ML19270H725
| ML19270H725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001020704 | |
| Download: ML19270H725 (80) | |
Text
%
4 1674 096 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(**..
,D *
- D ' D S.
ow w
. - 3
..x..
a --.
=.
g.
7 m,- w w w:c.u u.- s. r.~
~~ v r.:.a; m+g. m ~.,,.-,. n.
- g., -
o,.,
,p
-v
-i.:'in.THEMATTER;.Og^ y. 2.3 4 % ~, ?,;
.3.
. ; y.. ? '.m A.**;"Q 2.A.Q*:-
+- -
nq '.: ':*,:. :.,
n n,
y 3. -
' Q,*-
, c w.
- M 'r" ~ c
~
W, a-
~.
n
-,. ~
a,
, ~.. :,..s..,.:..... :. n..x.
- v..
, u 7
-i r
_'O : *. ' '.^. PUBLIC MEETING.
...,.a 4
.+
n -
t.c o :-
S BRIEFING ON ACTION PLAN
- n. y,: ~ c g: m
.a.
.a
..::%.. QW.9. : ;,-:g::.4 M.?.w.p; a,,4., (
=n v :I.
., y.2,. n.-
c.-
A ::
w v.
r.
...,.,. s....+ n m,g w. m, e,c. n
,.,a.,.n.w.....,.,.e,,,
....w< ~. n, z.~ ~.. 9..y a,
7 w
_y
-43ty~,.9.a
.t.y.
.a
,w.n,%gyj
. g et, e. t.,1q..,,
.e
- r.~/
-w~sec. 4 wmg,..
". 'm'
,m
- -~
_ + ->c.h,,
... u..
,,,. v....
.m g--w-s..*-a i lp: #: m r.~.. n v ~! u a,.
.i --
- -' -- w
. a. ~:, N t C.C.
..r e*.
ghi
>-r:,
ww
-s u
..o _%,..: s,c W.,. :n M p y.M..ngtycf..J.* y :-- hy
,",e 1.,,$ :i > ' s.
.e*~
- T QGly 2ly*; (Q3 ?.
~ ~', % :
- n l n L -
9 a
__F._....
.0. +
.w + s.
- 4..
3
. g.,
.vw,
,. s. s, v,...
-i..
..a.,
e
, ~..... - -
g
.m,.
m
... w
.+ m mw.m., _y-n..y.9.n.;; y
. ~ _ -..
.....,,.m-_
n.w:,.v.
,..; s
.n
. c :Pfc ce: Washingtorre D'.;. C. ;.,5 e..l.
c, i
s.
.w..,,
m
- v. -
=
D Wd..
d
- 19. December sI.979' Pages-
- 2. - 79 J,-
. # ate. ~.,e nes ay. - -..4,.m.
..n
.w....s:m, ::. r.; w s:1
, c.<. g. ;,-. s..,..
c.,
.c.,
n:.
m.
- s..:.
- r n : x. g. w.1,. u,,;.;.a:v:, K.. -e %> p_
?.
+;n %v:k' :y m v:.~Cy-
- st =+ N. m.:; d.
.e'.? -
_v C li.
.-l}x. M. 4
.~
xy, -,zlie = ' g,;,.y%
p~::.e -is n y s.}.m.
- m u.
., ' e. s s s
- - : ;e~n.:;,
.~
'g' i ~r o'. -.;fG $
t.
f:m;Llq:
- -f3
- ;g y
.,,:. g-;, } >.
~
3, p.
-.i Q.4Q.. *ydQ,. ; >, -vt, hbw=)ip:?. ;g;r,. $37-
-a wup ~
.i ; y
.1
~
- n,.-
+
Jo.c.
v
- a. Mc.- -
-,> g.$ *. s.
. gy g_,q%si,W:. c
x.~.
c e..
.4~,....,..
..1 3
..~c
..e' Jc
,m' A.v c... n.%q..;,
5 9.ska.. W v iq.v.
-t cd
- 7.;,yf %prQ, *pgy;gw.g.9,$'. ;y 3,Ou.. M,.. :
s, s,
.v; a
2 -n 4~ 4. y:D v...
p p;g :;g.Q.;.v...< w.h gr. - + - -
. : : m,.: v:
wp
- m y
- n..>. ?
e-w
~v w
f,f y w -
~ ;G ~
p
.: e. :. 2;:Z;-:2r4 f:%:fW:. ~%.+ p, - :y
,.:7 g my-3,g% W is.pg 3<.e.4vg g
.s; g wg. g u;. y :e,'
%y s
- =
?-
yg m n
p x.
~ sQ:a u r.
. :n.,
q a
Telephone:
(202)347 3700-y+,
n m-ACE'-FEDER/1 REPORTERS,INC.
3
~
L Offic'elReporterr 4M North Capitol Street-y,H
- i a.-. Washingtorr, D.C. 20001-jf r
.y(
o q.g c w s..t.
NATIONWIDECOVERAGE-DAILY -
.e..
4 w e, y
I m
tt~
8001020
CR8890 1
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript _ of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Wednesday,19 Decenber 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 8.,
' inaccuracies.
,L)
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.10.3, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed I
with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
9 i674 097 (2
<3
S 2
CR8890 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING S
BRIEFING ON ACTION PLAN f
6i l
Room 1130 7
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C, 8'
Wed,e t y, 19 De h 1979 The Commission met, pursuant to n,otice, at 9:35 a.m.
9 BEFORE:
10 JOHN F.'AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 12 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner (q
_/
13 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner 14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 Messrs. Mattsen, Scroggins, O'Reilly, Purple, Shapar',
16 Gossick, Bickwit, Hanrahan, Collins, and Higginbotham.
17 18 19 20 2'
1674 098 C
22 23 O
24 Ac.:rederal Rooorters, Inc.
25 i
R 8,890 3
HOFFMAN t-3 mte 1 1
PROCEEDINGS
(,.
(9:35 a.m.)
2 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We begin this morning, or continue 4
this morning, the fairly large task of going through the 5
Action Plan that the NRC staff has proposed.
Roger Mattson, 6
who has been leading the effort, will undoubtedly be the 7
principal spokesman on this.
8 As a result of the last meeting, we transferred the 9
effort to the lead of the EDO.
I don't expect this morning 10 that we will reach the point of making any decisions on this 11 document, but rather, this is one of what I'm sure will end 12 up being several meetings to help the Commission understand
,s 13 what the' Action Plan has in it, what the significance of it 14 ' is, and what particular decisions ought we to be coming to.
15 Lee?
16 MR. GOSSICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
s 17 y.
Following our meeting last Wednesday, in which the 18 Commission directed the switch of the lead on this effort 19 from NRR to the EDO, we put out a memorandum on Friday, 20 December the 14th, a copy of which was sent to the Commis-21 sioners, which established the steering group under Roger, k-22 and also indicated the assignment of a full-time support 23 staff.
()
24 Roger is prepared to go ahead and describe where co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 we've been and where we're headed and what's in the Action Plan.
1674 099
mte 2 4
I Roger?
2 DR. MATTSON:
I propose that we break this norning 3
up into two pieces.
First I'd like to review some things that 4 are still ongoing, that we're not prepared to address this 5 morning but will be in a position to address on our meeting 6
scheduled for Friday morning.
7 Second, I want to propose a way to break the entire 8 plan down into some manageable portions according to the need 9
and urgency for Commission-staff dialogue.
First, let me summarize some of the ongoing activities.
11 We said in the memorandum that you have a copy of that we would
~
y~: be naming some task managers, and we finished that job.
The b'
13't, task managers were identified last Friday, met for the first I
14 ' time Monday, and participated in dividing the work up into i
I0 manageable proportions, and we'll be talkir g about that later.
16 ' They are from all affected offices in their representation.
li
.,c]I think there are five from I&E, eight from NRR, one or two 1
I8 apiece from Standards and Research, representatives from ELD,
}C'.the Office of the General Counsel.
I 20 7,m sure I'm leaving somebody out-that I'll insult --
21 Programs.
In any event, a broad representation of the task b-2' manager level, some 20 task managers in all, generally corres-23 ponding to the principal headings of the table of contents of p) 24
~
the Action Plan.
Ace 8ederal Reporters, Inc.
The second thing that we have initiated is also 1674 100
mte 3 5
1 spoken to in the memo which you have a copy of, is to ask the
(_
2 office directors to review the resource estimates for their
~
3 portions of the Action Plan, and to give us some preliminary 4
indication by close of business today as to what is not in 5
their current budget or current operating plan for fiscal 1980 6
or the supplement for 1980 or the budget request for fiscal 7
year 1981.
8 That is a first step in what will be much harder 9
work in marrying the task action plans with the current and 10 future operating plans.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, does that mean that they are to consider their current programs, the current resources 12 s "/
13 that they've got, either program budgeted or proposed, and I
id '; then look at what additional is required by this plan?
In 15 other words, without taking into consideration any possible 16 reprogramming of resources?
17 j DR. MATTSON:
No.
It asks them to give a preliminary 18 ! indication of whether, in their judgment, they will be able I
19 to incorporate the new things in the plan by reprogramming.
20 But it gives them some flexibility.
They can say yes or no 21 or maybe.
I suspect we're going to get a number of noes and
(
22 maybe's in this first go-round.
I'm trying to work with the 23 budget and NRR, where we had a lot of interim changes and 24 task forc~es, and people are now beginning to come back into co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the normal line organization and return to assignments such 1674 101
mte 4 6
1 as casework, from which they were taken in April and May.
2 It's very difficult to discern what is or is not ongoing, and 3
what is or is not in the base program.
4 So a lot of it is going to come back, I'm sure, 5
today, with the statement that they're uncertain.
And only 6
after we've done more talking and the office directors have 7
had more time will.the steering group, through Mr. Gossick, 8
task the directors with being more definitive about whether 9
they can move in and out of their current operating plan to 10 incorporate the task actions in this plan.
11 And as I said a couple of times, the reason for not moving precipitously to do that is because, we know there _ are 12 13 changes that have to be made in the Action Plan.
There's no d
14 l sense in driving the whole agency through a repetition after 15 repetition of this p, articular exercise.
We ought to try to do 16,
it once and do it right the first time.
l 17 h The steering group itself will be working with these 18 i office resource inputs, starting tonight, and we'll summarize I
19 '. them and provide them to you Friday morning at the start of 0
20 '
our oriefing.
21 The steering group is also working hard on the
('
22 development of a method for prioritizing the elements.of the 23 Action Plan.
We've kicked this around a fair amount and come 24 up with a general enthusiasm for an approach that's analogous AwFWwet Rmorms, lm.
25 to what was used with the generic issues, the prioritizing 1674 102
4 mte 5 7
I and ranking of generic issues, a year and a half ago now, and k-2 ultimately from that flowing the definition and identification 3
of the end result safety issues, where you sve so many points 4
according to the risk significance, according to the source 5
of the recommendation, according to the applicability of the 6
action, according to cost, and so on.
7 Once you agree on a general set of criteria, you 8
can just apply it to every action and get some sense of 9
priorities.
We wouldn't propose to use this in the same sense 10 that it was used for generic issues -- that is, to concentrate 11 work on some and stop work on others -- but rather, to establish 12 the time phasing and the resource allocation aspects of this
.m
\\/
13 action plan.
~
14 4 In any event, we'll have that to show you or propose 15 l to you Friday morning, and we'll talk about it and see what i
16 l its deficiencies are and maybe work on it for a bit more i
17 ' before we apply it some time in the new year.
0 16 We're also doing some quality assurance on the plan.
19, It needs to be checked, most importantly at the moment with 20 respect to the President's announcement on December 7th, to 21 make sure we're consistent where we should be consistent, and
(
22 to identify differences where there's an dfficial reason for 23 differences.
