time when different 2l people, plant managers come on board or other management l
l 3;
people come on board and work gets sloppy, and during those 4!
periods of time we have to be ever more cautious and more l
l c
forceful in health and safety and the protection of our pecple.:
4 I
6 Even though I would strongly support nuclear l
1 1
energy and feel it's a very safe place to work, we also have 7l 8;
to be very conscious of the health and safety daily in our 9l I
lives in a nuclear plant, as you do with a chemical plant l
l 10 or an oil refinery or anywhere else.
MR. WODKA:.
Let ;ae ask this:
You're saying, 12 Commissioner Gilinsky, you cannot respond to our basic question I
13 here which I find.hard to believe, which is, why wasn't the I#
plant shut down during the strike.
Or another way to look 15 I
at it is do you agree with us now that it should have been l
16 shut down during the strike.
I I7 I can't believe that the last day or so when you've i 18 been considering the situation that that didn't enter into 19 your discussions and the h ekground briefings you must have i
20 gotten on the situation, that's very important.
That's really 21 what we came here today to find out is what is your position 22 on that.
We would like to get a response now, if you could.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well I have to say for
(
23 24 myself I don't have a view on it, and it is not something that '
Fet, st Reporters. Inc.
23 we've spent time on in the last days when we were discussing 1833 027 i
26 agb25 this matter.
2 MR. WODKA:
So in other words the Staff people 3
i did not bring it up to you?
4 I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
Let me make a comment.
I 5'
First of all, you have alleged that the operation i
6' of the plant during the time that the strike was on and the 7'
bargaining unit was out was unsafe, they lost the material, 8
didn't meet the regulations and so on.
9:
~
I'm sorry.
The NRC inspectors looked at it.
The 10 report they made to us was that the operation was running 11 within the regulations as we have established them and within 12 the conditions of the license for the Erwin plant as those have been established.
14 So what you ask me to accept from you without 15 hearing from their side is that our inspectors are lying and i
16 evil men.
I'm sorry, I don't believe they are.
17 MR. RANCOCK:
I think I parallel that very carefully 18 regarding the issue the --
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Our responsibilities with 20 regard to the Erwin plant are to see that it meets the 21 license conditions.
And if the people we send -- we expect 22 to be reasonably kncwledgeable about it -- come back and tell 2'
~
us that the operation-as it's going on down there during
~
i 24 l
the strike meets the license conditions then that's good 25 183302EI' enough.
I
27 agb26 We're not in a position and would not wan. to be in 2
a position where we become part of the negotiation that you 3I i
have with the plant operators in terms of settling what the i
i 4
bargaining unit prerogatives, conditions are and so on.
That'st i
5 between you and the cperators of the plant.
I 6
And we come in only to the extent that license i
l 7
conditions at the plant are treached.
8I Now if you have any specific items that make you t
I l
i 9;
chink that license conlitions were breached during that i
10 t
period, they certainly can be brought forward and made a atter 11 of record and investigated and we'll'.look and see.
But I I
12 I
simplir can't accept that every time a plant goes on strike i
i that we have licensed that it's the NRC's obligation to step 14 forward and shut it down on behalf of the union.
I'm sorry, 15 we're just not in that position.
~
16 MR. WODKA:
We're not saying that your inspectors 17 were lying or that they are evil men.
What we are saying is i
18 this:
that in retrospect the materials lost during the 19 1 l
l period of time when the people were on strike -- we're saying I
20 !
in retrospect do you not agree with us now that it should 21 I
have been shut down and this loss would not have occurred?
22 That's what we're asking.
Obviously there's something that l
I 23 was going on during the period of time when we were on strike i 24 and your inspectors were innstigating our --
,m,,, n o,,
25 COMMISSIONER EENDRIE:
Either.tha.t or it was going 1833 029 l
I 28 1
agb27 on before that and the present inventory differences run 2
l back through several operating campaigns and I must say I 3i end#C3
~
can't tell what the situation may be.
l 4
l 5,
i 6!
l 7
I l
8i l
l 9
10 11 l
12 j
i 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 I
I i
l 19 20 l
21 i
l 22 23 24 e F.
os asoonm, anc.
