ML20204H032
| ML20204H032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1984 |
| From: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204H001 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-183 NUDOCS 8608070445 | |
| Download: ML20204H032 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:f ' " %, e UN n i D S'l AT E E-NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.? .. .
f . ' ' 'l r.EcioN ev fI k ., / 611 RYAN PLAZ A DRIVE. SUITE 1000
%, ,8 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 March 19, 1964 MEMQRANDUM FOR: Region IV Inspection Staff FROM: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
INTERIM REGION IV POLICY WITH REGARD TO CONTACTING ALLEGER Pending issuance of the NRC Manual Chapter concerning the management of allegations, the interim Region IV policy with regard to contacting allegers will be as follows:
- 1. The alleger should be contacted promptly, either by telephone or in person. The results of this contact should be documented by memo.
- 2. Where there is a prolonged inspection, the alleger should be advised of the delay.
- 3. The alleger should be contacted upon completion of the inspection and advised of the findings. This contact should be documented in the inspection report. ,
- 4. A letter forwarding a copy of the inspection report should be sent to the alleger by the responsible branch.
- 5. Personnel should keep in mind the Dircks' January 6,1984, memo, which establishes the policy for dealing with those who provide information to the NRC.
- 6. There will be exceptions to this policy. These should be coordinated through the Enforcement Officer on a case by case basis.
If you have further questions regarding this memo, please contact Tom Westerman. 1 WfftbN4 &' t John T. Collins Regional Administrator R r Af2, GO 5 860801 GARDE 86-183 PDR
y E D o (2 /f APR 121985 (n/r/ pf2. MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors
. Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks
. Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 0517, " MANAGEMENT OF \ ALLEGATIONS" In my September 19, 1984 memorandum to you, same subject, you were advised that the Commission was reviewing the issues of confidentiality and late allegations, and that 0517 would not be finalized until these points had been addressed. The Commission has reached a decision with regard to late allegations. The statement of policy is attached, and will be incorporated into 0517 when the manual chapter is finalized. In the meantime, please use it as policy on the matter of late-filed allegations. I
\
($1 ped) William J.Dirck8
^
William J. Dircks - Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated R WDircks JRoe TRehm I l PDR i , VStello l ! RBrady I HDenton
/
O' - ~' ' DL ONR EDO , f RStark e ut on
// y:mj%/85
/85 F//85f%[ plglia /85 HTho{mpsonD,p[85 y/ /85 WMDircks 3/ /85
-Wyr sG4t&' l
l
\
- MD'30 Feder:1 RegistIr / Vcl. 50. N2. 53 / Tresday krch 19, 1985 / Nouses
=
Bwsed on our evaluation, we find that the existing fire protection features in conjunction with alternate shutdown consultants,and staff.Punons desiring . review the secolation to make oral statements should notify issues given a small benak 1DCA. . -~. - the ACRS staff member named below as Oral statements miy be presenia'd 'by capability for Fire Area 25 provide a far in advance as is practicable so that metnbers of the public with the .. level of fire proteltion equivalent to the . appropriate arrangements can be mada. . technical requirements of Subsection . During the initialportion of the. - concurrence of the Sobcammittee -.., III.G.3 of Appendix R. an'd therefore, the meeting. the Subcommittee, along with
- 4. Chairman; writion statements wiB he 9T-2S.
exemption should bh g anted. accepted and made available to the any ofits consultants who may be
- Committee. Recordings wiH be permitted,"
U present, may exchange preliminary . only during those peruons of the viewa regarding matters to be - Accordingly, the Commission has considered during the balance of the meeting when a transcript is being kept. . determined that, pursuant to to CFR 'and questions may be asked only by 50.12. the exemptions requested by the meeting. .' . members of the Subcommittee. ita .. The Subcommittee will then hear consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring : licensee's letters as referenced and presentations by and hold discussions discussed in II. and !!I. absve are with representatives of the'NRC Staff. to make oral atstements abould notify cuthorized by la w, will not endanger life its consultants. and other interested . the ACRS staff member named below as erproperty or the common defense and far in advance as is practicable so that persons regarding thierreview. - security, are otherwise in the public i appropriate arrangements can be made. Further information regarding topics During the tnitial portion of the interest, and are hemby granted. to be discussed, whether the meeting Pursuant to 10 CFh 51.32. the meeting. the Subcommittee, along with has been sancelled or resseduled. the any ofits consultants who mayhe i. a Commission has determ!ned that the Chairman's ruling on requests for the Issuance of the exemption will have no opportunity to present oral statements proeect.may exchange preliminary-signifscant impact on the environment views regarding matters to be and the time allotted therefor can be considered during the balance of the (50 FR 9735). _.
' obtained by a prepaid telephone call to This Exemption is effective upon meeting.
the cognizant ACRS staff member.Mr. issuance. %e Subcommitt'ee will then hear Richard Major (telephone 202/634-1414) presentations by and hold discussions Deted at Bethesda. Md.. this 13th day of between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m EST. Mrrch 1985. with representatives of the NRC Staff. Persons planning to attend this meeting Fgr the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. are urged to contact the above named its consultants. and other interested g% persons regarding this review. ' ~
- Individual one or two days before the Further information regarding topics
' "8 scheduled mee, ting to be advised of any j' ;#'{'3,'j"3h"",*,',. #'"#I
], D , changes in schedule. etc., which may to be discussed. whether the meeting has been cancelled or reacheduled, the have occurred.
{nt Doc. 35-6550 Filed 3-1Ms. s 45 am) Chairman's ruling on requests for the same cooe ms ow Dated March 14.1985. , IDpporturdty to present oral statements Morton W.Ubarkin. . and the time allotted therefor can be Advisory Committee on Reactor . Assistant riacutire Dusciarfarhwect obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Aeriew. - the cognizant ACRS staff member.Mr.'
' Saf guards, Subcommittee on Long .
[nt Doc. 35-4547 Filed 3-t8-45.145 am) - Pen! Boehnert (telephone 202/634-3267) R*nge Ptan for the NRC; Meetin9 anAsso coot rees.ew between 8.15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m EST. The ACRS Subcommittee on long Persons planning to attend this meeting,:.'
. Renge Plan for the NRC will hold a are urged to contact the above named-meeting on April 5.1985. Room 1040 Advisory Committee on Reactor individual one or two days before the 1717 H Street. NW.. Washington. DC. Safeguards; Subcomtalttee on scheduled meeting to be adviseo of any The entire meetin Emergency Core Cooling Systems; changes in schedule, etc. which mcy public attendance. g will be open to the hiesting - ' -
have occurred. .,,,,. , The a enda for subject meeting shall The ACRS Subcommittee on " h Mard u. tsas. - ' be as fo lows: Emergency Core Cooling Systems will M*"" **'kI"' Fridoy. April 5.1985-830 a.m. untilthe hold a mceting on April 3.1985. Room A** conclusion ofbusiness y f'*"'E**'"'i'eDancurforhoject 1046.1717 H Street. NW, Washington.
. The Subcommittee will continue 7 discussions on developing a long range gg gg 2., ,,,, ,,, w plan for the NRC. Topics under will be open to public attendance.
discussion are technical and However. portions of the rneeting may cdministrative issues related to the be c!o' ' ' Statement of Policy: Handhng of Late in,9, ns n l ils of b Asegations 1 - end sa ety gul tion v r he nex 5 - Combustion Engineering CE FLASH 4AS to years and % estinghouse BART/ BASH thermal aorncy: Nuclear Regulatory des Commission. Ors! statement may be presented by members of the public with the h(aubc , g e subMet meeting acnosc Statement of Policy 5 Handling of concurrence of the Subcommittee . shall be as follows: l AU'8'II"' Chairman: written atatements will be Wednesday. April 3.1985-4.30 a.m. eccepted and made available to the SuesesAny:This policy atatament . until the conclusion of business presents the criteria the Commission -
- Committee. Recordings will be permitted 'The Subcorr.mittee will discuss the enly dun'ng those portions of the will follow in addressing late allegations following:(1)The WBART/ BASH ECCS received from sources outside the m:eting when a transcript is being kept." codes. (2J teview the resolution of 7M1 cnd questiena may be asked only by Comunission. in the conte.xt of licensing Item IlX3.30. revision of small break reviews. It also' directs that the atafra .
members of the Subcomunittes.ite - 1DCA ECCS Evalust.oo Models: and (3) procedures formotifying Atomic Safety 6 I
, r i. 13 317 Feders! Register / Vcl. 50. Ns. 53 / Tuesd:y Wrch1s.1985 / Notiers-f ahortly befors. and in some comes on tbs decision denialof thelicenseinsought,the that they would . . - requits :- ,"
~
- end 1.icensing Boards. Atomic Safety eve of, the date on which a decision on cnd1.icensing AppealBoards,and the Commission of the receipt of be revised to provide for an initial.
whether to authorize the leauance of an allegstions eperating license wasinvestigation. impaaltionof additionalconditionsan . to be made. Some such license, Allegatico which.even if
- for farthe coarse screening pnar to issuance of a, of these allegations related to matters in .true, are not material ta any hoessing M d controversy and others stated to ,.
Board Notification. a , previously uncontested issues not under decision or ashich en Gneir .- face .' ce ahet consideration by a particular initialinquiry are determined to be sFFEcTIV DATE: March 19.1985. , pon FunrMan mponuation cowtAct,- adjudicatory tribunal.Significant - 6
- frivolous ce too vague er 3M fa *m -
asture to provide sulBcient informatiom Lawrence J. Chandler. Office of the cummitments of staff resources often for the staff toinvestigate wulreceive Esecutive Legal Director.U.S. Nuclear must be diverted at the last minute to *** . b Regulatory Commission. Washington, addreu large numbers oflate no further consideration. - D.C. 20555. Telephone: 301 492-4658. ga ne m " ' As to allegetions which are usaterial f to the licensing decision, the
*' & 4 k* .1 tuppi.suswtAny wronesaview: , an d I safety significance. Commission staff will next determine l Statement of Policy- Ideally, all allegations concerrd" whether the information presented is new in the sense of raising a matter not p Particular facility will be resofved is exphn the po c w ich t c before any license is authorized. If, previously oansidered or tending to corrobrate previously received but no,t Commission tha treatment o late exfects allegations to fo!!ow regarding allegations and/or however because of their tardy the yetnumber resolved allegations. of In making thrs , q, ,
i < received from sources outside t! e submission. all allegations cannot be determination, all information available . Commission,in operating license resolved in a timeframe consistent withto the Commission will be considered. reviews and in the board notification reasonable and responsible licensing including that previously provided by an
- process.The focus of this statement is action.it msy be necessary to give . applicant or licensee and that obtained en NRC staff and Commission pre- by the Commission in the course ofits l priority to those allegations which.
licensing safety reviews of uncontested because of their potentialimpact on review and inspection efforts or from its issues. and Commission pre.ficensing safety.must be resolved before licensing investigation of prior allegations. In , j immediate effectiveness reviews of
- action can be taken, a me cases.inf rmation already contested issues.The treatment of initialScreeningof Allegations av ailable to the NRC may be sufficiertl e.llegations in formal adjudicatory to resolve certain allegations. However, licensing proceedings will continue to be Any concems bearing on the safety of if an allegation la found to be both , ,
govemed by the Rules of Practice in 30 a facility should be brmaght promptly to material and new,the staff will '. ' < CFR Part 2. Apart from this policy investigate the allegation further.
.the attent, ion of the applicant orlicensee. If,however,this approachis statement. the Commission has initiated a rulemaking to codify NRC caselaw uns at. isf actory, any person is free i Further' Review criteria for reopening a closed bring such concerns direct! to the NRC.
To ehminate unnecessary clay b ik . . . If the s*.alf determines that, as ares @
^
svidentiary record in a formal licensing of the number of allegations or the ,,. proceeding and to specify further the licensing pmens 6 the extent possible, timeframe in which they are received it documentary bases for motions to any person who has an allegation conceming the des!gn. construction. appears liiely that full consideration of 'l reopen. including those which may be all allegations cannot be accomplished ' based on a!!egations. 49 FR 5m89 Operation, or management of a nuclear consistent with responsible and timely (December 27,1984). Power plant has a duty to bring such Commission action,the Commission The most fundamental tenet flowing inf rmation to the Commission's from the NRC's ststutory mar.date under attentin as promptly as possible. All s taff will conduct a further screening of the AtomicEnergy Actis that alicense allegations should be specific and the allegations to determine their snay be issued only ifit can be found dos "nented to the fullest extent significance 2 ufety and thelore Gose submitung aHegsHons in what priority should be assigned that there is reasonable assurance thatPo. relative to the activity to be authorieed.' the activity to be authorized presents no gow nIth should be aware that crHeria d be undue risk to the health and safety of appropriate protection against De follwMg scre the public.nere can be no' abdication retaliatory action by an applicant ce coMdM 4g
;. j cf the responsibility to make this r ors ;
I #]'II",CIu ring i e correct, taking in,to considera tion all determination and if there is a serious anization*Act of available information including the question as to the abilit to make such 220 of the Energy Re 71 parties and apparent level of knowledge, expertise, finding. no license may issued and 1974. 42 U.S.C. 5851. A - the time necessary to resolve such persons are reminded that Federallaw and reliabilitt of the individual, questioh must and will be taken. Imposes penalties upon any person who submitting the allegation in terms of the intentionally makes any false statement allegation submitted and the possible Therefore. In the context of ate ellegations,it is necesnary that - or representation to any agency of the existence of more credible " ' contrary information.
- appropriate critens be applied toinenable United States's allegations, the the decisionmaker be it the NRC's staff reviewin cr the Commission itself. to appropriate Commission staff office will % a seamt m.ner.the con =nian hu cxpeditiously determine the first determine whether.if true.' the **Sorised lawaer et erwenns her** Aret toe -
sinnificance. In terms of safe operation allegations are material to the licensing seu peer meumsimee n erreadpe-wlsad *
' e=bs.,antir ser t.n p eper ues terma,se cf the facility, of any allegathme snade. -
. ebon n et red po 4 taem m em err
- In connection with its review of a - 'm comminion wmansu ne miaws.new 6.n h.en torther rermet for es.n,ie. puo r et 4 unna for an purpo., er pusnber of recent cases.the NRC has . 8'*8'*.by i rf eng selety leet het system teoug erkicat ry and sere powera .and marI '
6denufyins and resolvin wwwwoenewr ai.emec '
.nor a4,se,an othget ons e eces a e.d unermswe beea coa. fronted with the task nurbereemerpa ofaddressmg large d- , numbers bee.morned. of allegations . m.s.eiy which were broaght to its atiention very e .. .
h . neue e
- * - - -
- _ - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . - , , - - , . - - ._---------.-2, , , _ , , , ---.---------,,w -
- . - , , , ----.,--.-w,% , , _ , ,
- g '
l ,
.. ?
'l10'2 3 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 53 / Tuesday. March 19.1985 / Notices ' -
t 2.De need for prompt consideration Dated at Washington. D.C.en this 13th cf the allegation recognizing the public day oNarch sesi attributable to hydropower development and operation, statement of program interest in avoiding undue delay.lf the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. goals, development of program staff determines that an allegation raises s )ohn C. Hoyle, objectives, and measurement of progress o significant safety concern regarding. Assistantsecrosary .- toward goals and objectives. - u.% ,; fzt example the destgrf construction, or {m Doc. 054544 FSed s-le-es; tes am] ~ ~~ operation of a facilitwor about quality Pon Fusmern essPonesAftese coerfacf( e u sse cosa w w
- Dulcy Mahar Director of Pubtle cssurance or controlor management conduct, which bnngs into question the Information andInvolvement. -
Northwest Power Manning Council, d res d Ir o auth ng hat R E ATIO 8 8 p 6 3 st ge.For purposes of this policy statsment, en allegation will be . - 1-400-222-3355, from idaho, Montana,
~
i c:nsidered safety ignificant if the Hydropower Assessment Steering and Washington)* l cliegation would,I true,(1) raise a Committee; Meeting sumassmany swomasAviose De , v, , cignificant question about the ability of ' Pacific Northwest Electric Pbwer
- o particular structure, system,'or Assasev: Hydropower Assessment '
Planning and Conservation Act of1960, component to perform its intended Steering Committee of the pacific ) 16 U.S.C. a39 ("the Northwest Power i anfity function or (2) raise a significant Northwest Electric Power and - Conservation Planning Council e Act") authorized the Council to amend - question of management competence, its Columbia River Basin Fish and integrity' or ~conduct or about (Northwest Power Planning Council). Wildlife Program from time to time. At implementation of the quality assurance Actiosc Notice of meeting to be held its regularly-scheduled meeting in Boise, program, sufficient 1o raise a legitimate pursuant to the Federal Adviso Idaho on Februs 21.1985, the Council drubt as to the ability to operate the Committee Act. 5 U.S.C. Appen x I,11 voted unanimous y to amend two plant safely. Allegations which are not 4. Activities willinclude: , portions ofits Program. In adopting safety significant will be resolved in the
- Iosses/ Goals / Production work those amendments, the Council urmal course of business independent Pl an, complied with all relevant requirements ~
eflic:nse issuance.
- Hydro Assessment Study reports. of the Act. Pursuant to those
- Cun:ulative Impact Methods Study requirements the Council:
- Board Notification Procedures '
report. -
- Announced the proposed Parties to ongoing adjudicatory . .
- Update on FERC activities. amendments, public hearings anfpoblic proceedings have an obligation to bring
- Other. comment period through the Federal
~ cliegations to the attention of the
- Public comment Register, the Council's mailing list and presiding board. All parties have an Status: Open. the Council's newsletter:
cbligation to inform boards promptly of auesasAny:De Northwest Power
- Held public hearings in Port!hnd,
- relevant and materialinformation that Planning Ceuncil hereby announces a 8*" U"""*O I" " '
may affect the decisionmaking process. n na Uanuary18,1985h Spokan'. De Commission's ataff, in accordance farthcoming meeting ofits hydropower Assessment 5 eering Committee- Washington (January 24,1983); and with its obli ations for board Boise, Idaho (January 28,1985): and .' notification as in the past submitted SATE: March n 1965.10:00 a.m.
- Compiled an administrative record.
Ellegations to boards promptly and Acontes:De n.*eting will be held at the Council's audimium,850 SW. De amendments described in this withrut awaiting their resolution or notice change Program Section 201 and determinston of significance relative to Broadway, Suite 1100. Dortland. Oregon. Action 11em 36 in Program Section 1504, the decisionmaking process. This Pon rustTHan swomasArion costract: - which deal with the process for practice is consistent with the . Pater Paquet,803-222-8161. assessing salmon and steelheadlosses Commission.spproved board Edward sheets, attributable to development and setification policy. However. it has y,,,,y,j,, pj,c,,,, operation of hydropower rejects in the resulted, on occasion,in presenting boards with new information, the . (poc.m M am am] Columbia River Basin an developing
***"*8'"**
program goals to'addren these losses. tignificance of which is not readily The Council has deleted prior language cpparent. Consequently,in the future, in Program Sections 201(1)-201( and ataff board notifications of allegations substituted language indicating e will n:t be made until the staff has Columbia River Basin Flah and Council's intent to_ assess losses, set . . made et least an initial screening of the Wildlife Program; Final Arnandments goals, adopt related objectives, and# cll:gations. Only those allegations develop methods for measuring progress - which are found not to be frivolous. Aosucy: Pacific Northwest Electric toward goals and objectives, rather than .' which are relevant and material to the Power and Conservation Planning to call for direct funding of4uch efforts decisi:nmaking process (as determined T,ouncil. by the Bonneville Power Administration under existing board notification In the U.S. Department of Energy procedures) and which are determined Actiosc Notice of final amendments. ( ~Bonneville"). Associated changes are '8-to warrant further scrutiny will be guesetAftY:De Council has amended made to Action item as (Program . submitted to the presiding tribunal.
- Sections 201 and 1504 (Action item 36) Section 1504). . * ,.
Board notifications should still be made of the Columbia River Basin Fish and De amendments change only the . promptly, consistent with the need and Wildlife Program, to change the funding funding and procedural mechanisms for
. time required for screening.De staffs source and make other procedural -
board notification procedures should be assessing losses, setting goals, adoptists . modifications related to an assessment . objectives, and developing methods for revised act.ordingly. of salmon and steelhead losses ~ f measuring progress. They do not state 7
iOLil h ,c awat GMf1' IN RESPONSE, PLEASE [
"' e.
- /;
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO: M840905B fd'h/ ,E W ASHIN GT ON,0.C. 2*555
.....' September 7, 1984 CFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Herzel H.E. Plaine, General Counsel 0
FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS, 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) The Commission discussed with staff the suggestions concerning handling of last minute allegations (SECY-84-249/249A, Rosenthal memos to Commission 7/6/84, 8/1/84). , The Commission requested that the staff take the lead to develop a policy statement on last minute allegations along the lines identified in SECY-84-249. The staff should incorporate suggestions from OGC, ASLB, and ASLAP. As part of the policy statement, the staff should recommend revisions, if any, in board notification procedures. In examining board notification procedures, the Commission agreed with Commissioner Asselstine that the staff should consider coarse screening of an allegation before it is presented to the board with emphasis that the screening l must be accomplished promptly so as not to' delay the proceeding. (ELD) (SECY Suspense: 10/22/84) The Commission also requested that OGC develop proposed rule l changes on reopening motions that generally follow the recommendations in the Rosenthal memos of 7/6/84 and 8/1/84, with additional recommendations from others as appropriate. (OGC) (SECY Suspense: 10/5/84)
. u17 -
d!rif4% _ { Q/ p ( / V cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine d' Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech - Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance N DCS - 016 Phillips M Mb - b .
~ - Tg O f lic.LLvmj' Cn M 0107 [ 'o
", UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE REFER TO: M840615 I
y ' ', y7 3 j W ASHIN GTON, O.C. 20555
. p v[. '/p June 26, 1984 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Herzel H.E. Plaine, Gener ounsel FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - CONTI ATION OF 4/24 DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE STEPS TO AVOID LICENSING DELAYS TO INCIDDE DISCUSSION OF LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS, 2:00 P.M., FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) The Commission continued its discussion of possible steps to avoid licensing delays. The Commission requested that OGC forward its paper on options for handling allegations as soon as possible. (Subsequently, the paper was distributed to the Commission as SECY-84-249.) The Commission also requested that ELD provide a summary - paper on the potential effect that the recent Court of Appeals decision on emergency planning may have on near term licensing. (ELD) (SECY Scspense: 7/15/84) The Commission agreed to continue to schedule periodic meetings to review the status of near term operating licenses, including the problem areas and resource implications. cc: Chairman Palladino
- w Commissioner Gilinsky W Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance
,t DCS - 016 Phillips ,
eg ?'['50 !u
'9- T W L ,n....e .L !.h 'C-
{hh h00% ' ~
~
$$[0]fj[
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 5 6 In the Matter of: 7 8 9 10 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 11 FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 Location: Washington, D.C. Pages: 1 - 65 25 Date: Wednesday, September 5, 1984 A U/Act r e >n t r, a
'T 'd-V'/"I /P FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
/- court a ,ortins
- Depositions
' I['[f D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 5 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 6 FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 7 8 9 - OPEN MEETING 10 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 12 Room 1130 Washington, D.C. l 13 September 5,1984 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 15 2:00 p.m. 16 17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 18 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of'the Commission, 19 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 20 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner LANDO ZECH, JR., Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: 22 H. Plaine, General Counsel 23 Martin Malsch D. Eisenhut W. Dircks A. Rosenthal 24 S. Chilk G. Cunniham 25 L. Chandler FREE STATE RitPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901
- Belt.{Annep. 149 4136
1 j 2 i DISCLAIMER . 3 4 This is an un' official transcript of a meeting of 5 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 6 meeting was ooen to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited and it may contain inaccuracies. 8 9 The transcript is intended solely'for general 10 information purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 11 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 12 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this 13 transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with 14 the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, 16 except as the Commission may authorize. 17 18 l 19 l 20 21 22 23 24 \ J - g FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Caert Reporting e Depositions I D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169-6236
. . 2 1 PROCEEDINGS . 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Gocd afternoon. The purpose of 3 ithis afternoon's meeting is to consider the matter of how 4 NRC should treat allegations of safety problems that arise 5 late in the licensing process for a plant and near to the 6 time of the NRC licensing decision. 7 Or. the one hand, no allegation of a safety problem at a 8 nuclear plant that is about to be licensed can be ignored. g 0.n the other hand, late allegations having small r.afety 10 significance can divert resources from other items of safety 11 significance as the licensing process approaches completion 12 and can lead to unwarranted delays. 13 The NRC staff adopted criteria for managing the 34 resolution of late allegations in the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 15 case. One question for the Commission today is whether or 16 not de MaMo Canyon cmeda or sMar cmeda shod be 37 broadly used by the NRC staff in treating late allegations 18 in future cases. This is the subject of SECY-84-249(a). g We also have a memorandum dated August 1, 1984, from the Appeal Board Panel Chailrman, Alan Rosenthal, which memo expresses the view that there is a need for rulemaking which would specify requirements regarding the reopening of closed NRC adjudicatory records. Other comments are contained in an earlier memo dated July 6,1984 from Alan Rosenthal, also. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4136
3 1 Today we received from the Chief Administrative Judge 2 of the Licensing Boards, Tony Cotter, a memo commenting on 3 hl Rosenthal's memo of August 1. Finally, we have OGC's 4 extensive paper, SECY-84-249, which provides a comprehensive 5 treatment of the question of criteria for handling late 6 allegations. This discussion appears to overlap to some 7 extent the other papers referred to earlier. 8 I would like to start today's meeting by asking OGC to g summarize its points and highlight its recommendations for 10 Commission consideration. Thereafter, I suggest the EDO set it forth its views, and then Al Rosenthal and Tony Cotter, if 12 he is here, be given the opportunity to express their views. 13 Following that, we can go on to other comments 34 and further discussion. 15 I propcse that after discussion the Commission 16 consider what disposition should be given to these papers. 37 Should we ask the staff or OGC to draft a policy statement 18 in which the Commission would express its intention to use 99 the Diablo Canyon criteria or similar but possibly future,
,0 further refined criteria in future cases? Should we ask OGC g to prepare a rulemaking package to follow up on the comments of the Appeal Board, or should we take no action at all at s time?
23 Do other Commissioners have opening remarks? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
= a 4 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Then I propose that we 2 turn the meeting over first to OGC. 3 MR. PLAINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 Just let me make one very brief comment, opening 5 comment, th'at tackles the back end of what you were just 6 talking about, and that is that I suppose it is our hope 7 that the discussion today would eventuate in general, 8 possibly specific directions to the staff and dto OGC and to 9 the- Panel of Licensing Boards and the Appeal Board panel to 10 get together on whatmight be a policy statement plus any 11 rulemaking changes that seem desirable, and in that way 12 bring... bring some further clarity to this rather difficult 13 issue. 14 With that in mind, let me ask Marty Malsch, who drafted 15 most of this paper, SECY-84-249, to give a brief rundown on 16 the paper. 17 MR. MALSCH: Okay. I think that the Chairman stated 18 the issue rather well. Our paper was intended to be 19 comprehensive and, therefore, it's not surprising that it 20 overlaps some of the other papers. The issu' that we intended to address in the paper is, 21 "Can and should some new and specific criteria be developed 22 23 to distinguish those allegations that must be resolved before 24 a license is issued from those that need not be resolved 25 before a licensing is issued. The objective here is to assure FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
. - 5 1 or provide some greater assurance that licensing is delayed 2 only when necessary for the discharge of NRC's statutory 3 responsibilities.
4 In addressing this objective we made a number of 5 assumptions, as outlined in the paper. We took as a given 6 that safety is paramount, that licensing decisions must be 7 based upon all available information, including allegations, 8 that allegations cannot simply be disregarded without 9 regard to their safety significance, but that the views of 10 outsiders such as allegers, while they may...must be it considered, in the last analysis it is the NRC's decisions and opinions which count because it is NRC which has l 12 13 licensing responsibility. 14 Now the paper does not address what one might refer to 15 as allegation review management issues. For example, 16 particularly in connection with the Diablo Canyon review, the j 37 staff developed some management methods, for example, I i 18 dedicated project managers, computer tracking of allegations, and the like. We didn't address those kind.: of allegation l 19 l l management issues. Rather, we focused on the substantive 20 issue of allegation review criteria. 21 l Now in approaching this issue we divided the paper 22 ' into...or the paper can be divided into two areas: formal 23 reviews and informal reviews. Or, to put it another way, the 24 treatment of allegations or processing of allegations in 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reportins
- Depositlens D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
a o 6 1 formal proceedings, such as formal hearings before licensing 2 boards or formal proceedings before the Commission, and on 3 'the other...that's the first area...and the second area is in 4 informal reviews, such as staff reviews of the application in
. 5 uncontested cases and Commission so-called effectiveness 6 reviews.
7 By way of illustration, the Commission discussion and 8 treatment of allegations in the Diablo Canyon case has been g in what this paper would refer to as the " informal" category. 10 It has been in the context of lifting a license suspension, 33 which was an informal Commission action, and a Commission 12 effectiveness review in a full-power proceeding which we have 13 also c'assified as an " informal" action. 34 Let me first get to the informal category, first, and 15 here we are talking about, as I indicated, the treatment of 16 a Hegadons in informal staH red ews and in informal 37 Commission reviews. The basic recommendation in the paper 18 is that the Commission consider issuance of a policy statement 39 with a number of elements, and these elements I think include the criteria which the staff developed for its own informal reviews in the Diablo Canyon case, except that our paper I think generalizes them somewhat so that they are more clearly applicable to other kinds of cases. Basically what we had in mind was a policy statement
" 9* * * ' P l 25 -
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court koporting e Depositions D.C. Area 14119G1 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
. . 7 i bring safety information to the attention of the NRC as 2 promptly as possible. Now the Commission would need to 3 kecognize that this obligation derives from good citizenship 4 and individual self-interest, and probably cannot be enforced 5 directly against general members of the public, at least not 6 as a practical matter, but we thought it would be useful for 7 the Commission to make this kind of statement.
s Second, all information, all late allegations, must pass 9 a screening test before any further NRC review is warranted. 10 This test would ask two questions: First, if for purposes of 11 argument the allegation or information is assumed to be true, 12 would it lead to denial or conditioning of a license or any 13 further investigation or analysis by the NRC; and, second, 34 does the information if assumed true provide any new 15 inf rmtion not already considered or under consideration by 16 NRC. 37 Thirdly, information bearing on a safety issue which 18 passes this initial screening test and which comes to NRC's 39 attention after the issue has been closed in the staff safety evaluation or, if it is an issue not addressed in the staff 20 safety evaluation, after close of the staff safety evaluation review, would be subject to late information or late allegation criteria unless the information could not have been provided earlier even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, or whatever delay there may be in providing the 25 i i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. I court a.,ertins . Dep itions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169 4136 L
. . 8 1 information is excusable. 2 Now the late allegation criteria we have in mind would 3 ibe the following: First...this would be in addition, of 4 course, to the screening criteria that I mentioned...a 5 judgment should be made as to the likelihood that full 6 consideration of the information, including if necessary a 7 regional inspection or Office of Investigations investigation, g would that unduly delay the decision on license issuance? g . If there would be a delay in the proceeding caused by a 10 full and complete treatment of the allegation, a full ij investigation or a full inspection, then the late allegation 12 criteria would fully apply and the following would be 13 necessary, would have to be met: The information would have g to be reasonably specific and supporting reasons or facts w uld have to be included or at least be readily available, 15 and then a judgment would have to be made as to the 16 likelihood that the allegation is true or the information is 37 18 correct, and this judgment as to the likelihood that the jg allegation would be true would be based upon all available information, including does the source have firsthand knowledge or expertise in the area, does the source have a past record of reliability o_ unreliability, and is there other more credible information to the contrary or which supports the allegation. Now at this point these criteria are... pretty much
- FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- Court Reporting e Depositlens
.- D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4134
. . 9 1 include the criteria which the staff applied in Diablo 2 Canyon. At this point there is a policy judgment called for 3 kn the part of the Commission, and that goes to the 4 remaining criteria which the staff applied in Diablo Canyon, 5 which goes to the safety significance of the allegations. In 6 the criteria in the safety evaluation supplements in 7 Diablo Canyon, the staff asked itself the question: Does 8 the allegation go to a significant safety issue? Significance 9 of a safety issue is something that's difficult to judge.
10 We suggest here that what the Commission might consider ij is a judgment as to the degree of significance of the safety 12 issue, particularly as related to the licensing action at 13 issue...for example, full power, precritical testing, 34 whatever...and a weighing of the degree of significance of 15 this issue against the public interest in avoiding delay, and 16 that since safety is a paramount, in cases of reasonable doubt the licensing decision will be delayed. But that 37 18 significance, the basic issue before the Commission is or deals with how one should weight safety significance and 39 whether one should weigh significance in the abstract...which 20 i we had a difficult time visualizing, but which the staff may
- 21 i have a better handle on than we do...or should we weigh safety signmcance h reladon to de conted of de 23 proceeding and the amount of safety...t.he amount of delay which might be occasioned by a more complete investigation.
