ML20028B189

Transcript of 821122 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Draft Policy & Planning Guidance for FY83.Pp 1-65

ML20028B189
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/22/1982
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8211300150
Download: ML20028B189 (69)

Text

-

r-

. nyg p%g__.

=-

w w < m e) L.J Q $ f Q f37st %

w

,rbV)il

%.f.

v

,s v

' % $ w. b 1 Q W, w w wf h h j $ f kf L

n am9-n:

y nROF CIAINTRANSCRIP~~.M" M?

d.J;M;%pR10GEEDINGStBEFO

.d w2ig agesud@mWnse A

i

% R plL di

. f h %., ' 4,.; c.,' ', %:

.r e

m p,.

o L

a o

..; f. gq g

Q

~

);.4 a

w

~

' t

• r 't

~;gt,

%.r ) f e,ft Q '

A J J.s% +., i l[f&

q-L

'y&p.l 449 4,

3 1:

4s,,4;-my,4g-;qg.hM},fg NUCLEAR. REGULATOR'4~COMMISSIO T,

^

f%

? -..

u.*

H '<

g/9g*

g y.7 g g gggqq m g~

p. W; D MW2N -

,cOMMISsrONIMEETING<

~.

PErmaa2S$ hee a"u..

thPUBLIC ; MEETING,.3;$i;QQ%,'fTj3T Q/ [. ' "-

k Dv.;'. c t % ;f 'kv %g $77$h

,k.) -..y w

.x 8SM. $k y

. d DKT' GASE:NO.

h&yRw.._#%:

a W sMts.

ron=- 7=cw o m =y. $. $,

3 d

2n%

7.1m$sne#w&

E PG

,intLE 9'ScoSstowo 9" y%gcuIoxsecrOa;rrscAnnEAR',1983j D{k.

n %=O

/y ; gv A ' PL,A.~,CE1

~

~

cam.wgepqg -

mASarNcTO % e.a

.e Lv^4 ' AM DATE w,L'NmEMBER 22r' ' }82g {-

Q. -

wkt-29f'.;

E

, s C1

,.c TRW-a.

w&o

=

}y ;4{.f f $bi~ Q g Q{ 4{.

ff{

f

'm i

• AGES siv >

b d*'n

~

, au,

e n

, ??h, %f%;; dgMM s..

4,,,pb.,, y gg% ggw

.g.

p g,

[..i45 k

('

Ng.

57 g

b h

b n

x.

s.

.. m_m,m.e-gay mwgyny;k h

f w e.... e... d. a. %... %... #. e a u, m,

t

...n

' 'g b, N.,. '.

s e

y

w. -

.:,d

./.WE f.s., #Y#

'5 4

e *

^M

)*

s FMY Y tY, h MJd hT h k,,

[,u n, ;h i k d!

dhifhf,y5h,,

& I57 " Y p

Dh.m,' MlM)y{;y/

kQ w +..s m.. j?[w 1{m,W6 h,j;y-7[59 n

8 k

@' V.yf,.

NH cQ t

a 7

W m Q= u"l

.v a

b

. Mg-

_e a 5

m, > W p%.'a q t x_ y, x r p.r. g. w..;y %kk E 1UL R c -. m.& -g y 9.

.f x Jy3:..T3-

.:';~g c

.?wn m

4 v

,y

?:%. %,, L @~

v,uv q

.3

p. -,.

. c.,

...s

{

f L

~

t 1

()

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

()

4 5

DISCUSSION OF DRAFT POLICY AND PLANNING 6

GUIDANCE FOR FIS. CAL YEAR 1983 7

8 PUBLIC MEETING 9

10 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 12 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

(})

Monday, November 22, 1982 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at 3:35 p.m.

16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENTS 17 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i

JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 THOMAS B0BERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 20 l

STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:

21 S. CHILK i

22 5.

MALSCH J. ZERBE i

l 23 JACK F.0E BOB MINOGUE l

(,)

24 G. EYSIMOUTT

.w o-

,m-,m. m

~-

q.

0'rO

~

Q. -

.1'O DISCLAIMER

^ ~.

This is. an ' unofficial' transcript of a meeting of the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on November 22,.1982 in the

,Cocsiissi'on's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

Tnis transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcHpt is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forinal or infonnal

- record of decision of the matters discussed.

iExpressions of opinion in this. transcript do not necessariTy. reflect finaT determinations or

~

'beTief's.

No pleading or-other paper may be filed with the Comission i:t

'CO

. contained herein, except as the Comission may authiorize.

any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument O

e g.

b'

~..

~

2 G

1 E E Q C. E E E I E E E 2

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Good afternoon, ladies 3

and gentlemen.

O 4

The purpose of this meeting is,to discuss the 5

Commission's policy and pisnning guidance for 1983.

As e

I mentioned at the agenda planning last week, since

~.

s 7

distributing the draft of the proposed policy and 8

planning guidance on November 3 I have received e number 9

of comments from the Staff, many of which I believe 10 could be usefully incorpora ted in the document.

11 Accordingly, on Friday I distributed a revised draft of 12 the PPG proposal.

13 The differences betveen this draf t and the 14 earlier version are identified by the customary line-in, 15 line-out me thod.

I believe the majority of the changes 16 are relatively minor However, there are two versions 17 of the research section that raise fundamental questions 18 about the goals of the agency with respect to research 19 issues.

For that reason, I would suagest thas' we begin 20 the discussion with the subject of ressarch andithen we 21 would take up, as time allows, other points you may wish 22 to raise.

23 Finally, I would like to reserve a few minutes l ()

24 at the end of the' meeting concerning which steps we need 25 to take on the closecut of any remaining issues.

,]

i ALDERSoN RSPoWTING COMPANY,INC, 440 MRST ST., N.W. WASHINGTON.o.C. 20001 (202) 838-823

3

(])

1 Ihe draft circulated on Ihursday had two i

research sections: the one in the main body of the text 3

that is identical to the November 3 draf ts the one on 4

enclosure two is the Staff's proposed version.

If the 5

Commissioners will agree to start with research, I would 6

suggest and ash Jack Roe and Bob Ninogue to explain the 7

rationale for the draft changas in this version.

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Hay I ask you a 9

question first?

It is really more to help me as I 10 listen to the two versions.

It would help, I think if 11 you could summarize for me what you see the principal 12 purpose or purposes of the document are, because that 13 vill somewhat influence what kind of statements I will k

14 be making.

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

The overall document?

Is COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The overall document, 17 because embedded in that is the research section, but to i

18 find out what character that section ought to have it 19 helps to understand the purpose of the document.

I 20 think each of us probably have our own views, but I 21 think it is primarily -- the effect will primarily be as 22 to what you see the document bei;,

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I would view the document

([)

24 as the Commission's thinking with regard to the bases 25 for establishing priorities and for trying to make the

.N, ALDMSoN RSPoRTING COMPANY,INC.

M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 825 0300

i O

Q 1

whole process of our work more effective and as 2

efficient as we :1n.

That is pretty general, but there 3

are some specifics with regard to research.

O 4

COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa You see it as the 5

Commission establishing priorities?

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s The basis for 7

establishing priorities.

3 CONHISSIONEP AHEARNEa And as a goal to make e

the process more efficient?

10 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO No.

As we said in the 11 document, it doesn't cover all aspects of it, but to try 12 to give focus to some of the principal issues.

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Are you talking about O

14 re, ear =h?

15 CHAIR 5AN PALLADINO:

No, he asked about 16 generally.

17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

To whom is the document 18 addressed?

1g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

To the Staff.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

To the Staff managers 21 or the whole Staff ?

22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Where we're trying to go, 23 as we say in the document, we would expect the EDO to h) 24 set up plans for publication of the principal issues.

25 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

Fine.

Thank you.

ALDEREoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 028 4000

5 1

"0HMISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, that's what it

)

2 says in the front, isn 't it ?

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Yes.

O' 4

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Establishing 5

priorities and making the regulatory process more 6

effective, as well as more efficient.

They evidently 7

did pretty well.

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

There had to be a few 9

things in there.

10 Well, I wonder if we might address the 11 research program, because I think there are some 12 fundamental points in it, and after reading both,the 13 Staff version and the earlier version I would --

kn_)

14 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs The earlier version I 15 would gather is more confining.

It talks of lover 16 budgets, more rastrictive role in research.

The second 17 version gives mor'e f ree rec.n to follow the interests of 18 the Staf f.

19 C35NISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Almost an exclusive 20 version of the first version.

21 CHAIRMAN P ALL ADIN o s Even if we were to go 22 with the Staff's version, there are a few tuings that I 23 would want to add to give more focus to it.

But I

(])

24 thought maybe it would be best to hear the rationale on 25 why you propose these changes, and then we can see then

(-)

ALDWttoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

M0 P1RST 37 N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. sl001 (202) 830 8300

6 0

Q 1

what the Commission --

2 ER. ROES Why don't you just start off and 3

give us the rationale.

O 4

HR. HINOGUEa I think the biggest difference, 5

and let's focus on that, is the artent to which the e

guidance speaks to the development of improved safety 7

systems.

