ML19310A484
| ML19310A484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/16/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-230, NUDOCS 8006170809 | |
| Download: ML19310A484 (31) | |
Text
.
1 m
q.
J c.
u..
.:3 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING 5
g DISCUSSION OF ACTION PLAN (SECY 230 )
9 5
6 R
7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission N
Room 1130 8
1717 H Street, N.W.
d Washington, D.C.
d 9
I Friday, May'16', 1980 h
10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m.
j 11 B
BEFORE:
y 12 y
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 7
(
g 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
14 JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner 2.:
15 PETER A. BRADFORD,. Commissioner j
16 d
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
6 17 E. HANRAHAN 18
~
C R. MATTSON 19,
l W. DIRCKS 20 l t
i K. CORNELL 21 !
I R. MINOGUE.
I 22 i
i H. DENTON 23 '
i J. SCINTO 24{
M.,MALASCH 25 l
8006170 ALDERSON REPORTING COMP /NM37, fRMC.
2 1
EEESEEE1EEE 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We are meeting this morning to 3
begin the process that was identified at the last meeting on 4
the action plan, to try to have the Commission work through
=
5 the various items in the paper that was sent up to us.
hj 6
This morning, this noon, I would hope that the Commis-g 7
sion could address that section, which are the operating license 8
requirements.
I assume that the Commission has had an opportuni-dd 9
ty to review those requirements.
And focusing strictly on that z
h 10 set, I would like to find out whether my colleagues have any 3
5 1}
additional questions they would like to ask, Roger or anyone
<3 d
12 else, as to whether they have a problem with those being the 3
(
13 set of requirements that the Commission wishes to include and a
E 14 are the ones that ought to be, as in the letter I sent to ACRS, wk 2
15 whether they should be "necessary and sufficient."
The ACRS u=
t 16 said that the difficulty with the definition of terms led them 3d 6
17,
to interpret the request that they look to see if the list is 5
5 18 reasonable.
And they have come back in saying that they thought
=
b 19 '
the list was reasonable.
OTE has come in with an alternative.
20 )
I noticed that what they said is "We have not sought I
21 a collegial definition of the terms," a problem which we are i
22 !
all f amiliar with.
I guess they concluded that it was easier 23 for them to get a judgment on tbr. part of the ACRS than it was 24 l reasonable of their getting a definition otherwise.
4 25l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, we ought to put "neces sary ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 I
and sufficient" on our list for a more precise definition; I 2
would say a couple of notches below " adequate protection."
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, in any event, I know OPE has 4
come in with a memo to us recommending adoption.
"The plan is g
5 sufficient for future purposes. "
So, agreeing with Peter, that 9
3 6
"necessary and sufficient," at least, still to me seems to be R
7 a more precise term.
I would like to ask whether my colleagues s]
8 have any questions of Roger or Harold or the others there of that d
d 9
list as being sufficient?
g 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I have a question that E
g 11 really doesn't go to the technical content of the list so much a
y 12 as my perennial inquiry on the combination of license conditions,
(
13 specifications, and commitments against which we enforce.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, let's suppose we set those 2
15 up as a set of requirements that a new license must meet.
Then g
16 in what way are'those enforceable?
2 6
17 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In what way are they enforce-18 able.
=
19 MR. MATTSON:
Well, you gentlemen had the Secretary k
20 send us a letter on the Sequoyah technical specifications.
If 21 I can paraphrase it, it was "make model technical specifications 22 of Sequoyah to improve their clarity and enforceability," which 23 l is language I understood you agreed to.
24l Our intent is to -- I don' t know whether the letter is i
25l back up to you or not yet -- our intent is to take these things i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4
?
I from this.0L, requirements list and do what we think you are 2
telling us to do, that is, make them enforceable and clear in 3
the Sequoyah technical spe'cifications.
And that will set a 4
precedent or a model for subsequent tech' spec's on the near-
=
5 term OLs muddle and will also be moving in parallel with this h
j 6
rule-making.
The advanced notice, I believe, is up here for R
7 your issuance also; the sort of long-term approach to improving Ml 8
the enforceability'and clarity of technical specifications.
So d
y 9
the two are moving in parallel with advances being made in the ig
!O specifics on the Three Mile Island stuff, in the case o'f the E
11 model tech' spec's for Sequoyah, and then the long-term thing 8
g 12 with. the rule-making.
3
(-
5 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That seems sensible.
a l
14 MR. MATTSON:
The Action Plan itself doesn't have an g
15 item that says " improve enforceability and clarity. "
That is
=
j 16 something that came along in parallel with or separate from Three w
17,
Mile Island, and the two are coupled in Sequoyah.