(~';
24 We're also cross-checking it against all of the Ace-Federsi Reporters, Inc.
25 Congressional testimony that has been given by the Commissioners 1674 103 t
8 mte 6 I
since Three Mile Island to make sure that we haven't forgotten
\\' '
2 something that someone said we should do and we've already 3
agreed to do, that somehow has gotten lost.
We found a few 4
holes.
We'll be working on those in the next couple of days.
5 And we'll' have a sheet of paper for you Friday to show you 6
what we found.
7 We're als4 double-checking it with all the ACRS 8
letters.
9 Mr. Chairman, you asked on several occasions in the 10 past for an accounting of how we were doing on the ACRS things.
11 That will be provided, my guess is, not by Friday of this week.
12 Our goal is to be in a position of providing that to the ACRS-b 13 starting the 7th of January, when we start to meet with them L
14 on the Action Plan.
We'll give you a c~opy at the same time.
15 But I think the place for us to concentrate on whether the 16 things that are in there are the right things and the ones i
17 l that are not shouldn' t be in there, is with the ACRS themselves.
ii 18 l'! We'll see that you get a copy of that.
19,
We're continuing to receive some staff comments on i
ll 20 the plan.
We recommended that some things be in there that 21 we don't see, and we don't understand why, and we're working 22 with the staff to make sure we've got the right things from 23 the staff.
IJ 24 One in particular that has been bobbing up and down a Fe ud R eorwrs,lm.
25 for several weeks is the question of whether the plan itself 1674 104
mte7 9'
1 ought to have an element involving attitude, NRC's attitude, 2
whether there ought to be a way that we get a sense of our 3
attitude and measure our attitude periodically.
The oversight 4
committee proposed by the President is apparently intended in 5
some respects to speak to that point.
The sentiment for an 6
attitude test has increased to the point that the steering 7
group is working on a particular task some alternatives, and 8
we'll try and put that on your desk Friday morning when we 9
meet, also.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's a test we're going to take.
11 (Laughter.)
12 DR. MATTSON:
I'm sorry.
You shouldn't say that b
13 we've got an attitude test.
That's a poor choice of words.
14 'i The question of whether we should come straight at the criti-15 cism of attitude or whether we should let our actions speak 1
16 for our attitude, is one of differences of opinion within the 17 Y staff generally.
It was one of a difference of opinion within li 18 the steering group.
19 But last night a decisiontwas made that we would 20 unanimously support bringing forward a proposal dealing with 21 the question of attitude and thinking about attitude over the 22 long term.
I'd rather not go into it in any detail today.
23 Let us show you the proposed addition to the plan on Friday
( ;
24 and we'll discuss it then.
m Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just what sort -- what is 1674 105
mte 8 10 1
the nature of this proposal, without going into any details?
(Laughter.)
2 3
DR.
MATTSON:
Bob, do you want to describe it?
4 MR. PURPLE:
The nature of the proposal is one that 5
says, let's get an independent outside group of some sort to 6
assess all the things that we've done in the Action Plan, the 7
things that come about through reorganization change, and 8
make an independent judgment from outside whether or not these 9
things in fact reflect the fundamental, actual, not cosmetic, 10 lasting changes in attitude on the part of the NRC.
And we 11 also include the industry, to take an outside look from some 12 agency at whether or not the things the industry is doing 13 actually reflect a fundamental change in attitude.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, that'will be interesting to 15 see.
16 MR. GOSSICK:
See whether it's controversial.
17 4, DR. MATTSON:
We have also been working on a way ll 18 " to d escribe the information in the plan in its time phasing, 19 and it's easier to grasp in a person's mind's eye.
I know 3
20 you talked with Mr. Gossick about, is_there time to put this 21 thing into the system or some other NRC management tracking
( ~
22 systen.
23 Probably not time to do it yet.
But it has been our I
24 plan all along that we eventually would.
I think probably co Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 in January we need to start thinking in some detail about how 1674 10 6
mte 9 11 1
to describe the milestones, to make sure as we make the
(
\\ "
2 decisions they're consistent with those systems.
In the 3
meantime, we have got our own little time lines that we've 4
written on every element of the Action Plan.
We've identified 5
milestones for various kinds of things.
You'll see one appear 6
on your desk in the next few hours.
7 If it's the kind of thing that helps you think 8
through, as it does us, then we'll try to keep it up to date 9
for you.
If it looks like it's more trouble than it's worth, 10 we've got plenty of things to do besides draw circles and dots.
11 Now, we're developing some questions and analysis 12 methods for how to go about the budgetary things that I
'13 described earlier.
He will be issuing those to the office 14, directors next week.
Now, I think I'm ready at this point 15 to try to carve the turkey and talk about the most important 16 parts.
li 17 E We needed a way to break this thing dowj into I
i So these handwritten sheets
! manageable proportions for you.
l 18 19 of paper that you have in front of you, starting with the o
I!
20 little blocks, is what I'd like to turn to to suggest a way 21 to talk about thewmost important tasks.
IN-22 We defined four categories of actions, decision 23 groups, we called them, A through D; the first group being
(
24 those things that have already been approved by the Commission, ka-FWwW Reorwn, lm.
25 and by approved we mean things like the short-term lessons 1674 107
mte 10 12 I
learned or the NRR task force.
t 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that the bulk of it?
3 DR. MATTSON:
That's a lot of it.
There are some 4
other things, such as ongoing research programs, that you've 5
seen in the context of budget proposals.
There are rulemakings 6
ongoing that will be either put out as proposed rules or you've 7
had staff up here talkingtabout them.
And you're firmly in 8
control and cognizant of what's going on in those areas. Those 9
are things that we would suggest need very little discussion 10 as to their merits and their substantive content.
11 You should be able to turn to each of the things 12 now in this new Table 1, which you have in front of you.
)
13 Wherever you see an A in the first column, you should be able 14 } to say, oh, yeah, I know about that, I've seen that before.
15 We've talked about that.
There isn't a<: great need to go into i
16 it.
17 L We may have erred in some.
Your staff may find l
~
l something you.want to suggest that those are miscategorized.
18 i
19 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And also in those, where we have 20 already reached decisions, you're saying they would track 21 the previous Commission decisions.
For example, in 330(e)
('s 22 there were a host of Commission decisions, and that would be 23 represented then.
24 DR. MATTSON:
It is our representation that in the kee-FWwal Recomm, lnc.
l 25 time that we've had to put this together, the things in 330 (e) l 1674 108
mte 11 13 I
track exactly with what your decisions have been.
The same 2
with respect to NUREG-9578, the Lessons Learned Task Force, 3
Emergency Preparedness, rulemaking, criteria that flow from 4
the rulemaking.
They are meant to be exactly what you said.
Si There are obviously going to be some errors, but because of 6
the time involved in putting it together.
That's one of the 7
jobs of the task managers, to make these entire sections 8
consistent with decisions already taken.
That's why the task 9
managers are all here today, to be kept up to speed as we go 10 along with decisions taken in their areas of cognizance.
11 (At 9:50 a.m.,
Commissioner Kennedy entered the room.)
12 DR. MATTSON:
The second category of things are k_)
13 entitled " simple to accomplish."
That is, they're cheap, 14 f they' re easy.
But they're new and you haven't seen most of 15 them before.
We have talked about them.
We certainly haven't 16 ! made any decisions.
We'll need to consider those, but with 1
17 [ less urgency and in less detail, perhaps, than some of the N
18 E more important ones at the bottom in Category D.
11 19.
co we would suggest that the 24 things in Category B,
- h..
20 at least for today and for Friday, will be kind of put aside.
21 They're identified in the table, and if, as you go over it, s
22 as you see in the table today, tomorrow, or Friday, and you 23 see one you talk about, by all means we're prepared to talk 24 about it.
We would suggest that there's less priority on our
(
Ace FederN Reporters, Inc.
25 discussion of those things at this point.
I674 109
mte 12 14 1
Ultimately, they're not that urgent.
They're too L
2 easy, too cheap, to spend a lot of time talking about.
3 The next category is similar, except there are some 4
things in there that aren't cheap and easy.
There are some 5
things in there that are difficult to do and burdensome on 6
resources.
But they're not that urgent.
They are things that 7
could wait for a year or more to be put into motion or to be 8
put into place.
9 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Presumably, there are things 10 that are simple but quick.
11 DR. MATTSON:
No.
Things that are in B are simple 12 but important.
Things that are in S are simple, important, G
13 but not urgent.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's a tim"e phasing.
15 D R. MATTSON :
Yes.
So you start to see some measure 16 of prioritization in this system.
The system really wasn't 17 ( meant to be a priority with respect to safety significance.
IS '!
It's meant to be a prioritization with respect to the need for 19 you to spend a lot of time considering the tasks, weed out 20 the ones you've already concentrated on, and to weed out the 21 ones that are less important for you to concentrate on.
('
22 I'm trying to lead you down to Category D, which 23 we believe are the tasks deserving and needing priority 6,
24 attention for our discussion and your consideration.
afewW Reoruts, im.
25 1674 110
900201 15 pv DAV I
The ones that are in C, conceivably a decision
(_.
2 could be made to simply defer all of those that are in C.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, but that does imply 4
something about relative saf ety significance.
5 DR. MATTSON:
Yes, that's.what I am saying.
C is 6
the only one in.which that's the case.
It's kind of a mix 7
of relative saf ety significance and need for consideration.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
One would not then expect to 9.
find a high potential safety improvement in C.
10 DR. MATTSON:
Ye ah.
.11 (Laughter.)
12 DR. MATTSON:
It was a late night last night.
13 No, you.would not expect to flnd a high saf ety 14 improvement ln a less urgently needed item.
. _s 15
~COMMISSIchER GILINSKY2 But there are some in B7 16 DR. MATTSON:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
On the other hand, there aren't 18 some.
19 DR. MATTSON:
Could be.
And it could be that 20 the y're more than just typographical errors.
It's difficult 21 to take something with 245 tasks in its no one person any 22 given day can even scan.through and read the whole thlng.
23 So, you're using a variety of people to do the ranking; and 24 until the criteria for ranking are agreed upon and get some
('
25 consistency to them, you're going to see some
(
l674 111
900202 16 pv DAV i
inconsistencies in the.way people have applied the numbers.
(,
2 They'll.lmprove as time goes along.
You'll probably see a 3
new table i practically everytime we sit cown.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I imagir.e, just as when the 5
saf ety issues, the generic Issues, were proposed, we ended 6
up modif ying those.
7 DR. MATTSON2 That's why we think we need to agree 8
on a de.finition of a prioritization system.
That includes 9
.not only the cost f actors but. the saf ety f actors and the 10 app 1lcability f actors and the timing f actors and whatever
.11 were ongoing or not ongolng -- all of those things -
.with 12 some kind of definition so then we can go through and do the 13 whole thing and take a number of people working on the same is 14 consistent basis.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And sooner or later the 16 interrelationship question gets dealt w'ith, I assume.
I 17 think some of that's here already; that is, to do A, you 18 really to do it, if you're going to do it in an intelligent 19 way, B and C at the same time.
20 DR. MATTSON:
Yes.
It's interesting to me that 21 everytime we come up --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I didn't mean the A, B, and 23 C heres I meant 1, 2, 3.
24 DR. MATTSON. When you come up with these ways of k
25 breaking it up and cross-categorizing it, checking, you find
/
\\
1674 112
900203 17 pv DAV 1
m is ta kes.
As we were going through them last night, trying 2
to agree on the A, B, Cs, and Ds, we did do that.
You find 3
things in there, and you just draw a circle around it and 4
say, dait a mlnute, that doesn't need to be done by March 5
1980s it doesn't make sense to do it by March 1980.
There 6
is something else that needs to be done first."
Or, "That's 7
not important to some other things that those people need to 8
be. working on." And it is by apply.ing these consistent 9
systems that we. start to draw logic and purpose to the 10 overall plan.
