ML19270H728
| ML19270H728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001020709 | |
| Download: ML19270H728 (79) | |
Text
.
/3 t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON POLICY, PLANNING & PROG 1W1 GUIDE Place - Washinciton, D.
C.
Date - Tuesday, 18 December 1979 Pages 1 - 78 1674 176 T.i.cne n.:
(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAI. REPORTERS,INC.
OfficzalReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 bI NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY 8001020 T
1 CR8889 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesday,18 Decerber 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
' inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commissi'on may authorize.
4 1674 177
l 2
i l
CR8889 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
2l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
3l l
PUBLIC MEETING j
4 j
BRIEFING ON POLICY, PLANNING & PROGRAM GUIDE l
5l l
t i
l 6i Room 1130 l
1717 H Street, N. W.
i 7l Washington, D.
C.
l I
8 l Tuesday, 18 December 1979 I
9l l
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m.
10 :
l l
BEFORE:
11 j JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 12 !
l l
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 13 j RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner
{
JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Commissioner j
14 '
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner l
i l
15 l ALSO PRESENT:
l 16 l Messrs. Heller, Hanrahan, Gossick, Beckerley, Bickwit, and Chilk.
17 l i
l8 l
19 20 '
1 21 22 !
23 !
24 ;
Foueral Recorters, Inc. l 25 I 1674 178
,l l
3 9 01 01 k ap/MM l
PR0CEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
de come together this morning 3
for what I hope to be a useful and another step on tne 4
development on Commission policy guidance.
I'm very 5
delighted to say that all the commissioners have commented 6
on one or another drafts of the earlier versions.
The 7
results are a collection of comments which, at least 8
initially, may be somewhat dif ficult to reconcile.
9 And as a result, what I have asked Ed Hanrahan to 10 do this morning is to review the major issues, substantive 11 issues that, in his review of these comments, he sees. to go 12 down through them, list them in some sense of priority, and 13 then see this morning if we can't amongst the commissioners 14 reach a conclusion as to which -- what approach we want on 15 some of these substantive issues.
16 What Ed will then do, and his staf f, for tne next 17 mee ting -- which is on Thursday -- is to prepare a draf t in 18 such a way that we can see on opposite pages what 19 alternatives exist in the way of language or items, so that 20 we can on Thursday hopefully go through on a page ' y-oege o
21 basis, reach a decision as to what our final version.will 22 be.
23 If this morning's meeting does not aopear to ce 24 getting us very far, then I propose we would end it in order 25 to let Ed and his oeople get on with tha t other proce ss.
1674 179
~~R ~ AO]RA
'9 01 02 7
4 k ap/MM I
Ed?
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
Tha n k yo u.
I think starting of f 3
the piece where it oegins on the botton of page one and goes 4
cn to,pages two and three --
5 CHAIR.. TAN AHEARNE:
Could you identify which draf t 6
you're talking about?
7 MR. HANRAHAN:
The 12/11 version, which I guess 3
could be categorized as the background or stage setting 9
p ie c e.
10 There has been a great deal of controversy over 11 the efficacy of any or all of this, and I would suggest 12 that's an area that needs, probably, first priority of 13 a ttention.
14 The next area item would be on the bottom of page 15 three, under Pol'lcy Guidance.
The second v-numbe r 2 there, 16 which talks to determination of the level of protection it -
17 deems adequate.
Actually, the first item is tied to that or 13 linked to it in a fair degree.
That, I think, needs 19 a ttention from the standpoint of when can that really be 20 promised, any hopes of being able to deliver such a thing.
s 21 On the other hand, we think it's an important area for the 22 Commission's attention, to attempt to achieve some 23 equilibrium or level of understanding about the whole agency 24 in that area, however sparse it might oe.
So I would say 25 that would be the second area.
1674 I80
9 01 03 5
kap / VM i
The next one is on page four, item number 5, which 2
deals with the cost balancing of regulatlons.
Again, there 3
has been dif.ferences as to whether something needs to be 4
said, and what, or if something should be said, what it 5
should say about that.
6 The next area I would suggest is on -- alsd on 7
page four, item number 7.
Here it talks about attention 3
given to those activities with the greatest r is k -
' vill get 9
priorities.
I think there is some need for attention on 10 there.
Its emphasis seems to be operating facilities, whicn 11 of cou'rse is the m o st immediate proolem which has immediate 12 need in terms of public risk, but I think one can argue that 13 if safety isn't designed into a f acility, that yo u ca n' t 14 regulate it when it's operating.
15 So I think there's a set of arguments that say 15 that's important, and others would say, de ll, if that safety 17 des ign isn't built in, the design isn't very good.
do you 18 need attention on what's actually built, so I think there 19 are three pieces to it, it's what's designed, what's built 20 a nd ho w it's operated.
And tne sorting of those three 21 pie ces I.think requires your a ttention.
22 CO MM I SS I O.'IE R G IL I NSKY:
What is the logi; of 23 listing points I through 13?
24 MR. SECKERLEY: You mean in terms of secuence?
25 COMVISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
)674
\\81
4
!90'l 04 6
kap /%M i
MR. BECKERLEY: I don't think there is a clear 2
logic at this point, and I think that's one of the things we 3
sho ul.d a tte nd to a li ttl e b i t later.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The y're separate points.
5 MR. HANRAHAN:
There is not a logical order of 6
them, I don't think.
It would be a useful way to put them 7
in some sort of a logical order, whatever that might be.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Something one can identify.
9 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
Okay, the next area I would 10 suggest is the bottom of page seven and this is the area to 11 support oversight of license activities, extending that 12 oversight by other organizations.
There is some 13 disagreement as to that.
14 The next one is on page 12, item number 3, which 15 is informed publi, and gets into intervenor funding and 16 other matters, and I think tnat clearl y needs Commiss ion 17 a tt ent io n.
IS The last one I wo uld su gge s t is -- this is page 19 14, which is the list of programs for P*ogram Guidance.
One 2C suggest ion is add to it and.others is to reduce it, so it's 21 clearly a question of what ought to be on that list, how 22 much and what are the items, prograns that ought to ce 23 considered.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oka y.
Ed. are you crepared to 25 summarize any of these items where the commissioners' 1674 182
9 dl 05 7
kap /%M i
individual positions will come out?
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
To a certain degree.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- hy don't we start on number 1 4
then, the background.
As I understand it the question is:
5 the section which was labeled Protecting the Public and the 6
Environment, the A section, and there's a lot of discussion 7
as to whether or not it serves any useful ourpose.
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
I think beyond the very first d
paragraph, which ends at the very top of page two, the 10 remaining paragraphs -- it's either going to be completely 11 deleted or edited to tighten it up.
So it's either k eep or 12 delete, is the major issue there.
13 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is this section 14 supposed to do?
15 MR. HANRAHAN:
I view it as a stage se tting or 16 background against which the Commission is going to set down 17 as a policy thing.
13 MR. 85CKERLEY: I don't think it ought to be 19 labeled " Policy Guidance."
It really is part of an 20 introduction.
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
It snould oe part of an 22 introduction, for background or some such title as tnat, if 23 it's to exist at all.
24 I think some of the statements in here are 25 gratuitous, at best.
I personall y could s ee good arguments 1674 183
8 9 01 06 k ap/MM 1
for eliminating all.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Jorm, do you have a comment on 3
the document?
4 MR. HELLER:
W e ll, we p ut that in primarily to 5
furnish, as Ed said, a background, sort of an overall 6
con te xt in which the Commission views its work.
This was in 7
response to some guidance that we had received from you very a
early on in this process, and I think it does add some help 9
to the document in that it gives us framework.
10 On the other hand, if the Commission chooses to
.11 delete it, I can see valid arguments for doing that e s well.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I gue.ss my f eeling was that 13 that type of an int roduc t io n is useful for the document to 14 hold together, but it would need a lot of editorial tuning.
15 COMMISSI0 DER KENNEDY:
Could I suggest instead of 16 tuning, maybe we could rewrite the music altogether?
Some 17 sort of general flavor of the environment in which all the 13 rest of these things is done, it seems to me is a good idea, 19 but to write it is a very, very tricky, difficult ousiness.
23 And I wonder if you are ever going to get that written in a 21 way which is going to be wholly acceptacle to everyocdy, 22 simply on the ground that people are going to find 23 value-loaded words in the thing, ine v ita ol y, as a means of 24 expression, and they are going to mean different things to 25 different people.
1674 184
39 01 07 9
kap /%M I
I don't think anybody is ever going to agree with 2
it.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
riell, which may end up meaning 4
that you have a section which reflects that there are these 5
wide dif ferences of opinion or diff erences of opinion, and 6
it may have to have the flavor on the one hand s on the 7
other hand, but still I think it. serves a valuable S
perspective.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Some say, and others 10 b el ie ve.
.11 (Laughter.)
12 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it's a mistake to 13 put this in because, you know, mood music is precisely the 14 sort of thing that we are least likely to agree on.
It's 15 hard enough~ to agree on the nitty gritty points, just what 16 you're going to do and how you're going to instruct the 17 staff to carry out their work and make f airly clear IS statements.
And you can necessarily vote these things in by 19 a majority, but when you are talking about nuances and 20 you're really Just kind of se tting the stage, it's one thing 21 in a documen t that you might write yourself -- reminiscences 22 or something.
23 But I think we would be well advised to move on 24 and come to grios with the harder issues.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
I674 185
4 10 9 61 08 k ap / MM I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
I agree.
I think Peter 2
left us the outstanding comment, this document sti ll suffers 3
from a near-terminal verbosity.
4 (Laughter.)
5 COMMI.SSIONER HENDRIE:
Which certainly aoplies to 6
the front end of it.
I think ;vhat we ought to do under II-A 7
is to simply preserve the e ssence of, I guess it's the first 8
two paragraphs, put them up in the introduction. dele te the 9
res t of II-A, start Roman II " Protecting the Puelic and the 10 Environment" sub i with policy guidance in the middle of
.I l page three.
12 This is where Peter comes out, and I absolutely 13 agr ee.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Got a dec is ion. Ed.
15 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Further7 ore, please edit 16 the introduction along Peter's lines.
17 COMMISSIONER KENJEDY:
Except for the bottom.
I 13 guess the bo ttom line goes out altogether; doesn't it ?
19 COMMISSIOdER HENDRIE:
Yes.
20 MR. SEKERLEY:
Yo u shouldn't drop f acilities.
21 though.
22 COMMISSI0 DER KENNED (:
It's not misuses, anyway.
