ML20147F669
| ML20147F669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147F673 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-78-496, NUDOCS 7810200103 | |
| Download: ML20147F669 (69) | |
Text
.
~
,,,. e t
..y
,Jp 1
v'
- (
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesday, 3 octcber 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, O. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. ]
The transcript is intended solely for general infoma'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the femal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript-do not necessarily reflect final de'teminations or beliefs.. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may ' authorize.
s 4
h l
7ttoMejo9/
2 r
cr9739 f
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
!ELTZER/mm 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
3 I
.l 4
i Public Meeting l
5 l
6 DISCUSSION OF SECY-78-496 - 10 CFR P ART 21 7
APPLICABILITY TO NON-LICENSEE SUPPLIERS OF COMMERCIAL 8
GRADE ITEMS j
9 i
1 10 I Room 1130 I
1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Nashington, D.C.
12
- Tuesday, 3 Octdxu::1978
-1 13
}
I 14 Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, l
15 pursuant to notice, at 10 :10 a.m., CHAIR'iAN iTOSEPH M.
- HENDRIE, l
16 Presiding.
17 P RESENT :
f 18 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner 19 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner j
JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 1
20 W.
Campbell, Jr.
21 R.
Minocue l
W.
Dircks 22 H.
Shapar J.
Kelley 23 P.
Conella V.
Stello 24 !
W.
T.
Russell M.
Thorburg L-3:r:I Reporters. Inc.
25 l W.
Reinmuth i
M.
Peranich l
l
3 mm2 1
EEEEEEEEEEE I
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good morning, 3
The Commission meets this morning to discuss some i
t 1
clarification of Part 21 Applicability to Nonlicensee Suppliers 4
5 of Commercial Grade Items.
I have a certain amount of soeech imoediment, which 6
we will have to live with for some". time.
I trust it won't make 7
8 the proceedings any more difficult than necessary.
9 Can. people in the back of the room hear me?
Maybe 10 I ought to bring this microphone in a little more closely than 11 it is my custom, since I amrot able to muster much volume.
12 Bill, I see you have a staff arrayed. Good morning.
13 Please go ahead.
14 MR. DIRCKS: The caper we are talking about is 15 78-496, Mr. Chairman.
BillCampbelloftheOfficeofStandards{
16 Development will do the honors.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right, Bill, go ahead.
i 18 MR. CAMPBELL:
Good morning.
4 19 The purpose of this presentation is to inform the l
Commission of the imoact of 10 CFR Part 21.
And the impact 20 is that the availability of numerous items that are necessary 21 for plant startup, or may required in the immediate future to j
22 l
allow a return of power, has decreased.
j 23 An indication of lowered availability is that 24 ei ' o:r.i n.nonen. Inc.
suppliers are either refusing to sign a contract or purcha.se 25 I
l i
4
- -i rmn3
~ '
- 1 order'to' deliver the. item..And some of these items in question l'
2
=are completed items'that.are already'in stock.
3 This impact can be attributed to a number of factors j-
'4 which include an industry overreaction and imprecise draf ting 4
5 of the Rule by the Staff initially.
6 The pact was not either foreseen by the' Staff, or 7.
intended'by the Staff.
8 The second part of our. purpose'today is to. seek 9
the Commission approval for a-Notice of Rulemakina.
10 The Staff recommendation is.for effectively, 11 immediate rulemaking that.will define a class of items by 12 the term " commercial-grade items" that will not be within Part 13 21 until that item is dedicated.
And the definition of 1
14 commercial-grade item and dedication will be discussed later.
15 As background, the Energy Reorganization Act of i
16 1974 was the purpose -- or was the cause of Section 206 and
]
17 Part 21 being imolemented.
A complete' text of Section 206 is j
l i
18 contained in Enclosure 1 of the Commission paper.
t 19 May I have the first slide, please?
1
-20 (Slide.)
21 Therg are four statutory provisions of Section 206.
q 22 The first, 206(a), provides a requirement' that under certain l
'23 conditions, that specific identified individuals notify the l-}
'2d Commission of an event.
,A..
- ousi seconm. inc.
25 Slide 2, please?
6
.1-
5 l
mm4 1
(Slide.)
2 The second, part (b), orovides that these individuals i
3 shall be subject-to a civil penalty under soecified conditions.!
^
4 Slide 3, please?
l l
5 (Slide.)
i 6
Part (c) requires some posting of information being 7
accomplished in specific locations.
t Slide 4, please?
l 8
9 (Slide.)
1 1
10 Part (d) authorized the conmission to conduct i
1 11 reasonable inspections and other enforcement activities, j
\\
12 Since the Energy Reorganization Act, Public Law
{
13 93-438 was not self implementing, NRC was required to issue 1
14 a regulation. The regulation was issued as 10 CFR Part 21, 15 and the regulation was discussed with the Commission on numerous j
16 occasions and the papers are cited in the caper.
17 Two of the major issues identified to the Commission 18 were --
Please put slide 5 on.
i 19 (Slide.)
i 20
-- how should a supplier be advised of the aoplicability of I
i Part 217 i
t 21 l
22 This is where the issue of bringing sub-tier 23 suppliers, giving them knowledge of Part 21 was discussed.
24 Slide 6, please?
k
' dif al Reportert, Inc.
25 (Slide.)
I i
b
I 6
mm5 1
The next major issue was, how should the Commission i 2
define basic component?
That is, how far down the tiers of suppliers should Part 21 be applied?
[
3 As an enclosure to the paper you have the definitions'
'4 I
5 of basic component and a few other terms from 10 CFR Part 21.
l 1
6 The previously-mentioned statutory provisions 260 were imple-i 7
mented by specific provisions of 10 CFR Part 21.
B 10 CFR 21.31 procurement document provides the 1
9 resolution of the first major question. That is the entity issuing.
i 10 of procurement documents subject to the regulations in this
!l l
Il part must assure that when applicable the provisions of 10 FR {
j 12 Part 21 are invoked in the procurement document.
l
!l 13 May I have slide 7, please?
14 (Slide.)
15 This is an implementing provision of 10 CFR Part 21, 16 so that the lower tier suppliers would know 21 acclied to them.
17 Slide 8, please?
18 (Slide.)
19 The second of the two major questions was answered; i
I i
20 one way for power reactors, and in another manner for facilities f
21 and activities other than pcwer reactors.
l 22 This is the definition that was used for the non-j 23 l power reactor facilities. And this comes out of 21.3(a) as we 24 implemented it.
A ceral Reporters, Inc, 25 For power reactors the question was answered in a I
7 mm6 different manner, and this was based upon the usage that was l
I 2
-common in the industry 3
Next slide, please?
l
'd (Slide.)
i 5
of some existing words and phrases that had been combined 6
in some well-understood terms.
7 The intention behind the use of these terms was 8
to avoid a whole new complex set of regulatory requirements i
9 to be invoked in the procurement process.
l 10 !
These terms were and are cart of the regulatory I
II framework. But possibly due to die notential civil penalties, l
12 up to $5000 a dav, industry is overreacting by putting reference i
l 13 to 10 CFR Part 21 in many locations.
Some of these are
!~
Id inappropriate, such as orders for steel for automobile car 15 bodies.
16 And another case where it has been invoked 17 imoroperly is for all piping with a reactor plant site. This I6 is slushing water piping,the draining piping and the toilet I9 piping.
t 20 In anticipation of problems associated with imple-21 menting the complex rule, the Commission asked that informational 22,
meetings be held with industrv to exclain the rule.
Five of I
23 l these were held in July of 1978, and that was six months prior 24 !
to the full effectivity of the rule.
f. ceraf Reporters. Inc. ;
l 25 j At these meetings cuestions were cosed by industry l
i
m --
~
w.,
g.
s mm72*-
1 and the Staff --
1
.MR. MINOGUE:
It was 1977.
2 i
3 MR. CAMPBELL:
iTuly77, excuse me. Six months-i I
O prior to the full' effectivity, which was last. January.
4 I
5 And at'that meeting, questions were posed Iv/ industr both verbally and in' writing, and in October of last year,'the 6
7 Staff provided written answers as guidance to the industry, This is called NUREG 0302 and is available through the.NTIS.
8 In regard to questions related to the number of 9
10 items that were to be included, that's how many tiers down, the
~
11 Staff stated that all organizations, activities and products 12 that were utilized in the design, fabrication, construction and
~
l 13 operation of a power plant are not such. hat thev could create i
14 a substantial safety hazard.
15 So in the briefings with industry we identified the {
16 fact that it did not go all the way down to the Mesabi Range 17 foresteel.
r 18 Inf response to questions concerning off-the-shelf
+'
19 components or catalog items, the Staff reply was that yes, those j
did come within 10 CFR Part 21 if the f ailure of them could 20 21 create a 'substan,tial. safety hazard.
i 22 The problem that we find facing the Commission is
~
i 23 correct implementation of the sense of the Commission when it 24
. originally approved the publication of 10 CFR Part 21.
