ML20153A940
| ML20153A940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811290015 | |
| Download: ML20153A940 (49) | |
Text
,.
j NU CLE A R' R EG:iJ L ATO R Y Cb M M 1-S S I O N-
~..
F IN. THE M ATTER O F:
JUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON POLICY CONCERNING DIFFERING' PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS (see Shearon Harris Order)
(
Place - Washington, D. C.
Octo -
Friday, 17 November 1978 Pages 1-48 Tw.onen.:
(202) 347 37C0 ACE FEDERA.LHI?ORTI% INC.
OfficialReponers
~
7811 <>90o/5 Wcshingen, O.C. 20C01
~
NAT.CNWICE COVERACE CAlLY
r.
u a
)
l CR1358 a*
DISCLAIMER This is. an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 17 Novendue r 19 78 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, H. W., Wasnington, D. 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 idfonna'tfenal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infor=al record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations 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.
i 9
0 4*
e
n.-
_e:
2 4
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULAT.ORY COMMISSION 2
l 3
PUBLIC MEETING 4
BRIEFING ON POLICY CONCERNING DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS (see Shearon Harris' Order) 5
'6 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D. C.
8 Friday, 17 November 1978 9
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.
1 10
'BEFORE:
11 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 12 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 13
('
-JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 14 15
)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l1 23 il
-24 AoFeoeret Reporters, Inc, l
25
{l j
r-n.
g' 358.08.1 3
P.R 0. C-E E D I N G S o v.
1-2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE -
Let us proceed on to a briefing 3:
on the policy concerning differing professional opinions.
4 This applies to.the general effort that we have underway to 5
develop a policy in the agency on diff ering prof essional 6
opinions.
It sort of surf aced at this time.
We we re reminded 7
that 'it was high time to have a 1ook at how that was going _ by
~
8 several recent events -- one of them, the Shearon Harris 9
order,- I gue ss.
But today's discussion'is on the generic 10 paper, primarily.
.11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you start, maybe the 12 general counsel or maybe Tom, remind me what the Sheeron 13
'Ha rris f.inal pos ition wa s.
Are we commi.tted -- have we
(
14 committed ourselves to hold a public hearing; is that it?
15 MR. KELLEY:
There was a remand of the licensing 16 board to-look into.the issue of the manegement capability of 17 CP1L, the recent development in that regard.
la Independently of that, the Co mmission directed the 19 OI A to, investigate the misconduct charge.
20
- COMMI.SSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought one of these 21 Shearon Harris proceedings, there was some statement about a c mmitment to hold a public hearing on the diff ering 22 o
23 prof e ss ional: opinions.
2:4 VR. GOSSICK r. That was point No. 4 of your order,
~
L25 which recuested the staff meeting.
l ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS,iINC.. (202)347-3700._
8 s
- ^
b-e
'358.08.2 4
)
a pv I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you let them put up. viewgraph l
2 one, I think they plunge im.nediately to it.
3 MR. ENGLEHARDT:
This stems from the board's le.tter 4-to the Commission.
1 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I wanted to make sure I knew 6
what the ' language was in that particular request, so that I 7
would understand that what we're now seeing is eouivalent to 3
that.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
Perhaps I could just read -- it's 10 right out of the letter.
Point 4:
"The staffs were briefly
.11 commissioned that a' public hearing on the staff's pres.ent i
12 practice on implementing the Commiss ion's 'open-door policy' 13 about differing prof essional opinions."
(
14 Then, there's the parenthetical:
"See materials 15
. marked in ' Survey of Policies and Materials', with particular 16 focus on staff testimony at licensing board hearings."
17 We do not pretend to deal in any way with the 13 specifics of the Shearon Harris case.
That was, of course, a 19 matter before the licensing. board or the OIA report or any of 20 the other issues.
21 Your schedule shows Mr. Haller as the speaker.
22 Unfortunately, Mr. Haller is not available today.
23
, Larry Vandenberg will present the briefing.
24 Mr. Sasse tt is here as the acting head today, in
-25 Mr. Ha11er's absence.
' ACE-FEDERAL-REPORTERS, INC.'(202)347-3700
a 358.08.3 5
May I have the.first slide.
pv
.1 -
MR. VANDENBERG.:,
2-(Slide.)
3 This-first slide just shows -- restates the wording 4
in the order we've asked' for.
I would like to point out that 5
the "open door" is not the only procedure in bringing forth 6
different prof essional opinions.
Ther.e are several channels
~
7 for surfacing these opinions, and, I think, if you're going to 3
'get a good overview of the different ways the' differing 9
opinions are identified and surf aced and ultimately passed on 10 to licensing boards, I think you need to see a little broader 11 picture and the many different procedures that are in place.
12 May-I have the next slide, please.
13 (Slide.)
(~
14 This viewgraph tries to outline the structure of 15 what we want to present to you todayi the categories of some 16 general policies relat.ing to diff ering opi'nions; the office
)
17 implementation of those opinions.
Also the third point will 13 get into the heart of the me.tter, inforning licensing boards 19 not only of new information but of dif fering opinions,-
20 e spe c ia ll y. - And. lastly, we will review some actions underway 21 to improve policy and procedure.
22 Keep in mind as we go through today's briefing that 23 we are now in the proce ss of developing an overall agency 24 policy and orocedure'in this' area.
This is the NUREG-0500 2 5.'
document.
._ TACE-FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
i 358.08.4 6
pv 1
Chairman.Hendrie, I an sure that you recall, this j
j
~
2 summer, a memo to all employees sending ' out NUREG-0500 j
r
-3
' document 3round the agency, requesting employees to comment,
'4 and also sent to people outside the agency, requesting them to 5
comment on the different kinds of procedures that were J
6 identified in there.
7 I think I should also point out that the brie'fing S
material here is drawn from comments and material received 9
from several dif fe rent offices, and I trust that our 10 consolidation of their comments is accurate.
.11 Many of the office directors are here, and I am 12 sure they will jump in-to provide a more explici.t picture on 13 any. particular point.
(
14 The next viewgraph.
15 (Slide.)
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You ' commented that many of 17
.the office d'irec tors will provide the points.
This policy,
'S though, extends beyond office directorst doesn't it?
J 19 MR. 00SSICK2 All the way down.
20 MR. VANDENBERG As you will see in just a minute, 21 there are both agencywide procedures and also some that are in 22 place only in particular o ffices.
In terms of general policy 23 on differing opinions, we decided to break them down into two 24 areas:
procedures that allow employees to express an opinion 25 on any subject t ' and then those that are more narrowly defined.
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSr INC. (202)347-3700
e
-em u
~
- 358.08.5 7
pvo -1 to deal' wit.h just technical issues.
2 The next~ slide.
3 (Slide.)-
4 I think now we can get into the meat of the 5
briefing.
Note that we tried to break down policy by 6
agencywide and o,ffice-specific.
And,.as shown in this 7
viewgraph, the agencywide policy is in three. areas we have 8
the open-door policy.
Most recently that was stated in 9
Chairman Hendrie's memo.
Ac t ua ll y, 1.'was " Comment to senior 10 staff," which was then circulated to all NRC employees.
11 Secondly, there is the staf f communicat. ion' with 12 Congress, and this memo process, which we'll get into in the 13 next viewgraph.
