ML20148G930

Transcript of 781102 Joint Meeting of Comm & ACRS Full Comm.Discussion Items Included Announcement of New Members, Protec of ACRS Consultants from Appearance at Hearings, Proposal to Apply to Crac Code for Eval of sites,pp1-37

ML20148G930
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/02/1978
From:	Bradford P, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811130302
Download: ML20148G930 (38)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:w cy n, ;p! y m. > ;~. s, c ~..- y h d~y y w ',, gg tij : g w p%y;%;9 +f 'N y ; g my x. w - : . yla!

4.,. - q wu c

...o c - : ? ? w u i n. + s , 'u, 4 ! . s i G &q,,y :aJ m r. ' M 'L M ,m ~

. t.?

'.' n .,. h;r y' r

• n

. u.t t.m;j ^@ a - <, 'i P M'.jc? %i t + j$K s ' d:i, !s ' v10 ' ?M ' 1 al , ' Q.,. $ #. W 4 p. D ,e j) c. i ~g. p. ; - .. g m. g j re,,, g.., ;,s s s . y< e, ts p c. < c + N, ,. q c .g - i!J kg y y ' .y y, Om ';

V,% " "

a e r f s ide A,'i * <

n., n;s S k.

i if t s r,i t ..cs t,' ' r 4 ..c. 'j-. T ) '[ [ '.., j < s ) r .;f[ n 'd g" 5 5 jf . y., ,4, ( a >.... ye s -n is .. u r x',..- n' f. . i' P' l. \\ I l -rn. j ,k

' 1 h E,

?,,s .t~ , 3, : -, r ,91 p 4 5 i }.' - 5 b W m,' ' pq, 'M,O C L E A R[R E G d L AT O R YK C O MM'IS S I O Nt m 1 4 f j. i D, + y* c '. v. ..a ) .9-

U. J v,

3 a> v . ly cq r la Y.J - g e .,.c i 1 x j 4 1 b ,.(.', I ' J 4 i.,, I I y -2 '. t i i c1. x 4 .r'<,y 4 3 s ',4N 7 g_. }.' [ . ) / m' y i i s fg ( i .4) ' " " 3 .8 t : %p.'.d g,, ia g ;-

9 p y ;' rms,,

.a a? i. I t. SIN]HE MATTER:OFi .) y e o r l 5 l s m 1 , 40 INT / MEETING WITH'CRSTFULL COMMITTEE A Lc ( ,. 4

r..

) f.7. 'V, i . yl..

's.

I '1 t i ~ n s t r

i 5l;> l j p c

f, r' - ) - 3. j - e n. r I 1, i: '.. s, . L,,: c'.* L4 13 at +p, ,y. 1 5 t e ,.'p,"- _ l '. i, . i. vu > ~,, ,r 9 j s', j; P1 ace y i Washington,'JD2 C.- u n , [Dotej, jhursday d2fNo'vember 1978 pa g. 1._ j7 / 1 g .r e-g 5; ' /, L I et sj f,i .j, -,t ,a ^g ,.s I ^ ~ F j y y

• q,

,,g is, ).> l p y ',,, i y 1 'I i, J ..l.- t r p 1 g g' fi f m. y 3: m1 , ' d?

(202)347 3700 3

/ . o.$ V.t, E '? ( ' 'a. " y s i t ; NE.l , ; l} l \\.s ~ '..i .,..r. t c.(7 M/ j,< '-., i vi ,... 't.,[ 3 ;. 4 +W.jp{ L. ([.+,, /,...... 1. tf a i y f, v, +J " ACE f F, EDER.Q R J .. AL REPOR.TERS,INC. i gm.f.,yJ}lg.. s ff..w'Us.'c:-}, s& Jf ' g ~ W

g. ~ lp.

epNten, N }g w 7 I;- [ / ,Ib I^ .-[, j. M,.,, ,n.F.l'% lA M,, iNorth',, C'. hops,te)3, t_reetJ M-I .,I l j g 3,. l. J'* &( '. N,: s ]M :+ y' ( SQ c a".,.. .N .,;; w;g "w y gggyl J, 9: . y l q \\gg. ,.1-s .3'.n., q,. v/ f: j'4-is ,w wTo 'd ti5 .. o...-..,t' ,g>I h 'p'l .o, < j '.. +. a. ~ ,t-E X iu v .m Sl[ J}' I - I,,. - A ' (4j -p p dji. .f- ,,g, ', 4 .\\;, J'Lff- y i ? 'st ''"ii="'0 4 4 "l h, hell!nl4%AMiddaCOW D M MG*d .,,, ] N c 7, g

.aa:,;;y.-~

, ~

..;4 =

2. -. : u,

,.. a e 1 1 f ,-o i . DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of fhe United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 2 November 1978 in the Commission's offices :at 1717. H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. Th'is transcript has not been' reviewed, corrected, or e,dited, and it may contain inaccuracies. .O.' The transcript is intended s'olely for general informational purposes." As-provided by 10 'CFR 9.103, it is 'not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do. not necessarily reflect final determinations or' G . beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission m any proceeding as the result' of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. i ] i h i $.J is. 4 9 i ih' ' :N _.j, .u. ..c.

w.,

_..#o.., m u .,,,_,..mmy, ,m., ,my-,.

2 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRll38 'WHITux% 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION barb 3 JOINT MEETING WITH ACRS FULL COMMITTEE ( 4 5 6 7 8 9 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W. 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Thursday, 2 November 1978 12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., .O is scroat: 14 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 15 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER.A. BRADF'RD, ' Commissioner O 17 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 ALSO PRESENT: 19 DR. STEPHEN LAWROSKI DR. MAX W. CARBON 20 MR. MYER BENDER MR. HAROLD ETHERINGTON 21 DR. HERBERT ISBIN PROF. WILLIAM KERR 22 DR. J. CARSON MARK I, 3) DR. DADE W. MOELLER f 23 DR. DAVID OKRENT DR. MILTON PLESSET 24 MR. MATHIS, WILLIAM MR. JEREMIAH RAY oneck Reportrng Company 25 DR.' PAUL G. SHEWMON DR. JACOBS

