ML19263B200
| ML19263B200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1978 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, RTR-WASH-1400 NUDOCS 7901080388 | |
| Download: ML19263B200 (75) | |
Text
-
NU CLE A R R E G UI. AT C R Y C C MMI S S I C N-IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON USE OF WASH-1400 SY NRC STAFF
(
Place - Washington, D. C.
Octe -
Thursday, 21 Dece=ber 1978 p=g., 1_74 Tsoceces:
(2001047 *7"O ACZ -: w E3.C. 25'00a' 7.25, 3C.
L t.y,.iReganen mer-n ::=i=6.'"'
7901080388 i
wes-i.,
.,. :.:. :ccci NAT:CNWl::E C::VERAC E. O Al!.Y
J! 886 1
t DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcrict of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regula: cry Cc= mission held on n u ser., 21 wer 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, ii. '.i., '.iasnir.;;an, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may conuin inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informa't'enal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the femal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Excressions of opinien in this transcrip: do not necessarily reflect final deteminaticns or beliefs.
- 'c pleading er other paper may be filed wi:n the Cc= mission in any proceeding as.he resul: of or addressed Oc any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Cc= mission may authorize.
2 i
i i
CR1886 1!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
MIE:mp
- l mask 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' l.
3 PUBLIC MEETING 4
i BRIEFING ON USE OF WASH-1400 SY NRC STAFF 5,
i 6
Rocm 1130 7;
1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
B g
Thursday, 2: December 1978 9,i The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m.
10
,BEFORE:
11 i DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 12,
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 13 :
4 RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 14 j
PE"ER A. BRADFO RD, Commissioner 15 1, JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commi.s sione r 16 'li 1PRESENT:
1,, J<
Messrs. Denton, Gossick, Scinto, Kelley, Pedersen, Bunch, 18 j
!Chilk, Levine, Kenneke, Case, dudnitz, and Fouchard 10 J d
20 21.!!
,, !i I
99 d
t e,
6*
1:n Arceral Aeoor'ers, Inc.
ac,
4 l
l
CR 1886 12/11/78 '
i I
U 1l
_P _R O C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2q (10:50 a.m.)
3 CHAIPPJd HENDRIE:
The Commission will now turn to 4
number two on its schedule.
5 We will come to order and come to the next subject i
l l
6:
this morning.
We meet once again on the matter of the report i
I 7! of the Lewis grouc, the Risk Assessement Review Group and its I
8' comments on the Reactor Safety S tudy of WASH-14 00.
i 9
The aim this morning is to discuss a draft, or 10 various drafts, of Commission policy statements on the Lewis 1
d l
11 ' Report and related matters.
1 12 i I have high hopes that the Commission can gather 13 ' its thoughts together on a statement this morning.
The fact la !
that we are about at the Chris tmas holidays, that people's i
15 l travel plans will take them away means that if we are not able i
16 i to agree on the statement today, it may be some tine before the 17 ] full Commission will be available again to consider the matter.
18 I have circulated to the Commission an amended version o
1 19 ' of the policy statement which is based on a draf t prepared by 20 Commissioner Ahearne earlier, which in turn I think, John, was 21, based at least in part on some earlier draft materials from 22.1 Commission of fices and so on.
i
" 1',
--'s draft, I have asked the Licensin: s taf f 2nder a
24, Harold Denton to look particularly at the matter of better
- ..>..i seco c m. ire. I 25 j defining an appropriate preliminary -- or "interin" would be a
5-2.jwb I
i 4
j l
i 1l better word -- set of limitations on the use of risk assessment a
2 [ results.
And the draft that I sent you around, then, reflects 3
those deliberations.
4 We also have a paper from Peter which again is based 5
on John's earlier draft.
I would recommend, for discussion i
I 6 l purposes and as a basis from which to work, that we take the 7
December 20th draft that I circulated to you.
r i
3 The way in which this was prepared was to use i
9, Commissioner Ahearne 's -- actuallv, use Cc=missioner Ahearne's 10 draft, and to note where differin ~e 1anguage would be used.
So I
- i i
11 it's f airly easy to see where one comes away from the earlier 12, statement.
i 1
13 l What I would propose to you -- if that would be all 14 '. right -- would be to start at the beginning and work through, 15 taking comments, and seeing what agreements we might m?.ke en i
16 language alteration, and reserving always the right of anv.
i 17 i Cc=missioner to go back to an earlier section if he f eels it N
13 ' necessary.
19 If that seems as likelv. a working method as any to 20, vou, I c. roc.ose we start tracking alonc. that r. a th.
Therefore, I
21 h I am interested in comment on the introduction on page 1 of 22 'l the proposition.
J 22 'l CC.91 SSIONER AZEA?l;I:
Peter has a couple of edi:Orial e,
e.Icomments.
23 31 A&Oortes,Inc. g 23 I CCIO!ISSIONER KZ1;I;EDY :
Cne of -hem turns out ts be
- i l
J
5-3 jwb i
5 i
jl irrelevant if you accept Joe's suggestion at the bottom of the I
2 page of deleting "the American Physical Society", which seems
- i
] to me is a correct deletion.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
He was also just suggesting i
c (inaudible).
i I
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I think the deletion of the i
i i,
7i words "the American Physical Society and other" is necessary, g'
just in order to avoid getting into complications of final 9
initial -- and so on.
10 So I think one has to do that.
And then, once you 11 :' have done that, whether you stick this thing in up above or 1
leave it down below really makes -- never mind.
i 13 l Suppose we put it up above -- use Peter's editing.
i ja And then, since he isn't here to defend himself, we will 15 declare that he now owes us all one, and we will inform him of 16 '; tha t when he returns.
a i
l'i l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would expect if you were a
la going to make this a bargaining on ones and ones, he would 19 prefer to reserve the ones --
o COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Whv. don't we let him sav.
s t
that.
- ) '1
,l
+, ;
COMMISSICNER GII.INSKY:
Are we going to actually si a
,,'here and edit this statement in detail?
I don't knew Of anv.
1
- a way of a Commission statement this side of February 1st.
cea
.si aeoonen. inc.
y r u s ' r.p %."
T."* a *- d s = a s . 4..;-
gg g m.,ty
- a s v.4.ro.
i aa ac
-a o-=--
. s.. i u.
a-v -..
al f
I I
5-4 jwb a
6 i
lI I
1 h working now and continue until February 1st.
i
- ii 2 ;.
(Laughter.)
1 3
MR. LEVINE:
Sir. Chairman, just as a matter of a
correctness, if "the American Physical Society" stays in, that t
5 will mean --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's coming out.
3 4
t MR. LEVINE:
It's coming out?
It has to be "a study 7 !
i 3
group on lightwater reactors," et cetera.
i t
9 CHAIRMAN HENDh!E:
All we're going to do is delete 10 "the.'enerican Physical Society and other" in the bottom i
11 sentence; take the sentence and stick it up into the one, two, t
12 three, four, five, six, seven, eight, ninth line after the i
13 ! sentence
On October 30, 1975, the then Nuclear Regulatory la, Commission announced the final report had been completed."
15 ;
It will then read:
"Following the publication of 16 WASH-1400, organizations and individuals had extensive criti-
.t I
17 cisms of both the document and the procedures followed in a
f
.I 1 w:,! cublishing t."
Then:
"The press release at the time of 3 -
0 19 'l publication said that the report", et cetera.
20 i CCM.51ISSIONER KENNEDY:
Except for a one-page yz
- c. a r a c. r a c. h, I think that's fine.
Certainly there must be some
- n. i w a v. to break an. de thing, for sheer beauty.
C u.a' _* w. s'i.=..I D R ".-
h_ _ s.
a; 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And I suggest we let some of 3s 88 A GCCfttrs, IflC.
2c !the more eminent colleagues in -he editing field handle that t
'l
5-5 jwb 7
f 1,
for us.
How about Mr. Pedersen, for example?
2 I (Laughter.)
li 3
CHAIP31AN HENDRIE:
I thought you were going to turn 4
to John when you said "the chief editor of the agency."
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's all right with me, if 6 ' he doesn' t mind taking it on.
It's all right with me.
l I
7!
(Laughter.)
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, somebody figure out where 9
to break this thing in the middle.
10 Dick, did you have --
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
I tell you, I don't think 12 this is a useful way to pro eed.
I think we ought to just 13, circulate draf ts among ours alves and try to work it out that I
14 ' way.
Jast to sit here at a table and go over the thing word-tl 15 j by-word would be an odd wa r to do it s 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My opir. ion is that if we circu-1 17 { late draf ts to each other, I will be here on February 1st i
!3 convening a meeting like is and saying, "goddamnit, ie 's 19 pick one of these and sit down and go over it word-by-word, 20 because we will never agree to it otherwise. "
21 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
I'm prepared to give you my 22 l agreement by noon.
i 23 !
CHAI?3!AN HENDRII:
Or disagreement.
i
's '
C '.v."... c m'<' r.e.
.'u'-"w' '7 D v -
m=~-=a w'*". ;"ou d
a"-,
us,.i n.oonm. :ne. l 25 : with a one-sentence excection.
I s
i I
.I
ou jwb
-d l
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You see, my hope was that people h
a2,:,would ci:k out of here carticular points that they wanted to
'l
!! discuss.
We could settle them " yea" or "nay, " and go forth.
3 I just think -- we have been circulating drafts to 4
each o ther.
When was the firs: meeting on this subject?
Does c
I 1 the secretary recall?
6 i
l MR. GOSSICK:
October 17th, I believe.
7 MR. PEDERSEN:
The first one, when the two drafts 8
i 9
came up -- Lee's and OP's -- I think was November 3rd-4th.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And there have been drafts 4
1 11,
extant.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's about the rate at which 12 l
I j3 most caters of minor comolexity are beina handled these days.
ja !
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I thought there was hope in 15 ' the circulation, why, yes.
Bu: I really feel that the differ-16 er7es in the sort of wording that each of us individual'g would 17 > ? efe: -
~
(Commissioner 3radford enters the rec = a: 11:00 a.m.)
13,
'l l
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- are fairly well reduced Oc a i
1 20 few points, I think, now.
And it seems to me that indeed the
- 21. cnly practical way to resolve them is to argue about them and 9.29, see where the concensus lies.
't I'm just afraid we w-11 never ge: On w thout foing 33 I
I4
,4 4
.:e A..res Ae or vrs. Inc. i oc -
Peter, we accepted your editing, and decided you new l
s t
il 1
'l
5-7 jwb 9
li owe us one.
I l
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I now owe "ou cne.
2.
t (Laughter.)
3 I
CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But that wasn't one I put a 4,>
I great deal of weight on, so I may owe you a column.
5 I
(Laughter.)
)
6 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have got the December 20th 7
I circulation?
3' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
There is a deletion, or 10,
11 j correction, down there that changes "the American Physical 1 Society and other" to "a number of", and then stick Lt up 12 i
above and make j:ur corrections.
13 i ja l (Commissioner Bradford leaves the room. )
l 15 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 2, since Peter has cone to t
make his memo, I will point out that he wanted an insert.
16 ri
. v.v_u.
m o _ C".4 r R ^"r"4 N _r" v..
