ML19296B573
| ML19296B573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/18/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8002210101 | |
| Download: ML19296B573 (57) | |
Text
s.
BRIB!NA!.
b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF POLICY, PLANNING & PROGRAM GUIDE
{
e
. i'. :..
Place.
Washington, D. C.
Date -
Friday, 18 January'1980 Pages 1 - 58 t
(
7.t. phen.:
(202)347-3700 ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponers 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001
' NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-DAILY 8002210 h
i 1
'R9252 x
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Friday, 18 January 1980 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 fermal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the commission may authorize.
G
.g' S
e 2
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C E9.,22 f
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
l PUBLIC MEETING l
4 DISCUSSION OF POLICY, PLANNING & PROGRAM GUIDE 5l I
6 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
7 Washington, D. C.
8 Friday, 18 January 1980 9
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.
10 BEFORE:
11 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 13 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 Messrs. Hanrahan, Bickwit, Bassett, and Conver.
16 l
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
- 9., sal Reporters, Inc.
25 l
I
e 20101 3
TM I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Once again we meet on the 2
planning -- policy planning and program guidance.
3 I would like to start the meeting by briefly 4
attempting to review for the Nth time what policy planning 5
and programming are.
6 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKYs This is policy planning 7
program 101.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It may be remedial. Policies 9
are very broad.
In general, it is broader than the NRC has 10 been used to calling policy statements.
.11 Much of what we call policy statements are really 12 planning sta tements.
13 For an example, policy-type statements would be, 14 nuclear energy is good or nuclear energy is bad.
15 Now we do have some policy statements in this 16 document.
For example, 2A, which basically that licensed 17 nuclear activities will be regulated to achieve and maintain 18 adequate protection to the public health and safety.
19 That's a policy statement.
2C Another policy statement would be 1.
That 21 adequate public health and safety will be. defined by 22 integration over a case-by-case decision until it is better 23 defined.
24 Planning-type statements could be keep all 25 reactors operating.
That would link to a policy statement s-
f a
' 01 02 4
'M i
of nuclear energy is good.
Or it could be close all 2
reactors.
That would be linked to a policy statement that 3
nuclear energy is bad.
4 We do have planning statements in here 'or it that 5
- 1. ink to the adequate health and safety policy.
For 6
example, using risk assessment to better define risk to the 7
use of public input to develop this be tter understanding of 8
r is k.
9 One would then go on into programs which would 10 be -- f or example, specific programs for the probabilistic
.I l analysis or specific programs for the public input.
12 Now as far as the document we have here, this is 13 neither a complete nor a final version.
The theory of this 14 type of document is. that -it evolves.
15 If we can agree that it's a reasonable document, 16
.we can cycle it through the senior staff, what is called 17 participatory management. To get the senior staf f behind it, 18 they have to be given the opportunity to comment, to say 19 that there are better ways of saying this or here's a big 20 gap, or to argue.
21 They may have a major disagreement.
We can 22 examine their comments and arguments, either accept, reject 23 or modify and then stamp it.
24 It would be the first year's e ffort.
It will be 25 redone next year.
People will better understand what it is,
2 01 03 5
g.AM i
how to think in these terms.
It will be closer to what we 2
.want and need.
3 Cardinal Newman once said that nothing would be 4
done at all if a man waited until he could do.it 'so well, 5
that no one could find fault with it.
6 The GAO has recently said, the NRC has taken too 7
long to develop policies.
And one reason is the lack.of 8
firm commissioners' direction.
~~
9 This is an opportunity.
And then as my wife might
. ~. -. - - -... -. - _
10
- say, "kazo pon, husho son."..
..(Phonetid)'
~
.11 COMNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, Maimonides once 12 said, if not now, when?
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So with that lengthy 14 introduction, perhaps we can move to Ed'.s introduction.
I 15 assume we all read it.
16 Co.MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there a quiz on this?
17 (Laughter.)
18 MR. HANRAHAN:
I would like to remind Commissioner 19 Gilinsky that he prepared the first 8 questions.
20 (L aught er. )
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
First, what I would like to do 22 is to see if we can't reach some sense of agreement on this 23 revised version, or ask Vic how he would propose reaching 24 such agreement.
25 I gather that the questions were. developed in
i 2 01 04 6
y '(M i
conjunc tion between you and Hanrahan.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Yes, we sat down and tried 3
to write down what we thought were some of the basic 4
questions that needsd to be answered by the commissioners.
5 MR. HANRAHAN:
We cross-walked those to what had 6
been prepared in the December 20th draft, which is given in 7
enclosure 2, and found a reasonably close correspondence ~
8 between the two, with only one exception, which was siting 9
policy, which is being developed.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would say two exceptions:
.11 One exception with citing policy.
The second exception, 12 which, in going back through and looking at the questions, 13 it seemed clear that there was no major policy statement on 14 research.
15 MR. HANRAHAN In.which --
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the policy section, it 17 really wasn't a statement on research.
18 MR. HANRAHAN:
It was more in the planning area.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So there really had to be a 20 policy statement on research.
21 C0YMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Incidentally, these 22 questions are formal that we f eel it can't be changed.
23 These are just our contribution, our thoughts.
24 MR. HANRAHAN2 I think as a result of both 25 p roc e ss e s, I think we came essentially roughly to the same
2 01 05 7
- MM i
point, one in the form of raising issues, and another 2
developing polic y statements.
3 My own f eeling is that we are at a point now where 4
we can go to those policy statements because the issues have 5
been thought about.
First, they.were thought about in the 6
staff.
Norm Haller and company developed the initial 7
draft.
And then Commissioner Gil.insky.
~
8 So with that, I.would suggest that we turn to the 9
beginning and begin again to go through the document.
10 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
You would say page-by page
.I l going through --
12 (Simultaneous discussion.)
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In theory, now that. yau have 14 modified it, as a result of --
15 MR. HANRAHAN:
We have marked with a bar In the 16 lef t-hand margin those things that have undergone some 17 change.
I think we ought to only address again those things 18 that were changed in the last. draft.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Maybe yes, maybe not.
But is 20 it agreeable to go through the document?
21 COMMI.SSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
22 CO MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
" Agreeable" may not be the 23 right word, but I think we have to do it.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Let's look a t the 25 first page, then, which is the fiscal year >82 >86.
And
e 20106 8
g" 1M 1
the major change there has been the inclusion of a section, 2
I think, Peter, you suggested.
3 MR. HANRAHAN Yes, it was draf ted by Commissioner 4
Bradford with some editorial by Commissioners Hendrie --
5 CO MMISSIONER BRADFORD It was gutted by Joe and 6
John.