I 2A-s-

CRll38 1

PROC'EEDINGS WHITLOCK- ['"7 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commission is pleased this bl s-3 morning to be able to meet, as we do from time to time with n() -4 the ACRS; I would note, assembled this morning in full majesty 5 of statutorily established number for the first time in how 6 long? Quite awhile. 7 I was dismayed that having achieved full enrollment, '8 you are you are going to under-strength again. Dr. Ishin is 9 going to go back and stay in Minnesota again for awhile, I 10 guess. ~ll DR. ISBIN: Right. 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We will be sorry to see you [. 13 leave, Herb, I must say. 14 We want to, in particular, welcome the latest member 15 to the Committee, Mr. Jeremiah Ray. We are glad to see you. 16 .And the second newest member, Mr. William Mathis. 17 The Commission welcomes both of you, 18 And I guess we haven't had a joint meeting since the 19 -beginning of' August, and so the Commission is pleased that we 20 have our fifth commissioner, Commissioner Ahearne, so that we 21 are both at least temporarily at full strength. 22 That suggests that we ought to do something both m I(i 23 and decisive in the regulatory field before one or another of 24 our bodies gets under-strength again. Ar'"jeral Reportars, Inc. \\' 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Wh,at do you'have in. mind? o I

a ., l t t l f-qg y m 28

p

'os - 4 4 1 NLaughter.) CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

As'a'~ matter of fact --

] j,r-t

2, 1

n. g);.

3 (Laughter.-)- 1 i 75 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am sure'somebody wil'1'think of 4-M L5 somethinglandithere will be'no. lack of suggestions. c C 6- . Well,fwe have.an agenda.whibh" runs to seven sections 7 on which'I.have made'a few comments,.with-regard to the frist i 8 one. -9 Steve, why don't you go ahead and pick up the' thread i 10 and:let us work our way down"this list as far as time and our-o b 11 strength permits us-to go, at least. . 12 .DR. LAWROSKI: Very good. 13 Let'me on behalf'of'the Committee express our pleasure 14 at seeing you fully recovered once again this year. It has not 15 'been exactly your best year,-Mr.-Chairman. We hope the rest . 16 ,of ~ the year and the years to come will be considerably better. 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know whether that i's your ~ 18 fault. After all, it happened-during your administration, you ' 19 see. In some sense I hold you responsible. 20 DR. LAWROSKI: But you were outside the District -- 21 (Laughter.) 22 'Let:me, before we start with the agenda, express al=o [- . 23 thel Committees pleasure to meet once again with the Commission. 'As you:said, we have not' met with you since August, and since 24 ,l A Irst Reporters, Inc. 9i. e 25 -thatl time,'.a' number of issues have come'up about which we ]:I L i e p 4, ...t k-

~.,.. , e ,, ) :- -, i 1 Q ll,. .cu 12 Ci 11 Twouldflike to:have some discussion's with you) j t r L2 The firstl item'.has already'be'en dea'lt with; namely, '3 'theLannouncements-of the:the new members in the Commission'as L4 cwell~as'thoselon the' Commit' tee. 5 .The next item is that'of,.I guesc a recurring matter, t 6 ~ namely, the desi're7to* compel appearance of the ACRS consultants '7 . before.; ASLB. hearings. E 8-There is pertinent information related to this mat-9 ter under tab 2. 1 10 Mr. Chairman, we' reiterate our previously expressed l'1 . position on this~ matter; namely, that the Committee prefers L 12 that.our consultants not be required to appear at.the' hearings.' i 7. 13 And.I sho'uld like to summarize briefly some of'our 14 feelings for. feeling so. We do appreciate the recoanition 15 l accorded our consultants as implied by this. request. But per-- 16 ~ haps we iwould ' prefer that anything further ought' to ston rictht ' 17 'there, from our point of view. 18 First of all,.we are aware that the NRC has a regula-19 ' tion that protects the compeling'the appearances of NRC Staff, 20 .or'its1 consultants before.the' hearing' boards, unless the- ' 21. People:already de' sign'ated by the NRC from its Staff and con-422 sulta'nts do not ha've all of the information that some individual fX .23 and the consultant,.or another ACRS staff member can only a. ,m.. s. (24 l furnish. iA si Reorte'rs, Inc, 7 [25 x.s ; g i.- s t i . -y 4 'h," t?{9ll

_pl 6

i ,.6u ...r

l 3' c (Beginnings of hearing [taken. byLCommission's reporter.) 34.

:I '

(Rll38! DR'..lIAWBOSKI : We feel the. ACRS consultants are 'to be U -2 l tape l1 . accorded similar protection. 3 daje&dl7 .CHAIRMANLHENDRIE: Can I read from that the D-[ 4 committee 1 view thrt;on occasion one of your consultants 5 might(ben the. sole possessor of some piece of knowledge that 6 'is--important in' adjudication and in'some cases might' be t 7 called, Lor wo'uld Lyou feel that even' in that case his O ~ report which is publicly available should speak for him? DR. LAWROSKI: Since we cannot say what may 0 ensueLinva hearing, I would - that thedocument would be 11-' available to the public, and it should' stand at that, because' -12 we cannot assure him or ourselves'that the hearing might I3 1 .take the course'of' developing entirely.new information 14 - thattwe'ourselves, for example, or that -as a result of 15 his appearance in unfairness in the eyes of the public I 16 will have developed because someone else who might refute 17 his position'was not called upon by the board. 18 However, I would like to ask Mr. Bender to 19 elaborate further on that. 20 MR., BENDER: There are shades of, viewpoint among theLcommittee members. The' view that I have goes (. -something'like this. The committee considers all.of '23 . the information:that it can receive including that-from i '24 .its[ Consultants. ~ The consultants-do;not.always represent,the: poe-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 1 ftotal-knowledgefwhicht the committee hasL onL any subjects,- 'l. i e 4

4 j david 2 and in many cases we use-consultants to balance out the 2 committee's: view. j At the sante time it is a collegial type of discussion, and consequently when a position is reached 5 by the committee, it normally takes into account everything i 6 that is available to it. -l The presumption that a consultant could then 8 come to the hearing board and provide some supplemental 9 information that would be an interpretive part of the i 10 committee's opinion is, I think -- violates the opinion of 11 collegial judgment that the committee relies on. That is why I object to.having consultants O N,e 13 appear. 14 DR. LAWROSKI: Further, as I think the record of 15 the committee shows, the committee has frequently on 16 difficult questions obtained a -- the advice of a large l number of consultants representing a spectrum from one who 18 is extremely conservative over to the other end of the 19 spectrum, and we listen to all of these people after which 20 the. committee formulates its judgment and reports to you. 21 That report to you may be at variance with any 22 - r')s of the consultants, and since it'is possible that the (_ 23 consultants for one reason or another would be highly 24 i sa:F::derst Reporters,'inc. . selective'on:a'particular point of the spectrum, depending on 25 L -the three parties involved in those hearings, one could fd'