"..".m.'e a
A'4-a f = _~ _= 3 _~ _= - P.
_e-~
v e
~
j7, 18 ;
I'd like to discuss briefly.
i I like your deletion of the word " current. "
I think j9, i
it would even be a greater improvement if the sentence ended 20 Il 21 l af ter the word " Summary".
1 i
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are a page too soon.
,2,!
I I
r r y v._ _c _- - ~a.r
- v.. r s.. _r v.
_.a.'-
~'.=_.._ea__-_.
,3.,
v.
_v 1
24 l (Commissioner Bradford returns to the rocm.)
03 t uf el A OCCritr1, IPC. j l
CHAIRMA': HENDRIE:
No.
The insert is here 3c
- ,, 3 i
l
- l 1,
5-5 jwb J
10 l
)l (indicating).
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is what he intends to
- 3..'
.i 3
put here, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, here I believe is this insert.
4; i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Ah.
Excuse me.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm introducing your proposed 6,
I 7:
insert, Peter, for discussion.
i Harold?
Lee?
Dale?
Do you have copies of this 3
thing?
9 i
(Handing document to staff.)
10 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you want to put down the findings of this group -- the Lewis Group findings -- summarize 12 them, or characterize them?
4 13 i
COMMISSICNER AEEARNE:
Well, we could attach the --
13 o CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They could certainly be attached.
15,
1 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think the press release to 16,
+
j7lbe sent out did include that, the findings --
18 j CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it isn't clear -- to 19 me at leasc -- what you mean here when you say "The Commission 20 agrees with the" COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- "the findincs and recom-21 1 mendations."
What findings?
- 3.,. a.
-,i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or even " generally agrees".
6 mee e
6 4
w 4
- s 8% 4 36 Reporters, Inc. '
..c. findings and recommendations --
5-9 jwb i
l 11 il i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then what does it mean, 2
" generally agrees"?
What follows, I think, then indicates the
'l 2
nature of the caveat implied by the word " generally."
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'll tell you what else 4
5 troubles me, here.
Here you have first a technical report, 6
WASH-1400, which has certain findings and conclusions.
It is i
i 7!
a very complicated recort.
i i
e :'
Then, vou have a technical group reviewing that, l
l 9jcomingtousherewithconclusions.
Are we saying that we o
10 agree with what they have found in their technical examination 11 of WASH-1400?
12 '
It seems to me that the fact that they have come to I
13, certain conclusions has got to carry a lot of weight with us.
la l But are we in a position to say that we agree or disagree with 15 g certain technical findings?
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which did you have in mind?
17'l CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let's take the question 13 :, of error bounds, for example.
I don't know that I am I
I I
191 think
- 's pretty important that they have come to these con-20 clusions, and it af fects the way I think about the subject.
But 91 I am not sure I am c.repared to say that I agree or disabree with 22 their technical judgment.
i COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
YOu mean the-errCr bcunds are
- i 24 Oc large to make any final statement that thi errcrb0unds have i
38 t al 9t*Ar!?rt, I NC. '
25 / been grcssly understated?
6 4
I
5-10 jwb i
J 3
I j]
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For example, yes.
i 2,,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're n t pre. cared to sav.
a 2
tha t they have been significantly understated?
1 a
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it's crettv imcor-e tant that this group of experts concludes that thev are.
s 6'
But what does it mean when we sav. that the.v are, t
! for examole?
7 I
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I imagine --
g CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, it's our 9
I je irelationship to that report.
- 1:
i 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it the word " agrees" that 12 bothers you?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand --
13 ;
,i 1.11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What I think it in fact means, d
1 1.e ~ at this coint, is -- mv. reading of it, m.v understandin of it, v
what I think we ought to be sav.ing is:
We accept these findings
- p. q 1
l'/,for purposes cf makin colicy and Vuidance actions.
3 i
13 '
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Like I say, that's important, 19 and I think a little different.
l ao
- CCMMISSSICNER AHEARNE:
But Vic's coint is probabl" 2
s one that I didn't really see when I was cutting it tog e ther.
I 41. l l
- e. 1 think, Vic, what you are pointing out correctly is that there's
- u.. 'a lot of technical analysis that went behind what the Lewis t
I Group ended up reachin. their conclusions on, and we have not 2
c..a _ i n.::orm. i. c.,
23;really gone into any great detail through that.
5-11 jwb 13 1
4 1o Do you acceo the conclusions?
t So it's a cuestion of:
a f
., ' l Do vou sav something like "in lieu of Lewis' Group's findings,
'l
,ll we agree with the co.nclusions"?
CO>S!!SSIONER GILINSKY:
That we take a different view 3
1 of the subject.
3 COFSIISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
6 t
I CO."S.ISSIONER KENNEDY:
How would vou rather have 7;i
-l the lancuac.e read?
I think that will help get at the point 3a vou are making which, it seems to me, is a valid one.
- Indeed, 9
if you look at the next page, on page 3 the point that I was jn*i 1
11 j coing to make, we were about to do the same thing -- which page 3 criticizes the' earlier Commission.
12 COFS1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's =v ocint.
13 lJ CO>SiISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree with you.
1.,,
.I Do you have a marked-up version?
15 CO.v_VISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm sorrv.
16 1
C05Si:SSIONER AHEA? LIE:
Did you have one with some j7 le!cerments on it. hat vou want?
d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is the secretary in the room, or 19 l 1.
20 j a representative c:_ the secretarv?
CCSSi!SSIONER KENNEDY :
I don't know what we're
,1 l.
i
.,, working from.
These gentlemen have other versions of other
.. i I
corrents that were written on them.
So when I get one, I w:.11
!be back.
y-a
.:s.P,vral AeDor*vs. t ec. ;
I don': intend to si here and talk abou papers that 25 ]
i l
a i
5-12 jwb I
i I don't have, or haven't had a chance to read, Mr. Chairman.
j d
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Dick, you did get this, but 4
plI vou cot it --
3 (Commissioner Kennedy leaves the room at 11:05 a.m.)
i I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter's thing.
Can you get a S
l handful of copies of that in a hurry. and get them on the 6
l staf f side of the table?
7 COMMISSIONER U.EARME:
There are some people in the g,
i audience who may be
.u : led bv this method of operation.
I 9,
think what you are seeing is the difficulty in having working 10 i
la sessions of an organization that, because of various requirements 11 i
12 : that are levied on it, require these working sessions 'o be in l
this kind of a forum.
13 '!
14 i Ordinarily, I think in many other agencies, people a't w uld sit down and try to hassle through this kind of a state-15,
ment that has to be carefully worded.
So you will just have to 16 y
I think.
j7lbearwithus,
.i le 1 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now let's see.
I have forwarded 1
19 ' mv conv of Peter 's across the table.
i MR. KE L ?:
I can volunteer my copy.
20 ;
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Maybe Harold ought to have it.
gj il
'I Vic, what do you want to do with " agrees with"?
3 g,Wculd " accepts" for these purpcses, be the better language?
t COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I don't know, really, 24 co.,
,rsi R eco,ters. Irc. 'u.Iof an alternative, but I think it would be something like "in h
5-13 jwb 15 i,
view of the findings."
j i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think, "in view of the 2a 1' Lewis Report technical findings".
3 t
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
We either express 3
these views of our own, or take certain actions.
S COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think I would be willing 6
to go to say, "I agree with the recommendations. "
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or, " agree with the g
recommendations", if that's appropriate.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Was Dick's concern that he 10 jj[didn't have mine?
Or that he didn't have Vic's?
I thought the latter.
13.
CHAIRM.U HENDRIE:
I don't, either.
33 l
,ii.{
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic scribbled some comments on it, and he kindly rapidly gave me back some suggested j3 i
comments.
jg
.I
'i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And then I go: his office to g
Nerox it later.
I didn't have a copy.
jg l
j9 h CCMMISSIONER SRADFORD:
I see.
So there is one document which you both have.
I have a vague recollection of
,0,
4 1 that, but I don't have it with me.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gave you all copies of my 33
..g 3.,bdraft and asked for comments back.
l CC.U.ISSIONER SR'CFORO :
I have vour draft, but vou 24 t
.r i necem,s. inc. ; didn ' t also distribute copies of Vic's comments on your draft.
.e c l 4
l u
5-14 jwo I
16 1
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, no.
h 1
2 i:
CuAIRMAN HENDRIE:
These things, Vic, you will have l
3j to introduce as we go along because I don't have that, yet.
1 0
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But that, I think, is the i
5 one that Dick left because he didn't have.
l 6
CHAIR.NGd HENDRIE:
Yes, I'm afraid so.
1 I
7; MR. KELLEY:
Does the secretary have one?
i 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
No, that is not the one the 9
secretary is making copies of.
10 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And I didn't have it until i
11 '
recently.
John had my comments.
12 '
(Laughter.)
I 13 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's go back and smash a little 14 at "The Commission generally agrees" aspect.
Do you want to 15 T.ake this " agrees with the recommendations"?
l 16 i COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
I guess I want to think ll 17 l about it, but I guess the thing that came to mind here was t
v 13 'l. starting off something like this "in view of the findings of s
- l 19 :
this group that we asked to take a look at the original report...'
i 20,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you can give me the "..." we 21. might have a proposition.
ll 4
22 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I would suggest is:
n 23 ] "In view of your Review Group's technical findings, the Commis-24 l sion agrees with the recommendations" cr " agrees with their w.
e neoonm. sec. l 25 I recommendations".
j u
3-15 jwb 1t a
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
One might even go further 1l 4 that that.
o 2p 1
It's my impression that our staff also agrees with 3
the findings, so that it's not only the Lewis Group --
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sure the Lewis Group 5
agrees with the findings.
It wasn't completely obvious.
I 6l i
don't want to commit this staf f to the uniform acceotance of 7
1 i
all its findings.
S' i
You know, we didn't ask them that specific question, 9
i and I'm not about to then immediatelv come around and make a 10 ;
policy statement that the staf f has agreed to that.
jj I
12 l COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
But of course once the i
! Commission says that it agrees to it, that fairly well commits 13 the staff to --
14 i
15 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's a question of fairness.
9CMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Not necessarily.
There are 16 i l,l intellectua propositions as to whether you agree with ther.
e i
CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD :
There's a difference as to
,,mi l
39, whether you agree with t em, or use them as a working basis thereafter.
But once the Commissior. savs that it acrees with
,0 i 4
them, the staf f doesn' t have a lot of choice.
g i
, a, 'i CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ckav, the proposition is to start
,a l the section out and sav, "In view of the Review Group 's" o,
.a i 24
" findings, the Commission agrees with the--
what --
g cm 59Cer3148CONffs. Inc. ]L recommendations of the grouo"?
25 l 6
5-16 jwb la COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
with their recorcenda-1 i
'I tions."
2 CHAIIU!AN HENDRIE:
"... with their recommendations"?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I want to think 3
i 1
end 45
^
- O" 5,
i t
6 I
'\\
8 i
9 10 0
11 12 13 j 1
14 '
i 15 16 '
17 'l 1
13 '
i
.9 l
20,
21,
23 1
24 3
.i s corms, inc.,
25 )
a a
o l
il
CR1336 pv
.v.v..1,2
- 6 9
i i
4 1}d COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
What you're talking about, i,,
2,ii Vic, would be something more like, "In view of the findings, the
.\\
2" Commission concludes that," and then going on, leaving what we 4,
agree with and what we don't agree with out altogether.