A.-, dstW R eporters, Inc, 25 At headquarters we have-received over 65 written i
.,.,-.,n.,,..~,-
9 l
1 mm8 1
inquiries since 10 CFR Part 21 was oublished, that were i
i 2
directly related to the question of the acolicability to sub-l l
3 tier suppliers of commercial grade items.
I 7
4 A significant number of responsible firms are 5
refusing to provide quotations on orders invoking 10 CFR Part 21.
6 In enclosure 1, attachment B of the Commission 7
paper,there'are extracts from seven letters on this subject 8
that raise the issue of safety, raise the issue of an increased I
9 price or schedule impact, i
H3 Industry hicomment on the proposed rule, saw 11 the problem -- this is when they comment on the prooosed l
12 rule over two years ago -- they saw the problem and commented 13 on it.
Some of their comments are included in Attachment A to
~
14 enclosure 1.
15 As of now, the Staff has received 14 requests for 16 exemption related to sub-tier supplier in the first seven 17 months of ef fectivity.
Eight of these are from power reactor 18 licensees, and one of these has been granted.
Nhile in a 19 legal sense it is an exemption, in lavman's terms it would i
20 more aporopriately be termed as a delay in effectivity for a l
l 21 specific time for a specific product used at a soecific power 22 plant.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does that mean?
24 MR. CAMPBELL : There is a certain tvoe of a relay emi neoonm anc.
23 needed by a plant,and the company that was making the relay said, i,
10' b
37,
" o.
mm9 l-
'_the1 program that they wanted to~ put.in. place' was so comolex _
j
~
65 that they-couldn' t get'it in place by Januarv 1976, and he 2
I
-3 !
came in and.said,"I want a; delay of effectivity of the orogram I
i-t,
'i
'4 a t m'y; plant. "- And I believe it was for 60 days.
5 Do you remember,' Bill?- Was it 60 or 90?
i i
i 6
MR. RUSSELL:
It was nine-months delay, 7
MR. CAMPBELL: January of'1978, the rule became fully l
8 effective.
i 9
And Philadelphia Electric requested an exemption fori
'.1 10 one type of a relay that.they needed, and that has been granted.,
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the effect as to that 12 relay after this period of delay expires?
13 MR. CAMPBELL: That relay will totally be within the 14 scope of Part 21 as are all other commercial-grade products 15 at this time.
l I
16 COMMISSIONZR KENNEDY:
Is somebody going to raise 17 a question about safety considerations associated with the use 18 of that relay in the plant if it is already installed?
i i-19 MR. CAMPBELL:
The c.iuestion could be raised, but I l
20 wouldElike to defer to someone from'the reactor side, to NRR, 21 if L they.wouldflike to address that subject.
{-
~l
- 22
- MR.-STELLO:
I think that
ay maybe isn't-the one
'23' we':ought-to talkfabout.
Let> me cite one other example first.
m 24 LWezhave a problem on Oconee where thev have applied A:
L. et,al Reporters, Inc.
25 for an exemprisn'because.they have had difficulty with their i
-u
$)'
+
....m,--.
.-,,,._...L.4,....
c i'
11-mml0' And we issued a bulletin asking them -- that licensee i 1
relays.
2
~and others -- to change them, j
3 They tried to purchase new relays, and the company l-1 -
t
'4 they.tried to purchase them from to fit their design, do not 5
want to supply the relays under Part 21.
6 The problem goes even lower in the sub-tier y
supplierw with the people --
]
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And there is no other source?
9 MR.STELLO:
Well pecple who make the parts for l
10 the relays, screws, bolcs, slugs, springs, plastic, will not 11 agree to supply those parts under Part 21. So they are having 12 difficulty now getting replacement parts for their plant, which!
13 is a better relay than the one they have, and more reliable.
I 14 And they aren't able to do that.
l 15 So with respect to all of the components that are 16 in the plant today, those components were all supplied 17 differently than they would be supplied today under Part 21.
i 18 So the question you raise is applicable to every comoonent in 19 the plant, since it was installed prior to Part 21.
l 20 To the extent that that question is applicable, it l
i l
21 is applicable to.everything that is in the plant, j
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My question is, to what i
I-23 extent is the question a serious question?
7 24 MR. STELLO:
I don't think it is.
b,
- crat Reportees, Inc.
25 The real serious question is the availability to get I
Q:j
~ ' ~
~ ^
~
'~
^
~ ~'
_12 2 L a.+
.g
'mmil
-l the replacement parts in-the future.
I think that'is the serious-lJ 1
v
- .1 2
. question; j
- 3 ll _'
l.
4 MR. MINOGUE: I think'the' issue to recognize here is,
'4 we areLconcerned about the' material that is produced in large 1 l 1
4 5
quantity for a number of applications bef6re it is dedicated-i 6
to nuclear service.
Once it is dedicated to nuclear service, 7.
then clearly it L sho'uld come under Part 21.
j 8
It'is in that previous period where the concern 9
rises.
10 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is the assembler who is Il the guy who should be affected',not ' the basic manuf acturer.
)
12 MR..MINOGUE: That's right.
13 Once it is dedicated to a nuclear. service, then it 14 should properly come under the kinds of provisions in Part 21.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We'will get to it, I guess, r
16 but what keeps troubling me is, if that is true, how does that 17 assembler give effect to Part 21?
- l.,
jj 18 MR. CAMPBELL:'We will take that up, i.(
lI 19 To recap'on the exemptions received, one has been I-20 granted. This is legally an exemption, but it is really a 21 delay lin effecti.vity in layman 's terms.
- 22 We have received from from -- not.from licensees.
-l 23 They were-from: nonlicensees, _ and all five of these have been, 24 denie'd,.someLfor cause' and some for insufficient information; j
A, e.esua mners, ine.
25 The' remaining ~eight are'pendingEat NRR now, exemptionsj n
t
{ F k.
I.
X
- O t
+....,.,. -
- n. a., -
.._,.,~,,,,,,-._,.v,,,,.,-
zar -
l-mm12 1
and the details of some of these exemptions can be gone into
-j 2
greatly with NRR.
One of them Vic just mentioned.
j 3.
At least one plant has.made a commitment to NRC to 1
~l I'
accomplish'some specific work prior to the next startup. But 4
I 5
the material to accomplish the work is not available solelv 6
because of the impact of 10 CFR Part 21. The material is 7
already produced to the same quality level as the previous type 8
material was, but the supplier will not supoly it.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What standard do you use in j
\\
10 deciding whether or not to grant an exemption.
I 11 MR. CAMPBELL: The exemptions are granted through NRR 12 the Program Office, or NMSS.
And I would rather have NRR 13 answer that, sir.
l
-l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: W lat is the basis for granting i
l 15 an exemption?
j 16 What does the person seeking it have to show?
17 MR. STELLO:
The requirements are contained in the 18 regulation, but the particular instance we were talking about 19 is a specific exemption to a licensee,to a utilitv.
It was not; l
20 l an exemption-to a manufacturer, it was just to the one utility.I 21 And t,he thing that we were looking for is the i
22 demonstration of need, that he had made a reasonable effort, i
i l
23 that it was clearly in the public interest to do so.
And i
a 24 that the essential ingredients in terms of assuring ourselves b
o n e n m n us ine.
I 25 that we didn' t have a health and safety oroblem by the action I
14 l
l mm13 1
that we were taking, I think were the basic elements we were i
2 looking for.
And I think we are satisfied in this case.
3 l
a 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And the five cases of l
I
- 4 l
manufacturers you felt there was not a sufficient need shown?
5 i
I 6
MR. STELLO:
We have delayed and deferred taking a l
final position on the other exemptions related to this matter.
7 In one instance, we told them that for the moment 8
we have denied your exemption, but if there was a need, i.e.
l 9
10 I the plant had to shut down because they didn't have a replace-I
[
11 meat part,they should come back to us and let us know.
And if 12 that was the situation, we clearly would reconsider it.
l 13 But t
-aally no need in those cases.
The i
14 need was not there to do it now.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
16 So a manufacturer would have quite a hard time 17 showing need on his own.
He would have to have a licensee as f
18 well, saying that the part was urgently necessary?
i 19 MR. STELLO:
All of these exemptions are with l
i, licensees, utilities. They are not with manufacturers.
20 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But the manufacturers, as 22 I understood, have applied for --
MR. CAMPBELL: We have had two manufacturers; a 23
_. j 24.
nuclear steam system supplier, asking for a generic one. And cmi seco,ters, inc.l 4
25' he just didn' t supply enough information.
I
~l
15
' ~
i mml4 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is a different problem.
1 2
You are talking about the fellow who is manufacturing 3
i,. screws, nuts, bolts and pipes.
~4 And you are talking about these two cases, I assume,.
I 4
5 the nuclear steam supply system supplier?