= n 5 Bavid3 of course get an impression on the part of the public 2 that would have been quite different had all of our 73 consultants had similar opportunities. () 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do I gather that both 5 your concern and your concern (indicating) is that it 6 would. essentially be impossible to disassociate the 7 consultant from the ACRS and the consultant would not be 8 a fair representative of the ACRS view and the 9 spearation would be impossible to be made? 10 l DR. LAWROSKI: I don't h ve a problem with that. 11 When we formulate our opinions, we do so without the 12 presence of the consultants. /~T kl PROFESSOR KERR: If I were answering your 14 question, my answer would be yes. 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Thank you. 16 DR. LAWROSKI: Thank you, Bill. 17 (Laughter.) 18 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I recognize the phenomena. 19 I guess the view -- go ahead. 20 DR. LAWROSKI: One more matter is the fact that 21 we are also concerned that the availability of our (~)/ consultants might be affected adversely if they were m.. 23 obliged to appear at the hearings for ~easons of having to 24 devote more time than they find conveniently available or terwee Reponni, inc. 25 for other reasons,-such as the fact that the compensation l

.., ~ -.. _..... ~... } 6 . david 4 that you allow'us to give to the consultants are not the same.as those that they might.get had they been mployed by someone other than the ACRS, and therefore, 3 they would'be less willing to accept the hassle that comes at these hearings. COMMISSIONER BRADORD: Is there anything that forecloses them from appearing now if they themselves want to? 8 Supposing somebody had been a consultant with the ACRS and was then asked by a party to testify? DR. LAWROSKI: I don't think we have any authority to keep them from appearing, except possibly L that that -- they may not get additional opportunities. (Laughter.) I don't think that we have the authority to i prevent them if any individual chooses. I believe it stands at'that., 18 I have some feeling, having been on the g committee years ago, I have some feeling for the problems. Let.me ask, John,if you have questions. Peter? 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Not I. 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No. .g hee Federal Reporters, Inc, ~ g r

7 ' I avid 5. arise, it.seems'to me, run along the following lines: the ) 2 - calling the person to testify at a hearing because they 3 c. were an ACRS consultant, it seems to me, leads pretty 4 clearly to the conclusion that the interest in that 5 person's testimony is in delving into the portion that 0 he contributed to the ACRS review and to the information 7 available to the committee and discussed by you an.d 8 related matters. 9 I guess to that extent it is -- can amount to 10 a selective probing and laying out of only a portion of the II matters that went into the committee's collegial judgment 12 and regarded in that way is objectionabh in the same 13 sense that cal 2.ing a committee member in to give his Id view of the committee's decision on the matter, we have 15 long since decided, would be very -- would be destructive 16 of the committee's ability to come to fair collegial 17 judgments. 18 The Commission has before it assorted papers on 19 the matter. We will be closing with the issue someplace down the-line. 21 We appreciate the chance to hear -- hear your 22 ,G views directly. %) 23 DR. OKRENT:- Let me inject a slightly different 24 flavor. 'I do certainly think that ACRS consultants should pce F:darel Reporters,'ine,

25 not be~usbject to.sub'poenaLfor a couple of reasons.

One is -- y-4 4 u 7-pes >f +y---

8 david 6 a practical one is that I think we would be-unable to 2 .get certain very good consultants if that were the case. {} I am a little less persuaded by some of the arguments that 4 I hear that if selected ACRS consultants were to testify S on a. voluntary basis that this would be prejudicial and 6 my thinking goes like this: I don't find the applicant 7 brings in a whole spectrum arguing both for and 8 against his case. 9 I don't find that the NRC staff brings in' a 10 whole group of consultants arguing for and against their 11 case when they talk to the ACRS. 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: At least not deliberately. -s(-) 13 DR. OKRENT: At least not deliberately, yes. 14 So if there is a situation where consultants are willing to 15 testify as individuals and not to try to represent the 16 ACRS opinion in any way, I have to presume that there are 17 other people who can. talk about otner sides of the same 18 question and a fair hearing can be presented in the ASLB 19 hearing. 20 In other words, I don't see why it leads to a 21 prejudiced situation. j'N 22 (,) CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don' t know that it would lead 23 necessarily,to a prejudicial situation. I think that to 24 the extent the discussion -- that what is of interest in l Ace Federst Reporters, Inc; 25 l theLconsultant's appearance is the committee decision process. p

9 I david 7 .Then I.think it gets into an area where one 2 would want to think very carefull'y before one went forward 3 with that, because that matter is then considered within g \\si 4 the committee and the Commission sort of several times 5 over the matter over the years, and it has been clear that 6 I that would be a destructive sort of position. 7 PROFESSOR KERR: .I think it would sound 8 arrogant if the committee takes the position that here is 9 a consultant that is perhaps the only person in the world i 10 that can speak with authority and knowledge on the subject and 11 we want to deny this man's view from the hearing board. 12 We would be reluctant to do this, I believe. On 13 the other hand, it seems to me that Mr. Ahearne puts the 14 question rather well. If a consultant has consulted 15 for the committee on a particular question, he is called 16 to testify. It is difficult to separate his testimony 17 I from the decision of the committee;in so far as this 18 introduces ambiguity in the process, we are concerned. 19 one, therefore, has to try to decide which of 1 the two is an overriding' consideration. I believe that we 21 have concluded that we are ' concerned that one individual }{} not be used'as.a way of expressing out view. We have tried 23 l to express that. 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's try.the next item. % Foneret Reporters, inci 25 DR. LAWROSKI: All right. This has to do with the I' w..

