ML20030E075
| ML20030E075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030E076 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8109170393 | |
| Download: ML20030E075 (54) | |
Text
r~~ -
t,y' O
C ~ ~ G EIa d !OEZ CO.E SSION lC
@#Dt t
COMMISSION MEETING t
l f,
I "a.h=a
- ~ :
DISCUSSION OF INDIAN POINT ORDER PUBLIC IEETING JACT:
September J.L. 19.81
? AGES:
1 - 52 I
AT:
Washincton, D. C.
. U D E R 5 0.Y REPORTLTG
(
f.
4cc vi :in a Ave., s.w. wast.ine:::, :. c. :cc:4 b
rata = :=e: ::c:: 554-:245 8109170393 010911 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
~
. ~ <...
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
.m 4
~
DISCUSSION OF INDIAN POINT ORDER 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear RequIatory Ccamission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 Friday, September 11, 1991 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9500 15 a. m.
16 REFCRE:
17 18 CHAIR!iAN NUNZIO PALLADING COMMISSIONER VICTOR GILINSKY 19 COMMISSIONER PETER BRADFORD COMMISSIONER JOHN AHEARNE 20 COMEISSIONER THOMAS ROBERTS 21 ALSC PRESENT:
22 S. CHILK L. BICKWII 23 M.
MA;SCH A.
KENNEKE 24 25 ALCEPSCN :E?CRING CCMP ANY, :NC,
-. n ~cn
- n. o a, nn
,~,n- ~aca~ oa aan a ma on, _na nn
8 e
.o.-.,.
~
- b f ---
-w d C **-=* M -J 2
gCA;ASI"~~==~~ 2ag:.in n, [ q-.,,2 '._*~,' ;**'- =$ =f t.e ~:'.a
=.a C-
'say-,,r s e g,,~ ~,'---_ es. :=
cae*=mber 199'
- 23*C' 3 'i.,
'ias."-r---
t U. %
-C '
O 7'dit: 4::a=da=ca a a -: se:- a _':..
% a -meY-d--- 2.s ::== T,=. -,' ~~,"*.
I S'.s. - ug s,,.
====3==Ad, c= ei'.116, g
'= :nT===~ '
j
-s~,
a =z=s
-- :a-.s.,',,
a g~~, ^a7..,== 5 s:a:
2L ' =_ ~
~
F,ur;;csas.
1,s
"'.,13 2 :T ;4:= Of da
- c. ~7 ',,,m..$, f.,, as,'*
OM 07 #
J-_,
t I I.D.
Q3 g
~* """*
C~
- ek gd=4 J.
PA ACC $'*s' &s
,_T I= E 2C;";tCAss C 7
~
__,a--
~~
"~~^##-
' " " " ' ' - :: 0 : --
\\
- zper =27 '
- e. '" ' => -- 4 ICT ETOO2tc.i :p as
-k.
IASC12 Of 0; Q--.
- -%,. e==s== as -da.C
$a# ~'.a=/1,. --
' S.
- == ~ # ' *- a== ::
-,s
'~
a l
T 9
9 l
t 1
\\
1 l
l i
s na 4
e e
---,--m--
-,,,--e,-
,,e w-
2 1
EEOqEE2IEEE 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
The meeting will please come 3 to order.
4 This meeting vill serve as a discussion of the 5 proposed Indian Point Order.
6 Jy way of breakdown, in my memorandum and order of 7 January 8,
- 1981, t..e Commission announced that it would 8 constitute an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider 9 long-term s_afety issues based on and in connection with a 10 petition filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists 11 requesting, inter alia, tne shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 12 and 3 f acilities.
13 The Commission did not follow up with the 14 appointment of a board at that time and is now in the 15 process of developing a boardi however, since so much time 16 has elapsed and we have at least t v.)
new commissioners 17 onbtard, additional questions have been raised with rega rd 18 to t%e scope of the order, and the purpose of the meeting 19 this morning is to discuss the questions raised about the l
20 scope of the order.
t 21 I had raised two questions and Commissioner 22 Roberts had raised a number of other questions.
Since his 23 questions include mine, I thought we might proceed, if the l
24 Commission is willing, by going through the items that 25 Commissioner Roberts identified in a aqmo that he sent to i
l ALDERSCN REPORT lNG CCMP ANY, lNC.
3 1 the Commissioners under date of September 10, 1981.
2 Unless there are other suggestions, that is the 3 way we will proceed.
4 P'erhaps, since these were developed by 5 Commissioner Roberts, it would be approcriate for him to 6 introduce each one of these and read then and highlight th e 7 points behind the question.
8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I will start in.
It will 9 take some great degree of detail.
I appreciate that a lot 10 has gone on in this circumstance; however, I think there are 11 some questions that perhaps should be raised, and I might 12 continue on that basis.
13 Page 6 of the order:
Why do ve make gratuitous 14 statemen ts tha t talk about 10, 30- and 50-mile areas?
15 I don't understand the relevance.
Are ve pointing 16 the board toward something?
In the specific seven 17 questions, ve asked them to limit their consideration to a 18 ten-mile radius.
I don't know why we are interested in 30 19 and 50 miles.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The third question does 21 allow gcing beyond th e ten-mile radius, possibly, to th e 22 exten t that it is relevant to the risk posed.
l l
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
It is quite vague.
The i
24 language is there.
It does say that.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Why do you say that the ALDERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY, ;NC.
o u
3 1 other questions are limited to the ten-mile radius?
2 CHAIEMAN PALLADINO:
He is saying, on page 10, 3 Question No. 3 --
4 MR. RICK'4IT:
Question No. 3 is,
"'J ha t is the 5 current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA 6 guidelines of state and local emergency planning Vithin a 7 ten-mile radius of the site, and of the extent that it is a relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond the 9 ten-mile radius?
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In estimating the risks, I 11 don ' t think one is limited to a ten-mile radius.
A ten-mile 12 radius happens to be the radius that we fixed on as a 13 reasonable limit to how fa'r one should actually implement 3
14 planning emergency measures.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Emergency planning 16 addresses about ten miles.
17 COMMISSIONER GIl!NSKYs Right.
That does not mean 18 that we think there could not be risks to people beyond ten 19 miles.
It is just that we have to pick some reasonable 20 radius, o th e rwise you are planning all over the country, and 21 t en miles seemed to be reasonable.
22 COMMIsrIONER AHEARNE:
I think in that pa r tic ula r 23 paragraph that Ion is pointing to we were responding to what 24 w e.f el t was a statement that the licensees had come in with 25 and we just wanted to point out how scrongly we disagreed AL0EASON AEPoRTING COMP ANY,;NC.
6
5 1 vith their statement, their statement being that the Indian 2 Point demography was not different from o ther sites.
j 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don't think that this s
4 paragraph h'as any impact on the hearing except insofar as it 5 is included in the ten specific questions.
6 I would suggest, unless you propose changing the 7 wording in one of the specific questions, chat we not make 8 that a major issue.
9 COMMISSIONER 303ESTS.
Fine.
10.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is really just a 11 comment in response to a submission we have received from 12 the licensee and it does not bear on the question of any 13 o th ers.
s 14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Let me ask you this:
Is 15 this a similar circumstance to Three Mile Island, to the 16 e xtent that the licensian bor.rd vill report their findings 17 directly to the Commission ratner than to the appeal board?
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nov you are on Question 2?
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Yes, two.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, I think that is a very 21 importan t question and maybe we ought to ge t a little bit :f 22 history from the commissioners who were present at that 23 tim e, and from ROGC, as to what the intent here is and what 24 the implica tions of a change night be.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think one thing we ought ALOERSCN AEPOATING CCMP ANY. :NC.
N
%RLED%Dvc
6
)
1 to ask Marty Orleans to talk about -- and this is a 2 dif ferent type of hearing and tha t is one of the reasons for 3 some of the words that So in -- is to talk about the
)
4 proceeding.
It is really Commission discretion; it is a 5 novel approach.