This has been, of course, a longstanding issue a

since we had added our legislative mandate to work on 9

improved ssfety.

10 Generally, the Staff work in this area has 11 focused on as part of the program developing 12 phenomenological data base, developing that in a form so 13 that it can provide the design information that could be 14 used to design improved safety systems, and beyond that 15 doing only a very limited amount of work exploring 16 improved ssf ety system concepts.

17 This is an area where we have been quite 18 severely criticized by the ACRS for not going f urther.

19 It is a difficult ares because it involves the interface 20 between the NRC and the DOE and the interface between 21 the NRC and the industry itself.

Several times over the 22 last several years we have tried to work with both DOE 23 and the various industry groups to get them to take a

()

24 larger rola in the development of improved safety 25 concepts.

These attempts have not been very O

ALDER 8eN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

440 MRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 854300

7 s

1 successful.

At this point there is almost a vacuum

~

~

(}

2 here.

3 The amount of work we do on improved safety 0

4 concepts is very limited in the present regime.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKT:

Since there is a C

vacuum, where would you draw the limits, since we might 7

be d'rawn into God knows what?

8 ER. MINOGUEa At this point I've said where 9 've've drawn the limits information that can be used as 10 a basis for design, and very limited work on conceptual 11 improvements, but not carrying them at all to the point 12 of commercialization.

13 CORMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Commercialization is a

()

14 long way from the start.

I guess I'm still not clear.

15 For example, sr.ppose it involves a lot of hardware and 18 large-scale testing.

Is that something we would 17 pursue?

18 ER. MINOGUE:

We don't have any kind of 19 program of that type, that's right.

There is no program 20

-- the studies we do are conceptual design studies, l

21 basically paper studies applying the results.

22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is that what this 23 seans here?

({)

24 ER. MINOGUE:

Paper studies.

To go one step 25 further and actually, before you get to hardware, i

j

,s I

.)

l l

l ALDW48oN REPoMT1NG COMPANY,INC.

l M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (20M 829 0000 l

8

(])

1 there's a different type of paper study that looks ~at' 2

commercialization, that really reaches out into the 3

commercial sector and begins to look at O

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Get to the policy.

5 MR. MINOGUEs I will.

6 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE4 I would suggest that by 7

now I'm really confused, in that you're reading in and I 8

guess Bob's answering and he's saying it's there.

It's 9

not at all obvious that the distinction, for example, of 10 a policy statement is that diff erent from the two policy 11 statements.

12 Ihen when I went down through the planning 13 guidance in the hopes of seeing where the distinction

()

14 was expressed, the only two big changes I could find is 15 the joint coordinated research program, which doesn 't 16 seem to have necessarily a link to expanding beyond the 17 normal; then the other, the advanced reactor concepts 18 p ro g ra m, which also didn't necessarily seem to bring th e 1g points that were being discussed.

20 So it would help if I could understand, maybe 21 directing it from the policy, where do I see a big 22 difference in the two policies?

It really sounds about 23 like there ought to be under policy, here's A and then 24 here's B.

)

25 MR. MINOGUE:

The Staff version adds the words

/NU ALDWttoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

l 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, o.C. 20001 (200 82H300 l

=

9 1

"and to assess the feasibility of the impr6vements in 2

safety."

That wording is absent in the earlier 3

version.

That's what I've been focusing on.

E' 4

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Eut that could be 5

interpreted not auch different then emphasizing research 6

that's emphasizing new reactor safety regulations.

7 NR. HINOGUE4 I'm sorry, I see a big 8

difference.

9 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE4 I recognize you see a 10 big difference, but I am saying that they both could be 11 read as not meaning that much different.

Is it correct 12 what you are say, that in addition to doing research 13 that is useful for developing new or revised A

\\_/

14 regulations, you slso believe it would be useful to do 15 research that would be independent of any regulations or 16 even potential regulations?

17

58. MINOGUE:

(Mods affirmatively.)

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Research in the 19 assessment of feasibility, not commercialization 20 studies, faasibility of improvements in reactor design 21 or operation that are independent of potential 22 regulation.

1 23 NR. MINOGUE:

Up front, yes, in the sense that I

Q 24

-- I'm trying to answer your question.

You might look 25 at, let's say if you had i lot of data on the O

l AtoER9oM REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

4e etRef sT, N.W, WASHf NGToN, D.C. 2001 (mW 838 4M2

10

{

1 characteristics of fission products that were actually

~

2 released, we night look at various conceptual 3

approaches, including doing some small-scale bench tests O

4 of small-scale cleanups that might be done.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Whether it's a paper 6

or a bench test --

7 ER. MINOGUEs I picked a bad example.

8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I'm just trying to e understand where we're at.

10 MR. MINOGUE To go back to my earlier answer, 11 ve talked about applying the results of large 12-facilities, building large facilities to assess 13 feasibility.

14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I think we can 15 definitely have a policy we will build no large --

16 MR. MINOGUE One night use SEMISCALE, as 17 Westinghouse has, to test out a flow meter.

Actually, 18 the NRC carried part of that test.

They did the test, 1g made the f acility available.

That's an example of very 20 small testino.

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

With regard to the 22 policy, I still feel that we need to emphasize that 23 there should be ir. creases on research in the regulatory O

24 ar=ce==-

25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

I don't have a 3

.J ALDER 8cN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

11

( 1 probles with that as long~ as it doesn't serve to the 2 exclusion of the other. I guess I had read the.first 3 version of the policy statement to be focusing on those e 4 areas where you have got a regulation either in mind or 5 you 've got a regulation in hand, where you want to 6 resssess it or look for possible changes. 7 I guess I was thinking more in terms, when I 8 read the second, the Staff 's proposed varsion, the kind 9 of things that were in the improved reactor safety 10 research program that began, what, three or four years 11 ago at the direction of the Congress, that focused on 12 the areas where there weren't regulations specifically 13 in mind. And I'm displaying my bias towa rd tha t () 14 program, but thera weren't specific regulations in mind 15 at the time, but where it was recognized that there 16 sight wall be regulatory requirements that later came 17 out as a result. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 But you see, that would 19 be consistent with Joe's original "usef ul for developing 20 new regulations." 21 COMMISSIONER ASSE1SIINE: Arguably, I think 22 you're right. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Let me draw the (]) 24 distinction that I think may be underlying here, which 25 ve ought to address. And if it's there we ought to make \\-) Aa.osP8oN REPoMUNG COMPANY.INC. m0 riRef sT N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (Em 63 0300

..__.__.m...._..__-___ 12 g 1 it more explicit. There is one set or type af research 2 that I think is the same kind you were talking about. 3 If you go down that direction, it is either linked to O 4 current regulations or work that may eventually lead to 5 regulations. 6 There is another set that has no link, and 7 auch of the criticism in the past of the NRC's research s program has been because there has been an inability to e find a lit.k to sort of anything. It 's unfo cused. That 10 is where the criticisa comes, as you know. 11 There is still a third type, and that is the 12 type that we have been challenged on when it has been 13 suggested, but that is DOE's area. That could lead to 14 laprovements in reactor operation. l 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Reliability, that o 16 sort of thing. 17 CONMISSIONER AHEARNE: So we ought to stay out 18 of that. I would support one and three. So I would 19 support some kind of a statement which would give a 20 justification for doing that last kind of research. The 21 difficultr I would have is with the policy being 22 interpreted as encouraging going back to what I think 23 was characteristic several years ago, no rationale h 24 needed to support the program. 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If you interpret the AU3M8cN R8 PORTING COMPANY. INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGToN, D.C. 20001 (RN) 854330

... _ _.... _.. _. ~....... 13 p 1 language-in-the first proposal that way, I don't have %J 2 any real difficulty with that. The concern I had was, 3 it would be over-narrowly interpreted to focus on an O 4 area where you had a specific modification or regulation 5 initiative or something like that, and research had to 6 be pinpointed exactly to that, on that narrow focus, 7 rather than that this is an area where we think, based 8 upon overall judgments of risk, that we ought to put 9 more emphasis and we ought to explore this area, even 10 though we don't right now have in mind a particular 11 result in terms of the development of a particular I 12 regulation. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Should un put in that () 14 when a concept goes beyond a certain stage and we think 15 it is a promising thing that we vill try to interest DOE 18 in it? 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Well, I don't think we've 18 gone to that stage, at least in my thinking. 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Well, if we think tha t 20 to go beyond -- 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa or industry? 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE We've had some areas i ({; 24 where I think there v.as a greater willingness te have 25 industry. l -s ') s_ l ALDERSON REPORT'NG COMPANY. INC. l 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (20it) 839 4300