7 (Laughter.)
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Since I accepted it in its 9
version before, I have no problem with accepting it this 10 t im e,.
.II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The only - it's not 12 something I would insist on.
I was just curious of the 13 evolution of what's now the first sentence in the second 14 paragrapn.
15 I had. included a f urther phrase in there 16 indicating what I meant by " complacency."
Joe had then 17 struck the entire sentence,. including what you have in 18 here.
And it somehow has now come back with about half of 19
.what had been my first sentence.
20 I don't mind it in the. form that it is now, but I 21 wondered how you got what you have here.
22 MR. HANRAHAN Attempting to strike it, which may 23 have not been very good.
24 I was trying to accommodate both.
25 CO MMTSSIONER BRADFORD:
I would prefer the long
? 01 07 9
- r' MM i
way, but I know Joe pref erred to take it all out.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I must say that I'm not 3
sure that I'd k eep it.
You know, these are things that are 4
very similar to what I have said in talks and speeches and 5
believe, but I'm not sure that it belongs in a document of 6
this sort.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought it was required 8
for people to memorize.
9 (La ughte r. )
10 MR. HANRAHAN:
I.f you recall our last discussion,
.11 the introduction se ssion was to provide the backdrop and the 12 remainder of it -- there was much less here and Commissioner
!3 Bradford thought that there was a need to paint in a 1Lttle 14
.more background.
15 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY I don't know.
I have to 16 say that I -- I don't know that I'd put this paragraph in, 17 that policy, planning, and program guidance document is the 13 place for self-flagellation, however much it may be in place 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You view it as such.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Well, I wouldn't say 21 strictly.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We.11, put that mit there is a 23 common flaw" aside.
How about the rest of it?
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Nell, you know, it's not 25 anything that I'd disagree with.
I guess I would have gone
? 01 08 10
'N I
for a much sparer sort of document.
2 It just has the bare essentials of' guiding rather 3
than a sort of cry from the heart.
4 (L aught er. )
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Some of the flavor of -- one of 6
the purposes of this kind of document is to give the 7
commissie" taff a true measure of the basic approaches of 8
the commission.
And you say. that it tracks closely to the 9
point you have been making in speeches.
10 Then I.think that lf you'd been saying that. on the
.I l outside, it is very appropriate to present that flavor in 12 the inside.
13 This is trying to set the tone that you think 14 ought to be set for the commission, for the staff.
15 If you have that perspective of the world, then 16 it's appropriate -- and if the rest 'of the commission shares 17 it, or if a majority, then it is appropriate to say, here is 18 a. perspective of the world that you believe is appropriate 19 for the NRC.
20 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
That was basically my 21 feeling in putting it together.
I think someone, perhaps 22 S t e ve, indicated, or Norman indicated, that the first round 23 of this had been drawn in some measure from the 24 commissioners' speeches.
25 And it seemed to me maybe we should communicate e.
01 09
.l l
.= ' MM i
some of the things that I've been saying since I give some 2
speeches, too, by a more direct route.
3 4
5 6
7
~
8 9
10
.11 12 13 14 p'\\
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
20201 12 3'
'4M i
COWWISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we pass on this.
2 because there's no disagreement on substance, but concern 3
whether this is the place --
4 MR. HANRAHAN The next page was a discussio.n of 5
Sec t io n II, the policy guidance level of protection.
We recast A and B there on the basis of 6
7 ins tructions at the last meeting.
I believe the caption was 8
designed out of that instruction.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I-A, I think you meant 10 determine on a case-by-case basis.-
.11 MR. HANRAHAN Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I-B, the second line from 13 the bottom, are you asking for public Judgments or public 14 advice?
15
.I thought we did -- Congress, when they pass 16 statutues, give us their judgment.
But in th,e intera ctions,
17 I thought that we were looking for public ' advice.
18 MR. HANRAHAN:
Advice, I think, is the co rr ec t 19 interpretation.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Le t's s e e.
We're l ooking 21 at this level of protection?
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
23 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would throw in the word, 24
" implicitly," and say NRC has determined on a case-by-case 25 basis the le vel of protection.
! 02 02 13
- ' MM l
CHAIRMAN AHEARME: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY And then say we seek to 3
define that level more clearly, or something like that, in 4
greater particularity.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or explicitly.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
More explicitly or 7
something like that.
I think that we ought to be pusning 8
hard in that direction, but at the same time, it's not clear 9
at this point just how f ar you can go.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE Oka y.
Seek to define more J1 clearly.
12 CO MMISSIONER BRADFORD*
Those changes are f ine.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY8 Now in B, are we saying 14 that we will describe more clearly than before or we'll 15 continue to describe, or what,. the risks in nuclear 16 ac.tivities?
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE8 As f ar as policy, it is saying 18 that it is our policy to describe.
19 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At that level, I think 20 it's pretty obvious. It seems to me that we have to say to 21 the staf f that -- don't let up on what you're doing or do 22 be tter than.be. fore, or you're doing t oo much.
23 And some sense of whether past descriptions were 24 insufficient.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I'm not sure about
2 02 03 14
- p.. MM i
insufficient, but I would certainly have no -- what we're 2
trying to do is picking up again your "more clearly."
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or will increase 4
its e fforts to describe, or something like that.
5 In other words, someone who is reading this needs 6
to know, does he have to do more than he did before?
Is he 7
doing okay?-
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, increase e f forts.
9 MR. HANRAHAN:
On this next Section 2, achieving 10 adequate protection, discussion last time was one, how to
.I l describe the trade-off of costs, where it could be 12 appropriate to be made and where it.couldn't.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE8 And that was one of the 14 questions, to.what extent should f actors of other things 15 than environmental protection be considered?
16 MR. HANRAHAN2 There are two options here where 17 you asked us to. work with the general' counsel's office.
18 We managed to come up with two options.
I'm 19 troubled with the second one.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does the general counsel accept 21 that we can say --
22 MR. BICKNIT:
No.
23 CHARMAN AHEARNE You do not accept we can say 24
" e i the r" ?
25 MR. BICKWIT:
No, only the second.
v 20204 15 g;.dM I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You say we can only say the 2
second?
3 MR. BICKW IT:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I was about to vote for the 5
first.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. BICKWIT Let's put it this way.
You could 8
s a y t he f tr. t.
I think it's an overly restrictive s
9 interpretation of. what you can do under the statute.
10 MR. HANRAHAN:
I'm troubled by the first
.11 sentence.
The rest of it -- it's really the first 12 sentence --
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The first sentence of what?
