ML22230A141
| ML22230A141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M790914 | |
| Download: ML22230A141 (35) | |
Text
OR,
" 10 SECRE11\\R\\A1 RECOROS RETURrt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING HEARING BOARD REPORT ON CLEARANCE RULE PROCEEDING Place -
Washington, D. C.
Cate -
Friday, 14 September 1979 ACE* FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporten 4-44 North Copitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NAT10NWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pages 1 -
32 ielephone:
(202) 347-3700
CR7004 1
DI'SCLAIHER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on -Prjday~ 74 September 7919 in t..1-ie Cornmissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observatio~.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9,103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of ~he matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinati.ons or beliefs.
No pleading or __ other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may auti."iorize.
CR 7004 AR Ace--al 'Reporters, 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i3 i? !
[I 20 21 22 23 24 Inc.
25 P.m.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING HEARING BOARD REPORT ON CLEARANCE RULE PROCEEDING Room 1130 1717 H St~eet Northwest Washington, D.C.
Friday, September 14, 1979 la The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:35 BEFORE:
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman.
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner.
JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner.
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. Bickwit Ms. Nordlinger Mr. Snyder
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 7 i!
20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 II *'
2 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I involuntarily allowed an extra five minutes for R&R purposes. lt's probably a good thing.
The Commission now turns to a subject for which Commissioner Ahearne and I have felt it necessary.to go and get cups of coffee, and I hope Commissioner Bradford steeled himself also during the break.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If I'd known about the coffee, I wouldn't have come back.
[ Laughter. ]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The item at hand is a discussion of SECY 79-319, the Hearing Board Report on the Clearance Rule Proceeding.
We will ask for the General Counsel to try to help:,
us put in mind the assorted aspects of this subject, which I must say I find one of the more complex and recalcitrant subjects that I have had to deal with here.
And what depresses me is that I thought that I understood the issues in this matter, in this general area, pretty well two years ago, and now that the proceeding has *come to a point of recommendations to the Commission and analysis by learned scholars of the art from far and near, I find that the confusion, at least on my part, has increased substantially, and I am depressed by I
what appears to me to be a divergence, rather than a convergen9e, in understanding.
II
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
'r.
- '~
i" 20 21 22 23 Ace--ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 3
With that highly negative assessment, at least of my personal situation in this matter, I will a_sk the General Counsel to go ahead and help us as best he can.
MR. BICKWIT:
Well, we have, without having been requested to, we have tried to put something together that would facilitate a decision.
We have not recommended CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We appreciate your willingness to plunge bravely into the breach.
MR. BICKWIT:
We have not recommended on the basic issues, for the most part because these are basic value judgments that are involved, not legal questions.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The matter that we are directly discussing as being -- who is the spokesperson for that matter?
MR. BICKWIT:
For the proposed rule?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or for the proposed decision of the Commission as a result of the Hearing Board.
You're not making recommendations for this.
Is OGC the spokesperson for that, the three of us on this side?
MR. BICKWIT:
We have a proposed rule which the Commission is the spokesman fo'r in the sense that it's a proposal.
Beyond that, you have various participants in a rulemaking.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, I'm just looking at the table and I was just curious.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I see --
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There's an absence of people here.
I thought Len was just carefully positioning himself away from being a responsible agent.
MR. BICKWIT:
The Staff is a participant in this proceeding, and there are.other participants, and we are simply your advisers, and I'm telling you that there are limits on the advice that we are going to giveyou.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Really, John, if there is a proposer, I guess in principle, we, the Commission, at a principal time --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's just I'm more familiar with addressing an issue to have someone there who is the carrier of the issue.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Someone who is for it, someone i? l who is against it, but at least someone.
But in a sense, the I
20 21 22 23 24 Ace*
ral Reporters, Inc.
25 Board is.
MR. BICKWIT:
You have a board and the board has made some recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We asked the Board to act for us, and they have come to us with recommendation which has caused its share of headaches.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, ~~-
25 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I know only one by sight, and I don't see her here.
MR. BH~KWIT:
Our paper is simply designed to give you some setting; to give you some legal observations, to lay out the questions that we think have to be addressed, without opining on the answers, and I'd.like to ask Marjorie Nordlinger, who is primarily responsible for this in our office, to present it to you.