16 (() 1~ (At 3:50 p.m., Commissioner Roberts left the 2 room.) 3 CONHISSIONER AHEARNE: I was just saying that O 4 I didn't want to -- 5 COMEISSIONER GILINSKYs No. Groups outside 6 the agency. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO But under policy aren't 8 ve also interested in research that lends to g understanding phenomenon important to analyses of safety 10 improvements; that sometimes there are basic pieces of 11 research that are not useful necessarily in a 12 regulation, but they are useful in the way you analyze. 13 But I would ba inclined to add something like that, and 14 I would also be inclined to add the policy that there 15 should be increased emphasis on using research results. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKIs Well, let's see. This 17 tends to be a direction to the research program, and if 18 You are saying there should be more use of research Ig results, do you mean others should use what is being 20 used or the research program should be more attentive to 21 the need? 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s-Well, maybe I should 23 change it. There should be increased emphasis on I () 24 research which Osn be used in the ragulatory process. 25 Maybe that would be a better statement. D g 440 MRST ST., N.W., WASHINoTON. D.C. 20001 (202) N

15 1 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE4 That's a better 2 statement f or research. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0a But it's also a true 4 statement -- 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Telling thts to use 6 wha t is there. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, do you want to go 8 on to item number one? 9 COMNISSIONER ASSELSTINEa Before we do that, 10 would that interpretation of what we're talking about 11 now satisfy 12 NR. MINOGUE: ves,because reading the words 13 by themselves I would aave taken it as a very narrov O 24 direction. But after having heard this discuss 1oo, it s 15 really consistent with that kind of a program. 16 Since you asked me a question, I think there's 17 a big difference between emphasizing user research in is the regulatory program or doing research that can be 10 used. Remember, we're also the standards group and we 20 should have a mandate to use it. I think that's 21 perfectly appropriate, to say that. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKIa I think you need both 23 sides of it, though. I think you need to put both in. 24 HR..HINOGUE: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs And I believe that in O v ALDWISDN RSPoRTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST, N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (20m 628 8000

-. ~ ~ 16 1 the guidance document we are talking less to the {) 2 research office than to the function and role of 3 research in the agency. So the policy ought to be the 4 concept. As Joe had said earlier, it is the basis for 5 establishing our priorities, in this particular case on 6 research, not just what you 're talking about. 7 CHAIRNAN PALLADINO Would you sgree to have 8 something about the understanding and a statement about 9 increased emphasis on the use of research results in the 10 regulatory process is very useful? 11 COMMISSIONEH AREABNE Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs More about this 13 business of beyond a certain point we would encourage. ( [- 14 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO: Okay. You changed number 15 one considerably. As a matter of fact, you rewrote it. 16 MR. ROE Number one is reflecting other -- 17 the thought of number one is reflected in other places 18 in the PPG. And yes, number one now reflects what we 1g wrote for the balance of program. 20 HR. HINOGUE: Certainly no one is trying not 21 to be businesslika and not trying to work the agreement 21 out with resources. In a sense that 's only last year's 23 guidance. (}) 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think my view of the 25 planning guidance that is written here, though, is the ) o= Rm=~ Co

v. -:.

440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

. _ _ _. _.____........~ _ _ ____ _. __-_ -._.--_. 17 g original proposal is both good and necessary. 1 2 CHAIRHAN P.ALLADIN0s You'd be inclined to keep 3 the number one? ~ 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I'd be inclined to keep 5 number one. 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Number one as 7 originally written? 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As originally written. f 9 HR. ZERBE It still has number one. We say 10 the identified resources. 11 ER. ROE On page 2', the major part of the 12 PPG, one. of our last ' additions was the consolidation of 13 elimination of programs, elimination of marginal h 14 programs. That is for overall, but it doesn't go right 15 to research.- ~ 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE The agency's budget is 17 in the research area, and my projection is that this as 18 written here woul be a more accurate description, and to thinking ahead, looking ahead, that's the way we ought 20 to do it. 21 22 23 O 24 2. ^ nonneon nemmua coumn.mc. ,440 MnST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 8000 I

18 1 HR. MINOGUE: May I make a comment? There is {) 2 one thought, because this is really last year's 3 guidance, but it is very current. In Item 6 that the ) 4 staff proposed, we talked about with whom we would carry ~ 5 out these consortium coordinated programs. 6 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE: That is excellent. I 7 raise this point. When this wording in 1 was first 8 proposed, the question was, can we do joint programs 9 with industry. You can read that narrowly to say. that 10 ve shouldn't do programs with foreign governments, and 11 unfortunately nowadays most of the new construction is 12 being done in other countries, so if va don't cooperate 13 with them, we cut ourselves off. () 14 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE Right, and that is why 15 I thought your Number 6 was excellent. 16 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: You are going to put a 17 revised 1, programs. with industry, other agencies, and 18 foreign countries? 19 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. Fine. 20 00HNISSIONER GILINSKYa Let's see. You a re 21 going to keep 6 or you are not going to keep 67 22 CHAIRMAK PALLADINO We are going to keep a 23 couple. We were agreeing first we were going to keep ({} 24 the old Number 1 and add foreign countries. 25 COMNISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me just throw in a d' ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY.INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 8354300

19 1 note here. It probably applies to 6, but it probably ) 2 applies to 1 also. I think you have to have something 3 in there about conflict of interest. You cannot simply 4 blindly say that we are going to do programs together 5 with industry groups. 6 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, should be pursued 7 when possible. ~ 8 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think you have 9 to explicitly say -- 10 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What about the NRC's 11 regulatory role for wording consistency? 12 (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., Commissioner Roberts 13 re turned. ) ( 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs There is no conflict 15 of interest? Or maybe not use the word "no." 16 HR. HINOGUE: This has been particularly 17 important with the industry stuff. That is something we 18 are very conscious of. I don't think it is so much of a 19 problem with foreign governments as it is with 20 industry. We are very aware of that. I would tie it to 21 industry and not foreign government. 22 COMMISSIONER GITINSKYa. With due consideration 23 given to avoiding conflict of interest, and then it is a ([) 24 matter of judgment, but I think you have to include ~ 25 that. m \\, ) ALD8R8oN M8 PORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST, N.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (202) 82H300

20 1 CHAIREAN PALLADINC: I suppose we could put a {) 2 mentence at the end, "Due consideration should be given 3 to questions of conflict of interest with industry." We O 4 could rewrite it later and come back to you. 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I think we want to 6 be sure, though, that we are not precluding things where 7 ve are trying to get industry to pick up the tab for 8 research, where they have to demonstrate to us what it 9 is. 10 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa When you are requiring 11 somebody to do something. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSIINE: Something like my 5 13 is going to cost a lot of money, and basically the () 14 staff's view is industry should do that. 15 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs If they are going to 16 do it, fine, but that comes in in a different guise. 17 Industry is open, and you treat it a certain way. 18 NR. MIN 3GUE: Of course, you can use the same 19 facility to get results for several programs, and that 20 lu where the conflict comes in. I l 21 CONF 75SIONER GILINSKTs If we say due 22 consideration, it seems to me that allows us a great 23 deal of flexibility. (; 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINot But adding a sentence 25 vill be okay, "With due consideration of conflicts of C-ALDERSoN HEPoRTING COMPANY. INC. 440 FIRST ST N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 8284000 t. -

21 1 interest." ) 2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Back on Number 1 3 where you see "through more businesslike methods," that (J) 4 was in last year's as well. What specific 5 achievements? 8 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY Well, you mean even 7 though we are businesslike? 8 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Basically, that 'T 9 implies that thera were not businesslike me thods being 10 used, and I guess I as just curious about what the 11 evolving nature of these methods is. 12 ER. HINOGUEs I think we have made a lot of 13 progress, but there is still plenty of room for () 14 improvement. What it amounts to is, you do a lot of 15 horse trading and negotiations to be sure that we don't s 16 pay for an more than NBC, and we have to do that. 17 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs It does cay to me, I 18 don 't know whethat others -- 19 COHHISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I don 't mind keeping 20 Number 1 in. I guess I sa just curious about what it is 21 they are recommending. 22 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO We took it out since it 23 was in last year's. {}} 24 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY We don ' t want them to 25 slack off. That's for sure. ALosnooN REPofmMG COMPANY,INc. [ MO PIRST ST, N.W, WASHINGTON, EC. 20001 (204 028 0300 f

22 ({} 1 ' COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINEa All businesslike 2 methods, whatever they are. 3 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO Okay, do you want to go O 4 back to the staff's Number 17 I would like to cross out 5 that word, " con firm a to ry," just because it seems to be a 6 red flag. i 7 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYa It was originally in 8 the law. Originally that was considered -- 9 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE4 But we have been 10 saying that doesn't mean anything. ~ 11 HR..MINOGUEa I don't believe the word 12 "conformatory" is in the legislation. However, it is a 13 distinction that has been made over the years. () 14 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs Orihinally we felt 15 constrained to only do this kind of research. 16 HR. HINOGUE: There was a long period when 17 that was seen as a great constraint. It has not in fact 18 been a constraint in recent years, but I think some 19 Congressional Committees are concerned that it has 20 been. 21 COHEISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Didn't we say 22 before, Hrs. Bukark, that for all intents and purposes l the distinction didn 't have any meaning any more? 23 (]) 24 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN04 I was going to suggest 25 taking the "conformatory" out and just add research to [ \\ J ALDWItoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 21001 (305 054000