14 MR. HANRAHAN:
Of the general counsel's.
Some 15 consideration of costs would be appropriate in deciding 16 whether an adequate level of protection is being maintained.
17 If you are deciding whether the adequate level of 18 protection is met, you can consider cost.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can or can't.
20 MR. HANRAHAN:
Can, according to that sentence.
21 That troubles me.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
That's the difference.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me -- if I can take 24 you back to A, it seems to me A needs to acknowledge that 25 everything turns on. how you define " adequate," which will be
2 02 05 16 y 1M 1
dealt with in subsequent paragraphs.
Otherwise, it's kind 2
o f --
3 MR. HANRAHAN2 Section I said that we're going to 4
attempt to define what we think is the adequate protection.
5 Now this sec tion says, here's the way we're going to go 6
about achieving that.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I see.
It says the level 8
o f pro tec tio n -- ok a y.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So it leads in.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
Sorry, I withdraw
.I 1
.my objection.
12 MR. HANRAHAN:
The first sentence troubles me, as 13 I've said.
14 MR. BICKWIT I gue ss -- I'll tell you my view of 15 this. You might want to change "would" to "may," not to say 16 that we are leaving it totally up in the air.
17 What we meant by that is that you can take costs 18 into account in deciding what is adequate protection.
19 But every regulator will come to a point as f ar as 20 levels of protection are concerned below which costs are 21 simply not relevant.
22 CO MMISSIGNER BRADFORD That is, you wouldn't 23 allow the activity, anyway.
24 MR. BICKWIT That's right.
So to say it may be 25 overly broad to say "would be" because that might be
20206 17 7 ' VM i
interpreted as meaning no matter what the judgment, costs 2
should be considered where it's clear that there will come a 3
time where any judicious regulator will say, to hell with 4
costs.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Even that isn't clear.
It 6
comes down to a matter of definition.
7 You could argue at that level, the safety factor 8
becomes so important that the costs would.have to be 9
unbelievably high in order to overcome those saf ety 10 considerations.
But I'm not sure that it's a useful way to
.11 think about it.
12 MR. HANRAHAN:
I.think I understand why I have 13 problems. It's probably. interpretation of adequate level.
14 My internal reading of that is minimum adequate 15 level, I gue ss is what I would say, that then.one could not 16 consider costs.
17 You're reading.it as --
18 MR. BICKWIT:
I'm reading " adequate!' as the wa y 19 it's used in the statute.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But Len, are you saying that 21 the first version you think is more flexlble?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
L e.ss, less flexible.
23 It's the difference between the two that under the 24
.first you can't consider cost in establishing the level.
25 You simply have to -- you can only consider costs in
'02 07 18 1M 1
deciding the best way to attain it.
2 Under the second, you can consider them in 3
establishing the le vel itself.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I thought the.first was more or 5
less silent on whether you could.
6 MR. BICKNIT: By its silence, I think it indicates 7
that you can't.
8 COMMI.SSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't see how you can 9
get away f rom considering costs.
In one way or another, you 10 always consider costs.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You.would be more comfortable 12 with the second.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, I think so, except 14 that one needs to think hard and give guidance on I think 15 Just how it is -- how costs are to be factored in and what 16 is the right way and what is the wrong way.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
.I.think I'm in the 19 an on e -o f -t he-a bo ve. "
20 (Laughter.)
21 In that position.
It seems to me there ought to 22 be some way to combine what both are saying.
I agree with 23 Ed.
That is conceptually -- there is a point in any 24 particular case for no matter what the prospective licensees 25 say to you about cost, you would simply say that the
20208 19 J' VM 1
activity -- unless that level of protection is achieved, you 2
can't go forward.
3 So costs, at least economic costs, certainly would 4
be irrelevant for any practical purpose under this statute 5
as we have it now.
6 At the same time, beyond that threshold, certainly 7
there are situations where you would say, at this particular 8
level, additional protection is worth achieving if it can be 9
done easily.
10 The whole ALARA concept, in some ways, is based on
.11 that.
And it seems to me there ought to be some way to 12 combine those two considerations.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs You don't think the second 14 version quite does that?
15 CO NNISSIONER BRADFORD:
The second version, I 16 think -- and Len has said as much here -- seems to say si 17 that -- I mean, even with the last sentence in it --
j 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The last sentence, I gue ss, is 19 the threshold.
20 CokNISSIONER BRADFORD:
But it makes it sound like 21 it's the odd case. I. think it's true in almost any case 22 there's some threshold you have to reach before costs become 23 at least a consideration that matters for any practical 24 purpose.
25
) 03 01 20
- " ' P/M i
MR. BICKWIT:
Certainly one change I would make 2
would go in the direction you're talking about, would change 3
"of" paramount ' consideratlon to "the" paramount 4
co ns ide r at io n.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, in fact, I think we 6
had that discussion back before you were here, because that 7
phrase appeared in the administration's siting and licensing 8
bill.
We put the word "the" in instead of "a."
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is "the" paramount?
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
We put it
.11 in following-a debate on whether it should be "a" or "the."
12 MR. BICKWIT:
I think you are required by a 13 Supreme Court case to put in "the."
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Instead of "would," Vic, would 15 you agree to "ma y"?
16 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
17 CHATRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, with those two I'll Join 18 Vic so we will at least be able to move on.
19 The bottom of page three you have put in -- or 20 other hazards associated with its operation.
Does anybody 21
.have any problem with that?
22 (No response.)
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
Page four, only minor changes.
24 Except for "e" we believe that the first option in the 25 previous draft was the ones desired, so we have included
) 03 02 21
' r - / VM 1
that one.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you waiting for me?
3 What is the question?
4 (Laughter.)
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARh*Es de had gone ahead changing this 6
to "may" and putting in "the," and then I joined you.
So 7
then the question was, they had made some minor changes down 8
at the bottom of that which Peter and I didn't have any 9
problem.with.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is this, now?
.11 MR. HANRAHAN Included for other hazards, in the 12 very last line.
13 So it's potential radiological --
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All right.
Let's see, do 15 you say more about when and how costs can be considered, or 16 is "b" it?
17 MR. BICKWIT:
I think "b" really is.it.
18 CHAIRMAN 4HEARNE:
As f ar as the policy statement 19 goes?
20 MR. BICKWIT:
Tha t's r ight.
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
The third sentence says 22 consideration of cost is always decided considering 23 alternative methods.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was thinking more of the 25 last sentence.
I think there -- I think more needs to be
3 03 03 22 coe/ MM i
said on that.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For example?