23 COMMISSIOJER HENDRIE:
Whatever you want to do 24 with those two retained paragraphs.
25 MR. SECKERLEY: You need oublic protec tion, so I 1674 186
gfPf]g 11 rp q-o 01 09 i M eJ\\1 J A l[
'< 9/ MM i
wouldn't delete tnat, eitner.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
The next ite m is 3
the adequate protection.
4 COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE:
Could I ask a little bit of 5
a format que s tio n?
What I would like to do is to pass along 6
my latest mark-up and see if the y would please agree to have 7
a Polic y. Planning and Program Guidance document laid out so 3
you've got Roman I, Roman II and then where you have to go 9
down you have a cap A, an Arabic 1,
a lower case a, parens 10 (1), pa rens --
.11 CoyMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Harvard sy s t em. -
12 (Laughter.)
13 COVMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Et cetera, instead o f 14 naving to re f er to things as two-A-one-d ash-dash se cond 15 bullet, which I think is going to be inconvenient in the 16 long run.
17 (Laughter.)
13 MR. HANRAHAN:
Okay.
19 MR. BEKERLEY:
Do you like the nuncer system, 20 1.1.2.3?
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's fine.
22 COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE:
Act ua lly, for this, I think 23 the more scholarly Roman, cap, Arabic. lower case, parens, 24 and end up with Roman "ii"s.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Lioeral use of italics?
I674 187
19 d i 10 12 kap / MM 1
CHAIR:4AN AHEARNE:
I certainly agree with it.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Gives it a certain amount 3
of class.
4 CHAIR. MAN AHEARNE:
Having disposed of that major 5
i ss ue 6
(Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER KENNED (
Are we unanimous on that?
S CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think we have a majority, at 9
least.
10 (Laughter.)
.ll MR. HANRAHAN:
The next issue, where the re is not 12 so much disagreement in that it's desirable to give 13 consideration to the determination of le vel of protection, 14 but just what can be said and what ought to be promised or 15 directed to the sta ff in terms of what can reasonably be 16 expected --
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
3asically you're focusing on
/
la number 2 en page three ?
19 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
I think item number 1 is 20 linked to it, but it's the whole thought of public 21 protection and desired level of it, the level that's deemed 22 adecuate to be maintained.
23 24 23 1674 iBB
13 4
IR 8889 i
MELTZER l
- -2 mte 1 1
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One minor difficulty that 2l occurred to me as I read this over again this morning.
If 3
there is a Congressional statute on public input, then our I
l 4
subjective evaluations are probably of lesser significance so l
t 5;
long as that statute remains in effect.
And I want to be a f
i 61 little careful that we don't equate them when in fact they i
7 can't be.
8l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I don't think that was the i
9l intent.
I think the intent was more --
i 10 MR. BECKERLEY:
One suggestion was the one we i
i i
11 !
mentioned at the end of the memorandum.
One suggestion is i
12 i just reduce this to NRC will determine and clearly articulate 13 the levels of protection that arc adequate and are to be 14 f maintained by the nuclear industry.
It's sort of an expressionj 15 '
of a goal, it seems.
i i
16 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's assessing our role in 17 a very important way.
And there are those who would argue, 18 and indeed have, that it is not the role of this agency to 19, determine what is adequate in the broad sense; that is the 20 responsibility of the Congress, to give the guidance as to 21 l what it is we are supposed to be regulating against, rather 22 than for ourselves to assert what that goal is and then 23 l' regulate against it.
24 These are two different things.
l Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
I think in the practical sense, 1674 189 i
14 ate 2 1
i t
1l something has to generate up out of the system.
i r
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Somewhere we have to bring 3i the chicken and the egg --
l l
4 MR. HANRAHAN:
We would all view that as the
~
l 5
Commission's responsibility.
Nonetheless, the staff has got I
6 to bubble up --
i 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
" Bubble up" is exactly I
i 8
right, from the murk.
l 9
(Laughter.)
10 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No mood music, Vic.
11 (Simultaneous discussion. )
i 12 MR. EANRAHAN:
The Congress and the public have i
i 13 l got to have something to react to, to think about.
And what 3
l l
14 my thoughts are, that the Commission ought to stimulate this, I
15 l if there's to be a national discussion, by positing some i
16 l thoughts.
a 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's different from assert-
- i 18 [ ing them as a regulatory base.
It's asserting them as a d
19, proposal for that, for the resolution of the question.
That's n
20 3 f'.ne.
i 21 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick, are you saying that, rather 22,
than us determining the level, we would propose a level?
I 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is that the distinction?
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do we propose a level?
i674 190 l
15 ite 3 1
i i
1 It seems to me that Congress lays out the standard in some 2
general terms, and we have to --
i 3ll COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Particularize it.
I 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Put meat on the bones.
S-COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And if they don't like it, f
i 6'
they come back and say, wait a minute.
It'ssortoflikethosej 7
information reports that say:
This is for your information; j
t i
8 if I haven' t heard from you by Thursday, we're going to do it.
l 9
(Laughter.)
I i
10 ;
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Notice how many of those 11 '
have been done lately.
l t
12 (Laughter.)
j I
13 MR. BECKERLEY:
When you issue a license, though,
!i 14 ] they can make that determination.
f l
15 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sure.
I i
i 16 MR. HANRAHAN:
It's implicit in the system now.
i 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If we were sitting here and 18 had the first operating license before us, we could legiti-h 19 mately debate whether, gee, should we particularize what 20 d " adequate protection" means in order to judge this license, i
21 l or should we go back to Congress and get it spelled out for 22 us from the: statute.
23 We are long past that point, and there is, for better, 24 or worse, implicit definition of " adequate protection" out Federal Reporte s, Inc.
25 there in those operating licenses.
I think a
16 nte.4 I
enough proposition, and probably long overdue for us, to settle 2
down and see if we can make more explicit the sort of hidden 1
3l and implied factors in that adequate protection status and 4l try to lay them all down.
And then if people don't like them, i
1 i
5 why, we'll hear about it, I expect, and can see where to go l
6 from there and what guidance the Congress wants to offer.
7!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree with all of that.
l l
8l Again, it's a question of how this is laid out.
It's a question l
l 9l of writing, to be more precise in our description of what it l
i 10 i is we are going to do or propose to do.
l i
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You will introduce some l
12 subheads there?
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm not sure if I have seen a 13 ;I 14 j resolution of this issue, though.
I i
l i
1 15 !
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the instruction ought i
16 to be given further discussion, have some notes from Peter, 17 -
and so on, and give it a try.
I guess my only suggestion is la o these paragraphs 1 and 2, let's recognize that we are what, 19 something like 20 years into the licensing of commercial 20 ' nuclear facilities, and this effort to make explicit the 21 l sort of implied and underlying bases that are in our adequate 22 protection finding -- you know, the reason that hasn't been 23 done for 20 years is not because nobody has said it would 1
24 be -- people have thought it wouldn't be useful, or because semi nnamn. ine.
25 people were lazy or dumb.
It's because it's hard.
/
)
17 ate,5 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So I would suggest that these ;
I 3
paragraphs have, you know, a positive and moving forward I
l 4
feeling to them.
But I'm not sure that aggressively will do l
5' this, and so on.
i 6l MR. HANRAHAN:
We need some room for failure.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The reason that items are in this f i
8l kind of a document is you want to focus on the hard things I
i 9
that we want to say, here are priority issues for the agency 10 1 to do.
I 11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Absolutely, but that still I
l 12 doesn' t mean that you can' t recognize in the thrust of the i
i 13 '
words that this will have to be a best effort proposition.
l t
14 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that you're right, 0
15 that it's hard.
And I don't know that it could have been done i i
16 '
in the past.
But I think also it was a disinclination to do 17 it in the past.
l 18 ]i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think there was on the 19 Commission level, because -- or at least in elements of the 3
e 20 l' Commission.
But you know, in the reg staff, why, periodically 21 we'd get into wrangles with one another and explain to one 22 another how it would all be a good deal better if we had this 23 all laid out one, two, three, four.
24 But I think you're right, en up the line, in the Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 might halls, why, we would have probably been disembowelled.
1674 193 I
18 ate,6 l
l 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that's relevant, 2
though, because what you are doing here is trying to provide 3
guidance to the staff.
I di, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are trying to lay out l
I t
6i general points that will help them interpret what they are 7
doing and carry out their work in areas that we haven't 8
explicitly nailed down in the follow-on documents.
I 9;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
i 10 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So I think it's relevant I
i 11 that this does represent something of a departure.
l t
12 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course.
But that labor is l
l i
13 i what would have been put into the introduction.
14 l (Laughter.)
l 15 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you can put the 16 introduction in here.
I can see this is going to be like a i
17 Y wrinkle in a tablecloth.
18 ll (Laughter.)
i-19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I think we ought to i
l!
20,
be indicating that we think we ought to be moving toward a 21 l more definite standard to the extent we can.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And expressing a little i
24 humility about just what we think we can do.
FMwat Rmorters f m 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Let me get back to Dick, 1674 194 j
19 nte 7 l
l 1
because I'm not sure -- I thought I detected a fundamental 2
disagreement on'the difference between establishing a level 31 and proposing a level.
I I
i 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, no.
t 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
i l
i i
6l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Semantics.
t 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You think you're clear on that?
l 8l MR. EANRAHAN:
You'll see on Thursday.
l 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Please have a subheading, l
i 10 I so that these items are grouped, you know, the level of risk I
11 i items get grouped together, so we can take a look.
l I
12 MR. HELLER:
Commissioner Gilinsky, may I comment i
i I
13 l on that point?
You had asked earlier about the logical i
14 l structure of these policy statements.
There was a logical i
i 15 structure to the extent that we tried to start off by listing 16 il the policy statements which dealt with what the level of
'7' protection is or what is safety, what is adequacy, and so l
18 :! forth.
- l 19,
And then we tried to move from there into the means il 20 ] for achieving and maintaining this level of adequacy, once i
21 l it had been determined.
So that was the overriding logical 22 structure.
We did not divide it up until a final structure.
i 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Fine.
I think it will be 24 easy to follow if you had a couple of subheadings.
i FMusl Resmners, \\nc.
25 MR. HELLER:
I agree.
l 1674 195 l
20 mte 8 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
The next item was the 2
cost balancing.
That's number 6, on page 4; is that right?
}
3; MR. HANRAHAN:
Number 5.
Here's it's an issue j
i 4
again as to whether that bears saying or not, and if so, what.
I 5
We have proposed a rewrite of f.t.