{
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The question I asked, Dick, was if h
19 you have questions of Roger or Harold on this issue of the 20l operating license?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
Another question in this 22 l out of the same general set of concerns, if we approve these 23 '
conditions as being either reasonable or in our view necessary 24 and sufficient, whatever language we use, what then is the effect 25 ;
on licenses being contested before licensing boards, or is that f
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 1
truly something we have to decide?
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think we have two -- well, three 3
decisions..we have to make.
The first decision would be do we 4
think there ought to be something else added onto the list or --
e 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, I have jumped over that.
]
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The second decision is do we then
'R 7
send a staff requirements memo to the EDO, essentially the NRR, 3l 8
saying: "Here are now the items that you must.: check against d
2 9
before you go back to a board and with a position as to whether
,z h
10 or not'from NRR's view this plant is ready for an operating a
11 license."
And then the third is do we issue a policy statement
{
12 or some type of statement that would be a Commission position, 3
('
g 13 and how would that be perceived by a board.
I would.have a m
l 14 proposal on that also.
g 15 But I think those are three separate items.
3 d
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you would like to go to the W
N 17 '
third one last, then why don't I just hold it.
mz 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I would, because you :an' t get E
I9 g
to the third without getting to the second :and you can't ever 20 get to the second without getting to the first.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Righ t, and you can't get to 22
(
the end without getting to all three.
- 23 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is right.
So the first issue 24 will be are there items to be added or subtracted from the list?
25 ;
From my point of view, having gone through them to the extent i
i 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 1
that I can and having gone through this now, which is the fourth 2
draf t, I guess, and listened to Roger -- well, five drafts --
3 many times, I'm at the point of saying, yes, it sounds about 4
right to me.
Does anyone have any additions or subtractions
=
5 to that list?
$l 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't think that I do.
- But, R
d 7
Roger, let me ask you to cover one thing probably one more time.
K]
8 There are two different structures.
And it is hazy in my memory, d
d 9
so I'm not going to say it about right.
But there are two l10 different structures in terms of the line of authority in the z=
j 11 control room: one proposed, I think, by Rogovin in terms of the t
y 12 place that he wanted the shif t technical advisor to be; and then 5
(
13 a different : formulation that you all have come down with.
Can 5
m l
14 you cover that point or is it as hazy to you now as it is to me?
i 2
15 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
The argument really started well E
j 16 before the Rogovin report.
And I think the people on the w
d 17 l Rogovin inquiry were watching the argument, the discussion.
I w
i 18 think we have had it down here a bit and we had it in a public e
19 meeting with the industry and we had it with the ACRS.
I 20 The short-term Lessons Learned Report, the lessons e
21 learned task force from NRR, had used ' tie word, I believe, 22
" independent" in connection with the shift technical advisor.
23 I or if we didn't, and I don't remember the exact words, we at 24 least implied in discussions with the short-term lessons t
25l learned, we discussed an independence from the line operations l
l
!~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.
tJ
7 I
decisions in th'e exercise of the shift technical advisor 2
function.
3 That was tested, as I said, by several people who 4
thought that was a mistaka.
Some utilities argued that the e
5 line organization, the reporting of people depended very much h]
6 on the character and history of the organization and not just R
7 the abstract reasoning; and that they ought to be allowed some M
g 8
flexibility to do it either way.
dd 9
And, in fact, when the short-term Lessons Learned i
h 10 Report was issued by Harold Denton last summer, that discussion
=
j 11 had already been held and that flexibility had been introduced.
3 y
12 So it was, I think the record will show, discussed with you in
(
13 making that decision to introduce that flexibility.
l 14 It was the same time we split the two functions of n
2 15 the shif t technical advisor.
You may recall that the Lessons E
y 16 Learned Task Force said that they should not only advise in w
6 17 '
emergencies, but they are also the people who should be in Y
{
18 charge of operating experience evaluation day in and day out.
C" 19 R
And people argued that might not be necessary and that some-20 organiza tions might be better handled by two separate organiza-21 tions.
~
22 l We were trying to economize manpower when we made 23 l the original recommendation and decided to agree that there 24 could be that flexibility.
So there was a ten-page document 25 attached to the short-term Lessons Learned requirements when ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 I
they were issued to licensees describing the kind of flexibility 2
that was allowable.
3 Subsequent to that there was some more uncertainty 4
with the shift technical advisor as to whether we intended it e
5 to be a forever kind of requirement or an interim requirement.
h j
6 And the Lessons Learned people allowed as to how the original RoS 7
idea had been for the technical advisor to be sort of an 3]
8 interim approach; that when the overall qualifications of d
9 operators and senior operators had improved and when control 5g 10 rooms were approved, both of which would require a four-or five-E 11 year period, it was reasonable to expect that we might reconsider 3
f 12 l the need for shift technical advisors.