MS. NORDLINGER:
I think without going back and reviewing all of the history of the matter, I would like to pick up with the last meeting you had on the subject.
It was on June the 5th of this year.
As a result of that meeting, the Commission requested legal analysis from.its staff, alternative clearance programs that might be possible under other authority, discussion of reliability standard, and there have been submissions to comply with those requests.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A major issue at that time was, was it not, whether or not we did have to comply and the Staff ended up concluding that we did not?
MS. NORDLINGER:
The Staff's legal analysis came to the analysis that the better view was that we did not have to follow DOE's criteria, and we certainly agree with that vie.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which would have clarified matters to the Board substantially, had that issue been
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
'7 I,
i?
20 21 22 23 Ace--ai Reporters, ~n~.
25 6
res-olved.
As I recall, that was one of the big points the Board made.
It seemed to be a critical issue which was --
MS. NORDLINGER:
We suggested in our analysis that some uniformity, even though we thought we didn't have to follow DOE, that reasonable efforts might be made to have uniformity throughout the government, but I think that one can say that after this hearing, certainly reasonable
/ efforts have been made in that regard, and so that I think the Commission is free to follow or not follow on other bases in the legislative history to 161(r).
Staff presented a second paper which on July 31st discussed alternative programs under some other authority, more 1general authority, than the 161(r) (2) authority,- and that paper included conclusions of NSS and NRR, particularly, that an alternative without background investigation would not meet current objectives, and they did draft a rule for the Commission that would just apply to fuel cycle facilities, if the Commission was interested in that.
Another development that's happened since that time is that we have reee*ived several letters from participants objecting to Staff submissions to the Commission on this matter, and our paper suggests that the right of other participants to comment before the record is closed is advisable.
OPE has also sent you this week a memorandum
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 7
discussing the insider study and its relationship to this proceeding, which sort of brings you up to.date on the setting for the decision.
We made additionally some observations, which included the fact that really nothing in the record would preclude,:the Commission's choosing any one of a number of proposals in front of it, with the exception of the package of derogatory information criteria, and we feel that there are problems in. the record that would preclude the Commission's choosing that option.
We also discussed the principal considerations, and we suggested that on both sides there are unquantifiable costs.
There are the costs and the infringements on civil liberties and the general feeling the nuclear industry will become an armed camp.
All these kinds of perceptions are involved on one side, and on the other side are also unquantifiable costs, because it'* s so difficult to assess the likelihood of sabotage and what in fact would happen or what would be the outcome of not having a rule.
Furthermore, legal issues -- some issues were
, excluded from the hearing, but we think that they are still important issues, and one of them, the main one, is whether or not there can be a clearance rule under the authority of the act,under 16l(r) (2), and we are still very concerned about that issue.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17
,r,
- o i?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 8
The Commission had a paper on that a long time from Mr. Stacek, who is General Counsel.*
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On Commission time, it wasn't a long time ago.
MS. NORDLINGER:
Even in the ~ife of the proceeding, it wasn't that long a time ago.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the scale of Commission time, it was hardly yesterday.
[Laughter.]
MS. NORDLINGER:
And having touched on those major points, we then moved on to an easy handy-dandy options list, and that included the type of rule in which*w.e included as an option the option of no rule at all, the scope of the rule, and if you decided on a rule, the criteria that would be applied if there were background investigations, and we noted with those some of the areas or the bases that we think needed to be touched, if you wanted to go in that.direction.
And I think that's in such easy form, perhaps there's no point in my reviewing that.
[Commissioner Bradford left the hearing room at 3:45 p.m.]
And when you get to those various criteria, we will, of course, be glad to assist you in enlarging on those views.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I ask a question
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13
,.,r, Lu 21 22 23 9
before we get to those on a legal issue you raised?
MS. NORDLINGER:
Certainly.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Referring to the 16l(r) (2) point, could you comment on if one were to focus upon rather than a diversion issue and focused upon guarding against the loss of special nuclear material --
[Commissioner Bradford returned to the hearing room at 3 : 4 7 p. m.]
-- would or would not an act whic~ would lead to a major accident in a reactor, which would lead to meltdown of the fuel and dispersal, wouldn't that be a loss of special nuclear material?