Well, in any event, af ter you throw things into 12 the.first three categories, you end up with 93 things out of 13 245 that deserve priority consideration.
That seems like a
(],
14 totally unmanageable number, and so Bob Purple has gone 15 through, and if you turn the page now you can really take 16 those 93 individual tasks and look at them.
The y onl y a ppl y 17 to 32 programsI that is, a number of them are simply steps 18 in a common programs st ep T is to develop the critaria 19 step 2 is to implement the criterial and step 3 is to check 20 the implementation of the criteria, perhaps.
21 So, the 93 becomes a much more manageable number 22
.when you're taking 't down in these programs.
Bob has 23 suggested we divide the programs into three categorless 24 long-term and majort the thing he's called "more shor t-t erm
(
25 lessons learned -- and I.wil.1 return to that in a momenti
\\
l674 113
900204 18 pv DAV 1
and then a category called "mascellaneous."
There are
. things that are pretty much out there by themselves that 2
3 don't fit together with other things.
4 Now, the "more short-term lessons learned" is an 5
interesting category.
I am not quite sure in my own mind 6
how we separate it from category B.
Remember, this is Roman 7
.Il of category D.
Category B on the things that are simple 8
to do.
"More short. term lessons learned" means they are 9
discrete, fairly obylous safety improvements that have a 10 sense of urgency associated.with them for which there
.11 needn't be any long period of discussion.
There can be a 12 fairly straightf,or. ward decision taken on them, and most 13 people would come to the conclusion, in our judgment, that they're probably needed.
O 14_
15 Bob, do you want to add to that definition any?
16 That's pretty much the definitlon that 'we described to you 17 in the course of the short-term lessons learned.
I guess 18 one.way you described lt to.me last night ist. the kind of 19 thing that if lessons learned.could take nine. months instead 20 of five months and then add 50 people instead of 20 people, 21 you could see more and you could say, " Hey, those are good 22 ideast we ought to put those in."
23 MR. PURPLE 2 That's exactly what I was going to 24 say.
25 DR. MATTSON The reason I say that those are a 1
1674 i14
8900205 19 pv DAV i
little llke category B --- simple to accomplish -- is because
(_
they've got a little bit of that character.
I guess the 2
3 difference betw.een category B and. category D Roman.II is 4
c he a p.
That's the difference.
5 MR. PURPLE As we went.through on each of those 6
that show up on Roman lI, one by one, we decided they 7
weren't Bs, they weren't that simple and easy.
8 DR. MATTSON:
They weren't cheap.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE Then I perhaps don't completely' 10 understand category D.
I thought that category D had as one
.I l of its principal characteristics those items which you 12 believe the commission should address to make decisions on.
13 And the.way you just deffned it, it almost sounds like the 14 way you made that discrimination was whether it was C'
15 expensive or not.
16 DR. MATTSON4 Uh-huh.
The re 'is some o f tha t 17 difference.
But remember what I said I said you need to 18 consider the.whole plan, and only category A do we recommend 19 that you can dismiss from your mind.
We're simply saying:
20 start with Dt you..will ultimately want to look at C and B.
21 You may, for example, want to delegate in your own of fices 22 to some of your sta ffs the things in B for them to identify 23 for you the important ones to look at so that you can save 24 some time and not have to go through those 24.
(~
25 And one of the reasons we put something in B and 1674 115
900206 20 pv DAV I
not put it in D, even though it's new, is that it's so cheap 2
or so easy.
It doesn't make any sense spending a whole lot 3
of time on it.
Somebody ought to be doublechecking this, 4
.however.
I am sure the office directors will and the 5
commissioners will, because they nay not agree with our 6
Judgments.
7 Okay, given that, I would propose that we turn to 8
the first long sheet of paper and talk about the long-term 9
major programs and spend the rest of the morning and part of to Friday morning marching our.way through at the best pace we J1 can muster, with the office directors chiming in on these 12 major program areas, and make some decisions about.whether 1.3 we've got the right substance or.we're talking about the 14
.r.ight phasing or we know what we're talking about, how it C>
15 relates to Kemeny, how it relates to the President's 16 statement, whatever is the right. thing to talk about on each 17 given issue.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, I would agree with 19 marching through them.
I would agree with letting the 20 of.fice directors make their comments.
I don't think that 21 we're going to be making decIslons on these today.
I think 22
.we want to take into consideration the points that you're 23 raising, and I don't think we'll be making decisions on I gue ss, on isolated pieces, a piece at a time',
it's 24 them.
(~
25 going to end up being a decis. ion --
1674 116
3900207 21 pv DAV 1
DR. MATTSON:
That's pretty much been our
(
2 a ssumption.. What the task managers will be doing today is 3
trying to see the places where the plan is weak or it 4
doesn't respond to your concerns or the office directors' 5
concerns, and it will give them some indication as to where 6
they need to go. work with staff in the agency to strengthen 7
it or to. change it or whatever and improve arrors that are 8
Identified and so forth.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY I agree with that, 'out I am 10 just looking because of that thought that the schedule,
.11 because there comes a time when a decision.is necessary if 12 we're going to get anything accomplished at all.
And.it 13 seems to me that means we have to keep our f eet to the fire And we mig"t want to take a 14 as we.11 as everybody else's.
h C
15 look at. this schedule in light of any change's we want to 16 make it, try to settle on something, an'd then see if we can 17 adhere to it.
Otherwise, we'll tend to put things off 18 because some of these things aren't going to be easy to 19 decide.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will talk to you about that.
21 CO NNISSIONEll KENNEDY:
Fine.
22 DR. MATTSON:
Maybe when we break up Friday we 23 could reserve ourselves five or 10 minutes to think through 24 what we're going to try to achieve.
b 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will talk to my colleagues 1674 II7
900208 22 pv DAV I
and see what type of schedule they might be prepared to 2
meet.
3 DR. MATTSON:
We_ll, we've divided the long-term 4
major programs -- we've listed them, I mean, not in 5
chronological order.
We've listed them in order that is 6
reflective somewhat of our sense of the need to get on with 7
decisions.
And we'd prefer to talk on them in that order.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY Before we go too far, 9
Roger, just for clarification on my own thinking about this 10 whole scheduling question -- which we'll be addressing 11 later, but I want to be sure that I understand the 12 implications.
13 Harold's memo of December.!!, on page 3, of 14 February 15, that schedule called for the commission to be 15 adopting final adoption of the plan, the operatlng plan, et 16 cetera.
Then it said some o.f the actions are already 17 ongoing or need to be started immediately for operating 18 plans and near-term OLs.
19 Does that imply that they are not going to start 20 unless we have approved them?
If so, it seems to me 21 whatever they are ought to have a very high order of 22 priority for consideratlon.
It would be uncomfortable for 23 us to suddenly find out along about February 15 that if only 24 we'd decided on these matters, which we were going to decide 25 anyway back In December, they'd be finished now, and we're l674 118
3900209 23 pv DAV 1
f aced with a situation where they'll just sit there for 2
another three or four months while people are doing 3
something about it.
4 DR. MATTSON:
I think you have to rely on the 5
steering group being knowledgeable of whether the issues 6
that the offices might be going out on a limb on started in 7
this action plan without your endorsement.
To give you an 3
example --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY It's the other way around I 10 am concerned about..
I am not worried about them going out on a limb.
I am worried about them not doing anything, 1;2 waiting for us.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE2 I might be a llttle concerned 14 about going out on a limb.
15 (Laughter.)
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY I have' great faith in their 17 technical. capabilities.
18 DR. MATTSON:
The staff has been meeting with TVA 19 and with the ACRS -- you are aware of this -- on the 20 question of. what could be accomplished if TVA were to load 21 fuel and go into an extended period of preoperational 22 testing.
No w, there is in here an action -- I belleve it's 23 Roman II-G - which says " develop" - no, I-G, training 24 direct preoperational low-power testing.
It's related to 25 that.
I don't know.how we categor.ized it last night; we put 1674 1l9
900210 24 pv DAV 1
an A on it or a D on it.
I hope we put an A on it.
Put a 2
D, huh?
We put a D.
3 Okay, it says that you need to consider, all 4
right?
We could have put an A because everybody is 5
generally aware that it's ongoing.
We put a D because the 6
judgment was that's something that needs some f eedback 7
because it has to be moving along right now.
At ACRS 8
meetings already, TVA is in with a request, and it is one of 9
those case-by-case near-term considerations.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
If I could ask Harold a
.11 question, since you asked that.
12 Harold, are you not coming in with a review of 13 that.to us?
14 MR. DE NTON. On the Sequoyah application?
I k-15
. intend to give you a complete review of all the Sequoyah 16 package early next year.
But I was ongoing, assuming that I 17 have your concurrence to review those kinds of things, so I 18 am putting e ff ort into revie. wing the low-power testing 19 program.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But it's my understanping that I
21 they have made a proposal and you're reviewing the proposal 22 and they're awaiting your review of that proposal.
23 MR. DENTON:
That's correct.
So that's the kind 24 of area that we're proceeding down the line, using as
(..
25 today's standard what's in the action plan.for that 1674 120
900211 25 pv DAV I
particular item.
But we will be back to you.
And in some 2
other areas, such as the Zion and Indian Point reviews, 3
where we're moving into some of the areas of the action 4
plan.
5 So, we are going out on a limb in the sense that 6
we are picking up action item areas and.doing them, but I 7
will be coming to you.before any decisions are.made about 9
. implementing changes in the plans or issulng licenses on the 9
sorts of reviews that are ongoing.
I think I tended to err 10 on. the side of going out on a limb, but I think all those
.11 instances you know about through communications with the 12 commission.
13 DR. MATTSON:
Okay, I guess we were about to
~
14 embark upon the long-term major programs.
We have the 15 suggested hrder of discussing them.
Ihat one -- we'll take 16 them in the order of the Ds, whatever order you prefer.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We'll try your method today, 18 and if we find it is not satisfactory then we'll adjust on 19 Friday.
20 DR. MATTSON:
All right.
Well, the one that 21 appears first on the list is simulator use in development.
22 I would like, if I could, to have Don Scovall, who is the 23 task manager, come up.here.
24 MR. SCOVALL:
Roger, I just returned from travel 25 last night.
I would like to ask Paul to come up.
Pa ul?
1674 i21
39002).2 26 pv DAV I
MR. COLLINS :
I.think it's fairly clear why we see 2
the need to discuss simulator development.
It seems to be 3
one that, when we bring it up, there seems to be a measure 4
of uncertainty or a spectrum of opinion on exactly.where 5
we're going.with simulators.
We would like to try to draw 6
down that uncertainty a little bit.
7 If you turn to the new table i that you have, you 8
can see in over. view f ashion several elements of simulator 9
use and development.
There are some eight specific itesms, 10 only two of.which we categorized as A, f eeling that you're
.11 aware in the short term, as we went out.with the bulletins 12 and orders in the short-term le ssons learned, the new 13 analyses and new procedures for small-break LOCAs, feedwater 14 transients, that people have found dif ficulties in
{.
15 simulators that have been.identifled and people are working 16 on them.
17 There's sort of an.alaboration.of that to clean up 18 what we can identify and clean up in the short term, within 19 the next six months, July 1980.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There also. were a number of 21 issues in 330-E which related to that, the use of training 22 simulators.
I thought the decision of the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission was to add additional emphasis on the 24 requirements on the use of simulators.
(~
25 MR. COLLINS:
Those specific uses are addre ssed in
(_
1674 122
900213 27 pv DAV 1
the 180 action plant spe c ifica lly, the two that inv31 ve 2
qualifications and trainlng of peoples and 183, which 3
involves the licensing and to qualifications of operating 4
personnel.
This was more. directed toward the machine 5
itself, rather than towards the people.
6 DR. MATTSON:
If you go back to item No. 6, 7
subpart 3, revised Part 55, that's where we go to the 8
mandatory simulator requirements in the regulations.