(
13 About that time ACRS wrote and said, gee, we think a
l 14 maybe that is a long-term requirement and you ought to think u
g 15 seriocsly about that.
x 3[
16 Now, not much has happened as the result of that as f
17 advice, since it is three or four years in the future when they f18 I
made it.
E 19 You can see there were several layers of discussions 20l going on on the shif t technical advisor.
And then out came 21jl Rogovin and he said: they ought to be in the line organi::ation.
22 I think the staff's reaction to the Rogovin thing was, it was I
l 23 sort of a Johnny-come-lately recommendation, frankly.
We 24l thought we had had that discussion and had agreed that that was 25!
scmething that could be lef t open to the choice of the utility.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 1
And if they wanted to keep the shift technical advisor in the 2
line, as long as they met certain other requirements that we 3
placed on them -- and the fundamental one was one of dedication, 4
and tha t is, in an emergency the shift technical advisor was in 5
no capacity to make decisions regarding the plant.
That wasn't a
h 6
his responsibility.
He didn't have to worry about that.
He R
7 was to concentrate on diagnosing the dynamic response of the Kl 8
reactor.
That is, he wasn' t just to be afforded the opportunity do 9
to advise, but he was to be afforded the perspective and the Y
10 time and the ability to stand back and have nothing else to do 3
j 11 but offer that advice.
Dedication rather than independence was 3
y 12 the key.
=3
(
g 13 An'd we thought we had it all sorted out.
And maybe m
l 14 we haven't been as explicit as we should have in saying what 2
15 our response to Rogovin was.
If you look on that recommendation 5
j 16 in the volume two of the Action Plan, I wouldn't be surprised ~if M
y 17 you find it is (B) -- could somebody find it quickly?
I can't h-18 turn to it directly, volume two.
=
19 Another way to say it is, if Rogovin's exact words R
20 were -- and I don't recall them -- that it had to be on the 21 line, I think for the same reasons that we thought in the begin-22 ning it needn' t be independent all the time, we would say that i
23 l it needn't be on the line all the time; that there should be an 24l allowance for the individual licensee to decide what is the 25 l right position.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 I
Now, of course, we have a double check on that.
With 2
these management and organization criteria that are in draft, 3
we go otit and look at h'ow they are organized and how these lines 4
of authority are constructed on near-term OLs.
And, of course, 5
after we have donc a few, we are going to lay on the criteria, d
0 is the intent,;to all plants.
So we have a double check on R
b 7
them to see whether they exercise reasonable responsibility in X
l-8-
meeting the inte'nt.
d Q[
9 MR. DENTON:
There are two other developments in that z
10 area I find interesting.
One is that Mr. Wilkinson of INPO has
=
II informed me that the industry has come around to look upon STAS in f
I2 as a good idea now; that many utilities are finding them a very 3
. (.
5 13 useful addition to.the staff. 'And INPO has listed as a a
l 14 published qualifications bulletin a bulletin that spells out 2
g 15 the training and education: background for STAS.and seemingly 16 ig has adopted that this function needs to be performed.
I think as f
I7 it is still an open issue as to whether that function needs to x
{
IS j be a separate person outside the line or can be combined in the C
19 line once we shake down the requirements for SROs and ROs in the 20 management structure itself.
But I see this interim outside the 2I line as completely unsatisf actory.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
He is required to be outside 23 the line or he can be?
i 24l MR. DENTON:
Can be.
r
[-
l 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And he is required to be in t
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
)
L_
11 l
I the event of an emergency?
2 MR. MATTSON:
Required to be dedicated to the advisory 3
fuction.
He can' t have any other responsibilities during the 4
emergency.
5 Well, I'm reading the Special Inquiry Group's recom-e b
6-mendation, at least, as we renderedrit.
We did summarize some R
7 of these things because they occupy large numbers of pages.
.s X
k 8
They seem to stress -- at least, in our summary -- that his d
Q 9
examinations have been -- well, the "ucility should be required
,Z h
10 to deploy at least one such engineer-supervisor whose qualifica-11 tions have been examined by the NRC as shif t manager."
m I
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Where are we, Roger?
What page?
5
(
5 13 MR. MATTSON:-
If you look back in volume two on the
- n l
14 comparison recommendations in volume one of the SIG report l. and g
15 page'6, item C2, part A, this gives a flavor to it that. I had as g
16 forgotten and it may be more to the point.
Rogovin said thati w
g 17 i it should be part of the line and 'that u.e person who has these h
18 engineering qualifications shouldn't be an advisor; he, should be
=
19 the manager, the shift manager.
And our response to that we 20 say in the right-hand column i.= N( A).
