ML19331E330
| ML19331E330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/29/1977 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8009100020 | |
| Download: ML19331E330 (29) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l 1 .e CR 5927 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THORPE / blt All 2 . CLOSED MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS 3 DISCUSSION OF HEARING BOARD FOR CLEARANCE RULE PROCEEDING l. 4 5 Thursday, 29 December,1977 6 9:45 a.m. 7 Commissioners' Conference Room 8 1717 H Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. ~ 9 10 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 11 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 12 RICHARD T. KENNEDY ( VICTOR GILINSKY 13 ja OTHER STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT,: KENNETH PEDERSEN, Director, Office of 15 Policy and Evaluation 16 JAMES KELLEY, Deputy General Counsel 17 WILLIAM REAMER 18 JOHN HOYLE, Assistant Secretary to the Commission 19 20 21 i 22 (~ 23 l 24 j ggg,, y,,, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.!- &l4 N. Capitol Street (Suite va-25' Washingtori, D. C 209 8009.too olo I
U PROCEEDINGS CR5927 1 THORPE / CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we start the meeting bit All 2 a'nd get the transcript started. 3 ( I'm sorry to hold you up. The Chicago situation 4 I'll is percolating again, and I've been on the telephone. 5 tell*you 'about that on an individual basis." 6 This morning we are looking at members for a 7 17 We have a memo-hearing board on the clearance rule hearing. 8 'randum from Jim Kelley with some names, and then an addendum 9 that came in. 10 MR. KELLEY: A resume from a gentleman who had g been suggested before, and then one additional name that came 12 d q:; in yeseerday. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. Why don't you go ahead and 14 either make a recommendation or outline the nature of the thing or whatever is appropriate. g tiR. KELLEY: Maybe just a couple of general com-17 Let me say that Bill Reamer and I and Jerry Nelson ments. 18 put our heads together. We've got these names before you and some background information, which,I think is obvious. We didn't really see this had to be a Blue Ribbon board in 21 the same fashion as GESMO. We're not before you with the results of a nationwide search. What we've done is think 23 about it a little bit and make a few phone calls. 24' Ac3 F duct Reporters. Inc. We have talked with all but one or two of these 25 s I
3' blt 2~ I people, and we've got indications of availability. I believe 2 all of them have security clearances, which I think. is desir-3 able because there may be some classified information in this 4 proceeding. 5 In terms of desired characteristics, it did se.rm. 6 to us that it would be useful, certainly useful if not essen-7 tial, to have at least one person who had either a safeguards 8 or national security background. We've got 'two people on the 9 list that I think fit that description, - do you 10 know him personally, Commissioner Kennedy? 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. 12 MR. KELLEY: He has a security background that 13 g es back quite a way. That's the resume we sent yesterday. ~ { COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why is this board going to )4 do? 15 MR. KE W.Y: Well, we put out a Register Notice 16 which listed areas of inquiry for the hearing. They're going 37 to look into the need for it, look into alternative possi-bilities such as psychological testing and field investiga-j9 20 Bill, maybe you could expdnd on that a little more in terms of what you see are the issues. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are they going to do any 23 a Il more than inquire? 24 ace.Fedirrl Reporters. Inc. l MR. KELLEY: Oh, in terms of their powers? They're 20 l l t
4 bit 3-1 not going to make a recommended decision, no. 2 COMMISSIONER KENNELY: What they're going to do 3 is make a record. 4 MR. KELLEY: They're going to make a record. The 5 other thing ISthink worth mentioning is that we said we would. 6 hold a legislative format hearing, thatlis to say not cross-7 examination, subpoenas and all the rest; but that once the recor'd was compiled, and it would be compiled with the board 8 9 asking questions as they went along,. if there developed sharply c T. 10 controverted factual issues where it appeared cross-examination 11 might be useful, then the board would be empowered to do that 12 following the legislative phase. But.in essence they're a record-making board; ~ l 13 they're not a deciding board. j4 S I was saying we have two people here who have 15 a national security-safeguards background. The other is 16 who has been in the safeguards area for 37 some time according to his resume, mostly in accountability, 18 and materials accountability would be at least one issue 39 before the house in the hearing. 20 You say you know pers6nally, right? You might want to comment about him. I've talked with him on the phone. 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He's an extremely able 23 I fellow with, I think, a penchant for objectivity, known to 24 ics.Federtl Reponers, Inc. MW Md a WeM Mhd. 25 i b
5 blt 4 1 2 3 4 I
- i. b 5