25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Esporting
- Depositlens D.C. Ares 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136 i
- 10 1 This pretty much would comprise the policy statement 2 that the Commission might consider for the handling of late 3
iallegations in informal reviews. Now of course it should be 4 stressed that even if an allegation doesn't pass the screening 5 criteria and pass the other tests, it would still be 6 considered by the staff as the staff is still considering 7 allegations in Diablo Canyon as a postlicensing follow-up 8 matter, so even if an allegation didn't pass through these g tests and screening criteria, it wouldn't...that wouldn't be 10 the end of the matter. It wouldn't be ignored. There would gi still be some follow-up investigation. 12 Now thus far we have been talking about informal 13 Commission reviews of the type which the Commission conducted 9 of allegations in Diablo Canyon. The paper also addresses the treatment of allegations in formal adjudicatory 15 proceedings, that is to say, hearings before hearing boards, 10 37 appeals before appeal boards, and what has been referred to as merits Commission reviews of formal decisions by licensing 18 19 ad appeal boads. Here our paper addressed two issues, first, the board notification policy and, second, motions to reopen the record, and let me take board notification policy first. The issue here is, do boards get informed of allegations, and if they do, when do they get informed of them? Do they get informed of them as soon as the staff receives them or do they FREE STATE. REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4134
11 1 get informed of them only after staff has both received them 2 and conducted some at least preliminary review or screen to 3 5d etermine their significance to the case? 4 The paper, I think, fairly discusses the pros and cons 5 of the different approaches to board notification on page 12. 6 A delay in board notification of al allegation pending some 7 Staff evaluation would clearly produce more useful information 8 to the decision-maker. . .in this case the licensing board. . .anc 9 it clearly would also avoid the possible prejudicial effect to of the board receiving allegations which appear to be serious ti on their face but which, upon some further review, appear to 12 have no substance whatsoever. 13 On the other hand, it has to be stated that an evaluatior 14 of allegations and perhaps even a preliminary review of l 15 allegations is time-consuming. It may require not only staff 16 technical review but some regional inspection efforts or 17 efforts by the Office of Investigation, and there is some 18 likelihood that a delay could result in uninformed decisions l ig being made after the allegation is filed but before the allegation is evaluated, so you've got competing 20
, considerations here.
at I don't think we intended to take a firm position one way 22 23 r the other on the board notification issue in our paper. I l 24 think we would really defer to the judgment of the licensing 25 boards and appeal boar,ds on t;his question. They are the ones l FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e. Belt.& Annep. 149-4136
i 11 12 ! 1 that deal with these cases and they are the ones that are the 2 beneficiaries or victims, as the case may be, of the board 3 Inotification policy. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't think they took any 5 position, either, if I read the papers correctly, on board 6 notification. 7 MR. MALSCH: Well, I think the Appeal Board is 8 suggesting... g - COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The Appal Board in Alan's 10 memo certainly did. ij MR. MALSCH: The Appeal Board is, I think, suggesting 12 that the Commission... 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, Alan did. Alan did. It j4 was his personal thing, yes. 15 MR. MALSCH: Yes. Well, Alan Rosenthal is suggesting 16 that the Commission ought to reconsider the board 37 notification policy, at least to the extent of not providing 18 appeal boards and maybe licensing boards with unprocessed, jg unscreened, unevaluated, raw allegations. Now the only point we raised in our paper was...for the Commission to consider...is that one might consider whether one ought to change the board notification policy just for allegations or whether this is a part of some broader problem dealing with late information generally, and if one is to change the board notification policy in favor of 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
13 1 evaluation before notification one might consider making the 2 same change for all that information across the board, 3 land not just allegations. 4 But I think it was the intent of our office to really 5 raise this as an issue, and I think we would defer to the 6 licensing and appeal boards as to what kind of policy they 7 think would be most beneficial. 8 On the second point, motions to reopen, we have pointed g .out.in our paper some recent developments in case law on 10 itandards for reopening closed records. Since our paper was 11 issued there have been some further decisions on this in the 12 Diablo Canyon case and I think at this point, given the state 13 of development of the case law, there would be some 34 substantial benefit in having the Commission address motions to reopen in a rulemaking proceeding. I think the case law 15 16 has developed to a point where it would be advantageous to 37 spell out where everyone can see it, exactly what the Commission standards are for reopening records, and this 18 19 ought to be done by rulemaking rather than force people to hunt through 15 or so volumes of NRC decisions to find out the latest case on the subject. I think rulemaking would be appropiate. In fact, I think that's endorsed by both panels. Now, finally, let me just raise one issue that the 23 paper raises, and that is the one I touched on before, and that is whether one should treat late allegations as 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
. . 14 1 a species all itself in formulating guidance and criteria, and 2 in rulemaking and in board notifications, or whether one 3 fought to address a larger issue of the treatment of late 4 information generally. I think our paper suggests some 5 reasons why~they might be cor.sidered the same, but that's a 6 decision for you to make. Late information is a larger 7 issue than just the treatment of late allegations. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How would you see what we do 9 different if we include late, broaden that to late to information? g MR. MALSCH: I think the discussion fully applies to 12 whether you call it late information or late allegations, but 13 the focus of the request to us to develop the paper was on 34 late allegations, and certainly the focus of the recent controversy in some of the cases has been on late allegation. 15 I think we see late allegations as just one species of 16 late-developing information. Offhand, we thought that all 37 18 could be treated under the same set of criteria but it's a question of how large of a problem you want to fight off 39 and try to resolve. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think your paper does make the point accurately, that it's somewhat less meaningful to differentiate between sources of the information rather than 23 focusing on the information itself. MR. MALSCH: Yes. That's true. We had also, we had alsc FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. GL Annep. 149 4136
l 1 made the point that in the base analysis, what's important 2 is what the agency itself thinks about the substantiality of I 3 *the allegations, and from that standpoint it doesn't really 4 make any difference what the allegation source is. The I 5 importance is, is the agency prompted by the allegation or 6 the other source of information or whatever it is, to be 7 concerned about a safety issue. If it's not concerned then 8 whatever you call it...a late allegation, late information... g probably shouldn't hold up the license. If the staff is 10 concerned about the Commission's criteria not being met, than 11 Y u probably ought to hold up the license. In the last 12 analysis it comes down to the substance of the thing, and 13 pr bably more than it does the soure of the information. But we raised that for the Commission's consideration, 34 since it in a sense exceeded our charter. We were asked to 15 1 k into lte allegations and not the broader problem of 16 g late-developing information. I think the criteria that we developed for Commission consideration would apply, whether 18 g you focused on the broad problem of lat$e information or the narrow problem of late allegations. Let me mention two final things. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. There is a difference, although I 22 want to belabor the point. Some of it is known to be information and some of it is sometimes not exactly information but hearsy evidence that there may be information, FREE STATE REPORTING INC. I Court Reporting e Depeeltions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149-4136 l
. . 16 1 I don't know if you equate the two but I do agree, one is a 2 subset of the broader problem.
3 MR. MALSCH: Well, it seems to me you clearly do not 4 equate the two. I mean, it seems to me that when someone 5 files an allegation that says, you know, the containment is 6 made of Swiss cheese, the fact that someone says the 7 containment is made of Swiss cheese is not as important as 8 what a reviewer, a knowledgeable reviewer, would think g upon- seeing the allegation. If his immediate reaction is, 10 "That's nonsense. We've had people crawling over the 11 containment for 10 years and it's clearly not made of 12 Swiss cheese," then that's the end of the matter. 13 If a knowledgeable reviewer looks at it and would think 34 to himself, " Gee, that could be right," well, then, maybe y u should do a review but it's not so much because of the 15 allegation that you do a review; it's because the allegation 16 i promppted an agency concerned about a safety issue that you 37 s ouM do. . . l 18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, but isn't the subject of this 19 meeting late allegations? MR. MALSCH: Yes. 21 , COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, why are we talking about l 22 l other things, then? It seems to me that late allegations is l l what we're focusing on, and we've got enough to do to focus 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136 L
. . 17 1 MR. MALSCH: Well, that's why I say the paper is 2 entitled " late allegations," the criteria we developed and 3 *are recommending deal with late allegations. I just wanted 4 to make the observation that there is a larger problem and, 5 depending on how the Commission wanted to go, what we had 6 developed would I think apply as well to late information as 7 it would to late allegations, but it's your decision as to g whether you want to bite off the smaller problem or the g larger one. We only made the observation in the paper 10 because it occurred to us in doing our evaluation. 3, COMMISSIONER ZECH: It seems to me that late allegation s 12 is enough of a problem itself. It has been my observation so 13 far that we ought to address that alone and worry about the 34 other one later. MR. MALSCH: Well, it clearly is enough of a problem by itself, you know. It depends on how ambitious you want to 16 g be. Right. 18 N A : guess I am, for myseH , I am
,g somewhat concerned though about setting into place a process to deal with late allegations when there may be other sources of information that ought to be subject to the very same kind of process. I think it's worthwhile taking a look at the broader issue as well.
COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, just opening up the thing 24 considerably wider, it seemed to me that...my review of it FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt.& Annep. 169 6136
18 I and my observation so far...tht late allegations is itself 2 a rather serious issue and merits a separate review. 3 IWhether we open it beyond that I think is a different subject 4 and perhaps it's something to think about, but in my view late 5 allegations is what we're talking about today and it seems to 6 me that we ought to try to stick to the subject. 7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I am confused as to 8 definitions here. I mean, a late allegation may indeed g .contain late information. Late information might not 10 be given by an alleger, so to speak, but could be the same n information that would be carrid in an allegation. I'm not 12 sure that I...it's more a question of the source of 13 information. 34 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me suggest for the 15 moment we not get hung up on this question, whether we should g for late ifnormation or late allegation. At least let it 16 simmer a little bit while we try to cope with the general 37 18 nature... COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I know, but I'm calling into 39 question, Joe, whether we're going for different things or whether we're not just talking about the same thing, essentially. And if that's the case, then I would just like a definition of terms, I think. That's what I'm asking for. g Maybe it doesn't matter if we try and distinguish; maybe it does. It's not so clear... 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
*
- 19 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, that's why I asked him what 2 would be the difference if we expanded it to include further 3 iinformation. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes. What is the definition, 5 the working ~ definition, of late information as opposed to 6 late allegations? 7 COMMISSIONER ZECH: My only point is, it seems to me we 8 have a hard enough deciding anything... 9 -(Laughter.) 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree, I agree. 11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: ...and if we can focus on something, 12 why, I think that will be worthwhile. 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree, but I need a definition. 34 That's all that I'm asking for. 15 MR. MALSCH: Well, I guess a working definition would be 16 that an allegation is information that comes from an outside 37 source other than the NRC itself or the licensee. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You say it's information. It's 39 potential information. It's... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, that's getting even murkier. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I know, but I don't want to quibble 21 n definition. I think we know what an allegation is. I'm 22 not sure where to go with... 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, okay. Marty has defined 24 an issue and then I guess, Lando, what you have been saying 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
. . 20 1
then is that you believe we, in this meeting at least, should 2 focus on these outside sources entirely. 3 i COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes. That's what I thought we were 4 going to do today, and I just feel that that's enough, 5 frankly, of'an effort to undertake today, and if we want to 6 broaden it to something else I think we should do that with 7 a conscious decision, but today it seems to me we ought to 8 talk about late allegations. 9 - MR. MALSCH: Yes. One reason why we approached the 10 subject in our paper was, we were concerned that discussion ti would get bogged down in a complicated discussion of 12 allegations versus something else, and we didn't want to 13 develop a paper that would stand or fall depending upon how 14 you define the problem. We wanted to develop a paper that 15 would be...make some broad recommendations which would 16 probably fit the problem even if you defined it broadly. 37 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have we run into problems with late 18 information other than allegations? 19 MR. MALSCH: I know for a fact, from personal experience, the Commission has in the past. 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, how do you define Mr. Yin's 21 neerns, for example? 22 23 MR. MALSCH: That's right. l g COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: He's an insider, and is that an 25 allegation or is it important late information. It's not l l FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
. . i 21 1
clear to me at all that you can make a distinction, but 2( I'm willing to accept the ground rule because I agree. I I . 3 it hink that our principal concern here, as Lando has 4 pointed out, is indeed how to deal with outside submittals 5 because those number in the hundreds whereas the others 6 normally do not number in the hundreds, so I'm satisfied with 7 that working definition for the moment. 8 MR. MALSCH: One last thing: The staff, in its memo, 9 had raised two issues, and that was what criteria should the 10 staff apply in its informal safety reviews in uncontested 11 cases and what criteria should the staff apply in answering 12 motions to reopen the record. I think our paper addresses 13 these, although indirectly, when the paper discusses screening 14 criteria and criteria for late allegations in informal reviewn 15 that would include staff informal reviews in uncontested 16 cases. So if the Commission should issue some policy 17 statement on treatment of allegations in informal reviews, 18 that would in turn guide the staff in adopting its safety ig evaluations. 20 Similarly, if the Commission were to come up with some 21 guidance, let's say by rulemaking, on motions to reopen the 22 record, then the staff would apply that guidance in answering 23 motions to reopen the record, so I think both issues which 24 the staff raises are addressed in the paper and would be 25 addressed by Commission decisions which result from this PREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions l D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
o o 22 1 meeting. . 2 I think what we need from the Commission is guidance on, 3 iwell, three things, I guess: guidance on a pv. icy statement 4 on handling late allegations in informal reviews; guidance on 5 whether the~ Commission is prepared to consider a change in 6 board notification policy; and then guidance on whether the 7 Commission wishes to engage in rulemaking to actually define 8 in the Commission's rules of practice precise standards to 9 govern granting of motions to reopen records in formal 10 edjudications. I think those are the three things, the three ii basic issues which the paper raises and the three basic issuer 12 upon which Commission guidance would be helpful. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: One of the areas that it's certainly i4 not clear what to do is this board notification question, 15 and let me ask whether you think that there is a likelihood 16 that we could come up with something that would serve both 37 the need for a timely notification of the board and provide 18 f r some reasonable amount of screening. 39 MR. MALSCH: I think the question is yes, in general, but. the difficulty is there is always going to be the hard cases where something comes in just before the board is prepared to write a decision, and you've got the issue and the staff cannot possibly do an evaluation without delaying decision issuance, and that's where the issue really is a difficult one. I mean, obViously, if gtVen the Choice and you had a11 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 161-1901.e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
. . 23 1 the time in the world, you would obviously want not raw 2 allegations, you would want allegations plus evaluation.
3 !The hard case comes about when you can't have both, when you 4 are prepared to issue a decision and the question is, do you 5 want raw allegation and maybe, maybe no decision delay, 6 although you can't tell, depending on what you do with the 7 allegations; ordo you want to hold up the decision pending 8 some, at least some initial evaluation by staff? And so it's 9 at that point that the issue becomes a difficult one and I 10 don't think there is any clear answer. I think you ought to ij hear from the licensing appeal board as to what they think, 12 as a practical matter, they need for the proper conduct of 13 their proceedings. 34 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. Well, one might have some 15 procedure that applies up to a certain point where you allow 16 f r some screening and then a procedure that would apply for 97 more prompt submittal after a certain point, and I'm not 18 attempting to define what that point is. Other Commissioner comment or questions at this time, or j 39 should we go ahead and hear from EDO and then from Al l Rosenthal and Tony Cotter? Could you join us at the table, Guy? MR. CUNNIHAM: I would like to just make one or two 1 preliminary comments and then ask Larry Chandler, who drafted l the staff paper, to summarize it. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Reit. & Annep. 169 6136
f 24 1 First on the matter of board notification, we didn't 2 really regard that as a principal subject for today's meeting 3 Iarui haven't prepared a position in detail but I can tell you 4 that we would welcome Commission guidance and I would 5 endorse what Marty has said, that you need input from both 6 licensing panels. For the past year or so we have had a 7 number of informal conversations with Alan Rosenthal and with 8 members of the licensing panel as to what should be the 9 standards for board notification. Alan has previously raised 10 with me the concerns that are in this memo that is before you 11 today. 12 At the annual licensing board panel meeting in Albuquergt e 13 this year, Ed Cristenberry (ph), our chief hearing counsel, 34 went out and met with the entire licensing panel and discussec e5 the issue, and it was apparent that there was a wide spectrum 16 of views. There are some panel members who want to know 17 every allegation the same day we receive it, and there are 18 others that say, " Don't tell us a thing until you have 39 resolved it." And following the meeting where there was this broad 20 r undtable discussion, the panel designated one of the judges, 21 Ivan Smith, to sort of see if he could sit down and 22 23 negotiate and discuss with us what would be a solution acceptable to all. Unfortunately, we finally just abandoned 24 that effort because there was such a wide range of views. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Selt. 66 Annep.169 6136
25 1 We can live with any system but we have to know vhat it is. 2 The present system is, we tend to be conservative and protect 3 !ourselves by disclosing probably more information than is 4 necessary, but we have to protect against the charge that 5 we failed to inform a board of something that it should have 6 known before it took an action. As Marty said, you get to 7 the point where the decision is imminent. We can't very a well let the board go ahead and issue a decision if we know 9 there is something that might cause them to decide otherwise 10 or to delay. 33 Secondly, I would like to just briefly address the 12 question that was raised of definition before, the late 13 allegations versus late information. We had understood the 34 General Counsel's paper to be suggesting that in addition to 15 late allegations, you expand the category to late information, 16 thereby including, for example, information that comes up late 37 in the licensing process but through inside channels...the l 18 resident inspector, an NRC staff reviewer. Qualitatively, I think we would say that they have to be 39 treated the same. You do some analysis of what the significance is and how quickly it must be resolved, whether that's before licensing or not. The reason I think that today's meeting was focusing on late allegations, though, is because that is a quantitatively different problem. The late allegations, we have seen in some cases, are literally handed FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions l i D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Belt. 46 Annep.249-6136 l
26 1 to us in batches of 200 at a time, usually with a letter 2 saying, "More to follow," and that is the problem that 3 iI think we are trying to address today, and it's a difficult 4 one because there is no doubt that where they raise safety 5 issues, everything that Marty has said is correct: They have 6 to be addressed. 7 And, finally, turning to our paper, the purpose of our 8 paper was not to express any disagreement with what was 9 presented by the General Counsel. We are in full agreement to with that and, in addition, except for the board notification 11 natter that I discussed, we are in agreement with what Alan 12 Rosenthal has said in his memorandum. 13 The purpose of our memorandum was to put a little bit of 14 flesh on the bones, and by example of a real case show you how 15 the staff would interpret guidance along the lines suggested 16 in the General Counsel's paper. In the real world the 17 reviewer has to have some guidance to sit down and, "All 18 right, now, what do I do with this allegation." gg The process in Diablo Canyon worked. We propose, if the Commission agrees, to adhere to that type of practice but to 20 refine it. That was obviously prepared sort of on the spot 21 g to deal with an ongoing situation. 23 With that, I'll ask Larry to summarize the paper which itself is a summary of the Diablo Canyon allegation handling 24 25 pr cess. i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
. . 27 1 HR. CHANDLER: Thank you. 2 I think, as Guy said, we are in fundamental agreement 3 iwith the General Counsel's paper on this subject. Our 4 effort was really designed to more precisely articulate the 5 criteria that the General Counsel generally alludes to in his 6 paper, using as an example the criteria that were used for 7 screening purposes in Diablo Canyon. 8 I think the staff's general position is that ideally all 9 allegations should be resolved before licensing action is to undertaken but, at the same time, when faced with rather 11 large numbers of allegations as was the case in Diablo Canyon, 12 some screening process had to be developed to better come to 13 grips with the individual allegations to assure responsible 14 and timely resolution of each and every one of them. 15 Also very significant in the development of the screeninc 16 criteria that are presented in the safety evaluation report, 37 Supplement 22 for Diablo Canyon, and recognized in our paper, is the fact that there had been a rather large body of 18 19 knowledge gained through some rather intensive initial reviews undertaken of the first several hundred, 200 or so 20 allegations received, and with that comfort and knowledge 22 which had been obtained the staff felt more comfortable in developing these screening criteria for handling the more 23 significant numbers of allegations that came immediately 24 thereafter. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. , Court R$perting e Depositions ! D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 6136 l
i . . 28 ) 1 At the same time we recognize that refinement to these l 2 criteria will be necessary. While the criteria do tend to 3
- t focus on safety significance, which unquestionably is the )
\
4 paramount concern, it must be recognized that that has to be l 1 5 put in various contexts, appropriate contexts, given the I 6 licensing action to be taken: that is, are we talking about 7 a license authorization for a fuel load, for low-power 8 testing, for full-power operation? And it's with that in mind 9 that a second set of criteria were developad to put into 10 those respective bins, if you will, the various ii allegations that were received...that is, which must be 12 resolved at given stages of licensing. 13 Now, true, in Diablo Canyon those criteria were laid i4 out after fuel loading had been undertaken, and thus the criteria tended to focus on those requiring resolution 15 16 before criticality and those requiring resolution before 17 exceeding 5 percent or full power. At the same time we note 18 that similar types of criteria should be applied by the staff 39 prior to even the most initial licensing for fuel load, and 20 we w uld propose that those be developed as well. 21 The need for refinement of these criteria became 22 apparent in developing this paper and discussing the 23 contents and the criteria with the various affected staff ffices. It became rather apparent that the language used in 24 25 the Diablo Canyon criteria, although very workable, were PREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. GL Annep. 169-6136
29
. 1 perhaps too generalized and may in other cases not be amenable 2 to consistent application by the various staff components, 3 iso it is with that that the staff proposes that, with 4 the agreement of the Commission and consent of the Commission, 5 we would go 'further and refine those to assure that they could.
6 be consistently applied in other proceedings. At the same 7 time the staff is developing, I think, a manual chapter now 8 which will impose a more formalized internal process for 9 deal-ing with allegations-. 10 I think in essence that would highlight the contents of it our paper. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you saying you are writing a 13 manual chapter on informal treatment of allegations or staff 14 treatment of allegations? 15 MR. CHANDLER: In terms of the process for doing so, not 16 the criteria for doing so. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I see. 18 MR. CUNNIHAM: Marty mentioned at the beginning of ig the meeting that they did not try to deal with the allegation 20 management issue... 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I heard that. MR. CUNNIHAM: ...and that is, you know, a separate 23 1 gistical problem for us. That's really what the manual 24 chapter is focused on. We are obviously awaiting Commission 25 guidance on the substantive handling of allegations. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Repeetene e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. GL Annep. 169-4136
30 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask a question with regard 2 to board notifications. If you get a piece of new 3 information...I mean new information...from a licensee, 4 do you, would you screen that? 5 MR. CHANDLER: If I may just... 6 MR. CUNNIHAM: No, but I think... 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If we were going to go through a 8 screening process. 9 - MR . CHANDLER: I think one of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, 10 would be that under longstanding Commission case law...the 11 McGuire decision, 143...the licensee itself would have an 12 obligation independent of the staff's to bring that kind of 13 information to the board's and parties' attention promptly, 14 so the screening if any would be done at that level. 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I gather there are some 16 instances in which from time to time the staff has found it 17 necessary to say, "Look, you've got this information which we 18 know about, too. If you don't make it a board ig notification, we will." MR. CHANDLER: We will, right. i 20 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I was getting back to this 21 definition of external versus internal, and I think...how do 22 23 you...I'm not sure how it was proposed that we use the 24 word " external." External to the staff and the licensee? MR. CUNNIHAM: Well, a lot of the subject of staff 25 l FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens
- D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-6136
31 1 notifications is external in the sense that it comes from, 2 say, the national laboratories. Testing will be done and it 3 comes to us not from within but it's different 4 than an allegation, which may be anonymous, it may be in the 5 form of "somebody told me." There's usually more technical 6 meat to information that the staff comes by in that fashion. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let's assume the staff got 8 some test data. What does it do with it so far 9 as b'oard notification is concerned? Does... 10 MR. CUNNIHAM: Darrell can answer that in more detail. 11 He's here. 12 (Laughter.) 13 MR. CUNNIHAM: But there first of all has to be a 14 consideration of which, if any, boards have to be notified. 15 If it's a construction permit case then all boards are 16 notified, but if you're looking at operating licenses or 17 amendments then you only look at the specific issues in 18 controversy. 19 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. There is a published office 1 20 Policy that was published in NRR...one of the office letters, 21 No. 19. . .that handles such information. . .that states how you l 22 would handle such information. It would be provided to the l l 23 board. 24 I think the standard yardstick we use is to provide the 25 information to the board within five working days. If in fact FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions l D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136 l
32 1 we have any evaluation of it or what we can say about it, we 2 send within five days, but I think it was the North Anna case 3 i that led the staff or led the Commission to the guidance.that 4 you send it to the boards even though there may not be a staff 5 evaluation of it at the time or even though the staff may not 6 have assessed the significance of that information.' 7 Followin that guidance, it's in the appropriate 8 procedures that such information would be provided to the 9 appr'opriate hearing boards where that is an issue before the 10 board on OL's, and I believe if there were a CP it would go 11 to the CP board regardless, but I think it's got to be 12 material and relevant to the issues before the board. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, now, when you send board 14 notification within the five days, that doesn't stop your n5 evaluation of it? 16 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, no, sir. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And if the evaluation either ul causes you to change your mind on whether or not it's 19 relevant to the cace... 20 MR. EISENHUT: No. Regardless of whatever... 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No, but I meant you follow up with 22 another board notification after evaluation, if it's 23 appropriate. 24 MR. EISENHUT: Absolutely, or in most cases a safety 25 evaluation explaining the significance of it. The issue of
- - FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
33 1 providing it promptly was related to the fact you wanted to 2 get that question or that information before the hearing 3 iboard promptly, even while you were doing the evaluation, 4 and then you would follow up with the evaluation. There may 5 be multiple' board notifications. There may be SER's and 6 supplements to SER's relating to that issue, but it is a 7 timely process, was the key issue. 8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Haven't we wandered over the 9 guideline that we thought we were setting forth here? I mean, 10 this problem does simplify itself. Granted, at some point 33 we have to worry about consistency of information sources, but 12 it seems to me that it does simplify itself somewhat if we 13 confine these new data to allegations in the sense that we... j4 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, I think so. Yes, sir. I was just 15 answering the question. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand that. 16 g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And my questions were from... 18 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, there is a real distinction... 3g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: ...a low state of knowledge on some of these procedures. MR. EISENHUT: I think there is a real distinction 21 i between what I will consider the normal board notifications 22 l and allegations. Typically, allegations are quite often 23 very numerous in many cases. They come from an unknown g l source. They are often very vague. I remember one
~
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions
~
D.C. Aree 241-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
l
- . 34 1 of the early ones on Diablo Canyon was, there was an 2 allegation that the containment may topple over. I mean, 3 fthat's different than a reviewer internally coming to his 4 management and saying, "I've got new technical evaluation."
5 That information would be evaluated promptly internally, but 6 I really think they are separable in my mind. 7 Also, the ones that arise from other sources, be they 8 from national labs or be they from internal, from any of the 9 staff sources, late in the process are few. They come from a to well-defined source and they are a well-defined safety issue. 11 And I think it's the staff's position that if one of those 12 comes up, the staff would not hestitate to stop the process 13 as necessary to evaluate the issue, depending upon the 14 significance as it sees the issue. It's really the issue 15 of how do you deal with, on Diablo Canyon we received a 16 stack of paper probably three to four inches deep within a 17 couple of days of the last Commission meeting. It's a HI question of how do you deal with those kinds of allegations n, as opposed to other hard technical information, at least that's the way we see it. 20 MR. CHANDLER: It should be made clear that the criteria 21 g cover, by the way, not only technical information in terms of 23 plant systems, structures or components, but also go to the management and quality assurance related issues, too, so 24 25 that you're covering both spectrums in terms of potential I PREE STATE REPOP. TING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Gelt.& Annep. 169 4136
35 1 effect on plant safety. 2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, that raises a related issue 3 that I have a note to myself here on. Let me just ask it 4 now. I'm not sure whether it's possible to do this or even 5 appropriate to do it, but it is often true that hardware 6 technical issues are of a rather different nature and I 7 suspect of a different nature in terms of the time that they 8 might require for an early evaluation, if not an 9 early resolution, as opposed to personnel issues that many to times require OI to go through a 3- or 4-month or longer 11 investigative procedure. And I'll just raise the question, 12 without having an answer, whether it is possible or appropriate 13 for us to draw a distinction also between hardware, 14 technical issues and issues that involve personnel? I don't 15 have the answer to that easily and it may not be reasonable 16 or appropriate or possible to draw that distinction but I 17 think we ought to consider that. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, it gets even more 19 complicated than just dividing it into two parts, because l 20 sometimes the accumulation of technical deficiencies reflects l on management or personnel, and so I agree with you. It's 21 22 complicated. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: True, but once again I think...and 23 24 maybe I'm wrong, and someone that's used to going through 1
, 25 this stack of hundreds can tell us quickly, I suspect ...but FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeeltions D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt.& Ansep. 149 4134
l l l
- 36 l l
3 my sense is that 90 percent or 95 percent of those are rather readily tossed into one bin or the other, and maybe we should
; draw no distinction and there should be no difference in the way we treat them, but then again we might want to think about that.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSE7STINE: I suspect, Fred, that you're 6 7 right; that it probably in the long run may take longer to 8 resolve the wrongdoing or the management questions or allegations in many instances, but I'm not sure you can draw 10 a real distinction if you look at safety significance. I can 11 think of some allegations about management behavior or 12 performance that I would think would be considerably more safety-significant, for example, than some hardware a 13 14 allegations that we have seen, so in terms of the importance 15 of the issue and the need to make sure that it's resolved prior to making a licensing decision, I'm not sure you can
'6 draw a distinction and say, "Well, we can put the hardware 17 ones in one bin and treat them a certain way and the management 18 ones in another bin and treat them differently because they're 19 going to take longer to resolve.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, no. In fact, the crux 21 of the argument is not the length of time it would take for 22 resolution; it's...in fact, that's a misimpression I guess 23 that I created. The key to the argument is that these are 24 often very difficult judgments. They are balancing judgments 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 1694236
37 1 that involve people and the amount of training or perhaps ever. 2 the amount of integrity that the individuals might have, and 3 ithose are often very difficult balancing decisions, whereas 4 if somebody tells you that a pipe has a half-inch crack in 5 it, that is~just in a different class, it seems to me, and 6 therefore there might be a basis for treating those 7 differently. I don't know. 8 MR CHANDLER: As you recall, the staff did treat both 9 categories, that is, the hardware-related issues and the 10 management-related issues basically under the same way in 11 Diablo Canyon, but as the staff laid out in its safety 12 evaluation report, it is as you say a very tortuous path that 13 one has to follow to get some resolution of those latter type 14 of issues, and it does generally involve or often involve 15 OI, which itself... irrespective of OI's involvement, those 16 kinds of efforts are very labor-intensive, if you will, from 17 the staff's standpoint. 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, and you almost, you almost 19 literally have to have a smoking gun to make a quick judgment 20 and evaluation on a management or staff issue. We can all 21 imagine cases where the management says he has his license and 22 he doesn't. That's easy, but most of them aren't that easy. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Even on some of the hardware 24 ones, too, though, if they are not real specific it takes a 25 fair amount of effort to determine whether those are valid or FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Dogsitions D.C. Ares 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
i l l 38 1 not. If scmebody comes in and says there were unqualified 2 welders working on this site, that's not something you can 3 real easily go out and check. On the other hand, if he 4 comes in and says you will find bad welds in pipe XYZ, you 5 can check tiiose pretty quick and pretty easily, so it depends 6 upon the specifics. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you want to go on to hear a from Al? Why don't you stay put. Al, could you join us at 9 the' table? Is Tony Cotter here, or a representative from his 10 office? 11 MR. ROSENTHAL: No. I will proceed. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. 13 MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, as you know I put two 14 memoranda before the Commission, one dated July 6, the 15 other dated August 1. 16 The July 6 memorandum made basically three points. 17 These points were made on my behalf alone. I did not make an endeavor to obtain an appeal panel consensus. Two of these 18 ig three points, while they were tied to things which the 20 General Counsel had to say, I think are beyond the scope of 21 this meeting and I will not pursue them beyond saying that I 22 am still hopeful that one of these days the Commission will 23 come to grips with whether it wishes to conform its immediate effectiveness practice to its rules or whether it wants to 24 conform its rules to its practice. And I think what the 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court R:;: Msg e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
. . 39 1 Commission has been doing, if I may say so, is of dubious 2 legality. I made that point in September of 1983, and it fell 3 kn apparently deaf ears although, as I noted, I didn't 4 think it had been specifically rejected, and at the risk of 5 appearing to bore the Commission I will suggest to it once 6 again that it might wish at an appropriate time to address 7 that point.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Those words, " dubious" and 9 '.'qusetionable legality" strike fear in the hearts of 10 Commissioners these days. 11 MR. ROSENTHAL: I doubt it. 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This group? 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. ROSENTHAL: All right. The one point that I made in 15 the memorandum which seems to be within the scope of this 16 meeting as the Commissioners have interpreted it relates to 17 board notifications, and I will be very brief on that subject. 18 I think it a total absurdity to put before a 39 licensing or an appeal board an unvarnished, unscreened allegation. There is absolutely nothing that a board can or 20 g should attempt to do with such an allegation. I think beyond that, as I suggested in my memorandum, that you have due process problems. I think it grossly unfair to a utility 23 to put before an adjudicatory board which has that utility's 24 fate in its hands, an allegation which has not even gone 25 l l FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-4136
. . 40 I through a coarse screening. Now I would grant you that we 2 adjudicators are supposed to be highly disciplined; we are 3 supposed to be able to brush out of our minds, to put to one 4 side allegations which turn out to be insubstantial, but 5 regrettably we are humans like Commissioners and I cannot 6 exclude the possibility of a subliminal effect of an 7 allegation. And I just think, considering the fact there is 8 nothing we can do with them, we ought not to be getting them, g ,Now I hear this thing, "Well, my goodness, 10 supposing that on the eve of a board decision the staff gets 11 this allegation and it doesn't come to the board 12 immediately with it, and the board issues its decision and 13 subsequently the allegation is found to have some substance 34 and, beyond that, to have some bearing on the board's 15 decision."
16 I would respectfully submit that there are procedures 37 whereby that can then be remedied, and I don't find that a particularly troublesome prospect. If records can be reopened 18 and the action that has been taken can be recalled, I don't 39 think it puts the board in an embarrassing position because, 20 after all, what the board is deciding th<a case on or supposedly is deciding the case on is the record before it, and we do know that this is a very dynamic kind of process. Indeed, that's what the late allegations problems g are all about. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt.& Annep. 269-6136 i
41 1 So my view has consistently been and my view remains 2 today that allegations should not be put before licensing or 3 fappealboardswithoutfirstgoingthroughat 4 least a coarse screening on the part of the staff to ascertain 5 that there is at least some possibility that the allegation 6 has some substance. 7 Now there was some reference made to the licensing 8 board's consideration of this matter at Albuquerque. 9 I was there. I was a part of this discussion. Indeed, I 10 think I was probably the instigator of it because this is one it of my crusades in this 1984 year, and while it's true that 12 there wasn't unanimity of opinion, I think it is fair to say 13 that the overwhelming majority of the licensing boards are in 14 agreement... licensing board members, excuse me...are in 15 agreement that there should be a coarse screening. I think 16 it is a very, very distinct and in my view ill-advised 17 minority that want, the second that the allegation hits 18 the staff, to be informed of it. 19 Now on that point I would just make one last bservation. I distinguish in the memorandum and I 20 21 distinguish today between the allegation on the one hand and an event. Now we had several years ago, an appeal board 22 had before it an issue of steam generator tube integrity in 23 Prairie Island. There was, while the appeal board had that 24 issue before it, a steam generator tube rupture at the 25
- FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. da Annep. 149-4136
o . 42 1 Point Beach facility. The appeal board expected to be 2 notified and was notified immediately of that event, before 3 ithe staff had had the opportunity to evaluate it, and then 4 of course the staff evaluated it and came forward with further 5 information. 6 Now in my view at least, and maybe I am missing a point, 7 there is a considerable distinction between a conrete 8 event which may have some bearing upon an issue before g a board and some allegations, frequently anonymous, which may to turn out to have been either the figment of the alleger's 11 imagination or prompted by some ill motive such as a desire 12 to obtain retribution. 13 That's my view on the matter of board notifications. 34 Turning now to the August 1 memorandum where I speak for 15 the panel, I think I take issue with Marty Malsch on whether 16 it is necessary to have a Commission rule setting forth 37 what the criteria are for reopening. I think those criteria 18 are firmly established. I don't think that a litigant has to 39 root around too much in the adjudicatory jurisprudence to find what those standards are. They are set forth one, two, 20 1 l three on page 1 of the August 1 memorandum. I don't see a g necessity to print them. The only difference has been, some l appeal board decisions on Standard No. 3 have said that a 23 different result would have been reached...might have been 24 rea hed initially. "Might," it seems to me, is clearly the 25 i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 6136
43 1 better standard because one never can tell until they have 2 explored the particular matter whether it would have 3 } produced a different result, but I think now the term 4 "might" is fairly well rooted in the jurisprudence and we
. 5 think that that's...we don't see any necessity ourselves for 6 a rule on that score.
7 Where we do advocate a rule is with respect to the 8 content of motions to reopen, and I don't think that there is 9 any -necessity this af ternoon to repeat the three criteria 10 which we believe should be imposed on motions to reopen. 11 They are set forth one, two, three on page 2 of our August 12 1 memorandum. These are essentially prompted by the rather 13 unhappy experience we have had in Diablo Canyon. I had the i4 good sense not to assign myself to our Diablo Canyon board. 15 (Laughter.) MR. ROSENTHAL: I try to avoid cases that will produce 16 j7 six tons of unorganized material. My colleagues, however, whc had the misfortune to be assigned to that case have been 18 39 complaining regularly since the inception of it, and the rest l f us were sufficiently sympathetic to come up with these 20 l 21 recommendations for some relief. Now I stress, as we tried to in the memorandum, what we 22 are talking about here is what is necessary in order to get 23 24 an adjudicatory board to reopen a record. We are not 25 talking here about what is necessary to get the staff to l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- Court Reporting e Depositions
~
D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-6136
44 1 conduct an investigation of an allegation. Those are two 2 entirely different things, and I think that what is 3 'sometimes not recognized or at least not given 4 sufficient recognition...and this is also in the board 5 notification area...is that the staff's role and a board's 6 role in terms of dealing, at least ab initio, with allegations 7 is an entirely different one. a I mean, the staff sits there with seven or eight 9 regiments of investigators and inspectors and all of this, and 10 they can go out and they can check into allegations and 11 all of that. The adjudicatory boards have no resources for 12 either investigation or inspection, and it's rather important, 13 it seems to us...and this is what underlies the specific 34 recommendations...that anything that is put on the platter of p5 an adjudicatory board be in a form that the adjudicatory board 16 could deal with. And the kind of stuff that the appeal board 17 in Diablo was handed was stuff that just couldn't be dealt nj with. I mean, it was entirely unorganized. Much of it were 39 ultimate conclusory allegations without any indication of what their basis was at all, and that's just not what an adjudicato::y 20 21 board can effectively deal with. Staff can, I mean, througn the regions or if it's a matter within the baliwick 22 23 of OI, the investigators, I mean, they can go out, they can 24 interview, they can do all of those wonderful things which are 25 beyond the pale of boards.
.- . FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169-4136
. . 45 1 And that's what we intend, we intended to really carry 2 through on in our three specific proposals, and we tried on 3 !Page 3 of that memorandum to indicate this differentiation as 4 we see it netween what a board needs and the role of the . 5 board on the one hand, and the staff's role and what it would 6 need on the other.