And that is consistent 21 with what I have said that over the long term the goal is to 22 put these qualifications in the hands of the shif t manager; and 23 then consistent with the upgzading of control rooms, to recon-(.
24 l sider whether there is a need for a shift technical advisor at 25l all.
And the hedge that has been put on that by both the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 1
Lessons Learned people and by the ACRS is this question of dedi-2 cation.
The shift manager has two responsibilities, as Rogovin 1
3 envisions it: one is to make the decision and the other is to do 1
\\
4 the diagnostics underlying the decision.
In a rapidly moving,
=
5 unique situation he might not have time to do both.
So the h
)
]
6 question of the dedication to the advisory capacity, the diag-i R
b 7
nostic capaci".y, may still be necessary in the long term.
In K
i j
8 any event, it is not a decision we have to make now, because we d
9 9
won't have shift managers so qualified for some time.
There is z
Og 10 a schedule laid out in the Action Plan for a~chieving that'.
II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm still sort of going j
8 l
{
12 through a process of tracking recommendations and points back
(~
3 5
13 and forth.- Bat a
h I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At least tentatively I assume that 15 all of us, on a tentative basis, at least; have agreed, then?
d 10 On that I would like to propose that we send a staff W
I7 requirements memo, which would still have to be drafted, which z
18 would essentially tell the EDO and therefore telling Harold to E
I9 g
use that as the list for going forward to the boards.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, I think we have come to II our point here.
I am satisfied with the "necessary and suffici-22 ent" character of the operating license requirements as laid 23 :
out in the plan.
I would at some point like to be reminded of 24 the discussions we had last time about those NRC actions 2 (B),
25l (7), and (8), the hydrogen control integrating core rule-making.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 I
And the reason is that I am now trying to remember exactly what j
.2 we said last time and I have discovered I can't.
3 MR. MATTSON:
We said that the language in the second
-4 paper that you have in front of you --
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Will end up saying " Issue the E
0 proposed interim rule."
7 MR. MATTSON:
Yes, and the notice of intent to conduct Xl 8
i a rule-making that ' tells about the long-term rule-making.
It is dd 9
my understanding that that is what the staff intends.
h 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, I think we ought to go
=
II ahead and do it.
I think it has been worked and reworked 3
{
12-enough now so that we are not likely to improve it by further 3
(
5 13 deliberation.
And I think now we got to begin to move on it.
m l
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We might overtrain.
g 15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, that is right.
There was a
d I0 some crowd I thought in severe danger of being overqualified if ai
.h I7 we didn't move fast.
That may be our situation.
m h
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is it acceptable, the n, to have a c
II staff requirements memo?
M 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
I would like to ask a II general question.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We11, to have a staff requirements 23 memo issued?
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it is not unrelated to 1
25 i
that --
l l
t t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. _ _-..
14 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Since there is nobody on this end j
l 2
of the table, I would like to have Ed draf t that staff require-3 ments memo.
4 MR. HANRAHAN:
Do you want me to get somebody from g
5 the other end of the table?
N 6
(Laughter)
R
- S 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, just a draft.
All right?
Okay?
3l 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Given that we have accepted d
this listing of requirements, how much room is lef t or how much 9
z h
10 negotiating remains to be done with applicants once has agreed, z
E Q
Il yes, this is the right package?
And I realize we are talking 3
y 12 about a lot of items and that there isn' t any simple answer to a
(
y 13 it, but I wanted to get the sense from you.
m l
14 MR. MATTSON:
I'm not sure I understand what you are l=
15 saying.
d I6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, when we write w
U 17 down requirements that is still a long way from a specific
$uw 18 piece of hardware or specific NRC acceptance of a specific C
{
19 proposal.
n 20 MR. MATTSON:
This list, as we said last time, is 21 consistent with the NTOL list of February except the parts 4 and 22 5 which are a better explanation of what we meant by the data i
i 23 '
requ:'rements, and plus one other step.
And that is, we got a 24l chance to put the people who were writing the list together with 25 l the people who were implementing it in a preliminary way with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.J
15 I-these near-term OLs, put them together for the first time and 2
check out some of the details and see whether they agree in 3
their minds with what we had in mind.
Some of that has already 4
been fed back to the licensees.
And I say they are well along 5
y in understanding what theca requirements mean and in implementing n
3 0
them.
R b
7 I was reminded by Bob Tedesco the other day, in his j
8 new capacity for the Division of Licensing, reminded that there d"
9 is a f air space between a conceptual specification of what you z
O h_10 want and by-the-numbers detailed delineation in an engineer's
=
5 II mind of what constitutes meeting these things.
E
- f. I2 Well, for the short-term lessons learned that are q
i j
13 l contained in this list, that level of specification has passed m
7 g
14 and is accomplished.