23 1 revise the current regulatory base. ) 2 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Bob, in the first 3 phrase of that, is i+ support of research for new O 4 regulatory needs? What is the distinction between 5 regulatory needs and research to reinforce our 6 regulatory base? 7 HR. HIN3GUE: Well, regulatory, the way I read 8 that, is pretty broadly. That could be something that 9 IEE might have, or that the regional offices might have 10 relating to inspection programs, things of that type. 11 It could be to develop an analytical review that a 12 licenser might use and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a 13 regulation, a change in the regulation. It would be () 14 more a toci people could'use. 15 In the past, we have done that in the code 16 area. A lot of the codes are used more by the licensing 17 reviewers. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But it is really the is needs of the regulatory staff. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Some of the research can 21 support or revise. 22 ER. HIN000Ea That is in addition to the 23 reg ulation. 24 COEMISSIONER AHEARNEa Support of research for () 25 regulatory needs. Second is to revise the regulatory ALDER 0oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 MRST ST N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 8284300

2n I I base, and I am trying to understand the difference. {) 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY You know, I would like 3 to see somewhere a statement that research chould not be O 4 a substitute for regulatory action where such action is 5 varranted. 6. CH AIBRAN P ALLADIN0 s I was going to have a 7 sentence that would say NRC regulations should be 8 changed where research shows them to be either too 9 stringent or not stringent enough. I think as a 10 planning guidance that that should be done. 11 Incidentally, I will give you these. 12 CONMINSIONER GILINSKY I am not sure that is 13 the same thought. ,n Nj 14 (General laughter.) 15 CONNISSIONER AREARNEs Vic vants a paragraph 16 that says, when a probles arises, we shouldn't accept 17 putting it into the research program. 18 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY That's exactly right. 19 (Genecal laughter.) 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But I agree with you, 21 too. 22 (General laughter.) 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Give me a statement on ({} 24 yours, and we vill put it in. 25 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYa I don't know whether ,3 -t ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGToN, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 8300

~. _ _.___._.... _ -..... _ _ _ _ _. _ _... _ _ ___, _ _ _ 25 {]) 1 this is the most f elicitous var to say it, but -- John 2 may have said it better. 3 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Strictly as an () 4 attorney. 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When we are in a 6 posi*. ion to act, I guess I would say research should not .7 be a substitute for regulatory action when such action 8 is warrantad. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s When regulatory action is 10 varranted. 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think they are two 12 different thoughts. 13 (General laughter.) (., u. 14 . CHAIRMAN PALLADINO2 I am not sure. Don't use 15 research in place of regulatory action. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Well, sometimes -- 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs You put that on the is shelf? l 19 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY Somebody has a l 20 tendency to say that we haven't dealt with the problem i 21 because we have a research program started in one of the l 22 laboratories. I 23 CHAIRNAN PALLADIN0s I wasn't aware. Do we ({) 24 have such programs? 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I think the answer

)

w. ALD5tSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGToN D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

26 t (]) 1 would be no, but -- 2 (General laughter.) 3 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY: -- I think it is a O 4 fact that this does happen. 5 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: Do you want to put 6 something in on that? 7 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: I would. I don't knov 8 if those are quita the right words. 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSIINE: If you are talking 10 about situations where you have enough information to 11 decide at the outset that some action is necessary, I 12 guess I wouldn't have -- 13 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Going back to the () 14 reason for the document, I am not sure how it fits in 15 either. I think as you were asking Joe Tourtellotte 16 earlier today, Vic, could you give a few examples. 17 00HNISSIONER GILINSKYs Sure. 18 (General laughter.) 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I remember a 20 little one that goes var back, so it doesn't affect 21 anybody here, but I remember distinctly that when we had 22 difficult safeguards problems, the easiest way out was 23 to have a contract at one of the laboratories to study (}; 24 this or that, or complicated models, and then you didn't 25 have to decide whether to have an extra guard at one of V ALoaR8oN RuPoRTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 82H300

27 1 the facilities until that project was completed and 2 available, that sort of, thing. 3 It 's a matter of judgment. It's not a clear l O 4 instruction in any particular case, but I guess what it 5 would mean is, don't take the easy way out if you really 6 have enough information to deal with the problem. This 7 may not preclude a research project. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I hate to tell the staff 9 to do something or stop doing something. 10 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYa velt, I think ther 11 have been doing it. I said it is unfair to put that 12 question to peopte responsible for the projects. That's 13 what I meant by that no. O 24 CaAIanAN >AttAoIN0s vett, why don t you draft 15 some language, and if we like it, we vill vote it in, 16 and if not -- 17 NR. ZERBEt Should it go under research or 18 somewhere etse in the document? Because you keep giving 19 guidance to research. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa That is right. That 21 is true. 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: John, one question 23 on your proposal. You may veti have a situation in {} 24 Appendix K which comes to mind as one of those where 25 research results demonstrate that the present O ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628 8300

28 (}} 1 requirements may be in some respects more conservative 2 than is necessary, but for a variety of reasons you may 3 decide that you are better off not reopening those 4 regulations and revising them. That may not be true in 5 the case of Appendix K, but the added conservatism in 6 removing those may not warrant a major undertaking like 7 revising the rule. 8 Do you foresee those kinds of considerations 9 coming into play in the sentence that you proposed 10 adding? 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think that if 12 reseach results show that we are going unnecessarily too 13 conservatively, then we have to put that in there. I () 14 would say if it is unnecessarily conservative, then we 15 have to change the regulation. 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It may be a mix, but t 17 your conclusion is the overall existing requirements are 18 adequate, and in some respects they may be more 19 conservative than others. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs Well, just to tell the 21 staff to be on the lookout for resear=h results that 22 might be too conservative. 23 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE4 That might be a better (]) 24 var. 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I am more <~ s_. ALDW48oN R8 PORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 MRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20091 (202) 828 4300

.. ~. 29 ({} 1 comfortable with that formulation. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 That was one of the 3 things we had to be alert to to take advantage of. (% %J 4 COEHISSIONER AHEARNE Let me aski the research 5 director what his comment is. Bob, do you feel that we 6 don't take advantage of opportunities to change the 7 regulations? 8 MR. MINOGUEs I think that in the past it is a 9 fact that there has been undue reluctance to apply 10 research results, but that is an era that has ended, and 11 we are dealing now with auch more of an attitude to 12 apply these results. 13 There is a problem, and Mr. Asselstine has (. 14 rc 11y flagged it. Sometimes an existing framework of 15 regulation may be more comfortablo in the industry, and 16 there may be cases where've say we know the regulation 17 is too conserva tive, but to change it will require a lot is of rework and redoing, and it is simply not worth it. 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Jim, to help me 20 understand that, you say that era has anded, and we are 21 ' now more comfortably applying the research to change the 22 regulations. Give me a couple of examples. 23 MR. MINOGUE: The two best examples are the ([) 24 current work on Appendix K, worked planned in the 25 future, and the reaction we are getting from people on

3 v

I ALDeteoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WAS4tNGToN D.C. 2001 (202) 85 0300

3n Q 1 the source term issue. I think there is much more of a 2 climate of villingness to look at the regulatory stea. i 3 I could use the safeguards area. The ability of O 4 sh,ipping casks. There is very receptive attitude for 5 that. 8 COEMISSIONER AHEARNEi, That was because, as I 7 recall, the regulation we vill be changing is a 8 regulation we put in place because the preliminary 9 results of the research indicated some things the final 10 -results are not. 11 HR. MINOGUE4 That is literally true. 12 (General laughter.) 13 NR. NINOGUEs The position of the staff in the 14 earlier regulation is that the likelihood of any 15 dispersibility was, lov. Sandia did some analyses based is on shaky data which.vas a clear indication for hard 17 research facts to go further. Sometimes you need t?te 18 facilities / If it is all analysis, you ara liable to r q 19 analyze yodrself 1.nto a problem. j' 20 You are correct. There was an earlier ? 21 research result froa some of my predecessors that led.to i 22 th( regulation in.the first place. 23 (General laughter.) 24 e' 2, .c p ./ / t' ALDERSoN REPORflPMa CwNANY,INC.