If you 9
go back up in 182 to immediate upgrade, ln places like that, 10 that augmented.use of simulators in training is spoken to as
.11 a training matter.
In Chapter 24 on simulators, we're 12 talking more about the goodness of simulators and their 13
. capabilities.
14 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
It wou'Id be, I think, in the
(],
15 sense that it's a significant issue for, the NRC to go out 16 and buy its own simu) ators.
17 CONNISSIONER KENNEDY:
Of course.
My 18 understanding -- my question is, you know, what priority 19 does.that question have to get as contrasted with --
20 shouldn't this be a C?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
You would suggest --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 Yes.
Maybe it's a C.
23 DR. MATISON:
The reason I put all these on them 24 is that it would be good for us to say that now 184 has a f
25 number of elements, it speaks to a policy and program for t
1674 123
900214 28 pv DAV 1
the use of simulators that starts now and extends out over a 2
fairly lengthy period of time.
Are these the right kinds of 3
things for us to be dolng?
Could we drop some of. them out?
4 Should some of them receive less attention than others?
Are 5
we putting too much attention on simulators and not enough 6
on drills and a discussion of whether simulators are a g ood 7
thing at all?
8 That's.why they're all categorized as D.
I. wanted 9
you to look at them all at once, rather than to take a.few 10 of them and dismiss the others.
I think you can dismiss
.11 two, the first two.
That's why they're called " As," because 12 you're generally aware they're going on and they're just 13 good common sense.
You know the things that are obviously 14 wrong, you fix with these simulators.
(-
15 16 g
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(,-
25 1674 124
29 CR8890.03 HOFFMAN rmg 1 1
Then you keep learning about how to improve them 2
and you make some decisions for what use you want to make of 3
them by the NRC itself, which is really the last two, 7 and 8.
4 Basically, what is laid out here is a short term 5
and a long term.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The commitment of $26 million.
7 (Laughter. )
8 DR. MATTSON:
And a con 2itment of $26 million.
9 I would propose that it is thoroughly straightforward 10 to agree on everything but 7 and 8.
That is, I think that it 11 is easy to get a sense that we want to improve simulators.
12 We realize there is a use for them,,that if you are going to
(])
13 use them they had better be good ones, you had better be sure 14 they are good.
Spend some time in resources making sure they 15 are good ones.
16 And we can't do all that tomorrow, because some of 17 it takes some learning and some experimentino and some develop-18 ment.
19 So you correct today's deficiencies today, you i
20 learn about tomorrow's deficiencies and correct them.
21 Now, 7 and 8.
How are we going to use simulators
('
22 ourselves within the NRC?
23 Basically, (7) says we ought to procure one if not 24 more training simulators.
The other side of that question ok merei Reporters, Inc.
25 is that I&E, as I understand, is about to move some.of their 1674 i25
I 30 rmg 2 1
people r.nd the training pro?*am down to Chatta..coca to make 2
use of the TVA training si.:s..ator.
3 And people argue that niven that initiative, there 4
is no need to move on in any rapid fashion to procure an 5
NRC training simulator.
6 On the other-hand, if you want an NRC training 7
simulator, it is possible to procure one, probably under lease, 8
probably in the Washington metropolitan area in a relatively 9
short time period on a scale of more than a year, but.not five, 10 that could be used for not only training the staff, but it 11 could also be used in discovery types of analysis of procrammine, 12 not like an engineering simulator could, but some kind of
()
13 procedure, testing procedure, development capability on the 14 part of the staff.
15 You may be able to do the same thing at 16 Chattanooga, but I think that is more of an educational program 17 that they are thinking of in Chattanooga than the learning 18 development program that you might be able to add to that if I
19 you had your own simulator.
f 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Lee, let me ask you a question.
l I
21 This is an example of a fut'ure commitment of re. sources, l
(~-
22 plus a relatively significant step in the ceneral type of
- j i
23 operation the NRC would be doing.
24 How do you propose to have that issue addressed ca. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 by the Cormission?
In other words, is all the material that i674 126
31 rmg 3 1
we will be seeing on this, these few pages in the action plan, 2
to make the decision?
3 I would have expectedly normally -- let's say, in 4
the absence of this kind of a process, that issue would come 5
up with a SECY paper with staff views on it and we would then 6
sit through and mull it over.
7 Here, we have three pages.
8 MR. GOSSICK:
I think that is part of the sortina 9
process that has to go on here.
And those thines of this 10 nature that do have those sorts of implications I think we will 11 have to wrap up in a total package, and the resot ce 12 implications from a policy standpoint with, you know, staff
(_-
13 recommendations, and bring it to you.
But I guess the objective here would be to sort a
14
' hose things out so they can be treated in that way and not 15 t
16 hold up the other things.
17 DR. MATTSON:
We have tried to avoid this.
And we l
18 made a mistake on this one.
What we shoul; have done -- let i
19 me suggest a way to modify it.
i i
20 You can do one of two things.
You can say you have enough information today to know that you don' t want to acquirej 21
'[
22 your own training simulator in the Washington area--if it 23 doesn't make any sense to you, or there hasn't been a case 24 made, or you want to dismiss it.
=4 eon : n.pomn inc.
25 The other thing you can say is, "I don't know yet.
1674 127
32 rmg 4 1
I hear there are arguments to both sides.
Certainly there 2
isn't enough information here for me to decide yes, I want to 3
buy one, and this is the right price."
4 So, revise the action statement to say that the 5
Staff will develop the pros and cons and preliminary cost 6
estimates and schedules, and compare what can be done in 7
Chattanooga versus what can be done if you boucht an additional 8
one and brouaht it here, and develop recommendations and brina j 9
them forward on such and such a time schedule.
That's really 10 how we should have written this particular one, it's fairly 11 clear.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
(7)?
([
DRt'MATTSON:
Yes. I think (8) is written that ways 13 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
(8) is written that -- (8) will 15 take five years.
There is an FY '80 study, and FY '81.
16 DR. MATTSON:
(8) is written in the sense of bring 17 it to you, but we will start some studies in order to develop 18 some information in order that we can find something.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So as to (8), to clarify the !
20 purpose of this exercise is not to decide whether we should 21 have a simulator, but simply to agree that in fact the Staff l
'( _
22 ought to devote resources to examinino that cuestion and 23 bring it forward in a decision package?
24 DR. MATTSON:
That's right.
1 a4www amo,un, w.
25 I would propose that (7) be rewritten in the same 1674 128 i
33 rmg 5 1
context.
2 Tom Murley came up and said he has been looking at 3
it.
That was pretty consistent with what our research was 4
coming out with on (7); right?
5 DR. MURLEY:
We think we ought to move slowly.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that is exactly the 7
reason for my question why it was in (d) instead of (c).
8 DR. MATTSON:
We put ic in (d) because we wanted 9
you to make this consideration.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now I understand the 11 motivations.
12 (Laughter.)
- 13 MR. GOSSICK:
In other words, if you don't want e
14 us to even study it, we needed to know 'that.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Onward.
17 DR. MATTSON:
Okay.
I have got to tell you that 18 I am going to walk away with this discussion of simulators 19 with more than meets the eye from this conversation.
l' 20 I am going to walk away with a Commission that 21 has given tacit agreement on forging ahead with the use of 22 simulators.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought it was more than 24 tacit.
I would have thought you were sort of being instructed
,ce Feeral Reporters, Inc.
25 to go ahead and study these things and bring them ar fr i
34 rmg 6 1
consideration by the Commission.
2 DR. MATTSON:
That's (7) and (8).
I am takino 3
more general guidance.
4 I purposely put in front of you simulator use and 5
development as the first item.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As I told you, Roger, in the 7
beginning, we would be taking these into consideration.
And 8
we are not necessarily going to be making any decisions today.
9 Because there are at least two people who aren't here who are 10 going to have to have their chance to think it throuch also.
11 I think the right term is we are taking it under 12 advisement.
()
13 DR. MATTSON:
Okay.
Good.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Good try.-
15 (Laughter.)
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Don't guit tryinc.
17 (Laughter.)
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm always have.found.Rocer'trvinp.
19 (Laughter.)
20 DR. MATTSON:
I suggest we turn to III.A.1, which 21 is on page 14, which reminds me of something.
,~'
If you go back to the second page of this whole
.j 22 i
23 package, you will find that page 1 is misnumbered, this new 24 Table 1.
So you don't think that when you read it later that co-twerst Reporters, Inc.
25 you have lost a page, page 1,should have been numbered page 2; 1674 130
35 rmg'7 1
there are no missing pages.
m 2
Now, this is one that you will remember that I callec 3
to your attention a week ago today and said there are some 4
decisions being made.
Work is underway on some important and 5
costly aspects of our program in III.A.1, principally the 6
nuclear data link.
7 III.A.1, do I have a task manager here today?
8 Dale Higginbotham from I&E.
9 We have chosen to call the whole thing (d), although 10 one might argue that you have heard bits and pieces of it, 11 and implicitly approved it.
~
12 The principal question is one of our role which is a
()
13 the first task; we might concentrate on that and see if that's 14 how you understood how you were coina to come to a definitive 15 articulation of what NRC's role was in emergencies.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I.think we are not yet 17 clear on the two facets, the two different roles, One, is 18 the internal structure of the role and the other is the role 19 with respect to the licensee.
And there is the third.
There 20 is the role as part of the federal response, the latter is 21 the one that we are working on, what is our respective role.
22 DR. MATTSON:
That part is spoken to in another j
23 section.
More here, I think that the uncertainty on the part 24
(
of the Staff is because there have been suggestions from werei n.ponen, inc.
25 outside the agency and all over.
1674 13l
36 rmg 8 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do we take over the plant?
2 DR. MATTSON:
Do we take over the plant or not take 3
over the plant?
What kind of information did the Commission 4
and the office directors expect to have in their hands in 5'
the emergency operations center in order for them to make the 6
decisions that that role calls for them to make, and are we 7
making plans under No. 2 on the nuclear data link?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are not taking over the 9
plant in Bethesda, are you?
10 DR. MATTSON:
No one is talkina about that.
Is it 11 clear to all of us that no one is talking about that?
I 12 think it is.
(/
13 We are talking about puttina the decisionmakers in 14 the emergency operations center in a position to intervene in 15 management decisions taken at an accident by the manaaement 16 decisionmakers of the utility because the utility would say, 17 for example, I intend to over the next couple hours go throuch 18 such and such a maneuver to recover this plant to another 19 state that I think is more safe.
20 And we would expect the NRC Staff and the decision-l 21 makers in the emergency center to have sufficient information 22 toagreeordisagreeinanoversightcapacitywiththeutilityl 23 management making that kind of decision.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And also at the same time
(
=+ederal Reponen, Inc.
25 assess the effect of that intervention in terms of time.
1674 132
37 rmg 9 1
Because it is one thing to intervene on the theory that some-2 thing ir preferable.
But if you don't do it in a timely fashion 3
you have lost whatever time may have been essential to 4
recovery.
5 DR. MATTSON:
We agree with that, but you can carry 6
it a step further and vary the limits.
7 We would not propose that agreeing with that would 8
mean that we needed to have a faster than real time engineerina 9
simulator capable of running 10 or 12 permutations and combi-10 nations of options in order to put the EMT decisionmaker in 11 a position of knowing the best operation, at this point in 12 time, at least.
O is CaA1anan AnEAnNE:
Bue te is critica1 for ehet ro1e, 14 as you describe it in your III.A.2 --
15 DR. MATTSON:
You mean III.A.1, Item 27 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE-Yes.
17 DR. MATTSON:
Maybe thAt's worth spending a little 18 time on.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We will.
20 But I -- as far as I know, I don't detect any l
21 strong disagreement of your description of the role.
We still.
/-
l 22 have the other two we haven't heard from.
i 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems purely a matter of '
24 degree as far as III.A.2.
One agrees or one disagrees.