il 10 I i I Ldavid8 proposal to apply the CRAC Code for evaluation of ultimate .2 sites. 3 I will call upon Dr. Moeller who is chairman 4 t of the subcommittee for radiological effects and siting i i evaluation, which committee has dealt with this subject. DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 7 Mr. Chairman, during our meeting with you in 8 I August, we reported in a preliminary way some of the thoughts I that we had concerning the CRAC Code. Subsequent to our i 10 l meeting, we prepared a letter of August the 8th, 1978 which 0 11 we reported in a formal way as a committee on this subject; j k 12 in that letter we pointed out that the studies thus far that show that the CRAC Code can show additional understanding { 14 of the impact on the public health of accident consequences 15 I exceeding the limits of 10 CFR 100. I 16 At the same time, however, we pointed out that i 17 there are many factors influencing the application of the 18 Code that have an important bearing on the computational results but which the Code does not address, in our 20 opinion, adequately. 21 I These included topics such.as regional I <s-22 t, ).. meteorology, plume, geometry and effluent particles size 23 distribution. In addition, for some of the members of 24 EcdFmeret Reporters, Inc, the committee, perhaps all of us, we felt that it was 25 does not address ji rather important to~ note that the Code I

- p 11 ' david 9 the beh'avior-of the radionuclides prior to their release, ~ end 1-that is, their behavier within containment. ~3 O -'V 4 5 i 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 /q 13 v 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . < 24 Mce Federsi Reporters, Inc. 25 l ,}._'. I m-w r wexr-r 4-Pt=

CR.ll30 s-BW:jwb-12

1. 2 I

Because of these limitations, the Committee 2 ' recommended that caution be exercised in the use of the code. 3 In addit.icn, though, because we believe that the code has many (n_) 4 useful applications and can be an extremely helpful tool,.we 5 recommended that efforts be continued to develop improved input 6 data for the code. 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I share some of your concerns, i 8 and I have underlined the statement that the Committee recom-9 mends caution in the use of the code as a determining basis -l 10 for-judgment in alternative site evaluations. II I thi nk that is a f air warning. It seems to me that 12 the staff is exercising a fairly light touch in this regard. 13 Harold, would you like to comment, very briefly? (~)g 14 MR. DENTON: We have only used the CRAC Code in i 15 two instances, and we used it in those cases in a relative 16 comparison. It was not the sole basis for the conclusions l 17 ultimately reached. 18 We share the Committee's concerns about the code. 19 - At present, there are no pending applications that would require 20 its use, so perhaps we can improve its capabilities before we 21 have to actually'use'it again. 22 DR. MOELLER: We understand, Mr. Chairman, that the .f 23 staff.is working to continue to improve the code. 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you have any specifics on Ace Feotrol Reporters, Inc. 25 what data ought to be concentrated on? What efforts should be l

2-2 jwb 13 1 made to improve it? 2 DR. MOELLER: In particular, the meteorology of the 3 code has been brought into question by not only the staff but A!) 4 the consultants that the staff has called in to look at it. 5 The meteorology is good, so we understand, for a flat desert i 6 site, but if you go to a river valley, or a plant located on 7 a body of water, then there.are many problems with it. l 8 Also, in the application of the code in the past, 'it 9 has been used to go to quite great distances from the site -- 10 I mean, in terms of hundreds of miles -- and most of the 11 meteorological experts that we have discussed the matter with 12 tell us that it is perhaps good out to 25 or 50 miles -- say ,e3 13 10s of miles -- and you need to develop a new model if you want (> 14 to carry it to greater distances. 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Steve? Other discussion? I 16 don't want to cut anybody off, on either the Committee side, and 17 certainly not the Commission's side. 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIRMAN HENDR1E: I thought I sensed the necessary 20 five-second slience. 21 DR. LAWROSKI: The next item has to do with the 22 response to the ACRS 's recommendations by the staff. And in /~'; \\- 23 this regard, we wish to call to your attention that there has 24 been a certain amount of slowness about which the Committee is i Ace Federsi Reporters, Inc. 25 unhappy _in this regard. 13

2-3 jwb 14-1 For example, about two years ago the Committee made 2 a recommendation that there be included on the BWRs recircula-3 tion pump trips. It took about two years for the staff to begin i) r 4 to send the letters stating the criteria for this. 5 Our letter on this matter was sent on March 12th, 6 1976,.and letters finally to the BWR licensees from the NRC 7 staff didn't go out until May of 1978. 8 DR.'ISBIN: What item are you on? 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He has gone ahead to 5. 10 DR. LAWROSKI: I'm sorry. I skipped 4. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's go ahead to 5, and we will 12 step back one item. 13 DR. LAWROSKI: I beg your pardon. 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You were doing that so beau-15 tifully, we wouldn't want to interrupt you. 16 DR. LAWROSKI: Another example was our letter 17 relative to the operating license for Davis Besse Unit 1 in 18 which there were some 9-or-so outstanding items, and only a 19 part of one has been resolved -- although our letter went out 20 on January 14th, 1977, for the OL on Davis Besse Unit 1. 21 We are concerned that this case is much too slow, 22 not only from the standpoint of the Committee's viewpoint, but '1 Ns' 23 also that of the public which has been repeatedly expressing 24 it on various occasions -- the slowness with which generic items. Ace Federd Reporters, Inc. 25 are being dealt with my the NRC. I I l

.2-4cjwb-15: 1 I just wish to reiterate our concern again at this 2 meeting that something be done to get ahead on this matter a ~3 little more rapidly. - (') 4 \\/ We could cite further examples -- [ 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commission has been concerned 6 about the -- our ability to deal in an expeditious manner with 7 many of the generic issues. And I suspect that certainly the l 8 recirculation pump trip is part of what has been an ongoing '1 9 discussion of ATWS' matters dating back to many years, a decade. j And I suspect that some of the matters in your letter on Davis 11 Besse Unit 1 also are generic-issue matters. 12 Staff has been attempting to focus its attention on () that list of items to put some evaluation on the ones which 14 have a particularly cutting edge from a safety standpoint, 15 which others might fall into a category, and which would be 16 considerably less effect, overall, on the safety level of plants. 17 Those things turn out, by and large, to be diffi-18 cult to move along and to achieve what one can regard as a final resolution, apparently. And I am not happy with the 20 state.of progress, but the staff is working on it. 21 Would you like to comment, Harold? 22 MR. DENTON: In '79, we do intend to assign resources 23 to - let me just talk about Davis Besse, for example. I think 24 about two-thirds of the issues there are what we call " generic- ' Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 . issues," and we hope in '79 to assign dedicated reviewers to 2.._...._, m

2-5~jwb:

16 I work on the generic issues -- the top generic issues -- such 2 as ATWS- ~ 3 Part of our problem is the full range of generic I) 4 issues -- ranging from things that are necessary that the staff 5 work on,.and some are merely desirable. We do hope to focus -6 our efforts in '79 and move out and resolve many of the top 7 issues. 8 It should be recognized that seme of the generic 9 issues -- including, perhaps, one on Davis Besse -- has a very 10 low priority in our current scheme, and there would be some 11 tune-for completely resolving those. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: For my own part, I would like 13 to say: there has been an effort on the part of the staff for 14 a long time, as you well know, to address these issues. The 15 problem has been, at least from my perspective, that there has 16 not been the clear, unquestioned dedication of a given number 17 of people to those tasks. 18 The consequence has been obvious. They have fallen 19 to the lowest level of priority, and usually fallen out. I thinX 20 the important thing that Harold has said here is that there is 21 .a clear commitment on the part of the staff to the Comn.i.ssion, 22 .one which I1am following closely as the staff well knows; that 23 there shall in fact be dedicated personnel working on these 24 problems with an attempt to resolve them at an early.date; and ActFedsrai R+ porters, Inc. 25 that'.is a step, I think, in.the right direction -- a step in -I

2-6'jwb!

V 17 1 the direction that you 'are seeking. 2 DR. LAWROSKI: We are welcomed to hear those words. 3 -We will be awaiting eagerly the results therefrom. (f

4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY

That is a different question. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Questions? 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My only comment would be that, 8 like Commissioner Kennedy, I am very interested in getting a 9 resolution of those issues. I will be asking for the -- I 10 . will be hoping the Commission will explicitly address those 11. procedures that are underway, and the status of where they all 12 are. (*g 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could I ask Harold: Do you 's) 14 provide -- you have such a status report? And we have gone 15 over that two or three times, over the past six months, in 16 terms of arranging the priority list and all of the rest. 17 Have.you provided this to, and discussed it with, the Committee? 18 MR. DENTON: I have discussed it in general terms. l 19 We hope -- perhaps it has already occurred -- to provide.them 20 with a detailed prioritization and meet with the subcommittee 21 in the very near future. q 22 DR. LAWROSKI: It was just.last month, and it was a .[' '-) l 23 very general manner in which it was addressed, as he just I 24 pointed out.- Aw Feeral Rumrters, Inc. -j 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He now indicates they are

2-7ejwb: 18 .' 7 1 ~ 1 going to get.more specific. 2 DR. LAWROSKI: .Yes, sir. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's talk about dynamic loading. ()' 4 .D R. LAWROSKI: Yes, sir, i 5 I will ask Mr. Bender to discuss this. He has had 6 a long, continuing' interest in this -- although so did y Dr. Siess. Unfortunately, Dr. Siess has not yet'gotten to the 8 meeting. We will expect him to be present -- 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Since he has become a Professor 10 Emeritus, we don't expect him to come right at the beginning. i 11 DR. LAWROSKI: Is that right? i 12 (Laughter.) -13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What advantage is there in being O 14 emeritus if you don't have prerogatives like that? 15 MR. BENDER: Mr. Chairman, I think I know where my 16 future should lie. 17 (Laughter.) 18 MR. BENDER: To provide a little history for the 19 benfit of people who may not remember, in the piping systems 20 of nuclear power plants we require that the design treatment 21 include the loads that may occur when a pipe breaks, and also 22 to deal with the loads that may arise due to an earthquake. A.() 23 The question that has come up of late, but perhaps 24 has focused of-late,'has to do with how to combine loads; and ke Fed: ret Reporters, Inc. 25 .whether one should consider. the loads associated with an ~ ] i b

1 2-8:jwb. 19 earthquake at the same ' time that one considers the loads 2 associated with a pipe break. 3 If one concluded that the pipe break was in fact to be caused by an earthquake, it would be logical to say that 4 you should combine the. loads in some form. The f act that we 3 are Presently designing the piping systems so that they will 6 not break under earthquakes. leads some people to argue that 7 pr bably you shouldn't combine the loads. 8 In fact, there was a time in history when the NRC 9 took such a position in its regulatory approach. That is not 10 jj the case at present, however. We are presently dealing with the possibility that an earthquake may cause a pipe break, 12 and therefore the load should be combined. 13 V The question still arises as to how to combine these jg loads, when to combine them, and under what circumstances. 15 1 One of the things that has become evident in recent months 2.s 3 16 l that if one takes the worst pipe break'and compounds it with l j7 ) the worst earthquake moment loads, that the combination of l 18 39 loadings gets to be very severe, and the required design treat-ment of itself creates certain safety questions associated 20 21 . with whether the integrity of the system is better protected when you get to such monstrous kinds of structural restraints. 22 S me of us -- I and others, perhaps not on this 23 24 committee but in other places -- have the feeling that perhaps Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 xusing the worst earthquake in combination with the worst pipe l' l I

.2-9 jwb' 1 20 break represents a rather severe kind of combination, the likelihood of which is perhaps ' fairly low. And if one wants 1 2 l 3 to combine loads, it may not be appropriate to take the worst j i ~ (). 4 conditions and add them together. { t S 'What is suggested, then, is that one perhaps ought j i l to dea 3 with the matter probabilistically. So far, I think 6 that the staff has tended not to do this, because certainly 7 I their position 'is conservative. in the sense that it deals with l 8 the worst loads. 9 At the same time, very little consideration has 10 11 been given to what difficulties are imposed by such structural 12 requirements; whether the reliability of the structures are well understood; and whether in fact we get everything that we r 13 ej-end #2 are paying for. ja 15 16 l 17 18 19 l 20 .I 21 .j 22 y(' 23 24 f hee-Federat fleporters, Inc. 25 l ,.]