.. _... ~ __ 31 s {'f 1 CONNISSIONER AREARNE: I was just trying to 2 understand. Again going back to your -- this is now a 3 message to the-whole Staff. I as trying to understand 'g( ) l 4 what the message was that was going to be given, to be 5 on guard or to be sure research results would be 6 applied. That had to carry with it the flavor that ther 7 had to be applied, trying to explore that situation. 8 You see, the sense that I had gotten -- and 9 Jim, having been up in one side of the Congress, may 10 have seen it differently -- but the sanse I got from 11 dealing with many of the congressional staffs and also 12 dealing with OHB wasn't that they believed there were 13 research results that we had that were not applied. It ( 14 was two things. First, they had a few instances of 18 results with sele:tive pieces. They would then conclude 16 tha t should mean this whole regulation ought to change. 17 But unfortunately, a selective piece doesn't enable you 18 to change a regulation. i 19 The other part of it was they were saying we i 20 have been spending all this money on researen over the 21 year; we don 't see any regulations changed. I 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs They don't appreciate 1 23 the symbolic role. t (]) 24 CORBISSIONER AREARNEs That is because they l 25 were afraid that was all it was. c -\\ w As.osRooN REMmMG CowANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (20lt) 828 0300 t

32 (]) 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSIINEs Although in fairness 2 I can't think of one instance where there was a real 3 discussion of this question s that is, are significant O 4 research results being generated which show the trend in 5 conservatism, on the one hand, advocating modifications 6 to the regulations, and on the other hand people 7 arguing, well, you know how to work with this regulation 8 ve are comfortable with it as it is, there are 9 disadvantages to changing it, and so forth. 10 HR. MINOGUEs A lot of the work was done in 11 relationship to Appendix K issues. They are so complex 12 that there was a justifiable reluctance to change it 13 piecemeal. I think we are now past that stage. LOFT 14 has operated for a long tim e. We are not in that mode 15 now. I should have added that in n'y answer to my 16 question. We are now reaping the benefit of some of the 17 earlier years of work. When you get the whole body of 18 data, you are not talking piecemeal changes yet. 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I should call your 20 attention to Mrs. Bouchard's letter. 21 MR. MINOGUE: If I may, I would like to talk 21 about 2 and 3 together. Basically what we were trying 23 to suggest there was to put in some explicit wording on (]) 24 the advanced reactors. The reason is having a different 25 approach on them. We are putting emphasis on U ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828-0300

l 33 I e* ({} 1 costricting the research program to regulatory and more 2 on making the applicant support his application. We are 3 also trying to match these programs to ongoing 4 ' administrative or congressional decisions. 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa What does that mean? 8 NR. MINOGUEa If there is no funding 7 whatsoever within the government and no congressional 8 support for the HTGR program, that would look different 9 than it looks now. 10 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs This is number 3 ycu 11 are talking about? 12 HR. MINOGUEs Number 2 and 3 go together. The ,13 change in 2 is just an editorial clarification. C-) 14 CONNISSIONER AREARNEL You are responding to 15 the fact that there is funding. 18 ER. MINOGUEs There is funding for the 17 breeding program and there is' funding for HTGR. It is a 18 small amount of funding. It is 5 percent as compared to 19 85 percent. But it is funding for advanced reactors. So 20 the first, closest and highest was just to clarify that 21 ve don't do other reactor work. Number 3 was to clarify 22 what the other reactor work consisted of. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Let me explore 3. This (}) 24 relates in a way to a debate that has been going on over 25 the last five years. But you have a research program, k-) ALDER 9eN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGToN, D.C. 20001 (202) SIM000

34 (]) I having part of it being maintained to provide a 2 technical base consistent with the administration policy. 3 COMEISSIONER ASSELSTINE: let me suggest an O 4 alternate formulation. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The difficulty I have 6 with th at, and I recognize this is a heated debate and 7 has been for years, I have a lot of difficulty with us 8 as an independent agency trying to establish that as one 9 of our guidelines. 10 HR. MINOGUEs That is a "gotcha." It was 11 careless wording. The intent was that whatever we do in 12 these new program areas ought to have some relation' ship 13 to the schedule of likely activities. That ties in with 14 how that program is adopted by the Commission. 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I think it is more 16 consistent with the needs that we see to address, some 17 var of phrasing that that I would be more comfortable 18 with. 1g COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Regulatory needs 20 associated with programs adopted by the Administration 21 and the Congress, yes. 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs If you are going to 23 speak of the Administration, I guess I would like to see () 24 You throw in the Congress. 25 MR. MINOGUEa In fact, on the HTGR, a lot of l l .g i.J ALoansoN MsPoRTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. o.C. 20001 (202) 6254300

~ 35 e Q t the guidance has come from congressional feedback. 2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Yes, auch more so 3 than the Administration. O 4 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s On page 17 I say not 5 related to this we also talk about the Administration, 6 and I wanted to fix that up. Did you have some i 7 suggested wording or were you going to try to reword it? 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How about 9 " consistent with regulatory needs with programs adopted 10 by the Administration and the Congress"? 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Are you getting that 12 down, Jack? 13 CORNISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, let's see. 14 Suppose somebody is going to go out and buy a French 15 breeder. I guess he is going to have to prepare for 18 that if it came to such an eventuality. I think 17 something along the lines that John was suggesting, the 18 needs, the regulatory needs. 19 CONMISSIONER AHEARNE: Try to look ahead and 20 see what the regulatory needs are. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Yes. 22 All right, do you want to go on to number 47 23 3R. MINOGUE: Number 4, I think the difference () 24 is strictly editorial. It is not a substantive 25 difference. I think that is really also true of 5 in \\ ALDM8oM REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 440 MRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 02H300

36 e* (]) 1 the sense that the rephrasing of 5 was more to come back 2 to the clari,fication really done by rewording the policy. 3 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO: Number 5, I think we lost 4 something there in the modifications. If you look at 5 it, the Staff shall prepare a report, and then target 6 dates to review the regulations and the changes to then 7 shall be specified. Then the particular research \\ 8 prograss that relate to each of these regulations should 9 also be identified. Then any remaining research 10 programs should be listed along with a brief explanation 11 of their purpose. And then the reports to be provided 12 to the Commission by early '83. 13 So that you specify not only target dates for ( 14 making changes but also what research relates to those 15 changes and any research program. l l 16 CDENISSIONEB ASSELSTINE: I wonder if that 17 report could miso give us an indication of the resources 18 that are allocated to those different categories, so 19 that we know, for example, how much research money is l 20 going into regulation areas. l 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Number 6. Did we do 22 number 6? 23 CONNISSIONEB ASSELSTINE: We had foreign l (]) 24 countries and we added foreign countries. l 25 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: I guess Jack Zerbe has l 1 -s ALDGI8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST 37 N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 8284J00

e 37 i i r 1 been writing this, and that is what I think came out of g 2 it, and we added the statement about understanding the 3 phenomena, and the statement about in:reased emphasis on O 4 using research in the regulatory process, but also the 5 reverse of that, doing research that is useful in the 6 process. 7 Under planning guidance we had " insert old 8 number 1," with the addition of foreign countries there, 9 new number 1. I would'like to put something in there 10 about there being changes in regulations. 11 12 13 O 1. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 2 l 2 i ,S l l - -,m .m M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 825 0300 l

38 e' {]) 1 That is not as strong as I would like it. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought you would 3 have to say it both ways. O 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOa Both ways. So that when 5 they are too stringent or not stringent enough, yes. 6 Number 5, I made the changes suggested to your rewrire. 7 Then there was also a ruggestion of resources, and then, 8 Number 6, we added the sentence, something like "Due 9 consideration'should be given to the questions." I will 10 give you the specifics from my notes. 11 Presumably if there are other comments, I am 12 quite sure there'will be other comments on the other 13 parts of the package, because I have some. Eventually ( 14 you are going to include the revised research. 15 HR. ZERBE Yes. 16 CONHISSIONER ASSELSTINEt We did drop out the 17 reference in last year's PPG section on research to 18 waste research programs, feeling that that needs to be a 19 new issue. It is the same concept for advanced 20 reactor. That is, we ought to match our research l 21 program and needs to DOE, and also the joint cooperative 22 programs. I don 't know if we need to reference then 23 specifically or not. We did last year. ({) 24 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY That seems like a good 25 idea. \\2 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,1NC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) N

39 1 MR. EYSYMOUTT The reason we did that, we felt that we were well on the way and we didn't need to 3 ia that. O 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Do you want to walk 5 through the document? e MR. ROE Sure. 7 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN04 I had one I was inclined 8 to put in under the introduction. It goes something 9 like this. The EDO is directed to examine the 10 long-range research needs of the agency looking ahead to 11 the year 1995. This examination shall identify what the 12 overa11' staff and dollar trends will be, how these resources will,be allocated over time to various NRC 13 b 14 functions such as licensing, monitoring of operating 15 facilities. 16 This examination should be completed by June 17 of '82. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did you say '85 or 19 '957 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Ninety-five. Looking 21 ahead to our licensing process. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Proposed? 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe that isn't far h 24 ahead. 25 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY: I think it is a good - - o . o. 440 Fm8T ST, N.W., WA8HIN. ton. D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300 ~

40 s-Q 1 idaa. 2 CUAIRHAN PALLADINO: Harbe I should say over 3 five. yea rs. b" 4 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't know whether I 5 would put a date on it. 6 CH AIRMAN P ALLADINO: Looking ahead for a 7 period of five years. 8 COMMISSIONER AREABNE You would probably wan t 9 to go a little acre than five, so 95, that is 12 years 10 -- ten years. i 11 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE But let's say a few 12

• words, if we could, about why we are asking them to do 13 that.