6 MR. BICKWIT:
What the Commission is doing here is 7 not holdin; a hearing tha t is statutorily required, as was 8 the case in the IMI 1 proceeding, but, rather, using the 9 adjudicatory format as a means to investigate a problem and 10 decide what it really wants to do, whether it wants to 11 initiate a p roceeding.
It is a very novel concept, but it 12 was one that the Conmission settled on.
2 13 COMMISSIONEE AHEAENE:
You mean, whether it wanted t
14 to initiate any enforcement action?
15 MR. BICKWITs Whe ther it wanted to initiate any 16 enf orcement action.
17 In the case of TMI 1, it has taken enforcement 18 action.
Here it has not made any decision that it wants to 19 take enforcement action above and beyond what has already 20 been taken by the directo r.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it not true that in IMI,
/
22 once a request for hearing was made, we had to hold a 23 hea ring ?
Ihe issue was whether we allowed the plant to 24 operate or not while the hearing was going on.
We said the 25 plant would have to stay down during the process of the ACERSCN *EPCM'NG COMP ANY, iNC, m
7
'T 1 hearing.
It was a statutorily required hea ring.
J 2
In this particular case, if we find as a result of 3 this proceeding that the plant must be shut down, then it is 4 entirely within our rule that the licensees can ti. e n 5 petition for a hearing on that.
Then there would be a 6 statutorily required hearing.
7 So, it is possible that this entire proceeding is 8 preliminary to another formal hearing; is that correct?
9 MR. BICKWIT4 That is right<
The Commission was 10 distressed to hear that when it was first raised, but that 11 vss the case.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
let me say, when talking 13 abc at enforcenent, it puts a cast on it which does not
.)/
14 entirely describe what we are doing.
15 The question really is, do we want to impose 16 requirements on this reactor, in view of the f act that it is 1', sited close to a fairly large population, a much larger 18 population than most reactors, or do we not?
19 We are really talking about going beyond, whether 20 o r no t we want to go beyond, the current regulations in l
21 imposing requirements on this plant, no t en tirely b ut a t 22 least in part.
23 COMMISSIONI3 AHEARNE:
We are t ry in g to get a 24 better f eeling, a better handle, on the analyses that can be 25 done with respect to this plant.
Ther, are many N
ALCEASCN AEPCAT'NG COMP ANY, lNC, 400 VmGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN. 3 0. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
8
'},
1 investigatory approaches we could take.
will hold this kind of proceeding We ended up saying i
2 ve l
]<
3 at this.
as a means of getting 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
5 come back-to the Commission rath That is why it needs to 6 which is bound by our regulatio er than the appeal board, ns.
7 MR. BICKWIT:
Let me put it 8have it this way:
You could go through the appeal board.
I recommend against 9 it, but you could if the purpose of the appe l b to was to reiiew the recommendati a
oard review 11 the Commission as to what ons of the licensing board to the answers to the questions oughthe Commissio 12 t
13 another set to be, and p rod uce of answers and recommendations.
14 The reason 7 recommend against it is that 15 already got you have about the most complicated form of investigation 16 and recommendations to the Commission that You would just I have ever heard 17 o f.
be complica ting it further, 18 if you had another set I believe, 19 appeal board in additionof recommendations coming from 1
to those th a t you will ha ve coming 20 out of the licensing board.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I do think though 22 h a ve that we to address the p acticality of this approach, because 23 based on the order, as I understand it it is going to cover 24 quite a bit of ground.
It 25 amount of testimony could be quite extensive in the brought in.
\\
ALCERSON AEPoAT;NG COMPANY INC 400 v!AG NIA AVE., S/N., WASHINGTON, D C. 20C24 (202) $$
4 2345
^]
1 The question is, will the Commission have a 2 capability of doing this within a reasonable period of time 3
3 and at the same time carry on its other business?
I don't
/
4 know that that has to be overriding, but I certainly think 5 that is a'n isportant consideration before we make this 6 decision final.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEAFNE:
Isn't this a different type 8 of situa tion?
We are asking this board to look into an 9 issue and come back witn a recommendation.
It does not seem 10 to me that this is a formal, legal process whereby our final 11 decision has to be tightly tuned to that holding on the 12 record.
13 We are taking an agency investiga tory act and we 14 sake a conclusion.
Now, that conclusion may be that there 15 are additional seasures going on all che way up to 16 shu td own.
At that stage the licensee can appeal it and ask 17 f or a hearing.
But this is different from the IMI situation.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I don't t h i.. ' we should 19 dismiss th e fact that we are going to Save, I believe, a 20 very extensive record.
To overlook the existence of that 21 record, I think, would be to lessen the value of the 22 investiga tion.
I think we have to be prepared to have the 23 re ord examined and the important points extracted and make 24 su e tha t we give attention to it.
25 If the recommendations are clear and succinct, L'.0ERSCN AEFCATtNG OOMP ANY.NC, 400 V!AGINI A AVE., S.W, WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
10 1 maybe then we can address the recommendations; but I think 2 ve have to have an interplay between our understanding of 3 the record and the recommendations that come forth.
4 I just want to make the point tha t I do think we 5 are going to have an estensive amount of work and we ought 6 to think now before we conclude that this is what we vant to 7 do, as to how we are going to handle it or what impact it 8 might have on a decision to go this way.
9 I don't know that we have to decide today how to 10 handle it, but just the way we want to go, recognizing all 11 these points.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think Tom's point is an 13 excellen t one, particularly in light of what we did on Three 14 Mile Island.
It did lead me to rethink that question.
I l
15 come out the same place, but it is more where the Three Mile what we were going through was the 16 Island case 17 traditional approach to a set of issces that the appeal l
l 18 board is well f amiliar with handling.
19 In this particular case you just described, it is 20 so novel that I don't see how the appeal board could really l
21 a pproach it very well.
22 I think, as Len said, we would end up having a 23 double set of recommendations which would not help our 24 res '.ution at all.
We would still have to go baci and go 25 through the same kind cf examination that we would have to j
ACEPSCN PEPC9T;NG COMPANY..NC, 093 VOiRINIA AML RW.m WMHINGTON, O C. 20024 r.2j2) 554-7145
91
^)
1do just ge t ting it directly.
s 2
I think, realistically, that Peter and I are not 3 going to be here when this comes.
I agree with Tom, it is 4 going to take more than two years.
5 CHt..RMAN PALLADINO:
If we agree that this is the 6 way to go, I think we should take a separate action to set 7 up a team that is going to help us follow this and keep us 8 posted on matters that need to come to our attention and 9 help us in re ieving the record, so that we are aware of 10 those points that relate to th e recommendation.
11 Can I get an informal indication -- I think I 12 already ha ve it -- of the Commission's desire on keeping 13 this particular point in there?
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD I agree with the way John 10 has pointed it out.
I don't think the board of review at 16 this stage would add much, except time and possibly a 17 dif f eren t se t of recommendations 18 If, in fact, further encorcement action of any 19 sort were forthcoming, then the licensee would request a 20 hearing, in all likelihood, and the appeal board would 21 review the record of that hearing in the normal caurse of 22 e ve n ts.
Anyway, you wind up ge tting an appeal board 23 perspective before taking sny final action in the case.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
I ga ther tne applicant would 25 petition for a hearing if it were told to shut down the ALCER$oN AEPCRENG COMP ANY, NC, N
6-
92 1 plant?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, I am sure if the net
}
3 result were a show-cause order not to shut dcwn, that there
~
4 would then be a hearing and an appeal board review of the 5 record of that hearing.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would stick with the way 7 it is in there now.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would, but I agree with 9 you.
I think the three of you who will be here ought to to make sure that there is some group following it.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It will tase some help for 12 the Commission's work.
13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Ies.
4 14 MR. KENNEKE:
Mr. Chairman, could I ask if OGC.
15 could indicate to us to what degree the staff will hiep, or 16 will they be foreclosed?
17 ER. BICKWI2:
As outlined here, the staff would be 18 available to deal with it.
19 MR. KENNEKE:
In its entirety?
20 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In other words, you mean you 22 would no t he precluded?
23 MR. BICKWIT:
Would not be precluded.