,) ~ ' CR 113'8 :- 21' .WHITLOCK-The applicants would prefer not to have this require-l t-3'mte ? 2 . ment. imposed ' on them. Our position really is that the staff 3 ought to' take a very careful look at the' matter of when to ) combine the loads, how they should be combined, because there 4 1 5 are' views that say you can combine the loads probabilistically 6 and other ways than by the position of the most extreme condi- .i 7 'tions, and to look at the circumstances when such loads should l 8 be considered. J i 9 I think I will stop there and ask the Committee if J 10 anybody wants to expand on the points I have just made. I 11 (No response.) ) 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Comments from the Commission side? 1:) (No response.) 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : Let me note, as I recall the 15 history of those affairs, it seems to me that when the first 16 steps were taken to require that LOCA and earthquake loads be i 17 considered together on a design basis, that the proposition was 18 rather more that one was looking for some fairly conservative 19 structural design basis; that the proposition was not that the 20 events.were causally related and thus locked together in the -21 load combinations required, 'but rather, that the staff was 22 looking for a conservative design basis for structures and one \\-l 23 which scaled, a little bit, at least, with the sort of events 24 that. seemed applicable to a given plant. Ace Fcow:1 Reporters, Inc. 25 .As time'has gone'along and the level of detail l o

yy, y - ~ ~ O rtt + .. r 1 a

T.;mgf[2; 22 n

R 1 developed' in. the support analysisi in the' staff 'sl reviews, 'and 2 they increase,:there get to be more'and more questions:- How in

should!we. treat this1 erm,..and how should we combine that one 3-t

~ 4

with theLother,'and so-on..And indeed, if you run always to 5

.the side of trying to maximize the loadings, you may get' to 6 places' where?youLare not improving _ the overall safety level. 7 I 'think there has' been some feeling that there' may be some. prob 1'ms with over-restraint of the systems from some of 8 e 9 .the seismic restraints.that get built in'. 10 MR.'DENTON: This.is a complex technical area. There 1-11 is very little experimental data available for verification'of 12' a change-in the analysis. 13 We'are proposing some changes in the way in which we 14 combine loads,.and we will be meeting in November'with an 15 ACRS Subcommittee. We have issued a report on the proposed 16 changes of combining loads. The overall question of whether they. 17 should be combined at all is one that will require a consid-18 erab'le experiditure of ' resources. 19 lWe.do.have topical reports from several vendors 20 proposing;that we have a' low amount of dollars being spent at a '21 national ~1ab to consider the: issue. -In addition, research is i 22 planning'a.large-scale look--at.the question. It may take j Af L23 several.' years before answers come out of that. ~ - 24 ILthink at the moment, while we would like to grapple. jic. Fed tr:t Reporters, Inc. ~ ~ i T25 iwith;this.7 issue,1itfis'one'that.is not at'th'e top of our: s. \\ ..p' y U-. u..

mte 3 ' 23 priority' list, other than the question of how to combine the ,j loads. 2 MR. BENDER: Mr. Chairman, I think what Harold Denton 3 has said'is one of the reasons why I personally is Very much g-concerned. In fact, the staff never seems to take due consider-5 ation of-the. fact-that their requirements themselves, even 6 though they may be conservative in the sense of imposing severe 7 requirements, do in fact impose other kinds of risks on the 8 installation that are not given due credit. In fact, these 9 very large structures that are required get in the way of 10 jj construction, they interfere with inspection access. I think if anybody looks at the plants themselves, they will see that 12 they are a very severe detriment to the plants if they'are not 13 O required. )g 15 They impose requirements that shouldn't be there unless they are absolutely necessary. I think the staff ought 16 j7 to pay some attention to the fact that deratcheting has some 18 value when it 'provides other kinds of safety benefits. I 19 believe the staff is not giving due consideration. Further, it is not'an experimental problem; it is a 20 probabilistic analysis problem. The Probabilistic Analysis 21 ' Branch is doing a lot of useless things that could be better 22 -(O applied to this kind of problem. _) 23 24 DR. LAWROSKI: We received only this week a rather den Fsoaret Reporters, Inc. 25' . thinkreport on' the methodology that the staff proposes for t a

s td'_4 24 this. We are wondering _whether the staff proposes to prepare -- 3 r maybe it already has partially prepared and it will soon be 2 submitted -- a report that would give us the rationale for all 3 () of this. 4 MR.-DENTON: The report that we just sent the 5 Commission probably took several man-years to prepare, to talk 6 about how to combine. loads. The other work that is ongoing 7 with the consultant national lab, looking at the probabilistic 8 techniaues, will not be completed until next year. 9 Perhaps I should ask Saul to discuss the status of the 10 11 seismic research program in its entirety. MR. LEVINE: I think the work we are doing at 12 Liverm re is in fact probabilistic in nature. We are looking 13 Q at the seismic design basis for nuclear power plants from start ja 15 to finish ' f rom a probabilistic basis. This will include looking 16 at the load combinations on a probabilistic basis. It is unfortunate that the problem is so complex, the overall seismic j7 18 Problem, that one can't produce something in six months. We 39 are hoping that perhaps in a year and a half we will have a rough run-through of the entire problem, and then, of course, 20 tal e another, more precise run-through to #inish the problem 21 and Ochieve a consensus of some sort. 22 A ' ks/ . Where there are widely varying opinions in this area, 23 24 I will'go'back and look at what we are doing and see if I can yam-Fccual Reporters, Inc. 25 accelerate'the portion associated with load combinations to

sate 5' ' 25 1 . see,1f we can break that out. 2

MR. BENDER

I would hardly construe the work that 3 is being done at Livermore as having any relevance to the () 4 questions that have been raised. Obviously, that effort is 5 associated with trying to find out how to define the level of 6 an earthquake in terms of what forces are to be applied. That '7 has nothing to do with the combination of load. 8 MR. L EVINE : I have to disagree. That is a task 9 under that research project. l 10 MR. BENDER: Maybe you get some people who know what 11 they are doing, then. 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that is always desirable. 13 Bill, you had a comment to make before? ) 14 PROF. KERR: I wanted to emphasize what Mike said, 15 because I think to me it is the issue daat the restraints that 16 come out of the kind of load combinations we are now using are 17 massive, and they have some possibility of failure, and one 18 wants to try to determine whether a pipe break wi.ll becaused 19 by the failure of a. restraint which is perhaps overdesigned, or i 20 thare may be too many of them, or whether the f ailure will ~ 21 occur because the pipe or equipment is not massive enouch. 22 .I don't look on this as a deratcheting necessarily, ~ 23 but as a further examination of a problem which is such that, 24 -if.one goes too far.in either direction, one does not get the Ace Federtl Reporters, Inc. 25 safety 'that we would like ' to see. I agree tha.t it is not an I 4 .m. . m gee y