7 So that, I think, Mr. Chairman, summarizes the Appeal 8 Board's position as set forth in the August 1 memorandum and 9 my position on the board notification matter as set forth 10 in the July 6 memorandum. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I hope I didn't cause you any 11 pr blem in mischaracterizing your comments on board 12 notification. I was thinking of the latter memo but not the 13 j4 former. Are there comments or questions? 15 M OER ECH: I would just lhe to comment. I'd 16
,7 say on Mr. Rosenthal's'1984 project, what you call your l
Project...I would kind of term your raw 18 g allegations...I think that you have a good point and I think that you're asking for an answer, some support, and I think you ought to get it. Regarding your 1 August memo, I have reviewed it too and I think I agree essentia'ly with what you are coming forth with there. I would only like to make one point that concerns me about some of the...and I know you're talking, I FRES STATE REPoltTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
46 1 think, about formal proceedings in most cases... 2 MR. ROSENTHAL: That's all that we're talking about. 3 i COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. 4 MR. ROSENTHAL: That's all that we are involved in,
. 5 and we have'enough with our own problems without...
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. Well, I would like to make 7 a point along with yo" though, right now to say that on other 8 proceedings I personally think that we have enough formal, 9 judiciary type proceedings, and I would personally oppose 10 any further judicializing of our informal proceedings. I li think we seem to have a hard enough time, in my judgment, 12 moving ahead, and I would just like to make that comment. 13 Other than that, I think that you have put some things 14 together that deserve consideration, and I certainly as one 15 Commissioner will give them that. i 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Lando, I didn't understand your l 17 last comment. 18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: On the informal proceedings and l 1 19 things I think there is a tendency sometimes...at least I have heard this...that we may tend towards more formal, turning the 20 inf rmal proceedings into formal proceedings and thereby 21 tying us up in more difficulties in coming to a decision. 22 It seems to me that this is something we should guard against. l 23 That's my only point. 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, now, the staff was asking for 25 i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court n:;:-5-$ = Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901'e Belt;4 Annep.169 4136
47 1 further guidance on this. Suppose there 2 were a policy statemer:t to be issued saying we 3 } intend to follow these kind of practices in the future, and 4 here is the criteria that we are going to apply. Would that 5 give you a problem? 6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, I'm not sure I follow you there . 7 All I'm saying is... 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, rather than a rule, a policy 9 statement might serve to provide the guidance without making to it so formal that every "i" has to be dotted, every 11 "t" crossed. 12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: That's my concern, and it seems to 13 me we do have a difficult time with all the things 14 we have to go through, and the informality of some of ur proceedings I think is helpful. The exchange of 15 s 16 inf rmation that we have with each other and with the staff, g I think, and with others on an informal basis, I think is very
,g helpful.
g Certainly the formal proceedings are important and we should hold to those. I'm just saying that I believe that it's important that we not carry that any further than we've already got it carried, because if we do it's just going to grind this machine to a halt, in my judgment. MR. ROSENTHAL: My August 1 memorandum, of course, is written entirely in the context of the formal FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depseiticas D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 6136 l
48 1 proceedings. 2 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I appreciate that, but I just 3 wanted to get in my own thought on it. I know you are just 4 addressing the formal proceedings. I am just throwing out a 5 word of caution. In my judgment so far it seems like we shou:.d 6 be careful that we don't give up our ability to use our 7 process in the more informal manner that we're using it 8 right now, as a matter of fact. 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It's worth noting, I think, io that I'm sure the lawyers and judges here can instruct us y, on exceptions. There might...we probably have devised the most formalized, judicial type proceeding process in this 12 13 agency of any comparable agency, to my knowledge, in the 14 world. There may be one... COMMISSIONER ZECH: This is my impression as the new one 15 16 here. It's just, I think, we have a very formal process and I think some of it is very necessary and very important, but 37 33 T j ust. . .I hope we can avoid going much further because I t do think we can accomplish a great deal in the informal yet
,9 deliberate and thoughtful manner that I think is appropriate g for our delibera tions.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One might even inquire as to whether we haven't gone too far, since other countries seem to have survived very well... COMMISSIONER ZECH: That's my impression, too. 25 FREE STATE REPORTING 1NC. court me,ortins Deposities D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. GL Anne,. 1405136 l
49 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me come back to your question. 2 I'm struggling with the following: We develop some criteria i 3 that we use in a case. The staff would say now that they want 4 some Commission guidance. We could give them an SRM that says , 5 "Here is your guidance." The problem with that is, the rest 6 of the world doesn't necessarily know it. Now of course you 7 can always write them later and tell them. The advantage of 8 a policy statement which sets forth just what the policy is 9 and doesn't set a whole bunch of rules, I think would inform 10 both the staff and the rest of the parties that are 11 involved. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I don't think that unnecessarily 13 formalizes the informal review process. What I think it tends g to do is assure that we'll have some consistency in the way 15 that the staff goes about looking at allegations and 16 deciding on what to do about the informatton at key points in I 17 the licensing process. I think it would be useful. 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I would like to hear some 19 further comment on the issue that you raised in point 3 on 1 page 4 of your July 6...let me make sure I've got my dates right here...yes, the July 6 memo. MR. ROSENTHAL: You're talking about the burden of proof? COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, the burden of proof question, because the...and I don't know whether you two have resolved that question between you. . .but one of the objectives FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Report!ng e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 4136
50 1 in my view of this whole proceeding here of trying to arrive 2 at an efficient way of handling late allegations, obviously 3 lis to protect public health and safety, and that means that 4 in the interest of public health and safety we should be 5 striving to encturage everybody, including intervenors, to 6 bring forth any allegation in as timely a manner as is humanly 7 possible so that it can be acted on before some date which I 8 think has too often been set up artifically as some moment of g trut$h when. . .whether it's loading fuel or whether it's 5 10 percent power or ascension to full power...as the day, and 33 after then it's all too late, and before then is your last 12 chance. Well, that just isn't the way it is in my judgment 13 in this agency, and it isn't the way we should operate. 34 So on reading your or General Counsel's words, Marty, on the subject I was somewhat taken aback, I-have to say, 15 because it appeared there was no way out based on the 16 g difference in the burden of proof before and after issuing a license. Therefore, I guess I would be interested in hearing 18 g whether you too have any additional thoughts now to offer on the subject. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't think, actually, in the context of the matter that concerns you, that the burden of proof is a terribly important issue anyway. I mean, I put that in because the Gene.;al Counsel did have this unequivocal statement in Footnote 4 of its paper which I happen to th.nk FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
1 51 1 1 was wrong. l 2 Actually I think there is...what the burden of proof i 3 comes down to is this: First there is always the question of 4 who has the initial burden of going forward and starting by 5 presenting evidence at the outset, and I don't think there is 6 any disagreement among us that the staff clearly has that 7 burden. I think that if the staff is proposing some kind 8 of enforcement action against a utility, whether it's a 9 civil penalty matter or whether it's looking to possibly 10 shutting the reactor down, revoking or suspending a 11 license, the staff as the initiator of that action has to come 12 forward with what would be loosely described, perhaps, 13 as prima facie case. These are mysterious words in law. 14 At that point I suspect that there is also no 15 disagreement that the burden, then, of going forward shifts 16 to the utility. It has got to come in and rebut the case that 17 has been presented by the staff. 18 Now the question then comes up, though, all right, the 19 staff has come forward with its prima facie case; here comes the utility with its rebuttal; who has the ultimate burden of 20 ( proof? 21 Now, number one, that question is only going to become important in the very unlikely event that the evidence is in 23 what sometimes is referred to as equipoise. In other words, 24 the adjudicator looks at the' thing and says, "Well, gee, 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Deposittens D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
52 1 is just as much evidence on one side as there is on the other 2 side. In that case, and only in that circumstance would the i 3 -matter of who had the burden of proof be significant. My 4 guess is that that will rarely happen, if ever, so.I am 5 suggesting that this is perhaps more of a theoretical 6 question than a real one. 7 If it does arise, where I would come out myself would be 8 this, and I do this on the basis of the Atomic g Energy Act, and i do it on the basis of the Atomic Energy Act 10 because the Administrative Procedure Act provides that the ji burden of proof is on the proponent of an order unless the 12 statute governing the particular action provides otherwise. 13 Now I would suggest that the Atomic Energy Act suggests 34 otherwise where the issue at hand is whether a plant can 15 safely continue to operate, because if the evidence is at equipoise...if the adjudicator says, "Well, gee, there is just. 16 a.s .nuch evidence that its operation is unsafe as there is that. 17 18 its operation is safe," then I would say that the reasonable assurance that the public health and safety is being 39 protected is lacking. So in that instance I would say 20 ultimate burden would be on the proof on the applicant, so g if the evidence were in equipoise, the plant would be shut down. 23 On the other hand, if we're dealing with past events, if it's a civil penalty action, the applicant a year or so ago 25 - FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting
- Depositions 0.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. Et Annep.169 4136
53 1 allegedly was in violation of some commission regulation, 2 there is no question that today there is no safety problem i 3 with operation, I would say in that circumstance...as I would 4 read the Atomic Energy Act...the burden of proof would lie 5 with the staff, the ultimate burden, but I'm suggesting that 6 really is going to be infrequently, if ever, that that is goir g 7 to really decide a case, where that burden of proof lies. 8 Perhaps I shouldn't have put this in at all but, as I 9 say, the General Counsel had that footnote in that paper and 10 I j ust didn' t agree. I thought it was an overstatement and 11 for that reason I had that comment. 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, but it does affect the 13 approach that one might consider is open to us, it seems to 14 me. In the extreme case if there is no difference...and I 15 would just suggest, although your argument is persuasive, that 16 the Commission itself has worked itself in, has worked into l l 37 a position, and all five Commissioners, I should emphasize, i 18 where by our sometimes excessively legalistic arguments on l l ig whether a plant has an operating license or it doesn't have 20 an operat ng license, that has on occasion in my short tenure 21 here driven certain decisions, and I would .. ope that's not the 1 22 way some decisions or decisions in general here are drawn. 23 And so I'm not so sure that it's not relevant to... 1 24 MR. MALSCH: Well, let me suggest that, depending on how 25 Y u phrase the question, it does...it can be very l 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. court R:;:r.: s . Depositlens l D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169 6136
- O 54 i significant. Let's take, for example, the issue facing the 2 Commission in the environmental qualification area, where 3 'I guess arguably the staff and the Commission was in the 4 position of not knowing whether equipment was or was not 5 environmentally qualified for operating reactors. Well, it 6
seems to me that there is a basis for a distinction in the 7 sense that you could say, "Well, if the plant has got an 8 operating license and we don't know the equipment is 9 environmentally qualified, we needn't rush forward and to shut the plant down. We have the leeway to do some evaluatior. and first decide whether there is in fact a safety problem." 33 Whereas perhaps if the plant didn't have a license you 12 w uld probably want to resolve the issue so you could make a 13 g finding of compliance with the regulations before you issued the license, so I agree with Alan. In specific cases, if it es up in a f rmal adjudicatory proceeding, the issue is 16 kind of academic because rarely if ever do you approach a s situation in which the evidence is in equipoise, but I think g in some other kinds of practical situations where the g Commission is confronted with a lack of information, it makes 20 a difference whether you, you know, take action in the 21 face of uncertainty or rather do more studies and do 22 evaluations in the face of uncertainty.- So it has a practical component but I agree in actual cases it almost never makes a difference in adjudicatory cases. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions
- D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149 6136
55 l 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So what's the bottom line 2 here, as they say? Is the point that your Option 3 or a f 3 modified version, whatever it might be, is or is not a real 4 option in light of your two statements? 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which Option 37 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How is it termed? The 7 enforcement action criteria. In other words... 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Whose Option 37 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, under either. Granted, 10 it's a somewhat gray area but one of the more firm stands that at least was laid out as an option, a possibility n 12 for the Commission, is that there should be no severely...no severe distinction drawn between an operating plant and a plant 13 about to receive a license, and Marty cited some legal 34 arguments as to why... 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that's an important 16 37 distinction. MR. MALSCH: I think there are legal arguments as to why. 18 I think under either legal theory you have a problem, because gg under Alan's theory the applicant would almost always have the 20 burden; under my theory he would sometimes have the burden; but we would be in agreement that in this situation the applicant has the burden, so you end up with the same difficulty. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. Any further discussion? FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
56 1 Well, let me try some proposals, and they are put out to 2 see if we can focus on where we want to go. OGC, among its t 3 recommendations, indicated a recommendation that we ought to 4 develop a policy statement in which the Commission would 5 make a statement about the criteria to be used. We may want 6 to expand those criteria or not. One possible approach would 7 be to ask the staff to take the lead in development of a 8 policy statement, and I say "take the lead" because of their 9 experience in the Diablo Canyon case. 10 COMMISSIONER ZEHN: Well, I'd suggest that that be done, 11 that the staff take the lead. COMMISSIONER PALLADINO: But when they take the lead I 12 13 w uld hope they would...and I'm sure they would, and I 34 would instruct them in this is the Commission's will...that 15 they get the input from OGC and the licensing boards and appeal board. 16 37 With regard to the formal part of the recommendations, I 18 w uld propose that now we give OGC the lead to prepare a ! ,g rulemaking package to follow up on the comments of the appeal board with regard to further detail and factual reasons for dealing with motions to reopen. With regard to board notification proedures, I'm not sure where to put the onus but I gather there is a desire to have some further consideration of a threshold at which board 24 notifications would go to...would be made by the staff, and 1 ! PRIE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Aree 341-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169 4236
a . 57 1 all your comments were pretty persuasive but I think here I 2 would be open to guidance on where to put that requirement. i 3 Maybe as a subset of the thing that we ask the EDO staff or 4 the staff to do. Any guidance on... 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess I was also persuaded 6 by Alan's arguments, that some sort of coarse screening 7 initially before the boards are notified is a useful thing. 8 I think, though, that if you do that you also need a fairly 9 prompt cop.rse screening so that it doesn't drag on literally 10 for weeks or months and thereby delay getting the 11 inf rmation to the boards, because I think there is a benefit 12 in getting that information to the boards early on so... 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think they are going to have to g give thought to that because if out of their evaluation they 15 need an investigation, then you might want to do something 16 different. 37 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, what I had in mind, 18 though, was something like what OI does, which is do enough 39 of a review to decide whether this is something that warrants ! detailed investigation. MR. CUNNIHAM: In many of these cases it would have to be an OI screening for us... COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I see. Sure, sure. MR. CUNNIHAM: ... and if the allegation is alteration of QA records, you've got to have OI do it.
~ ~ FREE-STATE REPORTING INC.
- Court Reporting e Deposittens FY&Mee 161-1901'e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136
58 1 COMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right. 2 MR. CUNNIHAM: So the coarse screening has to be the type i 3 cur it has to be compatible with what OI can do. 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But it does seem to me that 5 there is a comparable mechanism in liace that both would 6 work for those kinds of allegations and that could serve as 7 a model for the technical ones. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think I should have stressed that g by " coarse screening" all I really had in mind was a look at 10 it to the point that a decision could be made it was worthy n of inquiring into it further. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Not that the OI or a region 13 g investigation had been completed and they determined that it was meritorious, but that they had taken enough of a look to 15 16 say, "Yes, there may be something to this and it's worth the [ l 37 expenditure of our resources" in investigating it if it's an 3g OI matter or inspecting, a full inspection if it's an I&E or 39 whatever. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would agree with you, Joe, on your suggestion on that: Ask the staff to address both 1 parts, both a coarse screening mechanism and a way to assure that that gets done in a reasonably timely fashion. COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I agree with that, too. I think that's the appropriate way to go. 25 1 I FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting a Depositlens l D.C. Aree 161-1992 e 4elt. 46 Annes.16*.6136
59 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Would the output be both in the 2 policy statement, or both outputs in the policy statement?
't 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It probably would be useful, 4 at least in terms of emphasizing the need for a fairly 5 expeditious approach to doing the initial screening.
6 MR. CHANDLER: I think the staff, in any event, would 7 have to embody that in a revised Of fice Letter 19, which 8 Darrell alluded to earlier as containing the staff's 9 procedures for handling these. I would point out, chough, to that coarse screening criteria such as you have just suggested ji I don't think will universally cure Mr. Rosenthal's concerns, 12 because I think in large part...for example, if you 13 look at the Diablo Canyon allegations, certainly at the 34 very outset it was believed that each and every of the 15 allegations were worthy of further inquiry, and so they would 16 have immediately passed that screening test and would have 37 been passed on to the appeal board without any more help 18 than in fact was provided. l COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, I agree with you, it's not 39 l going to solve the problem but it's better than just having the allegations flow... l MR. ROSENTHAL: We have got on other cases...and I won't 1 ! mention the specific case because it's still in adjudication.. . g but we got an instance where the staff said, " Gee, we've got 25 these allegations and along with the allegations we've got FRH STATE MPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 1411901 e Beh. & Aanep. 169-4136
60 1 a lot of documentation which allegedly supports the 2 allegations. We're telling you all about these 3 allegations now. We haven't even looked at the 4 documentation," and I thought these were extraordinarily 5 serious allegations. If in fact they were true, they 6 reflected very poorly indeed upon the utility, and this is 7 what actually got me started on this. My feeling was, it 8 seemed to me that before the staff put those allegations 9 before us, they should have at least looked at the 10 documentation and ccme to some conclusion as to whether 33 that documentation provided enough support for those 12 allegations to warrant exploring them more fully. And I 13 would agree, of course, with Larry that there still might 34 be instances where the coarse screening would put up to us 15 allegations there wasn't much that we could do with, but the 16 w rld isn't perfect and I don't think there is aryy way of , 37 dealing with this problem that would be entirely 18 satisfactory to all interests concerned. gg CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Larry, did you have another comment? MR. CHANDLER: No. Of course, as I said earlier, we 20 would be pleased to accommodate... CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me sce...they are g summarized...and get Commission concurrence. There's only three of us left, but first we would tsk the staff, with input from other appropriate segments of the organization, to draft 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositten: D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149-4136
61 1 a policy statement along the lines identified in the OGC 2 paper, with consideration of the extent to which the Diablo i 3 Canyon criteria or other similar criteria that the group may 4 want to develop be used. As a part of that, the staff should also look to see what revision in the ..DO board notification 5 6 procedures should be made and make their recommendation part 7 of the policy statement. 8 I would ask, propose that we ask OGC with input from 9 other appropriate segments of the agency to prepare a to rulemaking package to follow up on the comments made by Al Rosenthal, n 12 , COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So that would be a rule on the content of motions to reopen... 13 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. MI SIOMR ASSESM: ... M no rMe on ne 15 standards for reopening. 16 MR. MARSCH: Well, let me address that. g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I didn't...go ahead. 18 MR. MARSCH: When I was recommending rulemaking, I really 99 had in mind the content rulemaking that Alan was recommending. However, I want to point out that the first element cf content. addressed on page 2 is that the motion... CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Page 2 of what? Your... MR. MARSCH: No, sir. Mr. Rosenthal's memo. His first rule on content would say, "A motion to reopen must separateli FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
62 I address each of the three established reopening criteria." 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You might have to refer that as 3 (the...you would have to refer to what the... 4 MR. MARSCH: You would have to inclue the substantive 5 criteria in the rule; otherwise the rule will be 6 incomplete, although what I really had in mind was the 7 three content criteria, but I think you'll end up having the 8 substantive criteria included as well. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. I would find it would be very to helpful to include those. 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would agree with both 12 your comments on the board notification policy, on the 13 standards for the rulemaking on motions to reopen the record. 34 On the policy statement, I agree that it would be useful to 15 have the staff put together a policy statement. The one 16 area that I have a concern about is on what the late 37 information criteria are going to be...that is, the standard 18 for balancing the significance of safety against the potential for delay. It strickes me that the diablo criteria were put 19 together rather hurriedly in the midst of a very dif ficult anc i 20 complex proceeding. I had some questions about what some of 21 the words in those criteria mean. You use " specific 22 l information" in some instances; you use " definitive l 23 information" in others. Some things are included in terms of 24 l safety systems; other things aren't. You talk about 25 FRaf STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149-4136
63
' significant, sizeable failures of systems rather than levels 2 I think the staff can put together the criteria
,of safety.
t 3 that it thinks is useful but for myself, that's the part. 4 I am going to really zero in on because I think what we want 5 to do is strike the balance that if it's a significant 6 item and it's new information and specific information that 7 we didn't have available to us and it's a safety-significant 8 item, then it's something that has to be looked at. On the 9 other hand, if those things aren't there before licensing, 10 and on the other hand if those elements aren't there, then 11 maybe it's something that can be left for postlicensing 12 review, but I think that's where the staff ought to maybe 13 start off with some clean thinking about well, what really 14 makes sense there that strikes a fair balance. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was not thinking that we would 16 exclude refinement of the criteria. 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. I think there's room 18 for refinement here. 19 MR. CUNNIHAM: As we have suggested in our paper, I think 20 it's essential. 21 MR. MARSCH: Yes. We said we tried to do the best we could and refine their criteria in our paper. As we saw it, 22 23 there is absolutely no difficulty with the Diablo Canyon I 24 criteria but some of them appear to be geared specifically 25 to the Diablo Canyon types of issues. I PREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens l D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 i
o'. . 64 9 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Exactly. 2 MR. MARSCH: For example, management and quality assurance 3 kwhereasweweretryingtoaddressthemoregeneralproblem, 4 and so that's why we tried to take the more general... 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, that's why I phrased it along 6 the lines outlined in your paper, but considering the 7 extent to which the Diablo Canyon criteria or some similar 8 refined criteria should be used. 9 ' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And I think if you take as your 10 guideline the OGC recommendation that when you develop those 11 criteria, safety is the paramount consideration, we shouldn't 12 have any trouble. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Is there general agreement, 14 at least among the three of us here? 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I certainly concur in that 16 recommendation. I... 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think Lando also indicated a 18 concurrence before he left. 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I hope that this is going to be useful. I must say I have some reservations. I'll be 20 21 interested in seeing what you're able to come up with. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Like all other things, if we don't 22 23 start we won't get... COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think the final point I would 24 25 mention, I think Alan is absolutely right on the point about FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court me, rtine Depositwo D.C. Area 1611901 e Selt.& Anne,. 169 6136
65 I the immediate effectiveness reviews. We ought to conform the 2 regulations to our practice. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I need to... 4 MR. ROSENTHAL: One way or the other. I mean, you can 5 decide which way to go but either, again, that regulation 6 has to be conformed to the practice or the 7 practice has to be conformed to the regulation. Take 8 your pick. . 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think the issues that the board 10 has raised are easy. This other issue of our own policy 3, statement is more difficult. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would like to have a tutorial on 13 this subject and I'll arrange it with you. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At your convenience. A AN A . o, not here. 15 MR. MARSCH: I don't think things are quite so bad on the 16 Commission's effectiveness reviews, but I do agree that we 37 might...we ought to revisit our rule to just... 18 A : nk de rule can be 19 clarified. 20 MR. MARSCH: At least make it more straightforward and... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right. That's what I said. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Anything more on this subject? Well, thank you all. We'll stand adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.) 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169-6136
/;,a 1
CERTIFICATE OF PROCE4 DINGS 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3 ibefore the NRC COMMISSION 4 In the matter of: 5 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 6 FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 7 Date of proceeding: September 5,1984 8 Place of proceeding: Washington, D.C. 9 Werd held as herein appears, and that this is the to original transcript for the file of the Commission. 11 JOE NEWMAN 12 13 Official Reporter 14 15 W 16 Official Reporter - Signature
,g b. (Af6626 i
39 Transcriber 20 i ( 21 22 23 24 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149-4134
Cnki 0109 l ORIGINAL l y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CObD1ISSION 3 ,., 1 i' g - -
.. - g a ~ i f ~ CORRECTED COPY NRC 49 ,
5
! l 6 :l In the Matter of:
7 8 - 9 , CONTINUATION OF 4/24 DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE STEPS
' ~
TO AVOID LICENSING DELAYS TO INCLUDE 10 ISCUSSION OF LAST MINME AREGATIONS 11 l 12 COMMISSION MEETING 13 , 14 15 , ,,n , igvv iM p_ .0... iv 16 d 17 l 18 OPEN MEETING 19 ll 20 Location: Washington, D.C. Pages: 1 - 77 21 Date: Friday, June 15, 1984 23 25 y - h)4 fDq S ,7 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 169-6136 i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 CONTINUATION OF 4/24 DISCUSSION ON POSSiBLE 4 STEPS TO AVOID LICENSING DELAYS TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF LAST MINUTE ALLEGATION 5 OPEN MEETING 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 1717 H Street, N.W. Room 1130 n , Washington, D.C. 9 Friday, June 15, 1984 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, in open session at 2:04 p.m. 11 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 12 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 13 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTEINE, Commissioner 14 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 15 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: 16 S. CHILK H. PLAINE 17 J. KEPPLER D. EISENHUT 18 J. ROE J. ZERBE 19 M. MALSCH B. COTTER 20 A. ROSENTHAL E. CHRISTENBURY 21 C. KAGAN l D. CRUTCHFIELD 22 23 24 25 l l l
- FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court me,.rting . Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annep. 169-6136
- i I I I
1 l DISCLAIMER 2 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on i 3 . FrM w . 3nna 14. 1Qna in the Commission office at t 1717"H. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was , open to public attendance and observation. This transcript 4 has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. 5 I The transcript is intended solely for general infor-6 mational 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 trans-7 cript do not necessarily reflect the final determinations ; or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with l 8 the Cornmission in any proceeding as the result of or i addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, 9 exgept at the Commission may authorize. 10 11 12 13 ( 14 15 16 i 17 ! It 4 ,
'9 i
i i 20 ! l 21 , 22 23 24 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens
- D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
2 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On April 24th of this year, I 2 the Commission met to discuss possible steps to avoid any 3 potential licensing delays for near term operating license 4 nuclear power plants. We were unable to complete our 5 discussion at that time, and our session today is a con-6 tinuation of that meeting. We have many topics that are 7 important to discuss, and I would propose the following 8 agenda today: 9 First, we should hear an update from the NRR on 10 the status of NTOL's, and this, I believe, will include a 11 discussion of any potential delays, based upon applicants 12 construction completion dates, as well as those based on 13 the staff projected completion dates. 14 Second, NRR and the regional representatives -- 15 we have Jim Keppler here and John Collins had planned to 16 be here but, because of extensive flooding on the Missouri 17 River that will affect one of the plants in this area, he 18 won't be able to be here, but still with the individuals 19 we have here, we can discuss the resource allocation 20 between OL reviews and operating plants. 21 In particular, we're interested in the extent to 22 which that leaves the allocation resources to the review 23 NTOLs may be effecting the safety of operating plants. Ano 24 this is an item of specific interest to several Commissioners. 25 Third, I would propose next that we hear from J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpg 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
r- , 3 1
. licensing board and appeal board representatives 2 'regarding status of their activities and any major 3 resource problems that they may project. We didn't 4 get a chance to attend to that a't the last meeting.
5 Then there are a couple of general items. I believe 6 OGC and staff should summarize potential delays that 7 could be caused by the recent court decision regarding 8 emergency -- the litigation of emergency exercise 9 results. to I think we'd also be interested in the 11 status of staff review of the public comments on our 12 proposed rule on financial qualifications. And then OGC 13 i can discuss the status of this development of options 14 that the Commission has relative to dealing with last is minute allegations. is I propose that we follow that agenda, unless 17 there are any objections. 18 MR. PLAINE: Mr. Chairman, I thought, 19 on that last one, we were carrying that over. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I thought you might 21 give us a status report. 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, but on that 23 item we are waiting for a paper. , 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we are. That I was 25 mostly interested where we stand on the paper. Okay. I t J.L.H. l NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp2 1 Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. DE Area 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
4 I Are you going to cover
. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
2 all those? 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, the last three, you 4 will notice, the last three were all status reports 5 essentially. Well, unless there are other opening 6 remarks, I propose to turn the meeting over to Darrell 7 Eisenhut. 8 - MR. EISENHUT: Thank you. We sent down a SECY 9 document, 84163-A, which was the periodic NTOL status 10 report listing, which was sort of one of the products 11 that we developed at the last meeting on April 24th. I 12 won't go through that today, plant by plant, we 13 certainly think we did it pretty thoroughly the last 14 time. 15 There, indicated in there is by bar chart. 16 On the side of the page is the pieces that have changed 17 since the last time. Since there are continued 18 living documents, at the time we generally issue one, 19 things have changed already the next time. 20 We have, however, tried to summarize and put 21 together what we thought the framework might be for a 22 discussion. I have several slides which I believe were 23 passed around. The first one is an overall licensing 24 schedule, as we basically see it. What this table is is 25 it's a listing of all of the plants that presently i l J.L.H. l NRC/46 pagE.5 TATE REPORTING INC. Tcp3 1 Court Reporting
- Depositions C.R. D.C/ Aree 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149-423 6
5 I scheduled to come up for licensing decisions this year, 2 that is in 1984. 3 There's two plants added at the bottom, Palo 4 Verde and Midland 2, because those were the plants 5 from the last listing, we put them on here simply for 6 completeness. This first column in the applicants 7 construction completion date. And those are the dates 8 the latest information we have from the utilities. 9 Generally, a week doesn't go by that we don't get one 10 change or so. Those are sort of the base-line schedule. 11 Recall that we use that as all of our schedule 12 productions. 13 Two items I need to explain to you -- one is 14 on the shoreham September '84 date, the plant projection 15 states that they had the plant physically complete in 16 March of 1984, except for the emergency diesel
'7 generator issue, and that issue would be projected by 18 the applicant to be, the diese'.s would be back, 19 repaired, operable, etc. by September of 1984. Hence, 20 the footnote.
21 On the CATAWBA 1 project -- 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Darrell, I gathered 23 from the other information you had in 84163-A, that the 24 staff's view is that the diesel generator program is 25 behind schedule. I J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp3 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 141 1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169-6136
l 6 1
. MR. EISENHUT: I think that is already reflect 2 'in the 9/84. I think the 9/84 is a rather recent date, 3 so I think those will merge together.
4 On the CATAWBA 1 project you'll see where it 5 says June 1984. CATAWBA is proposing a program, Duke 6 Power is proposing a program for loading fuel in June 7 1984. That plant's also affected by the deal of our 8 TDI. diesel question. They have proposed first going 9 up to power in September 1984. The date there has to 10 have some explanation. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have they made the 12 request for fuel load? 13 MR. EISENHUT: They have made a request. It 14 is the, -- as I recall, the Hearing Board came down 15 with the decision just in the last weel or so, authorizing 16 the staff to issue the fuel load license whenever the 17 stai'f feels the plan is sufficiently complete. So, I 18 think, that it's through the process, back on the 19 staff's door step, so to speak, to make that decision. 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is the TDI diesel 21 issue the only issue that would prevent them, say, from 22 going to low power operation as well? -- this fuel 23 load? Or are there other things that they're trying to 24 load fuel and then address after that? 25 MR. EISENHUT: In terms of the hearing, I J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tc 2 1 Court Reportins e Depesitions
*
- D.C. Area 261-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep. 269-6136
T 7 1 .was told that that is the only issue in the hearing 2 'rocess. p There are a number of other issues we're still 3 resolving technically on the plant. 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But it's -- the TDI 5 issue is the reason why they're coming in and saying, 6 let us load fuel and we won't operate the plant for 7 three more months. 8 . MR. EISENHUT: Well, yes, they had a program 9 laid out, however, on this project to do some 10 additional work deferred in between the fuel load and 11 the essential power in the low power testing program. 12 So, there are a number of testing phases that are fit in 13 there also. But principally it's the diesels. 14 The second column on this table is a listing 15 of the NRC's estimate of the construction completion 16 dates. The -- generally, the dates, as you go down the 17 listing agree, you Will see in a Couple of instances, 18 there is a small variation between the dates. 19 There is not really a significant variation 20 until you get down to, well down the list to the 21 FERMI project. There is about a three month difference, 22 and the LIMERICK project there's a potentially up to a 23 six month delta. And on those projects you'll notice, 24 as well as others, there's a footnote 1. 25 Footnote 1 is a broad look we have undertaken J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpm 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 241-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6236
8 1 r 2 'on something on the order of a half-dozen projects. , 1 3 Bill Dirck's memo they sent down on January -- June the 4 lst, attached a memorandum that was signeu by Harold 5 Denton, that pointed out on something on the order of 6 eight or nine projects. We have designated an SES 7 project person, who is really the overall manager 8 assigned on those plants to integrate all agency 9 activities under the project, take a look at where the io project stands from a utility standpoint, where it stands 11 from an NRC standpoint, inspection-wise, investigation-12 wise, hearing-wise, factoring all those things 13 together. 14 It is really being done to focus on the is resource question, that is, do we have the resources 16 in the right place, the right disciplines, the right 17 frameworks to meet these schedules. And maybe I'll 18 just elaborate on it very slightly. 19 What we're doing on each of these projects, 20 is we have set the designated manager out to the 21 regions to the plants to all the different offices, and 22 we're putting together, right now, a detailed item by 23 item listing of all action items before the NRC on these 24 projects, and basically, what I'll sort of call a 25 pert-short form, it's a line diagram showing when it J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpn 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R* D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
1 . starts, when it finishes, who's going to do it, so they t 2 'can integrate process, come up with the resource 3 needs. 4 We're doing that on these key projects 5 after we had considerable debate as to which ones we 6 might take the efforts of a harder look at. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now, how did you 8 decide which ones needed the harder closer look? The 9 ones that had the footnote 1? to MR. EISENHUT: Well, what we did was, we ii looked at all the project due to come up for licensing 12 in the next twelve months. And we looked at those 13 projects, and we looked at other major actions before 14 the agency, before the regions, then we had a manage-us ment meeting with all the office directors and all the is regional administrators here in Washington about two 17 Weeks ago, three weeks ago. 18 We basically discussed that list, went down 19 the list, and it was sort of a composit that was 20 put together by the various people. Now, let me give 21 you an example. One thing that we've overlooked when 22 we looked at OL licensing is we overlooked things 23 like San Onofre 1 restart. San Onofre 1 is a project 24 that has been shut down for the something in the order 25 of about 3 years now. J.L.H. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. T Court Reporting e Depositions C*R* D.C. Area 161-1902
- Belt. da Annep. 269-6136
10 1
. That utility has made a commitment and we've t
2 'been working on a program to restart develop the 3 requirement base for restart in San Onofre 1. That's 4 a major task before the staff, before us, before 5 Region 5. So, we had that on the list, and we have a 6 designated Senior Manager, who is dedicated to that 7 task for the present time. These managers all came 8 from within NRR, with the exception with one we did 9 previously, Mr. Ippolito, whose on Comanche Peak, and 10 we've designated these managers full-time to this task 11 of assessing where we are. 12 We also designated a senior manager on TMI 13 restart, because we felt that was a full-time job for 14 at least one manager. 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Darrell, could 16 you describe the relationship of the dedicated manager 17 to the case load forecast panel in terms of arriving 18 at an NRC construction completion date? How do the two 19 fit together? 20 MR. EISENHUT: 0.K. Generally speaking, 21 the guidance given to the designated manager was 22 assume the applicant's date as a given, and then go and 23 lay out all the work and see how it looks. Because if 24 you look at these two, these projects, there's not a 25 lot of variation in the dates. J.L.H. NRC M FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpa 1 Court Iteperting
- Deposittens C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. is Annep. 149 4136
11 1 , On the projects where there's a significant i 2 ' delta, we have had either a case load forecast panel 3 visit or a amplified case load forecast panel, which is, 4 in fact, in the absence of Mr. Lovelace we've gone 5 to somewhat of a composit. We sent out a team that 6 has a representative of resource management. 7 It's chaired by the project manager branch 8 chie.f from NRR. It has the project manager on it, it 9 has the inspector on it, and generally, on the last g) case on 'JOLF CREEK, we brought in two other inspectors n from other regions, who were inspectors on similar 12 plants.
;3 We brought those together, -- I guess we y did that on the Comanche Peak. We brought those is together so that we have a little bit broader perspec-n; tive in terms of what is workable and what is not 17 workable. That effort is the effort that will develop 18 the NRC's construction completion date.