6 MR. CAMPBELL: There was a nuclear steam system and f
7 an electrical manufacturer, a broad electrical --
8 MR. MINOGUE: In a sense they are really more 9
analogous to utilities in the purchase of supplies.
i i
10 I think it is a comment though, thatweneedtomakeh 11 that this kind of problem which is really generated because of l l
12 the way the rule ended up being acclied, is best handled by i
13 rulemaking, rather than we sit here and wait for the large l~
14 numbers of exemptions we would do case by case. But really, to i 15 try to sit down and look again, take a harder look at the 16 process by which stuff is bought, and the point in that process!
I 17 where.it really begins to take on some safety significance.
18 And try to correct the matter by modifying the rules.
19 And that is reallv what we are proposing.
20 And certainly, in the discussions I have had with I
21 Mr. Case.on it s.everal months ago, there was a feeling that the-22 best way to do this was not to be worried about a lot of 23 ! ' exemptions, but to try to go back and restructure the 24 regulations in a manner that is more clearly aoplicable to the mr.i nenortm. #nc. ;
4_
25 process.
1, l
16 mm15
~ I think in f act what we have here, as Mr. Campbell j
2 said earlier, is a mix of industry overreaction and poor drafting i
I i
3 on the part of the Staff when the rule was first formulated.
i I
.r a'
4 MR. SHAPAR:
Generally speaking, a wholesale request' 5
for exemptions, are at least a tipoff there may be something 6
wrong with the rules drafted. And it is certainly better
?
7 administrative practice, rather than granting wholesale 8
exemptions, to try and cure the rule in a generic fashion.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now, are we yet at what you q
l I
10 call the " wholesale-request-for-exemption" stage?
i i
I 11 MR. SHAPAR:
I would say 14 I would call wholesale, l
fj!
12 rather than retail.
l l
13 (Laughter. )
i 14 MR. MINOGUE:
Particularly my cerception is, 15 because.what we are doing is widely known, we now are in a j
16 very open operation here, that a lot of oecole are waiting to 17 see how the Commission acts on this rule change before they 18 send in an exemption.
19 I think there is quite a large number of potential i
20 applications for exemption out there.
I i
i MR. STELLC:
I wanted to indicate that we had a 21 meeting with DIF and'they indicated to us that they are lwaiting for the outcome of this meeting.
And depending on 23 which way it goes, there are an awful lot more out there.
The i
24 l A
' crai neponen. ine.
er M M M We 6 de ven e Mme.
i l
+ -
17 h
j.
i mm 1
MR. MINOGUE:
I have exactly the same understanding 2
from other sources, i
l 3
MR. CAMPBELL:
The Staff has reviewed a number of j
3 i
2 alternatives and recommends that rulemaking be accomplished.
j 4
l 5
The Staff believes that this rulemaking will make j
6 the regulation more in line with what the Staff intended when j
7 the rule was initially drafted and be less susceptible to mis-8 interpretation by the Commission of the rule as currently in 9
place.
l l
10 The central part of the rulemaking are two new l
11 definitions; commercial-grade item and dedication.
12 Im item that meets the definition of a commercial-l grade item will not be within the scope of 10 CFR Part 21 untill 13 I
14 the item is designated for use as a basic component.
15 (Slide.)
16 The definition of commercial-grade item is contained; 17 on this slide, and is also in the paper in enclosure 5, page 5.
18 There are three tests that would be apolied to an 19 item to find out whether or not it met the definition of a i
20 commercial-grade item.
The first test is, is there anything l
l 21 specific in its, design or specification requirements that are l
22
' unique to facilities or activities licensed in accordance with 23 !
one of the parts of our regulation.
4, 24 The second test would be, it has to be used in
.i A
dtral Reporters, Inc.,
25 !
applications other than licensed f acilities and activities.
i l
I i
m 18.
mm17 *I-And the third is, it has to be ordered from a i
2
-manufacturer -- be able to be ordered from a manufacturer or 3
buyers' catalog based upon his published product definition.
l I
j 4 I
4 The key facets in item one are that it has to be j
5 a uniqueness test.
i 6
Two, it is used someplace else.
i 7
And the public-product description of the 8
manufacturer. It w.s specifically chosen as a manufactured l
.I I
9 public-product description, to rule out descriptions that are
.l 4
10 made up by distributors and suppliers.
11 The procurement document for an item that meets this
.i 12 definition would not include a reference to 10 CFR Part 21.
13 The procurement would be governed by the normal business law j
IN 14
'and terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the two carties. i 15 The second major part of the rulemaking is the use 16 of the term --
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You had pointed out that the 18 current written rule has led to confusion.
19 Is this -- why are you now confident that this 20 definition will be sufficiently clear that there will be no l
21 confusion?
22 MR. C AMPBELL :
I think it is less susceptible to 23 confusion.
We have received a. number of, so-to-speak, unsolici ed 24 proposals for rulemaking where they used specific words, and
. ceral Reporters, Inc.
25 these words are much narrower than some of the broad requests f
l-f 1
-l
oV 19-
- 10 t
.thativarious: segments of industry have asked for.
- y
.'2 COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE:
Have you cycled-this defini -
3 tion at.all through the industry to see whether this meets I
l
.i
".i
.i
'that clarity. test?
- 5 MR. CAMPBELL:
Not the actual.words, sir, but the 6
intent of' them.
.And the feedback that we have gotten so far is that 7
I 3
it will solve the problem.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But if the intent is to.be i
9 t
clear and solve the problem, ~ then;they would definitely agree.
10.
11 I.was just wondering --
H 12 MR. CAMPBELL:
No, they'have not seen the actual
~
13 words as written here, sir.
1:
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Bill, you need to go on, I think-ja 15 for me, and get I think the second definition in place before 16 I see how the mechanism works.
17
.You know, so far so good. But now how do you sort out the' dedication to nuclear service which brings the component 18
~
i 3
19 under Part 21?
I MR. CAMPBELL:
Fine.
.20
- 21 The second definition ' that would be -- Slide 11, i
i-22 please?-
i-l (S lide,. ).
23 This is'the'second' definition,and dedication would 24 -
4 A.s
.xsercl Remrters. inc.
.25 Loccuriafter re'ceipt o# an item, when~
that item is i
. n
,-.-s..-
.. ~,..,.....
E (
12 0 mm1922-
~ 1' designated for_ use as 'a basic ~ component.
4 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: After_ receipt by a licensee?
w 3
MR. CAMPBELL: No, sir. No, sir. Not necessarily.-
n 7
14 Now as an. example of how should thisL be applied, is' c
5 a' safety-related' valve that complies with the requirements 'of j
f 6
' AS ME sSection III,EClass 2.
7 Clearly that has unique nuclear requirements with 8
ASME Section'III.
Nuclear is the only thing that uses Section i
9 III.
That is what they.are designed for.
1 10 If a utility were to order a valve, of course that 11 valve would have Part 21 -invoked in it.
The valvemaker has 12 to buy -- would you look at, I think it is the 15th or 16th i
I 13 slide that has a valve' layout on it?
14 The valvemaker would be required to buy a number of l
15
~ things.
He would have to buy a valve body --
l 16 (Slide. )
3 17
-- he'd have to buy a valve stem, and he'd have to buy a valve !
18 disc.
i 19-Now clearly the body is a pressure-retaining boundary I
4 20 and that comes under ASME Section III.
So it would be 21 appropriate, if the valvemaker bought the body from someone, 22 to invoke.Part 21.on;the casting.
But now that man who.is i
i i
23' making theLcasting,:
he has to get some scrap and he has to I
i 1
24
.get some. ore someplace,
~ e toersiaem nen,inc.-
- 25
' Now he uses that same scrap and he. uses that same i
i
~An.*e w
m,*v-,
-aws.a.-n--
a+,-<
-v e m-sm w ar
+ v ew v w
2 4
w e
v s
21 mm20-
~
. ore to throw into his ' furnace to make the nuclear-grade valve, 1
2 the API valve,'or the MSS valve.
1 3
So when the casting maker goes out and he makes an 4
order, he.would not put 10 CFR Part 21 in it.
~
+
5 And I've tried to show with the solid lines in there '
6 where clearly the Part 21 would be invoked in the procurement 7
of the valve. But when the valvemaker goes out and buys the 8
valve stem, now he could use the same valve stem out of one-9 inch round 410 stainless steel in all of his valves.
And he I
10 buys it to a plane, either a mil soec or an ante suec, and l
l 11 fabricates the stems in his plant. And still there would be 12 no dedication take place because he would use that same valve 13 stem with the same square thread across his whole line of 14 products.
15 But it is our intention that at the time the order 16 is being filled for the valve stems for that nuclear valve, 17 at that point in the lifetime, those valve stems would then come' f
18 under 10 CFR Part 21, at that time and from there forward in 19 the lifetime.
i 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Nho would be responsible 21 then, under Part,21?
22 MR. CAMPBELL:
In this examole it would be the l
23 }Iorganization that made the valve.