As a legal matter, there is no prohibition.
24 25 Beyond that, the Commission, in the order that was drafted, l
l l
l l
l ALCERSCN ASPCRTING CCMP ANY,.NC,
(
13
~N 1 said that no rmal ex parte constraints will apply to 2 communications to the licensing board, the Commission will 3 not be limited in its ability to obtain information with 4 respect to-Indian Point f rom any source, so that the 5 Commission would have available to the staff resources if it 6 chose to use them.
7 MR. KENNEKE:
What about individuals who testify?
8 MR. BICKWIT:
It would.
9
$R.KENNEKE:
They would be f oreclosed?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
There would be no legal 11 prohibition.
The Commission at that stage might decide to 12 impose some prohibition on itself voluntarily, but there 13 would be none under the law.
14 COMMISSIONER 32.ADFORDs What you are saying 15 applies, I take it, not only to the staff but also if the 16 Commission van ted to avail itself of any pa rties ?
17 MR. RICKWITs That is correct.
18 CHAIRMAN PAllADI:IO:
Which staff are you talking 19 about?
20 MR. KENNEKE:
NRC staff.
21 CHAIRMAN PALlADINO:
What did you conclude with 22 regard to those people ?
23 MR. BICKWII:
Ihat there is no legal prohibition.
24 Uniike the usual casr*
there would be no legal prohibition 25 in this case with f ree conversations between the Commission AC:EASCN AEPoENG COMP ANY. tNC.
400 V1 AGINIA AVE., S/N, 'NASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t
14
)
1 and their staff.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINor If we vanted to explore a 3 particular issue in depth, cven though it migh t be contended?
i 4
MR. BICKWIT:
That is correct.
5 COMMISSIONE3 AHEARNE4 We could also utilize a 6 group from the EE0 staff to do this.
CHAIRbAN PALLADINO:
Or we might also use OPE and j
7 8 OGC.
I like John's succestion.
9 MR. KENNEKE We called it the staf f f orce.
There 10 were six members, four from the EE0 staff and two from OPE 11 vere represented.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLn?IN0c We will have to investigate 13 w ha t resources can be brought to bear on that, but that can 14 be taRen up separately.
C. gIq g EJ__P,qqg-(TS:
I am going to read fr.em a Cg 15
.a
-a._:
16 f ootnote ca page 7:
17 "Because the Commission, itself, is designating by 18 this order the issues it wishes to be addressed in the i
19 adj udica tion, it is particularly important that the 20 licensing board have discretion to formulate contentions and 21 subissues, upon the advice of the parties, so as to 22 cff ectua te tha t purpose."
23 I don't understand that, to the extent that, as I 24 read it, I don't think the Commission is, in fact, 25 derignating the issues it wishes to be addressed.
I ACEASCN RE?CATING CCMPLNY. tNC.
15
^
1 I will touch on something that I have heard Victor
/
2 say, at least two times:
The easiest thing in the world for 3 us to do as a commission is to say, " Gee, we think this s
4 should be investigated.
We are going to form a board.
You 5 f ellows investiga te."
That is easy.
6 Cur responsitility is to delineate those specific 7 issues that we want then to investigate.
Now, that requires 8 a lot of work on our part, but I think it is irresponsible 9 to just to s out this nebulous " Gee, fellows, this is a 10 pro blem that we want you to look into."
11 I think this is contradictory, even if, in fact, 12 we were specifically telling them the issues, then we say it 13 is particularly important for them to go ahead and formulate 14 contentions and side issues.
I think that is a total 15 consequitur, although I don't think we have specifically 16 told them the issues to be addressed.
I don't think that 17 exists.
18 Even if we t.ad, I think the second part of the 19 sen tence is to tally contradictory.
20 I also think, as another point, that we are 21 getting ready, I thinx next week, to address sua sponte.
I 22 think the second part of this sentence tells them carte 23 blanche, " Exercise your powers of sua sponte," and I think 24 ve should consider what actions we are going to take in the 25 n e x t week or so in regard to sua sponte, and let us not be a
ALCEASCN AEPCRT:NG COMPANY, !NC, 400 VIAGINIA AyE S.W..;#ASHINGTON. C C. 20024 (2021 554 2345
16
.s 1 inconsistent.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY s It is a different kind of 3 hearing, in the sense that one of the reasons that there is 4 a concern about sua sponte in the licensing hearing is that 5 there is a feeling that it takes up time and plants may be 6 delayed and so on.
That is not the issue here.
It is not 7 necessarily inconsistnt to have a different standard.
8 On the first point, I guess I can argue about the 9 desirabili,' r of having the Commission be as clear as t
10 possible in its instructions.
11 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO:
I took the liberty of 12 discussing this question with general counsel.
He made some 13 points that helped me understand the situation.
Perhaps it 14 would be worthwhile presenting it again.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would too, because I have 16 to admit tha t granted I may have understood it at the time, 17 because of the time that has passed I am not sure I 18 understand it.
19 MR. BICKWITs I am reluctant to take the l
20 responsibility.
21 Ihe purpose of the sentence was to indicate that 22 the Commission didn ' t want the board to look at everything 23 under the sun but, rather, to shape the hea ring so that the 24 questions posed, and only those questions posed, would be 25 answered ; it wanted the board to use its discretion to break l
ALOERSCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY,;NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
97
~
1down the questions that the Commission has explicitly posed 2 so that the objectives of the Commission could be satisfied, 3
3 that is, to receive answers to those questions, not to stand 4 on the number of questions as you have interpreted it.
5 I can understand how you would inter; ret it that 6 way.
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I don't see how anybody 8 could read this and come down any other way.
9
,M R. BICKWIT The context in which it was proposed 10 was to give the board discretion to narrow beyond what would 11 be the normal sha e.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No rm all y, it would be the 13 party that would submit contentions.
s 14 COMMISSI0dIR ROBERTS:
How would the board 15 reading this order kno w that?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Now tha t Len has reminded 17 u s --
18 COMMISSIONFR AHEARNE:
Perhaps the sentonce can be 19 expanded and reworded to make that clear, because I agree 20 with Tom tha t it does not come through.
21 MR. BICK*iIT:
I agree with him also.
22 MR. KENNEKE4 You wan t the board to better focus 23 the issue?
24 MR. BICKWIT Tha t is right.
That is what the 25 Commission wants.
ALOERSCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY, :NC.
400 VIAGiNIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18 i
1 COMMISSIONEB GIIINSKY There were many 2 discussions of this and there were transcripts, no doubt,
~
3 and we assumed this was going to happen f airly soon after 4 our meetin7 So, I think the understanding might have been 5 there had we done it at the time.
6 CHAIRMAN PAllADINO:
I was trying to fix this same 7 point up, because it related to one of the questions I had, 8 suggesting words such as this, as I am going to read, be 9 inserted in amplification of that sentence.
10 I would come on page 7, right after the words "10 11 CFR Part 2" 12 "The licensing boa rd shall limit its inqairy to 13 matters that it considers likely to be important to NRC's 14 ultimate decision" -- and I would like to go on and say a s
15 "with regard to the ten questions raised."
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE That, I submit, does not 17 limit at all, because the questions they would eliminate 18 then would be those tha t they conclude unlikely to be 19 ist or tan t.
20 I don't think any licensing boa d wculd agree that 21 they have aver allowed a question to como in that ther 22 vie wed as unlikely in importance.
23 ER. RICKWITs I am not so sure of that, because of 24 our broad contention f actors.
25 COMMISSIONER READFORD:
I take it that what Tom s
MERSCN AEPCRTING CCMP ANY, :NC.
_ 400 VIAGtNIA AVE., S.W, W ASMNGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
99
')
1 was af ter was something that indicated this wasn't a license 2 for the board to go cut and somehow expand on the question
~
3 raised.
I thought it was seven questions.
e-)
/
4 COMMICSIONER ROBERTS:
I only have seven.
5 CONMISSIONER BRADFORDs I have no difficulty with 6 Your language which makes the point clearer, that the issues 7 that the Commission has delineated or in the questions set 8 forth are those seven questions.