It's
(
mb esvel Reporters, Inc.
25 just how much data we are planning to bring back here to 1674 133
38 rmg 10 1
Bethesda and how extensive a role the people there will play.
2 I don't think we want to be setting up sort of an 3
Apollo Control Center here.
4 I frankly would want to look more to our senior 5
man on the spot to make decisions of the kind we have talked 6
about.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
One of the difficulties with 8
that thing is that if you have a data link you can get infor-9 mation quite quickly.
To get a senior man on the spot can take 10 a lot longer.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we have talked about 12 the utilities having a place on-site where they can receive k
13 information of this sort, too.
I'm not making any specific -
14 proposal here, evaluating the one that you presented.
15 DR. MATTSON:
You are right at the nub of the question 16 and I don't know that today is the day that we are goina to 17 decide that question, but it whether you rely more on the 18 on-site presence or on the emergency center.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And for what.
l 20 DR. MATTSON:
And for what.
f 21 And the difficulty with relying on the Harold Dentonl I
22 at the site is the time between the time you make the decision J 23 to move him there and the time when he cets there.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, also, you can mass
(
sco NMeral Reporters, Inc.
25 numbers of people here to cover a wide rance of skills in a 1674 134
39 rmg 11 1
way that might be easier to do versus the site.
2 DR. MATTSON:'
What I want to know, though, if I can 3
from you is is it your understanding that Item 1 on III.A.1-2 4
is the way you are going to make this decision?
Because 5
that is what I think it should be, that should be 6
the vehicle by which the Commission is ultimately going to 7
write down and articulate its role from the EMT, from the 8
on-site presence, and so forth.
9 CFAIRMAN 7EEARNF:
Are you sayina are we doing to 10 depend upon the MITRE Corporation contract, is that what'voQ 11 are saying?
12 DR. MATTSON:
That's why I have asked the question s
(l 13 that way.
Because I have my doubts that you understood this 14 as. the way you were going to make your decision.
And I am 15 not quite sure we haven't agreed upon a plan as to how we 16 are going to make the decision.
17 So I am trying to get you and Mr. Stello and 18 Mr. Denton to join us and help us strengthen the action plan.
I 19 I don't think it is very good in this particular case, and 20 it deserves to be very good because we need to cet on and l
21 make that decision.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's fair.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's fair; we'11 take that 1674 135
(
24 under advisement.
ceJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 DR. MATTSON:
The best place I have read words about
40 rmg 12 1
what the role is in the revised EMT or emergency book for 2
the emergency operations center.
I found the thina announcing 3
the drill last week were some of the best words I have read 4
on what our role is.
5 They seemed consistent with the discussion here 6
today.
7 MR. STELLO:
I think maybe a couple of comments
~
8 might be in order.
9 First, it seems clear -- at least I feel that we 10 are already moving in many of these areas based on previous
~
11 discussions and already have commitments to have papers 12 before the Commissions, make decisions, m
s,)
13 So a great deal of what is in task action plan 14 III.A.1 in my view is already in what I would consider 15 Category A.
16 We already have underway a paper to cet here to talk 17 about how to get aid to the operations center.
We have a 18 study contract which we have talked about, and that is scheduled l
19 to come down in the next couple months.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We went through that on the 21 reviewing cycle.
22 DR. MATTSON:
Excuse me a minute, Vic.
Is that the )
I 23 Commission paper that is Item No.
3, I&E staff will prepare 24 to provide opportunity for further Commission guidance on the 1
co Peceral Reporters, Inc.
25 revised incident response program?
That is it, I think.
1674 136
41 rmg 13 1
MR. STELLO:
It is?
Which item?
2 MR. DENTON:
No. 3.
3 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
We are already also working on 4
revising the manual chapter.
We are revising the procedure 5
Roger just referred to.
6 There are some interim procedures that we have used 7
in a recent exercise that we had, and we are makina preparations 8
to put them on an interim basis into our redbook, which will 9
be the procedure.
10 A great deal of what is here is already underway.
11 There are some major policy questions, obviously, which remain 12 with respect to the Commission's role in an emergency.
()
I don't believe that I would want to tie that 13 14 involvement on what the Commission's role might be with how 15 you run the operations center.
That's a discrete issue, and 16 it will be before the Commission.
17 I would not like to have the impression left that 18 this is something for the Commission to decide lest thev 19 think I am very far out on that limb, which was a concern to 20 you.
I hope you are all aware of what we are doing.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We went through in the budget
(
22 review.
We made proposals in the budget, made decisions.
]
I 23 MR. STELLO:
And it is the only way with people and d #3 24 resources, yes.
1 cedederal Reporters, Inc.
25 1674 137
.CR 8890 42 HOF'FMAN t-4 mte 1 1
DR. MATTSON:
Is this first step, Commissioner --
\\
~
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are you talking about---in this 3
big book, there is under the schedule that there's a Commission 4
meeting in December 1979.
That's the one that has now been 5
postponed?
6 MR. HIGGENBOTRAM:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, what I'm hearing is that 8
this task one is in pretty good shape.
That's what the 9
Commission understands.
That's what the office director 10 understands, as the person responsible for the book.
It 11 looks to me I don't need to spend a lot more time on 3 (a) (1).
12 MR.
STELLO:
But can you move it up to Category A?
CT 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE!
No. Now hold it a minute..iThere's 14 an item in here, when I was reading thrbugh it, that struck 15 my attention, called operation, center, nuclear data link, 16
$26 ndllion in FY '81.
17 MR. STELLO:
Whatever the cost is is not an important l issue.
We said we were going to study it.
We put money into 18 19 budget.
We're going to bring the Commission paper.
If the 20 cost is $26 million and the Commission doesn't want to do it, 21 that's what I expect that decision to be.
l f
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Except, Vic, that we have a 23 budget sitting over at OMB to be forwarded to the Congress.
1674 138
(..
24 MR. STELLO:
It only has $4 million in it.
co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And it certainly isn't $26 million.
mte 2 43 1
MR. STELLO:
Absolutely.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And you also have, under FY '80, 3
$5 million.
Do we have $5 million in FY '80 for this?
4 MR. STELLO:
No.
But that will be part of the 5
Commission paper that comes down.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
When will that be?
7 MR. STELLO:
I believe it's scheduled for March.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All I can say is, if you seriously 9
believe we're going to get $5 million in FY '80 and you're 10 going to come down in March, I hope the rest of the paper is 11 a little bit tighter in its logic.
12 (Laughter.)
C-13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Those are very large dollars, 14 and if you really expect us to be able to have a chance of 15 getting them in the years that you're talking about, you're 16 going to have to come out a lot sooner.
I 17 0 MR. STELLO:
Whether you get them and when you get 0,!
15 : them depends on the Commission's perception of the need and l
19 the priority attached to it, and how do you even try to get l
20 the funds.
If there really is an urgent need, I'm sure there 21 must be a way to do this.
If the need is not so urgent,
(~
22 then perhaps we can wait.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
But if there is really an urgent need, there's some sense in the argument that we 24 Ace-F*mi Reporters, Inc.
25 ought to identify it clearly, sooner.
4}
mte 3 44 1 MR. GOSSICK: Mr. Chairman, I really don't think ~ 2 we ought to get hung up on the $26 million, at least based on 3 my review of a rather sketchy proposal. The numbers cover a 4 wide range, depending on what it is we decide we want to do 5 and who is going to pay for it and whether or not we want to 6 do it at all. 7 MR. DENTON: I guess I'm getting a littie confused 8 here, too. This is another limb that we at the staff were 9 actively trying to develop the requirements for the data link -n 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Yes, Harold, I know. My point 11 was that when we went through the budget just a couple months 12 ago, there was a fair amount of resistance on the part of m i ~ 13 staff to even putting in the amount of money that we put in, s 14 because i was viewed as too large. Sobe of us had to push 15 to have that amount put in. 16 MR. STELLO: Maybe you can push the other way now. 17 l; MR. DENTON: The point I wanted to make is that if I 18 we want a data link soon -- and you recall the concern over 19., not having a telephone system, because we spent so long trying 20 I to decide what kind of system to have -- this is an area that 21 the sooner we make a decision, the sooner staff will be able s*- 22 to move it. 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: And my point was that in order 24 to address that size of monies for the budget, we've got to co-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 get that information as soon as possible. And as you go down 1674 140 i
mte 4 45 1 farther into the year, the likelihood of getting it really 2 significantly decreases. 3 MR. DENTON: I think I just share -- 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I'm not saying that you'fe out 5 on the wrong limb if you're trying to get that study done. I'm 6 just saying it ought to be done. I'm trying to put a little 7 more heat to get it done a little faster. 8 MR. STELLO: It's being done as fast as we can 9 possibly have it done. We can't get it to you before March 10 and have answers to questions I'm sure you're going to ask, 11 and good answers. 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I would guess that you ought to rh 13 be prepared for a preliminary description to us some' time 14 near the end of January or the beginnin'g of February. 15 MR. STELLO: It's already scheduled for January. 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Right. 17 l DR. MATTSON: You need to do that. It's all right 16 to say you're going to study it. I 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: We need to do that going into i 20 appropriations and authorization hearings. 21 DR. MATTSON: Right. But the people who are doing r 22 the Sandia thing may come to different answers, depending on 23 the sense of where you think you're headed with NRC's rule. (, 24 Back to number one. Is it 400 parameters or 40 parameters Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 that you want? I674 141
mte 5 ~ 46 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That's what we really have to hear 2 to make this decision. 3 DR. MATTSON: That's the number of the question. 4 (At 10:40 a.m., Commissioner Hendrie entered the room. ) 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Now, of course, you have the 6 installation and testing of ARAC. It's under 4, 3 (a) (1) (4 ). 7 Do you have incorporated in the Action Plan also a considera-8 tion of NRC or whose role it is that will be in the ARAC, or 9 do you have built in there the assumption that ARAC will be 10 continued to be handled by -- 11 MR. HIGGINBOTHAM: That's probably covered under 12 the roles of other federal agencies, the role of NRC *a long m 13 with other federal agencies. 14 ! CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The reason I raise the question 15 is that installing ARAC in several plants is a significant 16 step, but it also has to keep in mind -- Livermore believes i 17 l! that they have now completed ARAC from the standpoint of a O l' development effort, and that they will be phasing out of thesir 16 19, involvement in it. So that if you have in mind planning 20 to require the installation of ARAC in plants and the use of 21 ARAC in plants, you also ought to start thinking through r^ l 22 who's going to run the central station for ARAC. In my 23 understanding, it is not going to be Livermore. k-24 DR. MATTSON: Id put that, I think, in 3 (a) (1). Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 A decision is needed, some work is associated with reaching 1674 142
mte 6 47 1 that decision. 2 MR. STELLO: There are already some things, however, 3 going on with this issue. There are one or two states already 4 negotiating with ARAC for the state system. We're looking at 5 the possibility of a trial arrangement in putting it in our 6 operations center. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I understand that. But all of 8 those, for example, California is still based on Livermore 9 running the central station. What I'm saying is that Livermore, 10 I believe, is not going to continue to do that. ARAC links 11 into a central station. 12 MR. STELLO: I understood they were going to keep it 13 as part of another system for a different reason. I 14 ! CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I don't believe so. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When I was out there and 16 talked with them, they certainly contemplated integrating this l 17 l; into the much bigger package which is already ongoing. !I 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Perhaps that could be rechecked. 19 I MR. STELLO: I will do that. I 20 DR. MATTSON: Bob, is there something you wanted to 21 add? Anything specific you wanted to bring up? 22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: While they're having a little 23 conversation over here, let me bring myself partly up to date. 24 Is that a new version of the table? t co-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 DR. MATTSON: New version of Table 1. You've got i 1674
mte7 48 I some sheets here that will tell you how we got the annotation 2 A through D in the first column. And there is some additional 3 licensee cost or NRC staff cost information. 4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Got you. 5 DR. MATTSON: What we're doing is, at the first long 6 sheet of paper, we're down to item number 2. 7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: You're working down some 8 principal -- okay, we 're on 3 (a) (1) ? Is a question in order? 9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That's the purpose of the meeting, 10 to go ahead with questions. Il COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: If this turns out to be my 12 first question, why, I timed my arrival fust right. I don't ( 13 think it is, however.- 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Me're not going in page order 15 through the book. 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: On the data links, do we know 17 y what we're talking about yet with Sandia? l 16 DR. MATTSON: No. 19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Do we have a sense whether 20 we're talking about 40 or 50 points to get a central plant 21 safety status or whether we're talking about a complete dump l t' 22 of the plant computer? 23 DR. MATTSON: It depends on who you talk to. 24 MR. STELLO: The answer is, at the moment it's in co-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 the middle. It's not a complete dump. We've had people look 1674 i42 1
mte 8 49 1 at what are the essential parameters. I think the list 2 numbers 300. 3 DR. MATTSON: 380. 4 MR. STELLO: Whether that's the right list and what 5 you do with:the list, and how you glean from that list really 6 essential parameters, and how you display them, are issues 7 that are now being considered by Sandia. They are scheduled 8 to come to the Commission with a preliminary discussion of 9 the issue in January and a SECY paper for decisionmaking in 10 March. 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You mean you and Sandia? 12 MR. STELLO: I mean I&E, Sandia, NR,'. and
- Research, 13 yes.