They would be --
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would you prohibit him from a
eersi Reoorters, Inc. '
25 aoplying Part 21 to the stem maker, or would vou not require him i
l
22
[
i mm21
'I to apply it?
l 2
MR. CAMPBELL:
It would not be required.
I 3i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But he could if he wished to?
l
.4 If, for some reason, he wanted to try to pass off 5
the responsibility, this burden that seems to be on him, he 6
could apply it?
I 7
MR. CAMPBELL:
It was not the intention to prohibit j i
8 that.
I don't know why it would.
1 9
MR. MINOGUE: Also, I don't see how that would lessen' s
10 I his responsibility in any way.
j 11 I think the important point, though --
I i
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I guess I don't know 13 that that is necessarily the case.
c 14 MR. SHAPAR: Well, the rule would be creating a legal 15 effect. If the rules are written clearly enough so that only 16 certain people were responsible under a regulation, I don't 17 see how somebody, as a matter of commercial contract, could make 18 a regulation and a law applicable where it is not otherwise 19 applicable.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The way my question was, is l
21 it required, or can he do it?
22 Now, if the law permits him to pass that requirement 23 on 24 MR. SHAPAR: The law is not self executing in major
'n ceral Reporters, Inc,
.25 ;
aspects.
It is subject to the rules and regulations of the i
mm22 1
Commission.
~
2 So the real determination of this would be made at 3
the Commission's rulemaking.
i p
.4 MR. CAMPBELL:
10 CFR Part 21 would have to be j
5 passed down via a contractual two-party agreement. And if the I
6 lower tier person determined that 21 should not be applied, 7
that it was not legally required this could be discussed in 8
negotiations.
I I
9 MR. MINOGUE:
What a person really determines in the '
10 procurement chain is that he designates this item is going to o
11 be used in nuclear service. And it is that action that brings l
12 the rest of it in place. He is not saying this is under Part 21 !
i 13 or not,so much as he is saying this particular component from
~
14 this point on is dedicated to some nuclear acclication.
15 That might be made at any tier in the procurement 16 chain.
It is not necessarily by the utility.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, how does one -- as I understand i
18 the dedication to nuclear service, how does one further designate i
19 those components that are dedicated to nuclear plant service 20 for which a defect could create a substantial safety hazard?
21 MR. C AM.PB ELL : This would be a decision tree that 22 starts with the licensee and is NSSS in the same way that they f
i 23 determine other safety relatedness ' characteristics to L
24 Idifferentiate the nameplate on the pump and the cump shaft, its 4i ser.i n. porters. Inc. l l
25 l impact upon safety.
y 1
p
24 1
mm23 1
They would be making the same kind of decisions t
2
,that they are now, and this information would be passed via 3,
10 CFR 21 in the procurement documents.
I i
4 But _ it is being found now, that this is being passed {
5 way down, almost to the Mesabi Ore Range and giving unecessary i 6
breadth and scope, such that the supply is being cut off.
7 MR. MINOGUE:
The act of deciding whether something i
8 constitutes a defect that would cause a substantial safety 9
hazard would not be changed by what we are proposing here.
10 It is made. at some point in the tier of suopliers.
It can 11 be passed towards the ultimate supplier. A particular sub-tier
}
12 supplier that didn't have the expertise to do it, he could 1
13 pass that determination to his customers.
l i
14 That's all covered in the regulation as it exists i
15 and we wouldn't propose a change there.
l 1
1 i
4 16 MR. C AMPBELL: For an item that is clearly nuclear-5 t
i 17 related, this rule would have no changes whatsoever on it.
}
i 18 Reactor pressure boundarv pioing,for instance, j
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Nhy are we making this i
j i j l
20 immediately effective?
.I I
l 21 MR. C,AMPBELL : Ne will get to that.
j 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We have got an immediate oroblem.
i 23-MR. CAMPBELL:
Slide 12, please?
24 (Slide.)
. <ue n emum. mc.
l 25
'There will also be some conforming amendments to i
1
g 25 mm* 1 21.2 in the definition section, and 21.3.
I 2
l Slide 13, please?
j 3
(Slide.)
-4 This would be in'the scope to allow any lower-tier i
5
~ supplier, if he felt that there was information that the 6
Commission should be aware of, it will allow him to come to 7
the Commission and identify th'at the same as we have done in j
8 the initial rule for people who are beyond the scope, to allow I
9 them to talk to the Commission directly.
I 10 Slide 14, please?
j i
11 (Slide.)
12 And this is to clarify in the present exemotion l
l 13 section, the fact that commercial-grade suppliers are only
- j. ]
i la exempt from Part 21 as far as their commercial items.
15 If they were producing both commercial and nuclear f
16 items, the fact that they were exempt on the commercial side 17 would.not exempt them from the nuclear side.
I 18 MR. SHAPAR:
GE might be a good example.
l 19 MR CAMPBELL: Corporate GE is a very good example l
l 20 where their Switch Gear Division may be exempt from Part 21 21 on a motor controller;they would not be exempt on their reactors. :
22 As regards to the timing of this rulemaking, the i
23 industry has commenced having problems with the implementation
-i 24 of the rule early in the spring of 1978.
A
- ctral Reporters, Inc.
25 It-became effective in January; notifications were
.~
y..
26-a.,
mm25'-
put in procurement documents:in January..And'as early as
, ',.1 4
12
' late' February, we were receiving telephone calls about the 3
problem.
-t The Staff commenced investigation of the oroblem andl 2
4 I
5
.has determined that the problem is a real one and is not an i
6 sillusory problem.
7 The Staff determined'also that the problem was 8
caused by an application of the rule that was not intended by 9
the Staff, and an application that the Staff did not intend l
10 i to convey to the Commission at the time of the initial rule-11 making.
12 COMMISSIONER. KENNEDY: Would you comment now, having 13 said that, on the point that you made much earlier, that many 14 of the-suppliers, the commenters had noted something to this
{
15 effect before the rule was put in place.
16 MR. CAMPBELL: The comments were read at that time
'i i
I 17 and I.believe one of them was by a large electrical' trade I
18 association, and the Staf f felt at the time, thev had draf ted 19 a rule that could be reasonably cut off at a lower-tier 20 supplier.
~21 But the fact that it is not being done, we think, is I
22 overreaction.
Industry did comment on it, and those are i'
23 contained"---
_o.
24]
.MR. MINOGUE:
I would:like to add a comment to i~ : csrel Reporters, Inc.
.25 thati speaking from the perspective.of. Staff..
l' l
- l1
~ _
27 mm26 1
When the rule was being drafted in its final form, 2
we perceived much the same problem and felt at that time that the wording we proposed would make it oossible to basically go 3I J
back through these tiers of suppliers, just as far as the i
j 4
l 5
normal licensing review and the acclication of Aopendix B, the t I
6 Quality Assurance Criteria would take you.
7 So therd was a feeling which appears now to have I
8 been incorrect, that that wording would not generate a whole 9
new complex going further back into the supolv chain, but i
l 10 I would go as far as has alreadv done in the context of the l
11 licensing process.
That is as far, really, as matters of i
12 real safety-significance are concerned.
13 So I think we saw the nroblem on this end too. But i
H 14 not as clearly as we see it now, when the rule was being i
15 drafted, and did not come up with an adequate fix.
16 MR. CAMPBELL: From the available courses of action, 17 the Staff recommends that the rule be published, effective l
18 immediately, since the amendments are intended, in cart, to 19 respond to a number of requests for exemption and since the I
20 amendments narrow the scope of the regulation without anv 21 significant adve,rse safety consequences.
22 The Staff believes : good cause exists for omitting 23 the-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public Procedure.
J 24l If public comcents are received, thev will be
- a : xssr.i Reporters, ine. l 25 considered by the1 Commission in due course.
Central to this l
'28-
?
mm27
- 1 is what was originally intended by the Staff, and what does 2
.the Staf f feel the Commission originally intended.
3 The Staff did not intend that the rule go way back 1
)
4 to the bottom nut and bolt supolier.
l' I
5 MR. SHAPAR:
In all fairness I don't think we can 6
say that this proposed rule is what the Commission originally 7
intended.
I don't think it is clear on this point in my 8
own perception cf being at Commission meetings and having 9
reviewed the papers.
j j
10 1 I don't think we can tell you today that_the 11 amendment we are proposing is what you originally intended.
I 12 MR. MINOGUE: When I discussed this with the Commission 13 at the time, I think the emphasis was on Reg Guide 129 and the 14 application of~ Appendix B explicitly.
l 15 And of course the question is broader than that. So l 1
16 I think Mr. Shapar may well be right.
17 We may not have -- certainly the record doesn' t i
i 18 suggest that we aired this problem fully with the Commission.
19 It was discussed though to some extent. At least in the context l 1
20 of the application of Appendix B.
21 COMMI,SSIONER KENNEDY:
It is fair to say 2 hat 22 certainly in my recollection, the Commission did not intend 23 !
the result'which~seems to have followed.