MS. NORDLINGER*
Well, I think that by the plain meaning of rule it would certainly allow us to look at that meaning of the rule.
I think it's the first time that I have heard it discussed in that fashion, and I don't think any of the legislative history would support COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm just reading what I think is the act.
MS. NORDLINGER:
Yes, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That might be regarded, John, to authorize us as requiring clearances to protect against sabotage that would surely lead to meltdown accidents, but not the lesser sabotage.
MR. BICKWIT:
Let me say that -- the program that
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- 7 1,
, ~-
- o i?
"fi L. V 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 10 you can institute would be one to guard against the loss, in order to prevent any use or disposition thereof, which the Commission may determine to be inimical to the common defense and security.
To my mind, that does not fit the scenario that you just described.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Not that it would do the common defense and security any good, you understand.
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would I read it correctly that the thrust of your memos went in one direction and the thrust of the Strauss-Kohlberg memo is in the opposite?
MR. BICKWIT:
No.
MS. NORDLINER:
I don't think that's true.
I think that they hedged a little bit.
MR. BICKWIT:
Ours just comes down a little more firmly on the same side as theirs.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see.
Would it be correct that you do agree that you could institute a rule on fuel facilities without significant MR. BICKWIT:
That's correct.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The issue really is on any kind of power reactor?
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
MR. SNYDER:
Well, they're also excluded in that
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 i9 20 21 22 23 lce-F.al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 11 consideration, non-power reactors, as being a separate case altogether.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you believe -- perhaps Steve would be the appropriate individual -- if one were to institute a rule based upon 161 for power reactors -- I realize
- rt.hat the Strauss memo and your memo is carefully couched would you conclude it could be -- I'm not asking whether you would want to, I'm asking you whether MR. BICKWIT:
It's hard to predict.
Yes, it most certainly could be.
As to whether the Commission could win it, it's hard to say.
We do have doubts.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are your doubts substantial ones?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, certain of the views, one of the prices for public meetings.
COMMISSIONER BRADEORD:
I think if one really wants to draw it out on that subject, it would be valuable to have a closed meeting.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Marjorie, on page 15, they'rj talking about industry-run programs.
Did you have any additional concerns about going -- following the Board's suggestions?
MS. NORDLINGER:
Well, the Staff mentioned in its paper -- and I think that there is some concern, perhaps, it would have to be addressed about the delegation of this
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i? !l I
I 20 21 22 23
,Ace-F-.al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 12 kind of authority outside.
I think that that certainly is one area.
I think that we are so far from being able to choose an industry-run program, and there's no definition of what the program would be, so it's difficult to deal with it, and the most, I think, based on the record the Commission could do would be to ask for some drafting and some study, and then to go out with it for more comments.
But I think that that is one significant area that there might be a problem.
MR. SNYDER:
It's been pointed out in earlier Staff meetings and hearings that were held, the potential for misuse on an individualized basis is obviously much greater than a government-run program, as opposed to an industry-run program.
I think that's in 76-508.
I know it's been discussed some time in the past.
MS. NORDLINGER:
But there are possibilities of having the kind of program that the Board proposed as a government-run program also.
In other words, not having a Part 10 type hearing as having testing and all those kinds of things on run program, which is another kind of alternative.
a government COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But is there any way if you went to a -- neither of those would get around fundamentally
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17
- o iD 20 21 22 23 ce-F-al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 13 the problem.
MR. BICKWIT:
No.
MS. NORDLINGER:
If it were limited to just psychological testing, then it :inight.
If there is no check, if there is no background check, then you could run a program, but the question is whether that program would be --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you saying the psychological testing would somehow be divorced from areas of belief?
MR. BICKWIT:
Distinctions are fuzzy here.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:. At one point at issue, as I recall back in June and perhaps even before that, was if you're restricting it to fuel cycle facilities only, how many people would actually be in the window of those who would have access to this type of material in one way or another, so therefore it would be required to be cleared and already aren't under DOE clearance?
MR. SNYDER:
Well, I think the answer is coming.
VOICE:
3 2 5 0.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
3250?
MR. EVANS:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would be the number of people who currently do not have to have clearances?