14 DR. BUDNITZ: The dollar estibates that have been 15 bandied about are based on the order of 300 parameters, and r 16 if it's less it's lower. But it's not linear at all. That 17 l. is, most of that cost is there for almost any reasonable small i i l' number. 16 19 ; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The communications system. 20 DR. BUDNITZ: Links and the manpower and all that 21 stuff. I r 22 Another point -- 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: My advice would be to keep ( 24 it smaller rather than larger. co-Federst Reporters, Inc. 25 DR. BUDNITZ: That's exactly the study that we're 1674 145
mte.9 50 1 doing up at Sandia and that we'll be bringing to you, the 2 preliminary one in January and then in March. 3 I was going to say, you ought to be aware that 4 the industry is involved in this with us, because if we're 5 all going to be bringing data from each plant to different 6 places, we want to make all the multiplexes compatible, and 7 there's a close industry link in this, which is an economy 8 and also expedites it. 9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I tell you, one of the things l 10 I've observed about our own emergency responses is that as we set up major tcIms, current status team, current operations, 11 12 the current status health' physics site team, and the two teams fK e k/ 13 that correspond to those, what should we do in ten minutes or 14 an hour, and each of those teams has a number of people report-15 ing to it and studying things -- you get a great crowd of 16 people or groups running from somewhere, from 12 to 30 or 40, 17 ' each of whom is bound and determined that, whether his parti-l cular area is the crucial one or not, he'll be damned if he's 18 19.h, going to have to say to his team director, when called upon 20 for status, well, I haven't asked because it doesn't seem 21 important to me in this incident. N-22 So you've got 12 to 40 people who are burdening 23 the communication links, determined to get their area of (_ 24 information filled in, come hell or high water, no matter what w Fews neomn. w. 25 else is going on in the incident, okay. Now, one way to 1674 146
mts10 ' 51 1 keep that situation from destroying our two delicate telephone 2 line links to the plants in terms of useful information 3 exchange is to go on and automate some information ; transfer 4 from the plant site. But the human manifestation to get as 5 much information out of a plant in a particular sub-area that 6 cursed the two telephone line communication link, I fear may. 7 now curse the automatic data link. 8 We will end up dumping the whole plant process 9 computer, so each of some 40 or whatever-odd NRC information 10 and staff groups can know every damn thing in the world there 11 is to know about it whether it's got..anything to do with the 12 emergency that's running or not. And that simply is going to C: just as it does now when!we've got those 13 bog the system down, 14 ' people over on the support teams hollering at the guy in the 15 control room to go read such and such a meter, when that 16 may or may not have a great deal to do with what's going on,- I 17 ;' particularly in periods when things are moving fast and people l 16l'Iarescreamingforbriefingsandsoon. \\ 19 i, So I encourage a Spartan attitude about these data O 20 ' points. 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: A Spartan attitude that leads you i e s-22 to come back with your shield. 23 COMMISSIONER EENDRIE: As time goes on, you can stand ( _ 24 more. The system chokes. co Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 DR. MATTSON: The main point, the Action Plan appears 1674 147 9
mte 11 52 1 to reflect an understanding of the need to make some of these 2 decisions, and it reflects that they will be made in a rela-3 tively short time frame. And I guess it means that the 4 resources in the future would have some uncertainty. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Yes. Why don't you go on? 6 I DR. MATTSON: Bob, do you want to bring up one other 7; new item in here? It's a new communication item that I've 1 8 never seen before. 9 MR. PURPLE: This came about from a suggestion and 10 requests by I&E. 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What's the numbe'r? 12 MR. PURPLE: It's 3 (a) (1) (5), called communications. e / 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: These are all D items? 14 MR. PURPLE:
- Yes, D.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is that what D is mostly, 16 supporting NRC? 17j' DR. MATTSON: No. D is things that you haven't seen 18 before and reached a decision on and approved, which are more important than cheap and easy, and more urgent than Category C. I 19 7 h 20 Some of them are more important than others. And the one he's 21 bring up now is communications. 22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Give me a page, will you, s. 23 please? ( 24 DR. MATTSON: 3 (a) (1)-8. The paragraph he wants you co Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 to concentrate on is the second full paragraph Q pyp qqg@.
mte 12 53 1 You've got the telephones. You're talking about a nuclear 2 data link, which we just discussed. This suggests that in 3 between and maybe over the long haul, because of frailties of 4 telephone communications even by satellite, we ought to have 5 radio communications. 6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What kind of radio? 7 DR. MATTSON: Could somebody talk to that more expert 8 than I? Do you want to try? 9 MR. O ' REILLY : Our telecommunications people are 10 studying what type. But it would be long range radios, most 11 likely to the regions and to headquarters. This need came 12 about really pretty clearly when we had the hurricane problems -(-. - 13 in the Southeast, and the plants don't have any communications. 14 ' other than these telephone lines that we have. It seems to 15 us things like hurricanes will interfere with this, probably, i 16 and earthquakes, sabotage. l 17 ;' DR. MATTSON: We also know that the Department of 18 j Energy and the old AEC had transcontinental radio communica-l Thetechnolohy
- b. tions that exist out in Germantown and elsewhere.
19 >, 20 is there. What people are looking at is how applicable, at 21 what cost. r 22 MR. O'REILLY: What's the best way to try to handle s 23 it. ( 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: At the moment that's a study m-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 effort that you have under w ty? I674 149
mta 13 54 1 MR. O'REILLY: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It sounds like something that 3 I&E had proposed in the past. 4 MR. O'REILLY: That's more in the short range. This 5 is still ongoing. We're dealing with the plants with our 6 teams. 7 DR. MATTSON: The only other one I would bring to 8 your attention in this Roman III-A is item number 7, on 9 A(1)-10, international cooperation. I'm not aware that you've 10 discussed this before. It suggests that for our neighbors to 11 the north and the south we have some agreements on mutual 12 cooperation in the event of an accident, and notification with C/ s 13 information for other places, I think. 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The issue 'did come up in the 15 discussion of the emergency response planning. 16 DR. MATTSON: I thought it had something in it that I 17 l,l I don't see there now. One of the things that came up in the l 16 Lessons Learned Task Force that we didn't make a recommendation 19 r on was an interesting thought, and that is somebody perhaps I 20 at NRC ought to be tasked with thinking through with what 21 happens and what does the United States mobilize to do in the e, 22 event of an accident in another nation, not Canada or Mexico. u. 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is that something we need 24 to deal with in this context? (,. c? Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 DR. MATTSON: That's what I am posing. It's not 1674 150
mte 14 55 1 in here now. It's an omission. We need to think about putting 2 something in. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me this Action 4 Plan doesn't at this point need to address every conceivable 5 thing we can think of to improve nuclear regulation. That 6 isn't my understanding of what we're trying to do here. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: If it were there, I would think 8 it would be a C item. 9 DR. MATTSON: I don't hear any strong support. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I think that's sort of the general 11 type of subject that's been discussed, just as a result of the 12 Tokyo meetings, in respons,e to some of the German proposals. C 13 The State Department and DOE, as I recall -- you could read 14 ' the messages back and forth -- have been discussing how the 15 United States and other countries ought to get together to 16 pool resources. 17 NIP has been associated with some of those 18 discussions. But I don't see this as rising to the level of e-4 19 ! the other items here. I 20 21 /" 22 23 (, 24 \\cs Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 1674 151
oo a 9.00501 JwoM w MU U.i 56 o pv DAV i COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs It seems to me that we've m 2 said. we're holding up on actions on a number of f acilities 3 because we are pulling together what we think needs to be 4 done in the.way of imposing requirements on plants. We've 5 advertised this. We're developing an action plan, and I 6 think in that plan we've got to stick to items that really 7 deal precisely with that, leaning on the changes we think 8 have got to be made in operating reactors and those that are 9 intended for operat. ion. These other matters seem to me 10 peripheral. .11 DR. MATTSON: That's a different action plan than 12 you have in front of you.. If we were to concentrate only on 13 the operating reactors and the near-term OL licensing 14 mequirements, it would be a much different action plan. () 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 We.11, it isn't just 16 precisely the near-term OLs. It deals also with our process 17 In deciding how we will conduct our reviews. 18 DR. MATTSON2 I don't have any dLfficulty agreeing 19 that the one I just suggested falls outside of the mesh and 20 it should stay outside. I am sa ying, if you draw the meshes 21 tightly as you could, if you just look at the licensing of 22 near-term OLs, many of these th2ngs f all out and many of 23 your long-term reforms of regulations, many of your 24 long-term evaluations, you can just forget about now and go (' dir ctly to the licensing. 25 e I~- 1674 152
900502 57 pv DAV 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I think you're right, Roger. t 2 It has a broader framawork. But I still don't think on that 3 particular issue we need to talk. 4 DR. MATTSON: I am willing to quit talking about 5 I II-A- 1, unless somebody else has got something. 6 (No response.) 7 MR. COLLINS: IV-A is one that generates a lot of 8 Ds. You might turn to paga 20 and 21 table 1, which.will 9 glva you a f eel, I think, for the ones that we. feel pretty ~ 10 well agreed upon, or we've moving in that direction.- For .11 e xample, I don't think in the context of this planning 12 document we'll need a lot more discussion about 13 strengthening the authority of the chairman in the EDO. 14 People have commonly recommended that and made statements or C 15 studies. And the president has s.ald that he's going to 16 propose legislation. The plan has got 'to be kept cons.istent 17 with what the commission is doing. We can do that through 18 responding to the president'.s pronouncement. The same thing 19 on. achieving a single location, at least in the long term. 20 Ho we ver, I must point out that in Roman IV, there 21 was a strong f eeling on the part of the offica directors and 22 the steering group that if the achieving of a single 23 location is going to take -- excuse me. Bill Rever, 24 representing Jim Fitzgerald -- on Chapter 4, is going to (~ 25 take an awful long time. Then there are some interim things l-1674 i53
900503 58 pv DAV i that probably need to be done associated with the nuclear s 2 data link and.other housing needs that we 'en't wait for the 3 final solution. And we attempted to say that in the action 4 plan. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I have redd it, and I would 6 agree it's time to do another set of rounds with' the 7 appropriate Individual. 8 DR. MATTSON: This plan, as I read it, says that 9 this commission will pick a location and find a way to get 10 the paper, or.whatever is holding up the decision, to work. J1 I don't know whether that makes sense or not. You have a 12 better sense of what we can accomplish and what.we can't 13 accomplish on the single location than the steering group 14 does. Do we need help to understand be.tter and rewrita this h' 15 plan? 16 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE: I think its time to revisit 17 the key individuals outside the NRC to see whether, as a 18 result of all of this variety of reviews and announcements, 19 whether we might not be able to get some action. 20 MR. GOSSICK2 I think the other question is should 21 we e,ven have it in the action plan, in the light of the 22 direction of the President and G5A to come up with a plan? 23 Do you want the task group to continue with this, or leave 24 that as well as the organization -- ~ f 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: In the sens e, if I gather (~ 1674 154
900504 59 pv DAV 1 correctly that this group has reached a conclusion that that t 2 is an essential ingredlent towards improving the overall 3 ability of. the NRC to f unction. 4 DR. MATTSON: There's another reason for it to be 5 in there, and that reason is, when you read the title, this 6 action plan says the NRC responds to the President's 7 Commission and other studies. Ultimately, you want to be 8 able to say between these two covers is what we've done in 9 response to the Kemeny Commission. 10 No w, as a ma.tter of convenience, it might be .11 perfectly right to take the single location and out it 12 someplace else, but since the Kemeny Commission talked to 13 it, since the President specifically addressed it, and since 14 Jt really does affect the way we achiev'e our mission, it 15 should stay in here. 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE2 I think it should stay in 17 here. But I. think this side of the table has to take some 18 action. I wouldn't have you spending a vast amount of 19 time. 20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE Yes. I think it simply 21 ceases. It's. fair enough for the staff to comment on it 22 because the staff suffers fron the housing conditions, but 23 it's not an area in which the staff is able to do muc.h. I 24 think it's progressing along. My own impression is that an 25 excessive hue and cry.from here is not likely to be the most \\674 \\55
900505 60 pv DAV 1 productive way of assembilng the group in one place 2 e ve ntua ll y. 3 MR. SCI NTO: The general gist of this was, in 4 f act, a message from the staf f to the commission. A lot of 5 this plan on things that the staff ought to be doing to go 6 ahead and would like the commissioners to approve. This is 7 one that I think we're saving.this is something that is very 8 important that you have to do. That's the nature of this 9 plan. It's an action that has to be done, and.the group 10 that has to do it is the commission, not the staff. .11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE 1 think a good bit of Roman 12 IV has that character. 13 DR. MATTSON: IV-A. 14 MR. SCINTO: Yes. Roman IV has.a lot of places i 15 that has that characteristic, is our message to you. 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank pou. 17 (Laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We needed that. 19 (L aughter. ) 20 DR. MATTSON: Turning to page 21 -- 21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Nhere were you when I 22 prectically.had a nice downtown location sewed up? 23 (Laughter.) 24 DR. MATTSON: Page 21, table 1, shows that there 25 are three other Ds. I put those Ds on there last night. I 1674 156 L.