(
14 The open-door policy, to return to that, this 15 basically provides employees. with a second channel in addition 16 to working through the normal supervisory levels to express 17 their' views to any NRC manager, right up to and including IS Commissioners, again, on any topic.
19 One other key point about this is that they can 20 remain anonymous, if desired.
That's a generally accepted 21 condition, I believe, of the open-door policy.
22 Now, there>ve been several memos in the past from 23 Chairman Hendrie and, as I mentioned earlier, 24 Chairman.Hendrie, your recent memo was the one that laid it 25 out best.
I think that your memo went on, though, to say tnat o
ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.- (202)347-3700
358.08.6 8
pv. I beyond the open door,. if there are 'dif fering opinions, then.
~
2 let*"s just. attach statement of differing opinion and send it 3
on up through channels, which is getting a little bit beyond
'4 the strict. open-door area.
5 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Say that again?
6 MR. VANDENBERG:
His memo 'went on to say the 7
dif ferent view 'should be put in writing and a ttached -to any 8
staff position going forward.
That was just an additional l
9 comment he made - in his memo expressing the open-door policy.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why do you say that's
.11 "beyond"?
12 MR. VANDENBERG:
Because the open door is really 13 inviting the employees to come to the open door on any
(
14 question.
It does not specify that views be attached to a i
15 staff paper.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me see if I can 17 understand.
Are you saying that your interpretation of what IS "open door" policy means is that it does not require that a 19.
dif fering view that is submi.tted in writing be attached; you 20 would allow it not to be attached; you would allow it to not 21 be sent forward?
22 MR. VANDENBERG I think the open door is rea.11y a 23 statement that you can receive.
'24 -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It just wasn't discussion in the 2:5
' memoranda that I recall from previous chairmen of the e '
' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
s.
358.03.7-9 9
pv i
Commission...Those.s.ta.tements.were more by way of invitation 2
in making clear that staff members who had a point of view 3
that they wanted to expre ss to somebody at the end of the line 4
could come and express it.
And they just didn't go.on and 5
say, "And here's what we ought to do about, for instance, a 6
written expression of those. things."
7 But it's always seemed to me it puts me in mind of 8
the man who worked for a famous and very successful 9
corporation and later came to Brookhaven to work at the 10 national laboratory.
He explained to me that it always 11 impre.ssed him in his previous organization what good 12 explainers the plant managers were at that company.
The 13 reason he thought that was that when the employees had 14 grievances they would talk to their foreman and the foreman 15 would explain company policy, and that of ten didn't satisfy 16 the individual, and they'd explain to the shop division head 17 or something like that.
18 The same_ thing would happen.
But he knew of no 19 single case where when a plant manager had explained the 20 matter that it wasn't understood.
21 (Laughter.)
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And some sense the open-door 23 policy suggests that, "Well, you solve these problems by 24 having people in and talking to them and everything is fine 25 and dandy. "
But it seems to me you really have to go ahead
~
o.
W
358.08.8.
10 3
pv 1
and provide; orderly and nornal proce_sses to get these 2
differing views out. and exposed-into the stream of the 3
agency's paper and procedures, and not just explain.
4 MR.-VANDENBERG:
One of several unresolved issues 5
'that we'll touch on today deals with the open-door policy.
6 There's : sort of a double issue here.
.I t involves the 7
adjudicatory se.tting and also keeping things anonymous.
8 For example, in the adjudicatory se.tting,. there's 9
essentially a roadblock set up for employees because under NRC 10 regulations it provides that if an NRC employee wants to Ji communicate with a Commissioner something relating to a matter 1
12 in an adjudicatory, on-the-record proceeding, the Commissioner 13 has to decline to listen to.the communicationi and if they're l
14 unsucce ssf ul in declining, then they have to put a summary of 15 that communication in the form of a document and, of course, 16 serve it on the parties.
17 Well, you can see right there that while we're la expre.ssing in open-door policy, we're also saying that in l
19 certain areas it does not apply.
20 Also, I think, you can see there's a problem with 21 anonymity.
If, again, in an adjudicatory situation, you 22 receive the communication and the employee wants it kept 23 anonymous, once you place the facts in the public document 24.
room, many knowledgeable people could, I think, cuickly grasp
'25 who was the person who provided that in f o rma t ion.
l
. ACE-FEb RAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 358.08.9 J1 pv i
So, again, there's a little unresolved issue of s 1
2-does the open door really protect anonymity in most cases?
]
3 And that's something that we're gning to try to deal with, j
4 following the NUREG-05.00 document, which, I th. ink, as we go 5
on, you'll find may well serve as sort of a basic vehicle for 6
determining agency policy in this area..
7 That second. area, sta ff communications with 1
8 Congress, I think that's also relevant here.
Simply stated, 9
it provides that staf f members are free to express any 10 personal opinion or concern about NRC activities direct to 11 members of Congress w..thout nottfying their supervisors or
]
12 managers or anyone else.
13 This was stated in a note from Chairman Hendrie on 14 September 20, 1978.
It superseded many earlier memos.
This 15 memo was a result of some earlier discussions with 16 Representative Dingell and his staff.
The memo clearly 17 distinguished " official communications" from those of a 13
" personal nature."
Certainly, those of a personal nature 19 could be used to express a diff ering prof essional view.
20 The last one in the agencywide policy area, the 21 normal process:
that entails the idea of getting into working 22 through successive supervisory levels.
The " normal process,"
23 as we'll see' in the next slide, refers mostly to technical 24 i ss ue s.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARdE Are any of those, either the
-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
358.08.10-12 pv i
f'irst or the last, going.to address the. issue of prof essional 2
opinions, differing prof essional opinions 'to boards?
3 MR. VANDENBERGs Yes.
That will be in the next 4
- slide after that.
5 Could we have the next slide now.
6 (Slide.)
7 This is where the bulk of NRC policy is, and, 3
again, we tried to break it down by agencywide policy and 9
office-specific policy.
10 Let me note that all of these policies should 11 accommodate equally well all different kinds of differing 12-views, not only those which argue for a more conservative 13 position but also those that _might advocate a less
(
14 conservat.ive position.
15-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
" Conservative" being defined
~
16 as?
17 MR. VANDENBERG8 I think, in my own view, the best 18 example that comes to mind, not being a technical persons 19 when you're specifying certain limits, scientific limits, on 20 pieces or components, and when establishing a threshold, a
21 more conservative view wou'1d argue for a narrower threshold.
22 Now, of the three agencywide policies that were 23 specifica lly enumerated, the normal process was discussed in
'24 a De c e mbe r '7,
'76, memo, f rom the EDO to o ff ice -direc tors' In 25 that memo'the EDO made the point that, while in no way.
e i
' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
s s
'358.08.11 13 pv.
l-
' limiting. employees' rights to use-the open-door ' policy, safety 2
concerns should ordinarily first be discussed with their 3
immediate supervisort or, if.that doesn't appear suitable,
' l 4
then the issue should be brought up with another level of j
5 supervision where they do feel comfortable -discussing it.
6 And, if dissatisfied at that stage with his or her concern.
7 the employee is free to bring up the. matter either orally or 3
in writing to the attention of the EDO, OAA, or the 9
Commi ss ion.
The ACRS --
l 10-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: - Did the note have any
.11 comments about the protection of the individual: raising'these 12 concerns?