25 1833 030 I
29
- 4 ebl 1
The fact that the idea pops up after this operating i
2 period, you know, makes reasonable an a, priori guess that it 3
has something to do with the time the plant was operated by 4 i supervisory personnel down there, and I would expect that the I
l 5,
regular operating sta:f have a finer touch for the plant after' i
6' all these years than people who come in and operate it in these i
7 special circumstances, j
8 I hope you can keep it tight in the future because I
9!
it is going to be very important from your standpoint in terms i
i 10 {
of the jobs, and from our standpoint in terms of material 11 control.
But still --
1 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
By the way, in saying that i
i 13 we didn't take it up I didn't mean to say that we were not 14 aware of the time period over which the problem occurred, but 15 we didn't go into it in any great detail.
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You know, it becomes a very 17' delicate question of the extent to which this particular 18 federal agency should interfere in a commercial endeavor and j
19 the lives of citizenry in areas that are outside our preroga-l 20 l tives.
Nowhere in the Atomic Energy Act does it say anything i
21 f beyond the health and safety and the national security, and connected with nuclear materials and nuclear operations,1 22 so on, 23 I think what you're trying to make is a case with 24 which I'm not unsympathetic, I must say, that the regular s w.w neomn. im '
25 operators of the machinery have a better touch for it than 1833 031
i ab2 1
other people and that there is some reason for us to have con-l I
I t
2l cern if the regular operators aren't at the controls.
I I
3:
I wouldn't argue strongly against that but I must i
l 4l say that using that then to inject NRC as a pry bar in nego-l 5
tiations between you folks and the company down there and so 6'
on is something that I don't think we can get in.
t 7
MR. HANCOCK:
I think, Commissioner, thcugh, we i
can expect that if we engage in a lawful strike that the plant l' 8
9 will be operated or shut down in a manner such that because 10 l of something that happens during a period when normal people 11 are not operating, it adversely and disastrously affects the 12 financial well-being of those people out there--
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You're no different here 14 than any other establishment.
15 MR. HANCOCK:
I understand that.
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's unfortunate, I don't 17 want to give you the impression that I think that you people 18 have been knocked off wages for this time.
It's pretty poor l
19 and I'm sorry about that.
But you're in no different situation 20 than any other sort of a plant.
21 MR. EANCOCK:
I disagree.
22 MR. TOLLEY:
I would like to comment.
23 I worked there since I got out of high school, for 24 14 years.
This guy right here, he's worked 17 years, And PFL al Reporun, lm.
{
25 most of the people who work in there have been thera 2.a years,i 1833 032 1
31 eb3 1
But I tell you, ycu take five people out of this 2l room right here and you put me with those five people and l
l 3 !
they go anywhere else to apply for a job, my 20 years -- 14 4
years in that ruclear plant is going to Knock me from ever l
l I
5, getting a job, because that's one of tne :1rst questions they i
i I
i 6:
ask.
It does have an effect.
Ic would be hard for people at 7.
that plant to get a job somewhere else because if we worked 8
there--
l 9:
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What I mean is with regard i
10 I to the after-effects of a strike in any sort of a plant, Il l take a boiler shop where there's a strike and the supervisory I
I 12 staff tries to go ahead and finish off a boiler and maybe in 13 the course of doing that they foul up some of the machinery 14' and in turn that means that when the strike is over and the 15 bargaining unit is likely to come back in, the plant can't 16 come up. to operation and members of the bargaining unit don't 17 get rehired for three months.
18 It's exactly the same sort of penalty that you're 19 suffering now, if indeed the operation supervisory personnel I
20 was responsible for the inventory difference which I think 21 remains--
It's not unreasonable as a proposition because of 22 the time coincidence, but I think that it is far from an j
23 established proposition.
24 MR. WILLIAMS:
Yes, but.you're talking about an Feoeral Reporters, Inc.
25 industry that's regulated by an agency versus one that's not.
1831 033
I eb4 I
It wasn't a foulup of somebody.
The NRC stepped in and shut j
i 2'
this plant down.