3 COMMISSIO:4ER GILINSKY:
Well, I don't know what 4
alternative to present to you, but I think it needs more 5
than sort of a throw-away line saying that when you get to 6
the applicat. ion the costs are going to be less relevant.
I 7
think that's generally right.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I think you have to make the 9
judgment how much you want to go into this document and how 10 much you want to go into the exercise we will undertake to
.11 implement this document.
I think it's an arbitrary 12 judgment.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Or you might put more specific 14 guidance in the planning section, where the agency, I think, 15 is in the process of trying to develop -- coming to grips 16 with this, trying to develop things in the planning 17 document.
You can give a little bit more specific guidance 18 on the direction you want the agency to go.
19 CO NNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Anyway, this requires a 20 lot of thought.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
22 MR. HANRAHAN:
On page four, there are basically 23 minor changes with the exception of the first -- the first 24 option f or Paragraph "e" was selected on the basis of our 25 understanding of the discussion at the last meeting.
) 03 04 23
- r ' MM i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Le t's s ee, have you dealt 2
with "d"?
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
"D,"
they had put in -- it used 4
to say " minimize their harmf ul consequences" in here; they 5
changed it to sa y " minimize their harmful e ffects on public 6
health and saf et y.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How about throwing in a 8
renewed commitment to material accounting?
I'll tell you 9
why.
Particular in view of the Commission's recent action, 10 which seems to point in the opposite direction, and where
.11 the Commission has relaxed the safeguards standards.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would take exception to 13 relaxing safeguard standards.
I would say that we have 14 realistically addre ssed in a real situation how they ought 15
-- what mixture of material control and accounting and 16 physical security is required to provide that adequate 17 protection.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you applied less 19 stringent material accounting requirements.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And balanced it by more 21 stringent physical security requirements.
22 COMMI.SSIONER GILINSXY:
But you know, initially 23 this Commission decided you can't make that balance.
It's 24 very similar to the case that is presented by reactor safety 25 and, you know, public protection emergency planning, where
) 03*05 24 c
'MM i
we said no matter how much e ffort you place on design 2
approval and so on, you still have got to have emergency 3
planning in place, and so on.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
5 COMMISSIOiiER GILINSKY:
And one doesn't compensate 6
in any simple way for the other.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It compensates, perhaps, in a 8
complex way.
9 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
dell, but we've said to a 10 substantial extent one is not to assume anything about the
.11 other, because we decided that you really need both kinds of 12 protection.
13 That was the view of the Commission on material 14 accounting and physical security, and I don't think the 15 Commission ought to change its view on that.
The way I 16 would regard the Erwin case, if I voted with you, would be 17 that it's just an. isolated case, which for special reasons 18 is being dealt with differently, rather than to say that the 19 physical security compensates for material accounting.
20 It's a different kind of protection and we some 21 time ago said that you really need both kinds of protection, 22 that they are two qualitatively different elements.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I certainly agree that you need 24 both kinds, but you have to be realistic.
I believe in 25 what --
) 03 06 25
- c.. / MM 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm not trying to replay 2
that case.
What I'm saying is:
I think it would be helpful 3
to, in a sense, isolate that case by reiterating the 4
Commission's intent to apply strict material accounting 5
requirements to commercial activities.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have no problem with " intent" 7
and with " apply" as long as they are realistic.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
See, the re you're ge tting 9
into a troublesome area.
What you're saying is if somebody 10 comes along with a commercial activity which doesn't have J1 all these national security strings attached to it,,ou also 12 apply that quote " realistic standard" -- and there, I think, 13 that is precisely the reason why I didn't want to tak e the 14 steps that the Comnission took.
15 There, I think, we're really getting into 16 trouble.
We really are watering down the safeguard 17 standards for the industry'and I think that will go on to 18 have implications in international e fforts.
I think it's 19 not necessary to make the decision that you made.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think anything you license or 21 regulate, there are benefits and costs that you balance and 22 the need for the product -- whether it be electricity or 23 material -- is part of the benefit.
And you balance that.
24 you can look at the benefit to be achieved by the operation 25 as part of the licensing process.
) 03 07 26 6r/MM I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have to say I am now 2
more sure that I did the right thing.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As am I.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I disagree with both of 5
you.
6 (Laughter.)
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Neither of us did the right 8
thing or both of us did.the right thing?
9 But rather than replaying that issue, perhaps --
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would be useful
.11 and very important both domestically and internationally to 12 say that we place very great importance on material 13 accounting and intend to increase our efforts in this area.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have no problem.
If you go 15 on to speak ln a policy statement about a specific decision.
16 I have a problem.
~
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wasn't trying to reverse 18 that decision.
I was trying to isolate it so that it didn't 19 spill over onto our regulation of other activities in the 20 commercial sector.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess what I was trying to 22 point out is I see it as part of a continuum. which wa s not 23 any significant shift, but I have no problem with the policy 24 statement saying we intend to place increased emphasis upon 25 MC&A.
) 03 08 27
- r"/MM I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 Let's do that.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's fine with me.
I 3
haven't had a problem with the original version.
Now that 4
you say public health and saf ety in here, it seems to me 5
that much of what we focus on as to thef t and conversion we 6
do under our common def ense end security rationale, a s much 7
or more than we do public health and saf ety.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Harmful consequences might 9
be --
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Harmful consequences. I J1 thought, covered both.
When you just say "public health and 12 saf ety," it seems to me --
13 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
I would be more comfortable 14 with that, because to correct it would now make it just even 15 longer and longer.
" Harmful consequences."
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You'll throw in a sentence 17 on that material accounting, Ed?
18 MR. HANRAHAN Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
"E"?
There had been two 21 versions and we chose one.
22 MR. HANRAHAN:
I believe they.were chosen on the 23 basis of the last meeting.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
25
0 04 01 23 K6g/ MM i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
This says 2
everything is high priority.
What did the other one say?
3 MR. BICKWIT:
The other one didn't apply the risk 4
reduction potential criterion to operating reactors, to 5
concentration on operating reactors.
6 It says " concentrate on operating raa' tors," and c
7 then beyond that, look at where yo > can do the most good.
I 8
agree that's not as sound as this option.
9 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As the one that's chos en?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is there lef t?
What 12
.has low priority?
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Antitrust?
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. HANRAHAN:
Export licenses?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Material accounting --
17 strike that.
18 (L aught er. )
19 MR. BICKWIT Within those categories low risk 20 reduction potent.ial.has lower priority than high risk 21 reduction.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Realistically the point is that 23 that paragraph doesn't do much. That's the problem.
24 COMMISSI0 DER GILINSKY:
Yes.