Let's say there are three possible futures that 14. You might have in mind that you either should address -- 15 one future is no change. You just sort of go along as 16 ve are going along now, no change, and that there -- the 17 staff is constantly awaiting, maybe there is going to be 18 a reactor coming in for licensing. There may be one or 19 twoc the business in the sense of where the staff is in 20 the distribution of resources. The kinds of people tha t 21 ve have ara not auch different than they have been over 22 the last few years. 23 There are obviously two other features. There h 24 is the one, the industry's optimistic resurgence of 25 growth. When you talk about the early 1990's that is %) ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. M0 FIRST ST N.W., WASNINGToN. D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

41 (] 1 when the industry, as you know, would say we are going 2 to be coming back in, about the late 1980's, that we're 3 going to start getting a lot of construction O 4 applications, and we are going to start getting either 5 the standardized design or final design, whatever the ,6 new terminology is going to be, and as a result, Dircks 7 might come back in and say the NRC staff ought to count 8 on a shallow period, but then it has to prepare itself 9 for this large growth. That is one future. 10 Another future would say that there are not 11 going to be any more license applications, that the 12 large bulk of the people say in NRR are going to have to 13 go out into the regions or are going to have to turn to ( 14 becoming a support arm for those people who will be 15 doing the principal business of the agency, which will 16 be monitoring the operating of reactors. That is an 17 entirely different future, and it has an entirely 18 different character description as fcr as the individual 19 sitting out there on the staff right now about what 20 their future is. 21 I think it is very important that the people 22 on the staff -- you have said this is speaking to the 23 whole staff. Speaking to the staff, that they () 24 understand that the management is thinking about their 25 future, but it might be useful if you described, Bill, . m. U ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 83H300

42 (} 1 in this do:ument whether you believe he ought to look at 2,only one of those. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs He really has to look O 4 at all three, because we can't predict the future. 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe we can just say we 6 are looking at various options. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I think that the 8 important part is it takes a long time to move people 9 from one activity to another. It is not too early to 10 think about 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And there are a lot of 12 people in the agency who are getting very concerned 13 about what is going to be their future. Is anybody () 14 thinking about it other than themselves? 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I think that is 16 terribly important. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Maybe we could put 18 something on various assumptions regarding the future of 19 the industry. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or their work load or 21 something, the nature of the work. 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: There is a difference 23 between the nature of the work load of the NRC staff and ({} 24 the future of the industry. I don't think we should get I 25 into any predictive situation to one extreme or the k_) j ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON 0.C. 20001 (202) 828-0300

43 1 other. g v 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa No, but I think you do 3 have to think about your ability to cope with one or 4 another of these contingencies, and I don't think we can 5 sit here and say it is going to be this way or that 6 var. 7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS 4 I agree with that. You 8 certainly can't. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa We have to take into 10 account a range of possibilities. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Maybe we could dress this 12 up and include that these should include various 13 assumptions regarding the industry. O $4 comarssronza ortrastr> r ta1=x roo noo1a 15 sake clear that the point of it is to really help plan 16 the professional careers of the people here. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Well, we have a paragraph 18 on that. All.right. That's really part of the purpose. 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Otherwise, it will 20 be wildly misinterpreted as the Commission predicting 21 whst the various 11ternatives are for the f uture of the 22 industry. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s No, I don't want to get 24 into that iode. 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 You mean you don't want N REPORTING COMPANY,INC. M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 9300

44 1 Bill to come up with a -- (~) 2 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: His predicting the 3 industry.on this. O 4 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have a question 5 about something that was deleted from last year, and 8 it's a question, Joe, of how you plan to use this 7 document in the budget process, because there was a 8 reference in last year's to its use in preparing the FY 9 '84 and '86 budget requests, and I know that we did use 10 the PPG this past year as at least one tool in 11 preparing, I guess it's the FY '84 budget request. 11 I guess I wondered, one, what you saw the use 13 of this document in the budget process was. (j 14 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: Well, as far as the needs 15 of the agency, I guess it is not worded quite right, is because I want them to look at it in time enough, for 17 example, if there are significant changes in licensing, 18 and we have to put them somewhere else, I wanted to get 19 it in time in order to do that. 20 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But you don't intend 21 the PPG to be the basis for budget decisions? 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It can be used in the l 23 budget decisions. 24 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It was the second {) 25 sentence of the introduction. ~ ALosR0oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGToN. D.C. 20001 (202) 854300

45 l 1 COH5ISSIONER AHEARNE: It is sort of a 2 negative way. 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It says it is not ("h 4 only for that purpose. If we are going to use it -- I 5 think if we are going to use it we ought to say how we 6 are. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Incidentally, this study 8 was intended to help us in our budget as well as the g planning of people. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I have something else 11 I would like to see. Were you finished, Jim? 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In the introduction, O

i. it is something a1ong these tines.

rree and open 15 communication should be encouraged between the staff and 16 Commissioners' of fices, particularly since informal 17 contacts are limited by the geographic separation of 18 most of our offices. tg I will tell you why I raise it. We had a 20 question about a memorandum Bill Dircks had put out some 21 time ago and how that was interpreted as f ar as staff's 22 willingness or cooperation in answering requests from 23 Commissioners. Bill then put out another memo which 24 clarified the subject, but my own experience is, it 25 never really caught up with the effect of the first I. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 P1RS7 ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 625-0300

06 1 one. 2 I would very much like to see a statement that 3 vould clear that up in this document. O 4 CHAIRNAN PALLADIN0s Be caref ul, so -- 5 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: I wouldn't even be 6 interested in a statement. i 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0a I would rather not have 8 it in, but if we do put it in, we have to be very 9 careful how ve write it. Otherwise, it comes out that 10 access can be had any time within reason. There is a 11 policy on it, and we vill let the policy speak for 12 itself. 13 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, the practice is () 14 that people are not at all anxious 'to communicate with 15 Commissioners' offices because they feel they are 16 instructed not to. Now, Bill has put out a memorandum 17 clearing that up, as 1 said,' directed to office heads, 18 but my own experience in dealing with people lower down 19 is that the first memorandum got much wider currency, 20 and is regarded, as you might say, as the operative 21 memorandum. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s But I would also like to 23 make sure that this doesn't become the norm and bypass 24 the EDO. Ihat will just go in and undermine our whole r 25 management structure. T (_/ ALDERSON REPORTfNG COMPANY,INC. M0 MRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 8300

47 1 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs It seems to me the {) 2 Commissioners ought to be able to communicate very 3 fraely with any part of this agency. C 4 CONNISSIONER ROBERTS: On the face of it, I 5 agree with you. 8 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs There is a lot of_ 7 underlying history and a lot of arguments in the ~ 8 reorganization plan about tnat. 9 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs If you want to close 10 off the agency to Commissioners, that is a different 11 story, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER AREARNEs It is a question of 13 setting up a management system. () 14 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYs This puts it to the 18 test, then, I think.- 4 18 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs I guass I find that the 17-agency's management system is working reasonably well, 18 and I haven't noticed any difficulty in getting 19 information. l 20 CHAIEHAN PALLADIN0s You mean rather than, for 21 example, writing the EDO and asking for information, you 22 wrote right to the Conmissioner? 23 CORNISSION ER GILINSKY: I find that if T vant 24 to find something out, I pick up the phone. And I am () 25 just talking about getting information which is easily l l l ALDERSON REPoRnNG COMPANY,INC. 440 RRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (200 m

48 1 and readily accessible. {) 2 COHNISSIONER AREARNE: You mean when you have 3 personally called someone, they have refused to talk to G 4 you? 5 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: I seldom personally 6 call people. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I don't mind trying to 8 add ress that, but I don't think this is the right 9 document to do it in. 10 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa These are the 11 instructions to the staff on how they ought to behave. 12 Another possibility is to send Bill Dircks' memo to 13 eve ry member of the staff, the later meno. That would () 14 be another satisfactory way of dealing with it. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me make a l 16 suggestion, to discuss this in a management meeting, and 17 out of it come instructions that would accomplish what 18 ve finally decide should be accomplished. I would 19 rather do that than do it in here and then put out a 20 meno. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 Well, we did -- I must 22 say I would prefer to see 'it here, but it is up to a 23 majority of the Commission, obviously. 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I propose not putting it (]) 25 in here and taking it up as a se pa ra te mana gement item. s s! I Al. DER 8oN RFPoRTING COMPANY,INC. 40 FIRST ST., N.W., WA8HINGMN D.C. 20001 (202) 828 8300

49 1 I really believe we should do that, and then issue an 2 appropriate meno. 3 CONNISSIONER ASSELSTINEs We are going to be 4 talking about the PPG for a while. I suggest that I 6 would like for myself to understand a little bit more 6 about what the problem is, and ta1k about it in the 7 management meeting. Then we could always come back and 6 consider the option to put it in. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think it is important 10 to get the PPG out and published bef ore the end of this 11 calendar year. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs Yes, I agree with 13 that. I don 't think that would stand in the way. () 14 CHAIBHAN PALLADIN0s We can address the other 15 question sooner. If it has to go in the PPG, I would 16 like to not have it held up. 1T COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEa I had one more on 18 the introduction. The last paragraph on the first page 19 of the introduction, Page 1 of last year's, I notice 20 that in this year's, and I sort of liked that paragraph, 21 and I wondered if there was any problem with putting 22 thst into this as well, the Commission's intention that 23 nuclear regulation reflect a continuing effort to come 24 to grips with the reality of nuclear technology. [{} 25 It seemed to me that the points made in that m U ALDEMSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (200 828 4300