13 (Commissioner Kennedy entered conference r.com at-
/
14 2: 46 p.m.)
15 MR. VANDENBERG:
Yes, it did.
It said that there 16 would be no retribution.
MR. GOSSICK:
Right.
"Without fear of 17 la retr ibut ion. "
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That was directing it to the 20 office directors?
21 MR. GOSSI CK:
-It rea.lly went to all personnel, to 22 the office directors.
23-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that the office directors 24 would therefor-have a directive to them not to exact any 25 retribution.
e ACE-FEDERAL _ REPORTERS,-INC. (202')347-3700
2358.08.12-14 pv I
MR. 00SSICK:..,That's right.
2 MR. VANDENBERG:
With regard to the ACRS, 3
Dr. Moeller, f ormer chairman of that group, during testimony 4
'before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in March of 1976, l
5 he said that the ACRS provides one avenue for NRC sta.ff 6
members to really express their concer.ns arri differing 7
opinions regarding saf ety ma tters.
8 He said:
"Specifically, any staf f member can 9
telephone any member of the ACRS to explain their saf ety 10 concerns, and that could be done anonymously, if desired, and
-11 assurance would be given tha t such matters would. be given 12 expeditious treatment."
13 Subsequently, af ter some experience with different.
(
14 instances of differing professional opinions, there was a 15 letter from Chairman Meyer Bender to Chairman Rowen.
In that 16 letter the Committee recommended that differing opinions be 17 discussed.before an impartial but knowledgeable and interested 18 panel established for that purpose within the NRC staff 19 organization.
20 Now, peer review panels are one of the items 21 covered under NUREG-0500.
And we can continue to discuss 22 policy in this area.
23 I might also add that since 1976 we understand it's
~
24 been ACRS policy to explicitly ask at meetings if there are e.J#8 25 any differing opinions among staff.
~
~ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC. (202)347-3700'
15
-l l
'I CR1358 The open door policy needs 1:o further
-~
~
2~
~ '
tapa 9'
.explana' tion,I 'believe', at this' pdint,. except of course it 3
david 1 applies to technical issues as well as any other issue.
Down'~at the office level, each program office has issued 5
some guidance in this area, and I think rather than go 6
through each of the five, I've attached them at the back 7
of the package-we provided to you.
8 Bascially, they involve.a restatement of the 9
normal process, that is, working through successive 10 management levels.
And in addition, most of them state II that differing views should be submitted to the ACRS, the 12 licensing boards, and also placed in the public document
(
13 room.
I#
The first of these, the NRR office letter 15 number 11 of November 3, 1976, contains all those latter 16 steps.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do these also carry 8
through the philosophy that there is no retribution?
MR. VANDENBERG:
Yes.
20 MR. CASE:
NRR's does.
2I MR. GOSSICK:
I think they all do, right.
22 MR. VANDENBERG:. There's another, unresolved issue 23 here at'this point'as well..That's a' question of whether
.these policies, both Igency-wide and office-specific, are Ace Federd Reporters, Inc, 25 really' suitable for'both the~relatively luke warm views as
~
- I, 16 david 2 I
well as those that are strongly held by a staff member.
~
2 My example from NRR,'I think, will illustrabe 'this.
3 During our.recently completed safety review application, 4
an'NRC' staff seimology reviewer concluded that a more 5
conservative reference acceleration that that supported by 6
the staff was really called for at that site.
- However, 7
the staff reviewer did not really feel strongly enough 8
about the position to work through-the procedures called for 9
in office letter number 11.
10 What happened was that his view was nonetheless II set forth in the staff's safety evaluation report and 12 the view was also brought to the attention of the XCRS, I
13 which noted it and was noted in the committee's advice I4 letter back to the Commission.
e 15 The NRC staff member was also invited to discuss 16 his views with the ACRS seismology subcommittee.
During I7 a public hearing, both the staff position and the opinion 18 of the reviewer hodling a different view were presented to 19 the licensing board, and the reviewer orally presented 20 his views before the board and the parties..
21 This example, I think, suggests that in some 22
-instances a staff member may hold a differing opinion but.
l 23 not. hold it so strongly that they're willing to go through 24 the procedures that we already have in place.- In other Ace Fooeral Reporters, Inc, 1 25 l-
. words, our' procedures may be too ponderous and thus
.n.
17-I
'dsvid3 discourage staff members from using the procedure if not
~,;
y even bring forth'a di~fferingidW.
v Thus, we've got this problem of what to do about the luke. warm differing opinions as. well as those that are 5
strongly held.
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
It's not obvious that i
Ae warm is tdus appropriate description, though, of someone -
l 8
who finds procedures-to be too ponderous, unless the-definition of luke warm is an opinion that is not held 10 strongly enough to fight through a ponderous process.
.11 MR. VANDENBERG:
If we could assume ~that a
12 definition. -
i 13 Could we have the next slide, please.
(Slide.)
15 MR. CASE:
The ponderous process is not much 16 more than put your views in writing and be prepared to 17' discuss it if the management doesn't agree with you.
' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, that latter phrase, 19 "and be prepared to discuss it with management that doesn't 20 agree with you," 'can be a very ponderous process; from 21-i the senior manager's point of view, that may be just a minor aspect.
It could be a lot harder for the employee.
23 MR. CASE:
But I don' t know how to resolve the 1
24
~
differeing. opinion unless you hear both sides.
,,,, g 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, if the purpose is a f
c y-y-
w-
o-yg dsvid4 I
resolution, though, of the way -- I'm not quite sure, but
~
2 that almos't soundslike what 'Ih'e' 6 pen door policy is for, t
3 necessarily, for the senior manager to resolve it.
I 4
thought it might be a process by which the view gets 5
forwarded.
6 MR. ENGELEARDT:
There 's more than just the 7
open door policy at play here.
8 MR. VANDENBERG:
Office letter number 11 is more
.i 9
than just the open-door.
It outlines specific steps for 10 a staff member to take their views, submit it in writing, II work through the various levels within ARR management, 12 and then present their view to the ACRS, the licensing boards,
(
13 and put it in the public document room.
It's a procedure 14 for trying to resolve, not just a procedure of the open
~
15 door type to invite and listen to views.
i 16 This slide here, I think, gets into the heart of.
17 the program.
Now you have an overview of some of the agency-18 wide policies that can be used to surface differing views 19 on almost any area, including those dealing specifically 20 with safety issues and getting information from licensing 21 boards.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The heart of the issue 23 because this is really in response to the Shearon Harris
~
24 i
issue.
Am Fewel Reorters. inc.
25 MR. VANDENBERG:
Yes.
That was one of the points 4
i
19 devid5 that was1 clearly asked for in the Commission letter to
~
2
^
also tag to focus on' different 'tEings when you get te the
-licensing process.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's not obvious 5
to me that the heart of the issue of how the differing 6
, views get reviewed and get raised is' focused upon getting them to the licensing board.
'h, yes.
Now, instead of MR. VANDENBERG:
O 9
trying to break this ' down by agency-wide and office-specific 10 I think it's a little
.as we did with the last two charts, 11 more useful to look at-three stages of interactions of 12 staff for the licensing process.
13 First, the development of a basic evidentiary
-14 document, gafety evaluation report.
Two, af ter the basic 15 documents have been issued and new information comes up, 16 how does that get to the board.