It still includes the cost i
6 balancing.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think it's important to address 8 l.the issue, because it seems to be one that we are constantly I
9' hassling about.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think this statement 11 is -- represents what we do.
I think economic costs do come 1
12 in in setting -- well, they come in in all sorts of ways that l
h 13 ll are hard to define and hard to pin down.
But ultimately, they i
14, do come in in setting a level of protection.
'i 15 h CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do they come in in setting -- are i
'I 16 h you saying they come in because we can't come up with the
- 7 adequate level of protection clearly enough so that you do 15, incorporate them, or are you saying that, even if you were to
!i M
come up with what is an adequate level of protection, that that a
20 g judgment of adequacy has an economic determination?
21 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You know, there are various I
i 22 !l ways to do it.
But I think either explicitly or implicitly, l
23 yes, ultimately you are grappling with some sort of economic 24 ! questions.
There is no limit to the amount of safety you can
- v. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Ipile on.
I 1674 196 0
21 mte 9 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
But in some theory, though, 2 l isn't it that you try to determine an adequate level, some 3
minimal acceptable -- it is acceptable and it is the minimum, 4
and in achieving that there is no judgment of economics l
5 involved, because if you can't achieve that then it's unaccep-l I
6; table.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There may be, because there 8
may be two alternative ways of reaching that.
t 9,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But to get to the level, there l
10 is no judgment of economics.
In other words, economic i
11 judgment wouldn' t lower the level.
If you conclude it's too l
12 ;i expensive to get there, you wouldn' t say, well, we'll reduce 13 l! the level.
la!
MR. BICKWIT:
I think you're talking about two levels.
I 15 3
I think it's a judgment call as to which level you call the 4
16 lt adequate level.
You could say the adequate level is the
.i 3!
D' minimum level, which takes no account whatever of economic l'
15 costs, or you could say the adequate level is the level that 19 you ultimately have to achieve, taking into account economic 20 i costs.
I 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I would opt for the 22 former.
23 MR. BICKWIT:
I think a reading of the law is a 24 little more consistent with the latter.
t Federat Reporters, Inc. l 25 l (Laughter.)
]6[4
}g[
k
22 mte 10 l
l I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The latter being what?
2 MR. BICKWIT:
The latter being that you do take 3 !
costs into account when you decide what is an adequate level, i
1 4
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As opposed --
5!
MR. BICKWIT:
That's not to say that there aren't l
l 6i levels below which costs are not relevant.
l 7l i
CHAIR W AHEARNE:
Are adequate and acceptable the i
8 came in that?
9' MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
10 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So you're saying your reading l
i 11 f of the law would indicate that in order to define a threshold, f I
12 '
that you consider economics?
l I
13 l MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
I 14 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You know, there are various i
i 15 types of regulatory decisions, starting with setting standards,,
16 I where we, just as a matter of course, include costs of equip-17 ] ment that would be required to replace -- for the utility to And 18 ll meet the standards, even defining the original standard.
ii 19 you then have to decide whether you are going to take economics 20 i into account in -- when you are judging whether someone is i
21 ;
meeting the standard and taking enforcement action.
These I
22 '
are all different than --
23 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Aren't all of those above 1
24 fundamental level?
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think these things 1674 198 l
23 nte.ll
{
l 1
are that well defined.
That's the problem.
If we had, you 2
know, a clear and quantitative base for regulating --
3l CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I know we don't have it, and I l
4l know we don't have it because it is extremely hard and it may I
i 5-not be possible to reach.
I'm still talking about in the sense' of the theoretical application.
Wouldn't you have a minimum o.
i 7
level that, below that, the economics could not be a factor?
l 8l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You could do it that way, I
l 9
except in picking that minimum level you have undoubtedly made l
10 some sort of balancing of one kind or another.
I don't knew l
i 11 that it's important once you've done that, but presumably you l
12 l would want to reevaluate it occasionally.
l I
13 l
'MR. BECKERLEY:
You certainly have taken into account 14 implicitly, for example, in choice of materials and construc-j i
i 15 l tion and so on -- you don't necessarily gold-plate things, 1
16 !
because you know that it's too darned expensive.
i I7 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
I I
18 ::
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the economics of il 19 these things, as Vic says, are there inall kinds of subtle 20 ways, and this paragraph -- I think it may be useful to ha"e i
21 l a paragraph in here which deals with some sort of outline of 22 how those things come in.
But this isn't quite the right one.
23 I haven' t for myself figured out quite how to cure it.
But 1674 199 24 what occurs to me is the following.
Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25 We answered some questions along this line back in, f
I
24 ite 12 j
i f
I was it, earlier this year?
2 CHAIRfiAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but that was a voluminous 1
i- ?
3I letter.
l I
I i
4 l
t i
Si i,
6, i
7!
i Si l
i 91 i
I 10,
l 11 l 12 l
i I
13 l
'A 15 l I
l 16 ',
i
'f i
18,
19 i!
20 21 l 22 1674 200 24 Federal Reportsrs, Inc.,
25 i
25 lR 8.889 l
LELTZER
.-- 3 mt e 1 l
1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Whenever.
And we had a 2
number of v rsions, and what I seem to recall as my position 1
-- and some of you joined pieces of it -- was the proposition l
1 4
that these considerations of economics, practicality, if you l
5, will, what seems about the right size in an overall sense, i
l l
l 6
including economics, was very much a factor in setting what 7
I will call the generic standards in regulations, that by and large form a sort of general definition of adequate protection. !
8 i
9 But my feeling was, having established that general 10 '
description in the regulation, taking economics into account, 11 i and then having detailed that summary in staff documents which 12 also inevitably have the engineer's sense of what's reasonable l
13 l and practical as they go along, then you come to a particular 14 '
case, particular plant.
And now you're up against deciding 15 whether this particular plant meets that level you have i
16 j defined.
17 ]
Well, if he doesn't and he says, heck, I can't get 18 g up there, that's too expensive, then I have to take a pretty Il 19, harsh attitude about that, saying, come on, we have defined l'
20 i the level which is necessary here in some sort of general 21 terms, and it's up to you to get up there.
And if it costs you more dough than you expected to spend, do that.
22 I
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's what we said about 24 Indian Point 1.
Federal Recorters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But you see, this is a little i
I 1674 201
26 ite 2 1
~
1l different way of seeing the economics factored in.
I 2j Then, furthermore, I think at some point in those l
I 3'
discussions, at least for myself, I've taken the point of 4l view that, if you then look on beyond that general level of l
f 5'
adequate protection that you have defined in some fashion in i
I 6;
the regulations and the staff documents, and are talking 7l about, well, here we've got a new plant coming in and we'd justl l
as soon see more plants make a little progress on the safety 8l 9
front, so we ' re trying to jack, maybe, the newer plants up a i
10 little bit above this general level of adequate protection.
{
11 !
Now I think questions of economics are pretty fair things to l
12
- consider in those, in that are.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But there you are at the stage 14 '
where you are trying to improve the safety above that.
l t
15 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
You have met a somewhat 16 'i ill-defined level of adequacy, i
17,1 If this paragraph were to be rephrased along the i
la,, lines that I have laid out here, why, obviously I can vote il 19,
for it.
And I don't know how the rest of you that took some-n 20 I what different views back in those exchanges are set on that.
21 But it does seem to me that in establishing the general 22 l standards, the regulatory base, and then the implementing l
23 j staff documents that define it a little better, that sort of 24 l that sense of practicality which does mean ultimately the i
r e w i n n m n m.inc 25 costs is very much there, as Vic says.
1674 202 l
l l
i
27 nte 3 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Actually, you can look at the 2l new and the old plants together, and you think in terms of t
3!.
being willing to spend money on safety, whether safety return i
i i
4j is substantial enough.
The new plants, what I would propose i
i 5'
here is that we commit ourselves in the same way that we would l
6i if we agreed to some reworked version of the level of risk 7l paragraph, to getting more explicit about the ways in which l
1 8l economics enters into regulatory decisions --
l i
91 (At 10:20 a.m.,
Commissioner Bradford arrived.)
i l
l 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And to designing where ll I it's proper and where it's less appropriate, and what level 12 '
these questions ought to be dealt with, and head in that 13 direction.
l 14 MR. BECKERLEY:
What is your reaction to the draf t I
15 ;
we had.
I 5
1 16 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Wait a minute.
Vic made a j
17 " suggestion.
I 18 li COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that's sort of,
,i 19 rather than forcing us to define the whole matter now, in q
'i 20 d order to get this document out, like the adequate protection, i
21 ;
it leaves us in a posture in which we can move with this.
And 22 we will work on this proposition and have a chance to argue 23 further.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Instead of a policy document, FMwat Roorte,s,1N.
25 it becomes in effect a work program.
1674 203
28 nte 4 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's what it is.
2l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that's what we need j
3 to get clear on 'these very difficult questions.
i 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's perfectly okay, so long j
i 5
as we understand that that's what we're doing.
6!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At least it indicates that l
I 7j we do want to get -- develop at some point clear guidance on I
8' how economics enters into regulatory decisionmaking.
We are i
9 not in a position to give clear guidance yet, except in 10 l very general outline.
l II '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Len, do you have any comments?
I 12 MR. BICKWIT:
I think that's the right way to go.
I i
13 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Mr. Hanrahan?
l 14 l MR. HANRAHAN:
I think the policy is. going to end I
15 up in work programs.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or vice versa.
17 ;
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But this is a work program la which is designed to develop a policy.
p I
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At least we would be 20!! agreeing on what the important issues before the Commission 21 j are.
I 22 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
Okay, the next item is 23,
the issue of greatest risk, which is number --
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE.
John, I wouldn' t want to
-Federal Reporters, Inc.,
25 pass beyond item 5 without noting for Peter's benefit, when i
1674 204
29 ite 5 l
I 1l he arrived, that I am supporting practically all of your 2
PPPG memorandum.
i 3,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're not sure about --
I i
4j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The description of item 5 l
i 5'
carried me completely.
I 6;
(Laughter.)
l l
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But I would urge you to refer :.0 l
8, the transcript to refresh your memory or learn what went on i
i 9l prior to your arrival.
I 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Certainly.
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And also, in the future could 12 you offer a couple of alternatives for those of us who don't I
13 l, go to the movies that of ten?
l i
14 l (Laughter.)
I I
l 15 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could you give me examples?
i
,I 16.j (Laughter.)
i
'7.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
We could move on.
18 j Are you ready to move on?
19,,
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, onward.