50 / g 1 paragraph -- 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Which page? 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE The last paragraph O 4 oit Page 1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 14 15 16 ~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 2' 2. O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 PiRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (20lt) 82H300

51 1 MR. EYSIMOUTT We were trying to keep it 2 short. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, that won't add tha t 4 auch more. 5 Did you have more, Vic? 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I had more in the next 7 section. 8 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO: Anything else in the 9 introduction? 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I am troubled, since 11 this is a document to the Staff, by our saying the 12 Commission believes the Licensees are -- 13 COMMISSIONER.ASSELSTINEs. What about (]) 14 " ultimate." 15 COMMISSION ER GILINSKY: I know what is meant 16 by that. 17 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: The Staff -- l 18 COMMISS!0NER GILINSKYa The thought isn't ta entirely wrong. It's just that -- 20 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO: The principal -- 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me we 22 ought to be saying what the Staff's responsibility is. 23 It isn't that the others have the principal 24 responsibility. It's a dif ferent kind of {) 25 responsibility. You might say they have the -s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. M0 RR8T ST., N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 8284300

52 ~ 1 responsibility in the first instance. They certainly p) 2 have the financial responsibility. 3 CH AIRMAN P ALLADINO: I think they have the O 4 ultimate responsibility. 5 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa What does that -- I 6 don't know what that means. What does that say about 7 what the Staff does? It's a laudatory statement to say 8 to industry people that, whatever else goes on, they are g responsible for safety, and in that sense I agree with 10 it. 11 But when you say they have the ultimate 12 responsibility, what does that leave for the Staff? The 13 Staff clearly has the responsibility under the Atomic 0 i4 Ener.1 Act. We have the responsimility under the Ato 1c 15 Energy Act. Those are the responsibilities we ought to 16 be spelling out. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We don't have 18 responsibility, though, for the actual operation of the is facilities. We license then and then we monitor them to 20 see -- 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKT But put in a document 22 of this sort, it says -- 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm not pushing for 24 keeping this in. 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, okay. N V ALDSRSoN REPoH11NG COMPANY. INC, 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 8300

53 p 1 (laughter.) v 2 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY I also didn't 3 understand the last part of it. I ju'st didn 't know what 4 that meant. 5 CONNISSIONER ASSELSTINEa Yes, Jack, why did 6 you feel this was necessary? 7 HR. ROEa I think this grew out of a thought 8 that in many p1 aces there was a feeling that possibly 9 the public utility commissions look upon only those 10 changes that are required from a regulatory standpoint, 11 are those that can be considered to be put into the rate 12 base, and that there are economic incentives that add to 13 safety that are not regu1atory requirements that should O i4 he a1so used. 15 COHNISSIONER ASSELSTINEs But that doesn't fit 16 in with the purpose of this document. 17 COBRISSIONER AHEARNEt And that phrase doesn't 18 carry that baggage. 19 HR. ROE: That was the thought. 20 CONHISSIONER GILINSKY4 It 's the kind of thing 21 one might say when you are addressing a public service 22 commission and telling the utilities that this is their 23 responsibility. 24 HR. EYSIMOUTT It should be read together 25 with the under1ying paragraph on page 4, paragraph 6 i 0 .a ALoaR8cN REPORTING CowANY,INC, 4e mRsf sT, N.W WASHfNGToN, o.C.200M (24 828 0300

54 rs 1 there. (J 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs That's the second 3 part. Well, I don't like this " credible and viable" 4 either. Does that mean effective? 5 CHAIREAN PALLADINO: It's got to be credible. e MR. ZERBEs The underlying items are the items 7 tha t were added in. 8 HR. EYSYMOUTTs I think the thought behind 9 that was to try to see if they could get further 10 involvement from 7toups like INPO. 11 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY Well, why don't we 12 just say what we mean? 13 HR. EYSYNOUTTa Well, because it's probably an () 14 undeveloped idea at this time. 15 CONMISSIONER GILINSKTs That's for next PPG. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Let's see if we agree on 17 eliminating B. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I guess I thought you l 19 and Vic had good points there, in the sense that we are l l 20 speaking to the Staff, so they must understend what 21 their. responsibilities are. But one of the difficulties l 22 ve have hai over the last several years, I believe, is l 23 not getting across both to the Staff and to the 24 Licensee, the Licensee really does have that 25 responsibility for the safe operation of the Liconsee's a ALDERSoN REPoR11NG COMPANY,INC. I 440 PtRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (20F,828 0300

55 1 plant. And we regulate it, monitor it -- ) 2 CONHISSIONER GILINSKYa It's one thing to say 3 to the Staff to make sure that they make clear to the O 4 Licensees what their responsibilities are. 5 COHNISSION ER AHEARNE: So I,would like to keep 6 -- I don't now how to word that paragraph, but didn't we 7 have a the policy statement in the last-four or five 8 months that addressed the Licensee's responsibility? 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I don't want anything 10 in here that suggests the Staff ought to slack off, but 11 that's the sense of it, because you are telling people 12 who are responsible for saf ety someone else has the 13 principal responsibility. () 14 COMEISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's a different 15 concept. 16 CONMISSIONER AHEARNE: But I would ask for us 17 to go back to the statement that we issued a few months 18 ago and perhaps we could extract something, because that 19 speaks to both the Staff and the Staff's recognition of 20 the Licensee 's responsibility. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s If we can turn it around 22 so it's guidance to the Staff, that would be find. I've l 23 made the sta tement, as I think we all have. 24 Are you going to look at this, George? []) 25 HR. EYSYMOUTT: Yes. l i .g \\..,/ ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 620-4300

.m. ~.- 6 f s a 1 g0HNISSIONER ROBERTSs Before you leave that J 2 page, " Consequently the highest priority would be given 3 to achieve and maintain adequate levels of protection." O 4 By inference aren't we saying we're not sure that some 5 of them achieve it? w 6 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: You might strike '- 7 " achieve." 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: " Achieve and." Just v -~ ' 9 " maintain," unless we 're prepared to say -- I'm not' ~ ' 10 prepared to say that we haven't achieved adequate, levels 11 of protection. T' 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO And in fact, we said.if 13 they ve: en't safe we wouldn 't license them. s,- h J 14 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs You mean they're aafe-15 because they're licensed? ~ 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO I didn't say that. s 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s. Okay, you wgnt to go on-a- 19 to the next page? 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKIs J don't have - [-q. 21 anything. s 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSs I have a question on 23 paragraph 2.3. "Ef f orts to collect 6perational da ta 24 aust continue to receive priority attention." Lon't you 25 think there should be some constraint on that? N. s, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. \\.. M0 P1RST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 82S4300 l -

57 s s 1 COMMISSIdNER GILINSKYs Like what? ~ 2 xCOMMISSIOdZR ROBERTS Without hindering plant m - 3 Operation ( or itself becoming a. hazard. J 4 ~~ .V COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: I think t he thought i ~ 5 here is not~ vith what you've got in mind, but to make 6 sure that LER*s and re' quests for information are 7 collhted, reviews, analyzed, and the information in 8 fact gets back to the Licensees.; . 9 'CII AIRMAN P ALLADINO Do you have a suggestion, '10 Tom? ^ 11 HR. ZERBE4 It wouldn't make the plants ? 12 unsafe, becance we're trying to -- \\ t C 1r CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa You're concerned about ~ %\\ 14 50.54 letters and that sort ofsthing? ~ s w 15 wC,OMMIGSIONER ROBERTS: I'just wanted to know 16 if we're sending the message that we want more arid more x. It just doesn 't seen well-defined. How 17 infort_ation. A 18 auch is Jaough'information?~ I don't know. 19 COMEISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I thought the focus L 20 oE'aumber two was really on ths AELD function. It's a ss ' 21 pAiority matter. s ( 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY The\\AELD and other 23 related offices. I don't think there's any harm in 24 saying that, which I think would solve the problem. \\ 25. CHAIBHAN PALLADIN0s Did you'itant to say ~ 1 N- .,N 5. ALDSRSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. s 440 RRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D6:1D001 (202) 828 8300 ~' ~ ~ h

t \\ 58 'I something in there? 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I was jcst trying to 3 holp Tam. O 4 ER.'EYSYMOUTT For AELD and related / 5 funetions. 4 6 cot.UISSIONER ASSELSTINES I had a question on 7 page 3. I wonder about adding a third sentence which 8 vill say, " Priority attention will be given to Licensees 9 with poor perf ormance history." There is a hint that 10 you 're goiag to < 1ook a t Licensee performance in focusing 11 inspections and' allocating inspection resources, but it 12 seems to se the idea is basically saying, the squeaky 13 wheel gets the grease. So I would propose adding a O u sentence that seys griouer attenuon u1 be gi en to 15 Licensees with poor performance history." te And on number 3, I just had a question about, N 17 should we say what a final LER rule is supposed to be' 13 doing? 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm sorry, I missed 20 that. 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The other one was on 22 the 3, where we say, "A final rule for an LER system 23 should be issued in early '83." Should we say what the 24 rule is going to io, what we're going to be doing on 25 that? I don't know what the LER rule -- maybe it's just ALDettoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (Jot) 8384300