And third, in testimony.
17 Let's take those one at a time.
Note also that 18 I'm using the term " licensing board. "
It doesn't mean 19 just the licensing board also the appeal board and the 20 Commission itself, if the hearing process reaches that stage.
21 Now first, the licensing board is mainly 22
' informed 11n onel of the basic evidentiary documents prepared 23 by the s taf f.
This is of course part of the record of the 24
. Ace Federd Reporters Inc.
hearing.
These documents are the SER, and the environmental I
statement and documents.
.~.-
N 20 Idevid6!
The NRR project manager's ha'ndbook provides
'3 that these documents must be ~a' f actu'al and complete
~
~
summary of the~ staff's work and our' office l'etter number 19,
)
i which'primarily~ deals.'with point' number two up there, also makes the' statement that basic evidentiary documents 6
will contain everything of relevance'and materiality.
+
7 Now, although needed a. handbook, my office 8
. letter provides specific direction that differing opinions 9
ought to be included or stated in the staff's evidentiary 10 documents.
These docuEtents in the past have included 11 some differing opinions.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But has it been the 13 r
standard practice to include differing opinions?
i 14 MR. CASE:
Where they have been identified.
15 This will come later.
The problem is identifying the differing views'.
Once they're identified, there's a 17 relatively straightforward and staridard practice.
The 18 difficulty, I think, and I think Larry feels the same way, 19 is. identifying them.'
MR. VANDENBERG:
It's not fair to say that all 21 different. views have been presented in-the SER.
Just-22
- recently-NRR issued a memo that reminded staff of their 23
-responsibilities;to provide the SER and' licensing reports of
-24 UY. differing; opinions in acc'ordance with theNRR office
. Ace Federet Reporters, Inc.
letter number 11.
It also pointed out that-the director's m-m e
,,,,,-..e.,,,,.,,,
y
L 21 7
dovid7 I -
office =should beinotified'if there's any question about
~
~
improper. handling of'"a diffefing'~ opinion.
1 2
e
'3 Again, we're just trying to reaffirm existing 4
policy of the. staff.
NMSS in their policy and procedure 5
letter' number'l-8 -- it's a little more recent and it's 6
.a.little more specific on this point'-- in s.tating that 7
management shall assure the differing opinions are.noted 8
and dealt with objectively in the evidentiary documents.
4 9
Secondly, once the basic documents have been 10
. issued, licensing boards'may be informed of differing II opinions through a recently developed ~ board notification 12 procedure.
And they have this year the Commission approved 13 SECY 78-212, which established policy.for the NRC staff to Id notify licensing boards of relevant and material new 15 information.
16 Such information is to include new information 17 that could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or 18 different light on an issue or raising a new issue and I9
.this policy has been made known to all program and EDO 20 st'aff offices by means of specific written office 21 procedures such 'as this office letter 19 that. i mentioned.
i 22 There's'also an extensive training program 23
.conductedtNis' summer.
24
.COMMISSIONE AHEAREE:
Does that make the Ace Federei Reporters, Inc.
25 LassumptionLthat a' basic document: includes'all substaatial r...,
,,,y-#w r--
-w e s
- -ae -: -
7 +
22 I
' david 8-
. differing. opinions?
2 VANDENBEikG: '
~
~
'MR.
Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE:
Is that a valid 4
assumption?
5 MR.'VANDENBERG:
It's a crudely stated policy 6
in the'NRR's office-letter number 19/ which contains the 7
implementing. procedures for NRR.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would'just try, I 9
guess, to address the question of an existing basic 10 evidentiary document that, if I understood what you said, II that policy addresses new information.
I2 MR. VANDENBERG:
Correct.
I3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is a presumption Id then that the existing document contains all the dissenting 15 opinion - -
16 MR. GOSSICK:
All material and relevant information.
I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That existed at that 18 time.
My question is:
is that a valid assumption?
I9 MR. VANDENBERG:
From what I've seen so far, yes.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You think it is?
2I MR. VANDENBERG:
I'll defer.
22 MR. CASE:
We can't guarantee'.it.
23
.MR. BOYD:
The panels have agreed that they see it 24 i'
Ace-Federet Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. VANDENBERG:
Briefly these board notification
23
- david 9?
procedures. remind any. staff member who develops on their i
- 2. ' Sown or ' locates $ some ifew informiti~on ho prepare ^ a memo-3 describing.it, describing.the impact.
This goes.through e
c their own office-to either NRR or NMSS as appropriate.
l 5
NRR or'NMSS~ form an opinion.as to whether they should
'0
~-no tify..That goes to ELD and from ELD to the board.
I 7
note. though that this policy about sending new relevant 8
information to boards'may not be interpreted to include-9
' differing opinions,.per se.
10 The term " differing opinions" is not specifically 11 used in these implementing documents, so'perhaps some 12 staff. members may not interpret it as being,that, but I
(
13 think in general. staff members do interpret it --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it intended to be?
MR. VANDENBERG:
Very definitely.
L 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't you just say II so so that all the staff knows that?
0' MR. CASE:' I could ce'rtainly conceive of a 19 differing opinion that was not.naterial and relevant.
I 20
. don'.t think I would say all differing opinions, regardless of 21 their. source,.regardless of their merit,should be sent 22 forward.
23 Tho.' Commission may feel differently, but'I "24
~
- Ace. Federal Reporters,.Inc.
25 call ought to1beLconsidered.
I i
...J.
.,. -,, ~.
.c 24 llavidLO I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why shouldn't it be th'e
~
'2 board wdo decides. whethNr 'they' are relevand-3 MR. CASE:
It could.be.
4 MR. BOYD:-
For that point in our training 5
program, including,the entire agency staff.in each session, 6
we made a specific point-to the people taking the training 7
that if something that they bring forward is considered 8
by.their supervisor not to be relevant and material and 9
yet they feel that it should go forward, we told them it 10 would go forwarcl, even if it goes forward with our indication
'II that we don't it's relevant and material to the proceedings.
I2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I think Ed has just
(
13 disagrred with you.
I4 MR. BOYD:
Not really.
15 MR. CASE:
What I'm reacting to is --
16 MR. BOYD:
Sorne other relvant material.
I7 MR. CASE:
All dissenting opinions should be 18 sent forward.
W
-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me see if I understand.
20 You said that you made it clear in the training program 21 that if they thought'it should go forward',
.. if it 22 was' decided it wasn't relevant and material, it would still 23 go forward, 24 MR. BOYD:
'If the-individual involved'said, Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 notwithstanding your finding, I think it 'should go forward,
25 we told them it would go forward.
avidll I
~
.\\
2 COMMISSIOtiER AHEARN5:' I think what $d said is 3
he didn't believe that that really should happen.
4 MR. CASE:
All I'm reacting to -- in that case, 5
I probably would.
What I'm reacting to is the statement --
0 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I just asked a question.
MR. CASE:
Shouldn't'it include such a statement 7
8 in there.
And I said no.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, but you see --
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There's a difference II between what you said and what he said.
12 MR. BOYD:
But in what I said, we would send 13 this document forward stating very clearly the staff view Id that it was not relevant and material.
IS COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then why can' t thatbe said, 16 then?