The NRC had control of that plant dur
.g t
i l
3 the strike and prior to the strike, i
i i
4i It's ridiculous to sit here and say that 150 ceople; I
5' can run a plant under the same conditions that 450 people runs' 6
it.
I mean either you're reasonable ceoole or vou're not i
7; reasonable people.
If you're reasonable then there ought to 8
be some logic to the fact that you can't walk into a nuclear i
9 plant with people that's been working in that plant less than I 10 three months with no training and put them out there as skilled I
11 operators to run an operation that takes 18 months to train on.'
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Mr, Williams, I hope you 13 won't think me unreasonable if I ask Mr. Bradford if he's got--
14 In a sense, we have repeated a number of the comments.
The 15 point has been made pretty strongly and forcefully.
16 MR. WILLIAMS:
I hope you're right.
l 17' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it has come across !
i 18l to this side of the table.
li 19
- Peter, l
I 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just wanted to clear up 21 ;
one matter.
22 You asked for the reports, 23 MR. HANCOCK:
Yes, sir, I did, i
i 24 COMMISSIONER Br.ADFORD:
As Victor has said, some of h.si Reporters, Inc.
25 it is classified, but what normally happens in that case is 1833 034 I
33
".a I
that they get reviewed and the parts that are classified get 2
taken out and you get the rest.
I take it that's what you had
'l in mind.
i i
4 l, MR. HANCOCK:
We want whatever we can get, sir, all!
i 1
5' the reports dealing with the investigation of that particular I
i 1
4
- plant, j
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Including the unclassified 8
portion?
9 MR. HANCOCK:
Yes, sir, i
10 COhMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, thank you very much, 11 Mr. Hancock.
I know it is not an easy thing to come up here, 12 particularly from Erwin, I've been down to Erwin and visited 13 your plant.
Id MR. TOLLEY:
Especially when you pay your way, 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you for coming here.
l 16 Thank you very much.
We'll get back to you, I
I7 Who is going to speak for the NRDC?
18 It turns out I am really going to have to walk out I9 of here in ten minutes, I
20 l MS, WEISS:
I think we'll bd able to finish.
i l
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would you proceed, please?
3.080 22 MS. WEISS:
What are you going to do if I run over?
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm going to txr e
24 meeting over to Mr. Kennedy,
.Feuel Reporters, Inc.
25 MS, WEISS:
Should we get started?
I
eb6 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Please.
2b FG. WEISS:
My name is Ellyn Weiss and I'm here l
l c
I 3
today representing the Natural Resources Defense Council.
4, With me is Tom Cochran, Senior Staff Advisor.
l l
5 I wanted to talk to the Commission about a very, 6'
very narrow issue relating to the MFS Fuel Fabrication Facility l
7!
at Erwin and because of the short time and because I know l
l 8!
you all know it, I won't go into the background.
I 9
It i. our understanding that the Commission has f
l 10 voted to amend the license to add certain improvements and 11 safeguards but at the same time to relax the license condi-12 tion.
And we understand that you are essentially going to 13 double the amount of special nuclear material that the licensee 14 can permissibly have unaccounted for at the end of an inven-15 tory period.
16 It is also our understanding that any interested l
17 party will be permitted to challenge the substance of those 18 license amendments in a hearing as Section 189 of the Atomic i
19 Energy Act requires.
20 However, the Commission has also decided to allow l
21 the plant to resume operation before the hearing.
It is our 22 information that you made this decision, that is the decision,
23 to allow the plant to operate before the hearing, on the 24 bases of assertions by the Department of 7.nergy and perhaps e-u sa neco mri,Inc.
25 special material by the Department of Energy that the naval 1833 036 i
Ja eb7 1
reactor fuel is needed immediately in the interests of nationaf l
2 security.
3l It is on this question alone that NRDC asks the 4l opportunity to present its case to the Commission.
That is, I
5i is there in fact an urgent need for the fuel such as to i
I 6'
justify allowing that plant to resume before NRDC.has its day I
7j in court, that is, its opportunity to persuade the Licensing 8
Board and then yourselves that relaxing the license conditions 9
is unwise and unnecessary?