For the things that apply to operating
.g 15 reactors that have been on this list since February, that has a
j 16 already been accomplished, the five additional operating s
k I7 l reactors things have been developed in some detail and have 5
18 l 3
now been mailed to operating reactors for their implementation.
P g" 19 So that leaves one dozen or so things on which there is any, as i
4 f
20 '
you described it, negotiation of the details to be accomplished.
II In the main, those are human things, not equipment things.
And 22 since we are still learning in that area, as the industry is 23!
learning _ in that area, how to do things better, there are 24l probably some negotiations yet to go.
But, in any event --
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Whr.t other sorts of things are i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16 I
you thinking about here?
l 2
MR. MATTSON:
Well, the final management criteria, the 1
3 final management and* organization: where the on-site safety
)
4 engineering group is going to be located and who is going to 5
be in it.
3 0
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That is on a plant-specific R
b 7
basis, because you have to deal with the particular organization.
1 A
0 MR.'MATTSON:
How many plants there are, how close d
i y
9 together, how many there are on the site, how many of his own zo h
10 engineers he employs, those things you have seen in the draf t
=
II stage.
And they are referenced in this list you have just 3
f I2 endorsed.
But the payoff, the final product you won' t see until
(.
3 5
13 the case comes back before y'ou: Sequoyah being the lead case m
l 14 where you can see in detail how those final negotiations have g
15 worked out.
x 1
d I0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That was my question.
You
^
l I7 have answered it.
5 g
18 COMMISSIONER HEUDRIE:
John, before you move on, why, P"
19 g
I think it would be useful if we made clear the nature of what 20 we have in hand.
We have before us the proposal in SECY-80-230, 2I enclosure one, which is a set of requirements for granting full 22,
power operating licenses that are characterized by the staff 23,
as being in their view "necessary and sufficient" for the 24 granting of those full power licenses.
Secondly, there is an 25 implementation schedule that is generally laid out in enclosure I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
17 I
two of that paper.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I haven't really addressed that.
3 All I have addressed is the operating license.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You just want one?
I thought 5
maybe we could get all three parts.
And the third part, th en, 3
0 is some reprogramming and so on.
It seems to me useful to try G
7 to close on all of those things, so that we have --
Ml 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We will be closing on the others.
d 9
~
MR. MATTSON:* Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to o
h 10 put in the record a reminder of something we told you when we
=
5 II first brought this up.
And that is that there was one inad-a g
12 vertentomissionfro$thislist.
And your approval should 3
I g
13 include that inadvertent omission.
It is in the-full power l
14 license requirements.
It is on page 4.
It is under II(K) (2).
n g
15 It is item (C) (2) (2) from Table (C) (2) of the Action Plan.
as
[ I0 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, you brought that one out last w
N I7 time.
E II i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Now, that c ne I wro te down.
E 19 MR. MATTSON:
The item is " procedures and training 20 to initiate and control AUX feedwater independent of the inte-21 grated control system"; something applicable to VMW plants and 22 not too important for the first four near-term OLs puddle, but 23 there are some VMW reactors under construction which will t
24 !
eventually get compared against this list and some other lists.
q 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me move on to step three, which ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 I
is, I believe, that the Commission ought to lay out the policy 2
statement the same as we.iave done with respect to this list.
3 And I would further believe that we ought to have in mind in 4
doing that instructions to the boards, because the boards now 5
have to turn to and address these items.
Now, as the boards
]
6 address what we have done or address what we want done for the R
b 7
boards, it seems to me there is a range of possibilities.
On l
8 one end would be we could go into a rule-making.
We could say:
dd 9
here are a proposed list of items.
We could, propose it for a
.zo h
10 rule and go through the process of establishing by re9ulation.
=
g 11 At the stage when the rule-making would be completed, then,wwe m
g 12 would have in place a new set of requirements.
I-S 5
13 On the other end of it, we could simply turn to the a
l 14 boards and say, "The staff is now coming to you and you may h
15 review with the staff what the staff does.
And, of course, z
d I6 there is this Action Plan here.
Here are all of these items.
vi f
I7 There is a special entry group for you.
There is the Presi-z
{
18 dential Commission review, which has many items mentioned."
And C
I9 we would leave it up to the board to reach.a conclusion as to 20 what requirements should be levied on the operating plants.
21 I think that both of those approaches, to me, at least, I
i 22 l
would not really meet at least the responsibility I think we have.
23 We have spent a large amount of time, starting back in October, g
24 I believe it was, in working through this Action Plan.
The 25 Commission itself has been very heavily involved in it from the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19 I
stage of giving initial direction to the staff for all the work 2
that went into the response to the President's Science Advisor, 3
to the mini-draf ts that Roger has brought forward to us, the 4
many hours we have spent at this table and have gone through 5
these drafts.