6 MR. KELLEY: He certainly seems to be qualified. 7 I talked with him. He wasn't positive he'd be available, but 65 be-he was interested and thought he might be. So he certainly 8 9 is a promising candidate. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He also is very, very widely 10 connected in the technology side of the community. 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the nature of the 12 activity that' they're going to be exploring, pre.suming they're k o 13 not exploring technical matters? They're exploring effective-ja ness of alternative security systems or alternative rules, 15 or what? 16 MR, REAMER: You understand that you've got this j7 Proposed rule out which would require if effective security 18 clearances in the nuclear power industry. 39 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does it distknguish between 20 power plants and fuel cycle faciliti'es? g MR. REAMER: It requires security clearances for l 22 Personnel at both power reactors and the fuel facilities 23 I handling uranium. 24 I lacwe+xt Reporters, inc. lj COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So presumably that would 25 i
6 9 bit 5' 1 be one of the questions to look at, whether in fact you want 2 it to be across-the-board? 3 MR. REAMER: Gne of the questions is the need for 4 the proposed clearance rule. 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Iit the various sectors. 6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: In whole or 'in part. 7 MR. KELLEY: The need for the rule in each of the 8 licensed activities covered by the proposed rule. It might 9 go yes'on one and no on the other -- at least that's an issue 10 before the house. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would presume they would also Probe' the question of whether precisely the same clearance pro- ~ 12 b cedure and criteria were appropriate across the board or whether 13 you wanted to adjust those criteria for a facility, or whether ja the cut l's as proposed between sort of a full-fledged one and 15 a lower grade one, without distinction as to facility. 16 MR. REAMER: You approved a Notice of Hearing, 37 which I understand was published today, which indicates that -- 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Do you have a copy of that? 79 MR. REAMER: I have a draft copy. I don't have a 20 ^ copy of the final version. g But basically you indicate that there is really 22 no area that's off limits in this hearing so far as matters 23 raised by the clearance rule. Ace Fed;ril Reporters, Inc. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That was my impression. 25 I i i
~ 7 blt 6 1 MR. REAMER: Although you're less interested in 2 legal issues and you're more interested in questions such as 3 t'he need for the clearance rule, identibicationofalterna-4 tives including advantages of alternative systems, such as perhaps a background investigation system that might be run' ~ 5 6 by the licensees themselves as opposed to a clearance program ~ .y 7 run by you. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You're really asking what 8 ' kind of clearance program we need. 9 CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE: ' Yes, and in consideration that 10 there are quite different sorts of facilities that have to be jj considered, ranging from some pretty low grade from a security 12 C standpoine. 33 MR. KELLEY: This is seen as a major issue by a j4 1 t of people. It would have a chilling effect on associational 15 rights of extending the clearance program into private industry.. g i You can t quantify it very well. There's going to be a lot of debate on that issue. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It also, in my view, has a strong relation to the physical security measures which one wants to establish for various kinds?of facilities that need 21 to be protected, because whether you're dealing with a popula-22 tion of individuals at the plant who have some sort of back-23 l ground investigation made, who have a defined, identified l 24 l poFederal Reoorters. Inc. and enumerated place and a set of recognized people, or l 25 l l l
4 8 bit' i 1 whether they're simply employees without other distinction.- 2 It.makes a difference in terms of things like searches 3 and how one treats the insider threat from the standpoint of ( 4 sabotage or diversion, so it has in my view important connec-5 tions in what you do with a clearance program and how you treat 6 it. It has important implications on how yon handle the 7 insider aspects of the various physical security areas. 8 MR. REAMER: And hopefully somebody'on the board 9 with a background in security matters will be able to ask. ~ 10 the kinds of gnestions of participants that will bring the 11 answers that relate to that very issue that you're talking 12 about, dealing with insiders. ( MR. KELLEY: I'm just saying when va come to 13 characteristics I think the security background of at least ja one person is useful. 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When you say " security 16 background," what do you mean? j7 MR. KELLEY: A person who is knowledgeable about jg l these kinds of issues: threats, what one does to protect 39 against them. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Ahd which of these people .do you think fall in that category? 22 MR. KELLEY: Well, there are two that I think fall 23 i that category: who Mr. Kennedy was speaking 24 ActFedxl Reporters, Inc. about, and The original memo has a resume on him. 25 l I