5 COMMISSIONER AliEAPSE :
I guess I uould like to at I
6l least support the recornendation.
I 7I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
t 3
COMMISSIONER AHEAPSE:
Personally, I didn't have any 9
great difficulty with --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I didn't, either, especially after i
11 vou c.ut in "generallv.."
Why, I was glad to accept them.
12,,
MR. GOSSICK:
Wh.v don't vou just sav that the Com-i i
13,
mission accepts the findings and recorrendations of the review I
la '
crouo. ?
a 15 C u. R.v ' N
..2.r."< D P.. r.
- v. e s.
.e 16 Does anybody have problems with the findings in J
17 I particular?
If we go over and say we accept d em, why,
{
13.' perhaps the word " agrees" suggests there has been a greater a
h 19 q i element c:. dera..lec proc:.ng or Lewis' e x a m :.n a t :. o n.
I u_r,yr v e..
a r.e.- o-o_ s.ae 20
.v.R.
r i
21,.
CHAIRMAN HENDR'E:
" Endorses" :.s another possibility.
d
.v.
.=.,V,.s..=.
.. S. _ _ _ s..
.. c1 w
il 9
~....C....
%.. 4 -
.-c.**
23
.v.o.
~..r.
...r.v.
..:..i w
3 f
.2 7.. 3.( 2 3
w i
2d isn't a legal question yOu're speaking 00 here, but there 2.s a m.e
.ra' A eoorters !nc.
25'. legal question that I th.nk s analogous.
There is a doctrine
1' 20 I
on matters this complicated when an administrator ccmes in -
1 2a says "I find."
That doesn't mean he personally found everything 3
or read every document.
Administrative decisions have been i
4 challenged on that very ground, but the courts accept the fact i
5 that in matters this complex the Commission here has to rely on i
6' the staff has to rely on OPE.
And when it says "the Com-t I
i 7
mission finds," it is not saying we five of us have read all of i
8)thismaterial.
And I think that's a recognition of the practi-9 cal realities.
And when the Commission or Commission document 10 says "we find," it is not sending that message, and I don't 11 think it would be so read.
1 12 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Particularly,if we used the word 13 I " accept. "
I i
la 't MR. KELLEY:
That's a softer word; yes.
l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How would you feel about that, 16 John?
Or vou would prefer to go to this sort of split thing?
t I
17 CCMMISSIONER.'d!EAP.NE :
I prefer to get something out.
13 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Some of them, I clearly I
tt i
19 ' agree with.
One can, just on the basis of one's own experience, 20 J agree wirb some of them.
Others, one is relying simply on their 21, expertise.
I 22 !
CHAIRMid1 HENDRII:
Just so.
22 CO.51:SSIONER GILINSKY:
And on the opinion Of others.
24 CHAIPlG.N HEN.".II:
Let me propose the language be,
.ce e
.,e necone,s.anc \\
l 25 - then, that "the Commission generally acce.:ts the review
- c. r o u o. ' s
.l
9.1 i
l 1
1 findings and recommendations."
2 COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
I guess if we're going to use u
2 '1 the wcrd " accept," I would drop the werd " generally," since I 4
can't think of any that I am not accepting.
1 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I thought there might be, 6-in case there were.
i 7:
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't start with the word i
I
.a '
"cenerally."
9 COM2CSSIONER 3.;ADFORD:
No.
I know.
10,
COMMISSIONER AHEAR:iE:
I can't thin of any offhand.
i 11 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
On the other hand, I suppose 12 *
" generally" can modify the number of Commissioners.
There are 13 H some Commissioners, and everyone has to accept generally.
14 l (Laughter.)
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I.* general, the Commission 16 generally accepts?
i 17 '
(Laughter.)
I IS ;
COM'CSSIONER 3RADFORD :
The Commission, in general.
o i
19 1 I am happy without the " generally."
But I think if o ther Ccm-20 missioners would want it, it seems to me --
1 l
coy 24ISSIONER AHEARNE :
I will go along with it 21 t
s 2 2 ' t. either wav.
l 22 CHAI?MA HENDRIE :
I think I ar sticking up cn yOu 24 with a majority.
00 f si Aeoorters, Inc. j
=..v..a".4.. d.;.. ~
cr yy g e,r s..--s.%
G.- '. '..'.c 'N".'
- k '_ a-4 s a.'.'
~
Sc
^
a.
v.
y ov...
_v u
..i e
i I
i
.u v,
i i
09.
basis.
I i
2f (Laughter.)
i 11 I
CHAIPS.AN HENDRIE:
Well, when we ge: all through, we 1
4!
are going to vote this thing out, I had hoped.
At least, it Ii 5;
would be my intent to try to do that.
I 6l Why don ' t we put the " generally" in to provide a l
7 little elbow room for peocle who might feel that otherwise --
in case anv. body discovers later that he would 1:.ke to c.uibble e
i' 9
in some part with a finding or other.
All ric_ht?
"Generallv.
10 accepts."
Okay.
11 Now, that gets me at the place I thought I was 15 i
i 12 minutes ago, which was your proposition :or an :nsert a:ter tne 13 i second of the sort of dash-dash subparagraphs.
i 1.1 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, that gets you, then, by 15 :: the modification to the first of the dash-dash paragraphs that 16 :g accears in the co.o.v that vou distributed.
h 17.:
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
I invite people to raise q
is ", the question, if they have got a problem.
What Peter is talking 19 '
about is that -- (Indicating. )
i, 20 i COMMISSIONER GILINSRY:
Well, it seems to me the 1
'l:l firs coint we have got to make is that the overall risk esti-
-*a. mates, the bo::cm line, so no speak, of WASH-1400 is not some em e a. ', thinc. one.can relv. on in view of this recort.
I
.u. - e a - a --- an-e: as--.a
-u n
c =.n,. m..;
==c w =.
y,-, ~, wa
.u s.
,ce.b._4f t! A t*Arters, Inc.
25 l findings and recommendations.
- l, f
eh
pv5 t
l 23 1
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we ought to repeat 2 ji that.
That's the most important point here, as far as I can see.
i il 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Hcw would you phrase that?
I 4'
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Attach them,
- n. erhao. s?
i, I
5, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are asking me to think on I
6 my feet here.
I i
i I
7; (Laughter.)
l l
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What we could do is say the "Com-t i
9I mission generally accepts the review group's findings and recom-10,
mendations.
These are attached."
And then simply attach them 11 so that it's quite specific what we mean by "the findings and i
1 12 ' recommendations," although anybody who has go t the report won' t I,
13 l have any trouble in finding the pages so marked.
Nevertheless, 1
14 it puts the findings and recommendations explicitly in the policy 1
15;jstatement, and there is no question about it.
Then, you would t
16 ;l -- and that would be that.
Then, you start a new paragraph and i
i
'7 go ahead w1:h ne rest of the thoughts in this section and the l
IS followinc sections, and so on and so on.
Past and present posi-d H
19 tions, planned future actions are discussed in light of the
'O review group's report.
4
/
l 21 L Hcw does that strike you?
22 d COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
't 1
22 IHA F2G.N HENDRIE :
Peter?
24 l COMMISSIONER 3RADFO?O:
That's fine.
.c..
.re ae:onm. :-c. l
- a 1
1 CO?Oi!SSIONER 3RADFORD:
Joe, to what extent did you 2,
intend an interplay -- I think I am fe'lcwing the right things 2 i to the right documents -- between the changes you made in the a
d aI first bullet and what is now page 5-B, the first item at the top i.
5, which seems to put a qualification en the scope of the first
,I 6
paragraph there.
That is where it savs "These estimates mav. be 7l used for relative comparisons of alternative designs or require-i 3
ments."
9 CHAIP31AN HENDRIE :
Back in the body, when ycu get to 10
- o. 2 under " Commissioner actions," you have a detailing o f at a
11 -
least an interim set or limitations anc controls imposed on the 12 '
use of risk assessment results.
As a general proposition, these i
i 13 l controls are in the direction of making sure that they are not i
I 34 used without proper quall:1 cation and explicit consideration or.
l 15 1 the points raised in the Louis report.
16 So, I guess there is a coupling there.
I didn't t
" ' seem to me necessary to add as detailed further later.
It's
- 1 1
I3jsert of implicit.
d, i'. ;
i CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe, actually I was reading I
20 maybe what appears on page : is in some way tighter than what 21 appears on page 2.
That is, " Quantitative estimates," acccrding
'- d to page 5, "are not to be ased as t.ne pr:.ne:. pal c.as :.s :or any i
22 regulatory decision regardless of hcw much qual:.fication and t
4 explic;t consideration and criticisms one goes through."
- e 3-si Aeoorters. Ire. ;
SC l
So t,na t wna page : says is :nat it's only a;.l rignt 1
1
.s v v t
i
., 6 l1 y to use the estimates for relative ccmparisons of a3ternative o
2, designs.
2!.
CHAIF31AN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
I just lost vou.
,1 4
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
What page 2 seems to say is i
5 that it's all ric.ht to use the scecific risk estimate "as lonc. as 6
this proper qualification and explicit consideration..."
i 7i What rac.e 5 seems to sav. is that that's not all right 3
if it then becomes the principal basis for a regulatory decisicn.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I think that is correct, and The staff is directed to do as follows.
10 ;l page 5 is controlling.
11 The page 2 commen t is -- I think 'ohn's thrust was to t y to get 12 into a couple o f nutshells, up front, a couple of the key points 13 l rather than at that point to detail everything down the line.
I 14 1, See, vou have the normal problem, when you want to l
15, summarine, you know, provide an initial highlighting of princi-16 pal issues and then later on have to get to details about them, i
-..vo. v M. -.
4 17 * =.. d
- 4 ".". ' ~.
..".4.... a.v.k. i.. ~ kav,e..d.".=-
4-a 3
I l
~ ~ k ' a...s w 4.5 +- h = ~ 0 13 a.
.", o vo u " a". e - --... a -.
1
.i 19 CC:o!ISSIONER SPADFORD:
Well, I guess, since they i
't 1
20 seem to say slightly different things to me, if w-do accept 21,. that item C on the to.o of r. ac.e 5-3 as beinc. in fact in order, l
22 ] I would take that language back and use it here.
It's not so
,,a.d a...i.. e a-
. w.,.=.-
'.c' o# a "-.....' - -..-..c.
is n
.w 2.
4 b,
4, g 2 - _-
]*
g.J.n m.. m.,-
+J.r.$..+3 s
- r
..w.4..',.,
._.g o, yrg k.. m y s.
.s a
-m i
Mf al AfCOrters, IFC.