> = ~ a 9te 6 26 1 . easy problem.. I.think it is a very real problem in terms of '2 the behavior of the system under large stress. 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could you undertake to write (n d 4 the Commission:a. letter describing precisely what you were 5 saying this morning? 1 6 Mk. BENDER: It would depend on who would like to do 7 it, but yes. 8 DR. LAWROSKI: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. Reliability data? 10 DR. LAWROSKI: Yes. This was brought up originally 11 to the Committee by the staff, regarding whether or not there i 12 should be a mandatory recuirement. And I will ask Professor () 13 Kerr to address this. He has had a number of meetings on this j 14 subject. 15 PROF. KERR: We did have staff presentations discuss-16 ing the present system and a. proposal by the staf f that the 17 NPRDS system be made mandatory. After discussion by the 18 Subcommittee and by the full Committee, we did write a report 19 saying, at this point we felt that the system was a growing 20 system, that it needed ' further ' definition in order to be 21 ultimately useful, and that it seemed to be developing and 22 improving; and in.our view, the growth and improvement of the 23 system would perhaps occur as well or better if it were not h 24 mandatory. Ar:e.Federrt Flepo,ters, Inc. 25 I believe part of the situation that led to that

Gto 7 27 1 conclusion' was that our view that there was not a clear consen-2 sus among various divisions of the staff as to how a mandatory

3 system would be used -- that there was not a completely clear

() 4 ~ view of what the mandatory system-would be like if it became 5 mandatory,-and that under those circumstances, and we viewed 6 it as a situation in which the system had been set up as a 7 voluntary system and 'was growing in a direction that we felt 8 it should grow, without being mandatory. The consensus was 9 that.it should be encouraged to be continuing and develop to be 10 improved, but that it, at this point, should not be made manda-11 tory. 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would I conclude, then, that 13 if at some future time you find that the growth stopped far 14 short of what you would view as a reasonable amount of parti-15 cipation, and if the staff did reach some consensus, that you 16 would reconsider your recommendation? 17 PROF. KERR: I believe almost anybody involved would 18 agree that the collection of relevant and good data is very 19 important, and that can contribute to safety, and hence, if 20 that or something else occurred, we would certainly want to 21 look at the auestion again, yes. 22 MR. DENTON: This whole issue has been subject to a 23 CAO - investiga tion. They have a report in draft form. I think

24'

'the staff-would propose to wait and see what the conclusions of i Arm Fedacci Reporters, Inc. 25 the GAOLare, and then recommend 'some course of action to the

.lmtej8f y 28-Commission. ) One recommendation I understand that GAO is consider-2 ing.is a rulemaking in this area. What the staff would like'to 3 -() .do is reassess its position on this area following the receipt 4

e-3 f the GAO report.

-5 6 7 8 9 ~ 10 11 12 0 13 \\j 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 h 23 24 'I Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc. '25

I 29 CRll38 DR. OKRENT: It'is my impression that if one 1 tape 4 were to ask various people who might be users of such 2 ' david 1 -3 data in the safety sense, what data did they want, what ,-m (,) 4 data did they think should be collected and how,you would 5 get a rather wide spectrum of opinion. .6 And it might be useful as a way of making progress 7 in this area to see whether one can get a more focused set 8 of opinions as to what data, if any, should be mandatory 9 and is dnis served by the current LER system or some other 10 augmented system, or so forth. 11 And in fact, were I to -- myself to try to get 12 to.this, I would bring in opinion from other countries as 13 well, because there ar'e people thinking about this:

France,

{ 14 Germany, England, Japan, and so forth. 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you. I commend to the 16 staf f those remarks and thoughts. 17 ' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When do we expect that 18 GAO report to arrive on our doorstep? 19 MR. DENTON: I think it is imminent. I can't 20 answer thabspecifically. 21 Does anyone know? 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is not months. It It 23 is days or weeks? 24 MR. DENTON: That is my understanding. 'Aco Fcdsral Reporters, Inc. 25 . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Tab seven.

t 3:' a 30 I david 2' DR. LAWROSKI: The Commission has recer.tly 2 put out an announcement for a proposed new regulation 3 specifying procedures and requirements for the issuances O) (_ 4 of licenses for the storage of spent fuel in independent 5 storage facilities; in particular, in making this announcement, the Commission is soliciting comments on 7 the siting criteria and also the general design criteria. The committee has not been requested as yet I by the Commmission or the staff relative to this proposed 10 rule. 11 Our purpose in bringing it up today to you is 12 to ask whether or not and just how you wish the committee !) to participate in this matter. Last January, in connection 14 with rule making, as a result of petitions, we developed 15 an approach to dealing with the making whereby we would 16 verify in the early stages, ask the subcommittee -- the 17 regulatory activities subcommittee to meet as it does now 18 in connection with the development of regulatory guides and 19 provide comments on it before the versions are sent out to 1 20 the public. 21 And then later we would,get -- the committee would r') learn from the' subcommittee whether the full committee should 5 /- 23 fin it necessary - b3 discuss the matter or whether the 24 s. subcommittee will have arrived at a recommendation to the Am.Fecaval Reporters, Inc. '25 committee, and we would act on that as we_do on regulatory -{ a

'31 l ,j david 3-guides.- 2 But on the matter of spent fuel storage, 3 at-independent installations, this is a fairly important Q. item, and our purpose of bringing it up to you is to ask 5 in what manner, if any,.you would-want us -- j 6 CHAIRMEN NENDIRE: I think the Commission 7 would be interested in the committee's view on those siting and design matters. I think we wouldn't turn 9 our faces away from any comments that you would want to 10 make on what I would call a licensing policy issue, but 11 I think the committee's interest would fall more naturally 12 toward some of the siting criteria and the design criteria. () And I would think that the staff and in good time 14 the Commission would be very interested in these views. 15 Other comments? 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Let me see if I understand. 17 Did I understand you to say that in January you established 18 a procedure whereby in rule making prior to goin'g out to the 19 public comment, that your subcommittee would make a. 20 comment? 21 DR. LAWROSKI: This has to do particularly with 22 'those rule makings that were as a result of petitions that 23 there might be numerous ones that we thought we needed to 24 doi Feottet. Recorters, inc; develop an' approach'to' dealing with that. 25