19 Then the man -- and the target there is 20 very simple, it is to -- we come up with an estimate, 21 if it is a large variance of the applicants, it 22 proceeds up the management chain in NRR. I will have 23 a meeting with the utility's management, because, 24 somehow, we've got to agree upon what the target date 25 really is. J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcps 1 Court Reporting e Depositlens
~*R
- D.C. Aree 241-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6136
12 1 That target date, then, is a given to the 2 ' dedicated manager. His job is more than internally 3 looking at the resources in the agency. How they fit 4 together, can they get done, can they get done 5 without impacting operating reactors, where are the 6 resources really going to come from. Because it's very 7 easy, if you look at it from project to project, you a make,an assumption that the inspectors come from 9 another place, and you really can't look at it in that to kind of isolation. n The first column on this page of dates is the 12 latest level decision date. It's called the Commission i3 Decision Date in the Bevill Report. We call it the i4 latest, because a couple of these have changed since is the latest Bevill, which covered the January through 16 March time frame. 17 And then, basically, to determine the impact, is as we computed it in the Bevill Report, we call all we 19 simply do is simply pick the difference between the 20 applicants date and the Bevill decision date. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And are these dates in 22 which full power or power ascension will be 23 authorized? 24 MR. EISENHUT: These are dates when low 25 power generally would be authorized, if low power is J.L.H. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. hCp Court Reporting e Depositions C.*R* D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136
13 i ,on the critical path. In an unusual situation you could r 2 'have a hearing that does not impact low power, and 3 therefore no impact at the low power stage, but a poten-4 tial impact at full power. But, generally, this is the 5 agency's decision date for low power, and we then 6 typically use a two month delta between low power and 7 full power, but if it's not impacting at low power, it's 8 usually not impacting at full power. g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On WATERFORD 3 you show in a decision date on 6/84. Will that have included jj settlement of the basemat question? 12 MR. EISENHUT: The latest official dates of 13 June 84 were to have included the settlement issue on ja the basemat. We were due to provide, I think as we 33 mentioned in the last meeting, we were to provide the 16 Appeals Board with our evaluation of the basemat issue j7 today, or I think we had said not later than today. is We are not providing that evaluation today, ig and we will be notifying the Appeals Board -- the Board 20 that that will be coming down the road in the 21 future. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you know how far in 23 the future? 24 MR. EISENHUT: Probably, at least, -- I would 25 think WATERFORD is at least impacted a month. Not J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcp2 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Aree 141 1901
- Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
14 i ,necessarily because of the basemat issue, but because t 2 of other issues that we're now evaluating. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: When are you going to 4 provide the information to the Appeal Board? 5 MR. EISENHUT: I don't -- let's see. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have you picked a date y yet? - 8 . MR. EISENHUT: It's due, I am told, to the 9 appeals board now within three weeks. 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: In three weeks from ij today? 12 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now then, is that 34 something that has to be settled before we make a low is power decision? 16 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And 37 in fact I was just about to say that on WATERFORD 3 is we now, as of last week, have informed the utility 39 that, because of a number of questions that must be 20 resolved, part of licensing decision, that we cannot see 21 how we'll be issuing the license in June of this 22 year. 23 We can't really project when, because the 24 concerns we have are really in the form of questions. 25 We sent to the utility earlier this week, a number J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcp3 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C.R* D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136
15 i of questions that we need satisfactory answers to on the 2 ! utilities standpoint. 3 The utility is meeting, has been meeting
~
4 in the last few days, I'm told, and they're putting 5 together a program plan to come back and address the 6 staff's questions. Those questions, basically, with 7 a result of the large staff inspection review g team that has been down at the site, spent something 9 on the order of six weeks at the site, and this is 10 basically the result, so to speak, the remaining 33 questions. A large number of questions were resolved, 12 13 but we told the utility, as of last Friday, that a 34 June licensing, we just can't see how we can get from 15 here to there. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So, we should cross that 16 37 one out, put some other date in -- 18 MR. EISENHUT: -- to be determined at least ig July. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are there any otheres 20 21 in that category or similar category? MR. EISENHUT: The only other one is the one 22 that we've been talking about the last couple of days 23 is Diablo Canyon. We all agree that the plant 24 25 physically is ready, except that there are a number of J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 1 .- FREE 5 TATE REPORTING INC. ' Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. . D.C. Atee 2611901-* Belt.& Annep. 149 6136
16 1
, questions that must be adequately resolved, and of t
2 ' course that resolution could ultimately lead to going 3 back into the plant. But Diablo Canyon not before July 4 of this year, and that is the date of CATAWBA. 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Darrell, on 6 WATERFORD, I take it the staff's questions go beyond the 7 FSAR review items that are listed in the SECY paper. 8 They. go beyond the Appendix R, tech specs and basemat. 9 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, they do. They go more to in the direction of documentation to demonstrate the 11 quality of the plant. They go into a variety of areas. 12 There was a board notification, I believe -- maybe it 13 wasn't by board notification, we were sending down to 14 the Commission the letter that I sent to the utility is earlier this week, and it actually lists the 16 questions, but they really went more in the realm of -- 17 there was some engineering questions on how to demon-18 strate the quality of welding, how to demonstrate 19 certain numbers of engineering things. 20 There were also questions about documenta-21 tion, the availability of documentation to demonstrate 22 the qualities defined. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Are these based 24 on allegations or on the NRC inspections themselves, and 25 if they're based on the NRC inspections, is there JsL.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORYING INC. Tcpo 1 covet neporting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Aree let 1901 e helt. & Annep. 149 4134
17 1 overlap between items that are covered by the allega-2 'tions and what we found? 3 MR. EISENHUT: Well, let's see. Remember on 4 WATERFORD 3, there really weren't a lot of allegations. 5 On WATERFORD 3 there were a number of allegations came 6 in that we derived, so there's sort of derivations, 7 or derivatives of allegations. 8 We went back and talked to two allegers and 9 followed up on a number of sources, interviewed a large u) number of people. It really wasn't in the same sense n as where you normally get a submittal of here is a 12 number of allegations. So, whether you call them 13 allegations, they were really staff questions that 14 fell out of the inspection process. 15 We've been told for a number of months that n; we're about to get an installment of allegations on 17 WATERFORD. The fact is we have not gotten those up to 18 this point in time. 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Does the utility, 20 that utility have one of these programs to identify 21 concerns that their workers may have your exit interviews 22 or hot lines or those kinds of things, and if so, what 23 kind of response have they got to that program, and 24 have they been moving expeditiously to resolve any items 25 that have been brought to their attention? J.L.H. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Can Reding e Desities C*R* D.C. Aree 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
18 i , MR. EISENHUT: Well, I guess the easiest way t 2 to convey the sense of that is, at last Friday's 3 meeting, the second part of the agenda was an expres-4 sion of some concern on the staff's part, that while 5 the utility had a system, they sent out a questionnaire 6 to all their QC inspectors, they interviewed all their 7 QC inspectors, they got an itemized listing of the con-g cerns back, I at least expressed some reservations over 9 how those were handled. 3g That is, I'm looking for a demonstration that, 3, if you have the system for (interrupted) tell you, what do you do with them. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What did they do 13 34 with them? 15 MR. EISENHUT: Well, they, right now that's a matter we still have undur investigation in some 16 37 sence along with a why. It is a, it is clear that there is was a -- the utility took the pieces of paper that came ig in from the individual, extracted what I think is the 20 subset of the concerns, sent those silbset of the concerns 21 back to their architect engineer or their vendors to 22 where the concerns came from. 23 For example, the EVASCO QC (Ph) inspector 24 may have had a concern. The utility then took that 25 concern, sent it back to EVASCO (Ph) for resolution. J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcp] 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depeeltlens C.R. D.C. Area 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6134
19 i nd it wasn't clear to me what that involvement in this 2 ' case LP&L had in that process, and whether they were 3 really dedicated to resolving the issues, because we, 4 from based on our review, could not track all of the 5 concerns identified, and the concerns identified varied 6 all the way from minor issues all the way up to some 7 falsification of documents, took that full listing, a we could not track back through the process to see how g LP&L responded to it. in Now, they may very well have responded to it ij adequately. The point that where we were, though, is 12 there was not a clear demonstration that we could i3 find. l i4 The second concern we had was the degree of 15 attention that management was given to this issue 16
-- or the lack of the degree of management attention.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do they pr) vide any is feedback to the individual who expressed the concern, i9 so that the individual knows that -- 20 MR. EISENHUT: They did at some point, I 21 might ask Denny Crutchfield, whose been down at the 22 site and went through this process, if you want to 73 address that. 24 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: They did it in a two-25 part process. They had the surveys that they J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. , Court Reporting e Depeeltions C.R* D.C. Area 161 1901 e telt. & Annep. 169 6136
f 20
' initially did over a two week period, and they got those 2
surveys back, and they got the answers extracted, what 3 they thought was the information, and as Darrell said, 4 sent it on to EVASCO (Ph) or whoever. 5 Got information back from that, then 6 individually sent memorandums out to the people who 7 responded to the surveys. The second part of it is 8 exit interviews that they've had with the QA employees 9 as they've left the site, those that are just in the 10 process of continuing on to go back to EVASCO (Ph) 11 and then eventually feed back the employees. So, they 12 haven't finished that second part, yet. 13 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, the first part occurred 14 back in the time frame starting in January of this 15 year, and that's what led us to some of the concern 16 that if these concerns were raised by inspectors in the 17 January time frame, why are we here today resolving 18 those concerns, some of the very same concerns, or at 19 least what appeared to us based on our review. So, we 20 went back and asked the utility to give us a demon-21 stration of how he has been handling concerns, noncon-22 formances, deficiencies that have been identified 23 internally. And deraonstrate to us that he has a 24 healthy program in place. 25 Because it's fair to say, the program didn't J.L.H. NRC/46 pREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpa 1 Court Reportine e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt. & Anney. 149 4134
21 1
,look as rigorous as what we have seen at a number of 2 'other plants. We're in the process -- there seems to 3 be the process in some cases that can work very 4 effectively.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Was there -- what was 6 the degree of management involved? Did managers at 7 LP&L know what was going on? Were they involved in a the. process? Were they overseeing the process or not? 9 MR. EISENHUT: Well, let's see. This is a to matter that is -- we are still investigating. I 11 think it is fair to say that the letter that went to 12 the utility in January of this year, that went to the QC 13 inspectors was signed by the Senior Vice-President. 14 There is some indication, however, that is multi-levels of the Licensees' management had not 16 really gone through the responses at all, are certain-17 ly the same kind of Senior Manager who sent out the 18 letter, the same Senior Managers who write letters in 19 to us. It did not appear that those two were linked 20 together at all. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Anything more, then? 22 MR. EISENHUT: No, that's all. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Darrell, looking at 24 this chart again, you see these are low power dates 25 Grand Gulf it says 7/84 -- J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp3 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1901 o Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
22 1
. MR. EISENHUT: Let me correct what I said.
t 2 They are generally low power dates, except where once 3 the low power date is passed, then they become full d power dates, so for the first three plants -- the first 5 plant I chose, I just couldn't dare put a date in for 6 TMI restart. 7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Why did you list 8 it? - 9 MR. EISENHUT: Well, because it is an item 10 that is listed on top of the list as far as -- the 11 request was which items in which plants do we need to 12 make decisions in the very near future on. And it is 13 one that is obviously before the Commission, and that's 14 the only reason. 15 But certainly, that's a commission date. 16 The staff has very little input in that date. Grand 17 Gulf we expect to bring to the Commission, we now 18
. project, in July for full power. Diablo Canyon we 19 expect to bring to the Commission for full power in 20 July or certainly no sooner than July.
21 I believe all the other items down the 22 list are in fact low power, and if one wanted to look 23 at when it would be before the Commission, generally 24 you add two months from that date. Now, that's a 25 perfect lead-in to the very next slide, and that is, J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpa 1 Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6134
c h 23 , 1 .the question had been asked in one of the memoranda that 2 'came down as to which decisions would be sitting before 1 3 the Commission on projects in the July / September time 4 frame. 5 This, then, would equate to the last chart, 6 where one took Grand Gulf and Diablo Canyon and then 7 you would go to the Callaways which had a 6/1984 low a power. I recall that was issued last Monday. We 9 projected, then, two months later in August it would io be before the Commission. 11 Similarly, WATERFORD had been based on the 12 ' June date, which has since been overtaken by events 13 this week, and that probably will be now one month 14 later. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It would be helpful as 16 the days in August approach or if any of the others go 17 into August, to identify a specific date as soon as 18 reasonable, because in August we have very few 19 Commissioners in at any one time, and we'd have to make 20 special efforts to get them in -- 21 MR. EISENHUT: Mr. Chairman, I have almost 22 a weekly, sometimes more than weekly, meeting with 23 Tom Rehm in preparation of keeping him up to date on 24 actual dates. Looking down, I think we're looking 25 something in three months in advance of all the times. J.L.H. . NRC'/4 6 Tcpa 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens C*R* D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 6136
24 1 I do give him dates on a weekly basis for use that's e 2 fed in. So, I think that is the best data that we have 3 that he's providing. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I wasn't expecting any 5 better date today, but as we move forward, we need to 6 take steps to make sure we have enough people here who
~
7 are acting. 8 MR. EISENHUT: If I could have the next slide. 9 Is ve got a couple of more slides. These are really 10 provided to you, basically as input data to lead on 11 to the next part of the discussion on resources. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Were these handed out? m 13 Were they? 14 MR. EISENHUT: They were not handed out, 15 yet, but they will be. A copy is being provided to 16 you. This is basically a simple bar chart, that, in 17 terms of resources -- we looked at a number of first 18 units that were licensed since TMI in terms of the 19 staff resources that went into it. These are NRR 20 staff resources for just selected plants. 21 The budget assumption for plants is 22 something in the order of 17, 18, 19 PSYs per plant. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is that what the ordinant 24 is? 25 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. Yes, it is professional J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpo 1 Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6134
25 1 istaff years. And you can see -- 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What's the number that 3 comes closest to the top of the -- 4 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, I'm sorry. 25. Five is 5 on the bottom, and it's 5, 10, 15, 20. So, the last 6 two are beyond 20. This is just a data point to show 7 graphically -- the next slide -- can I have the next 8 slide? 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now, these are resources 10 expended over -- 11 MR. EISENHUT: This is between the FSAR, start 12 of the FSAR review through issuance of a license. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Low power? 14 MR. EISENHUT: Full power. And that is pro-15 jected to be typically in the ball park. It's 16 budgeted to be about 17 PSYs (professional staff 17 years). 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm sorry. You said 19 the budgeted amount earlier was how much? 20 MR. EISENHUT: It's somewhere between 17 and 21 19. It's varied on a couple of different years in the 22 budget, but it's generally in the ball park of 17 23 PSYs and you can see here, we are expending twice that 24 on a number of plants. 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, the point is, J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp3 1 - Court Reporting e Deposittens C.R. D.C. Area 2411902 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4236
26 i where is this manpower coming from? f 2 MR. EISENHUT: Exactly, so that's why I said, a this is simple date, and I just, I said -- facilitate 4 the following discussion, that it is in fact, if one 5 goes back and looks at the data, it is clear that we 6 are expending a considerably larger amount of 7 resources on OLs than was budgeted originally. 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Does the same trends 9 hold true for regional resources? 10 MR. EISENHUT: I assume they do to some ij degree, but I'll certainly defer to the regions. I've 12 asked one administrator and his answer was, yes, but 13 maybe Jim Keppler wants to -- ja CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are these NRR numbers? 15 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, those are NRR numbers. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Only NRR. i7 MR. KEPPLER: In terms of the inspection is effort, I can tell you with the three NTOL plants in p) Region 3, that for Bynon the budgeted FTE was 1.71, 20 and we've put 5.06 on it. And the others are 21 comparable type numbers. 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So, it doesn't 23 matter so much whether it's a good plant or a problem l 24 plant, it's pretty much across the board. l 25 MR. KEPPLER: It varies to some degree. It l l J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcp2 1
' FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
C.R. .- Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 t
27 1 , varies to some degree, but clearly on all of the NTOL t 2 Plants, we're putting more than the budgeted manpower 3 on them. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me see if I 5 understand exactly what these numbers mean. So, it now 6 looks like we're expending something like 30 Professional 7 Staff Years -- let's see, I'm still confused. Is this a per year then? 9 MR. EISENHUT: No, total integrated -- 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, that it assumes it an eight year construction time, or ? -- 12 MR. E.!SENHUT: No, it's really not for the 13 construction, it's from the final safety analysis i4 reports. It used to generally be submitted to the 15 staff, roughly three years before the OL issuance. 16 The staff would then do the final safety analysis 17 report in detailed review. If the license is issued 18 on schedule and if it's not. a very complicated ig project, it would typically gone througn in about 17 20 staff years of effort. 21 What we're finding with, as these projects 22 become -- first, they go out in duration, they go out 23 because of complicated factors, they go out because 24 of allegation reviews, they go out because of expanded 25 hearings, a number of reasons, complicate the process. J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 1 FREE STA)E REPORTING INC. C.R. Ce6rt Reporting e Deposittens D.C. Aree 2611902 e Belt. & Annep. 249-4136
28 1
.That review process, where normally we would have the 2
'last three years of the construction, is now we're 3
putting considerable more resources in that window of 4 time. 5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, you're talking 6 about three years, roughly here. So, in effect we have 7 ten professional staff, more or less, on these 8 reactors. 9 MR. EISENHUT: Well, you can't really make 10 it though, in three years. For example, the first one 11 here is SHOREHAM has slipped, and slipped and slipped 12 in schedule, so it may be five years for review. 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand. I'm 14 just trying to get some sense. So, you would have, more 15 cr less, ten people, plus or minus three maybe, 16 assigned to each plant during that last three years 17 before oraration. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As compared to what 19 you normally projected to be more like six; is that 20 righ*? 21 MR. EISENHUT: That's correct. And again 22 the only point I'm making is that this is the actual 23 data of how the peoples' time was logged on the 24 project. We've looked at it for all of the licenses 25 issued or all the plants going forth. Notice that J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpa 1 court nepertine e Depeeltions C.R. D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4136
29 1 pone of these projects are complete. 2 These are still ongoing reviews. So, we've 3 looked at it as Harold always says, he's convinced 4 the last project, who's at the end of the line, may 5 never make it, you know, because you may have several 6 hundred staff byears. 7 Now, ont could argue is that because the a staf-f has fewer projects that they put more attention 9 in, or is that because of complicated features. We've 10 been trying to look at that and -- The process today 11 of licensing plants is just a lot more complicated 12 than it was certainly ten years ago. In terms of depth 13 and scope of the review, the hearings, the entire process, 14 all elements of the process. 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But it can hardly 16 be true now, that we have fewer NTOLs, plants in the 17 pipeline, than we've had in the past. We certainly 18 have far fewer beginning construction, but in the 19 last three years, where you devote these large ai 20 numbar of person hours, person years, we must have as 21 many as we've ever had if not considerably more. 22 MR. EISENHUT: That is correct. A large 23 effort, that effort has been always budgeted to be 24 winding down in the next couple of years, because 25 the budget process you're always looking at 1986, '87, J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp3 1 Court Iteperting e Depositions C.R. . D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4234
30 1 as we are now. You're always looking a couple of years 2 'in the future, and you always project a couple of a years down the road, that all of these things are 4 finished. 5 And as they continue to stretch out, and 6 you can look at any of the typical plants here on this y list. It's just a very torturous process in terms of 8 what's required. And it requires a lot of resources. 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, my point is, n3 that at this stage of the game, it hardly seems is likely that there would be some sort of attempt on the 12 part of the staff to prolong the life of the 13 agencies, so to speak, or this phase of the agencies' i4 activities when they must be feeling spread very i3 thinly. n3 MR. EISENHUT: No, I think th'at's certainly 17 correct. I had, I think it was last year, I had my H3 entire staff on four hours a week mandatory overtime ng for a six month period. Under that circumstance they 20 just, I know, were not looking for work to do. 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One last question. 22 How much of this is actually time spent on-site or in 23 closely related activities to on-site inspection, you've 24 got more or less ten people assigned to each plant. 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: These are the NRR J.L.H. NRC/46 T pa 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C.R* Court Repecting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4134
c - 31 1 people. t 2 (Interrupted - inaudible). 3 MR. KEPPLER: These are the licensing 4 people, 5 MR. EISENHUT: -- year from year. A very, 6 very small fraction. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They do not include -- 8 . COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: They do not include 9 the work done on-site, then? 10 MR. KEPPLER: That is correct. ji COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What would the 12 additional number of people during these last three i3 years on-site be? i4 MR. KEPPLER: Well, we've put -- I would 15 say that that would -- he had about three to four per is year. 37 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: O.K. Three to is four por year for the last three years or so. Ten ig people are off-site, what are they doing, if I may 20 ask? I would prefer to think that some of the most 21 important work is done on-site. 22 MR. EISENHUT: Well, good, let me give you 23 an indication. If you've seen a final safety 24 analysis report, nowadays that comes in, the 25 required report, required by regulations, it probably J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C*R* Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4134
32 l 1
.is something in the order of a document of some 22 2 ' volumes. The required submittals to accomplish the
)
3 environmental qualification submittal alone is another 4 stack of submittals of documents. 5 If you look at the detailed submittals that 6 are required for review, it's an extremely large 7 number. They review that document, and they end up 8 writing the safety analysis report. If there's site 9 visits required, they go do the site visits. They to then take that document and their evaluation of it, 11 and they take it to a hearing. 12 They write detailed testimony. They go 13 through a licensing process which often goes on for 14 months, and months, and months through interrogatories, is through depositions, through cross-examination. 16 Ultimately, they take it to the advisory committee on 17 reactors safeguards. That is the staff that is 18 familiar with the detailed design. 19 See the process is very simple. The only 20 people who can approve a design, approve of deviation 21 from a design, are the people in headquarters. The 22 regional people inspect to see that that design that 23 was licensed, is in fact actually being built out in 24 the field and being built adequately. That is the 25 inspection staff. But the only people who approve J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp2 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. GL Annep.149 4136
33 1 ,the t design, go through all the analysis of the design, 2 -are this headquarters staff. That's basically that a they're doing. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The thing that 5 troubles me about this is, it would not appear to me, 6 at least, that the law or our regulations have changed 7 that much in the last five years, if you will. 8 There certainly have been changes and 9 there have been backfits and design changes, as we all 30 know, and that obviously involves some additional is work. Can you give us some sense of whether that 12 accounts for the lion's share of the extra effort 13 that's expended off-site, or is it the addition 34 litigation, ic it process that's causing this, or what's is the reason? 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Are we looking 37 harder? 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are we looking ig harder? 20 MR. EISENHUT: I think it is a combination 21 -- what we do is we track this when we project 17. 22 Let me back up a minute. We actually projected it, of 23 course not linear plus time, we project it, element 24 by element of the review. 25 Round 1 questions take so much, Round 2, l i J.L.H. I NRC/46 Tcpa 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C*R* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. da Annep. 169 4136
34 1
,w riting safety evaluations, testify here, and that is 2 'a profile. So we can go back now, and what we do is we 3 compare these numbers against our profile. The review 4 is certainly in more depth, now, than it has been in 5 the past. There's no question about it.
6 And, I think, we largely as an agency have 7 driven ourselves in that direction. The' individual a who.is responsible for a particular knows he must 9 understand that area very, very well. He must write io a detailed evaluation on it, and he's got to defend n it.
'12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, also better 13 (inaudible) through the standard, through the standard 14 review file.
15 MR. EISENHUT: And the rigor, post TMI, in 16 terms of the standard review plan and setting about 17 it, was a very deliberate process. However, I don't 18 think that's where the large additional fraction 19 comes from. If you go look at, even look at Diablo 20 Canyon on the table, the huge fraction at Diablo 21 Canyon resources came post November 1981. 22 Since November 1981, the staff has put in 23 something phenomenal in terms of resources. The -- 24 we put ten additional staff years into the IDVP alone. 25 We put something in the order of ten staff years into l J.L.H NRC M 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l, fa** Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annep. 269-6136
i 35 1 reviewing allegations alone. So, if you look at those 2 kinds of numbers, that adds on the top considerably. 3 If you look at the SHOREHAMs of the world, I mean, it 4 really adds up considerably. 5 MR. ZERBE: Commissioner Bernthal might be 8 curious about the brief we filed in Diablo Canyon with 7 the Court of Appeals, I think, yesterday, in response 8 to an assertion that the staff had approved the 9 license without undergoing thorough review, we pointed 10 out that well over 100,000 professional staff hours 11 had thus far gone into the review of Diablo Canyon 12 over a period of ten years. 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, in the case of 14 the ones that you have on the slide here, I can is certainly understand that those bars would tend to 16 grow, but in some of the other cases, maybe it was the 17 previous slido, in the more typical cases they're still
'8 pretty large. We're still talking about 20 or 19 something like that.
20 MR. EISENHUT: There are anomalies, though. 21 I didn't only because our slide didn't go all the 22 way -- We didn't try to put off the projects. There 23 are anomalies that are showing smaller numbers. 24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: How about St. 25 Lucie 2? J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING !NC. Taps 1 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
36 1
, MR. EISENHUT: My staff may have that number 2 ;in terms of St. Lucie 2. We can certainly get you 3 that number.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that would be a 5 necessary number and we ought to get a response to 6 that. 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Susquehanna was on 8 the previous chart. 9 MR. EISENHUT: Susquehanna 1 was 25 staff to years. 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Still 25. So, 12 what's the big part of it there? 13 MR. EISENHUT: We'd have to go back and 14 break down the pieces on Susquehanna. Susquehanna is did have a hearing process. And I'll have to go is back and look at how the break-down was. But that is 17 certainly something workable to be done. 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How about second 19 units? Do those go down pretty substantially? 20 MR. EISENHUT: I had that piece of paper. 21 Gary, do you have the second unit list also? We looked 22 at the second units and first units because we 23 were -- St. Lucie 2 was 30 man years that went into 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That's right. J.L.H NRC/46 Tcp2 1& 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. 66 Annep. 269-6236
r 37 1
}
MR. EISENHUT: Well, let me give you an 2 example Farley 2 (Ph), which was one that went through 3 the process very easily, was ten man years. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'll just leave this 5 subject, at least from my part, by saying that, I 6 would applaud the fact, if it were the fact, that we 7 now have ten people on average on-site in effect. I'm a not.sure all the utilities would applaud that, but -- 9 or in direct site-related activities in the last 10 critical stage of construction. It troubles me a little n bit that so much of the emphasis is off-site, apparent-12 ly. 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I wouldn't belittle 14 the FFAR review, though, Fred. And it's a significant is one, and I think, for example, the amount.of time that is we look at tech specs, one of the things that we've 17 done over the last few months is we need to spend more is effort looking at the tech specs, that involves to a 19 certain degree, Darrell's people -- 20 MR. EISENHUT: It is clear to say that 21 everything we do, including as a commicsion, has been 22 aiming in the direction of driving the number up. 23 When we went to do the very thorough rigorous fire 24 protection reviews. That is that number. All of the 25 hundreds of exemptions and requests. Those people are J.L.H. - - NRC/46 - FREE STATE REPORTING INC. _ Court Reporting e Depositions
*
- D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
38 1 ,being driven further and further into doing more and r 2 imore detail. 3 Everything, any deviation requires an 4 exemption. That's a very thorough process to go 5 through and justify that exemption. So, it's a big 6 number. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Darrell, I hear you 8 talking only about your group. You've mentioned activi-9 ties that' involve lawyers. Do they have comparable io increases in hours? ii MR. EISENHUT: I'd certainly defer to ELD. 12 These numbers of the NRR are basic numbers. 13 MR. CHRISTENBURY: With regard to the 14 Hearing Division, particularly, yes, we have seen an 15 increase using, as we have frequently, SHOREHAM as an 16 example, traditionally we'll have like two attorneys 17 assigned to an OL case. Because that is broken down l 18 into basically three separate hearings, we now have six 19 attorneys on it, and we had similar TMI. This had a 20 large number of attorneys and extended a lot longer 21 than we projected. The Indian Point case which the l 22 Commission projected to last a year, lasted two years, 23 so then the number of attorneys -- so there has l 24 markedly increased as well, in attorney needs. 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It might be interesting J.L.H. l T PREE STATE REPORTING INC. l C*R* Cmd Reding e Deshs D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
39 to look at (inaudible) numbers of lawyers -- 2 MR. EISENHUT: Well, I don't know. The last 3 time I testified at a hearing, I have to comment that 4 I had four staff attorneys to try to keep me out of 5 trouble. 6 (LAUGHTER) 7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Darrell; I am curious. 8 When the utilities submits their FSAR, who does that 9 work? Is the utility do it, is this the architect g) engineer? Is this a joint effort? ij MR. EISENHUT: It's a joint effort, but it's 12 basically the architect engineer who does all the 13 details. The utility must certify that it's his plant, 34 his design, and that it's correct. 15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: But essentially it's 16 the architect engineer. 17 MR. EISENHUT: That's correct. ug COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But what you're l ig really saying, then, and fair enough, is that the 20 documents submitted by the utility or by his contractors 21 are receiving a much, much more thorough review in l 22 going over, than they did ten years ago. 23 MR. EISENHUT: Is some areas much more than 24 ther areas. Certainly across the board it's more 25 thorough. J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpn 2 FREE.'5 TATE REPORTING INC. C.R* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. 66 Annep.169-6136
40 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And we've increased 2 ~ regulations quite a bit in ten years. 3 MR. KEPPLER: I think it's true across the 4 board, though. It's true in the inspection areas, as 5 well as in the licensing review. 6 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Of course, the 7 unasked question is are these "better, safer plants 8 than those of ten years ago?" I didn't ask for an 9 answer. 10 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, I wouldn't. I wouldn't 11 touch that. The agency speaks -- 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Oh, I think you have to 13 say that -- Yes, the answer is yes, unless we claim t 14 we didn't learn anything out of TMI. We did put a lot is of improvements to these plants, that enable the
~
16 plants to understand and write up incidents. Whether i 17 everything we've done has had a comparable impact, that's l l 18 much harder to say. Now, I think one of the 19 questions that was of interest to several of the l 20 Commissioners is, how is this additional staff power 1 21 being placed on NTOLs, effecting the safety of the 22 operating plant? 23 MR. EISENHUT: Good question. If I could 24 have the next slide. The obvious question is, and I 25 want to -- let me skip this one, we've accomplished J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcps 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C.R. Court Reporting e Deeesitions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt.4 Annep. 269-6136
41 1 ,that one already. Could I go to the next slide? The ~ r 2 ;one thing, I think, that you've got to remember is that 3 contrary to at least some peoples popular belief, that 4 whan a license is issued, the agency's work is over. 5 As a matter of fact, if nothing else, it's 6 just beginning. We have, if you look at some of the 7 NTOLs that were issued within the last two years -- I 8 happened to notice today that San Onofre 2 has 9 something on the order of 20 or 90 licensing actions to depending to go before the staff. San Onofre 3 has 11 another 60. 12 I mean if you look at a number of the plants, 13 there is a huge amount of work that is now pending 14 before the staff. 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: When you say 16 licencing actions, are you talking about amendments, 17 small amendment -- small amendments -- amendments for l 18 small changes to the license or what? 19 MR. EISENHUT: If I could defer that just 20 one second. I'm going to try to give you a l 21 characterization of what that is. 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Give me the acronym 1 23 MPA. 24 MR. EISENHUT: Multi-plant action. That is 25 it's a generic action that cuts across all operating J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Trpa 2 g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, C.R. D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6236
42 1 reactors, such as fire protection, environmental 2 e qualification, masonry walls, there's something on the 3 order of probably 50, 60, 70 of these different 4 actions. 5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: And also OLs. 6 MR. EISENHUT: Operating reactor licensing 7
-- action tracking systems, basically -- operating 8 reactor summary. We publish a monthly report, because 9 we have to try to keep track of all this.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Say it again, operating 11 reactor licensing action summary. 12 MR. EISENHUT: We have of course in NRR 13 there is more resources budgeted to operating reactors 14 than there is to OLs. 15 Over the last year -- more FTEs are 16 budgeted for operating reactors this year than for 17 operating license reviews. This is one of the first 18 years that that is in fact the case. I think Mr. 19 Denton pointed out during the mid-year review. We 20 went back and looked and so far this year we are about 21 nearly 20% over in terms of our expenditures for 22 operating license reviews over what we projected. 23 And we're some 13, 14 percent under on 24 operating reactors, and the difference goes into 25 safety technology. It's obviously down also. The J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Ttpa 2 court a.pertins . Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269 6236
43 1 ,w ork that we do basically -- t 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Wait, I'm not clear. 3 Something, if something's going up, something must be 4 going down, I trust there is -- 5 MR. EISENHUT: Operating licenses, OLs, are 6 about 20 percent high. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Operating licenses, OLs, a the one's were talking about. g MR. EISENHUT: Yes. Operating reactors is u) low and safety technology is low. n CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now how much lower are 12 we -- 13 MR. EISENHUT: In operating reactors we're 34 about 13 percent low as of right now. 35 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And where -- does that 16 mean licensing actions are not taking place on the 17 operating reactor? H3 MR. EISENHUT: That means you're paying -- n3 you're putting less attention to operating reactors 20 in terms of licensing actions, in terms of some of the 21 more difficult actions, in terms of what we call 22 safety assessment of operating reactors, following 23 , up on events, following up on occurrences. We are putting 24 less resources there than we previously budgeted. 25 Let me try to characterize what the actions J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C*R* Court Iteperting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6236
44 1 pre and then at least give my view on what the net i t 2 impact of all this is. We have in-house different kind 3 of actions. And for the moment let me just call them 4 actions. In the next slide I'll characterize what 5 an action is a little better. But there's something 6 on the order of 4,000 actions pending at any time. 7 It's basically about 50 times the number of operating 8 r e a c.t o r s . That's how you get there. The MPAs as we 9 call them, Multi-Plan Actions are generic issues that to have been issued to cut across everybody. The plant 11 specifics are items that come in from an operating 12 reactor, specifically effecting his plant. 13 The next slide -- 14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Are these major 15 (inaudible) ?' 16 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, they are. Many are very 17 major, but are obviously not. 18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Not house cleaning? 19 MR. EISENHUT: They're not housecleaning. 20 As a matter of fact, last year I returned to the 21 utilities something in the order of 500 actions, and 22 just said they're below my level of items to work 23 on. I want to work on something more important. And 24 there were convenience to the utility, but really not 25 really required, so we put them on the back burner. J.L.H. i NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
45 i So, typically if something's in that level, 2 'where it's clearly a convenience, we would send it 3 back to the utility. This is the listing, this is a 4 break-down generically of the plants' specifics, and 5 again it's only a bar chart. It gives you a feeling 6 for it. About 180 of them relate to exemption 7 requests. Utilities may come in and argue that it is 8 impractical or they just can't meet an agency 9 requirement, a regulation, an order, and they're io asking for relief, and the relief is in the form ij of an exemption. Plant specific, there's 806 requests 12 i r tech spec changes. And, now, those are formal rigid processes. 13 i4 You come in with a detailed technical justification. You do a public notice. You go out with a Sholly 35 16 notice. You write a justification for your results 37 on no significant hazards. You write a safety 18 evaluation. It's a detailed process. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Yes, who would do 39 20 that? 21 MR. EISENHUT: Do the work? 22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Yes. 23 MR. EISENHUT: It would come in from the 24 utilities. 25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Yes. Who would do the J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpe 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1902 o Belt. 46 Annep. 269-6136
46 1
; utility's work? Do they do that in-house? Do they 2 ' contract for it?
MR. EISENHUT: It varies. It varies. In 3 4 some cases they.do it in-house, in many cases they contract out to various different organizations. 5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Since I can't do 6 7 what I always like to do, and teachers never like in g the book here, can you tell me how long each of these actions takes to get through our system? 9 MR. EISENHUT: Some take a very long time. gg 3, Many of these have in fact been in-house for a number f years. And this is in -- 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As a matter of fact, 13
,4 when I came on board, one of the first things I wanted to do was break the log jam of five year old actions, 15 and I forgot what the numbers were.
is MR. EISENHUT: Now you looked and said, 37 3g and we have hidden away in a corner, we still track those numbers. And what it was, was all of those
,9 20 licensing actions that had been in-house for five years 21 r more, were to be issued in the next year or two.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But they keep coming 22 23 in almost as fast. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Do you have something 24 25 else coming up that -- J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 o Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
47 1
, MR. EISENHUT: I have one more slide -- i t
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You will try and 3 address that issue or -- 4
- MR. EISENHUT: Really not. I didn't go 5 through and give a time line chart on it. The 6 average time that we would ideally like to see, is that 7 things should be in-house not more than a few months --
8 to go through the process. The reason that we can't is 9 because we have what we call back-log. 10 We would like to have the incoming number 11 equal the outgoing number in any year. And that is 12 you'd reach steady state, you'd keep with it. The 13 fact is for the last, oh, let's see, at least seven or 14 eight years, we have always projected that the net is backlog is going to be zero, at some point about three 16 years hence. I remember we just changed the PPG, 17 or maybe we requested it. I don't know where it is in 18 the process, when we went through the budget rather 19 than having the backlog zero at the end of 1985. I 20 think it's now going to be 1987. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You'll never get it 22 down to zero. 23 MR. EISENHUT: No, but the backlog I 24 defined -- that's the excess. That is, I'd like to 25 reach a steady state. That is, in a given year we
- J.L.H.
I NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Trpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6134
48 i ,tried to lay out a template that said within six t 2 months of receipt, it should be issued. That should 3 be the average norm. In this case it's clearly not. 4 Actually, I feel embarrassed to sign off 5 exemption requests. I signed a couple last week, and 6 when reading it, it said the utility in the 1974 7 submittal requested the following relief. And the g facts, you know, had been updated a numerous number 9 of times, but the fact is, and the only message I'm jo trying to leave with these is, there's a large volume g of work that remains after an OL issuance. It resides in cwo camps. One is called 12 13 plants specific, and those really you have to review y one by one by one, because they are unique to the jg particular plant, and in fact that the plants are all 16 unique out there today, or most of them. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, the reason 37 is I asked the question, your horror story is much better 39 than mine, I should say, I expect you have others, was 20 that a utility representative not long ago told me, I think, that it six months to get a reply to a 21 letter for a license exemption. 22 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, in fact -- surprise me 23 24 at all. Typically I get, typically they're much 25 longer than six months. l J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpe 2
~
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. ~ D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
49 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: To reply to the 2 ' request for an amendment or an exemption. 3 MR. EISENHUT: The reply really being to 4 grant it takes a lot longer. 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This is one of the 6 reasons we wanted to get more of these license action 7 out for reasons. They're generally more familiar 8 with what's going on, and could handle the easier 9 ones more rapidly. 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Maybe we could just 11 send out a post card, saying we received your sub-12 mittal. 13 MR. EISENHUT: Usually we call them and tell 14 them we received it, but they don't get a written is reply. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This is a serious 17 problem and one to get quite a bit of attention. 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTEINE: Darrell is right, 19 as long as I can remember the agency's been project-20 ing that well we now have a program that will 21 eliminate this backlog within a few years. Things 22 seem to intervene all the time. One of the com-23 plaints I hear, even on routine requests, it takes a 24 good while to get them process, but I gathered from 25 one of our previous meetings that the reason for that i , J.L.H. l NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. ! Tcpe 2 Court Reporting
- Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
50 1 is basically the staff focuses on the wants of higher 2 ' safety significance first, and then unfortunately 3 the ones that are more administrative in nature tend to 4 go to the bottom of the pile. 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think we come down 6 to the basic question, though, to what extent are we 7 impacting adversely on the safety of these plants by 8 our, emphasis on trying to get the NTOLs in line, and 9 I don't really yet have a feel for that. I can see g) where the licensing amendment process will suffer. ii MR. KEPPLER: Let me give you a perspec-12 tive from the inspection point of view. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think that's 13 i4 the more significant area. MR. KEPPLER: We clearly, we have diverted 15 16 resources;to support DNTOL plants, and~in this comes, not only from the operating plants, it comes from I 37 , 18 the plants that are further down the line in construc-l 19 tion. ! You've counted on delays to happen nd so 20 21 forth, and it also, anytime you have priorities like 22 this, it takes your better people to focus on the problems. So, a lot of my time, a lot of the key 23 24 managers time in the regions is being spent toward the NTOL plants. But like a lot of things, the job 25 J.L.H. FREE STATE REPORTING INC. p Court Reporting e Depositions C*R* D.C.' Area 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169 6136
51 1 often.comes when you're working with fixed allocations 2 of people. 3 It's a matter of prioritizing work load, and 4 I view that as our job to make that balance. And while 5 we have -- I'll speak primarily from Regions III's 6 point of view, but I have talked to Jim O'Reilly and 7 John Collins on the subject, and I think that while 8 we'v.e made this shift, put more emphasis on the NTOL 9 plants, I feel the situation is acceptable with the 10 operating plants. 11 We've done some things to counter that. You 12 know, we're putting -- utilizing management more to 13 get out to the operating plants. In my case, Burt 14 Davis has been out, going to a plant every other week, is now, just to talk to the resident inspectors, and make 16 sure that the concerns they have are being dealt with. 17 I think that, while I say the situation is 18 acceptable from my own point of view, I feel we're 19 about as stretched as far as I want to be right now. 20 I would not want to put much more shift in that 21 direction, and I think it's a matter that we have to be 22 conscious of and watch it, but I consider the 23 situation acceptable today. 24 I could present to you and give the 25 Commission for information some budgetary slides I put J.L.H. NRc/46 . FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. - D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 249-6136
52 1 ,together for Mr. Dircks, that shows the allocation of r 2 t applied resources to operating reactors compared to 3 budgeted, and the same for plants under construction, 4 and in the case.of Region III, the numbers are up 5 about 15 percent for plants under construction over what 6 the budgeted was. 7 For plants in operation, I would say we're 8 righ,t on target with the budget in amount. Now 9 where's the extra come from? The extra comes from really io two sources, one is overtime. We're spending about an ii average of 12% overtime in the region, and the other is 12 that changes occur like cancellation or postponement 13 of plants, Marble Hill, and pick up a couple of re-14 sources here. 15 Zimmer cancellation picked up resources, 16 so that there's constant juggling of the fluxutary 17 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have to say, 19 I think we're pushing some of our people pretty hard, 20 too. I know when I was at Comanche Peak recently. 21 There were two inspectors from Region IV that had been 22 going out there every day since November about six days 23 a week. It's a good two and a half hour drive or so, 24 about a two hour drive, I guess each way, from where 25 those guys live, and they're putting in about 10 hour J.L.H.
/4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
2 Court Remne e Depositions C*R* D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annep. 269-6136
53 s 1 days out there at the site and that's an awful lot to 2 task of people. 3 MR. KEPPLER: Well, I think the situation has 4 to be even tougher in the two smaller regions. They 5 have flex flexibility with what they do, but I did talk 6 to Collins, and his characterization would not be much 7 different than what I said to you. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This is why I object to 9 characterization of the staff lying on its back with 10 its feet up. 11 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I agree with you. 12 (LAUGHTER) 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- and I do think our 14 staff does work very hard, and deserves credit and 15 recognition for that fact. I think are overstressed, 16 and I think these are the kind of pieces of information 17 that have to get into our budget pitch because a lot 18 of times, in an effort to cut us back, thinking 19 that that's going to accelerate things, because then 20 we put out fewer regulations. I think it back-fires on l 21 the industry because we don't get the job done in a 22 timely fashion. And I think we're going to want to 23 address that in some detail here. The chart, such as 24 you describe, we're going to want to address that in 25 some detail in our budget review. J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. 66 Annep. 269-6136 -
54 1 . MR. KEPPLER: I might add that if I could 2 just take another minute. This situation which we're 3 into, which is acute in terms of watching it that we 4 don't go too far, is something that I feel personally, 5 I've been balancing the books on for about the last 6 four or five years, ever since the problems came up at 7 Zimmer. I didn't have the budgetary allocation, and I 8 had to put a lot of people on Zimmer and it had to be 9 a lot of good people. 10 And then the same came on Midland. And by 11 and large a lot of that came from plants later in that 12 construction process, but in many cases you had to pull 13 some of your good people from the operating site of the 14 house, simply because they were your good people, and 15 get them into the picture. 16 And you have to go through bits of compensa-17 tion for it throughout the process. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINJ: Let me ask Commissioner 19 Asselstine a question. I know you were concerned about 20 this allocation of resources and how it is impacting 21 on operating license. Is there any particular area 22 that we should -- 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The inspection was 24 the area that, I guess, that I was most concerned 25 with, the extent of which, obviously we're putting a lot J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE 1tEPORTING INC. Tcpn 2 c ,, n.,,,,in, . p.,..its . C.R. D.C. Ar.o 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
55 i ,of effort on the NTOLs, and how much of a burden that i 2 -was creating then or how short that was making us in 3 terms of being able to deal with the operating 4 plants. 5 I guess I've heard Jim's response. The only 6 follow-up question that I had was to what extent are 7 we also becoming very heavily reactive. That is the g things that we have to do in the amount of time and 9 effort that we spend on things. 3g How much of that, now, is becoming reactive jj to events that are outside of our control, rather 12 than being able to say, these are the issues that we 13 really want to pursue, or that the inspectors want to y pursue, and being abla to focus in on those. 15 And for awhile on Zimmer, for example, it is seems like we're in tttally reactive mode, rather than 37 being able to pick and choose on the things we wanted 18 to devote our attention to. ig MR. KEPPLER: I think the allegation issue, 20 certainly put us into a reactive mode, and I don't 21 think that's changed. The plants that have large 22 numbers of allegations, we're caught up in that mode. 23 The plants where there are heavy external pressure on us, 24 we're into that mode, clearly. 25 I was down at Callaway, yesterday, to see how J.L.H. NRC/46 Tepa 2 FREE STATE REPCRTING INC. C.R. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6136
56 i , things were going during fuel loading operations, and 2 'Callaway really was a plant that had minimal external 3 pressure and minimual number of allegations. And I 4 was -- I went to dinner with a number of my staff 5 down there, and they were talking about the amount of 6 time that they'd been away from their families, the amount 7 of time on the road. g These people are spending 50 percent of their 9 time on the road right now. And I appreciate your n) comment, Mr. Chairman, because these are good people n and they wear out, they really do. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess that's 12 13 a part of my concern is, you keep pushing people like i4 that, particularly if it's going to be year after 33 year after year, and you say all right, we're making 16 it, we can cover everything, we do what we have to 37 do. ig But, yes, either pretty soon, those people n3 leave or you burn them out. MR. KEPPLER: Well, when we had Zimmer, you 20 21 remember Dorwin Hunter. I had to take Dorwin off 22 the job. He just burned on me and that happens. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think this is -- 24 we're going to want to give some detailed attention to 25 this in our budget. Any ideas on how we can convince i J.L.H. l NRC/46 j Tcp2 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C*R* D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
57 1
}the Congress.that -- we need the support so that we can 2 get over this hump.
3 MR. ROE: There's another point, I think, . 4 that we have to bring your attention is, many of the 5 things that we've been cble to do are apply some other 6 flexibility. One of the flexibilities we've had in 7 the past that did essential evaporate before our eyes, 8 nowe is the financial flexibility. 9 We've briefed you at mid-term review -- the 10 mid-year review .about how we would look at reprogram-11 ming, you saw essentially, in effect, it was to pay 12 salaries, benefits and NTOLs. We believe now that there 13 may not be favorable action on the 84 pay raise 14 supplemental force. That means that we are going to 15 have to go back. We're going to have to retract our 16 statement we made to the Commission. We're probably 17 going to have to impact some of our programs, at this 18 late a point, and find another two million dollars at 19 this point, out of our given resources and as you saw, 20 basically the one thing that we were going to fund with 21 that reprogramming, was the NTOLs and now may I ask what 22 is going to be hit, if we do not get that pay 23 supplemental -- 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As I was going to say, 25 this is important background to have for our budget J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting
- Depositlens i C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
58 1 review process, but I didn't want to get into the
'e 2 budget review process right here unless the Commissioners 3 feel it is germain to the understanding of NTOLs. Go 4 ahead, Fred.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: In listening to all 6 of this, I can't help but come away feeling even though 7 you say that we're keeping up with the inescapable 8 conclusion is that we must be falling further and 9 further behind. 10 Now the question is are we falling further si behind on things that are important, and it seems 12 pretty clear your answer is no, that is on the things 13 that are clearly and immediately of safety concern, y but there also is another area that I think can be 35 very important over the longer run, and that is the 16 question of whether we fall so far behind on these 37 things that frustrate licensees and the public is associated with licensees so much that we just further 39 erode confidence in this agency. 20 Taking, what was it, ten years, for 21 example, to finally complete an application for an 22 exemption maybe one such example. Am I wrong? Are 23 we really staying ahead of the game? It doesn't sound 24 that way. It sounds like we're -- 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think we want to J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpa 2 C.R. Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169 6236
59 1 gdevelop a presentation on license actions for budget 2 review so we can address that. I'm not sure that 3 we're prepared at the moment to do that, but I did 4 think that is a very important matter. 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think that's 6 a good point, Fred, it sounds like we are running very 7 hard up-hill. You can't keep doing that forever. 8 . COMMISSIGNER BERNTHAL: Do I understand, 9 not to focus on a -- 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Incidentally, we did 11 cut the backlog in half, somewhere along the line, now 12 that's because it was so bad for awhile. 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Do I understand 14 that in this single instance that our two people from 15 Region 4 are spending 5 hours a day commuting to a site, 16 is that what you saiu/ 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think it's about 18 4 hours a day they're spending on the road, yes, to get 19 to and from the site, because they live -- they're 20 regional inspectors, they live in the Dallas / Fort 21 Worth area, they truck out there every day and truck 22 back every night. l 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: There's got to be a 24 better way than that. 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, of course, i J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp2 2 Court Reportine e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
60
' the other way is the way a lot of the others have to 2
do, is just they go live for a week away from their 3 family. 4 MR. EISENHUT: They are fortunate. They get 5 to go home at night -- at 10:00. When we send the 6 60 people to WATERFORD, they go down and they stay for 7 two weeks, no weekend coming home, no nights coming 8 home, they spend two weeks, they come home for two weeks, 9 they go back for two weeks, they come home for two weeks, 10 that's the kind of system they're on. Those kinds of 11 people -- you put your best people out there, they really 12 don't, after awhile, appreciate that kind of situation, 13 because they really, literally burn out. And they are 14 putting in the same kind of days, including the two 15 hours going back and forth at the site. So, it's a 16 difficult situation. 17 But, all the way around. I have to come back 18 We've done several to sort of Jim's conclusion. 19 things to try to keep our eye on, you know, are we 20 hurting the operating reactor. We've elevated the in-21 house NRR participation into all the staff meetings. 22 We now have a Senior Manager, an SES manager going as 23 the NRR participant, looking at the detailed 24 assessment, seeing what's going on. 25 We have weekly in-house meetings on operat-J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169-6136
61 ing reactors, where we have a dedicated operating 1 .
'eactor assessment branch, which goes through the r
2 morning call list, monitors operating reactors, and if 3 that group comes up with something that needs the 4 attention, that's where the attention goes. 5 John Collins has been right in the middle of 6 a couple of these projects, yet, two weeks ago, when we 7 had a problem with steam generators at Fort Calhoun, 8 se k' nocked off everything else and we worked Fort 9 Calhoun because it was an operating reactor, and he was 10 up here just the same. 11 So, I mean, there's a number of thing we're 12 going to try to keep our eye on it harder, because the 13 situation is stretched out. But, I think that's the la message that Jim mentioned, and the other 15 administrators, is the situation is pretty tight. 16 We have a number of other plants, where we 17 would be paying more attention, if we weren't stretched 18 out. That's just a fact of life. 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm going to suggest that 20 at this point maybe we defer any further discussion of 21 this matter. Last time we had the -- wanted to hear 22 from the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board 23 Representatives regarding the status of their 24 activities. And I would like to give them an oppor-25 tunity to make any comments they have at this time, so J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpm 2 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositions C*R* D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annep. 169-6136
62 I
.we don't have to have them come back on another 2 occasion. Let's see. Who's here from the Licensing 3
Board?
^
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Tony Cotter. 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Tony. You might as well 6 bring Al along. 7 MR. ROSENTHAL: I thought I could hide behind 8 Tony. 9 (LAUGHTER) 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you want to go first, 11 Tony? 12 MR. COTTER: Yes, I'm not sure what it is 13 you want to hear. 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm not sure what 15 it is we're allowed to hear. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I can tell you, generally, 17 what we're interested in, is what impact there is on 18 these near term operating plants -- licenses, as you 19 see it from the prospective of the hearing boards. 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Any other people l 21 on the resources you need to do your job. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And then the interaction 23 you have with needs from the staff. I 24 MR. COTTER: Let me lay a little theory 25 out, if I could, maybe that would be helpful. , J.L.H. ( NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tapn 2 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. Et Annep.169-613 6
63 1
; Licensing hearings are different from any other kind of 2 ' litigation. And the reason they're different is that in 3 licensing hearings, you are trying to predict what will 4
take place in the future. In other litigation, you're 5 deciding what took place in the past. For example, you're 6 deciding liability, you're deciding who was negligent, 7 you're deciding how the money should have been 8 divided. In licensing hearing, you're deciding whether 9 a particular plant meets the Commission's regulations, 10 and therefore will be safe to operate in the future, 11 you do it on the basis of essentially a paper model, 12 which gradually comes into being through the documents 13 that we have all this alphabet soup about, you know, the 14 SERs and the FSARs, and so forth. And those documents 15 come into being over a period of time that ranges 16 roughly three or four years. But we start the 17 hearings at the beginning, when the application is 18 first docketed. 19 And so, not only are we deciding what is 20 going to be true and honest in the future, but the 21 description, the model upon which we're trying to make 22 that decision does not come completely into being 23 until, as things are operating now, we're almost to 24 the point where the decision has to be made. 25 If I heard Darrell Eisenhut correctly, and J.L.H. i NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tapa 2 Court Reporting
- Depositions C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 66 Annep.169 6136
64 g[ think I did, his basic message was that he has about a 2
-tenth of the people that he needs to conduct an audit, 3
a 5 percent audit of a two to four billion dollar project, and that short-coming makes itself known 5 rather clearly in the hearing process, because that 6 means that the staff is stretched very thin in 7 oresenting and completing the documents that they need 8 to present and complete, so that we can then gaze into 9 the crystal ball and decide whether or not the H) plant that's contemplated will meet the Commission's 11 regulations. An additional complicating factor these 12 days is that this whole area of quality control, where 13 in fact the plant is coming into being, and there is, 14 rather than simply a paper exercise, there is more and 15 more a particular instance of some sort of trick 16 coming. 17 So, I guess what I'm describing is a
'8 process that forces us to take what would otherwise be 19 an easily scheduled process with a beginning and an end, 20 and have to adjust constantly and particularly towards 21 the end, because the beginning doesn't begin until 22 towards the end, the things that are needed for the 23 process to finish. That's what we do, we shake our 24 heads a lot.
25 You just lost me. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: ! J.L.H. NRC/46 - FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Tcpe 2 Court Reporting e Depositions ! C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annep. 169-6136
65 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Tony, we have had impacted 2 -- problems of impacting plants in the past, and at that 3 time there was close examination of -- did the 4 hearing process have to take as long? Could it be cut 5 back? And I think a great deal was done to streamline 6 the process, and make it more effective. 7 Now, we , and we've had a period in which a we were doing quite well in matching the needs of a -- 9 for a decision, and our ability to do it. Now, the io question is, are we getting into problems once again, n and if so where, and to what extent is the hearing 12 process a part of our problem and that is what I am 13 interested in. And I think you have the table that, you i4 should have a copy of the table that the staff gave, 15 would identify where there was possible or potential is impacts, and we thought maybe we might see if 17 there's any comment you might make on -- 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In fact, I had a 39 specific question on one of those. That was on 3 20 Comanche Peak. I gather that the staff's estimate for 21 construction completion is moved forward now to where 22 it's the same as the applicants date, and now that would 23 mean the hearing date, the decision date, extends out 24 fairly far. That's the longest delay period that's 25 listed. J.L.H. NRC/46 ' Tcpa 2 . FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C*R* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C.. Aroe 161-1901 e Belt. da Annep. 169-6136
66 1
. I was under the impression that the hearing 2 -in that case was going on for a fairly substantial 3 period of time, and sort of an on again, off again 4 It was on for a few weeks, then off for hearing.
5 several weeks, largely because of the time, outside 6 time commitments, as some of the part-time, maybe one 7 of the part-time members of the Board. I guess what j 8 I'm wondering is, is there something that can be 9 done to assure that the hearing goes forward and does 10 everything that has to be done, but does it on a 11 more expeditious time frame, without that kind of - 12 impediment. 13 MR. COTTER: That's obviously what I wasn't 14 getting at very clearly. The principle issue remain-15 ing in the hearing is whether or not there's been 16 intimidation, and there are approximately 120 witnesses 17 posed to addressed that issue. That problem, and those 18 120 witnesses, weren't specifically known until, 1 19 clearly until yesterday, when they had a pre-hearing 20 conference. i i 21 And so, what happens in these things is that 22 the critical issue comes up towards the end of the 23 process. In this instance the staff is showing a 24 decision date of April of '85. The Board has tried to 1 I 25 do a number of things to expedite that. One of them is J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcps 2 Court Repe,rting e Deposittens C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
67 1 5o t require in connection with these witnesses, the use 2 of evidentory depositions, which will cut down the 3 total trial time to about three weeks, and they may 4 well be able to resolve that question by December, 5 which would take another four months off of that 6 delay, 7 There are some QA issues which, I believe, 8 involve something which has come to be known as GW 9 Bridge, because it's a fully integrated pipe support to system, which I think is the largest structure in the 11 plant. There's some question about the quality control 12 there, but that again is scheduled to be resolved on 13 the basis of filings, at this point. 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So, it's not a 15 question of outside time commitments on the part of a 16 board member? 17 MR. COTTER: No. In fact one of my problems, 18 I'm running over my FTEs, because one of the major 19 resources I have is part-time members, but I have an 20 FTE ceiling that tells me I can't use them. We had 21 last month -- we had 45 days of hearing last month. 22 That's something like 110 administrative judge days, 23 and that meant 110 people were on the road 45 days 24 last month. I sympathize very much with the staff's 25 problem, because we've been doing it for the last three J.L.H. - NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcp2 2 Court Reporting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149-6136
68 l 1
.,or four years.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But is there anything 3 that we could or should be considering to do on 4 Comanche Peak to help the situation? 5 MR. COTTER: Not that I know of. I can go 6 back and look at it again, but at this point it looks 7 like both of those issues are issues that are pre-8 requisites to any kind of a license. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That plant shows a 10 potential of seven months delay here. The other one, 11 I hesitate to bring up, but is short on -- I don't know 12 if there's anything we could or should be doing there. 13 MR. COTTER: I've already created three boards 14 and divided the case up into three pieces. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm asking if there is in legitimate question. Are there anything you could 17 or should be doing? 18 MR. COTTER: Again, this goes back to -- 19 it's p artly the staff problem, it's partly the 20 applicant problem, but for example this whole TDI 21 diesel thing was raised by the Board over a year ago, 22 and until both the applicant and the staff decide what 23 the status of the issue is, then it can't addressed, 24 it can't be presented to the Board. 25 At the moment I think the schedule, which is J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Court Reporting e Depositlens C*
- D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. da Annep. 169-4136
69 1
. purely a guestimate, because neither of the parties, 2 neither those two parties have put any dates to it, that 3
the TDI issue may go to hearing in August, and may be 4 resolved, a decision may issue at the turn of the year 5 at this point. 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Tony, you ' 7 mentioned the problem with the FDE, do you need more 8 FDEs? -- an increase in the ceiling? 9 MR. COTTER: Yes, I started with, two years to ago I had 66, and on October 1, I'm supposed to have 11 48. My total hearing time hasn't decreased at all in 12 that period. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's our problem, going 14 down on FTEs. 15 MR. COTTER: I know. 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: If we just start get-17 ting this message across up at the other end of 18 Pennsylvania Avenue that this system is going to choke 19 on itself at some point, with all of these plants due 20 to come on line in the next couple of three years, if I l 21 we don't get the kind of resources that we need. l 22 MR. COTTER: It's a near term problem, and l 23 you sure do need them. I mean I've had two people have 24 open heart surgery. I've have somebody almost have 25 a nervous breakdown. I'm going to lose somebody to a i J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Tcpa 2 Ceurt Reportine e Depositlens ' C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1901 s Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
70 1
.,four month medical commitment. There's an enormous 2 ' mount of pressure here.
a 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, any other plants 4 in which you face problem areas, Tony? 5 MR. COTTER: No. The only ones that I see, 6 you know, that are those that are indicated, the 7 SHOREHAM and Comanche Peak, and I don't think Commanche 8 Peak is that serious a problem at this point. I mean 9 it's as serious problem as indicated here. I think it to is may well be facing some overrun in terms of complet-11 ing the hearing after the plant may be ready, but these 12 readiness dates slip from week to week, so I don't 13 know. 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Allen, do you have 15 a comment? 16 MR. ROSENTHAL: Number one, in contrast to 17 Tony, I don't regard myself as having any resource 18 problem at all. As matters now stand, the appeal 19 panel is not on the critical path, as far as I'm 20 aware in any case. We may get back on the critical 21 path in cases such as BYRON, when the licensing board 22 completes its proceedings on remand. 23 I think, you know, from an appeal board 24 standpoint, the dates of planned completion are being 25 lined up against licensing board decisions, and that's J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. - Tcp2 2& 3 c,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
71 i all well and good if one assumes that there's no basis 2 for a stay of a licensing board decision, assuming 3 that decision authorizes the issuance of an operating 4 license pending an appeal. I, myself, would not want 5 to see in the Commission's thinking an equation between 6 licensing board decision and authorization of plant 7 operation, because apart from what the Commissioners g them;selves may do in the area of immediate effectiveness, 9 assuming that process is continued. As you know, I re-10 commended a year ago, substantial modifications in it, ii which so far, my recommendations have obviously fallen on deaf ears, but irrespective of what you may do in 12 33 that area, you have left with the appeal boards the power i4 to stay licensing board decisions on the application of 33 those four criteria set forth in the Rules of Practice. And in some cases, an appeal board may find is 37 those four criteria to balance in favor of the grant of is stay. And that's nothing to do with our present ig situation. That's something down the line. In so 20 far, again, as the present is concerned, we're in, I 21 think, a perfectly comfortable position, again, both in
- 2 terms of resources and in terms of the status of the 23 matters that are currently pending before appeal boards.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Would you like to loan 24 25 Tony some people? J.L.H. NRC/46 Tcpa 3 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. C.R. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
72 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then he'll get in 2
-trouble.
3 For Tony, I might even be MR. ROSENTHAL: able to do that.- 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Keep that in mind. 6 Take six. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: 7 (LAUGHTER) 8 . CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other questions 9 from our board representatives? 10 MR. COTTER: No. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, thank you very 12 much. Let's see, our time is just about up, but let me 13 see if I can go through quickly and get a couple of 14 status reports. On the matter of development of 15 options for handling allegations, I gather you're 16 Working on that paper. Do we have any idea when that 17 might be -- 18 MR. PLAINE: Hopefully, that will be 19 distributed this afternoon. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. So, we'll at least 21 have it by Monday. 22 MR. PLAINE: So, you'll at least have it for 23 next week. 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask another 25 question. One financial qualifications, we had put out J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 3 Court Reporting e Depositions C.R. D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4134
73
' a proposed rule, and I was wondering where we stand on 2
review of the public comments on that. 3 MR. PLAINE: Carol. MS. KAGAN: I am Carol Kagan from OGC. I 5 spoke to the State Programs office this morning, and 6 they've reviewed the comments and prepared a draft 7 analysis of the comments, the NARUC study and the site
~
8 meetings. That went to EDO this morning, and we have 9 extended the comment period in order to allow parties to 10 reply to the staff's analysis to the NARUC study. We 11 hope that will get down into the PDR on Monday, and wo 12 have extended the comment period until June 28. That 13 should be in the Federal Register today. 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We have extended the time 15 for comments on this? 16 MS. KAGAN: The comments on the NARUC study, 17 and on the staff's analysis on the NARUC study. Yes. i 18 On the NARUC study, I l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: l 19 see. Would you dare project when we might have something 20 to consider, in terms of a final rule? - 21 MS. KAGAN: We're hoping to have it before 22 the end of July. l 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Before the end of July? 24 MS. KAGAN: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. One other l J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Tcpa 3 court a.,ertine . Deposittens l C.R. D.C. Aree 161-1901 Belt. & Annep. 149-4134
74 I
. item that I had said I wanted to touch on. Maybe we 2
can't go into it in any depth, but we had the recent court 3 decision allowing emergency exercise results to be adjudicated, and I was wondering if OGC or staff council 5 could -- had any feeling about potential delays that 6 could be caused by that decision. 7 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Mr. Chairman, I did a 8 brief review of the 28 cases that are on the Bevill 9 schedule, and these run into 1987, so it goes fairly M) long. I looked for first for any cases where the party 11 had sought to raise the exercise question that was 12 rejected based on the rule. We found only one case 13 where that occurred, and that was in the WATERFORD 14 case. So there is a potential there if another, if Mi that party sought to raise the exercise question there. 16 Next we looked to see how many of 28 cases had emergency 17 planning contentions raised already, as at least an 18 indication that some parties, some or all parties had u) an interest in emergency planning, and may or may not 20 seek to raise late filed contentions. 19 of the 28 21 cases had emergency planning contentions in those. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I didn't follow what that 23 class is. These are people, these are cases for 24 which -- 25 MR. CHRISTENBURY: These are pending OL cases J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tapa 3 Court Repeeting e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
75 I where the interveners have raised or sought to raise 2 -- in a few cases the Boards have not ruled on the con-3 tentions yet. These are cases where the interveners 4 have sought to raise or have raised emergency planning 5 contentions. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But they weren't denied. 7 MR. CHRISTENBURY: No, no, no, no, no, not a denied. These are cases that have now emergency plans 9 that were not rejected based on -- only one case u) was where the request to consider the exercise was 11 rejected based on the rule. So, that's the one case. 12 It's the only one where we have, in terms of focal, the 13 greatest impact for potential. The 19 cases the parties 14 could seek to raise late filed contentions based on the is rule. Also, of those 19 cases, six were noticed after us the rule was in place. So, they would have probably a 17 different standard, or at least an easier standard to 18 make in terms of late filed contentions. 19 Then we looked at other cases where the 20 exercise was either not scheduled, or where the 21 exercise was scheduled after the start of the hearing, 22 and there were 7 cases that fell in that category. 23 So, it's hard to predict where there will be potentials. 24 I think in any event, the number is relatively small, 25 5 or 6 cases, but at this point, it's really dependent J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. 3
- Ceart Reporting e Depeeltiens
*
- D.C. Area 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4134
76 1 .,on other parties, as to whether they seek to rely on the 2 ' Court of Appeals decision, seek to raise contentions 3 arising out the exercise, or seek to interpret admitted 4 contentions already to include matters relating to the 5 exercise. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do any of those 5 or 6 7 come up say in the next six months? 8 . MR. CHRISTENBURY: Of the 5 or 6, the two that 9 involved 1984 licensing, one would be WATERFORD and the 10 other would be SHOREHAM. SHOREHAM we include it primarily just because that has emergency planning in 12 it, it's being very actively litigated at this. point in 33 time. There is of course as you know, no exercise 34 currently schedule in SHOREHAM. 35 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you planning to give 16 us a summary paper on this? 37 MR. CHRISTENBURY: We would be glad to. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think it might be useful, 19 particularly looking into the near term, say in a period 20 of a year. 21 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Fine, we'd be glad to. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other questions? 23 MR. PLAINE: We don't have any mandate yet 24 from the court issued, and of course if we go for an 25 appeal, that might stay in there. J.L.H.
~
Tp
*- FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- Court Reporting e Depeeltlens C.R* -
D.C. Area 141-1901 e Selt.& Annep. 149 6134
77 s I ; CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that's one -- the 2 appeal of that is something that we'd like to get a 3 recommendation on. Not now, but I meant as you analyze 4 it. Are there other items that we should cover this 5 afternoon? 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I would just like 7 to say that I find these briefings very useful, because 8 even though it would be nice to think we could integrate 9 all this paper that comes across our desk piece by piece, 10 it's very, very useful to have it put in perspective . 11 here in one spot, and be able to ask all the questions 12 at once. It's a gocd practice. I think we ought to 13 continue it. 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think we should have 15 periodic reviews with other plants coming up and under-16 stand what the problem areas are, and what impact they 17 have on other resources such as we face. Okay. I 18 want to thank the staff for a very good presentation. 19 I think it was very revealing in a number of areas that 20 are going to be very useful in our budget review. Okay. 21 Well, thank you. We will stand adjourned. 22 (Whereupon, the foregoing meeting was 23 adjourned at 8:40 p.m.) 24 25 J.L.H. NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. Tcpe 3 Cavet Repertine e Depositlens C.R. D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
-- - ~ -. - _ . _ . .. -- _ . - - - _ . -
4 l 4 PROJECTED COMMISSION DECISION DATES i JULY - SEPTEMBER 1984 J i - l:l PLANT FULL POWER DECISION j GRAND GULF 1 JULY 1984 - t i DIABLO CANYON 1 JllLY 1984 CALLAWhYl . AUGUST 1984 1 . WATERFORD 3 AllGUST 1984 l CATAWBA 1 SEPTEMBER 1984 l 1 1 I l i i i s i i
LICENSING SCllEDULE APPLICANT NRC LATEST BEVILL PLANT CCD CCD DEC DAlt IMPACT FMI-1 (RESTART) - - - - iRAND G'JLF 1 - - 7/811 , )lABLO CANYON 1 6/84 6/811 7/84 1 il10REllAM 9/811 S/ 9/811 SI 8/811 5
- ALLAWAY 1 6/811 6 '/ 8 11 6/811 2/ _
(ATERFORD 3 6/84 6/84 6 / 8 11 -
- ATAWBA 1 6/811 1/ 6 / 8 11 1/ 6 / 8 11 -
(ATTS BAR 1 7/84 8/84 7/84 - lYRON 1 9/811 9/811 1/ 9 / 8 11 -
- ERMI 2 9/8ll 12/811 1/ 9/811 -
- 0MANCllE PEAK 1 9/84 9/84 4/85 7
_IMERICK 1 9/811 1-3/8S' 1/ 11/811 2 WOLF CREEK 1 10/811 - 1/ 10/811 - SIABLO CANYON 2 11/8ll 11 /811 1/ 11/811 - PALO VERDE 1 3/85 3/85 3/85 - ilDLAND 2 7/86 7/86 7/86 - !/ O vERALL PROJECT STATUS UNDER REVIEW BY DEDICATED MANAGER. El LOW-POWER LICENSE ISSUED JUNE 11, 19811 II JUNE 19811 FOR FUEL LOAD ONLY. SEPTEMBER 198ll FOR LOW POWER. . S/ PLANT WAS COMPLETE 3/8 tis DIESELS OPERABLE 9/84.
ENCLOSURE 1
. NTOL STATUS REPORT PLANTS INCLUDED BYRON UNIT 1 SHOREHAM LIMERICK UNIT 1 PALO VERDE UNIT 1 MIDLAND UNIT 2 WATERFORD UNIT 3 COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 e
O O f
BYRON UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. DENIAL 0F APPLICATION - ON 1/13/84 THE ASLB DENIED OPERATING LICENSE ON BASIS OF INADEQUACIES IN QA. APPLICANT APPEALED, APPEAL BOARD, BY ITS MAY 7, 1984 DECISION, HAS REMANDED CASE BACK TO ASLB ON CERTAIN QA ISSUES. A PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD MAY 30, 1984, TO DISCUSS SCHEDULE AND ISSUES.
- 2. READINESS FOR FUEL LOAD - APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT PLANT WILL WILL BE READY TO LOAD FUEL BY 9/15/84. STAFF AGREES THIS DATE -IS ACHIEVABLE.
- 3. FSAR REVIEW - THERE REMAINS A FEW MAJOR ISSUES YET TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDING: (1) DEVIATIONS FROM APPENDIX R REQUIRE-MENTS IN APPROXIMATELY 20 AREAS; AND (2) ADDITIONAL MODIFICA-TIONS OR ANALYSES FOR CATEGORY I MASONRY WALLS MAY BE REQUIRED.