I am not sure though that not your point 9 I f ollow the rest of the point, somehow 10 b ut Tom's -- which somchow seems to suggest that the board 11 should not f rame issues that aren 't necessarily f ramed by
' 12 the parties but that it feels are essential to answering one 13 or more of those seven questions.
14 I would think we would want them, if we felt there 15 was something missing that was an essential piece of 16 information with regard to those seven questions, to go get 17 it.
18 CHAIRMAN PALIADIN04 I wonder -- to follow up on whether understanding the point that we seen 19 Tom 's poin t 20 to be understanding this morning, that we want the board to 21 f ocus on issues that help to answer the question, whether 22 t a t could not be captured in a revision of that note?
23 MR. BICK'4IT:
I think the note can be revised to 24 a ake that f ar clearer than it now is.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
To the extent that this is AL::ERSCN EEPCRENG COMP ANY. NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCit 3.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2345
20 1 helpful, feel free to use it.
I think it is important to 2 correct that footnote or to clarify it.
I think that is the 3 point.
,)
4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSs I understand that this is 5 an initial procedure, but I don't understand the meaning of 6 the following two sentences 7
"In admitting and formulating contentions and 8 subissues, theref o re, the licensing board will not be bound 9 by the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.
The licensing board may 10 also, without regard to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, 11 establish whatever order of presentation it deems best 12 suited to the proceedings ' investigative purposes.
Except 13 as provided above or elsewhere in this order, 10 CFR Part 2 14 vill control."
15 I don 't understand what that means.
If they are 16 not going to operate ':nder 10 CFR Part 2, how are they going 17 to opera te?
We certainly have not told them in this order.
18 MR. BICKWII:
Let me try to respend to tha t.
1 19 What we are attempting to do here is set out 20 certain parts of Part 2 which the board needn't apply, and 21 the n specif y that every other part of Part 2 governs.
22 Now, in the area where Part 2 does not apply, 23 there is where you need the kind of guidance that the 24 Chairman just mentioned, that is, with respect to 25 contentions you want to tell the board to narrow and shape ALOEASCN REPCAT:NG CCMPANY,:NC,
- 05) VI A@lNIA AVE., S.'N, 'NASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (2021 $$4 2345
29 1 the focus of those contentions so that they answer the 2 questions of the Commission, not to apply the normal 3 contention practice that is dictated by Part 2.
That is the 4 entire concept.
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Does this order spell that 6 out ?
7 MR. BICKWIT:
My impression was that it did, but 8 that it could be spelled out more clearly.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In effect, the board does to not have to admit contentions that would no rmally have to be 11 admitted under our rules; it could combine contentions; it 12 could shape contentions in our system to our purposes in 13 this hearing.
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I just submit that as 15 drawn that is not clearly stated at all.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This in, again, referring to 17 the same footnote?
18 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Perhaps the OGC, in recasting 20 the footnote, could see wha t might be done to clarif y this 21 point.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Fine.
I 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs We are asking the board to 24 tak,e more initiative than the board no rmally would, and to l
25 take more of & lead role in the hearing, rather than merely l
ALOERSON REPCRTING COMP AN r. iNC, 1
0@YKfdNta AVil AWm W@lMT@Nm E),@. MiM4 (R&B GP3-25klQ
22 1 sit back and let the various parties start without it.
3J 2
COMMISSIONER ROBERTSs I think we need to say 3 that very clearly.
I don't think it is clear as stated.
4 MR. BICKWITs Then we ought to say it.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I beg your pardon?
6 MR. BICKWI'-
Then we ought to say it.
7 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO:
- 4hy don't we try it by 8 getting a recasting of the footnote, both to show that we 9 vant to focus on those items that help answer the questions to of the Commission and makes sure that this point is 11 clarified as well.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you could pick up on 13 page 7 of the order, we do say the board should focus 14 clearly on the questions asked by the Commission.
15 The footnote definitely could use laprovemer.t.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You will work on that?
17 MR. BICKWITs Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER RORERTS:
The first question, you r
i l
19 can interpret that to suggest that an accident beyond the 20 pla n t designed basis is assumed to have occurred.
Now, how 21 are you going to determine the risk level?
22 CHAIRMAN PAlLADINO:
I gather that there has been 23 a statement of interim policy on nuclear power plant 24 aceident considerations that does guide the action on this.
25 I had the same problem.
I was worried tha t this was opening I
i 1
Ai.cEnscN REPCATNG OOMPANY, INC.
L 400 VIAG;NIA ANE., S.W WASHINGTCN O.C. 20024 (202) 554 234$
23
])
1 up all sorts of accident scenarios, so I suggested adding to 2 this -- let me find it first'-- adding a parenthesis to the 3 end of Cuestion No. 1 on page 9:
"(Although not requiring 3) 4 the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the 5 Commission intends a review with respect to this question to 6 be conducted consistent with the guidance provided the staff 7 and the statenent of interim policy on nuclear power and 8 accident considerations under the National Environmental 9 Policy Act. cf 1969 )" with a appropriate reference.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let ne say a word, if I may.
11 I felt that if we do go that direction -- I went 12 back to the Federal Register and noted exactly what kind of 13 quidance that would ts -- I would suggest that if we follov
_.s 14 this, we explain it either in this order or in a note to the 15 board or to the EEO.
Basically that notice directs that 16 attention shall be given both to the probability of 17 occurrences of the releases and to the environmental 18 consequences, and it sht?,1 include a reasoned consideration 19 of the environmental ri. sttributable to accidents at a l
l 20 particular f acility.
l 21 Equal attention should be given tc the probability 22 of occurrences of the releases and probability of occurrence 23 o f the consequences, and then such studies will take into 24 account significant site and plant-specific factors.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So, a description of the l
l l
[
ACEASCN REPCAT!NG CCMPAN f 'NC, 6 fMLfM2.nl%F 6 %t34 h4
2u 1 release scenario would include a calculation of the 2 probability of such release, with the probability calculated m
3 for this specific. Indian Point plant.
4 rou would propose either putting this in the order 5 or sending this --
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 Would not the licensing board 8 determine the same inf ornation by going to the reference?
i 9
C0MMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Ihey certainly could.
10 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO:
I was thinking so far as *he 11 order this could suffice, and then for their guidance refer 12 to our understanding of the order.
13 COMMISSIONER.AREARNE:
Part of the problem is that 14 sone people have interpreted -- as I found in the Federal 15 Register notice -- while you automatically just take one of 16 the characteristic releases after a large-scale release from 17 con tainment, and then you calculate the consequences, that 18 is not what our policy directive said.
19 What we said is that we will take into 20 consideration both the probability of that release, as well 2' ss the consequences.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We say what risks may be 23 caused by serious accidents, 2d risk includes both, let us 24 p u t a pa renthesis in there, "(probability of 25 consequences)".
You have to calculate each separately, and i
ALOERSON REPCRTNG CCMP ANY, :NC,
_ MR%EG4mVUMLELWL YTL~tWXe\\9C%K RA %C6c tK441 SG13-10&
25
}
1 if you want to multiply them --
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
More than that, the staff 3 has now gone out and for e nunber of plants has done this s.
4 kind of calculation ; so w now have a staff practice being 5 established on how to implement it.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I had problems when I read 7 No.
1, because I did not know exactly what limitations would 8 apply in exercising it.
Then in conversation with 9 Commissioner Ahearne I said, "Well, we already have some to guidelines on this" and suggested "Why don't we refer to 11 them?"
I think the reference helps this a great deal; it 12 certainly helps me.
I don't think it waters down what was 13 intended.
14 Apparently you are confirming tha t.
I would have i
15 no objection to sending a summary in a meno form separate 16 f rom the order to the board and indicating this is what we 17 see in that reference.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It does not chagne what we 19 h a v e.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather it does not change 21 your original intent, but it does clarify it.
22 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I do not mind your 23 revision, assuming John's extraction is factual, I can't 24 obviously object to that, either.
So, in principle it is 25 fine.