25 i of 2 back.
s il 4
.u v o
- v. /
I D
1 o, MR. OEN.'ON :
I think 2 atte=cted to c. arse the word 2[ " risk estimate" into comparison of the probability of the con-1 a,
3' s ec.uences o f other tv.o. es o f enerc"1 sources in A; in 3 to talk 4
about the importance of various secuences; C to compare relative i,
5 systems designs with and without certain components in them; 6
and then D to talk about the consequence model.
i I
7!,
So, it was an attempt to elaborate on what aas meant i
a back in the front section.
9' MR. LEVINE:
In fact, C just discusses probability; 10 i '. doesn't discuss risk assessment.
l In 11,
CFAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You see, it's a subsection, and 12 ; "1cu can't bring it out unicuely without balancinc the whole --
13 you'd have to bring all of 2 forward to ce :er that.
i 14 p!
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I see your point.
Let me d
15 I chew on it some more, because the two still seem to me to say i
16 s.' _d ~ 5.' v, d _4 _# _# e _ e.n..."._' a.g s.
I Are ou saying that yo think 17 COMMISSIONER AHEAR';I:
j i
s.' o _-. e - v a_ _ s _i ^. ~, _4 " a. s s -..e _# _' =.x _' b _i _i _ v. " =.. 4s..^
f_-a_sa....
13 t
.h a.
D1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am a little bit tro ubled i
1 6:
by the Commission getting down to too much detail here.
It has i
t 7
a little bit the air of us telling the staf f which' differential I
a!,
equations they can use and what statistical methods they can I
9 use.
And I am hard put to point to the sentence that bothers 10 me here.
But semehow I am not sure that we ought to be doing i
11 that.
12 :
CCFD1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
In general, I guess, I would l
t 13 !
agree on specific.
If it's the wrong statistical method and 14 l it has been pointed out to be the wrong statistical method, i
l 15 then I am sure that you would want to make sure that if they 16, persistently use the wrong method, to stop it.
a 17 CCSSIISSIONER GILINSKY:
I agree with that, toc.
n
- I end=6 13 1 CHA!RMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
9 o
19 ;j (Laughter )
20 l
21 1 22 ;l H
,, l e
i g
MT sr Re cr?trs, Inc. j 25 l
- j 4
k
32 i
I hl I think the Staff stares your concern MR. DENTON:
,,886 2
tace 7 somewhat.
We like the A,B,C,D approach here.
There are 1
1 I david 1 things in 1400 that were accepted by the staf f before it
~
was ever written, and we intend to continue to do things i
5 that way -- and that were never ccmmented upon by the 6
Lewis Committee.
I mean, there are details which were 7'
buried in the report somewhere that felt were good that 3
Lewis apparently didn't find f ault with.
9 And we continued to use -- so we don't want tc 1
f 10l say that everything that's in 1400 we can't every touch 11 because that would be a tremendous impact.
l
MR. LEVINE:
I think you should note along 13 these lines that there's a Lewis recommendation that seems i
l
l-to me to read somewhat different from that first sen:ence. It I#
- says, fault tree-event tree analysis should be one of the I
- - - = - - -
=- =. =..
16 principal means -- (Inaudible) -- ina number of matters.
t
]
It seems to imply the opposite.
13 i j
MR. PEDERSEN:
This says that the actual t
19 1; numerical estimates in the RSS should not be used.
- 0 MR. LEVINE:
I didn't see that.
That's correct.
21 ta I think Harold has made a good pcint.
l
,", )
CHAIRMA'i HINDRII:
Whether this particular cut at i
'3 the statement is too detailed cr not is a goed question, but 2.1 we need to chev en something in carticular because John
.a..
ral Revers, Inc. l xi
'~
has gene ahead and firmed up that earlier draft.
It seemed to 1
a i
t 33
\\
i I
fa"id2 ll me to be a suitable vehicle to work on.
2 L
You know, I would be glad to entertain propositions 3-to cut back, but I have also had thrusts that suggests that I
the Commission ought to be more and more detailed and more 1
5 and more specific in what it says on this subject.
i i
I6' What concerns me is that by virtue of these i
7l multip_e approachet and points of view, we don't seem I
8 to be able to gel in any collegial fashion on a point, and 9l we continue not to have a Commission expression with 10 regard to the Lewis Recort which was cresented tc us soon r
Il i after Labor Day.
i l ;
It seems to me that it isn't all that many more i
\\
13 days before we are going to have to meet with the new i
i i
14 i Congress, and I'm sure there will be a considerable I
15 interest in what ara we doing about it, and so forth.
16 '
- a I would be glad to welcome suggestions as to 17 t cetter ways to work forward or alternate drafts to be i
13 "
considered and so on, but what I perceive is that 19 circulating things hasn't succeeded, and it doesn't impress i
- 0, that we are making notable progress this morning.
And me 21 ']
when we get through here I tell you what I'm going to do; il I
79"l I'm going to go start around the corridor and see how nl 3
many commissioners I can get to jcin me in a letter that I 24 i dare say I'm goinc to have to publish as an individual
- -a..r.i a.xmes. ir c.,;
2'5 saying it is by Joe Henry's opinion on the Lewis Report as
- l 34 i
's.i t
favid3
. o' follows.
And I'm coing to work up this draft.
If nobod" 1
i 1
4 will go with me, good, but at least I'll be on the record 3
as having said what I think about it.
4 And I will have to note in that letter that I 5
have tried and the Commission seems unable to come to a 6-conclusion.
7 So, maybe everybody will have to publish his n
own statement.
9..
1
'les, sir?
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I would point out II '
that's basically why I ended up drafting the one that!
1 "'
sent around last week because I felt it a peared when the 1
13 0 1400 came cut the Commission was able to -- the then a
Id C' =ission was able to fairly rapidly take a position with
.i It '1" respect to itr as man"i ecple noted.
16 And with the Lewis Cc=mittee which came in
,,i
; with a reper: which was somewhat critical of 1400, the i
l' l Commission has had scme great difficulty reaching a
'i 19
conclusion.
sI
.U l
Sc I believe that I at least had the responsibility
'l' to make sure that I had a position on that myself.
And
-'j that's why I drafted it.
-i a'
u-... _ _2..,... _N D s __ _ :
.,m beginning to ree., very na_.-.. ns
. s
..i mucn tne same need.
I feel it very strongly on behalf of the a.,
.rai..oor m. n.
-c
'-l Cc= mission as a whole, and had hcped that we cculd -- had a t
I a
5 i
l I
favid4 L
thing which was close enough here to be able to close n
h.
L upon.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we are making i
4i progress. I don't see a reason to be so dcwnhearted about I
it.
6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Pessimistic about it?
7; COMMISSIONER GILIMSKY:
Yes.
You're usually B
so cheerful.
9 p
(Laughter.)
10 COMMISSIONER AHEA? lie:
You really got to him.
11 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
Let's plunge 12 ahead.
Peter, what dees.this -s:stement-of..ycurs mean?
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, it seems to me i
15 to be a useful --
16 COM'CSSICNER GILINSKY:
Oc v.ou really want to be 17 1 making a statement about f ault tree-event tree methodology?
t i
p~ ;]i COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
If I do, I want to make 10 i
' 1, it that way instead of the way it's made in there.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean as opposed to the 21 i numerical conclusien of WASH-1400?
- l
'2 j
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Well, I don't personally i
'~
feel very qual:.fied to say very much abcut fault tree-event S4 tree methodoloc1, but alcne the lines of de point made e..r._.,si a.:erms, inc.. ;
ac
'~ 1 earlier, that is, :.f one can accept the Lewis group's statement I'
.I
.i s
l 36 1
david 5 about it -- John has quoted from the Lewis group statement, h
23 and it seemed to ma though that it lessened the potential --
9 1
~
or it seemed to me that this was a necessary qualification 4I, to put on what you can say about fault tree-event tree Si methodology.
i 6f As it stands alone in here --
l l
MR. LEVINE:
I think it adds a let of i
0 perspective to the Commission's position and is a very g
9' good addition to it.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm feeling better about i
11 it or at least less apologetic for the lack of technical --
+
t l '* i CHAIRNW HENDRIE :
Sounding more and more positive 13 all the time,
i, 14 l MR. GOSSICK:
Peter, what's left after precise 15 and general in the way of statements?
Does that mean no l
16 statements?
.1 17 h COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
You could take out 18 '
both precise and general.
19 '
MR. GOSSICK:
I was just trying to unders tand 20 '
the intent.
No statements are being made.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And the thought is --
2
MR. LEVINE:
I think the word " precise" 13 very
'3
! important.
Precise in the very last phrase is very 1
2s important.
aecorms. inc. g,
.w..
- .i 25 ]
q COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
He was talking about the
37-i I
david 6 first one.
'l 2 ljl MR. GOSSICK:
I just wanted him to understand
~
that you can ' t make any statement, and whether you agree 4'
with that 1
5' i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The thrust of these coints i
t I
6 was that you could take both out and probably not change j
i s
7 it very much, and he's right.
The fact is, as I wrote 1
8l I started out writing " precise"; then I put in "or general,"
9 and it would have been as easy if you started out --
t 10 MR. KENNEKE:
S.oecificallv --
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just to make the l
12 '
statements.
13 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because of the lack of I
14 ;
data or for what?
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I M"
COMMISSIONER AREARNr-
vou had good data,
.i 1'
l l would you feel similar?
.i 13 :!'
COMMISSIONER ERACFCRD:
I would then co ba :k to
'l 19 Hal Lewis and say that now that the data is better, can "O '
we do it.
21 il COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
(Inaudible.)
i
'2 i
- j COMMISSIONER BRADFCRD
As I understand the m'
~~
Lewis Report, what they were saying is that this methodology f
24 at least coupled with the data that we have now doesn't let 34. 31 R tDortgrs, Inc.
2~' j! you make statements of this scr: of case wi~.h today's data.
Io
i l
38 l
fid7 I!
CO?OiISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Today's I think or quite 4
2di a long ways into the future as well, d
MR. PEDERSEN:
The word " presently," I think, is i
4i j
what --
i 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm just trying to understnad l
6 whether Peter has a fundamental objection to fault tree-l i
7 event tree or whether it's given the data that is presently 3
available.
i 9
COMMISSIOUER 3RADFORD:
It's given the data that 10 is presently available.
That makes it easy.
I don't know i
1 1
enough about fault tree-event tree methodology to say 12 ',
100 vears from now --
t 13j COMV.ISSIONER AHEAPSE:
I just want to make i
r l
sure that what we're puttinc out as a Commissioner --
,1
't I~c 1l are we saying that we still have -- or that we have 5 / considerable suspicion about the methodoloc_v. or whether i
I,'li it's more qualified criticism?
4 13 i
,1 CO.MS.ISSICNER 3RADFCRD :
I intended the more 1
19 j, c.ualifi ed.
I don't feel able to sav that 100 years from
- 0 now that if ycu go with the data you have then you couldn't
'1, i use fault tree-event tree methodologies say something
-~
I
,, o "l
meaningful about the overall safety of nuclear poser plants.
a
,,i CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought the report was I
,4 '-
frirly positive on re-hodologv.
,,,\\ n exam s ne. l i
.I COMMISSIONER 2RADFORD:
That :.s what I intended to 1
,e l
.e I
39 1
i i
i I!
david 8 cick up with the word " presently. "
I don't mind r
'}f making itmore explicit somehow
~.