- 4. OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING - ASLB HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION OVER EMERGENCY PLANNING MATTERS AND INTERVENORS WILL HAVE 1
OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK FURTHER HEARINGS IF DISSATISFIED WITH APPLICANT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS COMMITMENTS TO RESOLVE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES. 4 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS APPRAISAL IN DECEMBER 1983 IDENTIFIED 14 AREAS WHERE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES WERE NOT COMPLETE. ,' REGION III FOLLOWUP INSPECTION IS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 9-13, 1984, i i J
BYRON .:
- 5. INSPECTION - ROUTINE NRC INSPECTIONS ARE ON SCHEDULE FOR A ;
SEPTEMBER 15, 1984 FUEL LOAD DATE, HOWEVER, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS, OPEN ITEMS, AND UNRESOLVED ITEMS EXIST, MANY OF WHICH ARE AWAITING APPLICANT RESPONSE / ACTION. IDI COMPLETED 6/83. MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WERE RELATED TO DEFICIENCIES IN PIPE BREAK AND CRACK ANALYSES. APPLICANT'S RESPONSES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY LETTER DATED MAY 2, 1984. APPLICANT STOP WORK ORDER IS IN EFFECT PENDING COM-PLETION OF 100%' REINSPECTION OF HVAC SYSTEMS FOR AS-BUILT VS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
- 6. ALLEGATIONS - ALLEGATIONS ARE UNDER REVIEW IN THE GENERAL AREAS OF IMPROPER CERTIFICATION OF QC INSPECTOR, POSTDATING RECORDS, INTIMIDATION OF INSPECTORS, FAILURE TO MEET ASME CODE, OMISSION OF REINFORCEMENT STEEL, INSTALLED HANGER /
SUPPORTS NOT PER DESIGN DOCUMENTS, FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS AND FAILURE TO CONDUCT REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
- 7. INCINERATOR - UNIQUE PROPOSAL FOR HANDLING OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE UNDER REVIEW BY THE STAFF.
, SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 4
i
- 1. FSAR REVIEW -
o TDI DIESEL RELIABILITY - REPAIRS ARE STILL IN PROGRESS. CONCURRENT WITH EFFORTS TO REPAIR AND REQUALIFY TDI ENGINES, THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A NEW EDG BUILDING TO HOUSE THREE NEW EDGs, 0WNERS GROUP STUDY IS BEHIND ! SCHEDULE, RELIABILITY OF THE TDI DIESELS IS AN ADMITTEL
~
l HEARING CONTENTION, ON MAY 18, 198h, LILCO REQUESTED AN 4 EXEMPTION FROM GDC-17 TO OPERATE AT LOW POWER, BASED ON ENHANCED OFF-SITE POWER SUPPLIES, . . o THE STAFF QUESTIONS LILC0'S RELIANCE ON COUNTY POLICE TO ACT AS OFF-SITE RESPONSE FORCE AS REQUIRED BY NRC SECURITY REGULATIONS, o SHOREHAM OPERATING STAFF HAS NO HOT BWR EXPEPIENCE, LILC0 HAS HIRED SHIFT ADVISORS, CHANGES IN LILCO'S MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION ARE UNDER REVIEW, THE NEW VP FOR NUCLEAR WAS A FORMER BWR PLANT MANAGER, i j o REGION 1 BELIEVES MSIV LEAKAGE SHOULD BE COLLECTED OR - ! DIVERTED TO CONTAINMENT SUMP TO MINIMIZE CONTAMINATION, i l I
SHOREHAM .- .? . HEARINGS - THREE SEPARATE HEARING BOARDS (ASLBs) ARE PRESIDING. o ORIGINAL BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TDI DIESEL LITIGATION, FAVORABLE DECISION ON ALL OTHER ISSUES EXCEPT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1983. A SCHEDULE FOR TDI HEARING WILL NOT BE SET UNTIL COMPLETION OF APPLICANT'S DIESEL DESIGN REVIEW QUALITY REVERIFICATION PROGRAM,
,o EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES HAVE BEEN MOVED TO A SEPARATE BOARD. A DECISION IS EXPECTED BY FALL 1984, o ON MAY 18, LILC0 SUBMITTED A PEQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM GDC-17 TO PERMIT OPERATION AT LOW POWER BASED ON . THE RELIABILITY OF ENHANCED OFFSITE POWER. A THIRD BOARD WILL CONDUCT A HEARING ON THAT REQUEST. THE HEARING IS EXPECTED T0. START ABOUT JULY 12, 1984.
- 3. OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING - SUFFOLK COUNTY HAS REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING. GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK SUPPORTS SUFFOLK COUNTY POSITION. APPLICANT HAS .
ESTABLISHED ITS OWN LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE OPGANIZATIO,N, LEGALITY OF WHICH IS QUESTIONED BY COUNTY AND STATE AND IS 4 SUBJECT OF SUIT IN NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT. FEMA REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PLAN FOUND 32 INADEQUACIES, SOME RELATING TO QUESTIONS OF LEGAL AUTHORITY,
LIMERICK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. FSAR' REVIEW - THERE REMAIN A NUMBER OF MAJOR ISSUES YET TO BE RESOLVED, INCLUDING REVIEW OF ONSITE AND OFFSITE EMER-GENCY PLANS, TORNADO MISSILE EFFECTS ON THE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK, FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL, SEISMIC / DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW AND THE IDVP REVIEW, DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ITEMS STILL OPEN, A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT WILL BE REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THESE ON A SCHEDULE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S PLANS FOR LOW-POWER TESTING, .
- 2. HEARING SCHEDULE - HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE OVER NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS FOR (1) 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND (2) ENVIRONMENTAL l ASPECTS OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISKS, THE ASLB DECISION CONCERNING THESE ISSUES IS EXPECTED BY JANUARY 1985. THE APPLICANT'S OFFICIAL FUEL LOAD DATE HAS BEEN RECENTLY REVISED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1984.
3, PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT - IN CONSIDERATION OF HIGH POPULATION DENSITY, APPLICANT HAS PERFORMED A PRA. STAFF'S EVALUATION OF PRA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REPORTED IN DES AND FES, STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT RISKS OF RADIATION EXPOSURE ASSOCIATED WITH ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVITY IS VERY LOW FOR LIMERICK, CONSIDERATION OF PRA RESULTS IN HEARING (ENVIRONMENTAL) WILL BE UNIQUE, STAFF IS NOW PREPARING A RISK EVALUATION REPORT TO DOCUMENT REVIEW FINDINGS RELATED TO SAFETY,
- 4. NRC INSPECTIONS - THERE IS A CONSIDER'ABLE AMOUNT OF ROUTINE INSPECTION WORK YET TO BE DONE. MANY ROUTINE INSPECTIONS CANNOT BE PERFORMED YET BECAUSE OF THE TESTING SCHEDULE OR STATE OF READINESS OF PLANT, IT IS NOT YET APPARENT WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S PROGRESS WILL SUPPORT A SEPTEMBER 15, 1984 l
FUEL LOAD DATE.
LIMERICK 1 -:
- 5. JDVP - THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PROGRAM PLAN (DATED MAY 8, 1984) FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND.BY LETTER DATED MAY 15, 1984, STATED THAT THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PROGRAMMATIC MODIFICATIONS.
- 6. ACRS - LETTER OF 10/18/83 CONCURRED WITH ISSUANCE OF LICENSE FOR FUEL LOAD AND OPERATION UP TO 5% POWER. COMMITTEE WISHES TO REVIEW FURTHER (1) EMERGENCY PLANNING, (2) PRA, ,
(3) POTENTIAL COOLING TOWER FAILURE EFFECTS, (4) PLANT SECURITY, AND (5) SEISMIC MARGINS.
- 7. POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION PROJECT - THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO USE WATER FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER FOR MAKEUP FOR CONDENSER COOLING EVAPORATIVE LOSS WHEN THE SCHUYKILL RIVER IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO FLOW AND TEMPERATURE RESTRICTIONS. CON-STRUCTION ON THE DIVERSION PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED BY COURT IMPOSED WORK STOPPAGES. EVEN IF THESE WORK STOPPAGES WERE i LIFTED, IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE COMPLETED
! UNTIL EARLY 1985.
- 8. LOW-POWER AUTHORIZATION - IN A MOTION DATED MAY 9, 1984, THE APPLICANT MOVED THAT THE ASLB ISSUE AN EXPEDITED PARTIAL ,
INITIAL DECISION THAT WOULD PERMIT THE LOADING OF FUEL BY SEPTEMBER 15, 1984 AND SUBSEQUENT OPERATION UP TO FIVE i PERCENT OF FULL POWER.
- 9. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE CURRENTLY 12 OPEN ALLEGATIONS COVERING AREAS SUCH AS PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, INTIMIDATION, IMPROPER l USE OF QC PROCEDURES, USE OF UNCERTIFIED PAINT, AND IPPROPER
! HANDLING OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS.
PALO VERDE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, SCHEDbLESLIPPAGE-SCHEDULEFORFUELLOADWASRECENTLYREVISED FROM MAY 1984 TO FIRST OVARTER 1985. APPLICANT'S STATED CHANGE WAS RESULT OF (1) PROBLEMS WITH LPSI PUMPS, (2) EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS FOUND DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING, (3) NEED FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NRC SPECIAL TEAM INSPECTION, AND (4) 3-MONTH SUSPENSION OF START-UP TESTING BY APPLICANT TO CONDUCT AUDIT, 2, LPSI PUMP.- PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED DURING TESTING IN LATE 1983; MODIFICATIONS TO PUMP INTERNALS DID NOT COMPLETELY SOLVE PROBLEM, LARGER MOTOR HAS BEEN INSTALLED AND SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN PUMP PERFORMANCE RESULTED WHICH MAY HAVE SOLVED PROBLEMS, APPLICANT IS CONTINUING TO EVALUATE. STAFF REVIEW 0F PROBLEM PENDING RECEIPT OF APPLICANT'S REPORT TENTA-TIVELY SCHEDULED FOR JULY, l 3, HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING - DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT IN CESSAR SYSTEM 80 SCOPE OCCURRED DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING, INCLUDING (1) BROKEN THERM 0 WELLS, (2) LOOSE AND BROKEN PARTS TO REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS, (3) LOOSE THERMAL SLEEVES, AND (4) CRACKED SHROUDS ON THE CEA UPPER SUPPORT STRUCTURE, ANALYSES AND REPAIRS ARE UNDERWAY, DEMONSTRATION TEST IN JUNE 1984 TO CHECK OUT PLANT FIXES IN THESE AREAS, A FINAL REPORT TO THE NRC IS DUE IN AUGUST 1984. STAFF IS' MONITORING PROGRESS AND WILL REVIEW / EVALUATE FINAL REPORT,
l PALO VERDE 1 l s. Li . REGION V SPECIAL TEAM INSPECTION - A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED 11/1/83. FOCUS WAS CON-STRUCTION, HOWEVER, A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS FOUND INDICATED DEFICIENCIES MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AFTER TURNOVER TO OPERATIONS AND STARTUP. CIVIL PENALTY WAS ISSUED FOR VIOLATION - QA PROGRAM DID NOT MAINTAIN l ADEQUATE CONTROL OVER ACTIVITIES. APPLICANT'S CORRECTIVE ACTION INCLUDED INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT, SUSPENSION OF STARTUP WORK, MANAGEMENT RE0RGANIZATI.0N, AND DIRECT INVOLVE-MENT OF SENIOR CORPORATE MANAGEMENT IN SITE ACTIVITIES.
- 5. HEARING - LICENSING BOARD AND APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, HOWEVER, INTERVENORS HAVE INDICATED INTENT TO FILE CONTENTIONS AND REQUEST A REOPENING OF THE RECORD AS A RESULT OF VARIOUS ALLEGED PROBLEMS, INCLUDING CHARGES OF ,
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES AND EQUIPMENT DAMAGE DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING.
- 6. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE SEVERAL OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS AT THIS TIME. THE STAFF ANTICIPATES A LARGE NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS WILL BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO OL ISSUANCE, REQUIRING A SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT EFFORT. .
i E ____ _ _ ___
MIDLAND UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE .0N 4/10/84, THE APPLICANT ANNOUNCED REVISION OF THE FUEL LOAD SCHEDULE FOR UNIT 2 T0 7/86, UNIT 1 STATUS INDEFINITE SINCE 7/84 DOW STEAM CONTRACT TERMINATED, COMPANY CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH MPSC AND STATE OFFICIALS ON CASH FLOW PROBLEMS THAT COULD AFFECT UNIT 2. ON MAY 18, 1984, CPC0 SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO A C0ALITION OF STATE OFFICIALS CALLING FOR COMPLETION OF UNIT 2 AND CANCELLATION OF UNIT 1,
- 2. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION - TO RESOLVE MATTERS REGARDING THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION, FOUR SEPARATE THIRD PARTY REVIEWS ARE UNDERWAY, THESE INCLUDE:
IDVP - EVALUATES THREE SYSTEMS, DESIGN VERIFICATION TO BE COMPLETED BY TERA IN 7/84, PHYSICAL VERFICATION TO FOLLOW AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS MORE COMPLETE, CCP - INSPECTION BY APPLICANT OF 100" 0F ALL ACCESSIBLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, STONE a WEBSTER IS CONDUCTING INDE-PENDENT OVERVIEW, ALL STOP WORK ORDERS IN EFFECT WERE LIFTED BY FEBRUARY 1984, ACTIVITIES OF THE CCP ARE BEING INITIATED BY APPLICANT AS ALLOWED BY APPROVED PLAN, I S0ILS REWORK OVERVIEW - STONE & WEBSTER PERFORMING OVERVIEW OF UNDERPINNING DUE TO S0ILS COMPACTION PROBLEMS, [ l MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW - IN RESPONSE TO NRC ORDER, AN INDE-PENDENT MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL WILL BE COMPLETED END OF SEPTEMBER 1984. PLAN ACCEPTED BY NRC 5/11/84, l
MIDLAND 2 '
- 3. HEARINGS - TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS IN PROGRESS. THESE ARE:
SOILS HEARINGS ON MODIFICATION ORDER - ISSUES OF SOIL COMPACTION PROBLEMS AND OA/QC, BOARD'S DECISION IS EXPECTED BY 8/84. THERE IS A PENDING MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING. TWO OTHER ISSUES OF WHETHER CPC LIED CONCERNING SCHEDULE AND WHETHER CPC KNOWINGLY RELIED ON INVALID SOILS TEST DATA BEFORE THE NRC WILL BE HEARD BEGINNING IN AUTUMN 1984. OPERATING LICENSE HEARING - 21 CONTENTIONS WERE ADMITTED AND 17 0F THESE ARE STILL TO BE LITIGATED. NO SCHEDULE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
- 4. REMEDIAL S0ILS ACTIVITIES - BECAUSE OF SOILS PROBLEMS RAISED IN 1978, UNDERPINNING OF SOUTHERN PORTION OF AUXILIARY
~
BUILDING IS UNDERWAY, AS IS PREPARATION FOR UNDERPINNING 0F THE NORTHERN PORTION OF SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE. WHILE THE MAGNITUDE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROCESS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, EFFORTS ARE PROCEEDING WELL.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - MAJOR INSPECTION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN EXPENDED '
ON 182 ALLEGATIONS IN 1983/1984. OF THESE, 106 HAVE BEEN CLOSED. THE 76 OPEN ALLEGATIONS COME FROM 17 ALLEGERS AND COVER A WIDE SPECTRUM OF ISSUES.
MIDLAND 2 ~
- 6. FSAR' ISSUES o DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING - STAFF IS REVIEWING SIGNIFICANCE OF FURTHER STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENTS AND CRACKING OF THE BUILDING OCCURRING DURING DGB SURCHARGE o SEISMIC MARGIN CAPABILITY o EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OPEN ISSUES
- 7. PRA - THE UTILITY SUBMITTED THE PRA 5/7/84. l
WATERFORD UNIT 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, FSAR REVIEW A NUMBER OF FSAR ITEMS REMAIN TO BE COMPLETED, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BEING: o BASEMAT ADEQUACY - IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED REGARDING BASEMAT CRACKING, THE STAFF IS PRESENTLY REASSESSING THIS ISSUE, THE STAFF HAS ASSEMBLED A TEAM TO REVIEW THIS ISSUE ADDRESSING DESIGN (NRR AND CONSULTANTS), AND CONSTRUCTION AND ALLEGATIONS, o APPENDIX R - ON MARCH 26, 1984 LPal IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF DEVIATIONS FROM APPENDIX R, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT, WHICH ARE NOW UNDER STAFF REVIEW, THE APPENDIX R AUDIT, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED APRIL 9-13 AT THE WATERFORD SITE, INDICATED THAT THE PLANT CURRENTLY DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN ON LOSS OF 0FFSlTE POWER WITH BURNOUT OF THE CONTROL ROOM AND CABLE SPREADING ROOM, THE STAFF IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE, I o TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - DEVELOPMENT OF WATERFORD T.S. BASED ON: REVISION 3 0F CE STANDARD T.S.; WATERFORD SER AND SUPPLEMENTS; AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE MOST RECENT CE PLANTS (ANO-2, SONGS 2 a 3, ST, LUCIE 2), FINAL DRAFT SENT TO LP&L FOR CERTIFICATION APRIL 19, 1984 WITH ADDITIONAL CHANGES SENT MAY 30, 1984, 9
-,,,,m--.- m ---,, - - , -, .. -,- , _ . . - -- - - - , - - -.- , .-, _ _ - - _ _ - , . , - , , , _ , , _ _ , _ - - - , _ _ y -,_ . - -. c-,,__.---.m
WATERFORD 3 '2, NRC INSPECTIONS o THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ROUTINE INSPECTION ITEMS THAT ARE BEING COMPLETED, INCLUDING AS-BUILT VERIFICATION, VARIOUS PROCEDURES, AND TESTING INSPECTIONS, FOR MANY OF THESE ISSUES, THE STAFF IS AWAITING COMPLETION BY THE APPLICANT OF THEIR EFFORTS BEFORE THE STAFF CAN FINISH THE INSPECTIONS, CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONAL INSPECTION STAFF IS BEING APPLIED TO COMPLETE THIS EFFORT. THE STAFF HAS ASSEMBLED A TEAM COMPOSED OF ALMOST 60 HEADQUARTERS STAFF, VARIOUS REGIONAL STAFF AND CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE BEEN AT THE SITE FOR MUCH OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS, THIS TEAM WILL COORDINATE THE COMPLETION OF LICENSING AND INSPECTION ACTIONS, MOST SITE ACTIVITIES ARE EXPECTED TO BE DONE BY THE~END OF MAY 1984,
- 3. HEARINGS o THERE IS A MOTION BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD (ASLAB) TO RE0 PEN HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMMON FOUNDATION BASEMAT BASED ON ALLEGATIONS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, ON MAY 15, 1984, THE STAFF REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH T0-RESPOND TO THE INTERVENORS' MOTION, IT IS EXPECTED THAT THIS EFFORT COULD BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 15, 1984.
l i
. - . _._ .._,_ -___ _ , _ . _ _9 ,_ . , . _ . . . . _ , . _ . . _ - ~ . . . _ ., .,
WATERFORD 3 4. IDVP o AN INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM, WAS CONDUCTED BY TORREY PINES FOR LPal. THE APPROACH WAS TO TAKE A VERTICAL SLICE OF THE EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM A NUMBER OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND QA/0C ASPECTS WERE EXAMINED. TORREY PINES IDENTIFIED 4 FINDINGS AND 20 OBSERVATIONS, THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, THE STAFF IS VERIFYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS,
- 5. ALLEGATIONS o THE TEAM DISCUSSED IN ITEM 2 ABOVE IS ALSO ADDRESSING THE ALLEGATIONS. THE ALLEGATIONS DEAL WITH IMPROPER PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE ONSITE TECHNICAL REVIEW IS EXPECTED TO BE MOSTLY COMPLETED BY ABOUT THE END OF MAY, IN EARLY TO MID JUNE THE STAFF EXPECTS TO PUBLISH AN SSER THAT DISCUSSES THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND AN EVALUATION OF THEIR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE. INITIAL FINDINGS INDICATE THAT SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS MAY HAVE MERIT, THE STAFF IS STILL ASSESSING THE SAFETY SIGNIFI-CANCE. THE STAFF WILL PUBLISH AN EVALUATION OF THEIR FINDINGS THAT WILL BROADLY ASSESS THE SAFETY ISSUES AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS, 01 CURRENTLY HAS 6 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS ONG0ING AT WATERFORD RELATIVE TO WRONGD0ING. AS THESE EFFORTS CONTINUE AT THE SITE MORE CASES MAY BE OPENED,
-= . ._
WATERFORD 3 6, CAT INSPECTIONS o A CAT INSPECTION AT THE WATERFORD SITE WAS COMPLETED ON MARCH 23, 1984. THE CAT INSPECTION REPORT WAS ISSUED ON MAY 14, 1984. AN AREA 0F CONSIDERABLE CONCERN IS THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT TO TAKE PROPER CORRECTIVE ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE PREVIOUS IDENTIFICA-TION OF PROBLEM AREAS BY REGION IV. ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT AREA 0F CONCERN DEALT WITH SAFETY RELATED CABLE SEPARATION.
- 7. SCHEDULE o THE CURRENT UTILITY OFFICIAL COMPLETION DATE IS MAY 30.
COMPLETION OF THE BASEMAT ISSUE AND THE ONSITE TEAM ACTIVITIES.WILL LIKELY DELAY THE STAFF'S DECISION ON. LICENSING UNTIL NOT EARLIER THAN MID-JUNE,
- 8. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION o ON MARCH 12, 1984 A NRC SENIOR MANAGER WAS DEDICATED l TO THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF WATERFORD REGULATORY j ACTIVITIES, 1
l l [
.~
COMANCHE PEAK SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, FSAR REVIEW - THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES YET TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDING REVIEW 0F APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DELETION OF JET SHIELDS FOR BREAKS IN THE PRIMARY COOLANT LOOPS, TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL DIESEL RELIABILITY QUESTIONS, STAFF EVALUATION OF THE REPORT ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ADEQUACY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BY CYGNA CORP,, AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, 2, QUALITY ASSURANCE /0VALITY CONTROL AREAS - A CAT INSPECTION IN 1983 FOUND CONCERNS REGARDING QUALITY CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HVAC SYSTEM AND INADEQUACIES IN DESIGN CHANGE CONTROLS AND THE FIELD' INSTALLATION VERIFICATION PROGRAM, AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT WAS PERFORMED BY CYGNA CORP, TO PROVIDE THE STAFF ADDED ASSURANCE THAT THE PLANT HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION, QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING THE CYGNA FINDINGS AND THE ADHERENCE TO THE PROTOCOL GOVERNING THIS INDEPENDENT. ASSESSMENT. THE STAFF MET WITH CYGNA AND IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT, NUMEROUS HEARING ISSUES REGARDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REMAIN UNRESOLVED. THESE INCLUDE WELDING, PIPE SUPPORTS, PPOTECTIVE C0ATINGS, AND DOCUMENT CONTROL DEFICIENCIES.
COMANCHE PEAK . NUMEROUS ALLEGATIONS INVOLVE INADEQUACIES IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AND QA CONTROLS FOR THESE ACTIVITIES, MOST OF THE SEVEN ACTIVE 01 INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION QA/QC, INCLUDING ALLEGED INSPECTOR HARASSMENT, AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS, [
- 3. HEARING - HEAVILY CONTESTED HEARING FOR OVER TWO YEARS. ALL BUT ONE CONTENTION (QA/QC-RELATED) HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MANY ALLEGATIONS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES ADMITTED INTO THE HEARING AS RELEVANT TO THIS CONTENTION, UNTIL RECENTLY, THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITIAL DECISION WAS PLANNED l FOR JULY 1984, HOWEVER, HEARINGS ARE NOW SCHEDULED AT LEAST ,
!- INTO AUGUST 1984. AS A RESULT, THE BOARD'S DECISION MAY BE DELAYED BEYOND SEPTEMBER 1984,
- 4. INSPECTION PROGRAM - MUCH OF ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAM (TEST WITNESSING, TEST RESULTS REVIEW AND PROCEDURES REVIEW) REMAINS-TO BE COMPLETED, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO
- COMPLETE THE EFFORT ON SCHEDULE, APPLICANT MUST RE-RUN PORTIONS OF TEST PROGRAM DUE TO MODIFICATIONS AND DESIGN CHANGES. THE QUANTITY OF INSPECTION FOLLOWUP ITEMS (APPR0XIMATELY 377) WILL REQUIRE EXTENSIVE EFFORT TO RESOLVE, I
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE CURRENTLY NEARLY 400 ALLEGATIONS, THE MAJORITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS LIE IN THE CATEGORIES OF WELDING, QA/QC, CONCRETE /REBAR AND C0ATING DEFICIENCIES, SEVERAL FORMER UTILITY EMPLOYEES'HAVE CONTACTED THE DEPT, OF LABOR CONCERNING ALLEGED INTIMIDATION /HAPASSMENT, NRC STAFF PREPARATION OF DETAILED WORK PACKAGES FOR ALLEGATION EVALUATIONS IS IN PROGRESS, .
I COMANCHE PEAK. :
- 6. SCHEDULE - THE UTILITY HAS RECENTLY REVISED THE PLANT COMPLETION DATE FROM JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1984. THE APPLICANT'S BASIS FOR THIS PROJECTION, PROVIDED TO THE STAFF MAY 7, 1984, INDICATES THAT A SEPTEMBER FUEL LOAD DATE IS ACHIEVABLE BUT THERE IS LITTLE FLEXIBILITY FOR UNEXPECTED EVENTS IN THIS SCHEDULE. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE NRC EFFORTS BY THAT DATE.
- 7. SPECIALMhNAGEMENTATTENTION-ONMARCH 12, 1984 A NRC SENIOR MANAGER WAS DEDICATED TO THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF COMANCHE PEAK REGULATORY ACTIVITIES. INITIAL ACTIONS ARE TO IDENTIFY THE OVERALL WORK PROGRAM AND PESOURCES REQUIRED. TO SUPPORT -
THIS, A SPECIAL UNANN0UNCED 2-WEEK ONSITE TEAM REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND READINESS FOR OPERATION, CONDUCTED IN APRIL 1984, INDICATES THE APPLICANT COULD MEET HIS SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE. ..
~.
G 0 W
y , 1
- *
- r '. *.**",,l,. 4 . . . *
, .. . . i
. , :. ,.p... . . . . . . .,..- ..
l
. . .. . . ... , ... . . . .c . .. .
, , . .. - .- .. .. . f.: .,.s A n J.
,f- c..
t . ,
... . :. , \
. . . ". .q. '.; .- m
.t*7
,*** . . .q. n..z,,,.,,w.
.7- .. (
s*.- , ...
.g...,;,,* e . =...y./.
*.y..
. . .a*..e
...;.. .31. t , (g
,,4
.*=.e
.,.,,..**t,,- d g..
.?.#'.. ,.
. .g . .. .
.y e. . . ..,. -v. i n... . ... .r: :e .; ; :r; .\..e.~.;>.,.*~.,
... ....f.. . ,
.,..: ..:,....-. ... .;... . u. .. a
.. .ye, . .,. - ... . ; .as'.*...,..i.
.: .: .. c t
... ;.,: -n. r-.: :. ,:':y. , '% ,.y .. . ,* s *
,. ::. w . . .
,.. M.
. , g.p .m'; ' .a:<.c. <.- :; -;_ . ,:q.:g.f.y,. . d:.m-..a.:. w'*. ,a&,.
7 ,; - .
,.3..a
* * *., .- . t. w.-;,.r-s .7. ; ..
...c.=..
=
.g* .. l.'. ~.f;*.p..
-,..7*.)'.r,,. . . ... ... ,. . . -. ..*g g.c ya ,]a ':"... . . w'* e*/...:. -
- EEA.,,,'."e**.".".*.,4',.# ., . **,.J.E,.t
. . ' . . . . =;. . ' .,.n..,.
. .::. .9.~,.;; ,..::+ .Q.
e .. . >;:.i. . . ; . , , 5 ;.%-c=g 2--::..~ ~ .%
.d.c.g. :. l*;. '. ,:..,..;.: +-.... .., .. ....~.w . . .s :;.n..
~.:
; -: .;. ~. c .srn, .- :.s., .,.p;a
.. : . . u. .w ... . 1 .p. , .+ ._ > >.. -.: r- w. .; ..w
. . . f. .s . . .. . . . ~ :... . ..<: -
.w : . . . . , p m .. . c. .
j n . .n. u.:.;p: m.s .; v . - .- . -: . -.
. . , .... w . . -
-+.c,g...
r-:. ..,..v. U w .;
,:. :. u .r.: . .s..:y:. ,. e:n. .c ;%, , . : ~. :h@g.. .-
n..:.; ::
.-;~-:.:J:: .
J,g,A,3,,g.
.. - .: : oy. t.,. - , . ,
c : t . . . , ,, ; -2 a ,
% ;: r. . v. -. ; - 4..;%e, g'* s . 4:yJ
. .- . . * . .v-. . ?., -
,. ,,. ~ e ,g,,a .: s~ .. .t
- . , . , m-nM*
- -- .t. .:,4
.,,.: .. p. ,...'
.. z. *
* . - -- : .. . , . . . , .. .....~ . ;.;. .. ..@., .. . ,, _ ,;.. . .m, Q-Q. t. .4.*:. n 7.:.p4.:g,
.s,.:-.<; ~. g,. a.., .,:;.
. . - j y.4..; . _ .
.e -.. .. ,. -p.. .. .-~ .*. ~. .. ...., ., .. ,,m ..., . . . .. , .n. . . ;,. .= ' ;:g., gg m.,n,f::
. . , .. y$,,.,c.*.
- . 4 j ,. . 3.;,3 . . , ,
~
>.a-
- . yg.3.j;,4-.c_.
g#.ye ; r,;,r;c:gg,;,n . ' n. .
..: . wa
. e.u...
. . . w . .-:- ._,.:. ... .....m. . .. . . . , : ,,.e. ,g.;y . . %., . . .~ 3 , .: .
..,:.,...e.
. -:.,..- . .j .~. : e- ;. . ._ .- . .
.m. .g,- . ;m.q.,ga.
e............yw.wy. . . . w%..,;.4. c.. . ,,. . . .. .. .,.... .. , .. ..w. . 4,.: s. :...a.-
- i. .. . ..
.w TY5P" -Yh
%.3 l
.$ , ;k., .,m C.$s'!b.( . a*. J,a: ..'f.-f. : . :.'. ', * '.-$.' . ~5*Y . h 0 df f ftg. .. .-..;?,;.
.' s.
*r -'$' f
.g.,$gh 4
.* .,Z .,%. .. . ,
.'..V., : A -e . . . ,,,. . ,,5 ; 4 g;,:.;tg y - . .
, 7 ::, .?'.-Q.q- ' , . . . p-ha.t.@. * ..:..- - ;.
....'.'.s'.... . ;;.QU.. : *.' z.fi,N *
.. .Th:* 'r.~ * .,.r .:.;;.7:..)..y .,
7: . ;;;.;..', ;,.. .W.(:4,.,w
.q + ..;sc..
M %.,E.
.:.- ('.?.ys'..l: :. W. ,,, w
. . . . > ,.'.u . .
. a. g y.. g. c W. ,y, WerWR
's.r w t,yp:;Q';i;., ,,
.?.
. . . . ... ,. . . 9
. t f 2, . ,:.5yM p.~q-p,. ,;,-~;I.,;-7. pr.$ ;. .'. .,t'.i.::. :' C4m
.,:- 'y 5. .,.
. ..: > - . : .:. . .:.n . .. y:msw.g5 .
;: .h. w ,-:.m .: ;.::: n.t.;: =w.r. :. v. ~.:m m -2.w.v .s y. w... _.%... t. m.....; w& g pw= -
- Q -w.v..@.:.v
- 3. . ..g_.-
g.g, y a. gggy g.g. *
. . f. . . Gp. t. . - y
~ \.y:<*n a.
- g y% .-
_m. -
~
.. ,. . ...-.g... . .
'~~
g :... ... DJ? n'T W Q ,..:S .-. X ThM?,$$ :%, **MS@n,,-1
.a _ c. . . : .:. ,... c..
g-a-.
.. .-:.. .. . ,. ...gA
. - . _. yuu, . .
. ... 4 -
- . .. gW, 3,.gM., ,,.
~. ~. t.~. - e r e g. N i,,...c,.,1-? . 2 j.. .a.c".g. m.s.
3 .
- 3. . . .d b,
~
*M-g*"MJ'***d
~
- ,.'i** *T,$', ;'"*e '.*.s e2: 4 -- .
l *L.~.*.% -(g'U@,(/$ - Z;i .I--IN':Md.;%.".Ja'S 4W c-
--....>,...'; . ,,.w. v :. . :r.,5 C-~.s',>. ,.
a9e=';M*'t ] , .m. ;. q".>,N.< ,W- y W-6;w.,;.:'A.,,.:.i,G r i k'
~~
h - h
* ;*.. -??:@,
' - ' . , ' ' . '. ..-v
. ,.f . sg;;%*'isti.;*s'h.s , N,
..g 4J.
3"*7
.%. M
- s. 4, M*c-
. .,.. .gt.
. ,,. . r,. ::. .. ~-
..,;., ,.9.:.A.,. ..,
. ,... .; . ; *.- '.*:.j .-. .
w~y'
. n 3.swi 2 M_.;m:%pf s2 (n. m....~3
...!h. ;.;_ :.: 7 -
p . 4 Y Q,m'::.e ps. g.. .Q%%.; 5
- k. '.' U .h:9.m$$5ll 1:} . . . . & ,
^ s**=;ft.yt%,Q m.
y .:gn ;M.. :1'.3. -
.. . g .....:
%".'.'" ~.'.^.. Q, .'.'."Q. . :4.s;G da s.:.e.wW,%.,
. .. .g
~,.w:',:::s y,,,
c. _q;.z.e e.g, . ._ .v.-.neCr,,p w, ..:.,., _ cf ,Qg p% g _;;;qu 4
. .-:=_.
.v..
a 9.. . .. .,.. ... a ,. ,..
.m.g,,7g gggg:,.,.g... .se- 4gg j U-WmM:.; 9.; 4.g.~.?..,+g . = . . M, ..
m :.,..M..alD., *.,.c..,.a._p. .i g ..,e %g_ y . s.:.w.; "z.p.p-%- . y ,,. g .gw, m;7;;.;;;.,
,;. ,..g g-Q;.a. m. .w g.m.w. ;p py,;.'3 g q.w.g. :. g.; . .
._.;_.3. g. . .-
. w. . . ~, m. ., g.. .
. ,.z e s. .. . yg, .sr#-,. .m,;. ~.. . -,
m.- 4
.-s. . . =. .,w.,. n, : . . -:: . ,
. ,., :. .: , . . ~ . ; . n- px,... .,. .. . . . .
. 6::'.-*n:.M, .. .. ... u . v.
. . :..v. :. .
~
*b* . W.':,' S'&&?~~ . .
~
. ;>.':&n o .;..%.
~. .-
. . . ?::%; 1 u: 7; .,,; - : -;c. '.a..y:p u.? ::
~s.'-' -;- . ....:'1 ;- ,.-,<:.g H5 ii k.y.e- s rfSy@r.h.e,;;4
.es y 74.y=..
. s p * .~ s.e .- .?-
* ,-= w . . .. ,: . . . -s .
., ;.%e ;e. e s u., -
Sc ,s.....-6 ....-e. . . s ..
. .\. n
- :s .... * : ,,.,;; 1, - '. ; ;
.: .;. ,s.s. : .
- 1 g . . ' '1 r.< .,
s .w%. ... .
.. . .... -. - * .~~b ;,'u. . r. '.'.,n.r:s.a '. .. . y R*'a.e
,. ,.A_. .. .,i;.;;,' . . ..-i
.o ...y.,..
<*.. ., ~ . . =-
,..,,,..:. . , <._;: ,., ..,.. y *. r,p,. .
.. =
1....,,"..r.
. .=
.-.1,....
z .. .: . , ... .r
=..
-e.
s ..
.....r..
.4.'*
*..a.~,..,.,,.t:
, . .~.* . .
.r
;. e s ,. . . ....
. ..c.
. % .,,q...,..
6.r.
, .... .., j ,..~ ,.c.
,. j.... . ,s
. -s- m..
..-.s.- , , . ,,;).
. ,. .. . . . . , . -..e..,,,.. .. e
. 4 ,. * *
~ . l a. ; .. -. . . ,
. . . .o-
- + -m - .. .. -, ,e. . , ... . . . = . . ,
4
* 'N s . ',
,.. ., * *'i n
,7 .,*,.....-
l
< . ..=,.J ,
. .r l .. . ..
* = .
- s. . . . . .a.
- . . .*..=.q.. . . .
4 * .- .". ...b ,
~
- ,.m, 9
. .. ... .. . =. .
