ML19320C796

Transcript of 800707 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc to Discuss TMI Action Plan,Chapter V.Pp 1-37.Supporting Matl Encl

ML19320C796
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	07/07/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8007180041
Download: ML19320C796 (58)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:e-e D l h Qt**?,%///,lj?

• ~.'.'!/ / J !/
• '!'.,f l 1

..i,h ~ Q DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory-Commission held on July 7, 1980 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. 1 - This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general infor=ational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forma 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. O 8007180

s 1 NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA kC' 2 7/7/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Parker bfml PUBLIC MSETING l 'l t 4 DISCUSSION OF ACTION PLAN e 5 g (CHAPTER V) j 6 E m 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner's Conference Room j 8 1717 H Street, N.W. aj Washington, D.C. 9 z C Monday, July 7, 1980 10 z The Commissioners met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. jj. D i BEFORE: d 12 E JCHN F. AHEARNE,, Chairman of the Commission 13 au PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner E 14 a H! 15 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner 5 T 16 j NRC STAFF PRESENT: 3 i d I E. HANRAHAN g 17 l wl is ! M. MALSCH = i 5 'A. KENNEKE j9 il LEONARD BICKWIT, General Counsel 20 i 21 l R. BERNERO R. MATTSON 22 l i C. K M RER l 23 24 25 ' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

w } 2 bfm2 1 _P _R O C _E _E _D _I N G_ _S 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: The Commission meets this af ternoon 3 to hear from two Commission offices: the Office of OPE and i 4 the Office of OGC regarding the actions identified in Chapter e 5 V of the TMI Action Plan. h j 6 These are action s specifically directed to the R 7 Commissionto the development of the Action Plan. We directed the Xl 8 staff to essentially freeze, as far as further development d d 9 to bookkeep.those actions. The Commission would review it and 2,o 10 decide what steps should be taken. z 5 I Q 11 Earlier this summer, we requested the two offices that D I 12 I mentioned put together a paper to come back to us on it. That 5 y 13 l is the purpose of this afternoon's meeting. Neither of you seem u mg 14 to be popping forward with great eagerness. r ]r 15 ? (Laughter.) z d 16, Ed, you had your papers -- more of them in front of d i N I7 ! you, so perhaps you are the appropriate person to start. l w 3 18 MR. HANRAHAN: Chapter V, as you mentioned, addressed P" 19 policy, organization and magagement issues in 7 items. Due to 20l the interrelationship among these items, we have regrouped the 21 ; original 7 into seven subject areas. 22 l In five of these subject areas, we conclude no further I 23 ! action is needed at this time. In two areas, specifically, organi1 i 24 L zation and management and the developement of a safety policy, 25 we recommend that actions be taken now. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i 3 bfm3 1 We would like to proceed by first discussing the five 2 areas where we recommend no action at present, that no action 3 be taken immediately. Then, take the two items for which we 4 do recommend some action. g Since the five actions which require no -- recommend 5 n j 6 no action, they are generally legal areas -- R 7 (Laughter.) 8 Only one of us will talk about legal matters. d ~ MR. BICKWIT: All right. On the five, where no action q 9i zo g 10 is recommended, before going through these, I would like to E h 11 do that briefly. I think it ought to be clarified what we are 3 I 12 recommending and what we are not recommending. 5 j 13 When.we say no recommendation -- no action is recom~ a mg 14 mended, we are saying that no action is recommended now, either we 2 15 ; because the subject of the item has been performed, is being g 16 performed, or we have some other reason why nothing should be w g 17 I done either now or at all.. m 5 M 18 When we get to items where there is reason why we think P" 19 nothing should be done now, ac opposed to a situation where g 20l something is already being done, that is the reason we recommend i 21 l no action, we will try to flag that for you because that, I think, l 22 is the more difficult to the policy decisions involved. l 23! The first of these is the non-safety responsibilities. l 24 I am not going to go through all the discu'ssion in this paper, i 25l but simply to supplement it where I feel it needs it. On the i { ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

= 1 4 ~bfm4 1 non-safety responsibilities, we recommended no action with 2 respect to exports -- export transfers, as well as other non-3 safety responsibilities of the Commission. 4 We do that because the Commission has made no view on e 5 this matter. The Administration at this point has chosen not Me] 6, to act on the Commission's recommendation. We feel that for the R 7 Commission to submit legislation without the administration's j 8 support, will not be fruitful. d d 9 What we suggest is that when you get a new Commissioner, iog 10 see where the majority stands on this, and where ever the majority 3 5 11 stands on it, a letter ought to g'o to the President conveying <w d 12 that view, either to pint out that the view of the Commission E 5 13 has changed or to point out the view of the Commission has not o= i E 14 changed and legislation in this area is supported. w Y 2 15 l The Administration decision not to transfer export l 5 l g 16 l authority -- all of the formulations of that view that I heard I g 17 ; are to the effect that the reorganization plan was not the w 2 i 18 l appropriate vehicle for that. All of those formulations left = l r 19 l open the possibility of a transfer by legislation at a subsequent 8 n 1 20 ! time. I 21l Now, on the second of the items on which nothing is 22 recommended, advisory committees -- 23 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Before you leave that, it might be 24 f just appropriate if you have any comments to comment on it now. 25 I have no problem with your formulation. It appears to me that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

s 5

bfm5 I

all of us -- at least I know for myself, I do not think that 2[l there is anything more to be said on the issue. 3 It does not seem to be useful to take any action. I 4l COMMISSIONE?. HENDRIE: Yes. I would not wrangle the I issue anymore, I guess over the past six or eight months, I have 3 6i e managed to vote at least once on both sides of the issue. Pro-n 3 7 7 bably, you know, it may turn out to be three votes for and two l j against or something like that -- whichever way. d \\ 9! It does seem to me the pra*cticalities of the situation 3-l 10 indicate that it is not useful to revisit this issue until such ? IIl time as there is an inclination on the Administration's part and U f I2 the part of Congress to undertake that review of NNPA functioning = l 5 I3! which I think was -- is in the statute, isn't it? u I4 MR. BICKWIT: Yes. 15 l C h COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: If not in the statute, in the U y 16 conference reports and so on. Then, in that context, one can + $" 17 llsee where -- what the best arguments seem to be. At the present E I l time, I agree, there is not much point in the Commission hassling I 19 i j the matter any further. 20 Ij COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I agree with that. I think, as 21 ! j I understand it, it is clear, at the moment, the Commission 22 would be -- would have no position. There would be two sets 23l of two views. There is no reason to try to proceed in that 24 situation. 2$ l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:,All right. Good. So. Le accept that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I

6 bfLJ I j. MR. BICKWIT: On advisory committees -- 2I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Before you go away, you decided 3 also that there was no reasonable way that we can avoid our 4 respcnsibilities under the Environmental Policy Act. e 5 MR. BICKWIT: I would not put it quite that way. ] 6 (Laughter.) R 7 Although, I would agree with that statement. Al 8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: That anti-trust transfer, I d c; 9 think I would agree with you that it is not worthwhile trying to E 10 mount some independent initiative here. If the matter comes up E j 11 in the context of one or another rewritings of the Atomic Energy 3j 12 l Act in the next year or two, why fine. We can speak to the issue S 13 then, each as we see fit. g = mg 14 Short of that, I would not propose to deal with it. 2 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Fine. g 16 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I agree with that. W i i g. 17 l MR. BICKWIT: Yes. On item C, advisory committees, 18 the second item onwhich we recommend no action, let me flag for = 19 you two particular sub-items. We are recommending no additional 20 activity on the part of the Commission with respect to the 21I Nuclear Safety Board. 22 That is premised on the assumption that the Commission 23l remains with its testimony before the Udall Committee on that 24 matter in which, what you said was with respect to the accident 25 review function of the Nuclear Safety Board. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