.n-9 blt S 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Neither of them has a 2 security background in the sense of national security. 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: understands the security 1 4 business very well indeed and participated in a number of 5 very sensitive projects affecting communications security at i 6 all levels and all contexts, including those aspects of the 7 problem having to do with personnel security questions; so he understands the issue. 8 9 MR. KELLEY: With that background that you're out-10 lining coupled with.his resume,.it seems to me that you're jg not' going to find in a resume a precise correlation between these issues and what he's been doing; but I think his back-12 !( gr und suggests that he would be a person who has a good 13 grasp of-the technical aspects of it. j4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The other option of this or 15 another consideration that I think of is you can look for somebody whose background is in personnel security. It would seem to me, however, that those people would likely tend to look at problems from a particular perspective, and that's a' )9 perspective we already have, I think, from a var.ety of sources. I don' t know whether that's the kind 'of perspective we want 21 i to bring to bear. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's why I was asking what 23 do you mean by " security"? hea.Federel Reporters, Inc. MR. KELLEY: I think in the broader sense. that you're 25 I i i il
10
- bit 9 i
suggesting would be the way I would tend to think. 2 The other person I was referring to is 3 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: g 5 6 7 ,. C I'm n t sure I see the' precise relevance of all 8 'that to the questions before us. a 9 MR. KELLEY: Well, it seems to me there is a 10 y rele'rance between somebody with a background in nuclear )j safeguards and accountability and a rule, part of the purpose 12 f which'is detect diversion,. say. from a fuel
- fabrication-b 13
~ ~ point. y I'm not suggesting that his background, covers the ~ waterfront as far as the issues before the house or even necessarily most of that waterfront, without knowing any more about it than what we have on the resume. COMMISSIONER GILINKSY: Would these people -- even, say, take -- would.they know whether clearances are effective or not effective? What contpetence would he bring j to bear on that subject? 22 MR. KELLEY: I think I agree with Commissioner 23 Kennedy that whether or not something like that is effective hw.F. dad Reporters, lac. or not effective, a personnel security guy could be helpful 25 I l
11 blt 10 but I think he might be somewhat -- j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's the question that 2 they're supposed to be pursuing, not deciding. It seems t.o 3 ( me that these guys have got to go out and get people to come 4 i in and testify in this regard -- you know, people in the 5 Defense community, for example. 6 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This is a good guy to 7 ,l as e ques ns? 8 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. I think that's what ) 9 we have to have, a guy who will know the kinds of questions 10 that are useful, and maybe he could even help point to the areas of people who ought to be questioned. MR. KELLEY: I feel it's the kind of an issue C'. 13 where intelligence and commonsense counts for more than de-tailed technical expertise in ter$ts of who's on the board. 15 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE: As a matter of fact, unless the guy kith the detailed special expertise is really a very broad guy intellectually his personal predelictions will tend. 18 to override the whole body of evidence brought before him. In 19 some ways you're almost a little safer with a mature, intelli-20 gent guy or person who is knowledgeable generally in' the field 21 but doesn't have some sort of individual position on the matter ( before you already made up. 23 How many people do we want on this board? 24 bu.s ani neporters. Inc. MR. KELLEY: We thought three. It seems to me it's e 25 1 1 I i
[ 12 one or three. I don't see any need for five. It gets very bit 11 i cumbersome just in terms of getting people together. 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we picking an alternate? 3 MR. KELLEY: I think I would like, if we can pretty 4 well.get this, not in terms of final form but at least get 5 pretty good guidance here today, I'd like to emerge.with may[se 6 ~ three preferred and an alternate or two so we can.go ahead 7 ,L i ". c of,07: and contact people and line it up.' 8 In terms of -- see, there are a couple of other 9 considerations. We.do favor an experienced lawyer as the 10 chairman. There are procedural rulings if you get into cross-jj j examination questions and so on. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I thought there wasn't goinch to be'any cross-examination. MR. KELLEY: Well, maybe. There isn't at the out-set. 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You mean in succeeding -- 17 MR. KELLEY: In Phase 2, if there's going to be 18 a Phase 2. 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right. ~ 20 MR. KELLEY: We have talk,ed with about 21 it. He has indicated that he is interested and would likely 22 b.. be available. We would recommend as chairman. I think 23 l l there are a lot of good reasons for going with a known quantity. 24 xe F.dersl Reportees, Inc. He's a smart, capable guy. 25 4 J