I i
24 MR. MINOGUE: There was a great deal of discussion i
erral Reporters, Inc.
25 {
of how far back in the tier, in the awareness of the comolexity
{
i i
l
29 mm28 I
of the regulatory process that you could generate, to go i
2 back further than you really need to.
f, 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My recollection is, we j
raised the nuts and bolts question and concluded at'the time l
'd l
that no, that would not be the result. That that would be an 5
6 unreasonable application of the rule.
7-That is my recollection.
8 MR. MINOGUE: Yes, sir that is basically mine also.
9 We did not draft the rule as well as we thought we had.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One more question.
f 11 Going back to something that Commissioner Ahearne l
12 asked before, how confident are we that again the words are j
d I3 understood by the industry as clearly as they seem to be 14 understood here in the same way we intend they be understood?
I 15 MR.MINOGUE: I would like to try to answer that, if I
l 16 i
I may, l
I7 I think that what Mr. Campbell has done here is to 18 define a relatively narrow problem, which is the ourchase of I9 off-the-shelf stuff. And I think that wording is clearcut i
20 in that context.
21 I have to be realistic, though, that Part 21 speaks l'.
22 J
to an industry of such breadth and complexity,~it is a 23 whole supply chain of a very large industry.
There will.be I.
1 1
24 A
xseral Remrters. Inc, I am sure this is not the last such future problems.
(
25 discussion we are' going to have. Ne are going to find other --
I i
30 mm29-1 I think Congress itself must have had some recognition of this,{
i because-the whole job of implementing this was laidton to the I
2 I.
3 Commission.
It took several years to write Part 21 initially. 'l l
i i
.9 It' was very difficult and I think what we are really doing here 4
is fixing a rather sharply-defined oroblem related just to 5
I off-the-shelf material.
6 And there will be others. This is not going to be 7
the last time we will be here, I'm sure.
8 I
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
To what extent has this --
9 10 I you indicated the wording has not been discussed.
-l 11 Any reason it couldn't be?
MR. CAMPBELL: No.
12 Commission papers are predecisional.
The details 13 of the wording has not -- in discussi.tg the conceot and 14 narrowing some of the industry proposals, industry had asked, l
15
/
a 16 gee, we think this ought to apply to consultants.
i And we said, no, no we are going to stav iust with 17 18 products.
MR. MINOGUE: See, normally we wouldn't take the exact 19 i
wording we - are going. to propose to the Commission. That.,would be 20 J
i for public comment process.
21 But the concept has certainly been discussed. I 22 J l
23 1 have had discussions myself with various peonle.
I 24 f COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Are we going to encourage a-eseni Reporters, inc.
25 in this process, further comment on this, even though it is an L
i l
I
-31 mm30' 1
immediately-effective rule?
I
'2 MR. MINOGUE: Yes, sir, that was the intent that 3
we would solicit further comment.
I-4 MR. CAMPBELL: We have proposed to vou as a note in l y l
5' the Commission paper, kind of an unusual distribution.
1 6
We are going to distribute the Federal Register
.l notice to evervone that received a cooy of this document throughl 7
i 8
the public regional meetings.
We are going to send a copy to i
t 9
everyone who bought this document from the National Technical
,j t
10 Information Service, and we will send a cooy of it to evervone 11 that sent in a letter of comment on the croposed rule, or that l
t 12 has corresponded with Headquarters concerning the effective l
13 rule.
I i
14 MR. SHAPAR: Following up that line,the Federal i
r I
15 Register notice itself could,say, could invite comments. Even I
i 16 though the rule is effective, give a certain number of davs l
17 for submission of comments.
18 He have done that in the cast.
I
\\
l 19
. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It does not now?
i I'
t 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why doesn't it make more ll!
21 sense to allow 3.0 days for comment and make it ef fective at 1
the end of that. peri'd, assuming that comments haven't been 22 o
I 23 serviced.
_i 24 I assume that if there are really urgent exemotion i
i4,
.. coral Reporters, Inc.
25 j requests among those that we have, those could be handled on l
i i
L I
L l
.. ~
]L 32:
[
E I
mm31 I
the'need cr'iteria during the 30 days.
j
,f 9
2 MR. MINOGUE:.It'could'be.
.Io 3)
Of. course, we are. reluctant to generate a'new 2'
'd
. workload'for NRR..
i l
5 MR'. - CAMPBELL : It can be done. But this:would, for l
l 6
some of the exemptions pending, I think they must have them 7
within'the next 30 days, was my recollection.
l.
i
.8 If NRR would like 'to comment on the additional work-l i
f 9
load ~ that they would see' with this aporoach, the ones that thev i 10 have to get out in the next 30 davs?
.Vic, or Bill?
l l
II MR. STELLO:
'I certainly wouldn't want to suggest l-12
.or volunteer to do an awful lot more work.
But, if we need to,'
I3 I think as you say, if this rule were not changed in the near l
14 future and there. were a critical need, we would do exactly 15 what we had to do.
l l
16 We would have to evaluate those exceotions on a 17 case-by-case basis, determine that need, and act accordinglv.
18 I don't know how many more are waiting in tne 19 wings, is my problem.
I really don' t know how much of a work-i 1
20 load it would be.
21 But,.if the Commission didn't take action, what you j l22 say is exactly what would happen.
23-MR. MINOGUE: I think that is an imoortant ooint.
{
24 We !believe there lare a lot of exemption requests, notential
~
fl.xaral Roxurs, Inc, 25 exemption' requests sitting out tiare.'And.that time delav.
.i i
,w.
33 l
might have'the effect of precioitating a large flood'of these.
mm32 ;
l i
)
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Did you get any comments 2
from anyone in f avor of no looser, or a tighter rule?
i 3
l l
In.other words, you have been talking about, so far, 7
4 1
the number of comments that vou have received that have 5
indicated that this is too tight a constraint that is being i
6 applied too tightly.
And I 'just wondered whether you have j
7 i
received any comment of the opposite tvpe?
8 i
and T2 MR. MINOGUE: None that I'm aware of.
9
~
I 10 !
l 11 l
12 f
I l
13 l
i 2
14 15 l
16 l
I 17 18 i
19 1
l
- {l 21 22 23
- )
24 m,., a._,,,.. i ~. ;
2 25 i
14
'CR 9739
.MdLTZEh' 4
DOR T l'
COMMISSIONER' BRADFORD:
Have wn had Congressional 2
Leomment on this-situation other than it:is a regulation that's 3.been passed to implement an Act of Congress?
Bas the situation f.
~~ 7 4
been discussed at all with the Oversight Committee?
S' MR.~MINOGUE:
Not at all.
6 101.'SHAPAR:
I think there was~an interest at 7
the beginning from the Senate Operations Committee, of course, 8 who marshalled the aeorganization Act through the Congress.
9 There was some initial interest on what kind of followup the 10 Commission was undertaking to comply with the statute.
As 11 far as the Oversight Committees are concerned --
12 MR. MINOGUE: I've had no discussion. with.them.
13 This is actually a' fairly small scale thing, it's big in it's.
~
14 impact, but it's not a big burning issue.
We are talking 15 about, really, of f the shelf stuff thatAs bought out of the 16 catalogue.
I've had no discussions with anybody,with the 17 Oversight Committee.
18 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Howard, could you expand a 19 little bit on that comment you made a little while ago about 20 that you really couldn't say that this was what the Commission 21 had in mind originally?
22 MR. SHAPAR:
This is purely a factual question as
)
23 to what the Commission intended when they approved the original J
24 rule.
I've ' reviewed the pieces of ' paper and I was present at
'l s anoi n.ponni, inc.
25 most if not a11 Eof the' Commission meetings,fand it's just
~
i 35
~
dor 2 1
not my:own'individuallrecollection.that-the Commission
'2 specifically in' tended one result or the other in connection 3
-with the problems in front of you today.
i
.- 4 CottiISSIONER KENNEDY:
Except to say further, to 5
reiterate my o#n. recollection, the problem was not perceived y
6 as it turns out to be.
7 liR. MINOGUE:
That's right.
8 MR. SIRPAR:
I think that's correct.
9 MR. DIRCKS:
We were a' ware of the side effects.
COMt[ISSIONER KENNEDh But those certainly were 10 11 not intended, indeed, the assumption was those problems'would 12 not arise, and I think that's a fair statement of exactly 13 what the Commission thought.
Now how they felt about it you i
1 14 would have to ask them.
15 MR. SIRPAR:
I don't think the Commission ever 16 promulgates a rule to deliberately provoke trouble.
17 (Laughter.)
18 COMliISSIONER KENNEDY:
That may be an overstatement, 19 I hope it's not.
20 tiR. MINOGUE:
Particularly with the safety that 21
-would be achieved by it.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Howard-are you saying that 23
'~atHleast in the' previous -- the papers do not clearly state 24
'the,intentionEof the Commission was not to reach down farther?