And I think that it does come to that point where k
0 the Commission is able to say that they do have some responsibil-R b
7 ity for this list.
M 8
I think that it would be entirely appropriate, then, 4
9
[.
in giving directions to the boards, to place a higher threshold 10 for other items that are outside of that list.
I think that I
=
II would like OGC to give careful thought to that.
And, at least, a
g 12 I will propose a draf t sometime this weekend that might be used 3
1 k
5 13 in that.
But my purpose would be to essentially say something a
l 14 like-that the boards should consider whether a license applica-g 15 tion complies with the regulations as supplemented by this a
d I0 operating license requirements.
And if a party to a proceeding as g
17 alleges that a longer term item or any other item must be imple-a b
II mented in a given case to assure safety in light of TMI accident
'C U
considerations, a board may give consideration to such items 20 if it finds a party is able to show cause why the issue should 2I be litigated.
22 And I would go on to attempt to raise some kind of a 23 j
threshold, for example, requiring a showing analogous to that 24 ~
required for a motion to reopen a record.
25 i
Now, I recognize this is going to be a contentious i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC..
20 1
-point, but I would urge careful consideration to it, because I 2
think we do have a responsibility to provide some direction to 3
the boards.
And if all of the effort that we have put into 4
this does have some meaning, then that should end up being a e
5 higher threhold.
E 3pa 2 l 6
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, let me comment, John.
a 7
First of all, it seems'to me that we have long since promised 3l 8
that the Commission would follow its previous policy statements do 9
on licensing after Three Mile Island with further guidance in
,2 h
10 that form to all.
I think we have an obligation as we come to 11 decisions now in connection with the Action Plan, I think we have m
{
12 an obligation to enunciate the appropriate part of those in a
(
13 policy statement format.
So I concur totally with the need for l
14 a policy statement that reflects the decisions that we are in a
g 15 the process of making.
m j
16 Beyond that, it seems to me that it may be useful, in
- s(
17,
fact, to go ahead and to establish by rule these particular w
18 necessary and sufficient cures for Three Mile Island and Three
=
19 l Mile Island-related matters that have come up.
That would be a 20 !
longer process, obviously.
I would not think that contemplating 21 establishing these things in rule form would, by any manner or 22 means, reduce the need for a policy statement at the earliest i
23 '
time that we could come together.
' 24 -
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would guess it would significantly 25l diminish its significance.
^
I I
.i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
21 I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
How do you mean?
'2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I just think it would make it much 3
less relevant.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What, the policy statement?
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The rule-making would then become
]
'6, the policy statement.
The policy statement I think would have R
7 little, if any, weight.
Ml 8
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, I sn't think so.
I -hink d
c; 9
you would come out with a policy statement and say, "Here is 2o h
10 what we have labored' long and mightily over and have determined."
=
II And that would provide very clear guidance to people.
We could 3
Y I2 note in the policy statement, if we come out that way, that it 5
y 13 is our intention to go forward with precisely these things in r
=
l 14 rule form on a schedule appropriate for rule-making activities.
n g
15 I don' t think that would, you know, water down the impact of the n
[ 16 policy statement.
vs h
II l But let me leave that for a question of moving to rule x
\\
{
18 as a further matter of discussion between us, having put my view E
19 forward.
Let me make another comment.
And that is that the 20 accident and its af termath and the major developments which 2I have followed from it in terms of the Action Plan and all of the 22 things we have already required and things we are preparing now 23 !
to go forward and require, they constitute really a rather 24-extraordinary sequence of events in the regulatory scheme.
This 25 is not one more place where we have found some difficulty in our i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 i
I regulations or our requirements for safety and are proceeding 1
2 to repair and fix up a particular limited area.
This sweeps 3
broadly across the*whole spectrum of reactor safety and advances 4
into some new areas.
5 I think we cannot reasonably expect the sort of normal 3
0 working regulatory process to accommodate this body of new a
b 7
directions in just that normal working mode.
It seems to me 5
1 k
0 that we hav'e to look, then, for some strong leadership and d
I guidance step from the Commission to its adjudicatory boards el-10 j
and to the staff in order to accomplish these things, to get
=
N II them moving in any reasonable way and in anything like a way is
,g 12 that meets the need.
S I
5 13 So I think the sort of things that you have in mind m
I4 for the policy statement in a sense would constitute a measure g
15 of guidance considerably stronger and more binding than would z
ll 16 be the normal sort of case if we were considering just one as C
17 g
j limited problem area that we were in the process of upgrading x
I0 the requirements on.
And I think we have to think in those 19 terms of a very strong and extraordinary action.
g i
20 It seems to me, furthermore, that the adjudicatory 2I system of the board's staff needs that kind of direction and 22 guidance.