MR. EVANS:
No, sir, I'm sorry -- let me give you the computation because it gets a little complex.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- c, I?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 mike.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Maybe you'd.better use the
[Documents being distributed to Commissioners and Chairman Hendrie.]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank God, a piece of arithmetic we can check.
[Laughter.]
MR. EVANS:
Basically what you have are about 5100 people employed at those fuel cycle facilities, out of which approximately 1100 have Q clearances right now, which are equivalent to the u, that would be the upper clearance that we would require under this rule.
You have about 3500 who presently have L clearances, which are equivalent to the lower or the R clearances, and 500 don't have any clearances at all, but when you start computing how many require the higher clearances as opposed to lower, it comes to about 3/4 of the total number of
(
employees by an Argonne study that was done that would require the higher clearances.
And then if you look under point 4, you will see how the arithmetic works down to the final bottom line of 3250 total clearances required.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're saying that the L really is inadequate based on this?
MR. EVANS:
For positions we have direct access to,
/
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1 l 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 i 7 20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 1:!.
25 15 yes, sir, unescorted access, that is.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So you're saying that's concluding that currently the DOE sy,stem is inadequate?
MR. EVANS:
Only to some extent, in that certainly a number of the people that have that direct access have Q cleanances, not as many as we believe would be required over-all.
MR. SNYDER:
But it is true that is unescorted access?
MR. EVANS:
That is unescorted access or two people in conspiracy being able to remov~ the material.
Those are the only two cases covered.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I also read this to say that currently there *are 550 people who don't have any clearance?
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, if you include transporta-tion, 550.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, of that 500 who don't have any clearance at all, how many of those do you believe would require the upper level clearance?
MR. EVANS:
I was afraid you were going to ask that question.
We very carefully worked this up so we wouldn't have to answer.
[Laughter.. ]
I don't know the answer to that.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 I°"
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 16 We are to finish that question.
We have already initiated a survey of the industry to get the answer to that question, but we don't have it yet.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE*
Bernie, would you care to comment on what value you believe it would be to us for reachin our conclusion to get the briefings that you mentioned, the DOE study?
MR. SNYDER:
As I understand_ it from. conversations
'with the Staff involving the study, one of the basic questions to be answered in that study was specif.ically laid out by the Commission's request for that study, was how effective are clearances?
Do they really do you any good?
And what's the experience been?
Both NRC experience and elsewhere.
throughout the government.
My understanding is the two studies they were going to-depend on that were going to be generated under the Office of Standards Development have been delayed and are just now getting underway.
The DOE study is apparently in some sort of a draft form from the contractor that did it for DOE, and I think -- I have not seen the DOE study, but I would suspect that there are some important things to be learned here, because after all you are deciding 'whether you want to go with the clearance.
But no one, to my knowledge, has ever systernaticall looked at that question, do they really buy you anything,
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 20 21 22 23 Ace-F--al Reporters, ~n~.
25 17 and that just seemed very basic to me, to get a feel for that, at least.
I don't think you are going to get a definitive answer, yes, they do, or no,. they don't buy you anything~
But at least it's another piece of information I think you'd probably want to consider.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Len, in the process, if we were to get those briefings; is that to some extent material that ought to be in formal form, a paper, so it could go to the other parties in this rulemaking?
MR. BICKWIT:
I would prefer it. Whether it's legall required or not is not clear.
MR. SNYDER:
. There.. tnay be a,:class.ification problem, I I'm not sure.
MR. BICKWIT:
If you have a classification problem, it won't be legally required.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When we met before, we were inclined toward. fuel facility programs, and a proposal for that was prepared back in July, I guess.
Are there comments on that from your office?
MR. SNYDER:
We reviewed it.
We did not comment to the Commission.
We thought it was fine as it stands.
The criteria, as Marge points out, is still a problem on this, but the rule as it stands in our opinion, at least, appeared fine.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
'~-
- o i?
20 21 22 23 Ace--ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 18 MS. NORDLINGER:
The rule as it stands incorporates those criteria, so it has to be dealt with.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have a mike on?
I don't know if anybody is able to hear you.
MS. NORDLINGER:
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I jus~ said that the rule, as it's drawn for the fuel facilities, does include the criteria that we feel create *a problem wherever they are used, because the record of the hearing contains considerable information about the criteria that is negative in its continued use or extended use.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the other hand, it's also the basis for a rather extensive system of national security clearances.