- l 20 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Number 7 on page 4.
21 l To just quickly summarize, though, Peter, what we are doing 22 is, Ed had summarized some of the major points of disagreement.
23 l We are trying to work through these this morning, and then on 24 Thursday we will come back with the layout of the other issues.
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 But today we are just trying to run to the things that seem 1674 205 t
l
30 ite 6 l
1 to be major.
2 All right.
Number 7 on page 4, which is the issue 3
of the focus on the greatest risks.
4j MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes, it is both focus on greatest l
l 5i risk to public health and safety and then the emphasis on i
i 6,
operating facilities.
As I mentioned earlier, I think as far l
I 7j as facilities this is having to consider the design review I
8 and then the construction, inspection, and so forth.
i 9:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where are you?
i i
i 10 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Page 4, number 7.
i I
11 MR. HANRAHAN:
The first issue is, does the level t
12 -
of risk, the effect on the reduction of risk, provide the 13 l mechanism to determine priority.
l i
I i
14 i C6MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That and the Congressional l
15 !
interest.
I 16 ]
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's a different type of risk.
17 (Laughter.)
18j MR. HANRAHAN:
Personal versus public?
n 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Doesn't it go without saying ll 20 j that you allocate youreeffort in some sense according to --
21 ;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Except one of the things, when 22 you end up saying that, you then recognize you have responsi-23 bility to attempt to determine which are the areas of greatest 24 risk --for example, probabilistic risk assessment -- and then
-Fwwal Reconm, lrw.,
25 !
to follow the resource allocation where that leads you.
1674206l
31 te 7 i,
I I
1; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, follow it to the l
2 extent that it tells you something.
3li CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure, not blind.
But that's the I
4' kind of guidance that I think we ought to -- if we agree with l
5 that, that we ought to be giving to the staff, because that's 6
the kind of guidance that can sift down quite far into the i
7 staff and tell them how they should be allocating their l
8l efforts.
I t
I 9l MR. EANRAHAN:
I think in principle it's correct.
I 10 f You do have to bend your efforts.
Now, some of those things l
l 11 '
may not require as many resources as some other activity in 12 the sense of what it takes to do the job, but at least it i
13 I says we ought to get on with that job.
14 '.
MR. BECKERLEY:
We suggested some alternative I
15 '
language.
I think that expresses the view a little better.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is there a disagreement amongst
?
17' any of you that resources should be fundamentally assigned on 18 the basis of the greatest risk?
il 19 MR. BICKWIT:
Doesn't it also have to do with where il 20 i you can do the most good?
21 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
To the extent that those things 22 l, are equated.
I 23 !
MR. BICKNIT:
They are not always equated.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Well, it is where -- I thinP 7
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 when it's talking of the margin is kind of to say you allocate 1674 207i I
32 ite 8 l
~
\\
1 money where it does the most good.
It's the same as saying 2
where it does the most to reduce risks.
l 3l MR. BICKWIT:
But not necessarily the greatest 4
risks.
l l
I 5;
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's a little bit different.
I f
6!
If you say you put your resources -- you give priority in f
7 assignment of your resources to those activities which are j
i 8!
likely to accomplish the greatest reduction of risk, then you i
l i
I 9!
have covered both where is the risk greatest and where can you 10 make the most impact on it.
i 11 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's really where can you 12 make the most impact on it that matters.
I assume that's what i
13 l we were saying.
I i
i 14 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But it still does carry inherently l 15,
in it the policy that we are going to have the staff be looking' 16 at and eventually explicitly looking at what is the risk 17 reduction, what are the risk reduction areas.
18 d COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
As long as we all recognize il 19 a reasonable proposition, I give you the following:
If you 1
20 ;
make a really draconian interpretation of it, you'd say that i
21 l operating reactors get all the resources.
After all, reactors 22 llthat are not operating don' t have any fission products in 23 them.
There's zero risk from them, only the low one that they 24 might be licensed some time and acquire some fission products.
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 (Simultaneous discussion. )
1674 208
33 ite 9 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You obviously don't mean that.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's why I have the -- I don't i
3l like OPE's word " earliest" that they put in, because that i
4j then does lead you much more in that direction.
l 5
MR. BECKERLEY:
Except if you had limited resources, t
i 6 !
and you had two things ahead of you -- improving operating i
7; reactors and doing something with one that's under construction,l 8
you would be hard put to say which you should do first.
l l
\\
i 9l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
An OPE memo of December 17th?
i 10 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me --
l l
11 '
MR. BECKERLEY:
It went out last thing last night.
l 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me in giving l
13 j the staff guidance that you ought to allocate money where the l
14 l greatest risk reduction is going to be effective doesn't carry l
I 15.
you very far.
I think implicitly this is the way things are i
16,
done now.
You know, it may be that the allocations aren't 7
quite right.
But I think this is generally -- it's a place la, where it would be useful to give guidances dealing with kind ll 19, of how do you take into account, how do you make that assess-20 >
menu when you are talking about construction permits versus 21 ;
operating licenses.
22 l That's a place where the staff really could use 23 guidance.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you have a proposal?
l
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't.
1674 209
34 tte 10 '
i I
i 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You know, one of the problems i
2l may be when we talk about resources we're talking about them t
3l as an agglomeration.
As a matter of fact, when,one is talking 4j about the resources in certain areas of the staff, one set of i
i i
5 criteria may be a different set of criteria for app ung those I
1 6l resources, for example, in research, where immediate payoff l
l l
7; isn' t the question, where you might have the highest priority j
i 8
for resources for a risk question which is not amenable to I
9 early resolution; whereas in the licensing area you may I
i
- -- 3 10 l apply resources in a different context.
11 l l
12:l 13 ;
14 '
15 I
16 ]
n 18 ',
a 19
- l 20 i 21 i 1
l 22 l 23 i 24 Fedef al Report 8fl. Ific.
25 '
1674 210 i
l
39 Q4 0l 35 mgcMM i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It seemea to me that Joe's 2
formulation therefore in the language took care of those 3
kinds of circumstances.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think this may be 5
another place wnere we may want to give some guidance, but o
also lay out the program of grappling with the issue, 7
because you know it just isn't clear how you go from, you e
know, the basic notion which I think everybody will agree 9
with fundamentally that you ought to allocate rationally the 10 risk as much as possible to decisions such as in dealing
.11 with upgrading operating plants now or doing some work on 12 reactors which are near opera ting licenses.
13 How do you allocate that ef fort?
You know, that's 14 where guidance is needed, MR. HANRAHAN:
You may want to think. in terms of lj 16 not getting a policy for all time but here over the next 17 year, should the a pplication of resources be driven to 16 operating reactors?
Where there is a choice, operating 19 reactors should get the re sources as o pposed to CP s.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Joe says it can't be 100 21 percent.
22 MR. HANRAHAN:
No.
23 COMMI5SIONER HENDRIE:
Now tha t I have the -- when 24 did this come out.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
Last night, sir.
I674 211
39 64 02 36 mge'.M I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We'll have to see if we can 2
fino it.
Anyway, now that I have it in hand, the proposed 3
paragraph on page three of the December 17 thing seems to me 4
okay.
It would cover for me -- and the only suggestion I 5
would make is, instead of operating plants, I would say o
" operating f acilities" and thus cover a couple of our 7
favorite fuel cycle enterprises.
6 (Commissioner :Cennedy lef t the room at 10:30 a.m.)
v MR. HANRAHAN:
I think the recogni tion that there 10 are some design and construction areas --
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you be willing to put in 12 some phrase telling the staf f to use whatever risk 13 evaluation me thocs they had -- for example, probablistic 14 m e t hods ?
I recall one of the things in the dim, dark pa st, 15, the Lewis Report, ha d --
lo COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
I wouldn't put it 17 here in this initial and very general list of policy 18 guidance items.
When you get back to planning guidance, 19 okay, and on back into the de tail, out even under the 20 planning guidance -- let's see -- somewhere back in he r e --
21 program guidance?
No, planning guidance.
22 There was some thing abou t risk assessment, wasn't 23 there?
Somebody help me out.
24 MR..SECKERLEY:
Page nine.
25 COMMI SSIONER HENDRIE:
Page nine.
All right.
1674 212
19 04 03 37 mgcMM i
Anyway, there is a page later on where you can 2
ceal at sort of a lower level for more detailed c o nc en t --
3 risk assessment activities and so on.
Note tha t they are 4
useful for making these what are to a considerable extent 5
qualitative judgments of where the high risk elements lie.
o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'd be ccutious about 8
telling the staf f wnich ma thema tical method to use.
v COMMISSIONER HENORIE:
I wouldn't do it up here.
10 I wouldn't specify up here in the section we're talking
.11 about now tha t they way you decide where the greatest risk 12 is is a particular method.
I think, you know, you bring all 13 of your tools to bear on that judgment, but back under the 14 more detailed remarks about risk assessment, you can note 15 that it's usef ul f or this purpose.
lo COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other comments on OPE's le version?
IV (No response.)
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic --
21 COMMISS IONER HENDRIE:
That was three seconds.
22 The Chairman is entitled to rush ahead.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wha t are you do ing wi th 24 this " ear lie st"?
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
We would strike that.
1674 2;3
39 94 04 36 mgcMM I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We would pref er to strike that.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Where aid " earliest" 3
a ppear, anyway?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARN E:
That's in the OPE paragraph.
5 MR. HANRAHAN:
It says, third line, " greatest ano o
earliest."
7 MR. BECKER LEY :
I was trying to get in there 6
somewhere when you were f aced with things like the CP versus 9
old operating licenses.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
What about thinks like il mill tailings?
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well you just never get to 13 them, Vic.
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You have to accumulate the 15 eff ects f or tnousands of years to get meaningful results.
Io COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
They shouldn' t tell you 17 whe ther they.ought to be coing them or not.
le CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Strike "and earliest."
19 MR. BECKERLEY:
The proper regulatory policy there 20 would be to force the industry to do a be tter Joe on the 21 tailings, but tha t's another i ssue.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would suggest we strike a and 23 earliest."
24 MR. BECKERLEY:
Okay.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic?
All right?
1674 214
s9 04 05 39 mgcMM l
Okay.
Onward.
2 The fif th was the third party issue on page seven.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Can I interject before we 4
get there, or will you come back and give me a chance to 5
complain?
o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We'll come back it the time 7
remains.
I'd like to get to the major items and then go 8
back.
v Now it seemed to me t ha t there was sort of a 10 uniform disagreement with part of that -- t he t hi rd par ty
.11 approach.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Not for me.