7 Bfm7 1, You did not feel that a separate board was needed, and 2 with respect to the monitoring of the Commission, function of 3 the board. You felt that was a question for Congress. 4 Unless we have different instructions, we see no further 5 -- we see no fruit in further work on that issue. = b ] 6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Do you have any problems? R 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No. sj 8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: No. U i 9l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right. ,z i o I 10 l MR. BICKWIT: Then, we are also suggesting no further z = j 11 work on exploration of the subject of additional advisory commit-U g 12 tees for the Commission. = i g" 13 j l Mr. Bradford proposed that OPE look into some of the i l 14 I factors involved. That has been done. We looked into some of 2 15 the legal aspects. We do not recomment pursuing it unlest there f 16 l is sentiment on the part of the Commission to go forward in this

• ^

y 17 : area. U G 18 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Could you sort of explain why you 6 l l 10 don't recommend pursuing it? 5 i 20 MR. BICKWIT: We don't think the case has been made at 21 this coint for an additional advisory committee. We think the 22 Commission can get its advice on an ad hoc basis when it needs 1 23 ' it. 24 ; CE.i!RMAN AHEARNE: Were you looking at it from the 25 standpoint of technical advice, or were you looking at it from i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

e 8 bfm8 ) the standpoint of any kind,;f advice? 2 MR. BICKWIT: We are looking at it throughout. We saw 3 no area in which the case had been made. 4, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Peter? i 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, I am persuaded that while = M N 6, I think the Commission can do with hearing from different f7 perspectives from time to time, and that that case certainly E 8 could be made, that I could not see in the variousi combinations a d d 9 that OPE looked at and discovered in other agencies anything,that z 10 was not as much or more cumbersome than the benefits it might E 5 11 offer. U 12 l I guess what I came down with as an alternative would

• az:

I 3 13 l be to think just more in terms of occasional out-reach, ourselves, 5 E 14 in terms of who we invited to sit across the table from us on Nl 15 l a periodic basis and particular problems, rather than formalizing 16 it through a committee set-up. D^ l d 17 : CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Yes. Joe? a= COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I agree with that. I do not 5 18 l Eh find myself lacking in advice in most areas. 19 9M 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess I would like to, while I 21 would probably end up agreeing with Commissioner Bradford on that, 22 I would like to at least see if we -- maybe OPE is the right 23j place, or Fouchard's public outreach -- but somehow, we ought to 24 i see if we can' t do 'that on a more regular basis, gec some kind of f 25, a system. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

9 bfm9 1 We do have the mechanisms to hold those kinds of 2 meetings. It would probably be more useful, at least for me, 3 to gain some -- to get some regular system. It might be ( 4 possible to set that up to comment on such things as, for example, e 5 PPPG, rather than waiting for a specific problem to arise. h j 6 MR. BICKWIT: The next item on my list is the licensing R 7 process. Al 8l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Before that, I wonder -- Mr. Fraley l d q 9 is here from the ACRS. He might want to make some comments on ig 10 advisory committees. s j 11 MR. FRALEY: I think this covered about every item I 3 y 12 had on my list, except for the possibility of two. You remember, =2 1 5 13 ; in the Committee's report of January 15, with respect to a l 14 strengthening the role of the Committee, they did suggest that Ej 15 it might be useful to consider a procedure by which the Committee's = j 16 recommendations in licensing proceedings are dealt with as part W I y 17 l of the licensing proceeding. N \\ w" 18 l Right now, the only thing that is important is that the = 19 ll letter exists. What it says in not really considered very N \\ 20 important, specifically unless one of the parties picks it up. 21 I do not know if that has been addressed in some other forum. It i 22 l is not addressed here. 23 ; The other thing was that I think one of the Commissioners 24 I suggested that it would be useful if once a year the Committee 25, could sort of identify the ten or twelve or fifteen really l 4 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

10 Bfm10 Il important safety issues that it saw in the regulatory process. 2 Again, in this January letter, the Committee m:igested 3 a couple of ways that that might be accomplished. We really have 4 not heard any more about that. Perhpas we should get together 5 g with the EDO, but there were two possible ways suggested. j 3 6I One was for the Committee to review and comment on the a R R 7 g annual report to Congress on unresolved safety questions; the n 8 8 a . other one was to do some sort of a resources allocation review, d l 6 9l j l perhaps starting with NRR, then branching out to other offices o 10 l j and divisions. ~ = h The Committee has done some of that in their review o d 12 z of the NRC Action Plan, but that is kind of a one-shot proposition 3 13 5 as it stands now. So, I think those are two items that really E 14 I g l are not addressed and need further thought. k i 9 15 ' y l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Ed or Len, do you want to comment u d 16 l on those? w h II MR. BICKWIT: I would say we have not addressed them, e i IO ' l I would like to explore them further. ws I' 3 MR. FRALEY: We probably did not bring these soon n 20 ' enough in che process to get them into this paper. CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Perhaps -- anybody have any comments, [ I 22 l otherwise, I will just ask Len and Ed to get back to us within 23 the next couple of weeks on that. MR. BICKWIT: Fine. t 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNZ: Okay. i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l

g 4 11 sfmil 1 MR. BICKWIT: Item D, involving the licensing process, 2 I want to call your attention to our recommendation, not at this 3 point, to do any exploratory activity on the Office of Hearing t 4 Counsel, or the Office of Public Counsal. e 5 Our thinking is that the Commission has supported a h 6 pilot program, an intervenor funding. We would think the natural R d 7 order of events would be to see how the Congress comes out on d tl [ 8 that and to take action based on the action of the Congress. d en t2 9 If Congress turns that down, we wou' d then want to zog 10 take a look at those alternatives. If Congress supports it, I 2 j 11 think we would like to see how it works before looking at alter-y 12 natives. E: 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would be more ccmfortable 3m 14 with that if that recommendation were getting a warmer reception Y 2 15 in the key Congressional committees. I do not anticipate that w= f 16 we will, in fact, receive those funds. d I d 17 l I mean, we might, but I would not want to necessarily 5 18 hold alternative approaches to improving public participation in 5 19, abeyance on something that does not seem to me any better than I 20 a 50/50 proposition. 21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I think that is on the high side. 22 l (Laughter.) 23 ' MR. BICKWIT: You will agree, it is not any better. 24 i (Laughter.) i 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Anyway, my inclination would 1 ALDERSON REPORTING C.OMPANY, INC.

12 bfm12 1 be to think some more about approaches to the Office of Hearing l 2 Counsel. 3 MR. BICKWIT: I guess I also have to say that we based 4 some of our views on the obvious assumption that you cannot do e 5 everything, and that we could -- I do not think there is any h j 6 particular proposal in here where the Commission wouldnot be R 7 enriched ever so slightly by an additional study by OPE or our A j 8 . office, or some staff office. d 9 So, what we have attempted to do here -- some of what 2 10 l we have not proposed -- we put off base on that reasoning, plus 5 11 whatever other reasoning might supplement that. This is one 3 y 12 of those. 3 g 13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I guess I would be inclined not a 14 to take any further action at this time. g 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess I would probably agree with = g 16 both Peter and Len. I am not sure how to resolve that in the A( 17 l sense that you can't do everything. I guess someone ought to be w g 18 thinking about -- assuming we are committed to trying to increase P h 19 ! the mechanism of the participation in the process. I am not M 20l optimist'c on getting the funds from the Congress. I 21 Now, it does not mean that therefore, we ought to be 22! more optimistic in establishing the Hearing Counsel approach, but i 23{ at least it might be useful to begin thinking about how we would -- 24 MR. BICKWIT: Before you come to any judgment on that, 25 ' let me move on to the next point. Perhaps it will be relevant i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

13 Gfm13 i 1'j in resolving this one. 2 With respect to the basic forms of the licensing process e* { that have not received adequate study -- I am including item 4 9 of Chapter V. Our view there is that we want to get to those e 5 g matters, matters such as should we change the role of the staff? 8 6 Should we think about having a neutral staff? Should we think n R 7 about having legislative hearings in lieu of full adjudicatory 8 8 j hearings? a d 9ll j Should we think acout a separated staff? All of those h 10 y matters, I think, are worthy of analysis. I think our office = E 11 1 is the appropriate office to do it. u I d 12 g At this point, I would prefer to see those matters E 13 l i addressed at a later stage. The Office has been, to some degree, E 14 l d strapped. Day to day activities have been ~.sking just about all u 9 15 2 of our time. m 4 ? 16 j I would prefer to move forward on those matters we are j i C 17 l d , considering, and to look at some of these basic matters when we j E m 18 l ) g, j can catch our breath. I' guess I would lump Office of Hearing 4 19 I l l Counsel, Office of Public Counsel into that group of matters that 20l it would be desirable to look at when we can. 21 l CHAIRHAN AHEARNE: I guess the -- you had at one -- \\ 22 I l you had started an evaluation of legislative needs. Is that 1 23 f correct? 24 ; MR. BICKWIT: Yes. That is on a faster track.