17 MR. CASE:
Because it's a matter of overburdening 18 of the record with what people in mature judgment don't I9 believe is material and' relevant to the proceeding.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I still am hearing a 21 difference.
It sounds to me like you're saying that you 22 have' already told people that 'if they really believe it 23 should go forward, it will go forward.
24 L And ' Ed is saying that at some stage that management Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ought to be allowed not to forward it.
- 26 davidl2
~l' MR. CASE:
In the particular circumstance that
\\
'. he brought' forth 'whe'r~e the man',.'despite your saying 2
I 3
so, thinks it ought to ' go ' forward, I would probably send d'
it forward.
I would send it forward.-
]
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then why don't you say that?
0 MR. CASE:
I can think of'another situation 7
where a man had a differing view that was not an expert in 8
the area that you're talking about.
He suggested that his 9
view be sent, to the board, and the director or whoever 10 involved to make the decision, would meet with the fellow II and say, no, I don't think so, because you're not an 12 expert in this area, and the guy said, fine.
13 Now, under that situation --
Id COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
That's not the situation 15 you just talked about though.
He's talking about the 16 situation where the guy says, I still want to forward I7 it.
18 MR. CASE:
Then I would forward it.
I9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then why can't we say that?
20 MR. CASE:
Just describing a situation?
I think 2I I would do that.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what the policy is.
23 That's what the staff understands it to be.
It would seem 2#
to me reasonable to wrh.te it down.
~
'(
Ace.Federst Reporters, Inc.
s 20 MR. VANDENBERG:
This policy was adopted this
27 I
devid13
- ummer, and it's scheduled for review af ter one year.
~
2 7 thinN that those a're the kinds"of ' hings 'thak we '11 look t
'3 at.
Also I think we'll look at it to see whether or not it'ic effective in bringing forward different views.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How is standards going 0
to do it?
7 MR. MINOGUE:
I want to say that this procedure 8-that we developed for SDD said what he said explicitly.
9 I see no reason why it should say it.
That is, if the originator continues to believe that the matter to II which his management considers to be irrelevant should 12 go forward, it goes forward with that management assessment.
13 MR. ENGELHARDT:
I should mention for the I#
record too that the training program which was conducted 15 that hit every employee in the agency from the headquarters 16 to the regional offices, that was made clear.
If there I7 was a differing opinion or if there was information that 18 their management felt was not necessarily relevant or 19 material, or the individual employee felt strongly that 20
.it should go forward, it would go forward.
2I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would be nice, since 22 y,,ve already told all the meployees that -- I think it.'
23 would really be: nice if there was an explicit written statement that the. employee could refer to, since we've Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 already told them.
l
28 I
' DAVID 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The confirmations of 2
understand'ing ought'not to bs 't6o hard to'db. ~
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
By ' the way, would..the:Jmatter'of information supplied'to licensing boards be covered.-in 5
the 500 document?.
6 MR. VANDENBERG:.
It isn't'right now.
1 7
MR..BASSETT:
In the policy.--
0
'MR.
VANDENBERG:
In the policy it certainly-9 will be.
It will.be tied together.
There are some 10 areas, though,,where we're not exactly sure, and one of 11 those in in testimony, how closely or how well our 12 policy will cover testimony.
But in step two, new -
~
13 information --
in regard to this testimony area, let I#
me point out that there's minimal. guidance to the staff 15 in this area.
The basic rule of course is that NRC staff 16 and NRC staff's witnesses are instructed to testify j
I7 regarding their own knowledge or expert opinion.
NRR 18 project manager's handbook and also the IE office 19 procedure listed there provide only some general instructions 20 regarding the preparation and presentation of testimony, 21 and' neither of those instructions deal with presentation 22 of differing opinions.
All that's specified in any of these formal 2a r'
e p a d,Ce N M wed by sta d h dea M g n
Aa.Federet Reporters, Inc,
'25
~'
with differing opinions regarding staff positions is duly l
T
29 I
,' david 15 stated in testimony is as follows:
first, as I'said,
'~
-2
'it's~ understood.tha:Jthe NRC'sta'ff position'is presented 3
by qualified staff:ritness who fully subscribes to that
~
4 position.
If-a knowledgeable staff member, consultant' 5
or contractor-employee does not subscribe to that 6
supposition and that differing opinion is known. it's 7
presented for review to various. levels under technical 8
management.
Then, unless that staff position is 9
changed as a result of this interim review, then that 10 differing opinion would be provided.to the ACRS and 11 presented to the licensing board for resolution.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE':
If I. understood what
(
13 you've gone 'through there, you're saying that if the I#
technical position which is in disagreement with this 15 final staff position is known, it will be eventually 16 carried through and presented to the licensing board?
II end 9 MR. VANDENBERG:
Correct.
18 19 20 21 t
22 23 24 Ace.Fednel Reporters, Inc.
25 I
h58.10.1-
~30 -
-gsh 1
'Except there isoan' intermediate step that perhaps,
~.. e l
f
'2 the -staf f position could be changed.;
~3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEJ If the staff. position is 4
not changed, you're.~saying-it will be presented at the end 5
to 'thel licensing board.
i 6
MR. VANDENBERG ' It' will be presented to the
].
7 licensing board.
i 8
MR. CASE: Qualify that, Larry, it.it's knowledgeable.
9 MR. VANDENBERG That's my next point.
As I Just.
i 10 said,.if-it's knowledgeable, employ.
But we do not follow 11 a procedure, at least as a routine practice follow a procedure i
i 12 for sufacing dif f ering opinions held by staff members -who 13 are-not a part of the working group for that particular
(
14 application and review.
15 That's. exactly the point.
~
16 COMMISSIONER ' AHE ARNE: So what you're saying is 17 that differing opinion that is tracked through and finally IS
.would ge t presented must be. one that is f rom. one of the 19 individuals assigned to work on that particular' case.
20 MR. CASE: What he's more saying is we don't go out 21 and ask.everybody else do they agree with us.
22 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE:
I'm more interested in what 23 if somebody who isn't working on that particular case raises i
24 an' objection, a technical object' ion, and the staff position
~25 doesn't change ?
?-
e
' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSr INC. (202)347-3700
.-... ~.
r 358.10.2-31
.gsh
- l CHAIRMAN H.ENDRI.Et, 0n,ce an -in'dividual raises a point 2
of view and is willing to enunciate it and make it known, 3
most particularly if the person will please put it in writing, 4
' then' I think it goes forw'ard unless.somebody just loses it.
5 But 'aside from people enunciating differences of 6
that kind,11t gets pre tty hard to 'some.how ring out the
~
7 whole staff of all kinds. of, well, I don't quite agree.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I wasn't asking-for t 9
' fishnet approach-to the-question.
10-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it's clear, certainly 11 since last summer,.you know' this has been in evolution for 12 some time and picked up. the piece against last summer. And 13
'I.think at the present time it's quite clear that where a
(
14
' differing point of view, shade of opinion, or flat disagreement 15 has been clearly enunciated so it's identifiable, and most 16 particularly, where it is written so that there is a piece 17
.of. paper that has to be dealt w'ith, that, indeed, it will 18 go forward and be recognized as a diff ering : point of view.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And what had surprised me-20-
-about what Larry says is, I gather that even to the point
-21 brought. forward and' ' presented to the licensing board.