I think it's a 13 good thing, bu t I think the language is wrong.
14 (Laughter.)
15 It's not that their capabilities are at least to equivalent to those of the NRC.
Tha t may even no t be good 17 enough in some areas.
It's a -- they provided their le capabilities, I judge, adequa te f or the proposed task, for 19 pi ty's sake.
20 MR. BECKERLEY:
We incorporated that in the craf t 21 we proposed.
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I wish I'd had a chance to 23 see i t.
So I'm a vote f or keeping it.
I think i t's worth 24 exercising.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't think there are many 1674 215
19 D4 06 40 mgcMM i
people wno want to drop the whole thing.
It was more the 2
wording of it.
I know I had, myself, taken exception to 3
using " licensees and vendor employees."
4 Let's see.
Vic pro posed what?
Where did you come 5
out on that?
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't know tna t I get 7
very excited abou t third parties.
e COMMISS IONER HENORIE:
I have a suggestion.
v COMMISSIONER GILINSK(
Wna t's the proolem?
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There are a lot of different
.I l opinions.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Unie ss OPE has already 13 beaten me to it, and I haven't not time to read -- look, I 14 think it's f air enough to say that there is the procability 15 o f resource limitations, and j think it< s f air enough to 10 look at developing oversight by third parties.
Then we say 17 "such as sta te s, national standards organizations", and then 18 I'd say "providea their capabilities are Judged acequate",
19 e t ce tera.
That's good enough, pe rio d.
There's no need to 20 go ahead and go on with the rest of it.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'd agree with that.
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think there was a fair 23 proposition to be mace somewhere to eventually consicer 24 whether some thing like the FAA system of authorized shop 25 representatives or whatever they are called is a practical i674 216
- 90407 41 mgeraM i
thing for the nuclear industry.
But it seems to me that's 2
at a level of cetail that needn't be spelled out in these 3
initial few primary guidance points.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
What is this thing you're 5
trying to achieve ?
Is there someone going to march off and o
do something on the basis of this paragraph?
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think it's -- the question, 6
as I understand it, is beginning to surf ace as to whether or y
not we agree with tne program of having, f or example, the 10 American Socie ty of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of
.11 Electrical Electronics Engineers, develop -- and I guess 12 there is a plumbing group that also does that kind of 13 ins pec t ion.
Do we agree that if they meet our -- if we are 14 using their stancards and their people are inspecting 15 a ga'in s t those standards, that we agree to let them do the lo ins pe c tion s?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask, is this 16 something that is going to come up to us f or a decision?
19 Are we making the decision?
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We're already coing it in some 21 cases.
22 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY :
But we're talking about 23 extending it considerably, I gather?
24 COMMISS IONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I sn' t it some thing we want 1674 217
89 C4 08 42 mgcMM 1
to bring to the table here ano discuss and decide on?
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I would think so.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why take a position on it?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Secause I think to take a 5
position on it now, if we're ready to take a position on it.
o COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We haven't heard anything 7
about it.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We alreaoy are doing it.
v COMMISS IONER GILINSKY :
I den't know anything 10 about the subject.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE :
We've been doing it for awhile.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you're talking about 13 a vast expansion of thi s orogram.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're not sa ying, " Keep 16 doing w na t you're doing."
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think what we are telling the le staff here is encouraging them to go out and see whether 19 they can ge t other organizations to do what they are already 20 having some organizations do.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you're saying --
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I t says " pursue develo pmen t. "
23 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
Well, it sounds to me like 24 a lot more than just inquiring.
I think it's something that 25 we ought to hear about.
I don't have any view abou t it 1674 218
69 04 09 43 mgcMM i
w ha tsoe ve r.
I aon't think we ought to stop doing what we're 2
doing, but if we are talking about expanoing it 3
considerably, then I think tha t's some thing I ought to 4
reflect on, you know, unless you have looked into it.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm in favor of asking I&E to o
try ano see if they can't get more of these organiza tions.
7 Before there would be an agreement to use them, we would c
have to make that decision.
They would have to negotia te.
9 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
That's right.
But the way 10 you are putting it is, they're going to go out to see 11 whether they'll oo it, negotiate i t, and come back here --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And raise the i ssu e.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Everything having been 14 done ano everyone having agreed in good f aith and several 15 governors being behind it Io (Laughter.)
17
-- do we now agree?
la COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
19 CHAIRM, N AHEARNE:
You're saying you're not ready 20 to establish that as a poli cy.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I certainly favor them 22 investiga ting the possibili ty or thinking about it or 23 bringing a paper to us on the subject, sure.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oksy.
I think, then, it would 25 shif t over into guidance to ask them to develop tha t.
1674 219
9 d4 10 44 mgcMM I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's a question of how you 2
want to read " pursue development" whether you want to 3
read that as a decision made, not go in to "impl emen t", or --
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
" Request."
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Consider it as a direc tive 6
to take a look at i t and see wha t the program would look 7
like and then let's consider it and so on.
o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think tha t should go over 9
into planning.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Le t's see.
I though
.11 planning -- I'm a little conf used about these categories.
12 Planning, I thought, was something like a common 13 base or assumptions tha t all the various offices can use --
14 for example, how many cps do you expect next year or 15 some thing of this sort.
This doesn't strike me as --
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
John, you aren't saying 17 take it out of here and put i t under planning guidance, were Ic you?
IV CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You were saying change the 21
" pursue development" language into a planning mode.
I don't 22 know quite wnat the language is.
23 COMMISS IONER GI LINSKY :
I'm so rry.
I 24 mi sin te rpre cea.
25 COMMISCIOi1ER HENDRIE:
Ah, yes.
I thougnt I 1674 220
59 04 11 45 mgcMM 1
de tec ted tha t.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
To shif t it more into that.
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
So the policy is to " consider."
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
5 All right.
I can see that next year after all 6
these have been considered, this is going to be a great 7
document.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's right.
Ther e's v
going to be a f antastic mee ting in which levels of risk will 10 be se t.
Adequacy will be determined --
.11 (Laughter.)
12
-- and economics will be se ttled.
13 MR. BICKWIT:
I t will be down to two or three 14 pages.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, did you have any 16 comment s ?
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One, I think.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, dic you have any IV comments on that?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
The next item is on page twelve, 22 Item 3, which deals with an informed public.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We're all in favor of an 24 informed public.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
Rignt.
And intervenor funding.
i674 221
e9 04 12 46 mgcMM I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is there really any 2
cisagreement?
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I fell off the wagon right 4
af ter the first sentence.
5 MR. SECKERLEY:
Some said to leave the whole o
thingt some saio just keep the first sentences others said 7
leave it all, but drop the note material.
o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
Mr. Gilinsky's 9
office wanted to celete the whole thing.
Right, Vic?
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Tha t's sounds right.
.11 (Laugnter.)
12 MR. HANRAHAN:
That's the general rule.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I t's George's initi als and 14 my question mark.
15
( Laug hter. )
Ic MR. HANRAHAN:
Which is the question mark?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don' t know.
I have to le read it.
IV CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let's see.
Joe, you wanted to 20 go with the first sentence?
21 COMMISSIONER HENORIE:
I've got the following 22 problem with it.
(A), I didn't agree initially with the 23 pro posal the Commission went forward with -- the A-1 in the 24 budge tary pro posals now up.
It seems to me further you've 25 got a little bit of difficulty of having this kind of great i674 222
N 04 l3 47 mgcMM i
language in the policy guidance wnen you've also got 2
language f rom the Appropriations Commi ttee in what is or 3
will become the law of the land with regard to the agency 4
saying, " Knock it off."
5 Now if you want to phrase this in the sense, o
"ac tive participation benef ic ial", good.
Phrase this in the 7
sense that it will be desirable to scope out a program for 8
technical / financial a ssistance to members of.the public, e t v
cetera, at such time as it might be authorized by the 10 Congr e ss, w hy, then, I could probably go along with that.
.li But this say s, " the Commission theref ore 12 endorses, "the s taf f will de velo #',
and so on and so on, 13 and I'm interested to know how you're going to explain that 14 to Mr. Bev111.
15 CHAIRAAN AHEARNE:
You're right.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is interesting, the 17 resources of all offices.
It says, " Funding of intervenors 18 should not be su ppo r ted. "
IV (Laugnter.)
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess we have got to look 21 more closely a t the re sources.
22 (Laughter.)
23 But I think Joe's point is correct.
I think some thing ought 24 to be in here because tha t is a f unoamental crange, the 25 approach that the agency is taking.
i674 223
ov 04 14 48 mgcMM I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You can be in planning and 2
try to ao a best-eff ort posture f or adequate protection, how 3
economics enters the setting of adequate pro tec tion -- why, 4
it seems to me on this point where we have an explicit 5
pronibition f rom the Appropriations Commi ttee, that you o
might just be cautious enough to assume the same 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It ought to reflect the f ac t 6
that the Commission old decide to go forwara with that as a 9
policy, that implementing that policy will really be 10 dependent upon Congre ssional action.
.I l 12 13 14 is 16 d7 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1674 224
D"*}D *}'9'}
' io w Ju o Ju;3 k o
9 05 01 49 kap V.M i
MR. BICKdIT:
Not necessaril y congressional 2
permanent ac tion.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No.
But congressional 3ction.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Not nece ssarily, or absence.
5 CO MNISSIONER HENDRIE Absence of prohibition 6
b y --
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In FY '80 we can't do it, and S
we have proposed in FY '81 the funds to do it.
And so, is 9
the prohibition in FY '80 such that the people couldn't work 10 on developing the scope of it?
11 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't celieve so.
I would have to 12 go back to the language.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There's soneone nodding yes.
14 MR. HANRAHAN:
Office of research?
15 (Laugnter.)
16 MR. BICKWIT:
I'd have to take a look at it.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you check that?
18 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Secause we'd have to mak e 20 sure.
Peter, since the three of us were the ones that 21 supported that proposal to go, wnat do you think about that?
22 COVMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
There is this notation in 23 here that it should be consistent witn NRC's legal 24 authority, which I think recognizes there may be a oroolen 25 in that.
1674 225
50 19 0'5 02 kap 'AM 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That was good.
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
You like that by-line?
3 COMY.I SSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm in favor of 4
underlining that provision, or wnatever is necessary to 5
acknowledge the proolem.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic?
Has your cuestion mark 7
been resolved?
8 COMMISSI0 DER GILINSKY:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are you satisfied with leaving 10 it in, phrased that way?