COSSiISSIONER AHEARNE:
I could live with it, t
4 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess I would be ha.onier 5
if I could finc some way to replace the words " fault tree-e 6'
i event tree methodology" with something which swept together 7'
the methdology and the current data array.
1 8
MR. CASE:
I have got it, Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Shoot.
10 MR. CASE:
First sentence, okay, can be used 11 i with presently available data to make statements.
i 12 CHAIRMA'I HINDRIE:
Where are you?
13 i i
MR. CASE:
Commissioner Bradford's insert.
1
Second sentence on the first insert:
strike " presently."
15 CFAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait.
16 i COM31ISSIONER BRADFORD:
There's only one
,I, 17 1j setence.
You didn't mean first sentence.
Ycu meant the 9
18 1
_ine.
- 1rst l;
19 i MR. CASE:
Second line.
i 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, read it f rom the top.
i 91 'l MR. CASE: "However, we do not mean to suggest o
'2 'il1 9
-- can be used with that fault tree-event tree methodolocv
,, ;l
'~ ;
presently available data to make statements about" --
24 iq CO W ' c CNER 3RADFORD:
Tha"'e
"".~'
with me, c-siaexnm,inc..
,c.i 4.
l I would prefer to say "at least with the presently available i
n a
e
l 1
j 40 I
I I
I' vid9 data," because I don't know -- for my own part, I just don't e
I 2 00 know whether there is an amount of data after which..one would
'l 9
7 relax and say, now you can do it.
4!
MR. LEVINE:
I have no objection to what Ed just i
5l suggested, although the issue -- and it would be perfectly I
I 6 -
all right with me.
i i
i 7
The issue is slightly broader, however, because 3
there are models that contribute to the overall risk 9
assessment in WASH-1400 that are neither event trees nor 10 i
fault trees.
11 These have to do with natural phenomena such 12 as earthquakes and flooding and the like.
So one could i
i I3 handle that problem in the following way:
to substitute for i
14 !
" fault
,i tree-event tree methodology," just say " quantitative p* '
risk assessment methodology. "
16 i I think that v:ould encompass the entire spectrum.
1 17 d COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are we saying tnat la i iil scue group in scme other country no matter how smart thev 19 il I
are, how much time they spend, and how much effort thev.
'O I expend, can't make meaningful statements?
il COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Based cn fault tree
,, il methodology?
I 23 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Your cuantitative risk 24 vr. n.oeners. mc.
assessment medads.
25 '
MR. LEVINE:
I think it would be very difficult t
i
1 l
41 t
david 10 II from what I know what is going on in the world to expect 4
1 2h anycne to do better than WASH-1400 did in the next couple i
i n'
of.vears; ma.vbe in three or four years, ves.
I 4
l And if you recall what Lewis said was -- it 3
talked about common mode accident initiators being one of i
6; the biggest reservations, and those had to do with seismic t
i and floods and earthquakes and tornados and the like, and that 8i doesn't fit the definition of event tree-fault tree i
9!
methodology.
10 One still has to try to quantify those with 11 !
some kind of model.
I2 l MR. PEDERSEN:
I think you have to put Peter's i
I3 i statement, as I understand it, in context.
It's qualifyinc 1
i
& l
'l the quote that it's following here from the Lewis Review 15 Group to the effect that the fault tree-event tree methdology 1
16 '
is sound and both can and should be more widely used by the n,
,,i
' '.a NRC.
s I3 l Then, Peter's comment, as I read it, is saying, d
t I'.
however, we wouldn't want to suggest that the NRC is in a i
20 :p position now with available data to make overall safety l
91 ',i i ud gmen ts.
And I read it in that context and not in terms s
en h
d of this broad, sweeping --
il 23 MR. LEVINE:
I see.
That's all right too.
I have
,,I "l no objection to that.
- CS -
ISI A GDor'ers, IFC 3 2"
MR. PEDERSEN:
So it's really just qualifying --
t
42 i
I I
t I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
It's just davidll t,t 2 !!
9; c.uali fvinc. the c.uo tes.
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is c.ualifvinc. the I
4-quote, yes.
I'm not sure that it need be limited to c!',
NRC, but it certainly --
i 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In a sense, we're qualifying 7'
the quote, if I think about it that way 0
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
In the interest of meeting I
9!
your hope to successfully --let's accept that.
'O i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would take it -- then I would 11,
I take it as it is.
'2' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You would rather have it l
13 'I as presently, than presently available data?
i i
l '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I guess so going back ig.
and reading where it goes and so on.
And I would leave 16,
j it with the precise or general.
I would take it just the i
17 d is.
way it
- l 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY
What is cc=0leteness of i
19 '
review 9rouo.?
s a : e t.y i
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, what I intended to
'l l sav about that is that you can' t now say that we have I
eo I
jI anticipated everything.
l MR. CASE:
Nobcdy ever says that, Cc=nissicner a
I 24 3radford, that I knew of.
a.
ras necorws. snc.
..h A
CnMMISSIONER 3RACFORD:
Well, nobody in here f
i l
43 davidl2 Il I hope says it.
I was trying to make clear uses i
2 '-c to which methodology can be put.
4 3
MR. LEVINE:
You're right.
There are people out-s\\
side of here who really try to do that.
They say, look at 5'
WASH-1400.
It has covered everything, safety review, and I
6 ll you're right.
I think it's just a rule.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Thank you.
I 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
Page 3.
Now, let's 9
see, Peter was going to rep'. ace that paragraph about the 10 '
Commission agrees about the executive summary does not 9,
11 '
endcrse, and so on.
12 ';
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Yes.
The first sentence is the same, and then I just had a different --
l 14 '
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
What does the 15
" endorse" mean; in the sense WASH-1400 was never endorsed, 16 '
the explicit -- implicitly it certainly was, i
17 '
uOMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are many pecple who
- 13) believe that the executive summary was the NRC position.
And 19 '
in many times -- quotes from it on the outside, not by NRC i
'O '
people of course, but outside of the NRC, people would use 21 ;i -hat as here's what the Commission believes.
,,d.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand.
But is th'.s endorse er not endorse scmehcw different than your 1
24 1 attitude tcward the rest of the recort?
ce..
-W Reporters, Inc.
2 ~8 COtiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, because I view che 1
.1
44 I
l i
david 13 I l, executive summary more as a policy statement, whereas the I
2h large report, the parts that I have gone thrcugh, is a i
mixture of calculations, data, narrative --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Astronomy?
i 5
(Laughter.)
i 6'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or one of those.
i COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Meteors.
l I
O (Laughter.)
9 COMMISSIONER AHEAR'!E:
Whereas the executiva
'O surnary I really viewed as a policy statement.
4 11 '
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, but Peter's insert would 12 '
serve -- it's tighter.
13 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You don't see this implying 14 l that vou do endorse the rest of the recort?
15 '1 COMMISSIONER AFEAR'iE:
No, because this is now 16 ':
in a section on the executive surnary specifically.
n,
,,u
)l CHAIRMAN HENDRII:
~'he Cornission does not endorse IS :t the executive sumrary or anything else.
1 19 '
(Laughter.)
1 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm just wondering, tr';ing a l '!! to understand what it is here.
2 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the intent here is that o
J
,3 ? it applied to executive surnary.
One is speaking to other d.
- 4
' d carts here and other sections of this statecent.
re.
e, neconen Inc.
oc
'~
M.R. BUDNITZ:
Mr. Chairman?
.I
o i
I i
1i david 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, sir.
' i[
MR. BUDNITZ:
I have been sitting he - for about 3
half a dozen of these meetings without saying anything i
I 4'
i because as a member of the Lewis Committee --
1 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I had meant to send you a i
6-l note thanking you on that.
l 7!
(Laughter.)
0 MR. 3UDNITZ:
This is the first tima I have to C
say something, just taking awy the fact that I have --
10 l I was on this committee.
I have a fundamental objection i
11 !
to the last half a dozen words on the insert on cace 3 12 which have nothing to do with the fact that I was on the i
13 :;
Lewis Committee.
i 14 !'
It seems to me that you can't burn bocks.
I 15 i seems to me that you cannot deny a person who wants a 16 :
coev of a se.oarately bound executive summary of which i,
,,l several thousand were already distributed cr copied.
l *a '
CCMMISSIGNER 3RADFCPS:
It doesn't s ay tha t,
19 '
though, Bob.
It may be hard for him to get it 20 i without --
21 CC.v_MISSIONER GILINSKY :
Peter is going to send them
'# j na h scme extra material.
l 2
23 l COMMISSIO::ER SPADFORD:
He gets re nan he wants, I
24 i emor m. inc. j not less.
a.;
.e m q
a c.i A
4, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The werd " circulate" --
1a
f I
46 I'
davidl5 COMMISSIONEF AHEARNE:
Let me tell you what I 2'-
think he's trying to get at, Bob.
We just recently had an 3
occasion where a request came in for information concerning l
n' the safety of nuciear reactors.
And what went out was a 5
copy or the executive summary.
Ii 0'
MR. LEVINE:
I didn't send it out.
7 (Lauchter.)
I 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that's all he's 9
trying to get at.
i 10 MR. SUDNITZ:
Speaking as a member of the staff i
11 '
Ihave to disassociate myself from the Lewis Committee.
12 '
I believe while that's okay, you don't want to say those 13 1 words.
All right?
1 1.1 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see what you mean.
I ~t '
MR. BUDNIT:: :
You have to sav zicme other words 16 '
because what if a historian of science wants it next year, I
and vou sav.,
- c. e e, I can't get it.
il la J
- O COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
I think Bob is right.
I 19 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That doesn't sav he can't
~
i 20 get it.
21 ;l MR. BUDNITI:
That's not your intent, but I I
' 2
think v.ou have to chrase the words so as to sav.iust what I
m' ' "
]
you really want to say.
4
'i COMMISSICNER 3RADFCED:
Sch, wrt.id you be making si Recocen. ire. I me 1 the same argument if this was 1975 and the decision was whether I'l l
d.
'l l
47 i
davidl6 h't or not we had to bind it in separate forms in the first
't 2)
, lace?
c MR. BUDNITZ:
That was your prerogative in 1975, 4
i but it is now a historical document which has received very c
~
wide circulation.
t I
O Tnere are thousands of them out there.
If somebody i I
7I wants one -- what you really have to say is something a little I
a<
different which says that it will no longer be circulated
~'
l 9
in the context of having some policy implications.
I don't 1
10 know exactly what you want to say, but those words by 11 '
themselves just --
i t
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me that the i
i 13 -
word -- it doesn' t say that the Commission is going to i
ti 14 :i burn it or deny it to anyone who asks for it.
It says we i
15 won't circulate it.
16 MR. BUDNITZ:
But on the other hand, on page 5 a
i l ' '
l under one of Commission actions, it says, separately bound n
i 18 i copies of the RSS executive summary will no longer be i
19 distributed.
Now, it's the same issue.
You just can't I
- 0 s ay that, I don't think.
- 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But the thing to do is to f
n, y go over on p' age 5 where we are getting down to specific
l "q
details and add a sentence that notes that any specific f
og l
)
incuiry for the executive will be met.