3900506 61 pv DAV 1 think mostly.my uncertainty was to make sure we understood 2 we.were dolng these or. they were already under.way or what s 3 the situation was. Maybe they should all be As, thos e 7, 8, 4 and 9, on the top of page 21. Could somebody help me out 5 with that quickly? 6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: They're at least Bs. 7 DR. MATTSON: The action plan says, on 7, that 8 you're selecting a contractor or consultant to examine the 9 current management decisionmaking. 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 That's probably an .11 overstatement. 12 (Laughter.) 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Let us say that the decision is 14 with us. ( 15 DR. MATISON2 Keep lt at D. 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 I woul'd strike the word 17 "dacision" and make it " question." 18 MR. HANRAHAN: It's not simply to implement. 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Has everyone voted? 20 MR. HANRAHAN2 You have a proxy. 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: And I voted. I signed it 22 yeste,rday. So, that's three. 23 MR. HANRAHAN: You all voted the same. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Two haven't voted. f' 25 DR. MATTSON: I don't think we need to change u (- 1674 157
3900507 62 pv DAV 1 that. i 2 (Laughter.) s 3 DR. MATTSON: How about the item No. 8, 4 delegations of authority to staff ? There's knowledge that 5 you've done the delegatlon study and you're going to make 6 some decisions 'on the results of that study and implement 7 It. I don't know why that's a D. I guess I should have 8 called that an A. What do you think? 9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It's a D because the decisions 10 have been made. J1 DR. MATTSON: But the fact that you're going to 12 make a decision doesn't need to be discussed. It's ongoing 13 work. You've decided you're going to make a decision. You 14 just haven't reached that point yet. 15 Reexamine the organizations. and functions. My ~ 16' suspicion is that this is one that's pr'etty important -- 17 ( At.11:10 a.m., Comnissioner Gilinsky leaves 18 room.) 19 DR. MATTSON2 -- But one that's not worth 20-concentrating on too much until af ter the NRC's special 21 inventory is available. I just carried it as a D so it 22 reminds us of the high-priority things to check off later in 23 January. 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: The special inquiry, it 25 might be helpful if we had some idea of where the 1674 I58
8900508 63 pv DAV I Administration believes it's going with any reorganization ( 2 plan. 3 DR. MATTSON: It relates to the special inquiry 4 into the Administration's reorganization and development of 5 legislative proposals. 6 CHAIRMAN-AHEARNE: But your actual task is to 7 commit to a contract. I guess I don't understand. Are you 8 saylng that the way to handle that is to then go out for a 9 contract? 10 DR. MATTSON. What it says is: after you've .11 looked at the top, then you look at the next layer. So, you 12 do IV-A-7. firs t, and then you do IV-A-95 then you look at 13 the functions of the offices. I think it probably should 1-4 says as a result of continuing examinations both by the / 15 . White Hou'se and by the NRC special inquiry of the relative 16 rules and functions and organization and in coordination 17 with the task IV-A-7, there will ultimately be a need to 18 identif y somebody, probably the director, to sit down and 19 sort through it all, develop the pros and cons and 20 alternatives and develop a recommendation. 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So at the present time you are 22 not proposing that we agree to a half-million dollar 23 contract to be completed right there? 24 DR. MATTSON2 I am proposing that you wait another g 25 month or so and listen to what people who are still to be (_. 1674 159
8900509 64 pv DAV I heard from have to say. If they say something in this area, ( 2 take it into account. If they don't say something in this 3 area, you will still probably want to take a look. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I only point out that it.has 5 taken us almost six months to get to the point where we can 6 acdress th~e question that is going through all of the 7 . writings and the tunings and the contractual developments 8 and the se.tting up of boards and everything, to get to the 9 point. where we can address the question of whether or not we 10 .will be able to have the other management study done. J1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Of course, that's why.we 12 need it. 13 (Laughter.) 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE2 And that one can't be done for '~ 15. completion in June. 16 DR. MATTSON2 Plck another da'te besides June. Put 17 1981. 18 (Laughter.) 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would leave the year 20 blank. 21 MR. PURPLE: On page 21, if I.might Interrupt, I 22 - just noticed a little gremlin got into section IV-B under 23 the oecision group column, you see a bunch of Hs and Ns, 24 Slide the first three columns over onet then you find As and 25 Bs. That should be. the first column. That's just in IV-B (J 1674 i60
900510 65 pv DAV I so far. ( 2 DR. MATTSON Too bad I already admitted who did 3 .this. 4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: One permutes to the right. 5 Right? 6 DR. MATTSON: The same thing happened on page 22. 7 MR. PURPLE: All the ones in IV-B. 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Roger, onward. We'd like to 9 get.through a little bit more before we conclude. 10 DR. MATTSON I think I have about exhausted Ji IV-A. How about control and design? Rod Satterfield. 12 CokNISSIONER KENNEDY: Is there some logic to the 13 sequence that I have mLssed. Roger? 14 DR. MATTSON2.To the seq.uence with which we're 15 discussing them? 16 CO MNISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. 17 DR. MATTSON: We thought it would be some of the 18 ' tougher, more important ones that we would just start off 19 .with. We could have done.them in numerical order. 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay. 21 DR. MATTSON: Control room design has a two-step 22 approach, essentially, starting with like the simulator 23 approach, picks.the obvious deficlencies, and agree on what 24 they are, and approve te changes that are made, and in the /' t-25 meantime study more generally how to make significant (J l674 161
900511 66 pv DAV 1 upgrades in the control rooms, develop the criteria, and () 2 Implement them. 3 Involved in the longer term are. status monitoring ^ 4 and surveillance systems of more sophistication than are 5 currently available, pretty much consistent with the final 6 recommendations of. the Lessons Learned Task Force, with some 7 flavor of caution added. I think, since the Lessons Learned 8 Task Force s. If you go too f ast making too many changes, 9 you're going to make.mistakest you didn't take time to think 10 about it, and you should slow down. But I think that .11 slowing-down-a-bit flavor is in here. 12 Ihere.was also a consistency of the schedule here 13 .with the schedule on procedure upgrades, which are discussed 14 in I-C, and a consistency with the analysis that goes into 15 supporting the procedure upgrades and the consistency of ~ 16 upgrading of si.mulators. That is, the short-term and the 17 long term. The short term is roughly the sames 18 a-year-and-half to two-year period. The long term is the 19 same2 three, four, 4-1/2, five years. 20 What this presumes is that there are deficiencies 21 that can be fixed in the short term. I think it's a f airly 22 well-held opinion of the staff and. the commission that 23 that's true. And it presumes that there are significant 24 simplifying Improvements of the sort that the President f~ 25 addressed ln his announcement and that the Lessons Learned s (; 1674 162
900512 67 ev DAV I Task Force addrassed that will require some time to define. ( 2 But they're there, and we're going to get on with 3 articulating criterla for backfitting. them in all control gs 4 . rooms. 5 Is that a f air summary.of the plan, Rod? Could 6 you add to that? 7 MR. SAITERFIELDs W all -- 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEt The requirements that you were 9 suggesting that shall be Lssued by March 1980, based on the 10 Essex Corporation contracts, this is a requirement to do the J1 e.valua t ion. 12 DR. MATISON: These will be the directions that 13 we'll glve to the 1icensees to say that over the next X (]) 14 period you're to go into your control rooms and 16ok at the 15 following kinds of.. things and make sure that if you've got 16 problems of the following sort you correct them posthaste. 17 There's been a suggestlon that there ought to be 18 more NRC sta ff. involvement ln that proce ss than the Lessons 19 Learned Task Force had recommended. The guys comlng off the 20 Bulletins and Orders Task Force say, "We can make a 21 contribution to that. We've been doing it in the plants 22 .we've been looking at during the course of the summer." 23 When I read this the other night, it didn't seem (~, 24 to me that that flavor of NRC involvement.with Essex has 25 quite made 1.t into.the people who are implementing the 1674 163
3900513 68 pv DAV 1 Lessons Learned. 2 MR. SATTERFIELDs We had a meeting with Essex 3 ye s terda y. He told them at that time that we wanted to have 4 that kind of. interaction. So, I think, as f ar as we're 5 concerned, it is. 6 DR. MATTSON: Goo d. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess the question I had.was 8 that at some stage the amounts or the requirements that 9 you're levying on the control room design or redesign are 10 quite substantial. At least I would like to understand what r .11 g the requirements are. I would guess that some of the other 12 commissioners would also. There seems to be perhaps a 13 . missing step in that process between the Essex contract and 14 the other licensees. V 15 DR. MATTSONs I would say that you would probably 16 want to know whether they're substantial or insubstantial, 17 . because the premise ls there're going to be a f air number in 18 the short term. 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: My point is that the.way it's 20 written is that it seems that Essex would complete their 21 contract and the licensmes would be informed,of the 22 requirements. And I.would like an Intermediate step in 23 there. g-24 25 ( 1674 164
390060 69 mgcDAV I DR. MATTSON Yes. That's a good point. I don't ( '. 2 .. think we want to issue one requirement to the licensees out 3 o.f this Action Plan. One of the things.were going to need (' 4 to do -- not today and not Fr.iday -- but is identify some 5 ways -- 6 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE2 Similar to Lessons Learned. 7 DR. MATISON: Similar to the August 13 le tt e r f rom 8 the Director of DOR to all operating plants. 9 (Commissioner.Gilinsky reentered the room at 11:20 10 a.m.) .11 DR. MATTSON: System engineering and 12 reliability -- 1.3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Hold on a minute, there, 14 . Roger. The Halden reactor project that you have 1bsted here v 15 . unde'r I-B, which is.the technology - 16 DR. MATISON2 The on.line reactor surveillance? 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Other actions. I'm not sure 18 h o w --- 19 DR. MATTSON: 1-B.I 1, okay. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It's under " Actions." I'm not 21 sure where it shows up on this short ilst. 22 DR. MATTSON2 On Table 1, any other actlons don't - 23 shaw at all. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The part that I was just (, 25 questioning 1s that there's a resource estimate of several (i 1674 165
3900602 70 mgcDAV I million dollars per year. I wonder if someone could.just 2 say a f ew.words about that? 3 DR. MATTSON: That's Halden's expenditure, not ~( 4 ours. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Not ours. 6 DR. BUDNITZ: But Tom Murley can comment aoout it. 7 DR. MURLEY2 We are a partner, of course, to the 8 Halden project, and it's my recollection it's a couple 9 hundred thousand dollars a year. As part of that 10 partnership, of course, we have complete access. .11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Right. This is not a new 12 requirement. 13 DR. MURLEY No. 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Sorry, Roger. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs That ought to be clarified ~s 16 here, because I made the same assumption that we were going 17 to be contributing several. million dollars a year. I knew 18 that was not correct. 19 DR. MATTSON: I. think the.way to fix it, Rod, is 20 just to put.in what the NRC contribution in '80 '81 and the 21 out years as f ar as we know wi.11 be. -- 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Roger, could I -- we will be 23 breaking in a few minutes, and so I wonder whether you might 24 want to.make a couple of summary comments. What I.will be 25 do ing is, I will be asking the other Commissioners whether el 1674 166