10 We think the answer is that there is nc immediate 11 need for the plant.
We know you have a classified letter from 12 the Department of Energy which I assume indicates otherwise.
13 We attempted to get copies of the underlying documentation and 14 of the letter, and as you know, Mr. Cochran asked to attend 15 the meeting yestsrday and he has been unsuccessful at that.
16 What we're asking you for today is just to delay 17 issuing your order allowing Erwin back up very briefly, a week 18 to ten days, just so that you can provide a forum for con-19 sidering on the basis of facts and not classified and essen-20 tially unchallengeable assertions whether there is an imme-21 '
diate need for that facility.
22 We are asking you te sch.dule a meeting and I've 23 written you a letter which details the request, as soon as you 24 can, to require DOE to come in with its facts, to let us come e Feu.ral Reporters, Inc.
25 in with ours, and to have you decide this question on the 1833 037 I
3G i
eb8 I
basis of some sort of record.
2 And we also ask you in advance to provide the 3l alassified inf rmation to Mr. Cochran, who has got a security 4l clearanc) and can aview it so that we can be able to prepare i l
l a respan."
I i
i o
We have reason to believe that there-is enough I
7-fuel stockpiled so that there is no immediate need, and on I
i 8
that questien I would like to have Tom Cochran elaborate just l
9 a bit.
l t
10 MR, COCHRAN:
First let me make it clear that it l
II is not our intention, not NRDC's intention to in any way l
12 prevent the production of adequate fuel supplies for the naval l
13 reactors and we've made this clear in our discussions with I4 Dr. Doitch of DOE and some of the Commissioners, and in letters 15 I have copied to the Commission on this issue.
16 l
With respect to the need for the fuel, it is my i
17 understanding that naval reactors are not refueled annually 18 like. power reactors and in fact, that the program is designed l
I9 to try to extend the interval between refuelings as long as 20 i
possible and that today it is at least up to seven years.
I 21 don't have any real facts on that but I believe it is an 1
i 22 extensive period compared to what is required for a power 23 reactor.
24 Furthermore, I've been told that there is a large sus nr.mmn. Inc.
25 stockpile at the BCW facility.
In discussions with Dr. Doitch
'1833 038 l
37 eb9 1
on two occasions in his office over disposition of the Erwin 2l facility I was led to believe that while the stockpile was l
l 3
inadequate to allow Erwin to be closed for the entire period j
i f
4 of time while the new facility was constructed, that there l
i' 5:
wasn't any immediate need to ocerate the facility, There was i
I i
6 no rush to get the thing back up.
7 That seems to conflict with the information pro-l 8
vided by your General Counsel to us, sort of on the general 9
basis of why he thought people might have taken positions on l
i 10 this issue.
l 11 I would also point out that
- and this may be just 12 because I'm not very smart, but the fact that the naval program 13 is relying on a single facil~ity for its supply of nuclear fuel 14 suggests, and the fact that they allowed the Apollo plant to 15 close down suggests that there is a stockpile there and there's 16 no immediate need.
i 17 Now I am prepared--
Our time is short and maybe 18 this is not the proper time but I'm prepared to discuss the 19 issue of DOE versus NRC oversight, and some of the arguments 20 I've made in correspondence previously, 21 I'll stop there for a momsnt, 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You have another three 23 minutes.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Let me just ask, because JL.si Reporters. Inc.
25 right at the moment I don't really reme'aber although I guess 1B33 039 I
38 eb10 1
I've seen copies of some of the letters that you've sent, 2
which way do you come down, Licensing versus DOE oversight of 3;
the facility?
4!
MR. COCHRAN:
I come down that DOE should commit 1
5 te builc_ng a new state-o:-the-a** #'-ility, preferably a 6'
be'*a-
-a ervation where adequate physical security can be 7
brought to bear; that in the interim, because of the need for 8
naval reactor fuel, that the Erwin plant Juld be allowed to 9
operate; that it should operate with the same MRC Staff over-1 sightbutnotunderanNRClicensebecauseoftheimplicationsl 10 11 it hss both on the morale of the staff, on precedents set for l
12 other licensed facilities, on the precedents it sets in terms l l
13 '
of IE snfeguards, the breeder program, and so forth.