22 MR. CASE: I n the ACRS, too.
R23 C(1MMISSIONER XENNEDY: As a matter of fact, the
.24 1976 l'etter made that very e xolicit, not 'only to the ACRS 25 and the licensing board, but es well to tne public' document
~
sCE-FEDERsl SEPORTER$r.3NC. 4308)347-37,00.
9
E-
- y'
?
358.10.3' 32 gsh I
room end all? parties in. proceedings 'in which the technical,
2' Issue was involved.
3 MR.-VANDENBERG: That's.the o ff ice letter no. 11.
-4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right.
5l MR. VANDENBERGs To summarize here, I. think a 6
difficult issue -in bringing in differi.ng opinion and informing i
4 7
the licensing boards seems not to be in handling the j
8 differing opinion once it's known, but in identifying it.
9 May we have the next slide, please?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY - Now in identifying it, would Ji you explain why that is a problem?
12 MR. VANDEdBERG Well, it's a problem in several
'13 regards.. First, in general, differing opinions are, let's I
('
14 say, sought only. among that knowledgeable working group,
15 working on a part.icular application.
There is not the fishnet 16 put out among a.11 2300 staff, and that's, I think, the key 3~
17-problem we have to talk about when you say the problem of 18 identifying views.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There's also an identification 20 problem. If a staff member makes some comment, which the main 21 line, the consensus view of the staff thinks is not worthy of 22 noting in-its testimony, or whate ver, unle ss the originating 23 individual puts at the top of his sheet of paper, I think 24' this ought Lto go forward and be included in the staff 25
' presentation -to the licensing board, why, sonetimes it.isn't
)
' ACE-FEDERAL-l REPORTERS, INC._(202)347-3700.__ _
u i358.10,4 33 gsh I
so clear.whether_ it',s un,1 form and of the ' nature that duly
~
?
- qualifies as a diff ering opinion to be taken forward.
3 Particular1y' this 'is true 'where comments are made 4
and views-held'and it's not enunciated in writing.
5 So I-think there may also be some difficulty there 6
and I think we're going to have. to recognize down the line-7f
.that there are certain ' practical limits of-how deeply _you 8
can sc. cop-anything that's identified as something a person 9-would like to go forward.
It ought to go forward in a 10 perfectly routine manner.
0 Il COAWI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
With a comment.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not really so concerned 13 about trying to make sure everybody's asked.
My real concern b
14 is making sure that people who are trying to get their opinion 15 in have a chance.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.Have a perfectly clear track, 17 and also, that as I have been preaching since. I ' got here, 18 and also so that the process is a routine and ordinary one 19 and doesn't, by?its exercise, raise a lot of. personal bad 20 f eelings and friction and so on in the organization.
12 1 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE: Right.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Very straightf orward, very 23 pro f e ss io na l.
24 COMMISSI0dE.4 AHEARNE: La rry, the description of 25 what you. said sounds very good,- -and ~ Jim, stop me if I get too
~
- ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.-(202)347-3700 __
~ 58.10.5.
34 3
gsh I
- f ar into Shearon~Ha rris.... But the descript. ion that-you 2-talked about isn't what Shearon Harris, what happened in 3
Shearon Harris.
I mean the process and the description of 4
'the way things 'are supposed to work that you described is 5.
Just different than the way the staff behaved there.
6 And in reading through the reinterviews and stuff, 7
the impression came through very strongly that your 8
description isn't the way they understood the system is 9
supposed to operate.
10 MR. KELLEY: I think you are maybe on the edge.
Ji CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The edge?
I think maybe you've 12 dived into the middle of the pool.
13 (Laughter.)
l'4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And there wasn't any water.
15 MR. KELLEY:
We have structured a procedure whereby 16 the OI A report became available to the commission this last 17 week and this is now forwarded to the board. It will be put 18 in the record in that case.and the parties will have the 19 opportunity to comment on.that. While as an-abstract 20 proposition one might separate out internal procedure from 21 the merits. issue in'that case, I. think also, as I understand 22 it, that report from OIA has just now been sent over to you
- 23
.and it asks.you to. comment and nakes some recommendations there 24 for procedures.
~
25 And this paper in today's brie fing isn't geared up e
LACE-FEDERALEREPORTERS,;INC. (202)347-3700
~358.10.6 35 lgsh 1
'for that., ~And I th1nk we,'re a little previous.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me rephrase the question:
3 How confident are you that what you've described is the 4
way the system works?.
5 MR. VANDENBERO: Well, some of these procedures are 6
quite. new. For example, the board notification procedures.
7 MR. 00SSICK: Not 1.00 percent, to answer your 8
. question.
9 MR. ENGELHARDT I think there's another problem l
10 that Larry has touched on.
That's that these instructions
.11 to the staff.in the field are not precise in terms of saying 12 differing, saying in those words, differing opinions will 13 be dealt with.
14 Some are, but some are not. And I.think that may 15 be an element of the di.fficulty in terms of why some people 16 understand the method and maybe others don't quite understand 17 it.
18 CO MMISSIONER. AHE ARNE :
Do you think it should be?
19 MR. ENGELHARDT I think it should be common 20 guidance.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why isn't there?
I was 22 struck by this.
The guidance is dealing with essentially 23 thegsame subject matter, and yet, it's all phrased somewhat 24 differently in individual office letters.
25 MR VANDENBERG: Mr. Kennedy, I think vou could shed c
h
. 68@-F@@ER% REPORTERS,.INC. (202)347-3700
\\
356.10.7 36
-gsh I
.some light on'that.. Basically, this whole area, the policy 2-in - this. area is continua lly evoivl'ng, and some of it quite 3
recently.
4
-MR. 00SSICK:
That's right, and that's exactly the 5
purpose behind this overall effort.
j 1
6, COMMI SSIONER. KENNEDY: You're, coming to describe 7
now what's next.
8 MR. VANDENBERG Co rrec t.
9 MR.MINOGUE: I'd like, if I may, to comment on what i
10 Commissioner Kennedy said.
There was a cover letter -- it
.11 wasn't in the package, but basically, I saw the guidance 12 within standards as a supplement to the agency-wide guidance.
13 And the reason it reads differently is what we did was through 14 staff f eedback, identify specific practical problems that 15 people had working in that area a'nd try to put out guidance i
16 that was specific to those problems within the general 17 framework of the commission-wide guidance, which I think is 18 quite clear and is generally applicable.
19-MR. VANDENBERG Speaking about what's next
~20
-(Slide.)
21 MR. VANDENB$RG
-- the main e f. fort underway is 22 what I've of ten re ferred to today as the i UREG-0500 document.
23 That. was published. this last summer and distributed to all 24
.NRC employees.
Also, people outside the agency.
3100 copies 25 in total, I believe.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
._.,7 l358.10.S:
37 1
g s'h
'l That' docum,ent t.ried to de three. things.
It tried.
2 to present a framework to think about the problems in this 3
area.
It identified some actual procedures in place at 1
4 other organizations, both government and outside the
]
5 government. And then, it,tried to describe existing _i1RC 6
agency-wide policy within the framewor.k of that same guideline.
7-It was sent out, as I said,'to all employees.
It S
asked. them for comment on the ideas in 'it, whether there are 9
additional procedures and policies that you have heard about 10 which we should then consider, and actually developed a il proposed agency policy.