- 1 i a-e- t I . david 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Was that procedure followed in this case?- DR. LAWROOKI: This is not a real rule making f}. ~ .as the result of a petition. .This is one thatoriginates in 5 the committee, I believe -- the Commission. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I see. 'DR. LAWROSKI: Therefore, it is a departure, and 8 we did not necessarily feel that -- I only brought that up 9 because that is an approach that we developed in connection 1 10 with those that were the result of petitions. We have a subcommittee on the design of spent fuel storage which i 12 could take up this matter, and we were interested in knowing () whether or#not you would want us to get into this before 13 ~ 14 these criteria became etched in stone. 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would be most interested i 16 in hearing and receiving whatever comments you could make 17 in'ependent of what aspect. on it, d 18 DR. LAWROSKI: All right. We will ask our subcommittee 19 to meet with the staff to discuss this. 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Lee, do you want to make any 21 points? '22 MR.'GOSSICK: I think as thefchairman has indicated, 23 'this.is a new-case, a little bit different than the 24 heufoceret Reporters, Inc. procedures we'have followed'in the past, as Steve has said, 25 whereuthore are petitions involved. I think it is a matter ~l. s

o 1 33 Edavid5-that,1f they had comments on these, we would want to take 2 them into account. I think we would need to establish 3 some groundrule as to all rule making or special areas or A expertise. 5 We.need1to know when we do and when we don't go 6 .as a matter of course to the ACRS for their -- prior to 7 putting the rule out. 8I R COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would think that if the 9 rule or the subject matter is something that is clearly 10 a matter of interest to and within the competence of the 11 committee, we would expect to hear their views. 12 I certainly would. And we'ought to be able to _ (]) provide a way in which that is facilitated. 14 DR. LAWROSKI: We wanted to.know your thinking. 15 And if for some reason you prefer at this stage that we 16 didn't, then we wanted.o know, but I have not heard that. 17 MR. MINOGUE: This is a Part 70 facility. l 18 They do not go routinely to the ACRS. I think the important 19 issue is the kinds of problems we wrestle with in 20 I developing this rule, are the kinds of problems that 21 the ACRS -- why they could make a real contribution. I 22 j~ ; think it would be valuable to get their comments. 1 '&1 - 23 The rule was published for' comment in early 24 Sce Fuceral Heporters, Inc. October.-,The comment period' ends in January. We could 25 get reactions L fromi the ACRS ' now or af ter1the public comments 4 b

a 34 I david 6 are in with thoce in hand or as the staff work proceeds. 2 I' 'think it would be valuable to get ACRS input of this. 3 DR. LANROSKI: We were seeking guidance, f s. k-) 4 Mr. Chairman, on whatour couse of action should be. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Other matters that we might 6 cover this morning? We are only eight minutes behind 7 schedule, and I hardly know what to make of this for 8 running so efficiently. j 9 DR. LAWROSKI: I thought we had until 10:45. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Did we? 11 DR. LAWROSKI: I have one more matter, and this 12 is to call to your attention there was sent out from the 13 (~)h ACRS offices a draft news release soliciting -- for Id soliciting nominations for the vacancy that is about to occur on the committee when Dr. Isbin leaves us at the end of December, and we are most anxious that this be -- 17 action on this at least be expedited so as early as possible 18 after he leaves we can have a replacement for him. 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I will comment that my office 20 has acted, and I will look up and down the table. I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So has'mine. 22 (Laugh ter. ) 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Mine hasn't and just now 24 did. t &co Fedstd Reponers, Inc. ,25 (Laughter.)

i sl '35 l ' david 7: '1 DR. OKRENT: .A comment that Bob Minogue made 2 a moment ago maybe is worth thinking about generically. 3 'He1said something to the-effect th& Part 70 facilities are i .O-4 uot "orme117 1 oxea et dv the c==ittee, e=a z en1=x i= i 5 the past, for example, the committee did not look at 6 fuel fabrication facilities. 7 Some of them may have presented as much potential r 8 hazard as reacto's, for example, but it was not part of the 9 committee purview. Maybe the Commission wants to relook 10 at whether there are things that are not in the original 11 act defining ' areas for which the committee had to by law 12 write a letter to see whether certain matters should get 13 to the committee. 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Remind me, Howard. It* 15 talks about licenses for production m.A utilization 16 facilities. 17 MR. SHAPAR: Mandatory looking at power and l 18 test reactors. When you cut through the legal language 19 and anything else that the Commission refers to the 20 ACRS; beyond doubt, though, I think it has been long established 21 that theACRS may look at anything it chooses to look at. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We haven't exactly in the r. t 23 last year or two yearsndone a thriving business in Part 70 24' facilities. i Aco Femert Reporters, Inc. 25 (Laughter.)

-l 36' I david 8 Or at least Part 70 facilities of any substantial 2 size. The committee used to have -- you remember, we had 3 a chemical processing subcommittee. The committee would /~% i choose who looked at Morris and NFS facilities down at 5 the -- on what'I will call the fission product intensive 6 end of the fuel cycle. I don't think there is any -- 7 has been any clear intent to say-stay away from other 8 f acilities, but rather that it has been, I guess, felt 9 that there was less interest in places where there weren't 10 a lot of fission products around. 11 I don't see any' objection, and I can see some 12 value if the' committee has time and as facilities of this 3 () kind may come along in the future-to looking at safety 14 questions. 15 DR. OKRENT: We were not asked to and we did j not look at some of the commercial facilities for 17 fabricating plutonium containing fuel elements.

These, 18 as you may recall, were later subject to some backfitting 19 because of the requirements that were present in the 20 original licensing that differed from reprocessing plants, 21 for example.

22 '[^y I am not clear why. s>. '23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As I say, we don't seem to have 24 Cce Fhust Reporters, inc, ch of an_ incomhg neam of dose Ghgs at' de momed, M. 25 it is.a useful point to keep in mind at such time as we may k i

37 david 9 see some applications of that kind again. DR. LAWROSKI: We did supply a letter on the l - 3 certification of the. plutonium package, the shipping. ) 4 CH7 MAN HENDRIE: Yes. Well, we-have a cask l 5 I now. If you know anybody:who would like to ship 6 plutonium, please give them our phone number. 7 (Laughter.) 8 DR. LAWROSKI: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you, Steve. It is 10 good to see all of you gentlemen. Thank you. 11 end 4' (Whereupon, 10:44 a.m. the meeting was adjourned.) 12 .( ) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 24 sonFdest Recorters, lnc. 25 l l I '}}