.11 COMM ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
12 MR. HANRAHAN:
A.ll right, so we'll put it in terms 13 of congressional guidance.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You'll have to work with Len to 15 -
do it.
Whatever is the right set of language.
16 MR. BICKWIT:
Or the absence.
17 MR. HANRAHAN:
The last one that I had was page 18 14.
The list for which program guidance might ' e provided.
c 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Norm, would you speak a f ew 20 words about (a) why that is said s and (b) what difficulties 21 might arise if we change tha t set.
22 MR. HE LLE R :
This set aas de ve. lope d some se veral 23 months ago as a result of interactions between the 24 Commission, the staff and so forth, de have come to the 25 Commission on several occasions, either in a formal or 1674 226
51 9 d5 03 kap MM l
informel way, with this list.
And my impression was, the 2
last time we met on the RPPG, the Commission generall y 3
endorsed leaving the se in here.
4 Now, I would like to see them stay the same 5
cecause we are working busily now trying to define these 6
programs, the cross-cuts and the write-ups, et ceters, that 7
would go into the back end of the Policy Planning Program S
Guidance.
To change it at this time, I think, would cause a 9
perturbation there.
I'm not sa ying it can't ce done; it 10 obviously could be done.
It's just that it wo uld caJse some 11 disruption.
12 de simply have to start thinking about diff erent 13 ways of doing the cro ss-cuts and so forth.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
dould the disruption be 15 well, first, if we. drop something out of the document, that 16 disruption should not be very great.
17 MR. HELLER :
Not if you drop something that is not 18 a consideracle e ffort.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well you could still do the --
20 well, all I'm saying is as far as tne disruption, after 21 you've gone through the e ff ort, whether it goes in or s t a ys,
22 dropping it isn't --
23 COMMI SSI0 DER HENDRIE:
You still have got c
24 redistribute everything in the cross-cuts, and the same is 25 true if you put a new one in.
1674 227
52 pp d5 04 kap iM i
CHAIRMAd AHEARNE:
E xc ept this doesn't cover 2
e ve rything.
Does it?
3 MR. HELLER:
No.
4 CHAIR.4AN AHEARNE:
You're not redistributing 5
e ve rything, anyway.
This is not going to cover all the 6
a sse ts of the agenc y.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I s ee.
8 CHAIR. TAN AHEARNE:
So that dropping sonething out, 9
really -- so the question really is, now:
are you so far 10 along that if you added something and dropped something,
.11 would that still oe a major disruption?
12 MR. 0053ICK:
I think it would depend on tne 13 subject, what it is.
This llst vas intended to just 14 highlight ce rtain areas that the Commission had specific 15 interest in, and the packages have been so rted out 16 accordingly.
17 CHAIR:4AN AHEARNE:
Ed, what are the suggestion to 13 ce added?
19 MR. HANRAHAN:
Let's see, the Action Plan, siting 20 policy --
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Slow.
Ahat was the first 22 one?
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
The Ac t io n P l e n.
T '.i I A c t i c a,
24 s iting polic y, utility management and technical 25 qualifications, ope rator selection, t r ei n ing, q ual if ic at io n.
1674 228
53 S9 05 C5 kap MM 1
CouMISSIONER HEJDRIE:
That's enough for me.
2 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
Those four?
3 CO MMISSI0 DER HENDRIE :
I vote f or tn e present 4
l is t.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Norm, how dif ficult would it be 6
to handle both?
7 MR. HELLER:
The action plan itself is already 8
being handled as a de f acto ma jor program area.
ne have 9
informed the staff that it's very likel y the Commi ssion 10 would consider it to be a major program area.
I think that
.11 will be identified.suf.f ic iently that it could be dealt 12 with.
We would want to do that anyway. I th ink.
13 COMMISSIONER MENDRIE:
But it runs across.
I f yo u 14 put the Action Plan in here, you have included an iten which 15 is intrinsica'lly incompatible with the other 19 elenants 16 already listed.
It's aoples and oranges.
The re is in the 17 Action Plan health e ff ects from low level radiation.
There 13 is in the Action Plan cualification of saf ety-relate J 19 equipment.
There is in the Action Plan risk assessment.
I 20 think you can't put the se things in the sane list.
21 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
That's right.
The cuest ion. I 22 think, though, is:
is the Action Plan of sufficiently high 23 priority to be tracked that we would oe want ing to track it 24 even though it does cross all of those itens.
And I guess 25 my feeling would be that it has to oe.
1674 229
54 9 05 06
7 MM 1
MR. HANRAHAN:
Not only tracked, but also siving 2
guidance on the important e lements.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It needs to be tracked on 4
a different s ys t em, then.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
That's right.
6 MR. HE LLE R :
Me're going to try to tag the items 7
in the Action Plan --
3 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That are in here?
9 MR. H:TT:R:
-- witn some sort of an asterisk, so 10 if someone sa ys, "Get me the Action Plan,',' we can pull that 11 out separately.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I tnink Joe's right, it really 13 needs a separate --
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It needs a se. carate ad hoc 15 trac king s ys tem, because hopef ully we will have chewed in a 16 year -- we will have chewed the chewy parts of the Ac tion 17 Plan and the rest of it will continue to fall naturally into 13 these categories and can ce dealt witn for the long pull 19 that way.
20 (At 10:55 a.m., Commissioner Bradf ord le f t tne 21 room.)
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think ahat that reall/ neans, 23 in this document there snould be another item.
It's a 24 separate category, which is the Action Plan.
25 COMMI SSIONER HENDRIE:
A discussion of that ooint, 1674 230
19 d5 07 55 kap MM i
in fact.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now how aoout the other three?
3 (At 10:56 a.m.,
Commissioner Gilinsky lef t the 4
r oo Q. )
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
de lost a quorum.
6 COMMISSIONER HEHD.4IE:
Jonn, there's sometning 7
about you and me whien is driving peuple out of there.
8 (At 10:57 a.m.,
Commissioner Bradf ord returned to 9
the meeting.)
10 MR. GOSSICK:
Part of the problem here is that the 11 Action Plan includes the operator selection, training and 12 qualificationi also includes utility management, tecnnical 13 qual if ic at io ns.
Those are part of the Action Plan, so it's 14 kind of like somebody said, apples and oranges here.
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE -
I don't find any of the 16 proposed new items appealing in the least.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I ge.t Norm's answer?
How IS difficult 19 MR. HE LLER :
My view on this one, it would be 20 difficult, I think, to pull out the items that are 21 particularly related to these toolcs.
Me are having enough 22 trouble now, trying to pull out items that relate to the 23 programs that are already liste d and have been listed for 24 quite sone time.
And these are sort of pretty general 25 topics, wnen you reech in and try to pull the resourc es or 1674 231
56 19 05 08 kap MM i
accomplishments out against them I th ink we'll have some 2
dif ficulty getting the croper de finit ion.
3 t.iR. GOSS I CK :
We've got a little bit of that 4
already present.
The transportation thing. fnr examole, 5
pic ks up -- you know, it's dif ficult to sort out safeguards 6
or transportation involved in that waste management and so 7
forth, so there's a little bit of overlep now.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, what do you think?
9 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I mi ssed, of course, the 10 middle of some of this discussion.
.11 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
This has no thing --
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't mind addin, to the 13 list.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
de are just specificall f 15 focused on this particular item.
The point is, Norm had 16 said how difficult it is to add additional at this time.
17 And I think the cuestion we have to decide is:
are those 19 sufficiently important that we would task then to put them 19 in?
There are the three that are tne siting policy, utility 20 management and technical cualifications, and operator 21 training and oualifications.
22 COMMISSI0 DER 3RADFORD:
You dro pped the Act ion 23 Plan?
24 CH AIRMAN AHEARNE:
The Action plan is goin; to be 25 a separate -- and Norman said they were already de veloping 1674 232
57 9 0'5 09 kap MM i
that kind of tracking system.
I t's go ing to have to be a 2
separate item.
It's a diff erent cha rac ter tnan the se, but 3
that's already in the accropriate --
4 COMMISSIodER SHADFodD:
Why won't tne Action Plan 5
pick up at least some pretty good pieces of these --
6 CHAIRMAd AHEARNE:
That's what he said it vill.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's prec isely the 8
dif ficulty In making it one of this list.
It's not the 9
right kind of ites.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oka y, those will be folded in,
.11 e ss en t iall y, in the Action Plan.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
I think the other things --
13 MR. HANRAHAN:
You went to leave this list as is?
14 You don't want to either add or detract from it?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Leave it as it is.
There would 16 be ano ther category, again, it might ce D or something that 17 would be the Action Plan.
You would have to have a la description why that's a separate character.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But tnat has its own 20 tracking?
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
You're not troubled that the list 22 is long?
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ed. speak up.
24 MR. HANRAHAN:
It's a long list of things to 25 provide guidance on.
I think it's more tnan just track; I
1674 233
58 9 d5 10 kap MM 1
tnink it's, you know, sometning from the Commission as to 2
what it views as important in each of these, that it wishes 3
to gra pple with.
4 COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE:
These things, in part, were 5
chosen cecause if you provided guidance on this list of 6
things, you had gone a whale of a long way to providing a 7
sort of basic guidance on the budget oreparation and the 3
thrust of tne staff resources, and that's one of the 9
fundamental reasons for the wnole exercise.
To arbitrarily 10 couple.this, then, will detract from that status.
And since
.l l you are already plugging away on it, why. I don't ses any 12 point -- more pe rturbation at tnis point to snorten it than 13 it is to leave it long.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think at this stage I'd like 15 to try to go ahead.
The major thing now is to 'try to get 16 further interest.
To try to develop our programming 17 guidance may be overwhelming.
I'd go ahead with that.
IS That completes yo u r l is t.
I promised Joe ve'd get 19 back to some proclem --
20 CO MMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Back uc to page.l l ?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, the systen we era on now 22 is that they will go oack and come oack for Thursday's 23 meeting with a layout on the remaining i ssues that we ' eve.
n 24 MR. BICKdIT:
Mr. Chairman, I think it's 25 Friday's.
1674 234
59 9 C5 11 kap MM I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You told me Thursday.
(ou have 2
an extra day.
3 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
The meno I had sent around 4
dealt only with the Policy section.
5 P will get the thing to you.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can you get it to him by 7
tomo rrow?
8 COMMISSIONER 9RADFORD:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Secause in order for him to 10 really --
11 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
13 COVMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I'm on page.11, the OPE 14 memo, I guess, notes my complaint.