13 blt 12' i The only criticism I can see is that he was here 2 when the rule was proposed, and a critic cotid say, "Well, 3 he was for this rule all along, ( We thought about that, 4 and we' didn't feel that that outweighed the advantages. 5 MR. REAMER: We don't think it's a problem. 6 MR. KELLEY: It's not legally a problem. 7 u' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Suppose you picked 8 and suppose you picked What sort of skill would 9 y u lean to with the third person? 10 MR. KELLEY: I think there are a couple of con-j) siderations. I guess the one I would bring to the board would 12 { be, given competence as a basic qualification, picking somebody who would lend some credibility to the process from the stand-point of responsible outside critics. That's why I suggested yesterday in the supplemental memo -- - was suggested, not by ourselves, but in point of fact I talked to I talked with him, and he knows about the proceeding 19 and expressed an interest and indicated that he bright be will-ing to do it. t 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Well, carries some 22
,( peculiar baggage in this area, I think, going back to his i 23 l role in 24 Mce-Fedmt Reporters, Inc. He has a funny attitude on that. I wouldn't 25 l l
14 blt 13' 1 bring it in here. 2 He's a guy who's thought a lot about it. He's i 3 obviously a well known thoughtful person, but - - 4 MR. KELLEY: I'm only vaguely familiar that he had. 5 a role. 6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The 7 is probably a disability. I had forgotten about that. g ' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He's been sort of on both i 9 sides of that. He was the guy, as he wants to point out, who -- 10 well, he was really-kind of a minor lawyer, but he had a role 11 in that ca'se. Since then he has gone back and sort of criticized all of that in an extensive way. 12 ,({ However you come out on that case, I think it's 13 unnecessary baggage here. j4 MR. KELLEY: I certainly wouldn't quarrel with that. 15 I am n t familiar with all the details. l 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would agree with that. I 7 think some people would say, "What did you expect," that sort 8 of thing. And that woold be unfair to him on the one hand 9 and unfair to the process on the other. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong. 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He's an extremely able guy. 23 I was attracted to the idea, but you're right, I think, acdFederti Reporters, Inc. Vic. 25-I mm
15 blt 14 1 MR. KELLEY: I guess we could eliminate his name, 2 then. 3 Another consideration that we thought of -- it 4 doesn't erpecially go to the merits of the case, but it's an opportunity perhaps for some af'firmative ' ction. We found a 5 6 a couple of.-- .who is available, 7 .;r-8 Did you talk with ' Bill? MR. REAMER: I talked with 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is the one who's 10 11 listed here? MR. KELLEY: Yes. There are two. 12 COMMI'SSIONER KENNEDY: Which one? L 13 MR. REAMER: )4 15 6 1 16 MR. KELLEY: We attached a resume. an able 7 lawyer. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is in private practice? MR. KELLEY: been out'for some period of time. ~ MR. REAMER: lef t the' Department of Defense, 21 I believe, in October or November. I cannot'tell you why. 22 is available. I've talked with about availability. 23 doesn' t bri:.g any substantive expertise beyond 24 &"rFed;rcl Reporters, Inc. the fact that has good general qualifications -- good 25 I i t
16 bit 15 ' general qualifications but no especial substantive expertise.. 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And somebody that 2 3 Jarry has great confidence in or. thinks well of? 4 MR. KELLEY: Jerry has worked-with ,yes. He 5 thought of MR. REAMER: He thinks well of contributions. 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 7 MR. KELLEY: There is one other that I know, 8 .~ is a career lawyer at Justice. 9 10 11 12 k 13 14 I talked with ~briefly about it. As a ma'tter of fact, said had some involvement in the legal aspects of terrorism problems.. I didnt get into the detail. I ' indicated might be available for it, might be interested 18 I I in it. 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can do tht? a 20 MR. KELLEY: Pardon me? 21 v. 1 do that? COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 22 l( l MR. KELLEY: You mean just be loaned? 23 1 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. 24 l %c:.Fedxl Repe vers, ine il MR. KELLEY: Yes, I think so. Whether we have to 25 i l