What is someone 25 going to carry away from that?
What it is supposed to do?
) 04 02 29
>~/MM 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
The former version of 2
the first paragraph at least focused upon -- or the other 3
version, I guess -- that you put your priority e ff ort on 4
activities that would achie ve the greatest reduction in
~
5 r is k.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You know, there's a time 7
f actor here, too, which complicates things.
The greatest 8
reduction -- if you said " greatest immediate reduction" in 9
risks then you'd always be working on operating f aciliti'es.
10 But in the other facilities, concrete is getting poured and
.11 decisions are ge tting made, that will affect risks down the 12 l ine.
13 And so, I think --
~
14 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
Take a look at this, then, on
,\\..
15 the.other side of the page.
The secono' version.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You know, this may be 17 another one of those questions like taking into account 18 econom ic s.
It just needs a lot more thought, be cause there 19 is the time element.
And I would say that this is 20 something that we want to -- you know, maybe giving initial 21 guidance that emphasizes cperating reactors, but saying that 22 this is something we really.want to take a hard look at.
23 CHAIRMAN AHE'aNE:
Of course what we're doing is 24 we tried to strugg's through the action plan -- is, in a
~
25 way -- looking at that, where do you focus your efforts?
30404 31 (r / MM i
branch, and what have you --
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was going to bring up 3
something else.
What about waste?
Is that considered to be 4
in an operating facility?
5 CHAIRMAll AHEARNE:
It's certainly a product of an 6
operating f acilit y.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the waste repository 8
licensing ef fort --
9 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The waste is sitting 10 there.
Suppose we're talking about mill tailings from
.11 abandoned mills.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Doesn't it tell Bill 13 Dircks to pay more attention to mill tailings than to the 14 waste repository?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Yes, it does.
16 COMMISSI')NER BRADFORD:
Whien is not really what 17 de want to tell him.
18 CHAIRM All AHEARNE:
That's not obvious.
19 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY Or to the licensing of the 20 unit as opposed ta dealing with tailings, abandoned tailings 21 piles or whatever.
22 COMMIST,IONER BRADFORD:
It's true if we had a 23 crisis in the sac:e day in both areas, I'd rather he solve 24 the mill tailings first.
But in terms of figuring out his
~
25 dollars and his time over a period of years --
1 04 06 33
'MM 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It has to be right.
~>
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If we thought that an 3
operating reactor in some way posed a threat to the public 4
health and safety or problems in operating reactors so that 5
generic safety issues have a higher priority than NEPA 5
issues in future licensing. I think that probably is right, 7
so to the extent we're talking about the focus on problems 8
in operating plants, yes.
9 MR. HANRAHAN:
So you're saying leave it just the' 10 public health and safety?
.11 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Yes.
12 MR. HANRAHAN*
So that paragraph will be prefaced 13 "in reactor regulation, priority - "
and so forth and so 14 on?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's a ll right.
In il earlier versions of.this document there were statements in 18 the early pages that recognize that we had overall 19 responsibilities for common defense and security, public 20 health and saf et y of. the environment.
Do they go in there?
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
You've got a footnote, haven't you?
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
There's a footnote.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
The first f ootnote.
~
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That was supposed to cover
) 04 07 34 (e ' MM i
antitrust?
2 MR. HANRAHAN8 It says the focus of this document 3
is on NRC's health, saf ety and environmental policies.
4 plans and programs, it's not intended to be all-inclusive.
5 That's sort of why it wasn't antitrust.
6
,, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right?
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Let me kind of 8
salvage that thought in a more concrete form, but we don't 9
have to do it here.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
If we could it would help.
.11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me -- why don't I 12 listen with one ear and let me do this.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
14 MR. HANRAHANs Paragraph "f" has a --
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Paragraph af" picks up the 16 statement we made in response to Press, right?
17 MR. HANRAHAN Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Isn't that 19 Just a repeat of what has already been said about including 20 costs of regulations?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No.
No, it's the initial 22 review.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What initial review?
24 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
Paragraph "f," down there at
~
25 the bottom, it talk s about --
) 04 08 35
'e - ' MM i
C'OMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I see.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then it pic ks up - Press is 3
the le tter that the commi ssion sent to Press.
4' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Isn't that a planning 5
statement?
6 CHA.IRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, it is.
7
.C0 MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
See, I'm learning.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEAR?Es Yes, it is a plaming 9
statement.
10
.11 12 13
. <h I4
__ l 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
CR 9200 36 MELTZER t-5 mte 1 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That last paragraph should be 2
in the planning --
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
Should_I put it in planning?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That last sentence, the policy 5
of systematically reviewing, the planning for that is when 6l it will be done.
Very good.
I 7!
MR. BICKWIT:
At the next meeting we'll be right 8
on it.
I 9l (Laughter.)
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We used to do this with the AEC.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's why we have this trouble I3 here.
I4 MR. HANRAHAN:
You're suffering the sins of your 15 past life.
16 (Laughter.)
I7 Paragraph G is again a change from the last -- no I8 major change from the last time.
It parallels with H, actually, from the last time.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Isn't that just obvious?
Doesitneedtobesaidthatwe'regoingtoencouragd 21 22 and support licensee initiatives?
l 23 CHAIRMA'i AHEARNE:
That, as I recall -- Buck or 24 Steve, didn't that generate up from the staff?
i Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes, it did.
37 mte 2 1
MR. BASSETT:
Yes, it did.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does it mean?
3l MR. BICKWIT:
How about if we said higher than 4
adequate level of protection?
It would have meaning.
You I
5 set a level and you say that's our level, and then you urge f
i 1
6l that it be bettered wherever possible.
We're not going to 7l 1
be content with maintaining that level.
I 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that what a higher level 9l means?
10 l MR. BICKWIT:
I don' t know what that means.
But if 1
11 you said higher than adequate, I think it would have some 12 significant meaning.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Higher than minimum NRC 14 levels; is that the sense of it?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, then, let's say that.
17 MR. HANRAHAN:
Will provide a higher than minimum 18 acceptable level of protection.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Than the required level or 20 something like that.
21 ;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Minimum NRC level.
22 MR. HANRAHAN:
Okay.
Does that finish page 4?
23 Page 5, the top first paragraph had the last 24 sentence added to it.
e Federst Reporters. Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have a lot of trouble with that
nte 3 0
1 one.
I think you're talking about operating license, termina-2 tion of operating licenses.
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Waste repository is still an 5
open issue as to what, af ter the operating license is termi-l 6l nated, you uight end up having -- you might have to have t
7l a permanent retention license of some sort.