900603 71 mocDAV 1 this method of approach is satisf actory to them. I find it 2 fine -- and also what their schedule would be for reaching 3 decisions. As Commissioner Kennedy has pointed out, we do 4 have a schedule laid out in Harold's memo, and.whether or 5 not we will be following along with that, we will be 6 prepared to address that,. I hope, on Friday. 7 DR. MATTSON2 Well, one thing we need to do on 8 Friday is to give you two pieces of paper and spend some 9 time talking about how we've put them together. One piece 10 . of paper is, do we want a prioritizing scheme, is the one 11 we'll propose on Friday consistent with what you'd like to !2 see? 13 Two, the dollars --- more consistently done, more 's l <4 accurate and brdken down according to whether they're in V 15 your budget or they're not in your budget. So you are to 16 see some numbers for. the first time that will tell you that 17 there's a lot of money that 1sn't in your budg et so f ar. 18 I think we need to reserve a little time for 19 talking about that -- both the prioritizing and the 20 budgetary questions. We feel comftetable at this point 21 asking the Office Directors with a requirement to jump in 22 and do some detailed budgeteering, or is there enough 23 uncertainty because we're only making slow progress in 7. 24 understanding the substantive part of the Plan that we ought 25 to defer the budget number generating machine until after e. I674 167
900604 72 mgcDAV 1 we've got a better handle on the substantive part? 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Have you been talking to Barry? 4 3 DR. MATTSON2 There ls a representative of the 4 Comptroller's Office on the Steering Group, Jim Blaha, and a 5 member of the IPA. 6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Vic, do you have any points 7 you'd like to make? 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Well,1 gue ss I go back to 9 the point I made earl.ier -- what it is we.ought to be doing 10 here. We have a Plan that presents a broad response to .11 recommendations that have been made by the President's 12 Commission and others, our own groups, but it seems to me 13 that we have to take these in pieces. There has to be some 14 system of priorities that determines that, and I find out ss 15 that we're spending our time talking about whether or not we 16 ought to get $20 mi.111on computers, which I think is an item 17 that can wait, where there are other 1.tems that are more 18 important in the short term. 19 So I think we need to assign some priorities to 20 these various things and take them in that order. 21 DR. MATTSON: I think what I hear you saying is 22 that the scheme by which we came up with these items to 23 discuss didn't lead us to what you thought were the more 24 important things to discuss at this point in time. 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY That's right. t, 1674 168
900605 73 mgcDAV 1 DR. MATTSON: If that's generally held, then we 2 need to come up with a better way to focus your attention on 3 what you want to talk about. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Per. haps another way of phrasing 5 a similar point might be we have a number of operating 6 plants. We have a number of plants in a queue for operating 7 licenses. The President.has charged to us, and we do have a 8 number of Boards waiting to move out and review. We ought 9 to have some mechanism to make decisions on those items 10 which must be decided in order for those various processes .11 to evolve. 12 DR. MATTSON: That's a f airly easy thing to do, if 13 you'll concentrate your attention on it with the information 14 you haVe In front of you. If you'll turn to Table I and v 15 just open up the first page, I'll show you how to do that. 16 Right in the middle of the page is a column called 17 "NTOL Implement" where the next column, there are som FLs 18 and some fps. FL means that's what the staff as we put this 19 draft together thought was a reasonable thing to be 20 accomplished before a plant would load fuel. fps are the 21 things we think they should keep. working on and finish 22 before.we give them a full power license. 23 . If there's a date in there, generally the date 24 will be consistent with the operatir.g reactors -- that is, 7.- 25 there are some items that we wouldn't be any more stringent gt i674 169
900606 74 mgcDAV 1 with a new UL than we.would be for a plant already in ~ 2 o pe ra tion. g 3 If you want to concentrate on a near term OL /' 4 requirement, you can pull them straight from here, either 5 mentally or we can make a list and decide whether they're 6 the right set. The reason that we didn't make a list is 7 because it's kind of nice to be able to go down here and see 8 which ones tren't being applied es well.as whic.h ones are in 9 the immediate sense. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Similarl y, if you went down on .11 the OR Implement and looked at those dates --- 12 DR. MATISON: That's more difficult. That's the 13 reason we generated ourselves a timeline because this says 14 "0R Implement." It doesn't say anything about how urgent it w/ 15 ls that we get on with assigning somebody on the staf f to 16 generatc the criteria. So we've got the timeline which 17 shows crlteria development, then application and 18 applicability. We'll get that to you just as we've carrled 19 this down here this morning. 20 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE: Let me point out that the 21 Action Plan draf t which you have. before you is, in fa ct, 22 what I requested in the early part of November -- that is, 23 to collect all of the recommendations of the Kemeny 24 Commission or recommendations from the various studles and r' 25 anything else people had in. hand and set all these things s, 1674 170
3900607 75 macDAV 1 down and try to describe how each one would apply to each of 2 the various classes of plants -- operating plants, near term 3 OL plants, longer term OLs, cps, et cetera. 4 And then out of. this array, one of the products 5 that has to come out of this a little bit down the line is a 6 further and more 0 ::ai. led licensing policy statement by the 7 Commission and Instruction to the Boards and, in f act, to 8 the staff and a clear'public statament saying, "Now here's 9 what has to be done in order to get this group of cases 10 moving, and here's what has to be done f or this group," and .11 so on. 12 So the subset of items which Vic refers to as 13 things.we ought to be concentrating on because it's very 14 pressing business before the House, that_ subset is ln here. v 15 And as Roger says, it's ddentifiable by working down the ^ 16 columns with some help from the staff, and I think we need 17 to continue to cut at the whole vo.1.ume. But I think then 18 after another meeting probably, we then can turn and 19 concentrate on the subsets which are critical to 20 requirements on operating plants, requirements for near term 21 OLs, et cetera, and get on to the enunciation of that more 22 detailed licensing policy statement. 23 DR. MATTSON: One possibility would be to continue 24 on Friday and then agree that we'll have a meeting the first f-25 week of January wh're we have a list, having reached some .) 1674 17l 6
3900608 76 mgcDAV i general understanding of.what's in here. 'l 2 We have a list of.the near term OL or the \\f 3 operating reactor of both r.equirements. pulled out of here. 4 and we can put them in the A, B, C, D categories also. 5 Some of you have already approved, like short term Le ssons 6 Learned -- there's not much need to talk about those for 7 either operating or near term OLs. 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me we've got a 9 very large plan here in front of us. It was pointed out 10 that nobody can really read it all in one day, and I don't .11 kno.w that we need to decide on all of the items by February 12 15. 13 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE: I think that's right. 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 It may well be desirable ss 15 for us to chew on it for awhile. 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Our discussion here are, in 17 f ac t, leading us to sort of separating the thing out. Most 18 of this stuff in Section 4 says, you know, improve the 19 operation of the Commission. You know, I'm sure we all 20 stand four square on that platform. 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 1 don't think that we can. 22 (Laughter.) 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: In principle, we can. 24 CONNISSIONER HENDRIE But with regard to the g. 25 concentration of staff resources and where we ought to dig s_ {', e# 1674 172
s 900609 .77 mgcDAV I in and get on with the principal job of the agency, that () 2 clearly isn't an item.where there's going to be much more 3 consumption of valuable time of the collective body here, so /^ 4 these discussion are, in effect, sorting these things out. 5 And I think you're quite right. We need to come 6 to that subset. But I think this more general cut is 7 necessary. 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I'm just suggesting that 9 we take it in pieces. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I think Joe's agreelng with .11 your taking it in pieces, except he's suggesting that we 12 finish trying to digest -- 13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE At least a first wallow 14 through. ( IS COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 I have no objection to 16 that as long as we understand that when.we're through with 17 that, we will assign some priorities. 18 COMMIS$IONER HENDRIE I. think what we ought to do 19 is ask the staff, looking forward to the first meeting af ter 20 this week, to try to begin to compile a subset which, I 21 guess, I would characterize for lack of a better term as the 22 critical licensing subset. 23 DR. MATTSON: It's an easy exercise. 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE Yes. 25 CO MMISSIONER KENNEDY: If it's that easy, why I674 173
3900610 78 mgcDAV I don't you do it.now? 2 DR. MATTSON Get rid of two meetings at once. {, 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Roger, I don't think it's going r' 4 to be all that completely easy -- only in the sense -- 5 DR. MATISON Oh, they're not easy to decide and 6 disc u ss. They're easy to pull from the information we have. 7 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE: This thing is set up to 8 make that culling out. Now, what you do with them when 9 you've got that, that's different. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Okay.. Roger, upon hearing .11 that, we'.ll continue to move through on Friday with it as 12 you have outlined, and then.we'll see what we can get on the 13 .first meeting. 14 DR. MATTSON: Those people who want come vacation ( 15 over Christmas, and we'.ll just pull that, can start af ter 16 this week. 17 CH/tRMAN AHEARNE: The week after Christmas is t 18 shot. 19 DR. BUDNITZ2 When I look around the room, there 20 are a half a dozen people from the Office of Research that 21 ca'me down today, and some of the stuff that they came down 22 to hear was discussed and some wasn't. I think it would be 23 more efficient if.we arrange the order of these 36 items or 24 whatever they are -- tell me what that i s, so I can either /* 25 get all of my people down here or get none of them down (f' 1674 174
3900611 79 mgcDAV I here except me. { ', 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Bob, I would propose that the 3 office people get together with Roger to work that out. ( 4 DR. BUDNITZ: It's just very ine ffic ient. 5 DR. MATTSON: With your general agreement, I 6 propose.we just k eep on following lt. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What I think Bob's point is, is 8 that in that set of categorles, there's no. specific order. 9 It may be impossible to block it that way, but it would 10 really help. J1 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was 12 adjourned.) 13 14 C 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 v 1674 175}}