59 r r~s 1 a questions What is the LER rule? U 2 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: I thought we just put out 3 the LER system. O 4 C05HISSIONE2 AREARNE: We had a proposed rule 5 out. Then we had Brookhaven, who did a study, and the 6 study is now back and the Staff is looking at the study 7 and it also has to come back up for the final ru'le. 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is this the one you 9 voce tormetting thes on? 10 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: I'm not tormenting 11 them. I'm just pointing out the rational log'ic that 12 would enable them to see a larger world than they had ~ 13 their narrow focus on. () 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Did you want to change 15 something there? 16 COMNISSIONER ASSELSIINEs No. Hsinly it was a 17 question. 18 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs I had a question on the 19 planning guidance section. This is on page 3. Last 20 year we talked a lot about planning guidance. This year 21 it's distilled to Joe's proposal, should implement the 22 long-ranga human factor's plan. The Staff's version is, i l 23 "The Staff should continue to implement the long-range 24 human f actors plan, incorporating guidance from the ) 25 Commission.", ALDER 9oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 P1RST ST., N.W. WASHINGTON. o.C. 2001 (aN) 834300

60 1 So we have gone from last year, we had many 2 elements, to Joe's version thst, when the human factors 3 ptan is completed it's going to be presented to the 4 Staff. Did I blink during the last month? It came 8 through? 6 HR. ROE 4 No, it hasn't. The essence of the ~7 change was to let the Staff continue to implement 8 programs that are already ongoing. 9 CONNISSIONER AHEARNEs But my sense is the 10 Staff is stilt not fully on top nf the human factors 11 pisn, and it's stilt trying to come to grips with the 12 agency's human factors plan. I wou1d have liked a 13 little more emphasis here. O i+ NR. EISrN0ctr> r at a to s as to hat to 15 say. 16 (Laughtar.) 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Whatever happened to 18 operator training requirements for supervisors and that 19 sort of thing? 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It's the human factors 21 plan. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I think that should be 23 left in. 24 COHNISSIONER GI1INSKYa We were.1.ust shoving 25 it aside? This is the one with the educational ~ ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (200 835 8300

61 I ) requirements and experience ? 2 COMMISSIONER AREARNEs Yes, I think July 1st. 3 (Laughter.) 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINos I think that should be 5 rewritten to reflect that. I think it's be tween us. 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Page 4? 7 CHAIBHAN PALLADIN04 You want to take page 47 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I've got a 9 suggestion on number 6. I agree. 10 ER. EYSYEOUTT Shall I develop a human 11 factors plan, Mr. Chairman? 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSs Mr. Chairman, how long 13 did you plan on continuing? () 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Until five after 5:00 on 15 that clock. Thst's why I had a question as to whether 16 ve go on to page 4 or not. 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It does seem to me 18 that there's a concept under number 6 that probably 19 should be in here. That is, that if these industry 20 programs do provide the information that we need to 21 carry out our regulatory responsibilities, then the 22 Stsff ought to make use of those programs. I would 23 suggest a formulation that says, "The Commission will 24 support alternative reculatory concepts which recognize () 25 the contributions of industry programs to the extent j l v.) l ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 828-0300

=. 62 1 such programs provide information needed to ca'rry out (qs ..;.} 2 regulatory responsibilities." Get away from this / 3 industry regulation business and the " credible and 4 viable." 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I cartai'nly want to 6 get away from "credibis and viable." 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I think that's what 8 ve're saying. If INPO develops a program with the 9 information we need, we can rely on it. 10 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO I think there is a 11 concept we're not thking advantage of. I agree, when it 12 comes to information, if they are developing it and we 13 vant to usa it, grest. But we have good driver () 14 education programs. That's not to help the policeman; 15 it's to help get better highway safety. We have 16 inspection of automobiles to aske sure that they are 17 running righ t. That's not a good example. 16 So I would like to encourage self-regulation. 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I don't view it as ~ 20 self-regulation. Maybe we've got a philosophical 21 problem. An effort to improve self-improvement, I 22 wouldn't mind that. 23 CHAIRNAN PALLADINO: I think the effort on 24 their part for self-improvement is something to be {} 25 endorsed. ) 2 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

63 1 COH5ISSIONER ASSELSTINEs I agree with that. v 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa It was the term 3 "self-regulation." Self-improvement would be fine. ("~ 't 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa If you're going to 5 stick with that -- 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Are you going to change 7 it to follow Jim? Let's get something in there that 8 recognizes or encourages their self-improvement 9 program. ~ 10 3R. ZERBEs "Self-improvement" is a very ~ 11 general term. What do you mean? Do you mean in the 12 safety area? 13 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO I don't like () 14 "self-improvement." I like "self-policing." They're 15 going to police their industry. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Self-discipline? 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So ther have met the 18 requirements. Okay, you have Jim's words. I'll try to 19 verk wit!. you to get something, self-policing. 20 Did you have more on that page? 21 CONNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The only other one I 22 had was on number 7. I would just like to see this 23 reflect the idea that we are going to be looking at the 24 need for extended nature of phase three of the SEP, {} 25 rather than implicitly saying there vill be a phase P s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC. 440 7tRST 57 N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 0300

64 c'3 1 three, beesuse I don't think we have p le that decision v 2 yet. 3 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s Do you have some words? O 4 COHNISSIONER ASSELSIINEs That may help to 5 break up th.e two thoughts. 6 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: Let me ask a general 7 question. Are there major policy questions, as opposed 8 to revisions of words? I have one where I am not sure 9 -- one that I'm not sure I understand. 10 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, I don't knov 11 wh'at you call a policy question. 12 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: Let 's approach it this 13 var. Why don't we have another meeting at which we will () 14 valk through this? What I was going to suggest is that 15 the research part be rewritten so we can look at that 16 again. 17 COHEISSIONER AHEABNE: Given your description 18 that it is to the whole Staff, it's the Commission's l 19 basis for establishing the pr'iorities, I think that 'll l 20 be fine. 21 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: I think de did have 22 another meeting s:heduled, though. Anything else? 23 (No response.) 24 CH AIRH AN P ALL ADIN04 Thank you. (} 25 (Whereupon, at 5:01 p.m., the meeting was ]

s.

• j ALDeteoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

440 MRST ST, N.W. WA8NINGToN, D.C. 2001 (202) 050300

a n m a-i_ ,a -k--a- -M,m Ag_n a 4awa< e _ A_4A44 ,La,,,- -AM L, p.ds.A u-+ss< .a,6-easam,m-4 psA O J _a yg,y,, 55 1 - adjourned.) r]> \\ 2 3 O; a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (.,() 14 15 s 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 23 O 2. i s s I ALDE. MON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 440 RRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (20P) M -~_

? 3. NUCLi2R EGULATOICE CD!OCESSICE i" m g' Thia 13 to certif7 that the attached proceedings befcre the COMMISSION MEETING _ {~^^'-'i2the. Matter af: PUBLIC* MEETING - Discussion of Draft Policy and Planning Guidance for Fiscal Year 1983 Qate of Pecceeding _ _ _ _ November 22, 1982 Oncket Munber: Place of Freceeding: Washington, D. C. were held at herein appears, and that this is the original transe.-if therecf for the file of the Cocatissict:. Jane N. Beach Official Eeperter (Typed) ~ m \\ ? ~ # e i O icial Repcreer- (Signature) e 9 e 9 e y a wi.~ ~

.. w . - mu m m emwuu n mmnwmVWWmamWWWMBTWM.hTIMi 1 2/81 h TRANSMITTAL TO: L 6ocument Control Desk, ,Ph 016 Phillips ,p ~ P ADVANCED COPY TO: L'"7 'The Public Document P,oom DATE: ///A 3 / M cc: OPS File From: SECY OPS Branch .) Attached.arejcopies of a Commission meeting transcript /s/ and related meeting documen't/5/. They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Documeht Room. No g, other distribution is requested or required. Existing b*, DOS identification numbers are. listed en the indiv.i, dual p' documents wherever,known.'. p Heeting

Title:

L M N 2dCo/4 [ M E [ h h .$/ /f0 O 6 pen Y . M NG DATE: // / M / M R Closed DCS C0 HIES: Copies (1 of each Checked) ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advanced 1 May lp To PDR Original be Duplicate P d t-e + a-m A 6 1. r

• Document Dup
• copy
• j

/ / R h E taau.Sw L / / 2.- l % /%;m _. 2;h*We P c1Lt1.A.- /////f'/J' 2-e = 3. F 4. ~

s p

5. <= llE= ~S s. 7

• Verify if in DCS, and p

change to "PDR (PDR is advanced one of each document, two available." of each SECY paper.) e biR1h J] n D R ] R E "}}