That, 25 we are planning to come up with a paper within the next month ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

14 'bfml4 I i talking about whatever we think needs to be done legislatively. 2' That is, these are legislative matters that we have picked out 3 over the course of the last year, useful changes in the law. 4 They do not go to the heart of the licensing process. e 5 g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, the one thing that I think 6! ~ let us assume that -- I do not you have to keep in mind is, n 8 7 want to be overly pessimistic -- but let's assume that this year's n 8 8 proposal for interveaor funding does not proceed. d 6 9 I think at the end of this month, we will be going g o 10 through a Commission budget review again. We will have to face z l = E 11 j the issue of.whether or not to try again. If not, what alter-d 12 i Z ~ native approach. = = 13 The Hearing Counsel approach is an alternative approach. E 14 d MR. BICKWIT: Yes. ? 0 15 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Although, you do not have to have = ? 16 j it in a budgst submission in August. It can go in in the fall. 17 N 'd One always has the opportunity to go to the C113 before they = 18 finish putting tP'ir. budget together. = 19 You really have to be able to submit it in January -{ I 20 I j together, so that if we were to make the decision, that rather 21 I than trying intervenor funding again, we ought to try this other 22 i route. l I 23 : We would need the supporting analysis sometimg in the 1 24 i fall. That is a pacing item. 1 25 ' MR. BICKWIT: I think that is right. Well, what I i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

\\ 15 l bfm15 Il hear you saying is why don't we treat that differently from tha i 2! way we treat these other, what I term, basic reforms in the l 3 process. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That would be my recommendation. I g 5 MR. ~BICKWIT: Pull that one out and move with that N ]' 6l one more quickly. E i d 7! CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Because I am interested in tryinn 'n j 8 again in the budget some approach. '. have not yet, for my own d y 9 self, reached the conclusion as to whether or not we ought to try zt 10 to go back with the intervenor funding. E j 11 I would like to, at least, have this as an option to 3 y 12 look at some time in the fall. 5 i j 13 l MR. BICKUIT: Fair enough. m m-g 14 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I agree with that. There are b i i r 15 l circles in which this approach is censiderably more palatable w* i j 16 l than intervenor funding, if for no other reason than the ^ \\ 17 Commission has more control over the quality and nature of tha g' a i = i 5 18 l presentations. = 1 s 19 COMMISSIONER HENDh.E: Depending on the sort of 20l language that comes up in the authorizing or appropriating acts, i 21I vou could be in a situation where you find it hard to justify 22 Hearing Counsel Office. 23 MR. BICKWIT: One can imagine such a finding. It is l 24! conceivable that we would have to -- that there would be some l 25l in Congress who would regard this as ^ being able to justify 3 I ALDERSON REPORTINu OMPANY. INC.

c 16 bfm16 ji the study of it in the current fiscal year. l I w uld not read the language of the Congressional 2 committee reports to preclude it, but conceivably some of the 3 1 authors do. I do not know. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, I assume you will approach it = 5 3n carefully. 8 6 e (Laughter.) 7 Could I ask a question on this section while we're here? 8 N I What is the status of the SECY-82-62, which is, as I recall, 9 i h 10 increasing involvment in licensing adjuulcations? Is that -- z j jj do you know what -- <3 MR. BICKWIT: Can you give me a page? 6 12 i5 E 13 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Page D-3, third paragraph. I wanted 5 i ~ to ask about status of the two studies. The ex parte one I E 14 wH k 15 recall. i I MR. BICKWIT: We are coming back very shortly on that 16 l ~ 3 i I one. On the appeal board study, that is -- yes.

rl g

37 a 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Is that E MR. BICKNIT: Yes. The status of that is we have some R )9 v tes in. They differ. As I understand it, there are two votes 20 f r cutting back on our recomme.Tdations, and one for going with 21 our recommendations. 3, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Depending on where the other vote 23 24,; comes in? i 1 MR. BICKWITH: Yes. 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

17 bfm17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: On the ex parte study comments, y, I 2l you are going to be coming back to us shortly? MR. BICKWIT: Very shortly. 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right. 4 MR. BICKWIT: Yes, yes. There was another vote -- n 5 Xn CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Now there are only four. Then, I j 4 e f7 have no other problems or comments on your licensing process. E 8 Peter? n COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No. 9 i 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: No. E I E I MR. BICKWIT: The final item on which we recommend no y 11 3 action relates to consolidation of locations, NRC locations. I 6 12 i 3 h 13 asked the director of OCA to be with us today. If you have any E particular questions on where things stand, he appears to be the g 34 N 15 Y' a COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: By no action, you are not saying 16 a M ! no action. 37 a l MR. BICKWIT: No internal action. All we recommended 18 l P was to work with those people who have the power to make the 39 8n decision and make sure they understand the reasons why you are 20 21 l where you are. t CHAIRiAN AHEARNE: Carl, do you have any further news? 22 MR. KAMMERER: Not any further news than the supple-23 mental appropriarions language, directing that the GAO do a 24 i I review, whi h is on the consolidation as proposed by OMB and 25 have a report back within 60 days as to that option or other j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

18 bfml8 j options. They use the phase cost effective option or options. 2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: The GAO study, Carl, is on 3 4 the proposed interim consolidation? 5 MR. KAMMERER: That is correct. e 5 i 6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I don't see anything wrong. e MR. BICKWITH: That concludes our portion cf the 7 s presentation. 8 8, n MR. HANRAHAN: Is the -- 9 i MR. BICKWITH: There is one other one. On legislation, h 10 z! 11 the paper sounds too pessimistic, in my view, with respect to U 12 li the likelihood of legislative proposals coming from our office. ,4z: I E 13 I (Laughter.) m a Maybe pessimistic -- E 14 i d l' 5' 15, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does pessimistic mean that at l Wz 94 least they will? O W 4 (Laughter.) ,3-37 W i E 18 j MR. BICKWIT: I think you are likely to hear from our = l i 5 office on legislation. The paper could be read as suggesting 39 8n 20 that you will not. We say our conclusion is that in no instance legislation 21 22 l necessary. What we really mean is in no instance is there a l crying need for legislation. You would have heard from us by 23 ! now if we had thought so. 24 We are coming up with a paper which will show you all 25 : l I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

19 I' possible areas for legislation, and where additional work might 2 be needed. We felt the need to come to the condition before 3 actually making reccmmendations, because some will entail some 4, additional work. We wanted to find out whether we were simply and t2g 5 out in left field on some of them before doing any more work. Il flwE i t3 6 4'8 6'i g a 7! 8 8 I d i 6 9 i9g 10 E 11 j j U j d 12 l z i 5 i y 13 ! n i E 14 d h: 2 15 ' I

a I

g 16 j 4 y 17 j 5 G 18 l 5 19 l 9 d j 20 ! 21 i i 22 l l i i 23 ' l 24 ! l 25, l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