Item I at the cottom of 15 page.Il says, NRC is dedicated to conducting its activit ies 16 openly.
Fine and good.
Then it goes anead and says, 17 Co ns eque n tl y, everything will be available to e ve rybody, 18 limited only by considerations of -- there is then an 19 incomplete list of the reasons that --
20 CHAIRM All AHEARNE:
I agrr.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And my suggestion is delete 22 that sentence, or if you put it in, I am going to insist 23 that e very exemption of the Sunsnine Act have CIA be listed, 24 cecause those are, in fact, are the tnings that come under 25
" limited only by."
I think it would just be -- I think it's 1674 235
60 29 05 12 kap Mid I
su f f ic ie nt to say " dedicated to conduct its a ff airs openly, 2
NRC will take active steps to provide information in plain 3
English and significant activities - " et ce tera, et 4
cetera.
And that just saves having to think of all of the 5
exemptions.
Peter?
6 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I don't have any 7
difficulty with saying -- what he put in the phrase, subject 3
to the exemotions of the Sunsnine law.
Whether you list 9
them, the important thing is the general.
IJ COMMISSI0 DER HENDRIE:
I wouldn't object to that
.11 way of just making -- because if you put in the list as it 12 is now, we have already got a number of administratite 13 meetings which are in violation.
So we can't stand that.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
So we will makg 15 d el ' oe ra tion
'- Joe, are you saying you would excec' if we i
16 say we'll make this deliberation and products readily 17 accessible and limit it by the 18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Limit it only by tne 19 considerations of the acpropriate exemptions of the Sunshine 20 and Freedom of Information Act,.vould be the acpropriate way 21 to phrase it.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay?
23 COMMISSIOJER 3RADFORD:
Yes.
24 CHAIR:4A:4 AHEARNE:
All right.
Do you have any 25 other cuestions?
1674 236
9 d5 13 61 kap MM 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Pa g e s i x --
2 MR. BECKERLEY:
Excuse me, did e verybody ouy the 3
last sentence in tha t, because tne last sentence is the 4
policy statement on information.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I did, but recognizing what 6
type of information we are going to distribute is still an 7
open question.
I tnink we ought to explain what we ara 3
doing, but I don't. think we ought to ce explaining nuclear 9
power, for example.
DOE is the organization that e xp lain s 10 nuclear power.
.31 No w, if you had intended by that that we would be 12 explaining nuclear power, then I disagree.
13 MR. BECKERLEY:
As far as I know, the only thing 14 we do now is issue annual reports.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I would prefer, instead 16 of NRC 1.icense activities, licensing.
17 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
In fact, I had rea:f it to 13 be licensing.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So had I.
20 MR. SECKERLEY:
That's correct.
I t's suppo sed to 21 ce licensing.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
On licensingactivity, I 23 would agree.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I read it that way.
Yo u 25 will spell "ac tivities" right in the final version, I trus"?
1674 237
62 9 65 14 kap MM i
Mayce yes, mayce no?
2 CHAIRMAN AHEAdNE:
Oka y, page six.
3 COVMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Page six, let's start at 4
the top.
Safety of power reactors will receive increased 5
NRC attention.
The top priority of this activity is based
.6 uoan the large potential consecuences of reactor accidents, 7
the realization of the greater uncertainty in the 3
probabilities of these accidents.
9 It's not in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, 10 gentlemen, it's in the af termath of tne reexamination of
.11 DASH-14CO by the Lewis group.
Three.dile Island gives us 12 neither more or less about the precabilities of accidents.
13 And the crack aoout the publ.ic perception that currently 14 operating reactors are not safe enough, I find an 15 unnece ssary breast beating.
16 COMMISSIONER 3RADFOdD You would just dele t e 17 that?
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I would put greater 19 uncertainly in the probability of these accidents, period, 20 and then delete through whet is the end of the sentence.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFOAD:
That's fine.
22 CHAIRMAN \\HEARNE:
Okay.
Any mo re on that. Joe?
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Then, acout t he m iddl e o f 24 the page, I had a suggestion.
fhe upgrading older reactors 25
-- I thought it would be a more consistent s t a te me nt. more 1674 238
63 9 05 15 kao
'M i
consistent with the SEP program, to make that item 2
completing integrated safety assessment, asse ssments of 3
older reactors and implementation of any saf ety imoro v em ent s 4
fou-ne c e ssa ry.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 s
t$
17 18 19.
20 21 22 23 24 25 1674 239
9 0'6 01 64 gshMM I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Simply give tha t to OPE.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does that mean anything 3
different than this?
4 MR. SECKERLEY:
Yes, I think it implie s the 5
integration of the effort on the systematic evaluation 6
program.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I can understand the difference o
in the specifics.
What I'm saying, is there any difference 9
in the policy because I found this much clearer.
10 MR. HANRAHAN:
You found upgrading older
.11 reac tors --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
13 MR. HANRAHAN:
I don' t find the word " upgrading" 14 clear at all.
It seems to be common currency.
15 I would put it more in terms of older reactors would be 16 r,4uired to meet the level of protection.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Why coesn't Joe 18 give you his line?
19 MR. BECKERLEY:
We have it here.
20 COMMISS IONEd HENDRI E:
In the bullet ahead of 21 tha t, resolving important generic saf e ty i ssues, gooc, and 22 implementing -- could we have any required changes in all 23 reactors' 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That sounds reasonable.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Implementing any ch.nges in 1674 240
9 Oo d2 65 gsnMM i
all reactors seem to sweep a little broad, even for us.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would have preferred in tha t 3
sentence to have something on improving the training 4
qualifications, et cetera, of operating personnel.
5 The emphasis there really seemed to be much more upon the 6
machinery.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Top of page 5, as long as 8
you're allowing me to run my list out.
I'm not sure that I 9
care to take as a general pro position of policy guidance 10 that enforcement -- that the basis of enforcement levels is
.11 to make it more expensive one way than another.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It sounded pretty good in one 13 of, I think, the basic philosophies of a system of enforcing 14 compliance is to try to remove the economic incentive from 15 the organization you are trying to address, remove the 16 economic incentive of not complying because if there is an 17 economic -- if it's an economic decision and the economic 18 advantage is to delay compliance as long as possible, then I 19 think that you have developed a situation in which the 20 tem pt a tion, strong temptation, will be to delay.
21 MR. BICKWIT:
It's your concern.
You don't want 22 to emphasize that e xclu si vely.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We have never attempted to 24 regulate on the basis of -- on a cost penalty basis.
Ano 25 w ha t bothers me is the following.
Comes now before us a 1674 241
19 06 03 66 gsnMM i
plant in which they are doing something that we think is 2
wrong.
3 We think it's wrong because we think i t's no t concucive 4
to saf e ty.
If ne think that enough so that we would be 5
willing to charge s100,000 a day indefinitely in order to 6
provide an economic incentive for him to do it our way, why 7
don't we issue a show-cause order, or an immediately 8
eff ective order saying, do it or shut down.
9 That is, I don't like the proposition of some how our 10 saf ety regulation has now this flavor that we will keep
.11 escalating the cost until we compel compliance on a cost 12 basis.
13 And that's not the way tha t we have regula ted.
If it's 14 neeced for saf ety and we absolutely are convinced of tha t,
15 and are convinced tha t he ought to ao it in order to run the 16 plan, then we just say do it.
17 fou don't like it, shut the plant down, rather than le saying, you know, we will outlast you on the dollar race.
IV CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No.
I think the subject there 20 tha t's being addressed here is the ca se where you have a 21 regulation and it turns out that it wasn't comolied with.
22 And so now you are ordering them to comply with it, but now 23 you're going to penalize them for not having complied.
24 The question is Do you want to make e x pl ic i t the point 25 that that pe nal ty, in evaluating that penalty, we will take 1674 242
59 Go b4 67 gshMM l
into consideration this f actori namely, are you going to be 2
telling the licensee or the peo ple that you are regulating 3
t ha t if you don't come into compliance and we at some later 4
stage find out that you didn't come into compliance, we will 5
penalize you more than it would have cost you to put the 6
stuff in to start with.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I find that still a cumbersome 8
basis to take as a central -- as a guiding principle in Y
determining penalties.
10 Part of what you consider in enforcement actions are the
.11 severity of the damage done, the safety protection of the 12 plant, to what extent the -- i t's a circumstance where the 13 licensee didn't realize that he had that problem.
Did he do 14 everything that a prudent operator should do to make sure
.15 that he didn't na ve it?
16 Or is the reason he dian't know about it t ha t he wasn't 17 watching caref ully?
And a whole series of things of this 18 kind which are a li ttle bit a par t from deciding that if you 19 had put this "whimmus" in'or. closed the value or whatever, 20 tha t would have been so much cost per day.
And tha t's the 21 basis upon which we're going to assign enforcement.
22 I think you get things out of whack.
23 Su ppose the thing is like the Palisades ca se, where they 24 didn't get a valve closed af ter a containment purge or a 25 leak check, or something like t ha t.
Now what we think is 1674 243
>906d5 68 gshMM i
it's pretty serious because there was a hole in one of the 2
last ditch def ense-in-depth barriers and if you say, well, 3
we are going to enforce on the basis that i t's go ing to --
4 we're going to penalize him so that it's more expensive f or 5
him to take the penalty than to have closed the valve.
6 Now the cost of closing the valve, you know, was about 7
s2.50 18 months ago.
And even compounded forward with 8
escalation, it ain't going to get much of an enforcement 9
penalty out of that, okay?
10 We think it's a heck of a lot more serious than that.
.11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
But that's not the kind 12 of case that they're trying to addre ss.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, no.
Wha t you're 14 dealing with here is a very general statement under policy 15 guidance.
And in a few words, in two lines, you're setting 16 a policy f or enforcemen t.
17 And I object to the proposition that there isn't t ha t 18 by putting it in here this way, you give this aspect of 19 deciding civil penalties a predominance which it doesn't 20 deserve.
And you don't point out that there are all kinds 21 of other things that have equal weight in coming in, and so 22 on.
23 You know, this section is going to end up lacelled II, 24 Policy and Planning Guidance, A, protecting the public and 25 the environment, okay?
Here come s No.
1, policy guidan ce,
1674 244
i9 G6 b6 69 gshMM i
you know, and the ninth i tem in it 1.s that NRC will 2
emphasize prompt and vigorous enf orcement.
3 That's good.
Tha t's where the period ought to be.
Tha t 4
will increase licensee's incantive for compliance by making 5
the expected cost of inadequate protection greater than that o
of adequate pro te c tion.