I may even have one myself.
[Laughter.]
MR. SN~DER;;
There's another point in here in that you have a proposed rule on the street right now for the question of access to information, Parts 25 and 95, which you approved, classifying information in the fuel cycle area.
That was back some time ago, but I believe the clearance process for that involves the use of that same set of criteria, so, you know, you've got a little bit of CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's all part of the same system.
MS. NORDLINGER:
Not completely, because the criteria were developed for access to information, and that's one of the issues, is whether or not there is a need for the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1'7 20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 19 same criteria £or access to materials.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the discussion of those*
proposed parts?
MS. NORDLINGER:
That's right.
There's also some discussion that would tend to apply to their use, perhaps, in other regards, but certainly in regard to access to material they were questioned.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I didn't have any real problem with the fuel cycle.
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I never have had.. We would be willing to go ahead with that, in order to bring the situation that those rather sensitive facilities have into reasonable shape.
It's consistent with the classification of security plans decisions of the Commission.
The question about reactors remains in my mind v,ery much open.
Peter, do you have -- in searching through this thing to see what I thought I understood well enough to decide, the fuel cycle clearances were about the only place that I was able to think that was the case.
I wonder if the rest of you are at that point or advanced.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You were talking about implementing or sending back for further analysis in light of the revised position on the question of following the DOE policy?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i?'
20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace-!Wa1 Reporters, Inc.
25 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I've been prepared to implement the fuel cycle facility on the basis that if those are -- that those are -- that.in that situation it might be a national security test, and the clearances are those authorized under the provisions of the act for national securit purposes, and I think in that area that there are indeed I
some substantial reasons why trying to react to a different set of criteria than those that have been used_and are being used for what must be, I don't know, several hundred thousand people already under that system, offers some real questions.
Now, I think when one contemplates whether a clearance program for reactor plant people, th~ consideration for health and safety considerations, then, indeed, it's a rather different situation.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, before doing anything there, you have to conclude that we have authority to do it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, there is that, and then furthermore this proceeding didn't seem to *develop any over-whelming mandate that it was the best thing to do, but in the fairly limited area of the fuel cycle facilities handling weapons, quantities of weapons grade material, there I would be prepared to.implement on the basis of present action of security.
MS. NORDLINGER:
Mr. Chairman, might I interrupt I
I I
I to call to your attention that the rule as quoted here includes:
I i
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1 l 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 i?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 21 transportation, and there are some practical problems of the ability in doing this as pointed out by the Board, that we think perhaps you would want to look into further before you approve it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you have them well enough in mind, Marjorie, so you could make a three-minute outline of the problem?
MS. NORDLINGER:
I really don't think I could guarantee you that I would give you all of them.
I think some of the concerns, however, it was a long time ago that I read the record of this proceeding, but some. of the concerns that were raised was whether or not there would be difficulty even getting things transported by air, because of commercial airlines would not be willing to take on this kind of process because it would involve clearing pilots and so on.
So it might force -- but I think at this point it might be much more wiser to call on the Staff, who is very aware, I think, of this, and they could MR. BICKWIT:
You're looking at me.
There is no problem with calling on the Staff, but I would suggest not because it is legally required, but because it may be, and I believe it would be preferable that before ¥OU arrive at any decision, that the transcript of this be made available to other participants and some of the issues raised here be the subject of comment on the part of the participants.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lO 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If they choose.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me see if I understand you.
Are you saying that were we to decide we wanted to implement this rule with respect to fuel cycle facilities, that you don't believe we should go ahead and do that in the absence of first getting further comments?
MR. BICKWIT:
That is my view, that it would be preferable to have the other particripants comment on some of the factors that are leading you to that conclusion and the decisions you arrived at today.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You say other participants.
Who is that?
MR. BICKWIT:
Staff has given you some submissions which have not been the subject of comment by --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean the proposed rule?
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
Staff today has given you some pieces of information which have not been the i?I subject of comment.
I'm not saying that it is clear that 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe era I Reporters, Inc.
25 legally you must get comment on those submissions.
I do think it would be preferable if you made any I
I decisions you make today tentative until you have that comment.l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would the comment be requeste.
on the issues that are addressed, or would it essentially be ask for any comments?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 i?