ALCEFSCN *EF ATING OOMP ANY ;NC.
661VOLWNIA AV[LRWm WA?HIN@T@N, bl.@. K61__ R5R G%33@hQ
26 T
1 I would just like to check with the extraction and i
2 anything else I would extract as well.
With that I have no
~
3 pro blem.
3 4
CHAIRMAN P ALLADINO:
The order will include this.
5 The extraction will be a separate item.
Of course, in 6 accepting the reference you need to know what is in there.
7 COMMISSIONER RRADFORD:
I suqqest making a S footnote of the extr -tion rather than having two separate 9 quidance d,ocuments.
s 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Except I hate to repeat in an 11 order something th a t is already in a reference.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Does that reference, by 13 the way, speak of the uncertainties in the calcula tions of 14 the probabilities?
It says the probabilic.y calculated and 15 so on.
Are we going to end up with one number?
If there is 16 such a reference in there, I think we should extract that.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I gather there is a 18 maj ority that would go along with this modification of the 19 recorder.
20 C0hMISSIONER READFCBD:
By that you mean your 21 modifica tion ?
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDr Yes, and in all likelihood 24 the separate piece as well, just 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You mean including this in AREASCN AEPCRT'NG COMP ANY, lNC.
4C0 VIRGINI A AVE., S/N., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 G02) 554 2345
j
])
1 the order?
2 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
I would appen6 3way, rather than have it separately.
~
4 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO:
I would have no E 5 except we are going to have to have some staff 6 6 sure that we got the right extraction.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This was a quis 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Will you and OPE 9 so that will be part of the clarification'that 5 10 submit?
4 11 Let us go on to the next point.
I 12 COMMISSIONER 30BE2IS:
Perhaps this R 13 ans wered:
14 "A contentica by a party that one or E i
15 saf ety measures, in addition to those identifie(
16 ref erenced by the director, should be requied a?
17 of opera tion of the f acility o r f acilities, wou2 i
18 the scope of this inquiry."
19 Good gracious, I think that is absolu%
20 vague.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I had the same fc 22 anybody proposed a core-ca tcher, it has to be c6 23 If somebody proposed double containment, that sq 24 considered.
If somebody ssys there cucht to be 25 valves on top of the pressure vesse], that has 9 AL:ERSCN REPCAT:NG COMP &NY, lNC, NMH@f!f36 sfL #L'O WMHIN@T@N, @ o, M4 (f
20
])
1 considered, and that gives me a lot of problems.
2 I have been trying to cope with it.
I had one 3 correction which I agree did not work too well.
I have 4 another one that I would like to try on my fellow i
5 commissioners, to see if this will help the situation:
6 That would be to replace the present parenthetical 7 with the following.
"(A contention by the party that one or 8 more specific safety measures in addition to those 9 identified' or referenced by the director should be required to as a condition of operation of the f acility or f acilities, 11 because there exists the significant risk 3o public health 12 and saf ety, notwithstanding the director's measures and the l
13 additional sessures sought by the party would significantly 14 reduce the risk, would be within the scope of this inquiry. )
15 In other words, not keeping it wide open but l
16 saying that an individual who wants to propose another 17 device has to show that there is a significant risk because 18 of the lack of that device, and this device will 19 significantly reduce that risk.
20 COMMISSIONIR GILINSKY.
It is to contend.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs It is to contend, yes.
22 I am anxious to put some limit on this.
I don't 23 k no w ho w to do it without getting very s pec ific.
With the
/
24 help of some of my s ta f f people, this is one way we might 25 attempt to handle it.
I ALOERSCN AEPC ATING COMPANY, INC.
~.
29
^
1 MR. BICKWIT:
If you just have to contend it, I s
2 must say I don't really see that it will make much cf a 3 dif f erence.
J 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it does.
You have 5 to contend that it is dealing with an important problem.
I 6 assume that there is a summary of positions up here, and if 1
7 that contention does not stand up, pass muster, it is not 8 going to stand a hearing c: will not be included by the 9 board.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARFEa Let me ask -- Tom had 11 succested the contention should at least state *<ith l
12 specificity why safety measures are required and what safety l
13 benefits will be derived from their implementation.
I was a "3
l
/
14 little more comfortable with Tom 's version, b.ecause I think 15 it perhaps goes a little bit further, requiring something to 16 be provided.
17 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I am sorry; I don't see 18 Tom 's words on here.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEA RNE:
The last sentence, 20 paragraph 7, page 3.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is somehow impracticable 22 a t this point.
The contention should at least state with 23 specificity what safety measures are required and what 24 s af e t y benefits will be derived.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thi nk, in fact, Joe's is l
l i
l A!.OEPSCN AEPoRTING COMPANY, ;NC,
30
(])
- 7 ore restrictive.
He has " safety benefits have to be 2 substantial. "
'm 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would you go along with
~
tnis back because we are going to work is?
W( have to get 5 on Foo tno te No. 7.
6 MR. B1CKWIT:
The footnote is very relevant to 7 this partirular parenthetical statement, because whether or 8 not this works depends on what kind of threshold the board 9 is going to,be setting with respect to contention, how 10 likely does it believe that this is the case when this 11 allegatien is made.
12 If it is simply a case of our normal contention 13 practice, I must say, I don't really feel that this proposal 14 is going to make much of a difference.
But if the board 15 makes use of the exception from Part 2 and our normal 16 contention practice, and applies this, then it can make a 17 rather substantial dif f erence.
18 The Commission is going to have to focus on that 19 question.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you see any difference 21 between the Chairman 's approach and Commissioner Roberts' 22 app roach?
23 MR. BICKWIT:
I regard the Chairman's apprCach as 24 more restrictive.
25 COMMISSIGNER 303ERTS:
I am happy with that.
ALDERSCN REPCATING CCMP ANY, INC,
31 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I should like the OGC to 2 try to break it into at least two sentences.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We cameup with this emergency.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs Supposing someone comes in 5 with a contention that says the following set of 6 circumstances is in violation of the Commission's 7 regultions, is it that you do not intend to rule that out, 8 you are not going to impose on them a further duty of 9 showing how the violation of Commission regualtions affects 10 risks?
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which regulations?
12 COMMISSICNER BRADFORDs I don't know hvich 13 reg ula tion.
)
14 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
The point is, as you both 15 know, when new regulations are put in, many times they a re 16 no t applicable to plants already licensed.
17 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
You could not make a 18 showing tha t the regulation is being violated if the plant i
19 is in specific possession of an exemption f rom it.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You recall some of the 21 petitioners said that those plants ought to be held to the l.
22 existing regulations th a t exist now.
I 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs That is a different thing; 24 tha,t fa'.ls under what Tom stated, which the existing i
25 proposition was designed to add ress.
At some point we are l
l ALOERSCN REPoAT!NG CCMPANY. INC.
FG VISB@tNM AQWA@HIN@T@N, D.C. 88@84 {80 9 554 2345
32
~N 1 going to have to show that there is a safety significance in 2 a situation like that.
I am talking about the situation 3 about a contention that says this is a violation of the p
'J 4 regulations from which the plant is not exempt.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, are you saying tha t 6 would be independent?
The specific issue, as Victor pointed 7 out earlier, we are addressing this because it is in a very a high-population area.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It still has to be within 10 the question tha t the Commission has set forth.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For example, if they came 12 in and said it is in violtion of a regulation having te de 13 with some f ace t of the way part of the building is 14 constructed, but is not directly related to the kind of 15 accident sequence that migh t have to do with high density 16 population, that would be able to be excluded because it 17 would not be directly germane to the question we have asked?
18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is right.
You have 19 t o be able to reply with respect to any contention.
One of 20 the first showings you would have to make is that it is 21 within the scope of the questions that the Commission has 22 pro pounded.
23 My only point is that as long as you make that 24 showing, a contention to the effect that a regulation is 25 beine viola ted, I would not think it ought to carry a ALOEASON CEPCAUNG CCMP ANY, lNC, 400 VIRGINIA ave 5.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
33
')
1 separate burden of a showing as to safety significance.