And then the 8
waste that's being generated is the waste generated during the 9
operating lifetime.
You've got a potential hazard of the 10 decommissionedfacility, as well as the waste it generates.
=
11 I don' t think you're really sayhy that a. decommissioned 12 facility is generating waste.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Generated.
~
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's the waste it generated.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You can say associated wastes.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, I would -- I had a problem 17 with your last phrase, at least equal to the level of protec-18 tion provided during the term of the facility license.
I 19 think what we should be s aying is it shall be adequate to 20 protect the public health and safety.
I'm not -- I think we 21 are trying to set adequate levels of protection.
So, for 22 example, our waste repository criteria or waste disposal 23 criteria will be adequate protection to public health and 24 safety.
e
.cw a.myteri, inc.
25 Our regulation on operating reactors ought to
mte 4 39
- 1. protect the public health and safety.
We are having difficulty 2
defining those items, and to then establish it not only must 3
we be able to define it, we must be able to show that they are i
i 4l exactly equal.
I i
I am very uneasy about making that as our statement.
I 5.
l i
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I would think that I
7 you would have to say -- I would think the adequate level of 8
protection -- or let me put it this way.
The risk from the 9
facility or the risk per year ought to be less after it is i
i 10 decommissioned, because it's going to be around for a long Il time.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you see, the decommissioned 13 facility I'm not concerned with.
This is the paragraph that 14 originally was addressing waste mantgement, talking about --
15 we're talking about the wastes.
And I'm uneasy about tryidg 16 to say that we must have a well-defined link.
I think we are 17 trying to get adequate protection in both cases.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I didn't write this.
We 19 have been trying to put some meat on the bones of adequate 20 protection.
Sure, adequate protection -- I mean, we're charged 21 by law with havir;
- setting up a' system of providing 22 adequate protection to the public.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What was lost in going from the 24 previous version to this version is the future generations t
del Reporters, Inc.
25 aspect, which was listed, and I felt a significant point that
40 ste 5 1
we ought to be making with regard to any approach that we take 2
to waste management. Whereas with operating reactors our focus 3
is much greater on the near-te_a hazards, in the waste manage-l 4l ment area we really have to consider future generations.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you want to say, as well l
l 6 l as the associated wastes over the period that they pose a risk, l
7' or something like that?
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, something like that.
9 MR. BICKWIT:
Would you ever want to run greater 10 risks -- would you ever want to see greater risks associated 11 with the wastes than with the initial --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's not the point, Len.
The 13 point is it's the difference between going from a qualitative 14 to a quantitative.
A priori, I don't know whether the 15 quantitative description that we will end up with 'for reposi-16 tories will be of the same character as the quantitative 17 description as we will end up with for operating reactors.
18 If we say that they must be the same, then that says we must 19 use the same quantitative approach, and we havent yet reached 20 a conclusion of the quantitative approach for either.
21 I'm uneasy about establishing they must be the same.
22 That's the difficulty I was having.
23 MR. BICKWIT:
And you're uneasy about even saying 24 that they must be at least the same and perhaps less.
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In qualitative terms I have no
41 mte 6 1
problem.
It's when -- since the thrust of the earlier parts 2
of this are to make it quantitative, and I don't know the 3
character of how we're going to make it quantitative.
In 4
qualitative terms, no problem.
5!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you can say adequate i
6 Protection over the period that the wastes pose a risk.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
But I do'want to pick up 8
that future generation, the long-term aspect, which seemed to 9
disappear.
i 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What happens to all this 11 stuff on the left-hand page?
Has'that all disappeared?
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
It's either disappeared or 13 transferred over.
14 MR. HANRAHAN:
There was a slight reordering of 15 things which were put in this other.
A Actually came from the 16 previous page.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In other policies, I think we do 18 need some statement about the research program.
That came out 19 in a list of questions that were prepared.
There really is no 20 I policy addressing the research program.
For example, something 21 like, the fundamental objectives of the research program shall 22 be to assist in docermining what are adequate levels of 23 protection to public health and safety; and, two, to look for 24 ways to achieve improfed
. levels of protection and, in
..Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 particular, how to achieve the levels.
Some basic policy
42 ute 7 1
for the setting of the research program.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you want to go back and i
3 pick up that other thing?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A quick solution that sort I
i i
6 of occurred to me is to put a sentence in E on page 4 as the 7
second sentence saying, however, the Commission remains fully 8
committed to discharging all its str.tutory responsibilities.
9 What I'm really after is I wouldn't want to find the I
10, day when Harold came in and said, "I've climinted the cost benefi t r
II branch,"or EEO came in and said, "I've eliminated IP."
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You may have lost Commissioner 14 Gilinsky on that one.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD':
I thought I was going to lose 16 you on that one.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's fine.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is anyone going to carry 19 away from this one, though?
What are the priorities?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I hadn't, with that one 21 sentence, intended' to solve that problem.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That looks like it is a floor.
23 It says as a floor that if you are at the point where shifting 24 resources means that you drop coverage of something that's Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 required by law, that we don' t want you to do that.
43 nte 8 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because the stated priorities 2
in NRR since 1975 have put operating reactors at the top of the 3
list.
You.know, we have decided that the emphasis was not 4
sufficient and more emphasis needed to be put on operating 5.
reactors, and taking steps to do that.
In this document it I
I 6l
'1 seems to me we have to tell people, give them some guidance 7
on moving from where they'are now.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I viewed it more at least 9
in that set of sentences as reiterating our support for 10 putting operating reactors first.
There is a growing amount, 11 a large amount of pressure to shift resources to operators --
12 reactors that are not operating.
And it, I think, would be 13 more viewed as a reaffirmation of the Commission's position 14 that operating reactors are first priority.
15 MR. BICKWIT:
The second and third sentence, are 16 they supposed to be examples of implementation of the first?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about saying something 18 like this:
first priority goes to operating facilities, and l9 In dealing with other facilities, particular attention so on.
20 should be paid to decisions or decision points which would l
21 foreclose -- which, once having been passed, would foreclose 22 important safety options.
23 In other words, it may be terribly important to 24 look into reactors at earlier stages, you know, if they're e.,ral Reporters, Inc.
25 really moving forward.
44 mte 9 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Now, is that more narrow 2
than this --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm a little troubled with 4
just saying some thing has first priority, the other thing 5,
has high priority.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I was looking back on the other 7
side of the page, where it talks about assigning the rest of 8
priority by risk reduction potential.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's fine.
I think we 10 ought to have an explicit study or paper address this question, II just what the risk elements in it are.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, in practice we are doing 13 that as we try to work through the Action Plan.