12 Comments we re requested by September 15th, and there wer 27 comments received.
They were recen'tly sent to you 13 e
14 in a-separate paper which tried to summarize them.
15 The next step now is to try to develop coordination 16 with the rest of the offices, some of the agency policies 17 and procedures that have been broadly covered, the points 13 we raised today, and also, the unresolved issues that we've 19
. talked about today.
20_
One key area, and Chairman Hendrie, you mentioned 21 thir earlier, it hasn't at-least been decided right yet, 22 the follow-on work ~ to - NUREG-05 00, where I deal specifically 23 with this' issue of ?roviding testimony before licensing boards.
24 That's unclear at this point.
25 CHAIRMAN MENDRIE: I tnink it's certainly net the
- ACE-FEDERAL 1REPORTERSi INC, (202)347-3700,
358.10.9 38 gsh I
right place.to write a ge,neral manual of the principal and 2
bases on which staff are to base their testimony.
3 I think because we have had a specific case and 4
at least one and may have others, and others in the future, 5
and so on, I think it may be appropriate, and probably is 6
appropriate in the ongoing work that b.as es on NUREG'-0500, 7
to talk about circumstances where staf f members have 8
dif fering views about te s t.imo n y. either about to be given, 9
or that has been given, and what to do about that.
10 But it would seem to me to be sort of a footnote 11 on the general proposition about moving the information 12 forward, about le tting the dissenting views come on up, 13 differing views.
14 MR. VANDENBERG There will have to be more than 15 one document, something of that nature.
)
16 CHAIRMAN HENORIE: I think so.
17 MR. VANDENBERG: That concludes all the remarks I 13 ha ve.
I'll be haopy to answer any questions.
19 CHAIRM AN HENDRIE: Go ahead, John.
20 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE:
Could you tell me what are 21 the next procedural steps that are planned?
22 MR. VANDENBERG: In a sense, there's two one of 23 then being the first year review of the four notifica tion 24 procedures, bringing ne v and relevant n'eterial and infor ation 25 to the attention of the boards af ter the publication of the 1
l l
ACE-FEDERGL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
{
353.10.10L 39
.gsh I
bas ic : doc.ume nts.. An.d th,a,t 1111,1 probably be coming out next-
~
2
. year.
3
.More important I think is this e ffort we have 4
. underway to: develop a comprehensive agency-wide policy and 5
procedure. 'That's one of the first steps, was'the issuance 6
of this NUREG-0500 document.
de received the comments on.
7 that and now our offic.e is attempting to - use-the framework 8
we've' developed in 0500, plus the comments received to try 9
to' thrash out the issues and-come out with a statement of 10 policy and some specific of fice-level procedures.
~
11 And that's what we're just starting to do right-12 now..
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you have sort of.a schedule?
14 MR. VANDEHBERO: We don't have it with us today.
15 I think that we could have proposed policy ready for review 16 in the early part of next year.
17 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: Early part means --
18 MR. VANDEABERO:
Janaury or February.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
How do we go about 20 clarifying, I think, two = of the points that were brought up 21.
heres First, that differing opinions are meant to be included 22 in some of these instructions.
23 MR. VANDENBERG: I think they could be done in a 2 41 culte straightfoward nanner, just by saying so.
You're talking 25 about' like. f or the coard-notification procedure?
~
ACE-FEDERAk REPORTERS, I N C., ( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 '/_- 3 7 0 0 _
358.10.;11 40 gsh l'
C. MMISSIONER AHE ARNE: That's r ig.ht.
0 2
MR. VANDENBERG That doesn't seem to me to be a 3
difficult 1 area to clarify.
4 CO MMISSIONER EAHEARNE : How would.you suggest ?
S' MR. VANDENBERG: In sone sort of comprehensive 6
agency policy.-I think.we can deal cle,arly with that portion 7
of. the licensing boards and staf f and. they had a unif orm 3
policy.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Should we wait as far as the o erall policy?
10 v
11 MR. VANDENBERG Well, frankly, my own view strictly l
12 is that we should, but the board notification procedures have 13 not been in effect all that long.
I 14 They really got their start in September.
It was 15 at this time that the training sessions were held.
1 16 MR. ENGELHARDT: Right.
17 COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE: And changing them?
18 MR. VANDEJBERG When we know --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought it was explaining.
20 I didn't realize it was changing.
The second, I guess your 21 answer would be the'same on this point that we had been 22 debating earlier, if the person rea.11y wants to set forward 23 the opinion, that it will go forward.
24 Would the answer be the same the re ?
25 MR. VANDEJBERO:
What we would do there is devel-op ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
I i
358.10.12 41
~ gsh 1
some sort.of procedu.re.a3 circulate it among all the offices, d
.2 particularly the ' program offices.
i 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Oh, gee.
I would hope that l
4 perhaps you.might circulate it among the commissioners.-
I 5
would think that that might be --
l 6
MR. BASSETT: That's our intent. Our intent is to 7
.first circulate it in the staff.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My final question was, we're 9
having a briefing today on the general policy on differing 10 prof e ss ional ' opinions.
Are there any diff ering profe ssional opinions on the opinion you presented?
12 That's not a facetious question.
13 MR. VANDENBERG No, there are not.
l
(
I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There are not?
15 MR. VANDENBERG Not that I know of.
j 16 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE:
I see.
17 (Commi.ssioner Ke nnedy leaves the r oom. )
IS CHAIRMAll HENDRIE: Any speculation on why 3000-odd 19 copies produced 27 comments?
20 MR. VANDENBERO: We have given that a lot of thought..
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There was such universal applause 22 for this document that people felt no --
23 MR. VANDENBERG Have vou read the comments?
l 24 CHAIRMAN HE:lDRIE: Well, the 27 commenters I'm 2
25 grate'ful to.
I'm worried about the other 3000.
i
~
i
-l 1
i
.__fif ETRJEWLJR[Qh6HDR@jb Rf@ n 12@pSS47-27@Q l
1
- 358o10.13' 42 gsh-l~
COMMISSIONER AH,EARNE:
I was wondering about the 2
universal approval'.
I thought there were a couple there-3.
that weren't quite --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Semi-universal, near-universal.
5 I don't know.
6 MR. BASSETT I have an answer, Chairman Hendrie, l
7 and it really is thatfwhat we were trying to show in 8
NURE0-0500 was a survey or a state of the art, and I'm not.
i 9
certain' that that sort of thing -- I think we did a pretty 10 good job in that respect.
.11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I do, too.
' 12 MR. BASSE.TT: I'm not certain that people had i
13 thought about it to the extent that we had.
So, consequently, 14 I'm.not certain that there are going to be a great number of 15 additional sorts of ideas that are' going to be brought f orth.
16-I would suspect that we'll get the comments when 17 we get the draft manual chapter out.
I.think that that 18 will be the.. thing that will indicate interest.
19 COMMI.SSIONER - AHEARNE : I would also surmise that 20 the fundamental policy is fairly straightforward.
'If you 21 have a strong differing opinion, it will first be. listened to, 22 and if it is not agreed to and you are firm on it, it goes 23 tor ard.
w MR. SASSETT: Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:. And there's no retribution 202) 347-3700l LACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSr INC.
(
i c
!358.10.14-43
. gsh 1-e xacted f.or. 'doing thlst..
l
'2 MR. BASSETT Yes.