I l 20 I 1 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I nad a question on one of l 2 them, Page E-4, Number 6. Tnie is the folAow-up on tne 3 special entry group recommendation of incustry-wide 4 consortium related. Are we examining the question of 5 minimum stancards for a utility or minimum standards for a 6 group of utilities to operate nuclear plants? 7 MR. BICKWIT: Do you mean a minimum -- minimum 8 technical standards? 9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess trying to get at tne IO point that I thougnt came enrougn in ene special entry 11 group's recommendation to examine tne issues. Tnere are 12 some utilities tnat are just too small or understaffed. 13 MR. BICKWIT: I know we are not. I don't Know 14 whether anyone else is examining tnat. 15 MR. HANRAHAN: No. 1 16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well l 17 VOICE: I nave a vague recollection tnat NRR is, 18 but I am not certain about enat. 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess I would like to ada 20 into this list of tnings tnat CPE and OGC is coming back to 21 us on, I would J ike to toss tnis in, wnat is nappening, if 22 notning is nappening, wnetner you thinx sometning snould l 23 nappen. If you don't eninx sometning snoula nappen, wny 24 not? It seemea to be an issue enat came up a number of 25 times in the groups reviewing enis. l ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, L

a D. * < - 2} 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: IS tnat information tnat 2 can be hao tnrougn tne skilleo use of, wnat is it, Appendix 3 2 of the action plan? Tnat is tne recommendation must nave 4 been made, ano tnerefore its status must be 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It sounds logical. 6 (General laughter.) 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Mayce it would be a very easy ~ 8 task, but 9 MR. BICKWIT: You just want to know wnere it is. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I want to know why.isn't 11 anytning happening? That is really wnat I want to Know. 12 MR. BICKWIT: All right. Tnat is it for us. 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Anybocy else? Any comments? 4 (No response. ) 15 MR. HANRAHAN: Tne first item I would lixe to taxe 16 up is tne development of safety colicy. In ene PPPG, tne l'7 Commission stated its intent to aefine more clearly tne 18 level of nealtn and safety it believes adequate. The ACRS 19 nas a succommittee wnicn is pursuing this area, and tne 20 Office of Researcn nas a number of programs under way 21 leading to tne develooment of a safety goal ano anticipating n it. 23 In adcition, toere is a variety of of#cres in 3 industry -- 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What aoout NRR? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET. S.W. REPORTERS SUtLDING, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 2U24 (202) 554-2345

l 22 1 1 MR. HANRAHAN: Yes, industry nas some work going 2 on. It seems, enen, enat tne appropriate thing is to 3 prepare a plan whicn would draw together certainly tne NRC 4 activities in tnis area wnicn would senedule tnem and assign 5 responsibility for bringing them togetner and bringing 6 forward recommendations to the Commission. 7 In addition, there is tne likelihood that this 8 will be legislatively required to be conducted and reported 9 to Congress in June, I beJ.ieve is tne date. to So, our recommendation on this is to assign the 11 responsibility to myself and tne general counsel to prepare 12 ene program plan wnicn would identify the -- wno snould be 13 responsible and now it snould be carriec out. 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: i would lixe to ask first Ray 15 Fraley and ther, Boo Bernero to at least acdress briefly 16 wnetner eney woula like to add anytning to the description l'7 of tne efforts in ene paper. 18 MR. FRALEY: We nave tentatively seneduled a 19 report of tne subcommittee to tne full committee of tne 20 September meet.ing, wnich we hope.will be tne beginning of 21 the committee 's report on tnis. So certainly by the end of 22 the year we would nope to have ene committee's report 23 finisned. September is the nominal date to oegin working on 24 ene report. October is probably at least the last. 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Do you expect tnat committee is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, L

23 1 going to come up with some quantitative safety goals? 2 MR. FRALEY: Yes, sir. That is wnat they are 3 working on, in terms of individual and cumulative puolic 4 risk. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All rignt. Anytning else that 6 you would like to add, Ray? 7 MR. FRALEY: No. 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Rocert? 9 MR. BERNERO: We nave just discussac witn tne ACRS 10 at a subcommittee meeting last ween the work tnat we are 11 doing. We expect to have reports on our researen efforts ey 12 the end of this fiscal year. In other words, Octocer. And 13 we would be in a position tnen witn tnose results tnat would 14 include -- I will call it tne philosophical underpinning of 15 quantitative safety goals, s.nd some of the mecnanics of 16 actually using quantitative safety goals in tne regulatory 17 process. 18 With tnac, I think we can make an intelligent 19 recommendation on an initial attempt. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You are saying in orcer to maxe 21 your intelligent recommanidation, you would need until wnen? 22 MR. BERNERO: The end of tnis fiscal year. I 23 would say Octcoer, give or take a monta. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: So 2.t is approximately around 25 tne same period of time. <? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

• d**

300 7th STREET, $.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

24 1 MR. BERNERO: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Peter? Comments? 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let's see. How, tnen, do 4 you see tnose efforts blending witn wnat you propose tnat ~' 5 you and Len undertake? 6 MR. HANRAHAN: I thinK those are the activities 7 that would be part and parcel of program planning. Those 8 would be pieces of work that would go on wnich would be 9 relied upon by wnoever is given the task of developing tne 10 safety goals to use as tne basic analytical mecnanisms that 11 are going on, as well as the NRR. 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You are proposing, tnen, 13 that about a year from now you would as a result of enese 14 and otner efforts put something Defore us tndt would in 15 effect be a draf t safety policy statement? 16 MR. HANRAHAN: Well, someone woulc. What I 17 propose is to outline the means, wnat is involved in getting 18 from nere to enat safety standard, and wnetner tnat takes a 19 year or longer, I tnink is a good question. I woulc think 20 tnat a year is going to oe an awfully snort time because of 21 ene issues involved and tne need for public participation in 22 tnat process. 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It may be a long time to 24 actually arrive at the standard. I would tnink at least a 25 draft as something from wnicn we could decide on now to go ALDERSON REPORT 1NG COMPANY, INC. yvvvv90%6aara rardL SriT;n rSr.a c%sivn

25 1 about involving tne puolic and decide basically what else we 2 wanted to do, that would be something I at least would like 3 us to have in front of us as soon as possible, taking into 4 account, ooviously, tne efforts that Bob and the ACRS nave 5 under way. 6 I wondered wnether, for example, you would feel 7 that six montns would be an unreasonaole perioo of time to 8 nave at least some kind of a rougn draft statement in front 9 of us so that the Commission can make some decisions about to now to go from tnat to a final official Commission 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I would eninx tnat if, assuming 12 that both tne ACRS and Researen are able to continue witn 13 their progress, and that encs up in about three months, I do 14 not see wny enere could not be sometning in six months tnat 15 we could not work with, cecause one is tnen also going to l 16 have to go out, I guess, to a number of puolic meetings to 17 try to have discussions. 18 MR. HANRAHAN: I unink ene process is going to be 19 a lengtny one. I think as early as possible, I eninx it is 20 important to get out not only sort of the draft, but alto 21 the work tnat will come cue in October and November from 22 ACRS anc Researcn, and subjecting tnose to public discussion 23 and scrutiny. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It would appear to me enat wnat 25 we nave to try to do is get the ACRS and tne researcn ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, . Q 7@[jTRR O.W. RRRTGR@ @UILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 j202) 554 2345

gg 1 material out, as you say, but not only -- I think in tnis 2 case we also nave to try to get a suostantial amount of 3 ciscussion to nelp us in coming down on sometning rather 4 tnan come down on sometning and then go out for discussion. 5 MR. HANRAHAN: I tnink tne whole process over tne 6 next six months or year or wnatever it takes nas got to be a 7 very interactive process. 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I have no problem in tasking 9 you to c'ome up witn that kind of a plan. I tnink it really 10 ought to be a Commission statement rather than, say, an ETO 11 statement that comes out, because it ia going to be a 12 mixture. It is going to be puolic policy. 13 MR. HANRAHAN: It is going to be a Commission 14 statement. 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I am concernec to make sure in 16 developing this plan you first get -- cecome very f amiliar 17 with wnat Bob is doing and wnat tne ACLS is doing, cecause 18 they nave had tnis stuff uncer way. We want to capture and 19 utilize tnat as opposed to trying to start from scraten. I 20 definitely tnink you ought to try by tne end of 1980 to nave 21 that in front of us. 1 22 MR. HANRAHAN: Have the statement, or -- 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You ought to try to come back 24 in, I woula say, a month, at least, with a plan, and enen 25 ougnt to aim at ene end of 1980 witn being able to nave ALCERSCN AEPoRTING COMPANY,INC, L U.u