I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Not explicitly.
That's sort 15 of a grab-bag of things.
You take some and don't take others.
16 But not with any -- with this kit,3 of view.
17 MR. HANRAHAN:
This should provide the principle.
18 It says, sort them out by operating reactors, and then sort I9 them out by those that have the greatest potential risk 20 reduction.
2I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There's the element of time 22 here which complicates things.
You know, risk when?
Integrated 23 risk?
Risk next year?
You know, it's not a simple question.
24 I think someone needs to sort this out.
Maybe that's some-eAwee Reporters, Inc.
25 thing for your office, Ed.
nte 10 45 1
Steve?
2 MR. CONVER:
I don't know if this helps at_all, but 3
it's a clarification.
These statements originally grew out of 4
the responses to the Kemeny Report, in which we were trying to 5
make a point that safety is the predominant concern of the 6j NRC and that, taking that one step further, we would therefore 7
try to devote the greatest effort to try to do those things, 8'
those activities that represent the greatest threat to public 9
health and safety.
I 10 '
It was a very conscious attempt to respond to the 11 predominance of the safety concerns, as opposed to some things 12 we do which are more peripherally related to safety than others.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
See, the difficulty with 14 that is the Kemeny Commission by its charter wasn't required 15 to' pay any attention to those parts of the statute, for.
16 example, that deal with the common defense and security.
I 17 don't think we've got any basis in the Atomic Ehergy Act as a 18 whole for saying that those activities are less important 19 than public health and safety-related activities.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, why don't we go on narrowing 21 this to the reactor regulation?
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On that basis, okay.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Picking up the phrase that you 24 wanted to put in and using the risk reduction section as the
+ Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 other.
46 ste 11 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Once we have that, as far 2
as I'm concerned --
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At least for a working draft, 4
why don't we do that.
5j MR. 1,~KWIT:
Don't you want risk reduction po tentiall I
6' applied within the category of operating reactors as well?
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I thought you were moving back to the 9
rejected option.
If you are, that's all right, just so long 10 as you apply risk reduction to the operating reactors.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's in the overriding NRC e-5 12 priorities.
13 MR. BICKWIT:
You see my point.
You're only talking 14 about risk reduction potential after you get outside that 15 category under that option.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't think that was the intent.
17 MR. BICKWIT:
I think probably not.
But that's 18 certainly the way it reads.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So that might be slightly modified 20 If we're going to get through, we're going to have 21 to try to move on.
Number 5, we're on, other policies.
22 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
These were only minor changes 23 in C, had to do with some suggested changes from the 24 General Counsel's office to make it consistent.
>+.one n.ponm, inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me bring you back to
47 tte 12 1
A for a second.
Would there be any strong objection to elimi-2 nating the phrase "to increase each licensee's incentives for,"
3 and just say, "the goe.1 of the enforcement program will be 4
compliance"?
5l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's a significant policy point, 6
though, because the issue is -- I think wrapped up in there 7
is this question of punishment.
It's a question of are you 8
trying to get the licensee to recognize that if it doesn't 9
come into compliance, it.will, the licensee will' receive 10 severe enough penalty to make it wish it had.
So that's the 11 incentive for compliance.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But this leaves 'it'too 13 open, I think.
14 COMMISSIONER BRALFORD:
The difficulty I was having 15 with the word " incentive" is I was afraid it would reinforce 16 l the intent, the historic I&E tendency in the opposite direction, 17 that is, to feel that what one wants to do is to reward.
The 18 word " incentive" had more of a connotation of reward to it 19 than it did --
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about saying, "will 21 emphasize prompter and more vigorous enforcement than in the 22 past"?
That tells people something.
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
I think that's all
.n the first 24 sentence.
But the Chairman's point I think is a useful one,
% cal Reporters, Inc.
25 in that the principle ought to be there, it's got to pay to
48 mte 13 1
be good, that he can' t, you know, come out better off by having 2
violated.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think you don't want.to 4
have tc flexible a system.
Sure, based on the idea of l
5 providing the right incentives.
But it leads to, I think, too 6l much variability, i
7' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So, Peter, what you would want to.
8 say is what?
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would just want to say the 10 ggal of the' enforcement program is compliance and to assure that Il the licensee will not benefit by violating NRC regulations.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why not put that first and 13 then put the first sentence second, then say, "NRC will 14 emphasize prompter and more vigorous enforcement than in the 15 past"?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no difficulty with 17 that concept.
But as I understood it, this part of this 18 document was supposed to survive relatively unchanged over time 19 and if you reach a point five years out where you're talking 20 about making things more vigorous than it was in the past --
t 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't see how you can 22 regard these things as being --
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Graven in stone.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are all sorts of s+vooral Reporters, Inc.
25 statements here.
49 mte 14 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have the same trouble w ith 2
one referring to presidential mandates on making it core the neutral 3
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about your initial i
4 statement about complacency, pivotal time, reappraising, and so on i
5 (Laughter)
~
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
First of all, that isn't in 7
the policy section.
i 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You have really got into the 9,
swing of this thing.
10 (Laughter.)
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Actually, it belongs in the 12 planning.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You would agree with " prompt and 15 vigorous"'?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would agree with " prompt and 18 vigorous."
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me you've got 20 to tell people whether things are going to get stricter.
I 21 mean, are they supposed to do what they're doing?
If you say 22
" prompt and vigorous," that means keep doing what you're doing.
23 If you say less prompt and less vigorous, is it do less, and 24 prompter, do more?
>A.rai neponers, inc.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
I'm not being facetious, but I think
50 nte 15 1
that ought to be in the planning section.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
The planning section says implementation 4l is to get tougher than you were next year.
Next year you may be, i
5; able to say you got so tough last year --
j 6
6j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're treating this like 7
the Ten Commandments or something.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Not quite.
91 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Once you say we will provide i
10 '
adequate protection and we will be prompt and vigorous, you 11 know, it tends to lose meaning.
It becomes boilerplate.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, in fact NRC enforcement, 13 leaving out the question of vigor, which may be a relative 14 term -- it would be very hard to defend the proposition that 15 NRC enforcement has been prompt.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All right.
17 MR. HANRAHAN:
Can I review the second sentence?
18 Do you want the second sentence first?
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that does go better.
20 MR. HANRAHAN: "The goal of the enforcement program 21 will be to ensure that a licensee will not benefit from 22 violating" -- so the part about increasing each licensse's 23 incentives Sar compliance will be cut out.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is this benefit by e Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 violating?
mte16 51 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's a significant point. That 2
gets to Stello's -- I think this is coming from Stello.