, M.L 'ederal Reporters,' I4.
'25 MR. SIMPAR:
That's right.
i
..-,.,.-w
36 dor 3 1
MR. MINOGUE:
I agrca with that bscause ons of tha 2
first steps we took was to go back and go through the written 3
record carefully.
Even what discussion was had was not fully
,i ys " reflected in the written record.
It was not documented that 5
completely.
6 COtiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just a clarification in my 7
mind.
Nbuld this be a correct precis of the effect of Part 21 8
to require under penalty that the reporting, if there is a 9
reasonable indication of either a lack of compliance with a 10 rule or regulation relating to substantive safety, or substantial 11
-- or to a substantial safety defect?
12 MR. MINOGUE:
I am not sure I understand the 13 question.
Could'you restate the question, sir, I'm not sure 14 I understand it?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The effect of Part 21, is 16 the effect of it to require, under penalty, the reporting if 17 there is any reasonable indication of either one of two things:
18 lack of compliance, or the indication of a substantial safety 19 defect?
20 MR. MINOGUE:
Under some limited circumstances, yes.
21 If the component has been delivered and I believe installed, 22 and so on.
But under some limited circumstances the answer 23 is yes.
24 -
COM!!ISSIONER AHEARME:
The effeet really is that
'edarol Reporters, Inc l-25 you are under penalty to report either lack of compliance, or i
37 dor 4 1
the knowledge of a substantial safoty defect.
2 MR. MINOGUE:
If the component has been delivered anc 3
installed, right.
That's correct, yes.
,i
^
4 MR. CAMPBELL:
But the man that made the spring that 5
goes in the relay, and he's making these springs for wide 6
application and it's a commercial grade item, he would not be 7
under penalty to make a report like that because he is 8
incompetent in general to determine nuclear safety.
He's a 9
good spring maker.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or a bad spring maker, as 11 the case may be.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
13 MR. CAMP BELL :
He is a spring maker.
14 CO!PiISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess the point is I could 15 well understand why the Commission previously didn't foresee 16 the problem because in reading through it it seemed to be that 17 the issue was that you had promulgated a regulation saying that 18 if you see -- that you are under penalty to report if you see 19 that there is a lack of compliance with the regulation 20 significantly affecting safety, or a significant safety defect.
21 Now that, just as a layman, a citizen on the outside 22 looking at it, that seems quite reasonable and I guess what 23 all this paper work says is the industry has found that they 24 are unwilling, at various stages, to take that upon themselves,_
F 8edsrol Reporters, Inc.
25 that responsibility, and are passing it down the line.
38 dor 5 1
MR. MINOGUE:
The people who are building something 2
that they know is directly, and immediately, for a nuclear 3
application are not the ones that raise the issues.
It's the'
.4 people who are building widgets, and this is one widget out 5
of tens of thousands, they have no way of knowing that that 6
particular one will be in a nuclear plant.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But aren't the people building 8
the components passing that devn to the people building widgets.
9 They're sticking that into procurement contracts.
10 MR.
IINOGUE:
That's correct.
They're putting it 11 into the purchase contracts.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Because they don' t want to 13 take it upon themselves, they want the guy that's supplying
-l 14 them --
15 MR. SHAPAR:
But they're not necessarily' escaping 16 liability themselves by putting it in the procurement document.
17 They may be getting somebody else along with them, but they 18 are not escaping themselves.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's the whole point.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why would they stop?
What 21 is there about this change that would make them feel that 22 that was no longer necessary?
23; MR. MINOGUE:
Because the person who supplies, or 24l who sell < you this one out of tens of thousands of widgets
%dtrol Reporters, w:.;
25; that he makes, would no longer be covered.
So there is no 1
h a
39 dor 6 1
reacon for them to -- you know they have no obligation to 2
notify him or' assure that he does certain posting.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The language just makes it
[
_4 'sufficiently clear that the sub-tier supplier who is supplying 5
a commercial item of which a few go over here into nuclear 6
service, the language is very explicit and clear that he is 7
not responsible.
That the responsibility accrues as soon as 8
these few go over here and go into a thing which is known to 9
be headed for nuclear service, nuclear safety service.
And 10 the guy who assembles that without intent then acquires that 11 responsibility.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
That's right.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the burden then is on 14 him having a quality assurance program for receipt of those 15 materials.
16 C HAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But the division between those 17 two steps is now in this language very clearly laid out.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But I assume that the person 19 at which th6-point that it's clear that the responsibility is 20 on him would still have some incentive to try and include it 21 in_the procurement contracts.
Vhat you are saying that the 22 person, once they are further down, is now in a better position 23 to say no?
24 MR. MINOGUE:
No, I don't think the person would C deral Reporters, Inc.
e 25 have an incentive.
He is really buying an off-the-shelf piece i
40 dor 7 1
of cquipm$nt out of a catalogua.
2 MR. S HAPAR:
He's increasing the cost to him.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right now does he have to
' include it in that?
,4 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes.
The regulation has been read 5
6 to mean that, has come to mean that.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't ask the way it has been read to mean.
8 9
MR. CAPBELL:
It says when applicable.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't ask the wcy it has 11 been read to mean.
I'm saying does it strictly have to read 12 that?
Could he have read it otherwise?
13
!!R. MINOGUE:
I think what we have here is a 14 combination of poor drafting and over reaction.
There is an 15 element of both.
16 CO!BtISSIONER KENNEDY:
The over reaction may be 17 a function of the poor drafting on the one hand, and wise and 18 careful attorneys on the other.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
Given there are civil penalties 20 running over you here, and they could be substantial, there 21 is a natural tendency to over react, to be extra careful, to
- cover the risk.
22 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Currently if he fails to I
24 put it in the procurement contrtet he is in violation with the a
'adtrol Reponers Inc.
25 l regulation, i
I,
. 41 '
dor 8' 1
?MR. MINOGUE:
That's right.
)
,a.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's the way it's read.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, no.
If he fails -- if
[
4
'in. fact it should'be in the contract and he fails to put'it 5
in --
?
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If it should be.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If it should be and he fails 8
to put it there then he is in violation of the contract and 9
therefore what is he going to do?
He's going to cover himself.
i 10 MR. MINOGUE:
Quite carefully.
l 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But what I gather, in a way 12 the Staff has been saying you peoplu are over reaching, you 13 don't have to go'that far.
They are being told, however, i
14 that well we're just going to be cautious.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think if suppliers' attorneys 16 felt that~the casual assurances of this kind by the Staff 17 were adequate protection against criminal prosecution under 18 the Code of Federal Regulations why they'd advise their 19 clients not to put it in.
The fact that they don't suggests 20 to me that they don't regard that as a very strong protection.
21 And it seems clear that the Commission, then, ought to make 22 the language sufficiently clear so that it's meaning is not 23 in doubt.-
24 MR. CAMPBELL:
We have had cases where an organ-8 deral Reporters; inc.
4-e 25! ization was procuring the steam generator, obviously under L_
42 d r-9 1
- 10. CF.R Part 21 and had bsan lef t out and I&E discovered thic 2
and took appropriate action to get it put in.
But as to where 3
to cut it off, people are afraid of $5,000 and one thing that
-4 hr. Bradford mentioned about the public comments,there has 5
been a proposed change to the paper on enclosure 5, page 5 6
as submitted by the General Counsel which has been agreed to 7
by the Staff, and it says in there, " However, should public 8
comments of the members be received, the comments will be 9
considered by the Commission in due course."
10 MR. SHAPAR:
The question raised, though, was 11 whether or not you want to go one step further based on your 12 comment, Commissioner, and specifically invite comments and 13 provide a cut off period.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
My concern is something that 15 is as follows:
The problem here has been lack of clarity and 16 I gather there is some problem in the guidance, and maybe some 17 in the regulations.
Well, rather than put something out 18 immediately effective which may now seem clear to all of us, 19 would it be preferable to take a little more time and make 20 sure this time it is clear to all the people who are going to i
1 21 have to live with it as well?
And would we in fact be better j
22 off taking the extra time to have that assurance and deal 23 with such exemptions as might seem to become urgent in the 24 thirty days as exemptions?
p c dsrol Reporters, Inc.
I e
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
hhich is the direction I woulc l
6
43 dor 10
-1 go.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it's a possible course I 3, must say. - My own inclination, because the language is quite specific and the provision is quite narrowly drafted and seems 4
5 to be quite explicit and understandable, my own inclination 6
would be to make it immediately effect and suggest that any-7 body that's got further difficulties let us know and we will 8
take those up.
The reason is that you allow thirty days for 9
comment and it.will be sixty days after that before the 10 Commission gets around to acting.
So you are not looking at 11 thirty days, you are looking at three months which is the 12 substantial increment.
And Isthink you're going to have 13 a whole bloody flock of exemptions to process out there in-14 NRR that could be avoided by an immediate effectiveness.
and 15 then the invitation comment on the recognition that we may 16 indeed have to came back and do some cutting and trimming 17 later on, 18 But if you put it out for comment you are going to l
19 come back and cut and trim on it anyway.