We are in the anomalous situation where if a case 23 like the last three that have come in, if it comes to us un-24 encumbered in the adjudicatory system, the staff knows what it 25 wants to do.
We discuss it with the staff.
And then we find I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 I
out what we want to do.
We now know what we want to do.
And we 2
say, "Do it," and that is it; it is done.
3 A case in all other respects :similar in terms of the 4
provisions for safety and the operating mode and everything e
5_
else that is
'.n the adjudicatory system, well, without the sort 5l 6
of strong steps that I think are needed in terms of guidance to R
{
7 boards and so on, you know, has no way that I can see to work Xl 8
through this large mass of additional requirements in any d
d 9
finite lifetime.
So I'm convinced that we have to take strong i
h 10 and extraordinary measures and that it is appropriate and, I Ej 11 must say, that it is in the national interest.
- j 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you want to comment at this
(
- 13 point?
m l
14 COMMISSIONER. GILINSKY:
I think it is clear that we've a
2 15 got to give guidance.
That is what we are here for.
I think g
16 tha t, just as Joe said, this isn't something that --
W 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, we have to just solve one U
E 18 more unresolved safety issue on a list of 19.
k 19 COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
We are dealing with a large 20 number of new requirements and we have to say to the boards 21 how we intend that they deal with them.
'i 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say I'm troubled by the 23 proposition that there should be a higher threshold for the 24 raising of other issues.
Three Mile Island --
j 25l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Three Mile-derived issues, I L
i L
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24 1
think.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You see, that would have to be 3
the first limitation.
Obvious 1h,wecan'tsaywehavesolved 4
all the problems.
You would have.to limit it to Three. Mile
=
5 Island and related.
But beyond that what we have done in 5
]
6 arriving at the Action Plan isn' t even -- Joe, you may have-R 7
made the same point from another direction -- but isn't even 5]
8 what one would do in rule-making.
It is one thing to go through d
q 9
a rule-making and then say, "As the result of public comment and 10 our own deliberations on the rule, we are now going 'to bind E
11 parties in individual licensing proceedings," because then, at a
y 12 least, there has been a measure of comment from those around 5
I 13 the circle of points of view that you might have.
But really 5a l
14 the only. people whom we have heard from on the Action Plan
$l 15 other than the staff has been the meeting that we had with the z
j 16 AIB.
We have never put the propositions out for a public w
6 17 comment process.
And against that background, I am not comfort-18 able with saying that the litigants in the individual proceed-P 19 ings ought to have to clear a higher threshold in the, event 20 that they thought that a different fix were necessary.
I mean, 21 I will look forward to seeing the formulation OGC comes up with, 22 but my own inclination is that these issues should still be i
23 l litigable on the basis of no more than the showings that a
24 l contention would normally have to pass in a licensing case.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Peter, without expecting or l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
25.
I intending to sweep you'into my camp with the argument, but let 2
me say-that it does secm to me that in a subject area where, 3
although, indeed, tihere has not been a comparable proceeding to i
4
.a rule-making, but, nevertheless, the Commission itself has spent 5-a substantial amount of time talking to the staff about proposals k
to deal with the subject area cand thinking about it and arguing R
7 back and forth as to whether this is the right way to do it and X
0 so.on, that having established guidance, that the Commission dd 9
2.
having established guidance in that subject area on-that to meet 10 those problems, that it is not, I would think, unreasonable to
=
II say for a contention in that subject area that would run a 3
f I2 different way than the requirements that we have agreed to, to S
I 5
13 say that-there might very well be a higher threshold, then,.for a
l 14 a contention in a subject area where, indec.l, that sort of 15 Commission attention and concern and deliberation and guidance j
16 had not gone on.
It, at least, seem to me that I can argue d
l C
l !
g I
that way without --
z 5
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, that certainly is what c
i-I9 g
we do af ter we go through a rule-making process.
We will put a 20 matter out --
2I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, but the rule-making ends 22 up with a much stronger proposition.
Then other litigants can 23 I have their choice.
They can either shut up on the subject area 24ll or they can argue that the Commission's rule is wrong.
That, at 25 least, in the past, has been a very difficult challenge to make.
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
26 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, it is not all that easy 2
to argue that view.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I am proposing is a threshold, i
4 not a barrier.
5 g
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But here is a cutoff.. John is 9]
6 saying the threshold ought to be raised because we, indeed, have R
b 7
worked in the area considerably and have directed that certain l
8 things be done.
d d
9 2,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is right.
And I will be 10 interested in seeing what the threshold is.
Certainly there is E
II a difference.
On the other hand, the difference between a very i
B i
f I2 high threshold and a barrier depends a lot on how tall you are.