I 14 I've made this clear in correspondence that dates 15 back to '77 when I first wrote to you on some of these issues, 16 I would also point out that there are two national 17 security issues, It's the issue of providing naval reactor 18 l fuel and the other factor, that under your authority, this 19 lIplant lost three to seven nuclear bombs' worth of nuclear l
l 20 material in that last inventory period, and you only found or l l
21 explained away, I should say, rather than 'found," about half j
22 of thar amount.
23 You cannot just continue to operate losing several i
24 bombs' worth of material every two months.
And the response l
rwwe nwomn. '*
1071
- v. A n 25 to that is not to relax the licensing.
4OJJ V7U l
39 a,
all 1
I just brought this along to show what a bomb's 2l l
worth of this stuff looks like.
l One thing I want to add if Tcm is done,l 3
MS. WEISfr 4
to remind you all that DOE can come in at any time and take l
S this plant over if in its judgment there is a serious national l
6l security interest at stake.
l 7l I
MR. COCHRAN:
We are really just asking for ten 8
days, a week or ten days, to_have a hearing on the narrow I
i 9
issue of whether you can delay opening this facility to resolve 10 the bigger issues.
And I think that there's a very important 11 bigger issue here.
12 Frankly, I think the decision to override Dirks 13 was bad for a whole r.ft of reasons, 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think you made your 15.
point.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD; Let me inquire what dife l
t 17 ference in the operation of the facility a week or ten days 18 makes in terms of the contention that you would want to make 19 either during or at the end of that time?
Let me just ask 20 generally which of the contentions that you all want to make i
21 would be prejudiced if the plant operate-
'uring that cime?
22 MS. WEISS:
I don't think it is so much a question 23 of prejudicing our contentions as of risking continued diver-24 sions of fuel.
We see this as a question that has national 0
I Reporters, I H:.
25 security implications on both sides of it.
S I
1833 041 I
=
i 40 m..,
ebl2 I
Our issue on the merits -
When we get to them we 2
intend to argue that relaxing the license conditions makes it 3
more likely that special nuclear material of weapons grade l
4 will be diverted.
5 Now the question is in the interim whether you are I
l l
61 going to allow that risk.
I 7,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me phrase my point t
8 another way:
9 If we had done exactly what Tom has suggested we 10 should do and we were putting that into effect by an order Il today, would the risk during the next two weeks be any greater 12 than it is at present?
I 13 MR. COCHRAN:
You're not doing precisely what I Id asked for because--
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I recognize that.
I0 MR. COCHRAN:
I think there are additional safee I7 guards that you're not implementing because you're rushing I0 into this.
I mean there were some things -- I don't know for 19 sure because I don't have the facts and I have been denied 20 the availability of the facts for classification reasons but 21 it is my understanding that not all the reco=mendations of I
22 the Staff are being implemented and that you are rushing into 23 this thing without implementing a number of recommendations 24 simply because of the time element.
That's part of my concern, 4
. Repomn, inc.
25 The second thing I would point out is you' don't 1833 04;f'
i 41 eb13 1
have to run--
Even if there were an immediate national securi 2
ty need for naval reactor fuel, that doesn't imply you have l
3l to run the facility at the normal annual through-put, that 4
the way in the past and the way you could operate now to i
1 5
reduce the potential loss is to operate at a lower through-l i
I 6
put and as far as I know, having not seen the data, that I
7 consideration has'never been considered.
i 8
It is those kinds of things we would like to ad-l 9I dress and frankly, don't have any opportunity to.
While the i
l 10 I plant is--
We'll have an opportunity to evantually but in II that intervening period, you may lose several more bombs' 12 worth of material and you'll be allowing them to lose more 13 bombs' worth than before.
Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Commission has your 15 request before it and we'll consider it.
I don't think I can 16 say any more than that at this point.
17 Thank you.
18 Is there anyone else in the audience who would 19 like to comment on this issue?
20 (No response.1 9
21 In that case, thank you very much.
We're adjournedj 22 (Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m.,
the meeting was 23 adjourned.)
1833 043.
24 l
.Jooeral Reconen, Inc.
l 25 l
1