7 And this is the only thing under this prominent lead 8
heading of policy guidance that speaks to enforcement of 9
policy, okay?
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That I agree with you, t ha t it
.11 should have other aspects of the enforcement policy.
I 12 guess I disagree with you that that should be one of the 13 factors.
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I wouldn't disagree.
It 15 ought to be one of the factors, too.
16 Wha t I would recommend to you is that we say NRC will 17 emphasize prompt and vigorous enforcement, period, for this 18 section, and then go back to a later section, planning lY guidance, or whatever, where you talk about the enf orcement 20 program in enough detail so that this can be inserted with 21 the other elements that go in with an enforcement and have 22 some reasonable bounds.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think you have all 25 reachea now exactly the point in my memo -- I had been going 1674 245
39 06 07 70 g s n!.tM 1
to say when you were starting with the Palisades example.
2 We are coming very close to what had troubled me about 3
the section.
I t doe sn' t state a complete enforcement policy 4
and it's a mistake to highlight tha t one f eature by putting 5
it up at the heao of this document.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
7 MR. BICKWIT:
It has the ring of saying that if a 8
licensee chose to bear that cost, he could.
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, I don't like tha t, 10 either.
My a ttitude is if we need it, it has to be done.
.11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But Peter's phrase is the point 12 I think they were trying to get at should never be to its 13 aavantage to choose to violate the regulations.
14 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
15 CH, AIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's i t.
16 MR. HANRAHAN:
You want to include that thought up 17 here.
I'll put tha t whol e second thought back in tne 18 planning.
, HAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think the second t houg ht C
19 20 should go back. I would have no problem with Peter's phrase.
21 The question is how do you then spell it out?
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think it's better off 23 back where you can talk about it as a cackage and make 24 Peter's point as a guiding principle, and then there are 25 these other elements that are considered and so on.
1674 246
99 Gu 08 71 g shMM 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, okay.
So Peter's thought 2
would be up there, right?
3 COMMISSIONER 3RACFORD:
At least for this round.
4 MR. HANRAHAN:
At least f or this round.
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
All right.
With gra teful 6
thanks for your considera tion here and presuming that back 7
on that intervenor f unding pa ragra ph, I couldn't get you to 6
say a poorly informed majority of the commi ssion --
9 (Laugnter. )
10 COMMISS IONER HENDRIE:
I will shut up.
.11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
If you want to, I will go on 12 with the poorly informed majority, if you will go on to say, 13 and an ignorant minority.
14 (Laughter.)
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And a minority no be tter of f.
Io How about tha t?
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No worse off.
16 (Laughter.)
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, did you have anything --
20 COMMISS1dNER SRACFORD:
(Inaudible).
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would suggest that in this 22 sec tion, which is back on page 8, where you are talking 23 about the emergency re sponse capabilities, I wo uld li k e -- I 24 think that you ought to add in clearly, since we do have 25 thi s pro po sed rule-out, I think you could begin reflecting 1674 247
69 06 Oy 72 g shMM i
t ha t in planning guidance.
And I'm not sure whether you 2
want to revisit this somewhat based upon FEMA's expanced 3
role, which I recognize hasn't been completely clear yet.
4 But, nevertheless, I think tha t we ought to reflect that 5
FEh,.. will certainly be doing the review of the emergency 6
plans of the states and counties and we will be working with 7
them.
6 MR. H/NRAHAN:
Yes, good thought.
y CHAIRMAN AHEARN E:
Anything else?
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I'm just going to do 11 with the last couple of sections what I did with my memo in 12 the f irst cou ple.
13 MR. BICKWIT:
I think the Commission ought to 14 f ocus on how it wants to handle export policy.
15 That's all I have to say.
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Benign neglect i sn' t a lo satisf ac tory solu tion.
Let's see.
Ed, w ha t kind of Iv responses did you get?
20 MR. HANRAHAN:
I t was neglec t and benign.
21 MR. BECKERLEY:
Only one commi ssioner commented 22 t ha t export policy should be included.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, I did.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, bu t Peter, you're comment 25 was tha t you would dele te the note and say some thing 1674 248
59 Oo l0 73 gshMM i
e x plici t abou t ex port licensing.
2 COMMISS IONER BRADFORD:
The note says that we're 3
not going to say anything explicit about a number of things.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
Did you have a 5
suggestion as to what that explicit statement should be t ha t 6
you think could carry a majority of the commission?
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It seemed to me in a 8
couple of other areas, and I can try and work out some thing Y
in more detail, we had, for example, on NEPA taken at least 10 a whack at saying what we t hought t ha t law meant for us, and
.11 t ha t somehow by coing that with NEP A, by doing it with 12 enforcement policy, by no t doing it for export policy, we 13 were suggesting that the NNPA f ell into a void somewhere 14 be tween the anti-trus t stuff that we were explicitly saying 15 nothing abou t, and the va'rious things that we were saying 16 something about.
17 That didn' t seem to me to be the right place f or it.
I 16 didn' t go f ur ther ana try to work out a bulle t on export 19 policy, but I think i t could be done.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As I recall, sometime back in 21 the earlier versions, I suggested that there be something 22 mentioned in the export policy, but without much greater 23 assistance than --
24 MR. BECKERLEY :
We sent a memorandum on that on 25 December 5tn.
We had an attachment to a statement about 1674 249
39 C6 11 74 gshMM i
this as of December 5th.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I started working with it 3
December.Ilth.
4 MR. SECKERLEY :
Just remember, we addre ssed tha t 5
in the earlier memorandum and gave our reasons why we f elt 6
maybe it was premature.
Bu t on the o ther hand, we did make 7
t he suggestion that you might want to identify certain d
specific topics concerning export policy, which we could v
then oevelop some pa pe r s.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's worth re-examining 11 before Friday. -
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think the problem we 13 have is what should they say?
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
How about the commi ssion 1
believes that we, should have an export policy?
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's up to the United States le Government or the Commi ssion.
19 MR. GOSSICK:
Here's one suggestion that came from 2C staff (hands document to the Chairman.)
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
NRC will continue to clarify 22 its role in consulting with the Executive Brarch on nuclear 23 export matters as required by the NNPA, pursue revisions to 24 its export regulations concerning minor exports, and those 25 presenting no significant prolif eration concern s, and work 1674 250
W Co 12 75 gs n M i
with the Executive 3 ranch in developing a standard format 2
f or their analysis of license a pplications in order to 3
expedite expert cases.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sounds like planning.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sounds like program.
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Program guidance or 7
some thing like th a t.
e Now if we had one sentence to just take note of it 9
somehow -- well, we could commit to obeying the NNP A.
10 (Laughter.)
.11 MR. SECKERLEY :
On advice of counsel.
!2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or at least the best 13 effort.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't think thet we need to 15 go that far.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is, in fact, a two 17 sentence juxtaposition somewhere in the.beginning of the le NNPA about being the reliable supplier, and at the same time 19 preventing proliferation.
20 I think it's supposed to guide us in the se areas.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right, fine.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Tha t might be a starting 23 point.
It seems to me to be a t least as concre te as what we 24 have said about several others.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Okay, Ed, do you 1674 251
59 06 13 76 gshMM i
think that you can -- I realize the time is very tight.
But 2
I tnink that you have got to ge t it to us no later than 3
Tbursdey af ternoon.
4 You picked up an extra day here at the table.
5
( Laug hte r. )
6 MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Chairman, has the ma tter of 7
fiscal guidance sort of dropped out of the package, or is e
that still an issue ?
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think fiscal guidance ought 10 to be incluc d.
We really need a proposal f rom the e
11 controller, though, for that.
That's not something --
12 COMMISSIOllER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
Fiscal 13 guidance, how would you phrase a sentence of fiscal 14 guidance?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What fiscal guidance does is it 16 indicates sort of the planning wedge area in which the 17 of fices -- it's really guidance f or budge t develo pmen t.
It to does a couple of things.
It says that you can go no higher 19 than this or if there are some areas where you don't want 20 t hem to go any lower than, it can be very specific.
21 But I don't think at our stage of development, the 22 process would be t ha t s pe c if ic.
23 Sut it's an attempt that as the budget and of f-structure currently what he does 24 begins to pu t toge ther the budget 25 is he Icoks at what he wa s given last year out of the 1674 252
29 C6 I 4 77 gsnMM I
Congress, and then he looks at whether his estimated 2
requirements -- and ordinarily, tho se substantially exceed 3
anything the Congress gave them -- so then the rest of the 4
budget review proce ss is ordinarily an attempt to squeeze 5
down what the office director had originally developed.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Bu t it's a guidance that 7
is -- it doesn't go sort of paragraph by paragraph with this 6
document.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no.
It's a different 10 c hara c t er.
It's really the commission saying to all of the 11 o f fice oirectors, here is where we currently think you ought 12 to be thinking about the kinds of resources you ought to be 13 asking for and fit your programs into this.
14 Embedded in that is that if the o.ffice directors really 15 have a strong reason for believing it should go larger, then 16 they can make that argument.
But it se ts their f ramework 17 for the original planning.
It then allows the original 16 budget review process to focus much more on the marginal lv changes rather than the gross changes that of times are 20 needed in the bucget review process.
21 I t's a usef ul planning t oo l.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It sounds like the first 23 document that one would want to develop af ter finishing this 24
- one, s
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Tha t's r ight, and it's 1674 253
iv Oc 15 78 g s nM.1 I
something that the controller --
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
You can take it to various degrees 3
as to telling programmers which can expect increa sed 4
resources and wnich ought not to expect increased resources.
5 VR. HELLER:
I'd like to comment on that for a o
moment.
Fiscal guidance need not necessarily be looked at 7
as a constraining device always to push down on the of fice 6
director's request.
In fact, there may be some areas where 9
the commission believes that more emphasis on a particular 10 program is nece ssary than the officers have put on it so 11 far.
And you might say to reach this --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You can then put some 13 floors on it, saying no Jower than this in this area.
14 That's right.
15 MR. HELLER:
Would you like us to come back in 16 this next 'rersion with some very rough proposals?
4 C+3 17 CHAIRMAN AHEAndE Yes, I think with the 16 controller, the two of you.
19 MR. HELLER:
Fine.
2C MR. HANRAHAN:
Not by Fricay?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: No, I don't think we really 22 ought to focus on that. I think you and the controller -- I 23 think that can come in January.
24 All right.
Thank you.
Very good.
25 (Whereupon, a t 11: 30 a.m.,
the hearing was 20 aa journed. )
1674 254
.