You have already l
t i
20 assured that because you have to deal with the problem.
J 21 What I would suggest is that we make it immediately 22 effective and see if this rather explicitly drafted provision l
23 in fact solves enough of the implementation problems in hand 24 so that we don't have to.
j r dtrol Reporters, Inc. e 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you be willing to have
44 dor 11 1
ths notico cxplicitly ctato public commsnts ara invitsd?
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Absolutely, absolutely.
Because 3
I think you are quite right.
The public comment. aspect is
'mportant.
I'm just saying to avoid 'the exemption processing i
4
+
5 difficulties that I can foresee over the next three months, 6
I would prefer to see it an immediately effective rule, but 7
the public comment thing is certainly important and I would 8
indeed invite it, yes, indeed.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We don't have any procedure, 10 I gather, by which we can make a rule immediately effective 11 for an interim period?
12 MR. KELLEY:
You could.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As a normal practice though 14 that doesn't --
15 MR. KELLEY:
We haven ' t done it.
16 MR. MINOGUE:
Years ago the AEC did that a few 17 times.
That is not a good practice.
18 MR. SHAPAR:
You can put out an interim rule and 19 make it immediately effective, and you can also put out a 20 proposed rule and put it out for guidance, you can really do 21 about anything you want.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At that point you really 23 are in the same situation as if you just stamp granted on each 24 exemption request as it came in the door.
P 8 dsral Reporters. Inc.
e 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, but that's what making
I 45 dor 12 1
this rule immediately effective does.
2 COM!iISSIONER BRADFORD:
Exactly.
3 C HAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, for those exemptions that i
.4 fall under it.
Except that, as it stands now, in making the 5
exemptions Vic is going to have to do an individual hand toolinc i
6 operation on each one of what are now a dozen odd and may 7
very well become one hundred in a few weeks.
8 CO!1MISSIONER AREARNE:
What is the procedural 9
process?
Let's say we make it immediately effective and we 10 invite comments and in thirty days we have received X numbers 11 of comments with X being more than 10.
Let's say you guys 12 goofed again, this still isn't going to do it.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then the Staff comes back with 4
14 a paper, it comes back with 496A.
15 COM!-IISSIONER KENNEDY:
John's problem, then, is 16 of course,is there a. rule in place that's applicable.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Mall, the Staff just comes in 18l and says we want to change it.
19 COliMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To change the rule do you 20 then haveto go out with --
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Another immediately effective 22 ru le.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But there is no other form 24 of process that we can just keep on --
- e. dual Reponen, inc.
25 MR. S HAPAR:
You have your option.
Comments will tell
>46 m.
3, t
- e
. dor'13-1 you that you' need a further amendment to the rule.
Once you 2
decide that and.you could decide to go onthwith a proposed 3
further. amendment, orian immediately e'ffective further'
.4 amendment.
==
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So' hold the rule making or do 6
practically'any' thing you want.
7 MR.'SHAPAR:
Or decide the comments don't warrant 8
further changes.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I tell-you, my guess is that 10 with regard.to the specific thing that's dealt with in this 11 new set of words, I have a feeling these are going to be 12 specific enough, and the discussion here will be helpful if
~
13 people read the informal transcript so that the items that 14 clearly fall under it, I bet you won't have much problem. uith.
15 I think you are going to get comment on other aspects of Part 16 21 which do not fall under the language being discussed here 17 this morning.
1 18 But I think that's fair and proper.
It's a complex-
~
19 regulation and I think as we go on and try to live with it 20 why we are going to find-a lot of places where it doesn't 21 quite fit the intent.
But if this rule -- you know, if putting l
22 this~ piece of language out and inviting comment helps to 23 shake out some of those other comments, all the better.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So Joe you would be willing o* ; Cederal Reporters, Inc.
25 to goLfor asking for comment and.say thirty. days and cut off?
a
-47 i.
ldorjl4 1-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:- Absolutely, I think it's a good 2
idea.
3 MR. MINOGUE:
I think if we'got broader comments i
. it might be very useful.
, Thirty. days is probably not 4
in there,
'S 'enough. - We probably should tell them forty five days or sixty 6
days.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. What's our normal period?
8 Sixty ~ days?
9 MR. SHAPAR:
Sixty days is usual, yes.
'i 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we ask for sixty l
11 days?
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
'That's nothing, it could go 13 immediately effective,by relieving the immediate pressure H
14 you help yourselves in terms of allowing --
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'll go with that.
-16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sixty days?
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask one other questior
~18 about.what you are talking about here.
You say this will j
19 result in a diminution of the overall inspection. effort?
How
-20 'does that. work?
21 MR. CAMPBELL:
If one has to go and follow with the 22 inspection ef fort all ofuthe"way :down wherever 10 CFR 23 Part'21 is referenced, and you now take a bunch'of the lower
'24
-tier-suppliers lwhich we have defined as commercial grade-A se xain.ponen.ine.
l r
25 suppliers, we would no longer have-to routinely in advance
48 dor 15' I
by. planned inspection, have to go into them.
But wa would 2
still have 'the right and we would go into them on responsive 3
inspections.
,i
.4 For instance, the relay that Vic was talking about 5
has had some problems.
We would still be able to go into 6.the future relay maker that didn't have Part 21 invoked in it 7
in: rssponse ito reportscof *prdblems; i&) the lower tier people 8
would be carved out and there would be no need for planned 9
inspections.
I think it says it would decrease the requirement 10 for resources that are not presently available.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does that run contrary to 12 the GAO recommendations on our overall inspection effort?
13 MR. THORBURG No sir, I don't th' ink it does.
-i 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can you elaborate a little?
l 15 MR. THORBURG:
Well, I don' t believe in -- in the 16 first place I don't believe GAO addressed the lower tier 17 vendor, and they didn't really delve into the Part 21 aspect.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
thrry, didn' t they say we ought 19 to be more vigorous on construction inspection and on vendor 20 inspection meaning those obvious nuclear -- suppliers, first 21 tier?-
22 MR. THORBURG:
Yes, the ones that are doing nuclear 23
. work, I don't believe they really went to the sub-tier members,.
24
'COMitISSIONER AHEARNE:
In a way I would say that the M 8edsrol Repoders. Inc.
25 recommendation they are making would be more consistent in the I
y
,w..-
49 dor 16 1
sense that GAO's emphasir was on. focusing inspection recourcos 2
on a certain class of actions which are construction permits, 3
operating licenses, the vendors who directly manufacture the i
l-4 material.
And to take the inspectors away from things that 5
were other than that.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My next question was whether 7
in fact we are putting much inspection effort into this area 8
anyway?
9 MR. T HOR EURG :
No.
10 COMMISSIONER ERADFORD:
So what we are talking 11 about is a hypothetical reshuffling.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes it is.
It is also worth notinq 13 that the wording'that gives you the authority to go into these a-14 sub-tier suppliers S.uch authority as you have, is in the 15 Act itself.
It's not in Part 21.
16 MR. SHAPAR:
I have to respond to that.
It's in 17 the Act itself, but a couple of points need to be made.
18 Humber one, usually the Commission's regulatory 19 authority, including it's inspection authority, is tied to 20 people with licenses.
And you are envisaging now a situation 21 where the person would not be licensed. Indeed, D;of the: statute 22 does say this: "The Commissionis authorized to conduct such 23 reasonable inspections and other enforcement activities as l
24 needed to assure compliance with the provision of this section.
%rol Reporters, Inc.
25 i As stated, that's probably broad enough to get at these : people t
i
50 dor 17 1
who-are not licensees.
2 But on the other: hand it kind of flies against this 3
traditional interpretation of where the commission's regulatory i
,4 and inspection authority is.
It's probably good enough, but I'think it?s only fair.to state it's not entirely free from 5
6 doubt.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But with regard to the main 8
issue here, that's sort of a second one.
9 other comments on the proposal at hand?
10
. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just let me ask one question.
11 Bob, in your paper you have a phrase, this will result in less demand for the currently non-existent inspection resources.
12 13 (Laughter.)
14 Now are you trying to get across a second message?
i 15 MR. MINOGUE:
No, not so much as recognizing the situation that the agency faces throughout.
.The job sometimes 16 17 exceeds the resources to do it.
]
18 MR. THORBURG:
i To us it means we don't currently 1
do preventative inspections in this area, we don't go to 19 20 sub-tier vendors --(inaudible) 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that is equivalent to saying it will remove a demand that is right now not being 22
-l 23 met.
24f MR. THORBURG:
Right.
We are doing responsive
- w.rai neoor$.rs. ine.
25 inspections.
51 dor 18 1
MR. MINOGUE:
A better way to put what I think wa 2
would be driving at is the fact that given very limited 3
resources you ought to make sure you use them where you get l[
4 a high payoff in improving safety and not chasing after
~
5 peripheral stuff.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But since you are doing that 7
anyway, that in itself is not why we would be making this g
change.