2~
We assume our regulations have safety significance 3 and if someone is not meeting that situation, it has to be q
G 4 corrected.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The safety significance we 6 have assumed of tentimes is a secondary one; for example, 7 that we have regulations which apply to reporting, and lack 8 of meeting chat regulation does not mean that they are not, 9 that not reporting that item is automatically a safety 10 significance.
It is the fact that they don 't report
,11 indicates something about the manner in which the plant is l
12 being operated by the management, and that could potentially 13 have saf ety significance.
)
14 I would disagree that we assume that every i
15 regulation has saf ety significance.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Let me put it the other l
17 vay:
It has been explicit always in saying that you cannot i8 countenance a violation of our regulations 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.
That is true.
through any risk 20 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORDs 21 assessnent process, saying it doesn't matter.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Ihat is tpue, but this is a i
23 investigatory hearing on a separa te issue, it is not a I
24 licensing hearing on these plants.
25 COMMISSIO.iER 3RADFORD:
No.
My point, I think,
{
l l
l AClERSCN REPORTING COMP ANY,.NC, e
34 1 is, for me anyway and it would still hold, that if someone
^
2 poses a contention regarding a violation of regulations tha t 3 f alls within the scope of the nearing, I think it ought to 4 at least survive the contention process.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
My intent was basically 6 silent on that point.
Now you are raising the question, I 7 think, if the violation of the regulation is relevant to the 8 issue, and is relevant to the question, one of the questions 9 we are add'ressing, I would expect that that would be an 10 admissible -- I mean, the fact that the applicaat was not in would be 11 compliance with th a t -- I would expect 12 admissible if it is relevant to the question at hand.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is where I would come i
14 o u t.
15 MR. RICKWIT:
That is not how I would read lu.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How would you read it?
17 MR. BICKWIT:
I would read it tha t the issue would 18 have to be relevant to the claim of deficiency to affect 19 those answers, independent of whether or not 20 CHAIRMAN PALuADINO:
I was trying to separate two 21 thing s.
I still wan t this.
You might have a different i
22 circumstances that I can't find an example for at the t
23 som en t, tha t maybe I would say would go along with that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought that this point 24 25 really dealt with contentions that equipment ought to be l
ALCEASON REPCAT'NG COMPANY, INC, M%@M%Dh%)VERAJK4L%kW
35
~3 1 added and beyond what is now required by the regulations.
I J
2 ass ume that what is required by the regulations is a fit 3 sut fect for the hearing.
4 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD :
What other paragraph?
5 5R. BICK'iIT4 It is both.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY If the regulations require 7 you to have an emergency cooling system, you don't need to i
Spass a test here to contend tha t the plant ought to have an 9 emergency.ccoling system.
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I read this as still setting up a 11 test, but in your example the test is passed.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKI:
I think when we fornulated 13 this the idea was that Harold, in adding requirements on 14 this plant over and beyond what is required cf other plants, 15 has come up with a collection of hardware fixes.
16 I think the point is that they go beyond what is l
l 17 required in the regula tions.
The question is, is there 18 something sise that ought to be required?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
You also are dealing with whether 20 the regulations are complied with in this proceeding.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They don't necessarily go 22 beyond the regulations.
In some cases, as you know, we have i
23 a s et of regulations and they have regulations that say do 24 this, and the regulation is aet.
I think in some cases this 25 is an additional requirement that may still be within those ALDERSCN AEPCAT;NG CCMP ANY,;NC,
@LHTJ4Gsd%RftJ1JL CAWMTERL bl@. ;tE@4 (R5f4 @3@h4
36 1 regulations for these plants that have to be met. 2 CHAIRMAN PAllADINO: I think to one extent Vic is 3 right. 4 7ueston No. 2 says, "'4 h a t improvements in the 5 level of saf ety will result from measures required or 6 referenced in the director's order to the licensee dated 7 Februiary 11, 19807" And this would follow. 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: As a parenthesis. The 3 parenthesis maybe should have been set out as a separate 10 item instread of simply lumped into No. 2. It was 11 originally designed in part to pick up the language on page 12 9, to the effect that in re solv'ing specific contentions in 13 the UCS petition to the effect that some of our regulations q 14 are no t met in one or both units, the paren thesis is now 15 going through an evolution which seems to be losing that 16 flavor. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I agree that it was a 18 resolution of that issue. At least the tracking back that I 19 did in going in to the history of that particular question, I 20 there was originally a question that the issue was, to what i 21 extent do the two units comply with an applicable 22 regulations, regulatory guides and technical position, that 23 was one of the original questionz. 24 There was a lot of debate, as you recall, in the 25 Commission as to whether that type of question ought to be ALOERSCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY, INC, OBrt VIRGINIA AVE., S/N, WASHINGTON,3 C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
37 1 allowed. Commissioner Kennedy ended up proposing adding as ~} 2 a f ootnote what is now the parenthetical expression, and 3 that ended up being the parenthetical expression and, as I ~ 4 recall, in going back to some of the transcripts, that, S Peter, your point was that it was not quite what you w ated, 6 but we 0.11 are compromising some of our positions, and so 7you agreed to the extent possible that would be embedded in 8 there, but I don't think it quite got to are the regula tions 9 satisfied.', to COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: In the order itself we 11 say, on page 8: "The Commission is also interested in the 12 current state of emergency planning in the vicinity of the 13 Indian Point site and in future improvements in that wJ 14 planning, as well as in resolving tha specific contentions 15 in the UCS petition to the eff ect that some of our 16 regulations are not met in one or both units." 17 Having said that, we are bound to reflect it 18 within the seven propositions as set forth in the scope of 19 the hearing. The only one that I was confident did tha t was i 20 the parenthesis in :o. 2. Since there was no disagreement 21 o n t his -- 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There was an inconsistency 23 between any other interpretation of that question and in 24 doing the research to get ready for this meeting all I could 25 come up with was an inconsistency. I agree with you; you ALOERSCN AEPCATING COMPANY, INC, NN
38 1 have a good point. ,s} 2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD. It is an inconsistency 3 that is resolved by interpreting No. 2 my way. 4 1R. KENNEKE: I ncie that page 8 talks about 5 current emergency planning. The fla vor, it seems to me, in 6 Question 2 has to do with what I call physical devices as Topposed to planning devices. 8 On page 8 I would have read tha t now as the kind 9 of problem; we are going through elsewhere. I mean, to what 10 degree do we firmly require everything in the emergency 11 planning rule has to be met? 12 CHAIEMAN PALLADINO: That is an important point. 13 As I was reading No. 2, it was hardware oriented.
- Ncw, 14 maybe I missed something.