17 \\ pay Justice or something, I don't know. bit 16 j As a matter of fact, 2 3 l I can say 4 that based on my experience with would be good. 5 In that office does a lot of work on consti-6 tutional issues, so I think would be sensitive to the 7 ~ civil liberties aspects of'the problem. 8 ' I'm not sure available; I think might be. 9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Let's see, this board will 10 not deal specifically with the underlying statutory -- the jj question of the underlying authorities for such a program. MR.'KELLEY: No. When I meni.ioned that 13 ~ fainiliar with the constitutional issues, I think a per-son -- there's going to be a lot of de' ate about chilling b Fi st Ainendment rights and so forth, and I think a cer-16
- son,
. also, who would be comfortable with those 17 issues. But they're not to decide the technical legal issue. That's not their mandate. 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It would be n' ice to have 20 somebody who had sort of the qualities that we're looking 21 for, 9hich might have provided. 22 k. MR. KELLEY: Yes, a responsible outside critic. 23 Not necessarily a nuclear critic. 24 1ce-Fed:nl Reponers. Inc. COMMISLIONER GILINSKY: I'm not sure whether a 25
18 blt 17' I critic would be necessary, but just sort of a thoughtful 2 outsider who 3,s concerned with this kind of issue. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How about 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we'd be going on 2. 5 Jerry's advice, and I guess we're prepared to trust him. 6 MR. REAMER: One difficulty in finding outside 7 People is finding outside people who have security clearances or who have had a secur'ity clefrance witliin the recent past 8 in order to get that reinstated. 9 does meet that qualification. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: worked on the Texas jj penal code revision and things like that, if there is any 12 ( 13 l relevance i'n that. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- Well, had a --
jg MR. KELLEY: got an active clearance. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Oh, in the Government? 16 MR. KELLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So it's sort of 18 -- all these people we're talking about at the moment are in that position. g l They've all Iot clearances, yes. MR. KELLEY: J CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Otherwise we're up against a 22 three-or four-month delay. 23 i MR. REAMER: The worst is the uncertainty. 24 I l j MR. KELLEY: To go without the full clearance I Ac:Jed;r:I Reporters. inc. 25 h I.1l l
19 'l bit 18' I think is not a very attractive alternative in view of our 2 wanting to move this thing on out. happens to have 3 one, by the way. I asked g u. 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Who? 5 MR. KELLEY: i Everybody on here has a clea*ance, so far as I r 6 7 know. ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I suppose 8 comes the closest to being an outsider. All these other people 9 ar'e really formerly. Government servan'ts. 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: d'id for six straight jj 12 years. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY': did, too. -{ j3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I tiiink in many ways that's 34 15 ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: "Nell, it is, but it would g also be-nice, I think, to have.someb'ody who really takes a genuine fresh view. And these people will, hopefully. I think we ought to recognize that in getting you're really getting'former Government officials. t 21 MR. KELLEY: True. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: As these are, too. 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's one of the penalties of 24 aceJed:ett Reoorters, inc*I big Government. i 25 I L i
20 bit 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Everybody has been a ) G vernment official. 2 (Laughter.) 3 ( CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Either,past, present or future, 4 MR. KELLEY: One possibility, it seems to me, would g be if the three of you to agree that A', B and C were acceptable. 6 We might then go out and scratch our heads a little more and 7 in see if we can't come up with somebody else that meets that description and come back individually to the three of you ~ ~ and put th'at person in instead. But we could, if sna fail, go ahead with the ones that we've discussed'.' 11 . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Suppose I suggested something like would that be 13 sufficient? I'm not sur'e t' hat that's 's tisfactory enough or 14 if there nee'ds to be a lot more thrashing. 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Between these 16 I guess I'd go for simply because 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: out. 18 out. Given that COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 19 the whole thing has sort of a cast of ex-Governm'ent people, 20 (' I'd rather have than an active Government person. 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I think furthcrmore -- l ) 22 (. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: One thing about an active l 23 Government person -- I agree with that principle, but there is 24
- AcwFedul Reporters. Inc.