9 MR. MINOGUE:
That's right.
COMMkSSIONER BRADFORD :
Whether we made the 10 11 change or not, the inspection would Otill not be going to 12 the lower tier --
13 MR. MINOGUE:
That's right, we try to be very
.i 14 responsive, but one of the questions that came up when the 15 Staff worked on this was implied and that was, would this 16 limit our inspection authority or whatever the issue that 17 Howard discussed a moment ago.
That wasn't one of the things 18 the Staff was concerned about.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could I propose -- does it seem 20 all right to you, Peter?
21 COM'!ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
22 C FAIRMAN IENDRIE:
Could I propose to the Commission 23 then, that we vote affirmatively on the following proposition:
f 24 That we accept the wording recommended by the Staff for i
- ederal Reporters. Inc.
25 immediate implementation in Part 21, and that the various
52 dor 19 1
notices and atatcm:nta of consideration as appropriata, and 2
so on, reflect an invitation by the Commission for public 3
comment on both this specific aspect of Part 21, and other 4 ' aspects as people may deem it desirable.
And that a sixty
'l I
5l day comment period be attached to this.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Agreed.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
'8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right. So ordered.
10 Before we close on this subject, I would like to 11 make a comment about Part 21, Section 206 of the Act.
In trying 12 to make sure that these facilities that we regulate are 13 properly and prudently and safely built and operated, we have e
14 a system with a variety of approaches to it.
The quality 15 assurance approach is one to specify quality components 16 and test them and make sure they are manufactured and delivered 17 and installed as specified.
18 Another approach to safety has to do with saying 19 well that!s well and good, but things can still happen.
Where 20 a safety function is necessary we will require redundancy so 21 that one whole set of these great components can perhaps go 22 awry and the safety function can still be fulfilled.
23 It seems to me that the provisions of the Energy 24! Reorganization Act in Section 206 add an additional attempt
- dirol Reporten, Inc.!
A s
25 ! to gather all possible resources in this direction in, and they I
i
53 dor 20 1
simply say, look psople who are aware of thoso componsnts, 2
who manufacture them, they have knowledge that the 3
operators of the plant would have,will know that something is
,i 4
wrong.
Please come and tell us so we can fix it and keep 5
these facilities as safe:as possible.
And then to put_a':little 6
teeth in it it says, and furthermore if you are a responsible 7
officer of the company and you know something we ought to know 8
and you don't tell us why it's worth SS,000 per item, or 9
whatever.
10 Now that seems to me not an unreasonable proposition 11 for the Congress to enact as part of a multiple layered 12 approach to the safety of these facilities. But I think also 13 the words substantial-sdfaty hazards, arecused a couple of 14 times in that law.
And I don' t think the intent of the l
15' Congress was for the Commission to Unplement a regulation 16 which reaches out into practically every commercial activity 17 in the nation and grab every citizen by the throat with Part 21, 18 damn it.
19 Ue have this multiple tiers, and the law says 20 substantial safety hazard.
And I think keepihg in mind that 21 general thrust of the Act, and not trying to carry it down 22 to every last salesman in the United States would be helpful 23l both in interpreting it on the industry side, and in implementing i
24:
it on the Staf f side.
- dstol Reporters. Inc. i e
25!
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
You've given me a chance i
I b
54 dor 21 1
to think of one more question.
2 (Laughter. )
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Good.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have we, in fact, had any
~
5 actions under this section?
Has anyone reported,anyth.i.ng.?
6 MR. CAMP BELL:
Yes, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
hhat sorts of things?
8i MR. CAMPBELL:
We have had 70 some, and I think I&E I
9 is prepared to answer any information on that.
How many 10 requests have we had?
11 MR. REINMUTH:
We have had 75 reports todate, 12 roughly 60 percent of them are in construction vendor 13 area.
40 percent in the operating facilities.
The rest in
=
l 14 safe guards material area.
15 We have had no fines to date.
16 COM!!ISSIONER BRADFORD:
How many of those reports 17 have come from areas that would be -- that would not have been 18l reported if the new regulation had been in force?
19l MR. REINMUT H:
We ll, I can speak only for those 20 that come in on construction provision.
Those are the ones 21 I've seen.
About half of them have come from licensees, and 22 about the other half from vendors directly.
23l MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, but that doesn' t answer it.
24 Cote!ISSIONER BRADFORD :
That doesn't quite give me r tarrai 9.oorters, inc.
25 ! the same cut I was looking for.
l 1
55
,,i ;
der 22 1
MR. PERANIC H:
I sort of anticipated this question l.
2 last night.
If I understood it correctly what you are asking, 1
3 of the reports we have received which are those that would fall under the. category of commercial grade item which we have 4
i received?
Okay, we have a computer run here and a review of 5
that indicates that we have 15 reports which will fit the 6
7 category of commercial grade items.
Of these 8 w'ere. supplied 8
by -- or submitted by vendors, 7 by licensees.
Of the 8 submitted.by vendors, 7 of those would be classified as major 9
10 nuclear suppliers that would be dedicating the use of a 11 commercial grade item for a basic component.
One, only one 12 is from a nut and bolt type manufacturer which would be the 13 type we would hope to capture from the supplier or the
-l 14 purchaser of the line.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you have any -- does the j
16 readout give any indication of what the merit of that one was?
37 liR. PERANIC H:
Yes, it was f ailure to meet an 18 ANSI spec, tensile spec for a bolt.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We'd expect to pick that up 20 at the dedicated supplier level.
21 MR. PERANICH:
We would excect that:- the purchaser
-22 would review his purchase documentation with respect to the 23i strength analyses to have picked that up.
24 COft1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Had he in fact done so, or
,ostol Reportern Inc.f 2
25 would it have been too early to tell?
h P.
n
56 e.'.*
a der 23' 1
MR. PERANICH:
It would have baan too early --
2 actually the way I understand it occurred, it was brought to 3
the attention of the purchaser who said it could be reportable 4
under Part 21, and the supplier elected to reportLit-5 In the system that we have --
i 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In any event, the purchaser 7
in such a case
.would have been obligated to report it.
8 MR. PERANICH:
Once the purchaser became aware, he 9
could not say I think we should report it.
He would have to 10 report it.
11 MR. SHAPAR:
But if it had been reported by the 12 nut manufacturer, the statute says the subsequent guy doesn't 13 have to report it if he has factual knowledge that the division i
14 knows about it.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So am I correct in under-16 standing the two of you to say we have 70 some reports only 17 one of which would be eliminated by the change?
l 18 MR. PERANIC H:
Could be, we think would be captured 19 by the higher --
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But it would not be reported 21 by the person who, reported it.
22 MR. PERANICH:
We have llout of 75.
23 MR. KELLEY:
Can I add a comment to this for 24 information?
Since this regulation has been in place a year A<
'edsrol Reporters. Inc.
25, plus, I have had a lot of requests for ooinion of the i
j
57 do 4
1 General Councol gn the m2aning of this regulation.
And I 2
just want you to know I am not answering my mail in that
! regard.
The Commission's regulations talked of General Counsel.* s 3
- [
opinions, and,the beauty of the General Counna.1's opinioni
~
m 4
5 is that it -- (Inaudible.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It does,or it doesn't?
7 MR. KELLEY:
Yes, it does.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Good heavens.
I 9
MR. S HAPAR:
Only as to law, e
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Be careful what you say.
11 MR. EILLEY:
What I have done uniformly is send 12 it out to ELD that's been developing, working with reg guards --
13 MR. SHAPAR:
We'll say anything but it doesn't bind 14 you.
15-MR. KELLEY:
But I am getting to a point now where, 16 the NUREG document came out some time ago, right?
And my 17 more recent mail is in the form of appeals from the.NUREG i
18 ! documents still asking for General Counsel's opinions and I l
19l just feel that these letters I answer, and I've answered 20 a few, and I've said this is a very fact dependent complicated 21 regulation that needs some working up.
We don' t think it's
- 22. an appropriate way -- and the General Counsel's opinion we
[
\\
23 don't see as an appropriate answer.
I'm not saying we'd l
i 24l never get-a request that wouldn't be appropriate, but I have
~
l h *,deral Reporters. Inc. !
25j been treating them that way thus far for that reason.
And I 3
l
r 58
, < >. d, dor 25 1
think it's the way to back and fill with this kind of complicated 2
scheme, is the way it's been done here and we should continue 3
to'do that.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have a generic question, 5
John, I think we should ask at the end of each meeting whether 6
there is anyone out there who thought of questions the 7
Commission should have asked.
8 (Laughter.)
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Only if they have answers.
10 All right.
Nothing further?
Thank you very much, 11 it's a useful morning.
The Commission will meet immediately 12 in the Conference Room.
13 (Whereupon, on 11:30 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
- dsrul Reporters, Inc, A
e 25
!