S 5
13 (Laughter)
=
l 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And reasonable people, depending
.g 15 on their height, may view a barrier in different ways and so on.
x E
I6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I would propose, I will circu-s f
I7,
late a proposal.
But I think the point that both Joe and Vic
=
{
18 made I certainly strongly feel; and that is, if there is a reason P
19 l for having us, part of that reason is, af ter all, we do go 20 through all of this carefully, and when we have gone through it 2I we provide direction.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not contesting that 23f proposition.
24 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I understand.
25l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Let me pitch a couple of other I
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
27 I
thoughts in.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don' t see how I can stop you.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, that was my problem as 4
Chairman.
5 (Laughter) 6 I don't think you should be entitled to any more S"
7 leeway than I got.
M j
8 (Laughter) d 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I will shortly like to espouse h
10 that proposition myself.
=
k II l COMeiISSIONER HENDRIE:
Firs t, we are here approving 3
l f
I2 !
the requirements in enclosure number one to that paper, the S
13 I
j full operating license requirements ' agreement of the "neces,sary I4 and sufficient" label.
Now, you didn' t want to talk about --
g 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is a meeting next week.
m E
I6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There is a meeting next week to us h
I7 l address the other enclosures.
z IO l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Okay.
F g"
19 But what I would like to understand is that in regard 20 to the enclosure number one items that part of the approval 2I includes the staff's implementation schedules for those items, 22 l doesn't it?
23l MR. MATTSON:
Yes, sir.
24 '
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So that, in effect, a piece of 25 !
enclosure two appears in that?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J
28 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Okay.
The second comment I was 3
going to make is' a suggection that while the Action Plan I think 4
is a notable addition to the literature of nuclear regulation --
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It says something about the litera-3 0
ture.
ReS 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
-- it does seem to me that it N
j 8
would be 'very helpful if the staff could in connection with the d
8 9
z.
full power operating license requirements that we have approved, o
10 if it could pull together somehow -- well, either print it on z*
Il l lighter paper or, better, gather it together in a smaller and 3
g 12 more concise package, a sort of summary of the history of S
13 5
generation of these requirements and a sort of rationale for a
I4 these as a set of full power requirements.
It seems to me that g
15 if a draf t of that document could come along in reasonable time z
j 16 it would be a very useful document.
I7ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We talked about that some time z
18 ago.
I remember asking for something like that.
We did turn ch I9 g
out something of the sort along the way.
20 MR. MATTSON:
Well, if it is simply 'a history and the i
2I {
thought process and the priority system and the things that l
22 went into refining the NTOL list, which is now reincarnated as 23 '
the OL list, that is already in Appendix A, at least, as a start 24 l of what you are talking about.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think a good part of the sort i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
29 1
of material that would be useful is in hand already in various 2
places, most of it somewhere in the Action Plan in the current 3
draft.
What I have got in mind is the following.
We need the 4
policy statement, but it is in the nature of Commission policy 5
statements that I don' t think we can -- well, I don' t think the a
h j
6 sort of rather fuller description of where we have been and how R
7 we got here and the rationale for this package is --
Xl 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As was said, a lot of it is there.
dd 9
MR. MATTSON:
And you are combining the introduction i
h 10' and the Appendix A thing and then, sort of, the philosophy.of
=
j 11 I putting something out in every area of weakness identified by 3
g 12 the principal investigations.
And that kind of flavor gives S
(
g 13 you, like, a statement of considerations.
m l
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think what you need is to simply n
2 15 separate out part of what you've got here.
E y
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I guess another way of putting W
17 i it is, assuming we develop our policy statement and somebody 5
18 says, " All right, Hendrie, could you give me some sort of
=
l 19 summary document that sort of explains where you are coming 20 from, other than a bibliography?
What have you got, Hendrie?"
21 And it would be very handy to have the reg', whatever the number 22 might be, that says, "Look, here is a summary and it has also 23 got all the references, if you want to spend the rest of your i
24 '
life reading it."
25{
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Somewhere between this and this.
I i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was trying to get that before 2
we started.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, I can remember.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will take the moment of silence 5
as meaning that we are at the end.
l 6
(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m.,
the meeting concluded.)
W X]
8 d
d 9
i h
10 g
11 a
d 12 3
S
(
3-13 a
l 14 n
2 15 i
i 16 as(
17
$i 18 19 R
20 21
)
I 23 24l i
i 23 -l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.a,-.s X.
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the t.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
Discussion of Action Plan (SECY-80-230)
- Date of Proceeding: May 16, 1980 Docket Number-Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
Joan Gill Official Reporter (Typed)
~
~
,. v%
officia1 eporter (Signature)
"we I @
l t
l
.