3-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A simple straightforward 4
policy.
It-might be greeted' with a f air level of 5
skepticism.
6, f(R. BASSETT Yes.
7
- COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And so :I think that the i
8-real. issue is whether or not 'that policy turns out to be-9 actually implemented. I'm not ' focusing upon - the NRC.
I'm:not 10-taking issue with any of the past issues or problems the 11 agency has fed, but uniformly across the government. The 12 concern is that -people who really disagree do, and continue 13 to carry forward that disagr.eement, do it at significant i
14 hazard. - And our policy appears to be that no, that's no t 15 going to be the case. And I would guess that one of the major 16 attitudes in response to our policy would be one of skepticism 17 to see if it really turns out to be the case l
IS MR. BASSE.TT We thought a lot about that, 19 especially in' terms o't how do you determine whether that 20 r e all y. -- -
2 'l CHAIRMAN HENDRI5 -Right. 1 Die problem is to make a 22 f air determination about whether there has been some, you know,
. )
23
- grunching.,on the diff ering individuals.
And it's very much 24 akin to sort' of the back edge-of the sword.
25 de want a policy whi'ch protects the poor but honest
~
e W
-~
m
,e,,
av.-.
- 358.10.15 44 gsh I
staff member trying to do a good job from.the black 2
mustachloed mortgage-holding supervisor who's trying to 3-force him to say evil and untrue, things.
Right?
Right.
4 (Laughter.)
5 CHAIRMAN HEiiDRIE: At the same time, we're trying-6 to protect the poor-but honest supervi.sor trying to do an
'7 honest job of regulation from the black mustachioed 0
mortgage-holding staf f member who's trying to malinger on 9-
.this and so on.
And I think the real agony of creation in 10 terms of the manual chapter is to-try to establish some Ji reasonable system to sort those things out.
12 And the retribution aspect is --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It cuts two ways.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- is very much a part of this.
15 You know, my view as your branch chief is the reason I'm j
16 hollering at you is not because last week, you know, you 17 f Lled a differing opinion, but because I don't know, you 18 came in late or I didn't like some piece of work.
And your 19 view is that, you know, it isn't.that, but it was because' 20 you filed a diff ering opinien.
21 How do 'we sort.this out 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Sure.
Part of it I think 23 also has to be that up.the line, management doesn't take it 24 as a_ signa.lly bad sign on a lower manager that one of that 25 manager's people disagreed.
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 358.10.16 45 gsh.
I fCHAIRMAN HENDRIEs, Ao,solutely right.
2 COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE:
It's not a real black mark 3
against the manager to have disagreement.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Maybe we could set up -- I s.ee 5
you don't want'to setcup an award.
We could have a special 6
award every year for the supervisor wh.ose people complained 7
most.
8 (Laughter.)
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Joe, disagreement and 10 complaints are two different things.
9 MR. VANDENBERO: Right along those same lines, part
.11 12 of the framework we've developed in 0500 to give this area 13 something to get hold of, we thought perhaps there's five 14 steps that have to be gone through in the procedure, and we 15 have to make the difference known, there has to be a management 16 response so the employee knows where he~ stands.
Then there's 17 got to be some procedural alternative if the emp!?yee is 18 dissatisfied with that managerial response.
And the last 19 two steps, there's got to be some follow-up to make sure that 20 the issue is resolved, and then perhaps there also has to 21 be some follow up to make sure that there's been no 22, retaliation, or it.there.has been, it is then dealt with.
23 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE: I guess on that last one, 24 we'd really have to assure that if there is retaliation, it's 25 really dealt with.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSr.INC. (202)347-3700~
.(
'358.10.17 46 gsh
'l
, CHAIRMAN HENDRI,Et _
I agree. Sob?.
2 MR. MINOGUE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one 3
comment. if: I may. It's not really relevant to what's being 4
discussed, but'it's a point I'm not sure has come out fully.
5 Within the framework of some general agency-wide 6
policy,. I think there has to be a reco,gnition that the role 7
of different offices in the licensing process is quite 8
different.
And that if a policy. that makes good sense, for 9
example, in NRR-is laid directly on an operation like 10 standard, it can turn them inside out.
J1 We've had problems like this earlier this year.
12 So I think there has to be a recognition that in addition to 13 an agency-wide policy that we all follow, there are situations 14 and circumstances, it's a question of the. knowledge of cases 15 and an understanding of relevancy, an understanding of 16 special factors, that it varies among offices.
17 You really need o.ffice-specific procedtres, 18 particularly for the secondary offices like research.
19 COMMISSI0 DER iHEARNE: Could you expand upon that 20 a little, Bob?
21 MR. MINOGUE:
Let me give you a specific example.
22
.The people in standards, by and larg e, are not sufficiently 23 familiar with the details of cases to be able to decide 24 whether someth.ing is relevant and material or not.
In fact,
'25 one has been. developed between us and. NRR, some kind of a ACE-FEDERAL-REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
8 M
4 I
358.10.18 47
.gsh
)
screeningfprocess that takes 1ssues that the{ identify as 2
being important from some general safety-perspective and 3
runs it through a screening review by people wne -know what's 4-
.before the' hearing' boards and so on.
5 If the procedure is laid on that, in fact, said to
'6' the people ~in standards, you must know,what's before the 7
boards,1you must know. fully what's relevant or not relevant, 8
they;can't do that.
They' don't have' enough information about 9
the cases.
10.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But would you have any
.J 1 problem with a procedure that said if someone in standards, 12 after having been told by RRR that that's not relevant, 13 said, but I really.think it is and~I want it to go forward,
(
14 do you have any problem?
15 MR. MINOGUE: Absolutely not.
As a matter of f act, 16 our off. ice specific procedure says exactly that.
After this 17 review is made, they still.think it's relevant, it goes 18 forward.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine.
20 MR. MINOGUE:
Some of this comes back to the staff's 21 undue pressure.
They f. eel that, gee, they're be ing asked
]
22 to -dig into stuf f they _ don't know anything about.
And i
23 somehow, if they. don't turn things up, they're doing 24 something wrong.
25
. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My concern really, it's_not
~
e -
202)347-3700
(
- A C E - F E D E R A L._ R E P O R T E R S, f.I N C.
/:
~
l i
358.10.19 48 gsh I
to make sure that we've gone through as ex. tensive. a f ishing.
2 expedition as we can.
My concern is only that if an 3
indiv.idual really believes they have something that is 4
important, that at first we.have to make sure that there's l
5 an appropriate review of that because the staff position 6
might want to change as a. result of th.at issue.
7 But, then, if an individual sti.11 feels.it's 8
important, there ought to be a procedure that he can go 9
forward without retributicn.
10 MR. MINOGUE:
I agree with that totally.
Il I think the thing that.has concerned me is that some of these 12 procedures, af ter they've been la.id on us, have turned into 1.3 a rm-twis ting.
(
I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You mean arm-twisting.
~
15 MR. MINOGUE: To f ind st uff, to produce matters that 16 ought to be brought forward.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Other commentary?
19 (No re.sponse.)
20 COMMI.SSIONER AtlEARNE:
Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you very much, gA' 22 (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m.,
the hearing concluded.)
0 23 24 25, fi@R -F1RFdRr2A @EP@RTERS, INC.. (202)347-3700