15 The point being made here is the paragraph on page 16 3. 17 COMMISSIONEE BRADFORD: Th e planning point you 18 picked up somewhere else. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: He is pointing out that the 20 regulations referred to here may be referring to emergency 21 planning. 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, bur the cententions. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, yes. I guess I don't '.) 24 fin,d that it is inconsistent. I think that in Questica 2 we 25 are talking about specific measures and I took those to be s AL::EASoN PEPCATING COMP ANY, iNC, 400 vi AGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554-2345
y,,- 7, ~ t3 7 1 hardware measures, primarily. I wanted to limit the sc y J ') 2 so that the boar 2 has some guidance. I was not intendi 3 interfere or had not thought s': ou, the fact that some o ' a'? O ~ .:3 -W - 4 requlations, whether or not they were being met. qfE; 5 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I appreciate that. I ^. p. ... ;;.u : E 6 there ir some way to draf t that thought into the paraq8 j _.,.c _ 7 Z j;, 7 the t you proposed, or the one that Tom proposed, then E $ 2 4,s. l 8 think I could accep that. {j.i., .g g;.;:a.a 1; y 9', CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You would not buy it th@ J -[ 10 it is? 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think Len seems to 12 confirm the way it is, that it does seem to im' pose a se 13 significance test on top of a violation of the regulati q 'd 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: II a violation of the 15 regulation ees not have a safety issue involved, t h e.: l 16 would agree, I would not want it. 17 HR. BICKWIT: You read it the way I do. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If you did not get a re i 19 in on time and tha t report did not contribute, I would 20 that is not the subject of this hearing. 21 C0!!ISSIONER BRADFORD: I think though that S i j 22 something you can necessarily decide at the contention I 23 stage ; that is, granted you cou.d take an e xtreme exam 8 24 something that everyone could agree was trivial. j 25 What you are more likely to get is something ACEASCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY, INC, g Aq
40 m 1 is in the area in which there is no dispute over whether it .,f 2 has saf ety significance and the board migh c resolve it at somr times in tha past ') 3 the end by saying, "We find at least s 4 this requaftions has not been complied with." 5 They might recommend any number of possible 6 actions to the Commission that should be taken in light of 7 the safety significance. We would be doing the wrong thing 8 if we permitted an allegation that our regulations were not 9 saf ety significant to govern the handling of contentions at 10 the beginning of the proceeding. 11 You make all sorts of decisions on what you do at 12 the end of a proceeding like this or any other important 13 proceeding when you find regula tions are not being complied ,s 14 with. I would nor foreclose th e raising of that question. l 15 COEMISSIONER GILINSKY4 Suppose there is a l l' 1C regulation on f racture toughness of pressure vessels, would 17 you require the contender to demonstrate the saf ety 1 l 18 significance of that regulation? It seems to me the 19 Commission has found that by imposing the requirement. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No. I think we are getting 21 a wa y from the issue. The issue is, the staff has proposed 22 certain steps that say we believe now tnis makes the plant 23 appropriately protected 4 Now, somebody comes along and 24 sa y.s, "Oh, but I think if you put this vidget on there in i 25 addition, it will be better." And somebody has some other I ALOERSCN REPCATING COMP ANY, INC, l TWL4Jf@B 594@345
..o 49 1 items. I was trying to foreclose getting a whole litany of ) 2 contentions. That is all I intended to deal with. 3 Now, there may be other issues where perhaps the g) 4 violation 6f one of our orders has a safety significance. I 5 would say I have no problem with that being introduced. I 6 have to trust to the j udgment of the hearing board to handle 7 the contencAuns. If the hearing board comes and says, 8 "Well, the mere f act that they were two weeks late on 9 reporting.'this inf ormation is not germane to this issue," I 10 would say that is probably a pretty good judgment; but there 11 may be others where they might, and I would still think it 12 would ha good judgment. 13 I am not trying to foreclose it. I think we have 7 1 14 enough flexibility between your sentence on page 8 and the 15 parenthesis so that we could live with it, even though it 16 does take some judgment on the part of the board of where to 17 apply each. These being appended directly to those items 18 t h a t the director has referred to, I think, limits it to 19 tha t.ssue. 20 If it were a sepa ra te item, then you might have a 21 basis for worry. 22 COMMISSIONIR GILINSKY: What you are doing, in 23 eff ect, is making that sentence ona of the questions. Since 24 somewhere else we were saying that the board ought to stick 25 to the questions, if you want to have that point included, ALOERSCN :iEPCAT'NG CCMP ANY, INC, _d53_MMI A._A_%_@!N,_W A@H_.IN@ TON _. _0_.C.__20@34 _( 202) 5 54-234 5__ _ _ ______________
e i9 42 3 1 it ought to be a question. J 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I don't think he is making 3 that sentence a question. 4 dHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The question is, does this 5 clarify the extent to which somebody can bring up other 6 suggestions? 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I understand that. I am 8 satisfied with that solution of the problem we are dealing 9 with. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Making that sentence one of 11 the questions was one of the questions that we debated and 12 excluded. 13 COMMISSIONIR GILINSKY: How does one under this D 14 list of questions raise the f act that an important safety 15 regult. tion is not complied with? 16 MR. BICKWIT: I don't read this as precluding 17 tha t. I don't read it, however, as adopting Peter's 18 concept, which would be that if it is phrased in terms of 19 compliance with the regulations, then it is acceptable. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I understood Joe's remark 21 that this paragraph here was dealing with tha problem of 22 people suqqesting that we have a double con tainment or extra 23 this or tha t above what is required now. j What about the other problem, which is the 24 25 contention that th e regulation is not complied with? ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMP ANY tNC, m
..c u3 1 MR. BICKWIT: What I read this as saying is that 2 in addition to alleging that the regula tion is not complied 3 with, the proponent of the contention wants to allege that 4 there is some safety significance. 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Joe was saying that those 6 kinds of things come through that sentence on page 3 and 7 says somehow in combination with the seatence in parentheses a __ 9 bOMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Which sentence on page 8 10 are you speaking of ? 11 COMMISSIONE3 GILINSKY: The middle paragraph. 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I have some questions 13 about t h at. 14 Now, are we saying we are giving the board seven 15 specific questions ? What are we saying when we say the 16 Commission is also interested in resolving the specific 17 con tentions in the UCS petition? l 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is th e petition from 19 which this whole hearing developed. 20 COMMISSIONER 303ESTS: I understand. What I am 1 21 trying to convey is if the petition brought sooe thoughtful, 22 valid considerations that we should pursue, I think we l 23 sho uld a cce p t that, but we, the Co7 mission, are issuing the 1 24 report and I think we should reply from our piece of paper. 25 This is an important philosophical point. If ALOEPSCN r,EPCRTING OOVPANY. !NC. 400 VIAGINIA AVE.. S.W., W ASH:NG7eN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
44 1 there are valid considerations in the petition, let us 2 acknowledge them and let us state them, but they are stated 3 by the Commission. There is a considerable diff erence, in ) 4 27 judgment. 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The Ccamission is interested 6 in resolving the specific contentions in the USC petition to 7 the effect that some of our regulations are not met in one 8 or both units; in other words, one of the contentions in the 9 petition is that we don' t enforce our regulations or at 10 least so far as these two units are concerned. 11 CONMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I don't think that is it, 12 basically. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Perhaps that is L; strong, t 14 tha t we are not doing it in every case in these twc aits. 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How with these seven 16 questions does the board come to that? 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The only way I follow what i 18 Tom has suggested, as I recall dimly we have gone through 19 this bef ore, because I think we tried to get what are the 20 specific contentions ; let us take a look at those 21 regula tions tha t they are claiming are not met and let us 22 see whether we should incorporate that. 23 COMMISSIONES ROBERTS: That is what I am saying, 2-t to take the petition and work philosophically, who is 25 conducting this hearing? It is at the direction of the ALDEASON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, _400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN. 3 C. 20024 J202) 554 2345
gg 1 NRC. Then let us exercise our proper responsibilities and ,J 2 we will issue the order. We don't take directions from 3 other people. That is my whole point, and it is a 4 significant one. 5 We should acknowledge and accept valid and proper 6 considerations and acxnowledge them, but we are issuing this 7 order. I think there is a perception here that we are 8 operating under other people's instructions, and I have some 9 dif ficulty[ with that. 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We would have to rewrite 11 an awful lot of orders if we were to rule out all outside 12 parties. 13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I did not suggest that. e COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We either ought to make it 14 15 a question that the board should deal with, or not make it a 16 que stion. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think we ought to refer 18 back to the meeting of November 25th. I think '.e discussed 19 this. The only issue that we seemed to be able to come up 20 with was diesel generators, single-barrier criteria, and 21 then the fire protection question. 22 COMMISSIONER 3R AD FORD : That is a different 23 poin t. With regard to the hearing itself, th e real question 24 is,whether one can come in with the contention that the 25 regula tions are no t violated. The only regulations at issue ALDERSCN REPCRTING CCMP ANY,:NC, 400 VIAGiNIA AVE S.W, WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