4 g7 1 sometning the Commission can begin to look over. 2 MR. HANRAHAN: I thinK that is a reasonable 3 schedule. 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Okay. 5 MR. EANRAHAN: Tne next subject is the manager *nt 6 study. 7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Before I leave enat, I took a 8 sidewise snexe of the head rather than asking Roger a 9 quespion. Dic you have anytning you wanted to ask Roger? 10 MR. MATTSON: We have been doing some tninking at 11 NRR aoout safety goals anc wnat form tney make take, not so 12 much trying to get a number at the start, but trying to looK 13 croadly at tne start and figure out all tne interests that 1-4 need to be served, the various fears of people tnat you need 15 to speak to. 16 We nave nad some talks. We nave written some of 17 them down. Since he has tne responsibility, maybe we will 18 just send tnem off to him, and see if eney factor into nis 19 plan. We would like to play a role. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess the right thing for him 27 to do is to go down and talk to you. 22 MR. MATTSON: Good. a COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Roger, enis is taking 24 place independently of wnat Bob is doing and wnat tne ACRS 3 is doing. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

o gg 1 MR. MATTSON: I would not say independently. We 2 are cognizant of what tney are doing. We nave attended tne 3 ACRS meetings and talked to tne people involved, but it is a 4 separate activity, not hign level, not a lot of man years. I 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Why don't you plan on trying to 6 get back to us in a montn with a plan? 7 MR. HANRAHAN: The final item deals witn 8 organization of management. Tne items encompassed under 9 tnat were NRC top management structure process, organization 10 functions of the NRC c?fices, delegation of autnority to the 11 staff, clarifying and strengthening the role so tne Chairman 12 and the Commission and delegation of emergency response 13 functions to one Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Funny, I have hearc some 15 of those befcre. 16 MR. EANRAHAN: The latter two nave been taken care 17 of tnrougn tne President's reorganization to a large extent, 18 and otner actions the Commission nas taken on emergency 19 response. Tne celegation of autnerity' to tne staff nas been 20 taxen up in tne delegation of rule maxing paper. That 21 leaves tne manag6 Lent question. In the FY 80 Autnorization 22 Act, signed a week ago, a management study is requirea to zg examine the internal management -- ene st.:ucture of tne 24 agency at all levels. 25 As you will recall, enere was a previous f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. -enm.-m-

gg 1 management stucy wnich was going enrougn ene procurement 2 process, wnicn was only to look at the Commission and its 3 relationship with tne EDO and the staff offices. That 4 process was termi::ated when it became apparent that a larger 5 study would be required by Congress, so in this area, we 6 recommend that a scope of work be developed in that study 7 based on the statements in tne law and the previous scope of 8 work that was developed by the Commission itself, and that 9 responsibility be assigned to the EDO. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: What kind of a ceadline? 11 MR. HANRAHAN: Well, I believe ene Act requires 12 one year. That would mean the scope of work snould be back 13 probably no later than the 1st of September if tne 14 procurement process works tne way it usually does in the 15 competitive bidding. 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: It would take a year to 17 place a joo with a contractor. 18 MR. HANRAHAN: We did it faster the last time. 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: It only took nine montns. 20 MR. HANRAHAN: Not from the time tnat we went out 21 witn tne request for proposals ira September until their 22 evaluation. I think the process can ce done in four to five a months. 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I would agree witn tnat. 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1 1 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

30

• ~-

1 MR. HANRAHAN: We have not discussed that date witn 2 the executive director for operations. 3 MR. MATTSON: I have a qttestion when you have 4 finished witn this one. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Well, let us try the September 61 date, but why don't you check witn EDO to see if that is 7 feasible. It cannot go mucn later than that 8 MR. HANRAHAN: You need tne time to do tne study. 9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: .Yes, assuming doing tne study 10 rather than exercising the procurement. system is the role. 11 MR. HANRAHAN: I believe tnat is tne purpose. 12 That concluces our presentation. 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Let me ask one question, and 14 then see if these gentlemen have one, and obviously, Roger 15 has one. There is an item under that same section, use of 16 technical consultants, and it was not clear enat ene i 17 comments tracked the recommendations. Tne recommendations 18 seem to be to increase the use of tecnnical consultants, 19 particularly in some of tne discrete tecnnical areas -- I 20 assume those re areas we don't nave covered. Tne comment 21 seems to ce tnat we always do that. 22 I am assuming that the recommendation was written 23 by -~ people who knew what we did, and therefore enere might ce 24 something more, and pernaps tne conclusion tnat we do not l 25 really reacn out to tne extent we should. I l ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, Q)2ihfEQTE GLVA RMRinR;3 MIMIN& WA@HINfTON. D.C. 20024 C02) 554 2345

31 1 Do you have any comment on that? 2 MR. HANRAHAN: No. If anything, enere nas been a 3 great deal of criticism on the use of consultants recently 4 oy NRC -- NRC having a long laundry list of consultants. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Having a list of them and using 6 tnem are two different things. 7 MR. HANRAHAN: 'For ex' ample, there has been 8 extensive misuse of consultants for the review of control 9 room design. I think there was an area where a need was 10 obvious. I do not know wnat more can be done snort of 11 giving an exhortation on it. 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Do you thinx tne exhortation is 13 needed? 14 MR. HANRAHAN: No, I do not. 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Joe? Peter? Roger? 16 MR. MATTSON: On Page F-4, Item Numcer 4 at ene 17 top, I take it by this tnat we all agree that in tne safety 18 policy back up in Item Number 1, we arp going to speak to 19 backfit policy. It was sort of the assumption of the 20 steering group tnat put togetner the action plan that ene 21 safety goal would include consideration of how you go aoout 22 making backfit decisions. 23 This Item 4 on Page F-4 -- your. discussion did not 24 mention that, and one could take ene Item 4 to imply unat I 25 had been delegated tne responsibilities for backfit policy. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREN, S.W. REPORTERS SUtLDING.-WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

32 1 I would just as soon we all work on chat. 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You view your responsibility, 3 thougn, to attempt to generate a backfit policy. 4 MR. MATTSON: We are most happy to work on it. 5 What I want to understand is that that is part of the -- 6 MR. HANRAHAN: It has to be. 7 MR. MATTSON: It is one of tne reasons you need a f 8 safety goal. 9 MR. HANRAHAN: Right. 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: By doing that, does tnat mean 11 enerefore you do not view tnat any longer as -- 12 MR. MATTSON: I make backfit decisions almost 13 daily. I like to know that there is work going ora at the 14 policy level. 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Are you saying, Roger, enat you 16 do not view attempting to develop the backfit policy as part 17 of your responsibility? 18 MR. MATTSON: I tnink that is a question yet to be 19 solved in the context of the plan for ene safety goal. 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All rignt. 21 MR. MATTSON: As to wno gets what responsibility. 22 I want to make sure we are not leaving backfit 23 policy out of tne safety goal. I think we all agree it l' 24 celongs in enere. 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is rignt. Tne sarety ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7m STREETc S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 J202) 554 2345

33 1 goal is not just backfit policy, but backfit policy will 2 certainly flow from it. 3 MR. BICKWIT: It is safety policy we are dealing i l 4 witn, obviously. That nas got to include bacxfit policy. 5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Roger, as tne goofatner of the l 6 action plan, do you have any comments? 7 MR. MATTSON: One general comment. I think it 8 would' be well as we look to testimony before tne President's 9 oversight committee, and I believe GAO is about to recommend 10 that the key Congressional committees hold hearings to see 11 how progress is made on tne plan, it might be well to turn 12 today's meeting into sort of a pen and ink markup of the 13 action plan. That is, the decisions you nave taken here in 14 the context of this paper so we could put out a revision of 15 ene actior plan reflecting mistakes we found, you recall, 16 wnen we approved the ening, plus these enings, and you also 17 askea us to put out for puolic comment, and I guess tnere 18 are a few changes, and it procaoly does not make sense to 19 print it now before the public comment period. 20 We can keep track tnat way of all the cecisions 21 made in tne course of the next year. So, if we coula ask 22 these fellows to mark up a copy of Chapter 5, I would see 23 that it got into the master set. 24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: By markup, you mean. Put 25 it in a format consistent with tne otners, status, F ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345.