one thing I want to reflect on a minute -- . probably the 25
I -i blt 20 1 only one in the group right now who really knows what the 2 status of the whole panoply of issues is as it's reflected 3 in Justice's concerns for the Government as a whole. 1 4 I think no one else will.be as really au_ courant of the issues as 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSK5: That's probably' right, but 6 can' t we apply the same principie -- it seems these people 7 ~ are supposed to go out and seek the knowledgeable people. 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Sure. could be one 9 f the people we ought to interview. 10 (Laughter.) jj COMMISSIONER G.ILINSKY: As a runner-up for the 12 {
- board, the first one.
~ ~ COMMISSIONER KENNEDY": qualifications were so good we wanted to take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: could just come in and tell ~ the board what it is would.have said if been the 17 board. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY': That's right. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'd sug@est 21 as the board. 22 k. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That sounds fine to me. 23 Do you want to think'now about the alternate, or do you want-24 Ace-Fedml Reporters, Inc. to go and see if these people can be signed up and then calk 25 3
21 blt 21' about adding an alternate to it? _j CHAIRMAN HE5DRIE: Could I suggest that we consider 2 who the likely alternates are as guidance? 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We have to have two different A 4 kinds, a chairman alternate and o'ther afternates, right? ~ 'MR. KELLEY: Yes. 6 MR. REAMER: Most likely, if somebody is not going 7 to be'available it's going to b'e ' My conversation with- ~ ~ 8 led me to believe that would be available. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought you said that 10 you talked with 11 MR. REAMER: We have talked with both of them. 12 MR. KELLEY: seemed pretty interested. MR. REAMER: We have to recognize the possibility ~ 14 dhat once things get down to hard planning -- 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would you be calling him 16 about it today? 17 MR. KELLEY: We'll call him back today, today or 18 tomorrow. The idea is to nail it down'as quickly as possible. 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was just going to suggest 20 from the conversation it seems to me,-that for a backup on the 21 law side looks to be fine. 22
- (
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That sounds fine. [ 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And on the technical side I 24 ace FoJarel Reporters. Inc.!think -- 25
22 bit 22 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would'you have i 2 backup as chairman? 3 MR. KELLEY: I think could do it; capable 4 of it. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If . can't serve, I think 5 we ought to scratch our heads once more apout the chairman, 6 7 don't you think? COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I' ~ dlink so. g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'm thinking of as a backup 9 for the lawyer member. 10 MR. KELLEY: For jj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, primarily. 12 And as backup on '( 13 14 COMMISSIO'NER KENNEDY: Yes, I was going to ask about 15 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think contribute -- their experience I don't think is applicable. 8 MR. KELLEY: Do you know CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, both ~ They've be'en in the reactor physics both very rensible guys. criticality, safeguards related, taking care of the highly (.- enriched stuff. 23 l Okay? 24 I pes-Fedsrti Reporters, Inc. :;l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sure. 25 t L
MM blt 23' 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay. 2 MR., KELLEY: t as alternates. 3 Hopefully with this list we can come up with a 4 board', and we'll let you knou. 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, 5 CHAIRMNi HEND'RIE:
- Yes, i for the lawyer 7
i member,- for the technical member. And if that fails, 8 then I just note that my preference wou1d' be that. 9 .is a much superior candidate, close behind essentially 10 equal'to , and both of them very mu' h above c jj as technical members. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would you put him ahead of l, 13 ^ i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE-Would I put him ahead of 15 No, I don't think so. j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who is 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 8 19 His work, then, through that led him back into a lot of the heavy security processing, criticality 21 22. aspects and the related accountability things. I think for these purposes I'd put first and 23 close behind him, and the other two sort of -- I'd 24 l Aes-Fautl Repem. N.(l start over. l 25' l i I l f
24 blt-24' MR. KELLEY: If we don' t get we'll j rediscuss the chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that would be helpful, 3 ( because the chairmanship is fairly s.ensitive. 4 MR. xEttEY: oxey. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Very good. 6 That terminates the meeting. 7 (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the meeting was 8 adjourned.) 9 10 11 12 ( 13 14 15 l \\ 16 17 18 19 20 k 21 22 k' 23 24 1a. Fed;rf) Reporters, Inc., 25I f
P " '~ ' gm o UNITED STATES g 8 NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION o 3 E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 %,*****yI August 18, 1980 SFFCE OF THE SECRETARY i COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF: Transcript of Discussion of Hearing Board For Clearance Rule, December 29, 1977 i Pursuant to the Commission's regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshina Act (10 CFR 9.108 (d)), it has been determined after a further review of this transcript that additional portions of the text can be released to the public. Attached are all portions of the subject transcript that have been determined to be releasable. The remaining portions of the transcript remain withheld pursuant to 10 CFR 9.104 as noted below: Page/Line through Page/Line Exemption 3/9 3/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 4/16 4/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 4/21 4/21 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 5/1 5/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 8/24 8/24 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 8/25 8/25 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 9/3 9/3 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 10/2 10/3 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 