.c... a,si a, corms. ine.
me MR. SUDNIT":
I wasn't accusing you of that at
'~
l
!l 48
'l' Ili
.avidl7 all.
I was just trying to get some we ds --
i
^ !i
' ll CHAI?l4AN HENDRIE:
Yes, butin this section on l
page 3, maybe if we can find a better word, okay.
But 4:
I don't read circulate.
Een we say we will not circulate i
5 a document, it means we are not going to go out and peddle i
6i it.
That's what it means.
l 71 It doesn't mean that we an going to forbid i
a anybody te get one.
i 91 end 7 10 i
11 12 '
13 li i
l 14 '
15 '
16
'l 17
- I 18.!
o N
19 P 20 l 1
l 41 i
I 99 l na ;
I 23 ',
I t
2d i
Reoorters, Inc., j s cy,
,ral
)f.l
'l
'l l
I
49 CR1886 1l MR. PEDERSEN:
Mr. Chairman, if we could pick up a i,
ta e 8 2 il thought carried later on, specific steps, and make it more positi'.
e david 1 3
Instead of saying we will no longer circulate in separate I
4, form, say we will only circulate it as part of the total 5:
RSS document or something.
That's really what the i
I 6
Commission --
i i,
7l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If they're going to get l
8 it, they're going to get it.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That sounds a hell of a lot 10,
worse than what we've already got.
11 i
( Laughte r. )
i 12 MR. PEDERSEN: That's what you saying in a sense.
l 13 :
MR. LEVINE:
Are You tr. vin 9 to sav vou will not 14 respond to requests for it without incorporating copies of 15 the Lewis Report.
16 COMISSICNER BRADFORD:
Well, actuallv, to the
.i 17 '
extent uhat I think 3cb's point has some validity, you've
.1
'l 18,'!, sort of.11ghlightec'. it there; that :.s, wh at hannens if I I.
19 ql semebody writes in and says, send me the executive su=a:.7 20 and nothing else?
21 MR. LEVINE:When vour st=.tement hits the street, ii
!l 22.I Mr. Cc=i s sio na r, there'll be many requests for the executive i
Il 23 s u=ary.
24 ]
What is this all abcut?
t s,.. m econm. ir c. ;
25 MR. GCSSICK:
why don't we just stamp all those i
a
I 50
)
I fa d2 i
copies with a statement of the Commission. "Not endorsed. "
2 ll:.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If people are going to be free to 4 i I
file freedom of information request for the executive 5'
i summary, they ' re going to get it.
I i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Bob'a quite right.
7;,
MR. KELLEY:
I think disseminated is quite r.ight, 3,
is a better word. Propagate is too strong.
Di.sseminate in - -
,y better than circulate.
jg i
MR. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
But you were right on your
,)
I last one.
12 l
COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
I could c what I understeAd 13 !
t to be Bob's problem by putting the word " routinely" in j,
front of circulate.
,3,
I MR. BUDNITZ:
Okay, that would be fine.
g t
COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
Which would mean that l,e j,
?
sometime, scmewhere somebody might get one.
zg i
I MR. SUDNITZ:
Then over on page 5 you would have 19 oo a
I d
to put in some similar things.
,0 4
MR.
PEDERSEN:
Let me clarify something.
g!
,, h If someone writes in on a Freedom of Information Act
..,i H
1 recuest 23 -
and asks for oniv the executive summarv, it doesn't
'l O
say' don't send me anything else, but just happens to ask
,4
- e4, al Aeoorters, Inc.
only for the executive summary; what will he get?
,5 1
i
!\\
il 51 I
david 3 1l MR. GOSSICK:
That's not routine dissemination.
I a
, u' MR. PEDERSEN:
What will he get?
z I
3 :l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
I MR. FOUCHARD:
Can I give you a specific example, 4
8 5
f*?
i 6!
Yesterday I had a request from the Ft. Worth i
t I
Star-Telegram for the executive summary of WASH-1400.
7i i
-l
.The editor is going to get the executive summary of e
9l WASE-1400 and a copy of the Lewis Panel Report, and I'm i'
going to call attention to the fact that the Lewis Panel 10 1
11 ;
Report commented on the executive summary.
It seems to me that's the way to handle it.
12 13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
The only I
1 :l situation in which I would imagine the executive 1
3' summary going out would be if you got a letter from scmebody 16 saying, send me the executive summary and nothing else.
i j7 ]
MR. FCUCHARD:
I wouldn't do that.
I'd send them 1
p 1, the Lewis Panel anyway.
- l
+
19 ;
(Laughter.)
i l
He can get what he wants, but he also cets a 0
4 copy of the Lewis memo.
21 -,
MR. PEDERSEN:
I guess it was on that comment 22 '
'l
-i mv statement was made because it seems to me this is an a;
I y
acc urate statement, that we aren't going to sand it out alcne I
ca ral Aeoor**rs, Inc.1 all hv. itself.
w
1
--34 I
i i
avid 4 I:
MR. KENNEKE:
I would say unaccompanied by 3
2p supplementary material to provide the full flavor --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, I'm going to make you i
a proposition.
The cuestion of circulation or FOIA or l
0; distribution or dissemination or propagation or gndgingly
.i l
handing over I
i 7
Okay.
The previous formulation, the original 8
formulation had the advantage that it didn't speak at all 9'
to it.
It just said, the Commission doesn't' endorse the 10 executive summary and left this librarv. e.roblem to.cac.e 5 I
3 11 !
where you can deal with it in d.ctall.
l '
COMMISSIONER FMDFORD:
But you still -- we still t
I3 have to decide the answer to the cuestion, whether v.ou i
I#1 out it here on page 3 or what _ appens when scmebody writes p
I 15 us a letter and asks --
i 16,
?
CHAIP31AN HENDRIE:
I think we ' re deciding, aren' 1,
1' 1 we, we'll send along a copy of the Lewis Report.
l i
18 COMMISSICNER SRADFCRO:
And if -hat's what 19 we're saying, then we might as well say it this way on page
'O' 2 as on page 5.
21 ji C ^.v u.. S C ' v^ N T R.
a'..~" a'.m'. ". -
- ~ Y_.".k.
-o e ' s _- o -.~. ~
_4 s 4
,, 1i
" ! when you get
~.o page 5 we're talking about T.cre deta:. led d
c
-l directions, and here this has turned out to be a larger
- \\
1 24 ccm= l:.
@ >...rst E sporters, IFC. [l
. cation.
'S CHAI??).N HENDRIE :
Than is appropriate.
i 53 I
david 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For a short summary.
J 2p CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At this stage, I would think.
3' I would recommend we go back to the original formulation.
1 I
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I had other troubles 5
i with the original formulation.
For one thing I hesitate 6
t to speak of the current Commission.
7 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, we're going to delete I
8, current.
i f
9 I j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And for another, I i
10 !
don ' t know that the last line, the past Cenmission statement i
11 4 should no longer be construed as being explicit or implicit i
12 !
t NRC endorsements.
I 13 '
The trouble is it's not just a matter of i
1' 1 l
construction.
Several really are.
You can't suddenly i
1 13 '
i construe a statement that says the Commission believes that 16 I this is an accurate summary of the report not to mean that.
i' 17 j And there was at least one such statement, I q
il la J j
think, in the letter to 3ingham or Anders' letter.
i 19 j
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But it was the chairman in i
20 both cases, wasn' t it?
a 21 !
MR. PEDERSEN:
The dif ficulty is usually the i
22 ;
i wav it was --
I
,,i
~ ~ d.
COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD: It 's the chairman that 's 0
24 usually construed as speakinc.
.m *
.ral Reporters. Inc.,
2~5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was in the goed old days I
i I
l 54 l
I david 6 when Ehe chairman's letters counted.
t
,J
'f
( Laugh ter. )
MR. PEDERSEN:
Only the way it's been 4*
construed around here.
Unless the chairman's letter i
5 specifically says this represents my view, it's been 6l!
construed as the Commission's view.
i 7
i MR. KELLEY:
It's not a matter of construction.
i 3 l.
The statute explicitly states that he's the spokesman except 9
where he says that he's not.
10 MR. PEDERSEN:
And all of those others were ll i l
carefully --
12 '
i COMMICSIONER GILINSKY:
He's the spokesman for --
13 l' MR. KELLEY:
He is the spokesman for the 14 Commission unless he says these are only my personal vie'As; 15 when he puts out a statement and signs it as chairman, that's 16 '
the Commission, in my view.
<l I7 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The way to fix tb st is to
\\
18 i
- 1 cc: trol the stationery.
l.
19.l (Laugh ter. )
i 1
- 0" 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It takes a vote of the
'l ]i
- J majority of the Commission to let you have a piece of paper --
1 22 ;!
COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Either that or a signature h
2 '~ "
-l machine.
s 24 :j (Lauch ter. )
i a *...r.i n.:or m. inc.
2 ~8 CHAI?J!AN HENDRIE:
Well, how could we fix it, Peter?
'i l
i l
55 i
david?
II I would really like to leave the detailed instructions over il f4 4.
lI to where we are getting down to detailed instructions.
Could 3a I
we just say the Commission does endorse this thing?
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I don't think I have c
any dif ficulty with that as long as we then do deal with 6
it on page 5.
l 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I propose over there i
a to put it in whatever length of language is appropriate 9
to get it all down.
10 Okay, the Commission does not endorse the 11 :
executive summarv, ceriod.
Okav.?
12 Could we plunge to the next page?
13 h COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could we change that 14 -
word " inscrutability" and just talk about lack cf clarity?
15 il COMMISSICNER AHEAFl;E:
Fine.
16 '
CHAIFJ'AN HENDRIE :
Yes.
i II f COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
I have a feeling that they la I rather like that word.
o 19 '
s COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
I know it's a physicist's d
.oj word.
t
.i 2I l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Hal likes it.
It's one of
,3
i his trademarks.
COMMISSIONER 32ADFCRD:
They may have worked i
24 I
several hours to come up with it, but that dcesn't bind us.
,=.
r.i neoorms. inc. i
,e 6.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
Let's see.
What do we use?
i
i
. ~
l 56 I
dauid8 CC".MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Lack of clarity.
ll 2f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Lack of clarity?
Go to page 4.
I, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does lack of clarity 4,
capture the thought?
l 5;
MR. BUDNITZ:
I can't say; I'm not allowed to
.I say that many hours were spent on something like these I
i 7l words.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It doesn't have cuite the a
9 flare of inscrutability.
10 l COMMISSIONER AiiEARNE :
Inscrutability has much 11 deeper meaning.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Like the age-old way.
13 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Four, five --
la i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wait a minute.
Four.
i 15 '
Let me ask you about the sentence in the middle of the page, 16 >
"The Commission agrees particularly that the absolute 4
1 I values of the risks should not be used uncritically."
~
J 3
What does the " uncritically" mean?
19 i
I thought we said that they shouldn't be used
'O 'i or at least so far as that applies to the number for a
1
,I P overall risks.