l 34 1 deadlines, whatever? MR. MATTSON: Yes, reflecting the decisions you 3 made here today. 4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I tnink it is a good idea. 5 Chapter 5, when we printed this thing, was recognized not to 6 have been called out completely, so in some ways it was not 7 up to tne standard of the rest of it. It would be useful to 8 do it. You say you think it is not wortn coing tnose 9 corrections, and tnen clean up Chapter 5 before we go out 10 for comment? 11 MR. MATTSON: I can talk to the editors and see 12 how long it.would take them to turn it around. If you want 13 the Federal Register notice out in the next week I doubt 14 it. It would procably take three weeks at a minimum. If 15 you wanted to move the Federal Register notice to the 1st of 16 August, they can push anc prooably do it. Tnat way they can 17 push and probably do it. That way, tne people wno do not 18 have copies that would be writing in and saying, yes, I want 19 a copy, wnere can I get a copy, they would get tne update. 20 Tne Federal Register notice could tell tne people 21 wno already have the olc copy that there nave oeen updates 22 made and tney are in tne mail. 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess I would just as soon 24 sena it out myself. 25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Couldn't the Federal ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC. 300 7tri STREET. S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING. WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 c02) 554-2345

35 1 Register notice -- how long a comment period is it? 2 ME. MATTSON: I nave not crossed tnat br lge. 3 Sixty days people tell us is just not enougn time to put 4 together any kind of meaningful comments, so at ene moment, P 5 I woulc say 90 days is a minimum. 6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: If you nad a 90-day comment 7 period and the notice goes out next week and gets published 8 the week af ter that, you are now at mid-July, you are saying 9 you can turn this thing around witn a little pusn just about 10 early in August. 11 MR. MATTSON: Put in the notice it was ceing 12 printed and would be made availaole as expeditiously as 13 possible. 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Roger, now are you 15 parasing the request for comment on this ? Does it say, we 16 would like your views in general? Does it say -- Does it 17 give people any notion of wnat tneir views may oe usec for? 18 It is a Commission request, so in a sense I am asking you if 19 you have figured out what we want. 20 MR. MATTSON: I nave not written it yet, bdt it 21 was in my mind to make it fairly general, to go enrougn a 22 brief nistory, pernaps tne same nistory and tne policy 23 statement. Here is what we nave done with it so far, and we 24 are interested in public comments on it as we move forward 25 to implement the longer range things. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUIL0 LNG, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 1202) 554-2345

36 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I do not want to sort of 2 miscneivously get us back into tne policy statement 3 controversy, but if the commission does nave in mind at tne 4 end of the comment period saying, now, as a result of these 5 comments, the following actions will be taken with regard to 6 the licensing process, I would be more comfortable giving 7 some indication in the notice that went out that in fact the 8 comment process might be used in tnat way, ratner than 9 naving a generalized period of comment and then putting 10 those comments to a use tnat tne commenters migne not nave 11 realized was in the orfing. 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: I guess my comments on tn'at 13 would be, first, I did not realize it was a Commission 14 request. 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Actually, tnat is -- 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: A Commissioner request. 17 (General laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Tnat is right, out at tne 19 same time, if the Commission is in ene end to take action 20 based on the comments, it will certainly in ene end, it will 21 become a Commission request. 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: In my direction to tne staff to 23 put it out, I did nave tne statement tnat if -- tnat I noped 24 eney would ena up using, wnicn really was on the basis of 25 those comments, are you led then to conclude that tney ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th ST,1EET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING. WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

31 1 should make changes in what they recommended to us, tney 2 should come to us, so that seemed to capture that sense. At 3 least I thought so. 4 So, I would ratner you go anead witn tne Federal 5 Register notice and get this done as soon as you could. 6 MR. MATTSON: Ratner tnan waiting until the 7 comment period is over. 8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Yes. Any otner comments? 9 (No response. ) 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: All right, very good. 11 (Whereupon, at 3:00 p. m., the meeting was 12 adjourned. ) 13 14 ~ 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. RF ?ORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

I This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. M =

A c. 4, m p# $ 4 e f ish d 8 8 inthematterof:)&hle6pt?4* Date of Proceeding: 7,/u hpfg8 Docket Number: e Place of ?roceeding: ,d, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. kV5

1. f3SN V Official Reporter (Typed)

. _?'... _ i Official Reporter (Signature)

June 20, 1980 SECY-80-230B COMMISSIONER ACTION omissioner FOR: TheA-3$$s= - k' FROM: waYd'J. Baipfthan,.Direetor - Office of Polic4 valuationi E Q'~D '\\ - V R\\ ' \\' LeonardBickGith. General Counsel

SUBJECT:

UPDATE OF CHAPTER V 0F TMI ACTION PLAN: 4RC POLICY, ORGANIZATION, AND MANAGEMENT PURPOSE: To update the TMI Action Plan Chapter V draft issued May 1980, includir.g subject identifications, status, and j remaining needs and opportunities, with special attention to recommendations for near-term Comission actions. BACXGROUNO: Chapter V of the TMI Action ' Plan (SECY-80-230), addressing NRC policy, organization, and management, is in a unique category: it is not, like the other chapters, primarily a detailing of plans for NRC staff or licensee action.

Rather, it delineates intentions of the Comission itself.

The special status of Chapter V is recognized by a statement in its introduction that the items in the chapter will be decided by the 'Comissica, and that the Comission staff will review the status of the various items and prepare necessary decision papers. At its May 21, 1980 discussion of the Action Plar., the Comission requested OPE and OGC to prepare the present paper. (Memo, Secretary to EDO, GC, and PE, 6/4/80 -- item 8.) OISCUSSION: 1. General In recognition of interrelationships that call for correlated planning, we have grouped the seventeen ite..s of Chapter V into seven subject areas, as follows: A. Development of Safaty Policy (Item 1 of Chapter V) B. Possible Elimination of Nonsafety Responsibilities (Item 2 of Chapter V) e N k C. Advisory Comittees (Items 3, 4, and 8) A k y] v CT: 7 3 T'. ege, OPE, 634-3295 cs~ / frE ch, OGC, 634-146o y v4 hE A .1 N lY C M jf

2-D. Licensing Process (Items 5, 6, 9, and 17) E. Legislation Needs (Item 7) F. Organization and Management (Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) G. Consolidation of NRC Locations (Items 15 and 16) The information developed for each of these subjects is presented in Enclosure 1. For each of the seven subject areas the enclosure presents, in turn, (a) a sumary of the plan; (b) status; and (c) remaining needs and opportunities for action, with special attention to specific near-term actions that_, in our view, warrant Comission consideration. We have defined near-term actions to mean matters or items in need of immediate Commission attention and decision. As noted under " Status" in each of the subject areas, actions have already been taken, set in motion, or recommended by the Commission on a number of the original Chapter V items (e.g., item #6, construction during adjudication (in group D); #12, delegations of authority (F); #15 and 16, consoli-dation of locations (G)). Decisions concerning some are reflected in the President's reorganization plan for NRC (e.g., #2, elimination of non-safety responsibilities; #13, roles of Chairman, Comission, ED0; #14, authority to delegate emergency response (Groups B and F)). However, new or additional initiatives remain available for Comission consideration in some areas. 2. Near-Term Actions Warranting Commission Consideration In Subject Area A, Development of Safety Policy, the most ignediate need iTfor formulation of a general plan for development and articulation of NRC safety objectives, notably -- but not exclusively -- with respect to reactors. The development of a safety goal for reactor regulation may be required by legislation: the Senate Environment Com-mittee's NRC Authorization bill for FY 1981 (S. 2358) includes such a provision -- with a June 30, 1981 due date for a report to Congress. However, regardless of a possible future legislative requirement, the Ccmission itself has expressed its intent to seek to define more clearly the level of protection it believes adequate. (FY 1982-86 Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance.) The plan formu-lation should include analysis of the extent to which articulation is possible and practical in the near term, such as the one-year time scale in S. 2358, and subsequently f (e.g., two-three years). The major elements and disciplines of the issue, including activities beyond those already in i