10/4 10/7 10 CFR 9.104 (a~) (6) 10/20 10/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 12/21 12/21 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 12/23 12/23 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/3 13/4 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/8 13/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/9 13/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/17 13/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/18 13/19 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/22 13/22 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/24 13/25 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 14/6 14/6 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/6 15/6 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/7 15/7 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/8 15/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/9 15/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/10 15/10 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/14 15/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 1 e n -m
. Page/Line through Page/Line Exemption 15/17 15/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/19 15/19 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/20 15/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/21 15/21 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/23 15/23 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/24 15/24 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 15/25 15/25 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/2 16/2 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/4 16/4 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/5 16/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/6 16/6 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/7 16/7 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/8 16/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) l 16/9 16/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) '(6) 16/9 16/10 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/11 16/14 10 CPR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/15 16/15 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/16 16/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/18 16/18 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/20 16/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 16/22 16/22 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) i 17/2 17/4 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 17/5 17/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) ] 17/6 17/6 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 17/7 17/7 10 -CFR 9.104 (a) (6) i 17/9 17/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 17/14 17/14 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) .17/16 17/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 17/17 17/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 17/22 17/22 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/3 18/3 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/10 18/10 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 3 18/11 18/11 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/24 18/14 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/15 18/15 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/16 18/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 18/18 18/19 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 19/2 19/2 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 13/3 19/3 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 19/5 19/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 1 19/8 19/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) i 19/11 19/11 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 19/13 19/13 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 19/20 19/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/13 20/13 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/16 20/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/17 20/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/18 20/18 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/19 20/19 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/21 20/21 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 20/25 20/25 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) O .m
. Page/Line through Page/Line Exemption 21A/5 21A/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/9 21A/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/13 21A/13 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/14 21A/14 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/16 21A/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/17 21A/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21A/21 21A/22 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21/8 21/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21/9 21/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21/11 21/11 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 21/13 21/13 10 CFR _9.104 (a) (6) 21/22 21/22 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/1 22/1 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/3 22/3 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/5 22/5 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/9 22/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/11 22/11 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/13 22/14 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/16 22/16 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/17 22/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/19 22/19 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 22/20 22/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/2 23/2 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/5 23/6 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/7 23/7 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/8 23/8 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/9 23/9 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/10 23/10 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/11 23/11 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/11 23/12 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/14 23/14 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/15 23/15 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/17 23/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/18 23/20 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/23 23/23 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 23/24 23/24 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) 24/1 4/1 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6) \\ Samue J ilk S retary of e Commission l r .}}