3 3 -l CHAIRMAN HINDRIE:
I think we really get down to
,1
'~,i detailing that in five-A and 3 in a way that spells cut d-
' l directives for the Staff.
we..Nerai neoorters. ine. ;
oc j
^~
John, go ahead.
i i,
[
57 I
1 dauid9 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
WhatI was trying to say
?
2I is I don't know that every number is wrong.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Are you 4
talking about a lot of numbers or are you talking about the i
1 5
final numbers, you might say?
i l
6' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was really speaking 7
more about anY--(Inaudible)- of a probability that was I
embedded -- (Inaudible.)
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Of various components 10 of the total risk?
i 11 l COMM'SSIONER AHEAPSE:
Yes.
What I was trying i
12 to get at was that before using any risk estimate that 13 r that particular estimate would have to be reviewed in 14 the light of was the calculation done correctly?
4 15 "
Was the data used adecuate?
What were the 16 error bounds that should have been carried through?
,1 17 1 l
You may end up with a final number being the same.
i 13 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I certainly agree 19 that absolute values syould not be used uncritically, but
- 0 o
I think scmewhere here we ought to say that --
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're right.
M i I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- that the uncertainties 1
3 :l in the overall risk are such that you really can'r do much 24 } with that number at all.
.cs.k eral Recorters. Inc. j SC O
~ ;l CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
I
,i
..il l
58 i
I iavid10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or at least that is c
t 2!
what we seem to be saying.
i a
1 9
MR. CASE:
Look under A on page 5.
I sl COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I don't read it i,
5' out of A.
i 6>
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Dropping critically would I
7 be a closer approximation.
i 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that 9
point, if we believe it, is so important that it ought to
.i d
10 ]
be highlighted and said explicitly in the statement.
i 11 i CC.'.MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
12 *i MR. PEDERSEN:
There's one thing you have to i
i I3 be real careful about here', though.
This sentence that i
14 t starts, "The Commission agrees" follows on from the quotes of the
- j 15 review group above, and particularly that the a isolute 16 '
values -- that statement is taken right cut of the Lewis l
17 I Recort.
.I i
l*a i L
Page 3,"_he absolute values of the risk presented r
19 by the report shculd not be used uncritically,.either in
^C the regulatory process or for public policy purposes."
21 d 1
So, the "particularly" here I took to mean that
,, 1
-hey particularly agree with that finding of the Lewis
,i'" l Grcup Report.
If you want to go further with it, that woulf 4
l be fine.
w.k
<ral A fDor?trs, imC. l
'S I
'j But it shouldn't be identified as a Lewis Group
59 I
favidll finding because Lewis did not, anyplace that I can 2
read, go that far; that is to say, that they shouldn't 3
be used at all, period, full stop.
4' I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's where vou were l
~
ci saying that there's some problems in the way the i
6' calculations were done, problems with the data, some f
7 !
the statistics.
l 0
l MR. PEDERSEN:
But this is the correct statement 9
from the report itself.
+
10 COMMISSIONE3 AHEARNE:
Xell, it's a quote.
e 11 MR. PEDERSEN:
And this is written here to be i
12 '
l left that way, and the way it's written here, if you want i
13 l to change it, it should be identified as something going h
14 beyond that or as a logical interpretation or scmething.
15 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, the point is:
which i
l 16 '
is a closer approximation to where we finally want to come a
l ?l out?
i 18 My reading of what the report was saying --
1 19 and at least in listening to the presentation -- was that 1
20 l there are a lot of problems, sufficiently so that you v,
'i should never use any of those absolute values wit;.out
-, q naving g0ne back and carefully checked.
I
' 3 -]-
MR. PEDERSEN:
And I believe that's what
.i uncritically was meant to --
ae neco;ms. Inc. y h
'S l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That was a shorthand for i
9 h
I l
60 11 davidl'
'i that.
I 2(
But if you are trying to take a first approximation to get it in capsule form, it would be, 4
do not use that.
i c'
~,
MR. PEDERSEN:
Yes.
All I would say,in that i
6' I
I would suggest saying the Commission agrees and concludes i
7, that the absolute values -- that clearly makes it --
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see what you mean.
9 MR. PEDERSEN:
Particularly suggests this is 10l a Lewis Grotip conclusion.
11 !
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don' t I neatly check your work.
i 13>l
'I CHAIRMAE HENDRIE:
We are goinc ahead here and I, -
1'.l pointing that rhe word " detail" in the limitations on the i
1 ~8 use -- should we put quotes around the absolute values,should 16 '
not be used uncritically?
17 :
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I know it's quoting
.i i
13 1 a statement.
We have announced this is what our Ccmmission 19 position is.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Agrees particularly.
All l
91 <
i right.
,, 'l, i
CO.T!!SSIONER 3RACFORD:
On the next sentence,
,, )
I take it what you are af er is removing this business of 21 having the EDO approve certain kinds of specified us,es,.-
m.t
.,o a.r,m,s. inc.
_---._:.as_-
I e
o
~:'
O O
g v
- 9
/
s
';,y,
/////
'V4@
4ir 4 '
\\k IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 28 23 ll 2 l,l
' ilS E
I.25 l 1.4 1.6 I
6" f
- g//,,,
g4 %
,h//
,y e
+
py
.c 0
6
+
0
5 g
p g
e r
,D
'?
?,
///
Mo@
(*4V V
imies ev tu 1ios TEST TARGET (MT-3) 2*
2' 1.0
>2 m
- rsh 3
\\\\\\L8
=
i.25 1.4 l
1.6 6"
D#
J p
-t q
l l
61 i
I davidl3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, that's what pages 5-A and t
2 '!
i, o-B are, i
~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there is --
4 4:
(Pause.)
5 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Okay.
6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Section two back there provides i
7';
much more specific guidance.
It comes away # rom the 3
proposition that Lee has to review every use of numbers.
9 It's not savinc. don ' t use them.
i 10 lM COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
When I put that in there i
.i 11jl it was a placeholder for him.
I felt there ought to be 12 some sort of procedure, and I recognized -- I mean, I picked i
13 1 up Lee's suggestion, but I think at the time Ken pointed out the same ding.
15 9 There ought to be some sert of procedure put l
16 r in clace.
COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Had a narrow escape, Lee.
I6 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIZ:
Well, maybe he could have i
19.i treated it generically; even numbers are okay, but cdd e
ones are out.
Seven and 11 yes.
Everything else no.
i I
d 21 ;
(Laugh ter. )
i l
,, i CCMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
? think this will also take care of the third point in my covering =cmo, not the A
g
$4 insert.
3.e.
- gl AfQortert, IFC.
I ec ;
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I think so, yes.
- Ckay, t
a
- I o
- 'l 62 l1 a
david 14 I 1 can I finangle you foward to page 5?
11 4,
n CO.NDiISSIONER 3RADFORD:
You can lead a horse to water -- wait a minute.
I 4
(Laughter.)
l, 5'
CHAITOiAN HENDRIE:
If I can get him to turn the i
6' page --
7I COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Unless I can assume that t
a as you skip from five to six you are accepting the word 9:
changes that I have made on five --
I0 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, that's right.
You have 11 '
got a thingamabob to go in there.
l i COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Yes, I had a couple of i
I3 !
changes at the top of page 5, and then I had an insert at 14 the bottom.
l "i I would be glad to assume consent, but I wouldn't 16
want to have to come back later.
i e<
C n..,
,F, s. ns.. D R,. _::
set,s see; tn.e Commission
.-u -
4 i
1 ~2 i; believes that this regulatory process is -- that this i
- 6 19 4 regulatory process --
.-o 20 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is defense in depth 21 written down somewhere?
4
^2" 1
COMMISSIONER A~iEARNE:
Given the aura with
,,a
~~l which it was spoken here in the last couple of months,
.t I thoucht it was chiseled in scmethinc.
.aiacenm.inc.]
- c...
>c MR. ECNCH:
It does appear in the interim general i
1 l
I 63 I
davidl5 i
statement of a lot of Congressional testimony.
2 ':1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would vou characterine 1
4 i
~:I it?
MR. BUNCH:
How would I characterize it?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
6' MR. DENTON:
What?
7 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Defense in depth mtans 8
what?
9 MR. DENTON:
Multiple barriers, attention to 10 each phase, assumption of failures, mitigated systems; 11 it's spelled out in many of the Commission statements.
1 12 i
CCt1MISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm happy with Peter's l' i
~,
addition.
1.1 'l MR. CASE:
How about " provide assurance of" 1
4 1 ~5 l
rather than "should."
- 1' 16 L COMMISSIONER AHEARNE
Or c.ualifv it, which will probably make Peter happier.
i l ~a MR. DENTCN:
There is a statutorv.
.... d _e.. ~
n 3
n 1
19 :l that has to be made also.
'O 1
MR. KELLEY:
That's true.
When you license for i
91 1
\\
~
you make a finding of reasonable construction or creration,
.o
~;
" - assurance and safe operation then by virtue of the
~,
~~
delec.ations c.enerally made by the beard.
But it's made T
't in the name cf the C = mission.
Those findings are made s al 8tecor*ees, Inc. g e
ir,
^C 1
l with every facility.
l
64 davidl6 I h.
COMMISSIONER AHEAPSE:
What Peter is savin 9 i
is that the current procedures should do that; doesn't 7 i necessarily say --
a 4
j MR. KELLEY:
There's sort of a tone there c',
that we sure hope it does.
6 (Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think vou correctiv i
- 1 8-picked up --
9' MR. KELLEY:
Very astute.
\\
10 'd COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That actually defines u
11 '
no undue risk.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
- Yes,
" ;i ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think it has to be la 1 "dces."
1 1~c i COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
"Should" better describes my perception 0: the situation, even if it is a scmewhat l N weaker --
1 i
COM'1ISSICNER.:JiEARNE:
Whv. does it have to be I
19 :
"dces" instead?
Jim, is that legal?
i, "O :l "a
MR. KELLEY:
Harold is sim.el.v makinc. a.coint that I,
- l l
'i 2 gree with, that the Commission holds out to the world 1
,, l dat these facilities are relatively safe by virtue of the --
~ _ _
CO.vMISSICNER AHEAPSE:
Every time we license one 4
we make this statement.
.m.s._ev a eoorters. inc. t Sc j But the reason we make that statement is we believe i
i 6 5 4
f 1H davidl7 3,,
that the process we go through is one which should provide us with confidence --
e CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does provide, i
a COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Each time we make a i5' statement we are saying:
for this plant t
6' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It does.
7'i MR. KILLEY:
On the record, i
8' COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
But the procedure e
should provide it.
i 10 i 1,
COMMISSIONER SPADFORD:
And shoul co on crovidinc.
11 '
4+..
12 MR. LEVINE:
Maybe if you had at the end of the 13 i serence, "in licensed facilities" you could reach a 14 '
compromise.
1 ~5 i COMMISSIONER 3?.ADFOD.D :
I'll take your words if 1
16 i you'll take mine.
Actually you have more words than that, i
/
CHAIPlCCI HENDRII:
Frlom licensed -- I have
.. i ic added "frcm licensed nuclear f acilities" in the version, 19 and I think that means it has to be do e s. "
20 a
Either that or the Cc= mission has to put on the i
4
^
table whether or not it's going to pull the operating license I
i 3, 1 of 70 plants.