. Completion of action on the Comission's decision to delegate substantial rulemaking authority to the Office of Standards Development is already in progress. (The draft delegation instrument is being revised as directed by the Comission.) On G Consolidation of NRC Locations, required near-term a actions are already in progress. 3. Further Steps As noted above and detailed in Enclosure 1, most of the necessary specific Chapter V actions have already been taken or started. However, with respect to the few remaining items of Chapter V (apart from the near-term actions here recomended), the Comission should, we suggest, direct conduct of specific projects ad hoc as needed. It would be understood that the Comissioliwas comitted to using its best efforts to take a hard look at the areas and specific items encompassed by Chapter V, as staff resources become available and consistent with the priorities of other business. Necessary status reports and decision papers would be prepared by the Comission staff. RECOPHENDED To recapitulate, we recomend that the Comission undertake NEAR-TERM the following: ACTIONS: (a) Direct OPE /0GC to prepare a program plan for developing safety goals. (b) Direct the EDO to prepare a scope of work for a contract study of NRC management (on the assumption that S. 562, Sec. 302 will become law). ENCLOSURE 1: Details of Plans and Status Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuusday, July 8, 1980. ' Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT June 3Q, i l 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secr;tariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected. DI 'IBUTION ' Emissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLSP l ASLAP l Secretariat

v. A. DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY POLICY (Item 1 of Chapter V) Sunnary The Commission will endeavor to develop more explicit articulation of policy with respect to the fundamental issues of public health and safety. This will include some general approach to risk acceptability and safety-cost trade-offs, and, to the extent that these reasonably lend themselves to articulation, qutntitative safety goals, safety improvement goals, and standards for review of past actions in light of new rules and improved practices. Status In its FY 1982-86 Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance (PPPG) (Memo, Secretary to EDO, 5/1/80), the Commission stated its intent to seek to define more clearly the, level of protection of the public health and safety that it believes is adequate. In its letter to Dr. Press commenting on the Kemeny report, the Commission stated that it is prepared to move forward with an expifcit policy statement on safety philosophy and on the role of safety-cost tradeoffs in NRC safety decisions (A-3). OGC has submitted for the Connission's information a legal analysis of NRC's present requirements and practices with respect to safety adequacy. (" Adequate Protection of the Health and Safety of the Public," memo to the Commission from L. Bickwit, GC, 10/18/79.) 1

A-3 and occupational risk associated with the coal and nuclear fuel cycles. A preliminary draft of a report on Approaches to Acceptable Risk is presently being reviewed, and a draft report on the risk associated with the coal and nuclear fuel cycles is being finalized for distribution in July 1980. 2. A research task force of a variety of professional disciplines has been established to formulate several possible sets of numerical criteria, using different technical approaches. The formation of the research task force and the conduct of its meetings are being coordinated through the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE), with cooperation from other professional engineering societies. The task force has been established in the IEEE SC-5 Reliability Committee, and has completed several working group meetings as of June 1980. 3. Brookhaven National Laboratory has been contracted to independently formulate criteria in order to investigate the implications of such criteria and to determine the impact of attempting to satisfy such criteria. Information on risk exposure and risk acceptance criteria from other societal activities is being collected. Also, baseline calculations of WASH-1400 accident sequence probabilities are being revised by using hardware and human error failure rates. Criteria validation is scheduled for completion in 3rd Quarter FY 1982. 4. As means of peer review during the BNL project, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science, and the American Statistical Association have been contacted to set up peer review functions.

A-5 Remaining Needs and Opportunities The most immediate need is for formulation of a general plan for development and articulation of NRC safety objectives, notably -- but not exclusively -- with respect te reactors. The formulation should include analysis of the extent to which articulation is possible and practical in the near term, such as the one-year time scale in S. 2358, and subsequently (e.g., two-three years). It should identify the major elements and disciplines of the issue, including activities beyond those already in progress. Recommendation: That the Commission assign responsibility to prepare a program plan to OPE /0GC, using internal (NRC) and outside consultation and assistance. 9

B-2 Brief consideration has also been given in this context to the possible transfer of NEPA and antitrust review responsibilities to other agencies, although no detailed analysis was performed. On NEPA the Commission reached a judgment during discussions on the Administration's reorganization plan that environmental issues were so closely linked to health and safety matters in the nuclear licensing process that it would be difficult _ to remove the agency's NEPA responsibilities without fundamentally altering the structure and content of NRC's regulatory activities. Therefore, the Commission decided that further consideration of its NEPA role is probably better pursued in the context of legislative proposals for comprehensive refonn of the nuclear siting and licensing process (for example, H.R. 6390 introduced earlier this year by Congressman Udall in the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs). The Commission also gave brief s.nsideration to the transfer of NRC antitrust review responsibilities to the Justice Department. It was 5-concluded that such a transfer would have no significant effect on NRC safety regulation because review resources would be only marginally affected, and resources requirements for future antitrust reviews will likely decrease since a major portion of the electric utility industry has already been subjected to NRC antitrust review. Also, it was noted that a transfer to another t'ency could result in licensing delays since the review schedule and allocation of review resources would no longer be within NRC control.

l C. ADVISORY COMMITTEES (Iter.s 3, 4, and 8 of Chapter V) Summary The Commission will undertake several actions concerning advisory committees -- o continue efforts to strengthen'the role of the Advisory Committee o'n Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), including su, - t for legislation to eliminate mandatory ACRS case reviews, to free up Committee time for broad -- as well as case-specific -- safety issues (item 3 of ChapterV). o determine whether to establish additional advisory committees, such as a citizen's advisory committee or a general advisory committee similar to that of the Atomic Energy Commission, after examining the possible functions of such bodies and their relationship to the ACRS, or a nuclear safety board (item 4 of Chapter V) o study the need to establish a nuclear safety board to independently investigate nuclear accidents and important incidents, and to monitor and evaluate the quality of NRC's regulatory process (iten 8 of Chapter V; since this study involves the relation of such a board to the ACRS, it is included under this heading) O f e c

C-3 o Pursuant to the House Authorization legislation for FY 1981, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has authorized the i ACRS to expend sums necessary to furnish technical assistance and advice on decontamination of TMI-2 to the proposed Three Mile Island Advisory Panel. o H.R. 6390 (the Udall bill) introduced on January 31, 1980', includes Sec. 304 which amends Sec.182b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to pennit the ACRS to review only cases that it selects, including, to the extent practicable, applications referred to it by the Commission. With respect to studying the need for further advisory committees, OPE submitted a report to the Commission on February 6,1980, which assessed the strengths and weaknesses of al'.enative proposals and presented considerations to maximize the effectiveness of advisory boards. A provision in NRC's FY 1981 authorization bill would establish a TMI w Advisory Panel to make recommendations on the decontamination of TMI. [nd the Consnission has decided to create such a body. I Finally, as to the establishment of an independent nuclear safety board, no actions are presently pending within NRC. However, there have been j some recent related activities: i l l .I

e C-5 canmittees addresses the questions associated with additional committees; we perceive no pressing need for new NRC advisory committees.

Finally, the existing NRC organizations (e.g., I&E, ACRS, AE00) address a number of the would-be objectives of an independent safety board, thus reducing the urgency of the naed to study the desirability of such a board.