4-e ..
.l - .e
--e . , _ , . .
-*= - ie; *yy=. - . - . .- .
...p........,... . , , , , %.,,,m.,,,,,.. ,,
s.
, . . . ?* ..
s.
, - * .. *. . . . 1 .
e
* .. . ~,. . . .
, g*, .
*? ... .,7 ... .w s..:*'
, s. . .
. sq: . r -
y .. ._ m. ._ ,. . . . .
.,; *:. .? , .-
. _ ws.n.s . ; - .
.~ .
; .; ., 1, z.3. :..s:.<;. y _
. n s.n.--r. ...y..;. .., ; :, ,.,
- r. .
.. . . . .... . . , - . - .;. . z , .
.. y .:
. :s,
. ~-,,. ,; ..;., : .s . ; ,.
- .s, . . . . ,
.g.....
.r
. . e. . . . ...,:.-.......
....w,.....- < ..
. . ... + . ~ .
. r....
qEj.c.eg..,g.fggg;;g,.g..g..~... 7 - > . - ,.. --i;..y. - .
-.. .:.3, .w.y p.:e .z _. . . n.q7 - .m...
.. ~ . . . ... . .
-)"*'..s'.'..'.' ~ * .e -Q #* . : -: ..f.**.- -
.5 .
- . . . , . . .a. ., '
.' ~
. ...,. .{. . . .r[ - , : .c,';.:.
. . . ,w.* . ~ .* ..* . a.;.: r:a:;. . u .. .. - z,.m;,. .,z. p.. ., .. . . a .
_ ire,
.. ' h:v . . .
.,::; . 42 W..*W,h.,:Q M'LP-: 5 :- A w :.? ..r
_ ' d'N.$..s::.N..,,W m A .P id.;.+ y -
'.t:.'.3.e :!.? . a . ,d. .*: r.: U..'a' l
,.;.y%, . . ..
- . .;. ~
..;.ta.t
*& W- ?='.-n&T[sr.: 4~.:: O,'.e-hC. ~:a .ix; ;,ar *rzC;.t:f: .L%,:'h*?.,; n . , ,P;a ,.; sm,p..: G ; :; y. ,":...- .*'..,. ' .;a]- :. ..:,-:,, .x.y ::g; :. r.h- .. .;,.a;
{
..g: w. y % W +*?
=.u t .- ;c.m a.=-w -. 1 I
-Qfk% 5.L*f(t- 3;;3.M. tW.$2E.'. = .=%c'.M=.QV.,gaMTeq-9,$ik.: S
. Y:**.. .,h,,,m. k.?.h?-&:d.'.$; .n.w ;w. '=p~.::.:
."eg . :. -#, ${N.
i 6/ ...-- ,,v:g 4- -;,;..th$? i.W.fQ.p';.~.~::f . 7f
. s -4y. - m.,....- g .u.g.,. g e
..e,. ; % :.. r. ,:. i.,q ge., ,
Sh h" h kb. O r .r v r; f.,**:f. 5 h k i tsi bEA 2e@ m.&WM$ mp . m~;%. h e _f$.,.:w, ME W w. pw*-
" $v$$?#M? -e w[%Z-hy 1 #er'aq s.
-% n-'.* qgsf.,'. .* ,:. ;# * -
e,e*tne . p p A: *A:: e.
.aw..,; -g-. .. - - % ns. .e,..- _,,. r,M.'C.f, -QS : p.[; D- bf.q-:2 t . .:-
*3 ;;' --'s.
t .,. . . gg, .h. ,x wk N
- 5
- w. f t,-:: .;.,,.<- ?.54 %.p3%Y m&.=. .
s.. . g, -.,.?. , .: . -.
.-.x e. g.>..., ... . , I
\ Vn*.am. . w.-
v.t..
+- ve - *;s;-: gr
. a a er .um ww g g.,..
~
N O v
-- M M W L M , k y n%,,.A .M
** r.b;
~
hJ6*M;g..6.M. s. .:.6 , w:- . . - b c 4m D@2W N $.~ u_-3r:y#&' N.F a m ~~ N 2< =q . f .. e ec . -t
% Miui}[J&'ap],.%%-y. .
M~h2
.3giQ[%~ :v=.g; '-
*@MY.- 4'h$i9kcenswig:.r Y- 1
-+ .
E i ,
.M:.%s,M.. i& .-
. h~
. .1 t'8:T.w W".
WM~&Wh5 W pr % ..- %.w.W.;:. .3 :: Tr. m t % % ?'.M~ 9~ R : L.
- w$$YG:;;
st.e -- - -rryaw ... MCN~ F b)hh; ww;sMN b$'0NM-IN ins;-* D. ;..Mfd'.:.' .%,.,'k'"< n:a '-- D g2t M .5 9 N:.:. Nf--3:;:
. [3-Qege# ~- '
- & M.<, &
Rg rg6NiirM@g: We G;x.2 p .y Q;-::u w ' pc?- 1..ww ,s.n. . ;.:' .5, -j%. n-y
- n. Mms-M% . .
w >. . g . .:-. u ;..,3 . ,, . m .;n w w
.s :.: ,- :. .
.e s.4- y:a p... .mr. .
N a ..+,.m...
. k' ~ .~b. ,Y. 44:.
yk'. ., a.m. .: .~~_%. -:<-.--s... .. h i' . e nsi :- . - - . .
~~
$ ~- h' i &. nW. ,.& ~. W $. ~$ ? .' f. 'G Y..W.W.&J'($..Wil&'%";~.: $. $.:qc.g-~
...,?3.y. . :. .
.v. _ .... .
&.. ..: , e 'M,. : #: N:. m - - -
.- -A ,,, . . .D.+ -e.m#,.:;g.. S. .g..b 5 .=M,.wna.str. ----ef 4-Y::=::: .- c.
et=gy .n.s.-e.@c c.2;2. , . . . 7:yE. .u. . . . . ;@ w;q;p .. ..,'..w -s74~w; .p~,: u .-;; 7 w.
#r~ ' '"*=-e-~n w E d.-w s'.- .;;.:..; .: ....i:%.,
.~.w f.2%da#SWacs.w. ma
%gr ~gMM%. . ..30.M.&. -z u.n.:. ~. -~,y r , . . . .
X ...?. ;
~.e&*7 M 56'-2.a ;?-T:;;7.y.;. --
T.I'"$80:.D.s.h"*,.'** w
'.T"-2 -ah. 7).?t4lf%A:.M.d .=u=m @ ~, 5.',4:w,4:s . -f. ..g TM .a.r.3.[ d f.i d o,*:;,. N -drE; M
. .-Cf..r5 g, **?.2*M.c?
- 5. w . .2 = .
); .? . s .a . .
s bY
*== ..,* ._. :p. .s - K. D. ' r
+ t y* *rf, , '.w = *., ,,,. su.3 r.,y -
n ..* . ;
- s. .,3, .=.r s. , -
--~u.
-w t .. .?*.J. f-M q. ' *.. . ./.'. . '.; . - .
-'s, . 5-'j. 5.6 . .4 ri .
. . ;%. ;:: r:.&c Fy W'y.
.yQ>h . ,es:s+< . .4A -; w. 2:=,
.r.'.. 79 ,@.:i-='.1.
.: w i :y., 4:=.'$,.yic . <*.:z.'%. M. ,. . ,: -My.:.y*.J.- - -@'. . m.*.%. b6;t..**:::~e.:
t'? n- . y ' :-*y
~.-n : s .>. ->. - .. .. -n..v;.-
T.. .,;s pc a.*= < ;,L.+,. :,.sU. . ;.. . . , ' . . : +. v .,.1,..,.#-. +a W* ; ~ .-s.e=.e ..
- s. .~
, - .T..;.y"r.e.
.
- f :$iP '.. -sb.-r 4 f....-Ti :..~., .r.:. . ;. ;~
...g +... -<=W: . sf.A _, '. *t.;.a7ip; "
? : ,. ;. .,/. . . ..;.,,,-4 . g. r- .,-- ,.':.{.; , ~
i ici,-=/. :'r mv.:v,5.%. :=i.*
- c.- :*m-1,;;, .u.:,+.v
;-== = 6.::,%. fa - st;W*a,- 'W 5.ch.- ; k.t.M.:
* .~.,
A'a'l- ht;.4,.ji.n
, , .. s:m v .
- -:t Le.*v.* .;, , ; . :4.*~N.s .
- - -. _ *.~
S. . :gj !.4.% ~i:l w', z.f.;;:- lM g.:::*Y..r.s .*...
.Y.w.?rr/ r.
e - ,-*ro'*t46
'.rd.
- <.g J.f..y'.u?:'.;: -t.+ir.s.x%'tw ~
- s' M f,*w.nw~. .w.s.,--;;.%.t ^~. c.rer***..p:.. a u ;? % ,s, s*. *..e. s := c ~.
.s . A. . :" -%._...y.'- ..
Na p::.w'S$ . $- ... s &. .Q~ ..YY'- h. .o:m.~g-:.?.$w.OMb?&n.h+$$h. r c $ 0h- eectn ..=. i 1 $Y$$'&&.t?. &.r.$5.--e v..~.r.LOT's.h. 's'l:' .u. M...
.w.=:
.?- . ? :
t.O. d.. M# 9 *M W .~$ h $ w $ $.A
-r-: ;:
.M,- ..
-45E :-l$% M. . '_U..t.n.:MSM._n.
~:.:.s.;A.
2-
. ..r...e. .y:... .. 4 ,.:.v
+wzr ,,u.. v., y:->
. M. M.=-W.
.>..-n...< m%..
.7,:
,. .T,o
& yew 2OM.=-:.+
pi. f. ~ \p'%,:..i.M.,~ .u.*=%.=~i 7 ;aw.w-4 g.f,f b ,.._. p.,.. .ny.w.n,, pmM.s.(). a
. . .s r- >,. ..- ...;..;se: .ur.:.::.y.- . . . - . -
- s W 3,. .%.
- .:e-w - .-
t.~. .,ef .i r. *;..\.. .T.,. , .p. * ' ge.. 2.-E. 4.%.?.*sQ,.'.s:'t:.r .- j-n-
.', cJ '* 4 f,*.7.(.... .s.i.g.-tw .- c.m. . .
;; .,.r,'.rg..e..C. .. .; . . w .
,.; n '*:7,.:g'J. >.-
.~:...,..,...n... 9=. .wr,.n,.7..%, :. j :
- ~,ra v :. -sid.*. k.....i. :.; 7 :. s. r.,a. .s.,J ..;u...,..~ .,,i.,,,..... .g 9, ...,...r...
> . ...,y y ,v ,. ; . . .
; .,,.,,,-p... .
.,.J. . . .; i... .;. w . .. .g
. , . ~...e< <.. .. ...,n.......,,.,c.m.)...
. , a.,m,, .. ..
.s .. . . . _ . .
a.,: .. qy ,.,-:r. .. . 2 .T.v ,. '.n.r r . . . : .n w?t-
..q:. ;a.
3
-s . -
r .s.. s r; s' .::.s . ,. ...... . x4.,/.:
..., .% w csM:.! 2 -4ts.
.x ,. ? ** .a:: v s-? ....
,w;n::;.:.s.
. 5 s..,.:ct:y .. <
;..?:.x
, 3%;. .
. t,
- :n p-
..=. . ?: ,z..:.:.s.....
4-
~,.,,= ,. . m ,.
s'= '. - .; . ~.:a.
- . ...?,..,,...
gG.:, -x q.. y-:: :
- ,' . . r->A:.
-~*~.~'-;
-. < . - ;s,,,,
+'
19.-% , = ~ . . . . . - .~w :
.~ '. ? -.u : :.
...x u-- - .
.t . -
s'.,-- r -: . .u. . -
. -~,m:. . : - .;:
.. - ...: s . . . ...
.':. . .... m. .. w ~ ;
.,:. ,. . .b. ~.v .. . '.w:2x,::r.:
.w;'.: : ~ .. ,:....:.M.,:; - v...D:~. :. .r n;.e. om --*-.: .
.: %%.. ;.. *.,~. z,. > .u.
. ?.
.._. .: .......z.
.,1...
<,.s= . .a e
- . r. ;, e eme
. . p.;m;i.;'~. ...s .:
,(: : , . .-
- ..s.
.. u * ,. r. :. . e9
-~ :. ; r, x. .n. r.*:4.a :..,...
....'s*-*?- ; a e *
. ;s* *_' .r p., . s'y ..+ .,.... *.4. qx ~e . . .
s ... ,s . . c... ., :. s. ..w.4.ac. .,n.....on...,,.. . s... <,,s ... ._ *.. .;;i. m. g. .u. x. ... . r,m.-.g.,.
- e. . , , .
.M
.,,y'.e.-.
. . : a... ;. ' , .
4 * . .. e= =- :;e # ; y .;.-s.. s.
=2- ;,4.
y , , %v, ..
- 1. , .: P 3
. ,3 . . ...
*. .! . . - - - - #s-
... . .' e . . . .
. , . . t.* ,*.>s 0.; .~ .*.=Q* .*j .. ..ye_.g.
. 4 rT. -.,
.a."*
* - Q.,.1.* * .-
. -~ . ~ . . , . , f. .W : ,. J. ; .q '.
~
L ..*,_,,*.a..a..,,s.... ::id- W.* 4 ,, spa.;-..-.e',
*. c a.-
.-.....s.
,,, .. -.g --. e .. , .. : ,
- r. ,
. e
, ,~ .,j.. 7..
o.,,,... . . . , , , , . , ,
. , . v.:.7- r .. ..a. . . .m r .. ::. . . . . . . . . . ,
; .~ ..' u. .
y s . - -- .
, . .. . . ..p c..
. . ..- ... . ...~i. ..
.c....,.
. ;p i
o i i
. - + ..
**es..,..,.. .
i
. ,r .-s. ...!. ~ i
, . .% r : -. ' - ' . ~. .: , ,, . _ . . .g ** '.
. . e. . . . w .e
~* .
. ...v.:. ?..- l:.;; .
-?
.:~ , '
* .,.(.
.s
=
y,- . , , , . - ..
- y. .
. .- . .. . .a. ..n. . .
t
.3....,.,
.,,?.,.,.p.,.
i i
. .. w .
...m.
,m. .
. .. c...:..
. . u. . .- . . . . . . . c. s. .:.. . . , - . .. .... . . . ..... ,. , .. . . . .
3: n. . ;.. . .... ...y.. ..... . .. .. . . ., o
.in ;p; .: y. . .
y ,, . . . l:, m.:a- . . . . ..
. . _u..~ .
. . .< ;.y. . y: : . : . , . _
. . M. r ; '. .:.. : . . p g. ; ~:- -%.,.g:. n .:. ..:. : @ .. .:g.;.:. -:. 3. -:-p.%..,. . 3;3.x..:... .";:.;,;i.;M.r.se:
- . .. . . n. .
; ., .s pe
. . . . v . . . . . . - v:. . ,. . . . . .
i.
.c a .: .
.. ..,.~.q .-
.n...x. - m..::,
- u. e..: .. . . :. , .:w. y-. &.,.,:.,. ,... .: :- . . . . . . 2 .e
. . . . . ,..... 1. .... . .s:.w. ..;:n.. . ..., ,m.
........p... e.r. .u
. . . . ....s..~...,.......,.~,....,..,.
... ~ . . . . - - . . .. . ...
- ...,u
. ..w. . i g ... .. .y. 3:..w:. :. ;q. . . 4 .. . .q . g ..; r. ,; . ~.s. ... . : . =,.w . +. . :. . ..
_m. . . . &. .w. . _ . ., . . .....t. . 1 n. .-c.. E- q .,.: Fr
- .. . n ,. , < .
.-. FOCUSED MANAGEMENT ATTENT10N ... ..
. ,e.x,; . v.:.WM.u.m -
%-:.:. g/:.
? s;:;
-e . ., '.. .. .' .. =. . . . " ..i... . . _ .. . .,. ,_' .,.. .. .=. . . . ...- ~m
~
- s.. MANA6ER ;f C..).l QjMM. __ M.
y:.::.4.2.
- . .. W: : ~r. . .h. ..7:: . PLANT!.'.'.; JJ[.',r~ @.;-:.
.ya.:.~,.ges.m.: s.r.r.m r
;.=1 - my -s k.N. ~w m.
+,..g.:qs: .:g, . .m. 9;:::: ::yg3gg76gg&
y:.p: . . .. . .s q-:pm-.; p.g'!.,.+-:. :c ..ys. . , . .,
-o, E
. .n . ... W. _. ,.-+.~. DF:CRUTCHF1El.
..g. , . :x........n.
.a...-e.~.,..... . . . ...;. . ..
. r..
. .. . . . . . ~
.'T ' ._.IPPOLITO ':. 7:k.ss:M,. ;
...,.: . .w.;w.w_
. .*u.. . ~.7/
.. .f.. . .. 2 . ' .m.,
. . c.3.. .. .
. COMANCH..E..P.
.., m . m ,. ... . . .. ..
. . .EAK:'.. %.. . m.. a... ,~ . ...m. .: . g.w ,m ..
. m. ~.g.q@w.. h.p ._
uygu.. h..ise::v;ggg.m.. ..gggg
- f. g ,i@:d6M..W.. . w.-7.f. E i.mR. E ..
.y;g;,~ ' ';.'; ' 7.,%EL:-?M.:y$g:.y }c; .;:.m.g,,,,. .:i.. ..
. ..g;.w.,
.s.. y; 2 .. ; .
. .: . . . u:.. ,
y.:gg%;
'=S*.'-5:"M
. > j. . *qy . . ?} . -[ .
yyx@.,.;' ;
. - .w. , . .. .,. m. . . m~an.zw m- e- , .-c.u.-e . ::. . , m. , ,y., .
O. $.. v. .:h:Y': $ .. ,} w Y*.{ M : . . .. . . ,. = . . .. . . . . . -&.; .:,,, @WQ. .$9Eifis& ./2. m.N.a.n.
'.*fWU &';'.W&
%56R.IW.... .. n.w. _
^
. , , % .,. ,$...,. ..$.$ , ......,.,..,;.,.,.....s.;,.,.:.;.'.,.
. . c;.r : Y. . . .&. . . . . .
. . .w - . ... -;;.: ; . .,:,. g; w1 :.a ,p..,;lW.
- . ..; . ::::.c. ...
m.
... . ,.,, c . .. ,..n,: .. .. 4... .. ..s.a ;
._.,.z,.,.,. .. g. . .
. . , , . . r. .
.2 . .
** * *'ii. .
[ **
*".e~
T." . [ .f i,.* ,, b, ;,, \ .* E. Y
-.'{O..
gr..py ~= - ,. -}*a .. ., a.a s - s... - -. .. e: . ..'.e .<: - .<s .g..-? .;e. ..,.o.. .,<.,, J.Ms %.;;.:,id.MC.W . .1 .,,e , a.$$-'*%h*'-'N
- A. : t'/.,zisYs'tek$.h
~ ' ~, O.EsMI.f '# - '% .[.T.f
- A M y= M '%y.k.h.7[' W .~i.d . ; '#isDY.".*.'5%.. .
s i
.'-;r ..?
- .~f*.i.,?.W. :;,, .CQ *:&jrMM*<6Al@G
. .=.>.
. . 8:. . .n. ..s%.w. .. w.&=&. g..-r. . a?ic
- ~. . .,., ,.~. T. *m. . . .;.:... - .;.w,,.,. ,u.4.W . w...;,.' .-.,..,.;.;;w. .-
.;W,,DTd' me. g-is .M.aW2&h.w t _. .;
m
..-p.W ' f, .*.,'c* 'y :"dg .;r .. 4 .,
. . . ... -+ -$..*. 4.y .s.;, .- r
., .a 1.. . . ... .a 4GO' ,,.any.r., gg- . .
,'" r* ~ . * ';
q,.a, fU $.t-2' :. . .:.@... m Mpa .,,,.g ;,,,,:.q .. 'f. "CRt
?-'**
f.h u. m
.',* ' . Q. . . . .. .. .. . v. , L. ;.y;d. . , ,; .
. S.S. 2, *. '.~m~< a w C.J.N;5'"Jll':..."'".
,J.:: G., . . . . . . .- .
;~' l <
<<......b ~y wg h.>;,
.&.- s,;4:,,cf4'.h.l(.: (. .
c . s .7 % .. ,., .w# . g,.
-.. ,. .. s,, .w. -..m
,i m m.m: :.. :r.a w:v:.-;..m--- m ,N.y..
n . ,.., .- w...p:.s p.v. ~Tw.;~i < d. w ; a..n s=. u. ~s. a p
-'.'+Ns;q%:W .
. :.eu o .s. ? 1.ksMy. a.
,- :ccw.s ;im... . >:.n.
r, w., n::: - A__,2.. ~_ . _ '.:.,. p;;gm%.: ,: ,
. rr ..JWe..s.:rw L .. . wf.:.+.m;
.t.v
'.m . w.t.4~p W
.. m:. 's e
.h,a.- x
. c: ,,,
..? . .y -
; 4 v4.;..g. . ;t _vy..we
.m . g j.n 9p j;mir.-.c ._. . ; ;
. . . gw. . . . . . ( :; ..u- p. , s.
.. ... .,,... ... ..,<. . ~.
+ - .af; . ~~; .e-..... ;
. .e. n#c.c.-, .u.,,.. -
.,<. -. . .g.-- :- -r.:. c. .?w a,f e
...,. ~. . .- . ..
, . . ... . .p
,., r. . . s.
, . A. ; . ,; easy_d. .a..: -; .s ; a. ..x
- r. . -
.4
....w,. , s. . .m._,,
.s f.n,.. C. r . i ;.,. .....4
.nc , y,.. ..sar.
,.c. .g. ,,
S.
- . ..g,.y., 4,,.,.s,..
., ...;.g ..
4 d.s
. t;6;..?e.,g
. . . .. ... .,..j ..:,;.A x...
,,,,b,. 9 a . - , * . ,
.j:, ;
.. ,-...g .- .s , , , . , . . , , , . 3;. .
. j . . _ .
.m .m .. .
. .us .. ...
I.k ". . ,f".. ..k , khN.*jf. e- .r.- [.5[; i, .[. ~ , ,,
, .[ f
. . . , . y . . . . a .. ;.,,,".f, . .:.,]. ..u. .s.,$.
-~~. . .
[^ d'. s .* . - ~
.a.. *
.ss.' *
- .r .t.k. . =._ a . ... .....?.. .
.m. ..n: . .te .- yy .v.* , s'~.a
--.? .
. . . .s ,.... . . .
a,. . . ,m.m
. . .s : . s w. va 4.....~
. . .. .s..;..
s.~ _
~ . .~. :.. .- p:. . c.s i* .
..~.4."'.r.*..... y ~. .;t- r ; . Q.,:. g . ,s... , . .
.,,y,:.,r_
.......u..',...
r.-
. .2 .,m,.. ..u...; ::. . ..,, .ng.s -. 4.y. y.e ..,ae 3 g: . ' . .
s:,y. 3. ;, ,,.?y...... .. y: .
.. .;3;; .
. s. . . , . . . . , . .. . . . .y m . . . . . . . , . . .s. ,.
.- .. ..,.,,.,,s.
. . .. a. :,., . ,. ,.. .. . .. .
a.. ... .
. _.: s.4 . .
' . ;., . ... . . R t,e
.4.... ,-, -, -. .
. ;. . . . . g.,.. y '.
..5..'._.,.
..,... g
. a. :. . .
. -. * .;;i x
.*. . . .,, ; a' .. ,
- .. v a.'.. 4
.-s $ ., ,
6. t - . .
. i t .?.
.s..
P
) 4.
.te.
t. b
. L
l i
.. 74 &.
g
,Y d . m
. . a.
,.M.. .-
h M
. d. .r g 7..
. 3,.- ... .. .
m 2.. .. c 2.......-
- .,% . .n ; ..
;....p
- (t) ..
, , ,7 . ., % .. .y,,
Cy ,, L. c:.v .. , , . , p ,, . ; . rC =)
.. l
* . . g.
.y ._.;. . . y _ Q.
- f. . . .. . . . . .g. . . . . . ;e -
'. q) Ls.1
- a. . .o; . C , .. ..: . -
- i. ,.
,n. ., . g, .',.
4 .t. m 1
.d.
, . . .c a. +.
f.m. , c. . e. }.:.
. .~
] .; A O- ..
~4 i.
. . . - ..e :~:H.. ".
.w
.~.. c (/)..(~.: .:- --
... ...wr: y.,e > ,.. s. . ..f37.
s . ..
. - : . . ., g ,s . . , . . . . .
..a..
Q .. .: s
' *~;. .
q'.m.> . ; * . c.
'.:;k %,..L ., .,..c.
.'G - , : y .: . %. -
M. .;;.w.-a.N'v.
,p.;, ~. OQ>=. ..Qs .. . * .. . t. -*y.=< .
. . . d,. ...M.,
e e .O . ,?&. r.,
~
.Un' . g. g
- w. .
. . . . ' H. . ..s a v. . .p. _ . s.:.. -
-. c M. , v. Q - ,
.e..e.
.o. .... . . n ........
h . . ay.. ... .
.. c e. e .
. . *'. = i';.p~-.u ,..v.-.>.C-.~..~..:e
.v. ;;
. . + . . . , :..<.5. .'s, !. .A.*.* .ss .
*O 4.* &.~, .* ~~'
- x.v.v ..': ,g. ..~
x ,. . ..
= :.', W
.. > - -; & ' ~.
. - ~.,. . ,< . " . . . -
a L y . . ,.g.,,1
? : ...
w.a- -
. ~.*
* * . -< -< d*e
-t:$Q ,.~."., .y-p . . . 4 r.w..e.s. .~..v~*%..
.-. . . .,.:... .- .r .
- .' Q '.MJ.
- k.tO::Y .'. % %c;.r L. M ':*o,
..-.r~.*4,
.W-f%. . .D.'QQ W .. s'1-c- b T M . % J.
Y 5 ' '
.?i *C r,K.Y 1*'hiDf s
Q . NW, ~..&@'. AlM:&',. I*.75 $ l
< Ci O .IJ 3% .D.f:,fM.5Q. '
- is.x@..9. tis . :.w.E. *p...:
&. . * . . .y' C- ~ %.. . .$?.&Q.W Q
...My? it
'.: e M. p %.&. .<..s &.
.... m
~f ~, . Q :s k.;^ . P :.,'.m_s GQiM s .w. .s =t .-d'
*..M.. . *. . W.
t<W - ;%W .
,.. ;.*,. - * .c .. -
y 7 e.~r ,.s; -c..~ . .ic.
~r. n.;r .r1 :. H . - c. Q W)c,. .:
6 - m .. .
.p. .s
.g . ng .m.. - Q.n. '+x
- u. g,- .
- .~.
n.y %.?.r ~..y;V i q. W,?. W' (f[ .....:c:& ~ ;.. - P..*.s l~ . t.ven p '. %..a.~.:s.... Y. g'.q:: .;5.i=.%. . , +:~ N. - . %~ . . ,~,%..
- p. ...' ~
.g l
. .* -.:.,0 Q s'*le..' ,.
s.
. M.%
. .. . . 9,m.* % : ,..-Q
- . ..N.
.=...-. s Y hh *
. k. .
'** k&
-Q.'h.". **Y E Ylt*h.** h ' " ~
-I k(z ,..
- K ~
.- bbN.f.
N .: .e [N:.k.N.b uc,%*.t- S.'h
- f;. ..L
=* . -*b- ..
?
[ . . ; %* . NEh...T5 'r k., .N - * ... L,. ;. Y ' *. . h~n l:.* T
)-c. 5 ........ .* *:. ?.-
,".~.Q.$-& .: . :.e N.
- l. -. W. S..v.;4 ..$. ..
.n M . .. . .. .,,. . .%. .
.~ . .
.. *. ,*:c..4;: g.J.*4 n l *: ..t
. ,,.. ' i, *.;. :o C i .
m.* ..;;%F R*. 'u*.N-.. %...x...'..,
~ .
2 *C. $ 4 d. :'M*?.Q g. g.: y.3V'#..=d-
...~;;.:;
[N,8 4.51. G;;,iii.d"$ .'
, ..? .R%f.&
- W: .
. *'* :. % : S *
* . .. ~
f . .'. ..f.4l .; n.. f..r.'
}." ~ h. 9 -
~
h *> Q ~ =: , ,$ f. . * . s.
.'&.&hi: Ce nr m C+
em.m. . .. *
- W ..$%; Y Q...-:.a.>*4a.
~
1 m wn- 2".~ . C .M
- ce. O * * *
? G&;.;$O
- s. . . .
incnnl.m.w..
,O,,,_ $ . .=., -..
};f.&sis.'.
. {-
.;W
.$ ;Wl. umt- '4 ?"<:. j% Q '
W
- .s" Gr-s 7 A.;:{7.
-g.5*T.7..h,c.,... * ? '.
i.i:(-C.$.c..
. g. ... ... . r. . g- '
.'~~.l.~. - ..
,O .
. - Q .
n - . . . .-. . ;. , u.. k&;*"e>;., W' ~E.' (.n
.T.' .gg?*W f *** ^ W ' * *.%.s ,*!;*
. . . .W *?
G,.
.y's& *1.2 i
- n .Q.' Q ng ,"- r ' ~ ~: ,' 3g.,q -
- w*tL,
~.-f W ,y. .m .
* :i V
*'g, kq.,'J:,:, a%H .*
.~ %<
~
.Q . = -~~~ n
.y.* .** q .**{ .~.*.%.'.;s
.~ , . *:W
*t.
w - U C.- . +~
?
.z. . e;. & . ,..,...v. , . .~-..; q". QQ}..Q ; -. <+. , ... -. e' .. *
,f, . ..
wp. u.. ? ..
. . . , , . . ..z. ..... n. W. .-y.
.. r.w ,:~~.,w.
v .. .v.. ....-. .-: .: . ..
.> 4a. . o *..a. , :e .
n.~~- w-N. . .M 1.n. .? ,t..m..L.-W.Y.
- @y " . W '.: " '
-j.~.+. ,M.
... . . . ..-.W.f 4. 9. a ia.;;E.-
A b.- .. . gj - .S .
.%e. -
W .. ( ..' ,,. .~;'. q '. e~,... .. . ~~. ...~....- .~.. . p _
. . .:a. ..*....
. , .. . . . . . . . . ~..;: . .
. . . -.. .. r. .
~.y . :. - . .. , , . . , .
...? d . .:,.+
* = *
. . ., . . .'s. .!. , ,. . .. .; ; ' .". . . .>
-%. ?. ., : .
M:
. ,a . .: ~ . .s . , . s. ;,;. ..'.? .. *-. .Q 4. . .....% . .~ ,: .
=
s..s
. . n. .nc ... w . y,v, . . ,..r. '.. -, .. ...,. a.. ... ~.s.. v.
, t
~s-e'J,. *
. *b. .",2 4 d, .~h ...'.. . :,,h,.e..*.b..;...
.-Q* , . -. *.b. . E. ,.b.M.~.
.c- :-., . ;. .'. .~ . . . ....r . .Y.f..a-S .5. . .I.* . .. . p ib $. *--
E*A %. . *.c. - . ' 'l *. . .
.s. as: ..a..<. .
...s..:.. . -
- m. p: . ..' . .z. . . . .. . .
, *... , .s
. . .'
- e, ;, 5 < ** :t . . * .,,,,e. * * . . . . . . . -
. e
.k . .. ..
. = ;. .'..,J; . .-
* ,, ,? .i - , .*
.J c. c? .. .g. .
- W, ..
gy.
~*
. . 4* ]*. ?j.Cl ' .
s
. . . ..e.. . r. . . ..
4'
. _ . s. :
s '. ,.'. ..:. . d'
#... . .l t.*;..
.: . ' . g-t- .. .j s .
,.'..,.,g.'..~, .- . <g,..*** .s.. . ;- - . ; *
- .. . .- . .*. 2 : .
3
.) .
... . <% . <.r.-
.. .. s. ._
. r. ~ ' .:.
- V . .. 7;. . . ..
g . .. < . .q , ,,;., .. . .
, .. .y 2.. *
.a . .
.~ ~
.- e . ,
e
- g. . .
.... . -. , . , - .-> - . -a - - . - ~ . - . . . . - . _ _ . , - . _ _ - - - _ . _ , - - . -
1
. l
.r- ,
i . , . - .
- ......... . . . . .. ... . . . . . ... -a ..;..
. .~.. . ..-W ..,
'. .' . , .: . s Q , c ' 1
- G ;* . . , . . .,.
..s.. ..
a .. .,.... . ..
..:-.. 9 :' ..;. ::.q ', . , . . . . .. .. .
, :. ...:. . , , ... T- .; ,7. s ;. , .. s. : . . . . . . . . . .
.. .- . " . . ~ x , . y", .. . . ::,
q.*p.),:: {.....,. .. , :.;; : s . . ,s . t . .. . . . .
- g* - . . % .-. : -. .,/. p.. *: 4a.< % .m .q. .-J % - s p .-- *
~:1 6: ..*:Lp.e .. * .." , ( # . i. -
g f g.;;r,'P. ,. syd .
.I ~ ~ ~ . ..,.' . . .
,J:f :.7 -*.y;]..e/.' W. #a, %.,.pr;,a#c - 4* ,4,a ...Q/;
. .. .. ; .res? ,w 5. v .s . 3
;,,,4f;( e ..M,' t , , , /e.w.p,,*@(=*e.
< :3 S .. d .# .,s. q.j p :, .,N
,,,,,j**' g .--*0..,
* . . . ' . . ,.e.,z ff t i'.* :
. * , ,s , +p .e. ....p . .,. 4 -ar y . . '
y d.,vs ,.... .s .
...e,
.~..n.. * ., .a..g..74 \ .*--
ear
. . ,i. .,. .. .e:;,
..b.;-
. ., . s.3:y ,. . .j. g , . .s,a.4..U e- .,. . , . . . .
.... . ; ..p:-e. a.',,. . >-- : . e . 's. .=;.. . :n.--M.%4s%." . --.y-4 ,.,4: %. ,. ss- .%.,v:af.g.
n% .,; cg s. ,.
.N.... i..mm
. r.. .
.s..w rb, v.W. . , . m .
y.%., ,. A..
. . -i L.
.t
. y . . - -
.f. hNM . ., 9);.:* 2,iie . ..r2 fp,.. *y *. - f ,#. M: : = .*'ti .".WJ*:,*'6.i
.f ej.h 4.
. , . = *s:.S . p%E -g-l.-F:pa*'i.= d X
. :' M- *
- g.-.. - - . k -
tgq-5 -
' W.*. Y.
- % @..; o v %'{. $q,.
$ $.Wrh,,h3 si. # 5 9. W ;d W.,$
EfdKMg5MsW Q.i'*'^-'N?,ff-$ $ QFe,,,;,..
?. L .y . .. .Win%.;a:6@
Lu M b, $.,,, , c %-
<. + e -
.. .. .. ,;e J*'.<~ _..,
r
- :y.;;.. p;.:r. , :... %~
.n.
~~ ;.:-w . .e. de,+am .>. . .:4.m,%peor.'~' : y.
. orry.
.::.a ..
k' . c ms
. t
... =.n a . .
3 ,1 - .T.-r .- ;;. y q. '.,. O. W.g,.
-. . .< a-u a r:r- .'"
F..:.. . ,* '. ..;4.:..t.%.'..
... : ' p#r.g
..? ='5 . . .
>b**:Q.Q.Wr. ..:- . .. .:.v .
~. ke-
;. . . t ';., -
. .c. .,:. w. ;sg, v;.4.*.s'+s'i3dm.]n.%,4 -
-4i
.~~-
w.
~~s::
- a .m,: . ~. a;,: > c.
*%..f.f*::r .s .*.,.s. .. . f. a.'.
. ~/ . ,w.'..m, 5 Ca.: %: * .~s.p u, .*e 7-
, ..,- p ;. . . .c - . p > sC*?. -'.ms-Qm.
m.- e , .s M. ,% j?..Mrey;y. i.. .. ..
< a.p .n,.s-,e . . . .
.:u . . .
c.i. [ . "- % d. .w.: ,W. ..s mn.f;e . ,Ng*
%. . ,,,:r&... .,j;,-c > yfi: J. . :;..e.'
.; . - . . . . . ..%. .s.i,. Ne'..%s4/@m .9t*.45'h-s y@m.-
.. . ,,3.... m M. y ,t: .s...
c
..,.s..