If you think that's justified, we can e-
,.cerate it.
~.
de L
COMMISSICNER AHEA? lie:
There's a distinction, I
.,o a,oonm. ine. ;
ci 4.
think, between what action has been taken on each plant, and i
i 1
n i
66 lI favidl8 Il as each plant comes up, and the conclusion is finally i
4 reached, ves.
- I' There is no undue risk to the public health
~
4' and safety from this plant and therefore it's licensed.
1 C
And the reason that we can do that each time is we have t
6 a process in which we have confidence that that process 7l should provide us with the ability to make that statement 3
each time.
o'o One is describing the process which we would lo certainly hope works, and the other is we are saying that 11 l in each individual case it has worked.
1 12 MR. DENTON:
I read "should" as applying some 13 \\l; doubt as to whether it has or not.
l '
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So do I.
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I don't.
I didn't 16 l intend it that way.
What I intended to encompass instead l
is the fact that from time to time off into the future I i
13 i; sm sure that we will change the process and increase the i
g" level of -- safe levels of safety.
I wouldn't rule out --
^0 tifact, the very existence of the RCCC committee means the
'l h staff doesn't rule out the possibility either.
l
,, l There are times we think things should be
', improved, upgraded.
And it just seems to me tha "shculd" is i
'd a more realistic reflection of the fact that this is a process 3.A al A tOOr'ers, Inc.,
- C l
'~
- that is not a fact, j us t -- (Inaudib le. )
l
- i
.i 67 1
I favid19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When I refer to licensed 1
2!
nuclear f acilities, why in each one of those we the Commission have in fact made, according tr 'ur statutory responsibilities and authorities, have made the finding that 5
that plant does not present undue risk.
6' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course with your i
i
,1 addition, you are now really focused upon the past.
The 8
original sentence was just in --
9 y
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you would like to have 10
)
the verb instead of "being does assure," "has assured no ll -
undue risk," why, that's all right with me too.
i l '
But it seems to me that there has to be on the 13 1 d;' addition of at the end of the sentence something about 14 :Il licensed nuclear facilities.
'. l l
15 1' Otherwise, it sounds as though the process itself 16 could have presented a risk of health to the public, whereas i
17 I think it only endangers of health of staff and
- i
] '2
- Cc=missioners.
~
So you reed tc tie the risk to the f acilities and
'O !I not to the procedural matter.
And once you have done that, a
01 :!i I don't think you can stand "should."
~
l
,q
-l COMMISSICNER AREARNE: "Ess assured" is better, i
3 CCMMISSICNER SRADFORD:
I could live with N
"has assured," if the setence then says something different 2f 3 31 4 8".4f?f fl. IN.
than what it says at the acment, if that will get everybody on i
1
- t a
13 68 il el IO favid20 board.
.i l
o CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
" Believes that this regulatory
,'t process has assured no undue risk to the public health
.l and safety from licensed nuclear facilities."
c COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
.'ine.
i 6'
MR.
SCINTO:
Just so the record just doesn't suggest that that means in the past.
I want you 9
to know that the staff works every day to show that that l
pi
',i findinc. is true everv. d a.r.
Just so the transcrip:
10 t j
doesn't sugges: the past finding.
11 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I know you do.
And 12 ;'
the process is one which should assure that.
).
(Laughter.)
i 1.t '
MR. SCINTO:
That's an everv.dav. findinc..
9 Ic CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You know I think I understand 16 4 what you mean, John.
I will point cut to you there will be f
i I,'
all sorts of people who will read it in the sense that I'n pi arrard it could be read if it were "should."
.1 10 And you will have on the table petitions i
20 "l tomorrow morning saying, well, you said it only probably i
.i 21 'iii does.
It doesn't actua11v. You haven't met the statute.
- l anut enen at.1 down.
m.
3 l
And I would just as soon make clear that that's "a
not the thrust of this discussion.
as Reccriers, lac. d 24 ac COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Sv changing it to "has i
l
69 l
david 21 assured" --
1 2,
CHAIR W HENDRIE:
Yes, I think that will do it.
2 ;.
il
,i Now, there was --
MR. GOSSICK:
One question to legal people:
is l
this a different statement, a statement when we sav 5
no undue risk.
Is that different than reasonable assurance 6'
i l
of no undue risk?
7!
i MR. KELLEY:
I think it's a fair paraphrase.
Sr MR. GOSSICK:
It is?
7 1
MR. KELLEY:
Yes.
10 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now down in one -- oh, ves.
.I Down in one on page 5 is where we have got to deal with 12 this circulation-dissemination question.
Okay?
t
,i COMMISSIONER AU.EARNE:
Why don't vou just change 1.t,
it to copies of the c'ecutive su rarv and copies of the 15 :
i 16 I comolete will distributed only when accomcanied bv
.i __
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and a copy of the statement.
a copy of the' report
- l..,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay?
jg i
19 "J I guess that's all right.
It doesn't have l
~
quite everything in it.
10 Okav.
There's a proposal down at the bottcm here 21.l i
'l to delete the words " separately bound" and say " copes of the 3., J. -
o it RSS exeuctive su =ary."
Delete the rest and " opies of the 44 :i 2s ' complete RSS will be distributed oniv when acccccanied bv. a m..
.at Aeocriers. Inc sg Copy of the group's report and a Copy of this statement."
ll i
'I
.'l 70 1(1 l
MR. LEVINE:
You don't need the second " copies."
favid22 u
~i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
" Copies of the RSS executive summary and the complete RSS."
Is that sufficient?
l 4;
COMMISSIONER BPADFORD:
Wait a minute now.
You c
are doing what to my insert?
Doing nothing to my insert.
i 61 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Actuallv, I haven't gotten t
to your insert.
I was trying to deal with the circulation-8 9,
It has got to come fast.
dissemination cuestion.
9 'l COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I wouldn't be surprised 10 l except Bob has disappeared.
I wouldn't be surprised if he a.
11 '
didn' t have more trouble with this sentence.
12 MR. LEVINE:
He has no problem.
I have talked 13 4 1
to him about it.
h 14 d MR. PEDERSEN:
I think it gets.to his concern q
1 1 ~c h that we wouldn't distribute separate copies any longer.
16 '.
New we say we will.
But you have to take the statement and 17 the Lewis Report with it.
q j
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
1 19 1 1
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That's all I thought I said.
~n a.1 _1
_ _4 g b. 4 m' !!
COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Fine.
1 99 c
-i.
3 C u..n
.2.v.n.,-
.e..r..Ln o. _r.r.
O t. a,2
..J New, what about Peter's insert. "Any explici: Or impl -
.i 24 cit pas endersement of the executive summary is hereby 03 4 33 AfD0fttr1. InC.
sb expressly withdrawn."
.t I
I?ll
i i
3
/
I iavid23 CO.v24ISSINER AHEARNE :
We could say -- take out the phrase "in the past" and say " inoperative."
,i
~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought of that.
i 4
(Laughter.)
i I
5 i
CHAIPS.AN HENDRIE:
It's all right with me.
t 6'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay?
i 7l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's a little more vigorous i
8 than the previous one.
i o
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have got to go.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSRY:
He got his three l-11 '
i inst rts in.
2 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
New he wants to leave.
As 13 ll soon as he leaves, why, we will vote his inserts out q
u 14 ll again.
o I
i 'c (Laughter.)
16 That will teach him to fool around.
COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
He has some fairly i
1~1 i substantial issues raised in his covering meno.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I'm not going to be
O a.ble to get to those.
'l Peter, what about '.he rest of the thing?
'* i c, a vru hava =
cc.uy c.~e v.p-. p nr-.r.n.= -r..
. m.
o-o.
s.
reaction :
the steps in 5-A and E?
^4 c -, e.,.-
v-. c.w.o.
t.w. 2..
..w. c.
w en.v.v
.e..e c.-
o.
- 2. R n D r n..o,.
.w e-
_ e.4 3 +=
31 E900f ff fl. l 9C.
I
-e I was having with item C there and how it related to -he 3
ll t
72 I
Ih lavid24 front.
There are a couple of more pages to go.
It's
[
your intention, is it, to push right on through?
3-l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I'm going to have to i
l terminate new because we have got a long afternoon.
I 5'
am afraid I will be hung back with circulating drafts 6'
again.
I, 7!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before the staff i
a dis ac. cears, can I ask a cuestion on one of the steps?
o',
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Harold, at the end of i
11 5-3, staff shall prepare and submit detailed procedures.
12 Could that be done by a certain date?
I3 !
I feel a little uneasy about just leaving la '
that open ended.
1 ~5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Say that again.
4 16 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is 5-3, the last i
paragraph has the staff shall prepare and submit detailed I
l~a t orocedures.
a -
i 19,!
a CHAIRMAN FENDRIE:
Yes?
l 20 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I'm asking Harold 21 h could that be done by a certain date.
In other wcrds, by some
,, l
-' 1 date, the staff shall prepare and submit.
em" MR. DENTON:
I think we could choose a date.
'a What we saw was the Lewis Committee had prohibitions en eg.k at Aeoorters. Inc.
ce
'~
some kinds o.f things and other would -- and I wanted the ECCC i
i I
73 1l david 25 9
to have a chance to get into these areas.
k 2p So if you think something like six months 3'
l s
or so would be appropriate to give them a chance to P CW i
I 4 i through in detail.
l 5l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think there really should I6!
be some sort of -- otherwise, like rule making --
k 7!
MR. DENTON:
We could pick a date and then work 8'
toward it, six months or mid-year, this summer?
t 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
By June 30th?
10 i
MR. DENTON:
(Nodding affirmativelv.)
II MR. CASE:
Six months after the policy statement
,2 t is issued?
I 13 i (Laughter.)
Id '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, no.
How about six i,
15 months from the day of submission of the Lewis Report?
i 16 (Laughter.)
i 1,'. i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
June 30th in there.
i f
I I3 ! Do you dink you can stand that?
'l MR. DENTON:
You know, I would propose that we 20 do this; you know, we just adopted the new procedures as
- 1 to how RCCC would operate for changing recuirements.
4
,, d. would not propose to go through those procedures for this 44 t
l 23 ' kind of review or else we couldn't make the six months.
4 These are more internal things, so if we can do it 1
.2.s.cer., a.correri. inc. j 25.j on an internal basis, I think indeed six months is tight, but a 1
J q
'l I
1 i
I 74 I
avid 26 reasonable schedule.
i l'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Look, I will get.this thing retyped as we have gone so far, and as it seems
~
i 4l to me it ought to complete it.
It won't be greatly I
5' different from what we have got here.
And I guess come i
1 I
6 around and harrass you is about all I can think to do.
7 All right?
a
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I consider myself warned.
1 9
(Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
thing I need to say 11 i with that is all leave is cancezied and all travel -- all i,
12 1 tickets are called in.
i 13 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you leave, there is this affirmation.
15 (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m.
the meeting was 16 adjourned.)
17 1 I
i 13 ;l u
d 19 20 i i
21,
4 i
09...
97,
aw,
b
=.5 e aeoorms. inc. ;
25 :i
'I i
!