Recommendation: No further Commission action, apart from ongoing activities, is needed. e 9

( D-2 The Commission will review its role in adjudications to examine the extent of Commission involvement in licensing proceedings and to eliminate any undesirable and unnecessary insulation of the Commission from decisionmaking activities of the staff. (Item 17 of Chapter V) ' Status With respect to public participation refonns, a majority of the Commission has expressed an intention to proceed with a pilot program for intervenor funding in FY 1981 if Congress approves such a program. For FY 1980, the Comission has decided not to fund public participation expenses because ) of the legislative history associated with the FY 1980 appropriations legislation. No action is ongoing within NRC on the Office of Hearing Counsel / Office of public Counsel proposals. l Regarding the rulemaking to address changes to the Ccmission's rules on 4 construction during adjudication, a Federal Register notice requesting public comments on alternative courses for Commission action was published in May,1980 (the Comission did not identify a preferred course); the comment period expires on July 7,1980. A decision paper will be sent to the Commission about August 1, 1980. The immediate effectiveness rule is presently suspended as a result of Comission action following TMI. As for refoms to the licensing process, a comprehensive licensing refonn bill was introduced by Congressman Udall in January 1980 (H.R. 6390). The Subcommittee held. hearings in March, but no final action

D-4 A new look at licensing refoms also has some merit because such reforms ( could be instituted now, given the absence of new construction pemit applications and the forecast that this situation will likely persist for some time. Past studies of licensing refonn have been extensive, and this reduces the attractiveness and urgency of a new study of licensing refonn. However, past studies have largely centered on how reforms might contribute to the efficiency of the licensing process, whereas post-TMI calls for licensing refom appear to be premised on the belief that refonn can improve the adequacy of the process. Opportunities for further Commission consideration of one-step licensing and increased standardization are (1) further Commission deliberations on H.R. 6390 this Congressional sessic and next, and (2) Commission consideration of its comprehensive legislative needs in preparation for the next Congressional session (a paper on omnibus legislation is early in preparation by OGC). We do not recommend immediate Commission action on a study of the licensing process because of these separate opportunities for further deliberations, because of the knowledge already gained from earlier studies, and because of the other management and organizational changes post-TMI, which should be given sometime to take hold before a study of the licensing. process is commenced. If licensing refom is not now to be actively pursued, then the Commission does not need to consider suspending CP and LWA proceedings. A more persuasive case can be made for suspending issuance of new cps and LWAs pending articulation of a safety philosophy and safety goals (item A). t

E. LEGISLATIVE NEEDS (Itan 7) Sumary The Comission will study the need for legislation with respect to the f following TMI-related issues: (1) Clarification of NRC authority to issue a license amendment prior to a hearing when necessary to ensure the health and safety of the publ ic,. (2) Detennination of whether NRC should seek an amendment to the Sunshine Act to reduce the Act's requirements for Comission meetings during an energency. (3) Detenninations with respect to NRC's current legal authority to take over and conduct cleanup actions at a nuclear facility and with respect to the Federal government's (a) liability for damages occurring during a cleanup conducted by NRC and (b) entitlement to reimbursement for cleanup costs. (4) The continuing desirability of the current Price-Anderson Act provisions in two areas: (a) extraordinary nuclear occurrence' and (b)limitationonliabili'./. (5) Desirability of creating a new category of license to be issued in place of an operatirg license for a facility during an extended recovery pericd following a major accident. (6) The need for net or modified NRC authority to address the establishment of a chartered national operating company or consortium.

E-3 (3) During its response to the TMI accident, the Commission has taken the position that it possesses adequate legal authority to direct the licensee to obtain NRC review and approval of all activities ( that are taken which affect offsite radiological releases, onsite containment of radioactivity, the reactor core shutdown and the cooling of the reactor core. In short, the present regulatory system provides the Comission with the final word on all activit'ies of a licensee which may be determined to affect the public health aqd safety. The Commission has not identified a need to alter this basic framework by having NRC assume the role of implementing, rather than reviewing, cleanup activities. The issue here is not basically one of legal authority, but rather one of institutional capabilities and the advisability of removing NRC as a regulator to place it in an operational role which it lacks the resources and personnel to undertake. Because of the lack of any present Comission policy which would i place NRC in an operational cleanup role, no additional studies are anticipated in this area. If proposals for an NRC cleanup capability are raised in the Congress, or elsewhere, the need for legislation to implement such concrete proposals will be addressed. (4) The Comission expressed its views on proposed revisions to the price-Anderson Act in testimony on Section 303 of H.R. 6390. Regarding the increase in the limitation on liability from $560 million to $5 billion proposed in that bill, the Comission stated that it was " reluctant" to take a position on this question because it involved "value judgments about proper allocation of financial

E-5 In sum, based on our evaluation of each legislative item as set out more fully above, our conclusion is that, in no instance, is legislation t necessary. We will continue to monitor related pending proposals (e.g., H.R. 5390). Also, OGC is preparing a paper for the Commission looking to the Commission's comprehensive legislative needs. Recommendation: No further action is recommended. O O

..v F-2 The Ccanission will clarify and strengthen the respective roles and authorities of the Chainnan as principal executive officer, the Comission as lead of the agency, and the Executive Director for Operations as chief staff officer. The Comission will also seek authority to delegate specific responsibilities to an individual Comissioner in the event of defined emergencies (items 13 and 14). Status With respect to the management study, the Commission solicited and received proposals early in 1980, from management consulting firms, for an analysis of Commission func'tions, processes, and procedures, and its relationship with the Executive Director for Operations and principal ) Commission staff offices (RS-0PE-80-471). The study was to examine the current internal management approaches and identify and examine possible improvements. The solicitation was canceled on June 3,1980, upon Comission decision. The cancellation followed introduction of a provision in the FY 1980 authorization bill that would require a broader study. At this writing, the authorization bill is not yet law. However, when enacted it will likely require NRC to " contract for an independent review of the Comission's management structure, processes, procedures and operations.... at all levels of agency managenent" (Section 302 of S.562). The required study is to be completed for the Comission within one year of enactment of the authorization bill, and transmitted promptly thereafter to the Congress. t

F-4 (4) Integrated program for Modifying Regulatory Recuirements. The reorganization of NRR created a Division of Safety Technology i for this purpose. (5) 'Jse of Technical Consultants. This item is viewed by Staff as an option it has always used to some extent (e.g., NRR has used technical consultants in such areas as Human Factors Engineering, Fire Protection, and Operating Reactor amendment reviews, and also contracts for the use of various technical skills from the national nbs). As for the clarification and revisions of Comission delegations to staff, the Comission is nearing completion of its work on the OGC-0PE Delegation Study which addresses this item. Finally, respecting clarification of the roles of the Comission and Chairman, the Comission developed statements during late 1979 and early 1980, (1) to detail the respective roles of the Ccmmission, Chairman and Executive Director for Operations; and (2) to set out revised structures and guidance for emergency response management, including a description of the roles of the Comission and the Chairman. Also during that period, the President submitted a reorganization plan for NRC that encompasses these subjects. The effective date of the plan will be no later than October 1,1980; the President may fix an earlier effective date. Several offices are individually examining the implications of the Reorganization Plan -(e.g., OGC, SECY, ADM). However, no office has been tasked by, the Comission to comprehensively examine the effect of the Plan on agency authorities and responsibilities. I a

i ~ ! G. CONSOLIDATION OF NRC L0t'.ATIONS (Items 15 and 16 of Chapter V) Sumary Following up on recent OMB guidance, the Coc.ission will continue to work with appropriate committees of the Congress and with GSA to achieve a single location for its headquarters offices and to take interim consolidation measures pending achievement of that goal. , Status Interim consolidation: By a letter of April 22, 1980, James F. McIntyre of OMB directed GSA to plan and implement an interim consolidation at 1717 H Street and in NRC's present Bethesda location. GSA estimated in May 2 testimony before the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works that this consolidation, involving moving NRC offices to H Street, would be completed in 540 days or by November 1, 1981. This may be delayed because of difficulties in ~ preparing space and the opposition of agencies moving out of the Matomic Building to their new locations. GSA has yet to direct any of the current tenants to move out of the Matomic Building. In a letter of May 23 to the Director, OMB, four senators expressed their concern about the interim plan for cnnsolidation and requested reasons for the OMB decision, an evaluation of comparative costs of consolidation in the District and Maryland, and an evaluation of whether a reassessment of the CMB decision was advisable in light of the space availability in Maryland and the Comittee's approval of the Silver Spring site. Maryland officials have met with OMB to express their concern about the effect of NRC's move on Montgomery County and on NRC employees. CMS apparently maintains the view that the H Street / Bethesda consolidation is the best interim move for NRC. ~ c

a 0 2 w G-3 federally-owned building must be worked cut, either through the provisions of S. 2080 if it becomes law, or through so.ne separate legislation. Remaining Needs and Opportunities Continued active support and cooperation with Congressional, OMB, and GSA efforts at long-term and near-term consolidation remain in order. Little scope is available for any further NRC initiatives beyond such support and cooperation. Recommendation: No additional actions required at this time. l i l ._}}