His 3
point is that when you penalize the licensee -- the licensee 4
,doesn't follow a regulation over a certain number of months l
5 and it's cheaper for h'im not to do it, we hit him with a i
6 penalty.
7 Stello is trying to establish the policy that the 8
pesialty is going to be such that he didn't financially benefit 9
by not living up to the requirement.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What if he just didn't pay 11 attention or whatever it is?
It seems to me that the goal of 12 the enforcement program is compliance with NRC regulations.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
But after that, is it or is 14 it not the policy -- what Stello is proposing here, dais has 15
,come up as a proposal:
Should part of the policy be that if 16 you do not comply, that from not complying you won't end up 17 having economic benefit?
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I agree that that is a point 19 that needs inclusion.
Would it be better to make it more 20 explicit in a different section, simply saying that 21 decisions as to penalties should be made in such a manner as 22 to ensure --
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And that's one of the things 24 that you want to be concerned about, that sometimes it's not a s Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 matter of a licensee trying to benefit by violating regulationd.
52
, 17 1
They're just not paying enough attention.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you're trying to teach a lesson 3
to all the licensees.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Once you've said that the 5
price of the particular action is thus and such, then it's going 6
to be pretty hard to change that when you find that you get 7
the same action and a different motive in another case.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Maybe they are not benefited 9
by it.
In some larger sense, if the regulations are right 10 they're not benefiting by violating them.
They run a risk, a 11 safety risk.
12 This strikes me as a formu1ation that is going to lead
~
13 to trouble.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think he's trying to get at --
15 and I endorse the principle.
A simple case is that let us say 16 we require the installation of a set of filters.
To install 17 those filters costs the licensee a million dollars.
The 18 licensee doesn't install those filters.
At the end of the year 19 we find out they haven't installed them.
The licensee has been 20 able to take that million dollars and do something else with 21 it.
22 Should the licensee get the economic benefit from 23 not having taken that action which other licensees in the 24 same situation have taken?
Stello's principle that he's trying e-.cw n.oonen, inc.
25 to establish is that, no, once found in violation, that any
53 nte 18 1
economic a dvantage that the licensee attained by not being in 2
compliance should be wiped out.
t 3
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay, and that may deal with 4
certain subclass of violations.
What are you going to do a
5 when a licensee failed to report to you or failed to report i
e i
6 promptly?
[
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're right, it doesn't cover it.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me the goal of the 9
enforcement program-that this just deals with a subset of 10 possibilities; and you want to throw it in, you can throw it II in.
But I would have a statement that says the goal of the 12 enforcement program is to ensure compliance with NRC regulations.
I3 In any case, you don't want a licensee to benefit --
Id CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
Okay, put a period there.
15 Then you could go on to say, when appropriate --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or in any case.
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
18 MR. BICKWIT:
In any case would be better.
I9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, okay, fine.
20 All right, how about C?
2I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just to pursue this a little 22 bit, I don't think we want to get into an overly psychological 23 approach to the enforcement problem.
In other words -- or it 24 has been said in the past that the objective of fines was to 4.o.ce n. con.n inc.
25 get the attention of licensees.
Well, the thing has already
54 nte 19 I
been written up in newspapers.
I&E sometimes comes in and says:
2 We've already gotten their attention; there's no need to fine 3
.them.
S l
i 4
I just don't approve of this kind of approach.
I l
1 5
think there ought to be a pretty straightforward, more or less 6
cut and dry, you know, you go over the speed limit, you get 7
fined.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's certainly true.
But once 9
you've done that, you still have to establish some principle 10 for --
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
No, I don't disagree 12 with this.
And there may be many cases where it's applicable.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Move on to C.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 F <es Reportwi, Inc.
25
55
!52 07 01 kap /MM i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Let's see.
It says NRC 2
will continue to discharge its statutory licensing 3
responsibilities to help to assure -- isn't it required that 4
we have certain responsibilities required by law to find 5
satisfied in each case, and they a pply to ef f ective o
U.S.
controls?
7 MR. HANRAHAN:. This was perf ecting ' language f rom 6
the general counsel's office, as I recall.
9 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't have any problem.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don't we drop that out?
Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I tell you, there's a 12 second thought here which is that we will try to do our work 13 efficiently and speedily, if that's the word, and that's 14 okay.
I think we should.
I'm a little bothered by this 15 reliability of U.S. meeting a supply, because these are just 16 buzzwords that have been used in all sorts of arguments, and 17 they mean in many cases that we ease off.
18 And I just don't think we need it.
I'm all for 19 commi tting ourselves to --
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Timely processing of exports?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's fine with me.
23 Also, I think I was the one that suggested that the language 24 originally be taken in pref erence to the NMPA.
Frankly, I 25 would just be delighted to drop that half.
My guess was
., T.
56 52 07 02 kap /MM i
t ha t the other side of the table, presently vacant --
2 (inaudible).
3 MR. HANRAHAN:
This was originally taken from 4
t he --
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I t ought to be.
I just think o
taking from the NMPA is fine.
7 MR. HANRAHAN:
I believe it was originally taken 6
f rom sources such as that, you know, just word for word.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think if you recall NMPA was 10 on the one hand, on the other hand --
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's why I suggested 12 leaving it out.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'll tell you, if you go 14 to the NMPA it talks about being a reliable supplier to 15 those countries which share our non-proliferation goals, et 16 cetera, et cetera.
If you want to use that language, you 17 have to use all of it.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is all in here.
19 MR. BICKWIT:
That's what i t says.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Nations that adhere to 21 eff ective non-prolif era tion policies.
22 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
I will certainly vote for 23 Victor's formulation.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I must say I didn't read 25 the rest of the sentence.
yf:
l h
57 52 07 03 kap /MM I
(Laughter.)
2 MR. BICKWIT:
I t says a reliable supply --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have to admi t, let us 4
use the language in the law.
Okay?
5 CHA IR:4AN AHEARNE:
Great oolicy.
o COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay?
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay?
8 MR. HANRAHAN:
That comple tes the policy se cticn.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
With the addition, I would 10 hope, of saying some thing on saf ety research.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does the midterm come 12 af ter the policy section here?
13
( Laughte r. )
14 MR. HANRAHAN:
That's about as f ar as we got in 15 the previous mee ting, so that the planning guidance, we have 16 not gone through.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would be useful 18 to get that policy part straightened before we get into the 19 other part.
It's also 11 :30.
20 (Laughter.)
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So not only usef ul, but I think 22 i t is not f easible to go f urther.
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
I would recommend for you a ttention 24 to planning guidance.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But while I have my colleagues
--