u6 1 here regarding Indian Point are those three. That is one } 2 thing. 3 My point -- and the point I thought was captured 4 in the orignal Question 2 -- was that the contention was, if 5 one could f rame a contention to the effect tha t a regulation 6 was not being met, in all likelihood that it got in. 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I agree that was your 8 point. I was addressing more Tom's point on this particular 9 sentence, which was the specific contention in UCS's 10 petition. 11 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Right. They are relevant 12 here because they are sort of in the category of examples of 13 contentions regarding the regulations and specific ones, we G ~/ 14 did want one. I don't think we restricted it to those areas 15 alone. 16 You made a point earlier that by excluding the 17 specifics, the original question asked about regulations, 18 regular guides and other requirements, I thought I 19 understood you to say the Commission had dropped tha t 20 concept. I guess I would not agree with that. 21 From my point of view, what we did was to subsume 22 a more gene rally worded phrase that for other # reasons other 23 members of the Commission were more comfortable with. 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: A better way of saying that 25 is that we compromised on that language, recognizina that a ALCERSON REPORTING CCW ANY,:NC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGICN. O.C. 20024 (202) 534 2345
47 ']) 1 each of us might have a slightly dif ferent interpretation. 2 MR. BICKWIT: You see why this is a confusing 3 o rder. 4 CHAIRMAN PAL 1ADINO: Peter, I wonder if you might try to phrase something just for discussion' here. I am torn 6 between maybe not understanding your point too well and how 7 it rela tes to this particular issue. I gather it does not 8 relate to this particular issue? 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, it only relates to 10 this issue to the extent, as Victor phrased it earlier, he 11 would not want someone coming in with a contention to the 12 eff ect that general design criteria dealing with fire 13 protection or fracture toughness or what have you vas not 14 being me t, period, and having the board rule tha t out -15 because they had failed to state the safety significance in 18 our general design criteria. 17 I think we afford our general design criteria 18 saf ety significance by enacting them, and contention to the 19 eff ect that they are not being met should not have the 20 ef f ect of reestablishing the safety significance of the NRC 21 regulations. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I will say for many items I 23 will go along with you. It might be a report that was two ,) 24 weeks la te tha t did no t sa tisf y our regulations and did not 25 have any saf ety significance. I think on those items that J ALCEmSCN AEPCRTING COMPANY, +NC, J.VIHeEmo AWL 2.Wm WR@HINGToN, D.C. PFM4 (R@ 554 2345
48 } 1 the Commission has ruled as having safety significance, they 2 would automatically have safety significance. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess we have to rely on -) J 4 the board n'ot to spend a lot of hearing time on this. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As it stands now, it does 6 rely on the board and there is a threshold of safety 7 significance the board has to find. 8 MR. BICKWITs You have not come down on the extent 9 to which the beard has to find that at the contention stage. 10 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: In most proceedings, one 11 worries about delays in the form of frivolous contentions, 12 because the plant is not licensed. As a practical matter, 13 tha t it the way the parties are going to behave here. The .s 14 people rho are going to be raising contentions are the ones I 15 who want a change rather than preservation of the existing 16 sta te. It compels them very little to stretch the 17 proceeding out with frivolous contentions while both units 18 are operating if their goal is to shut them down. 19 Ihe intent does not really exist to come in with a 20 bunch of frivolous allegations relating to minor 21 reg ula tions, the way it might in the case when the plant is 22 s hu t down during pendency of the hearing. I don't think you 23 will see much of tha t. It will be in the participant's 24 interest to focus on items tha t really can produce results. 25 CHAIBMAN PALLADINC: I am inclined to try ALCERSCN RE?CRTING COMPANY..NC, 400 VI AGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH.NGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
= 49 } 1 something, but it sounds so obviously when I try it that I 2 as having trouble with it; tha t is, if the contention is 3 based on violation of a regulation of the Commission, that 4 the board say accept the fact that it has a safety 5 significance on the basis that the boerd passed it. It does 6 not obligate them but it points out. I use the word " mar". 7 Let me make a suggestion: Would you try to phrase 8 something that you think could accommodate your thoughts or 9 your feelings in maybe this kind of approach? 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: In other words, if the 12 contention is that we have violated a regulation, the mere 13 f act that the regulation exists can be used as a basis for 3 w' 14 establiching the safety importance. I don't think we want 15 to work on it in a Commission setting. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The board certainly is not 17 obligated t' accept th e con ten tion. It ultimately shapes 18 the contention. Even here we say "vichin the scope of the 19 inq uiry. " 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I am not putting all the 21 rights words in there. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs At most, we would be 23 saying that at the contention stage the presumption is that 24 the, Commission regulation is of safety significance. That 25 does not mean that the board is shaping its contentions that ALCEFSCN AE?oRTING CCMPANY, INC, cr6)VIR@lNIA AlfL 2.W., WMHIN@T@f:, O C. 8s@84 (202) 554 2345
50 1 it wants to deal with, will include it or will keep it in ]) 2 the way it is phrased. It has the discretion that we talked 3 about before. But I think we have to say that these x. 4 regulations have saf ety significance, otherwise we ought to 5 revoke them. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would disagree with that, 7 because our regulations don't all (a) have safety 8 significnace and (b) don't all have direct safety 9 significance. Ihis is not a hearing to license a plant; it 10 is an investigatory hearing to look into some specific 11 issues. 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think they all have 13 degrees of various safety significance. Some are more 7 12 14 important and some are less important. If they have no l i 15 saf ety significance, ther ought not be there. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I think we should put some 17 wording in there that will draw the attention of the hearing 18 board to this issue and cause them to exercise judgment 19 which I think we have to rely on in the end. 20 COMMISSIONE3 CILINSKY They shape the contention. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLALINO: I gather in pr. ttin g toge the r 22 a revised order you will include a proposal that we can 23 discuss; is that co rrect, Peter? If you circulate it, we 24 vill have a chance to sift through it. 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. When did you plan to l l ALCEASCN AEPCRTING CCMP ANY, iNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., $.W., WASHING {CN, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
\\ 51 1 come back? ']) 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We are getting a lot of 3 pressure to get this thing uncerway. Today is Fridsy. I 4 vould like -to settle it vitain the next week. 5 We are not through yet. We have one other item 6 and tha t is the date which was brought up. 7 COMMISSIONER ROBER1J: Obviously, the date has to 8 be revised. 9 . CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We vill revise tha t by saying 10 ve vant it one year hence, or is that not sufficient? I 11 would. rather not g'et into a detailed schedule; just say cne 12 yea r hence. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think it will be 14 suf ficie nt. The board vill simply have to tailor the 15 hea ring to tha t time. It could go on indefinitely. l 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then, of course, we also have 1 17 to get the members of the hearing board established. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: At a minimum, it is going 19 to have to be scheduled based upon when the board gets 20 started. I think our unfortunate experience with Three Mile 21 Island shows that the Commission is voef ully off in its 22 ability to forecast hov long a proceeding is going to take. 23 Still, we should indicate when we want to have a 24 target date for the recommendation. I gather CGC is going 25 to revise Footnote 7 to accommoda:e the points brought out. s l ALOERSCN AEFCRTING COMPANY,INC. l 400 VIRGINI A AVE S.W., N ASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.* e, b f,,, 1 - re
- 1 There is a variation on Question No. 1c
- ]
7-2 a variation on Question No. 2, with further clarS 3 tha t Commissioner Bradford is going to work on WS ,y W, s ..,.,,r ~ 4 Have we covered all the points that thc 5 commissionars would like to bring out? 6 I thank you all for coming. 7 We stand adjourned. 8 (Whereupon, at 10.30 a.m., the meeting i ~ 9 above-entitled matter was concluded.) ~ 10 11 12 13 l 7 f 14 l 15 16 17 18 ( 19 i I 20 21 U 23 () 24 25 ~ I ) ,. e ALCERSch. AEPORTING CCMPANY, ;NC, CD) VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (2%
F e w MUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!!!ISSION This is to certify that the attached prceeedings before the COMMISSION MEETING in the matter ef: Discussion of Indian Point Order - PUBLIC MEETING-Date of ?roceeding: Sectember 11. 1981 Docket 'lu=b e r : Place of ?roceeding: Washington, D. C. were held as herein.appesrs, and that this is the original transcript therecf for the fils of the Cec =ission. A. J. LaFrance Official Reporter (Typed)
- .'j f
W //?'. WOW ~-" U Cfficiaz Reporter (Signature) I I ( -,}}