. , .c. .. ~.: .y . ;.. , ,v . ,.,o.
.:r .
.M e
p.
.y .
t.
,+. *&.
..s
. o..*
W.
. u. , .
m ..
...-1. . -- > f- g<.%. . ? : ~ ..a. . *~.a. k..
E. . , . . . . .
.:. w
.~-g :e -
e..~,:
. w.x
.c. .
. 3 &, - -. %.
...:..--..4....._,c....n...>......-
t
.; w:.M;. ,.: ; y'.e.,. .
f.:.-
%...'s.d,. er.
1 9. h .. - .
<c2..',.,: c. . +.::. a. . . .,: . .. . . .
. . : .o.w.'..\
. , r. .. ,.i:: . . :...
N.w.. M. .n:3.: . .: -..;;mj - a: 3- r. r. . . w s.,..
. ~D..,*>. ..-. = :
.. *#?,1 s *.. . . %- .p- r . .w. ' .
N,
.W:.v 2
.. s.
p.; ;~~ -, a. i . a:.s g.:,g. y.p- 4 r.-%2.. p-cyg83rc.q: q.d;s' .;;w -q.4.':. ~ .-: ;.,,.c;; m:. ~
' r:-4: .. -
- p. . g! .
w - .- g, grew . s
+r heef=t- -
s ..c.. w. r :...- n.
~.=.,...~...xv......
- .u C- -. u... u..
- r. n :- ..., ~
a.
..J,0,#. s.M/h. -P- - -: / . " r '*: '- '
5 -
$ . P.. H i . %: %.~ 9:a ' -: p%3' d#iJW'N .' . "b:'. 4L,,@, .3M.Bd.L'@M '
3: ~.- s : ' 2.3 d %.. <- .
. .* ** *Q .
I . blyN5@%::;.;.=~,
~ .oW.V:.
.t.x A *. <
.M.L.z.-::@. *.re . . .
- :: { J a'. ,.. ,.E ? . % 7:5'
-' .-. .n . ..s; :- i. e .,;' 4 x.,:;.
. .;; :.' 5.Y" ~~ .:.:':.,': [ .'-;
- .p. v' vc- ; * *> - " ~~ -' .
.y-t .
t .. ,, -c.....,.. .a y t t
- .s ,.g . . .. .., a. . . e ,. .. ... . . . . ,. .c-
. ..,n.
.... .....+.. ,%.i,.a ... ..-. .. . . .. ....<:......, .tr>O
. . :, N. c X.? ;... . .- ..r . . . :. - w f-.
.:f. ,-c -4 . .-
tN a d3 2.i@ M. 5 . sq. g;'Y* s . [N',.'mez-I "s.$ M...%..hb. ,1,f*:.*#'3:* .k5 " '. ' . ' ,
. y'- .'*
w e ,., .:. s.'s. :n.
,.u. ,r. s.ms,:. , .c r. .
l
. y.1;<e. ; ,,p ;..'.. ..
s: . . y. . , . 9 . s:e_ ::; m.. ; : ;%. . <. ,;. .y. . . . , ;.. . .O g
, . 2 . :. . ., . .
. :s;,-- .
.y
\A a...-:. . .. . _..~ . . ..: . .r 2
.. ? .V. ~;L, ."- .c,. -
t.
.= ..*.
. . ..... .- . . . . . . , a*
Q
. . s.~~ '..
a:
,' i.:s .
- et;. -- ,.%
a ..: *.; ~* Wc . + ' & Q
- 8. '\ -.h. s , 6.'... * .M.>. . . .;j.
. * . . . . ..r... '* * . !s.I;s . ' ' t f . 'y '. '. 's. *' :J'-..'.* a n .
, ui.....:...;,..... :.:r 6 . ..
. ., .. .~..,=.!....*e,-.*.
~ . ....:;
3.,..,...
'- te. .<
y e
..a. s. .
. +
** . W .,
I ' . . 4. .=.'.,. ,. . . '
....J.... . 6 6 . s 6
';R O'S:-: . p O%:
' ~'
l . ~H5.,':: :* A ..' h.; 2*U.10 . - Y ';T: C. ': " . * - '* .O." Ql.-%.,:, : ; .?}y'
. a . O ,.. ..- ...... ... . O . , . . : .: C
~ry. q. <.p:. ,.: . .. ,n o.. < . .e , - - ~;
r
\ . ;. , u y _._,
- q. ;.. ..: ..,:
- r. .. ... .. -........;.g~.. . .- :: . . v. . -......:...
. .. .~
. y ,, @ . : - . .
- u. .- > : . .-
-MNb MbMN
' ~ '
- f. .' i
. .. .~. . . . .. .,
- r. f
, .7 .- . .+.. . . . . ;,. .
. . ~..
g .
. .c. ... .
' ~ '.. .
.m
. . ... . . . l, .
; ... - e . .c .. .
r . ?:, .;' . p . . . - . i. ,~ .f. E W ;. .. ...?. :. :p.*:;..
.. . ^
.j .
. g ... ... ., - -
. . .. . .4 , .
. ;.: . &: w ,. . ., g .
; -- . .f . e.,n _. - . . ..
n.....,.-. m.
- . . . , .. .,. . . ,. n.;_.; . :;.n . a.a.~;,.
....s.. .. , .
.y . - . . ._ .c
.. e g. .y,. . . . .
p.. y-y
. c. y, . w, y_.: .1.y.. . .,, . .. :. p; c...-
y;..y.p-::..;:,::y._ ,g tu.4,j.:,- 7.... :. . ,. . j. , ,
~
n .. .n.,~,. .a t. ;,, ,.-
. . ::.: ... m. - ., g. . a :,.. . :. -*,; . ,: 3.;p , .
v.,.v .
.- .- ." ,, p.. . w .e,q;,.e ig's.
g.g ;*.. . , :;,,, A.-e . . 9.,.e. s . . , g. .;,;;,,y. , , . .,e
.:.s. .$.F..*.*,g.- .
..q N- . ..... . ,.. - ;. . : p ,:v .
s.;*;- .- ..,. :..... ,e p.;r.a.eL.b....v. ,:,,.... ..
- -.r -. . .-r......
a..,_,..-
>...n
..s.. .~, ,
e , ..:. . .. .s
. r . . .~ w. . . s . , s . . .. .. . s.,
. .. s* ..#. .....;+..
.,...... ...,.#. ....,e.
.v...
. w ,.. ..
rm.. %....,......,....,... .- 4
- .. , -' *. =' .. *.. . . .r ...' . . .. . .s w..e
. . .:.. . ;4 .-
- p,,
.c<*. ' ,s, f y;, .,,,
'*:=;: .
"'s ke .-
.,;r"
%,,,; ?? ,
YMa'Q. .a.Wz,M:. .. s,.'M W.4, r>
.a .e., . . . . . w:, .
- W -?i4 . s.,. a. . h y .. . .. . . -
. ,.. , . ,. . .s.
~.y.~ .. .a> .
" ._s y.,,
.ma .p., . . . , . .c ..;. .
D't%*~ .: N#I.%,9W Cl.?. a:?L. h . :. . . . ' ' * @ W.V. ;@. w'C','[ g?.~ . ~w m . .
&n :.:
L n.ewe*. e ~.. i n.ee.*. n..f.:2.. .:. . .. >:+my+ r^-W@wa.. E ,,.m- e , .:..ms.., ww.vo.2.
- e. . ; i + ,~.,f..r *
, . a. *+ ';;pr: . . n .e :- . yrm.ny.
.dsu **- c .. . .
d $ k , A. -g;. . .v9/@'.g. ; g;;, .;,.,ch ., g.* . 7,, 7
.,.s.e .
,. 1.* . ra , *
.a. ,;;aggstr...
t . M** ; . , - j2, a t.", ,,, r .*.Q<. M.h.. .u ; . / , . '. ; ., ,. e s .v2 . m..
,. . .. =.,. ;
. . . .w;* , .
. . . .,g=m,
. . .. .y.. ..o.,4.r . . 4. + s , . . . . . ..
;;. ,r . ,,.,;a, . . . g
. ; .y.s . ' -.. ... r< -.a,
. ..-a .... . . .. .. . . . ,an . *.t . ,
Ena:. @@,g$. N. t.. ,,... . N, . .. , ,
. . , c. . . . .... - $. .N.. , * ., p -T@M. .. . . .y
, , , . , y , . . .y
^
; ..: ;g g, M
... swd .
y ! ., .
.j . .****T**.
e . .
* ,g. +.4 , c ]t.*,a.. * .; g s
.,...=
. v: . ., .. . .
, , .: . s , s.t. , . a'
- .4 , , .. . . . . r*.
.. ; . / ,
. . 3..s, O..-. %,,,. g.,... .,.
..,s.-.*~^.. . .
, . . . m. .
. e
.s...,,..r c.
. .ff.f.
A.... s..*% .. . y*. , ,.. -<. .,, , s g .3 . s . t w #. 4 %. . . . . . .
..- .<.Ar..- is s .%*.
~.
1_4 n.;.. . . . t .... _ . ;. . . . . 7 '
,, ,7f. j?;. .. (f.g'n.}*.;yf;' , . %s
, .d.;- {.. . ;'., '.; ' 5r ;as. e , 7N..;;.~, Y.*4. ;,.,;,y
, ,h%,;w: :., * .. '.j..* ~' ._- ,,.
y.
. g- s!t;. . 3.rm W.-w ,
,.....w.,
f.* */w.,. . - - s :. . . ., . .; .-
. g,.. . . , ,.n
..4 ..-..r f. ..+., .s . . . . .
.. . . . g, y * ,. ; ,. . 1 . * .r , sp .. t:. .A .s;.,:. , ,:.,
.y . ., ;.;;, g,., . . <; .. .
h.y." .... ..; .'+ 7.. ', ., ... ';:: . . . r'.
. s. . .; s
>_=:y : . ._ ,,. , . . .
. tyr..
.* . ,f
; . .,a . .%. ' : .~:- y .,. ,... .: . .,. ., e. , q*,. . " 4. *; :;, *, , g ... . .m ' ., pw. L;,.~,1.*,;
.;... . , u.=-
gey -- , , s ., %s ,. . . . . . ,
- ..- .i ... . : .; . .. . . ,. .
t
.e..,.,,.,..s
~
s r
- r. ,
,..g 4 s *.;.. *; ". . .. .*
'. .,;,,c .e C..,. .. . e.,;c~ -*
mm.m. . . .
- s. .. +* - .. ..z.
- i.
%4,r*.I e- ::.*'.: .'. . .'.*: .
EM.E. h.. .-fCs;.g-
',5:;;.~.b.. .
. m.-:.;
d.. i: : . :
,,,.e
. c.
~. m. ... ~. .. - .. . . - '.
u.. .s .5..s:, f' =.9 6 .me- . . . ' .:. *.. -- n .m. - ,,s
*;'y.sh J ".r p: W'....,. ~
,,p.D-~~-**, .
'..?.,y~t
. P_ ,. : y , ,
3 ...y .e ~.,.;, :. . . C a .mv, .-
- c. . s. .
- 4. ~;.:. *F .' .
..,[. ~;j:j, :..
.. s..
. , . . ~ ~'.:.
..;.-,.C*T4% L. M 5.
- .. j~ 43.W.41 - *
..s
- .* :, . : 3
..a...a. .. >
d.. C.s7 g.y . t , : L. ..._.:. :g
.: .- . ~* , , :. .
~ '- ? . .
v.-
~
".r : 8. .
-. .t
* ...S .c .
- g. *Q ..
. . ~g . . '..T..-..9..- r .
, : , . .., ,j -
. :. . , :~- .:,...~ g:, .,, ;,
.t . .. g . . N
..r.. ,.. ,-..- . .,- ,
..; y
..--- pi ,.
- +3..y . " ' ...* * . . .; .
. ~ ,').
. <,y' ly.):..
. yt.j '. . t.;.,_;,s.j,' ~ s.'.t. _ ? -,' r.. ;. . ,,a * *gi
, i g,.
. _ ._ ,...,c.~- ..
-....,c.. 'g.
(.. ** .e. -% 6 a . g,. ..-. ; .f.e& .. : 6
* * -.. * - , * ,O g*
- p k.
. . E* f' [.
0-.
\ ., *)* *'*[
Y. s . g *. ..- .R.
~ -
*,. s. . .:, ag :
2: i:p . W, . . . .%%... ... a . ..: . . ., .< 2
- .r.::: . m. . y . .
.. ;. , . .. ,,.g- -,
..'%...;<. , f. m, . .v. .. n .? .;. ..,,~;, ;... . .p....-
s - -- .
# e* , . . .. . .
*,.g,.. .
, ..,, ..-*g*. ,. . . . . .,.. ,, .
l ,3 ;
. - - -; .s . , .,, .
. , * . a* ,dy. .. = a g. .< , * -
.=s .-
- ... . s
=
1 m.' * . *
..*=.* .
- .- - . . . . = - ...
.. ... e. . . , a ..,
=~- .
- e r.. .. .. .. .
-,9' - . - , . _ - . _
f.,
l 1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2 This is to certify that the attached 3 proceedings before the NRC COMMISSION In the matter of: 5 NTOL STATUS REPORT 6 Date of Proceeding: Friday, June 15, 1984 7 Place of Proceeding: Washington, D.C. 8 wer'e held as herein appears, and that this is the 9 original transcript for the file of the Commission. 10 11 12 13
.mv urtman 14 OfficidI Reporter - Typed 15 16 CW 78 18 Offplal Reporter L Signature 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .s' l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court R.,.rting . Depositions l D.C. Ar 161-1902 e selt. & Ann p. 269-6236
^,Wu . . - - - . .~
. ~. N
%-..r %r....~. w ,.- 4
,- ,; . .. t, m... ..e v - %:. . . . ..,:,s.
7- - M .c , ..2 ,w e . ..
. . y,w . -
. . .E.
9 s). . . ,
"y' n..
Wg. u.Qecq.W
" ~ ' . : ,,77 .;l f [
.". n,
., ,. . . . - - . i . ,. ,g e
yne
- m m.w.a, r; .
.,,. s .
.-s -
- . '?{f s
****"m*5Qu '. . . . , , :.
's* "T k *. s J~ e,*
* ,f ,e** ; , * , . . , .,.
._o. %
e .
...y., y.9 - -. . . . s; , , .- ,.
-]'..ay,3 4 -Jh 'w,.,
c.
,. e - sr b., - s ,4;N'*T I* y 4 a .
n ,. f;f;,[; g, w-' ~ .5, j] ,
+ -
4- ,p, . , , . Gr ia v w,, } m.a.f-
. ..-,.2 o. . . . ?. . .m .,
.. :: ~ ..,k a.m n.
gpe , - ,~ 7.u s W- .N q n..*h.?. *I:shk'f.'hh;p...,.;,sWN$ . . , y$y ;..
. mu f.
, ' f b. .W'
- .., ~. ~ w.-m:a v.
. .. n su 757 g.m' w Sg - _ ~ .f 1$' [MtWMN W.T.a A 74Ed J~ ".f
~ '
hf M M ( M" N W '[j$" M,$ g' iMMr/ns kNN$NkhNMNk@,M~'.[NMS;.MFN kk# INN bk w&.n S a m $ ,$n$ i
~
ew W,g $e. n> $ g,% $w,o
~
,e 7 n. ..
. uc.r:;f &.
.s. ..~ n. e
..:w*-of -
~ .u. rdes%
.. ~. ' .. f.p. g* ,2
. . @'. ,, .,, T %~.
~ ;*.u; F',;; N- ,? ~
My~,*w. . i.A*rbt
% ,41 f A~
'. u,-
. ;;< . pec.4' e .' w. k w . y:
e, e M. _o m.4 ~,r a- - r.; y,.
- - -c
%. . s
... ..:'tC *17~? $. .
2,
.*, i.
m.;,3 , . ., nyv ,..- <. .-
% ~
Y a-
.: ~ !
f:.+g' g, . hY ? nd ouw : n. 5".wic e # -
.- m.4 =
&- i
% w ',e, ' .* .aA y.,~. hf_'- ,m . . ,; , .c' j- W (~.,,
Q[c.*g.: -# ,z+:4 4 __ % v,
. s-s
. , . .., _. . . _ ~. U%, <..p V'~
h, ps .gj a.R$.W*:".;*.3 f* '** %~ . % <s.m.k .,..
..*' % = 4r: . n. ' '
ey*
.^
'w'
** *' se -
yn=6 r 3 . ,, s ?$e Q .:s-
-l. ,
* %. V.
-L
.cs m' ne=.*O' w:
=~..a 8
% P.
A ~ . . . w. w. ., >. .._. g. - 4jy f E. Y .Qsf m b
- pg . a h-
?w.~yhb?h $$hu a m m %. ,._gm n.4 g .2 ; 4 . ga m. Q L
4 _ 7 ,y .s . M.tgi@n,;, 7g: r, m g,.:;ia-7 .. g,y; ,.e . . p
+E
"- '~e's.* -
.. 'w g w~ 6, .
.A %%%s ~ ; :,,,.g... m . 9W3,, . QQ .e
~
.if 'g W y . -)
&_' ^
'^ . .';:. _ .
gK,ff.. R.Q.n "G :.% , . ~. _, ;'k ,;g" _ ~3~. ;.p_A ykee,3; & $' .".sq4.j - W.._g
~-
c m-
, ,, c h- (, , .1 . . . , '
'M*
N.k. m.,;-.;- ?' m*;, ;
) . - k. .~ yi, N d; 9.: s,. ._- :. . .-
e.. .. ~ r...
..,y=.g~ p u ,, . , ,g
-sn -; Y r
h D
. & . a5 f. p - r A9*'..
f.g m.
~
d '
, e. --- - - ,
, 1.%, ...
,[=$) Vi .h, 'g h ; .-*-:t- L. ,
- n:- =wg
~
pw. - 4..e-m%;... P-t:;d, ,~2-ggm~ng.M.i. ~ 2.+M.
. b,
.a -
w .:- w..;;-
...- &. aw:,:+,w.
g
' %s&yt--.
*w , ,1. %.h..g
_.v ..%m.rg=,
- . w . 2-
* . em t: 3, .w . -
,s.,,
.sf ' '
-Q%, 2.A-e ;;4.c . , - .'_-- V.:,h,:
u a,r ..geo ' l - 3;.,,y 3 e- e,l~f';
'w,' .'- e');W
- t. -. -v ~.% g.. ;.; .. 'w K ~ ~f yp~ f..- 3.aw;;? -
^
i ,
~ 'e
;v.m + t - 7, T.1; .
- m. . --.
.1c ... wwt , ., .m...
y-. , n y.,.
- - . . . .. 7.. .a.,.,,aI
...- 4.. . g . s.
j '*bv Dj m _d.IlL 3 -'#'P-. ( ^ ( +, g"' ". . ..u,.:P I~ _'I
- m. . .y,['Mt.
s
#MdIs ' e t".*% 2': ' .~2 r f.&g,D8'
\;
*,.l' e
. ~ ~ *
~at va ~..'.il;Gy ::ps, ,Nyt.w i y:^f,;.e .;::iW .~Pf. ~ ..'Q W ,.- N- . , r.T '
.@~ ,@y .r"R S.c.,4. :.: h.;y ' .h.*-Q A' :s .-%.
m
, -c ., >ya .
,e .
- m. .
y ' Yh .- -Y m,~ $ ~
~
a v.-.*. n pgnA
~
gn.= .. .e. g,y-m..pA., yw.eA 4 ,.,, i
- e. m.L.,_ c.m..
.af Cp_Q4 .cif.9,.. mr..-
=s a , y"g '~,7
- a
- x.m. .
~--4
.~.g.u.._.. . ..,a
. .w.
p -
.R
... ~ m .. ..
- 4. .,:,
_ .;; 7r#,* . n
.L;. ;.t.
. .~r
&,n T% :-
,f o'
% 1 .-y ,. .v. : :.s - y, y%;T.4. :. . .t,y,y.{.
as* 'Q Q kvemp ~s VA.- . ...:~u- i. - - ~ ,e. sa:14-{ ,z:rk
.- ,u
~
h; . , yr . .; -y& ,.y
.3
, , . ol ,- :,;. .~ '
e t: , . .. f,.; g.y ,,g_y..r,.,
%- , .---,..e <
. . , . g se - I' ,,
**A'*s ^ .*~ h ** CnN ~&f - . , _: a r
* ' ' ~. . -h**l.-Y ^ - ** ak s
- '? **
.,, ,,, : ' -w - ** ...,,.a =.w, ?ea. . ;. . ;c .i. ' a - , ar
+,: +- ., ; :; ' ..g ~ n g.r - : 4-. , ' h..';c, * ~~-
,.t
-: -w a .
',,Y Y
r2 (%['-), =~i - . y;. **:,,f."s =~A. , - * ., . ' . ,*w . , . ' . ?. ff. sO, **~ '
. . ~ -s. . , .m-,a_ -
. my n, a.y m.;~.A .m- *. ;,.: .. - .
,w a
'.~~ - -- me ;'e
.3 .
*o.g *# a e me
.. d
*g
" , g*/g,;.
g y2 . - .p.,- . *.
- a L - rcnm - ,.n., . , ,
,L wrl Msy January 6, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
POLICY IN REGARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE NRC Our policies in dealing with persons bringing irregularities and deficiencies in safety performance to our attention require clarification and emphasis in order to assure that they are dealt with properly and the issues they raise are correctly treated. NRC resources must be utilized in ways which maximize our ability to key on safety related problems. Citizens who voluntarily step forward with information regarding safety matters must be looked on as a valuable adjunct to our programs. Moreover, a part of NRC's effectiveness and credibility with the public is a function of our relationships with these people. In this regard we should be professionally courteous in our interfaces, complete in our technical reviews of issues they raise and observant of procedures which recognize the special problems faced by persons-who come to us with allegations regarding improper safety conditions and practices. I am asking IE to take the enclosure of this memo and translate it into Manual Chapter format. I will expect them to coordinate the MCM with you once more, although I am aware many of your comments have been incorporated. In the meantime, it will serve as interim guidance with one exception; before directing that citizens must be advised of their privilege of anonymity I wish to clear this point with the Comission and will do so when IE provides me the MCM for approval. e,rs,,-n-n' MIA-&-183 (?QnsMliika1.DIfCJ
' W' # William J. Dircks Executive Director 7 IP for Operations
Enclosure:
Distribution As stated EDO R/F MBridgers WDircks t TRehm JRoe
'l VStello 0FC :A0/ED :EDO J#(::________..__:_...________:............:____...___..:_..______
_____:___... ]Y.L ___: : ) NAME :TARehm;py :WJDTrck's J DATE:1/[.....__:..L_[_..___:..._________:....._______:--..._______:_
/84 :1/ /84 :- : :
POLICY IN REGARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE NRC General Issues
- 1. Those who provide allegations to NRC staff must be treated with respect, consideration and tact. Under no circumstances should they be dealt with brusquely or under an atmosphere of interrogation.
- 2. When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications of a broader problem it is appropriate to assume that such a problem may exist. Prompt action to broaden the scope of our inquiry should then be taken to determine whether or not such is the case.
- 3. While the safety significance of an allegation is an important factor in determining the extent and promptness of staff resources comitment, it should not affect the staff treatment of the person making the allegation as given in Item 1 above.
NRC Procedural Practices i l 1. When allegations are received in writing, a prompt attempt to make l personal contact must ordinarily be made in each case. When received telephonically, complete details should be acquired along with availability of the person making the allegation to meet with NRC. , If documents are involved, they should be identified and acquired by NRC
-- the person making the allegation should not nomally be required to
' obtain them.
3 2. Contact, when made, should draw an interested and professional response from NRC. I am directing IE to prepare a simple package that can be provided to individuals making allegations and will make clear to them how NRC deals with allegations.
- 3. Follow-up on allegations, whether they are general or specific, should focus not only on the specific allegation but on the overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications.
- 4. Allegations should be screened for importance and the more serious addressed first. Serious or not, all allegations should be addressed as promptly as resources will allow.
5.. When a plant visit with a person making the allegation is necessary to find the exact location of a problem and the individual is willing to make such a visit, it should be made. Access issues should be addressed on a case by case basis. Travel costs for the individual can be offered if necessary. Care should be taken to avoid embarrassment or abuse of the individual, e.g., visit can be scheduled for an off-shift / weekend, licensee accompaniment prohibited, etc.
- 6. When responsibility for the handling of an allegation is transferred from one organizational unit to another the person making the allegation should be notified by the individual who is relieved as contact in order to assure continuity. A single point of contact should be the rule.
.I , 3_
- 7. Follow-up of allegations should be professional in scope and depth. If it is appropriate that an inspection be made, it should be made.
- 8. Without exception, the individual making the allegation should be promptly advised of the results of inspection follow-up action so that they are aware that their problems were addressed. If for some reason there is unusual delay in providing the results, the person should be advised so that he does not feel his allegations are being ignored.
- 9. An " audit trail" - to include personal interview records - should be established so that NRC actions can be properly justified if necessary.
All allegations should be entered in the allegation tracking system.
- 10. The final report should set forth the facts clearly, dispositively, and in a style'that does not belittle or disparage the person who brought a safety matter to our attention.
Licensee Actions
- 1. Licensees should be encouraged to take allegations seriously. Programs such as interviews of all employees who terminate should be encouraged.
Such programs should be monitored by NRC . Licensee actions do not relieve us of our responsibilities, but effective licensee actions may reduce somewhat the number of allegations we receive.
9 .
- 2. It should be advantageous under some circumstances to have the licensee address the validity of allegations to the NRC. If so, confidentiality must not be breached. Licensees can be asked to address the validity of allegations only if in so doing the person making the allegation is not exposed. One vehicle for accomplishing this is a 50.54(f) letter.
The person making the allegation must be informed that this is not handing the issue over to the licensee, but that NRC will review the licensee's report. Such a review should, of course, not be peremptory. Confidentiality
- 1. Staff should recognize that in many cases individuals making allegations feel that they lay thei'r 3obs on the line when they approach the NRC.
All our activities must be sensitive to this, even when no explicit confidentiality agreement has been executed. Identities of sources will not be voluntarily exposed by the NRC unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection. As a general rule, the 'need to know' approach should be used when dealing with the protection of an person's identity. i
- 2. Staff should assure that it is clear to all concerned if and on what terms anonymity of a person making an allegation is to be protected. In every case the individual shall be asked if anonymity is desired. A i clear record should be maintained for the files to preclude later mis-understandings. A Confidentiality Agreement (see attachment) should be executed with the individual, if necessary and possible.
I f s
----+r -ww,--,r-v-ww gre-w,-w, --
,,,w-.m-m-, ,.-r------- ,-,,--------r-,r------w-,- e e ,, --e- ~~ -- -~ , ---ee---- -,- ---esw.-----,ew -w,,--wr
.t
- 3. If at any time for any reason confidentiality is breached or jeopardized, the person should be so advised, the reason explained and remedial measures taken, if possible.
Attachment:
Confidentiality Agreement 0 0
Q
- CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
(
., I have information that I wish to provide in c'onfidence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (HRC). I_ request an express pledge of confidentiality as a condition of providing this'information to the NRC. I will not provide this information voluntarily to the NRC without such confidentiality being extended to me.
It is my understanding, consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC, by agreeing to this confidentiality, will adhere to the following conditions: (1) The NRC will not identify me by name or personal identifier in any HRC initiated document, conversation, or communication released ,to the public which j relates directly to the information prcvided by me. I unrkrstand the. term "public release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the exception of cther public agencies which may require this information in futherance of their , responsibilities under law or publiq trust. (2) The NRC will disclose my identity within the NRC only.'to the extent re-
- cuired for the conduct of NRC related activities.
i (3) During the course of the inquiry or investigation the NRC will also make every effort consistent with the investigative needs of the Comission to avoid actiens which would clearly be expected' to result in the disc 1csure of my ident-ity to persons subsequently contacted by the NRC. At a later stage I understand
. that even though the NRC will make every reasonable effort to protect my identity, r.y identificatien could be compelled by orders or subpoenas issued by courts of lay , hearing beards, or similar legal entitites. In sucy cases, the basis for granting .this promise of confidentiality and any other relevant fac s will be cc.- .unicated to the authority ordering the disclosure in an effort to maintain.
I my confidentiality. If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of t,he
. NRC will attempt to inform me of any such action before disclosing my identity.
l I also understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my right to con-fidentiality if I take any action that may be reasonably expected to disclose my' ! identity. I further understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my rights to confidentiality if I provide (or have previcusly provided) information j . 10 ar.y other ; arty that centradicts the infcrmation that I prc.idec to the URC
- - " circ. sta ces incitate that I am intenticnally provicing ' tit: information t: the URc. .
Cther Cc.citions:- (if. any)
!^ have read and fully understand the contents of this agreement. I agree with 3
its'previsiens. - t Late . Hace:
- l Address: .
Agreed to on behalf of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. , ! Late Signature i , Name: T,itle : l l E.httcwsE i . .
.e- - -------r r-, - - - - - - .-e--,--- - - - - - - - . - - . - . ~ . - - - . , - ,,--.v, w, - - - . , . . --=---,,-n,.--.,.--,,,-,-,.-,,--,--.,ve--.-.,--- . - .
1 Cide / # 283
? / 'o
'g UNITED STATES E N s., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL d
".;. , ]j W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 July 6, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FoIA-%-Jg3 Chairman Palladino Ccmmissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal
. Commissioner Zech FROM: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-249 (LATE ALLEGATIONS) A. Because of the increasing number of eleventh-hour allegations (especially respecting plant construction and quality assurance) that are surfacing in operating license adjudicatory proceedings, the General Counsel's paper ok that subject (Secy-84-249 dated June 20, 1984) was discussed at some length at a recent Appeal Panel meeting. Although no effort was made to obtain a consensus on any particular aspect of the matter, there appears to be general Appeal Panel agreement that the handling of late allegations in adjudicatory proceedings presents significant problems. The most recent motions to reopen the record on design and construction quality assurance issues in the Diablo Canyon operating license proceeding exemplify some of those problems. See ALAB-775, 19 NRC (June 28, 1984), and most especially the discussion in footnote 22 of that opinion. ALAB-775 also contains some refinements of the current reopening standards (see slip opinion at 7-8 and n.18) which the Commission might wish to endorse explicitly in a policy statement.* Additionally, members of the Panel At page 15 of SECY-84-249, the General Counsel takes note of the fact that, in connection with an earlier motion to reopen the.Diablo Canyon record on construction quality assurance issues, the Appeal Board conducted an abbrevia'ted evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining whether the motion was sufficiently meritorious to warrant a full-dress hearing. See ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1343 (1983). Although the General Counsel suggests that "[t]he law on reopening records" was " refined" by this unprecedented step, ! the high probability is that similar action will be taken in connection with very few, if any, future motions to reopen. D* t8Pn a< t+-O Wa/w rvim -
3 i i Cc=missioners 2 . and iis staff have advanced proposals with respect to late I allegations and their treatment which have been circulated
- among the entire Panel membership for study and discussion. ,
I Some or all of these proposals may at a later date be passed i on to the Commission for its consideration. B. The following comments with regard to SECY-84-249 are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views of 4
. the other Appeal Panel members.
- 1. On page 13 of SECY-84-249, the General Counsel recommends that "the general [ Board] notification policy, which provides for timely notification without evaluation, be applied" to late allegations. On the assumption that the i General Counsel has in mind no prenotification evaluation of any kind, I strongly disagree with that recommendation.
It seems to me entirely appropriate for the staff to. i advise Boards promptly (as it now does) of undisputed events having a possible bearing on issues in adjudication. Thus, j for example, should there be a licensee report of a steam generator tube rupture at a nuclear facility, any Board considering a tube integrity issue (albeit in the context of some other nuclear facility) justifiably expects to be informed of that occurrence even before its precise cause and significance have been ascertained by the staff. For, l armed with that information, the Board might well (and properly) decide to hold the ultimate resolution of the tube i integrity issue in abeyance to await the outcome of the staff investigation of the incident. But a raw allegation scarcely can be equated with an established fact such as the occurrence of a steam generator tube rupture. For all anyone knows at the time it is received (perhaps from an anonymous source) , a given allegation is totally devoid of any possible substance; indeed, it might turn out that the alleger is a dismissed employee of the utility or contractor with a thirst for retribution exceeding his or her interest in the truth. Until the allegation has been given at least a coarse screening to determine whether it is worthy of a full investigation,and/or.inspectio.n effort, there is nothing that a Board legitimately could do with it. Beyond that, to my mind it is. fundamentally unfair to the utility to put 2 before Boards totally unscreened allegations that charge it or its contractors with malfeasance or misfeasance. l Accordingly, I believe that an allegation received by the Office of Investigation, Inspection and Enforcement or ! Nuclear Reactor Regulation (or by a Regional office) should not be the subject of a Board notification unless and until l
-_ -. -- - . . = - . _= .3 J
Commissioners 3
~
the allegation has received a preliminary screening and it has been determined that further exploration of it by either investigatory or inspection personnel (or both) is warranted. In this connection, I assume that the preliminary screening process is (or can be) conducted expeditiously so that there would be little risk of a i possibly meritorious allegation of safety significance being withheld from the Board for a protracted period.
- 2. In my September 7 and October 6, 1983 memoranda,**
I recommended the discontinuance and replacement of the existing immediate effectiveness review procedure prescribed in 10 CFR 2.764 (f) (2) for operating license proceedings. In < the course of discussing the recommendation, I took note in both memoranda of the fact that Section 2.764 (f) (2) does not accurately reflect the Commission's actual practice. More specifically, the terms of the Section convey the clear impression that immediate effectiveness reviews focus upon the issues before the Licensing Board and the evidentiary record underlying the Board's disposition of those issues. But the reality is that the Commission will consider on its review any matter that it deems relevant to reactor operation -- whether or not litigated before the Licensing Board. Further, even with respect to litigated issues, the l ! Commission does not necessarily base its review strictly upon the adjudicatory record. A part of this reality appears to be acknowledged at page 16 of SECY-84-249. The General Counsel there includes in the category of "less formal review processes" (as distinguished from " formal adjudicatory hearings"),
" Commission effectiveness reviews of contested issues in contested cases." According to the General Counsel, notwithstanding that a particular issue was placed in
- controversy before the Licensing Board, in examining that l
issue for immediate effectiveness purposes "the procedural i rules governing receipt of evidence and reopening of records in formal hearings do not apply." The September 7 memorandum was addressed to the Chairman and subsequently distributed by him to the other ! Commissioners. The October 6 memorandum was addressed to the full Commission. Copies of those memoranda (as well.as a third one (dated September 16, 1983) in response to Commissioner Gilinsky's September 14 commentary on the September 7 memorandum) are being furnished to Commissioner Zech. l - - - - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _____ _ _._ _ _
r . . _ _ . . 3 l i Commissioners 4 I know not whether the specific proposals contained in my October 6, 1983 memorandum have been implicitly rejected.*** Be that as it may, I believe that the-Commission has a plain duty at least to amend Section 2.764 (f) (2) to conform its terms to actual Commission practice. In my view, it is unfair (if not illegal) for the Commission to establish by regulation a procedure that in significant measure is not followed in practice. If the
- Commission is not prepared to conform its practice to its regulations, the latter obviously must be changed.
- 3. In footnote 4 on page 35 of SECY-84-249, the General Counsel states unequivocally that the NRC has the burden of proof in an enforcement action against an outstanding operating license. I have furnished to Mr.
Malsch the basis for my belief that the question may be closer than footnote 4 would suggest. More specifically, I think a respectable argument can be made that (1) the staff. has the initial burden of going forward with evidence indicating that, e.g., in the interest of safety a particular reactor should be shut down; but (2) once the staff has made out a prima facie case on that proposition, the licensee must then assume the burden of proving otherwise (i . e . , of persuading the decisionmaker that l continued plant operation will not pose an unreasonable l threat to the public health and safety). It is my j impression that OGC will now take another look at the i matter. For this reason, I do not address it further in this memorandum. cc: Martin G. Malsch, OGC Guy H. Cunningham, ELD B. Paul Cotter, ASLBP SECY Insofar as I am aware, they have not been explicitly turned down.
- + , . - - -r- - - - . - - - - . ,
y,,, , _ , ~ - - . _ _ . - - , .r -. , - .,_7. - - _ . - , _ _ _ , , _ . - - . - . , , , - . - - - - , , , , - - - . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ - - , . _ _ - - _ . - . - - , - _ . - _ _ _ - -}}