20 21 22 23 24 Ace-al Reporters, Inc.
25 23 MR. BICKWIT:
I think it would be preferable to single out what you want co:rnni.ented on.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would seem only appropriat because we aren't really asking the Staff;~ny comments we want to make, we've asked specific points.
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, can somebody outline the transportation problem?
MR. MONTGOMERY:
What we have with transportation at the present time is the primary mode of transportation being on ground, and that is not a problem, and did not come up as a problem in terms of the clearances.
The two areas that did come up is implementation problems of the airline pilots and those are extremely small numbers of instances.
The problem that we can't answer at present concerning the airline pilots is the fact that if the require-ment is made on them, whether or not that will make them decide that it 1 s economically not feasible for them to stay in the business.
The other issue was one of pilots, international flights, or for that matter, clearance of transportation activities that involved international implications.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Bernie, tell me where we stand on pat down and what relation that has.
2 3
4 5-6 7
8 9
10 11
.12 13 14 15 16 17
, r
- ~
1?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 24 MR. SNYDER:
I guess it's early November the 1st, it's pretty early, the question comes up-again, that was the you've deferred the pat down and the compartmentalization, and that package pending resolution there, and that the date on which something has to be done, I guess, is November 1st, which is close approaching.
Those are the only alternatives that have been proposed, to my knowledge, by the Staff.
If the clearance program does not go into effect for reactors.
Now it may be there are other alternatives that might be thought of, so there may be some other suggestions.
They are not that much involved before; they will have some first line responsibility in that area, so it isn't necessary to say those are the only ideas.
There are different people in some cases.
I don't have any other ideas.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I prefer not to piddle with the November 1st date at this point.
It won't surprise me if we reconsider it at some later time, but I see no need to do it now.
MR. SNYDER:
Len, is there a possibility that during the implementation of this rule, make the assumption that the Commission were to adopt it, that an effective date as proposed at least 75 days after publication -- I'm not sure, stepwise, of implementation -- that would give people an opportunity or parties who have been involved in
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
'7 I,
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, ~n~.
25 25 this before, the opportunity to comment?
MR. BICKWIT:
You mean after you adopt it?
MR. SNYDER:
Well,. we've done that, open it up for comment.
Changes can be made.
MR. BICKWIT:
I would prefer not to.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would be hard for me to see how we could make the argument that we suddenly realized immediately --
MR. BICKWIT:
It's not consistent with the pace of the rest of it, I understand.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess what I would opt for, then, is to go with the fuel cycle rule, probably take the transportation piece out, because we're not really sure what the ramifications are, and go through the process that Len said, whatever is appropriate for sending this fascinating, scintillating transcript to the other parties and giving them a reasonable length of time, whatever is appropriate, to comment on it.
MR. BIC!GtiTIT:
Well, I would urge that you get your comment before you go with the fuel cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought that's what you said.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I'm saying, in order to receive the comments, what I'm saying is I'm leaning towards going just for the fuel cycle piece and leaving out transportation, but now following Len's point, saying, "All
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 20 21 22 23 I
24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 26 right, here is this transc~ipt, here is the way I am leaning, will you please give me the comments on what these issues are."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How are you going to get comments on the transportation piece?
-~-~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, the transportatmon piece, I think, is just going to have to be looked at separatelyr it appears.
I don't think we've gotten enough information on this, on the question of pilots.
MR. SNYDER:
Maybe we ought to ask for that at the same time.
COMMISSIONER AHEA.RNE:
Well, I would guess we'd probably have to have the Staff go to the airlines and explore that issue.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it necessary that pilots be cleared? T.o ship the stuff on an ocean liner*;
must the captain be cleared?
Or could you have a cleared group of guards?
If it goes through the state of Ohio, should the governor have a clearance?
COMMISSIONER AHEAR~E:
You just chose that as an illustrative example.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
And also because -- never mind.
Ohio always comes to mind because I went there to school for a long time and have high affection for it.
2 3
4 5
bu2 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- o 1?
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 27 MR. BICKWIT:
Would it be helpful if we tried to review the transcript and come up with the series of matters on which we believe from that review the Commission wants comment, and submit it to you, and see whether that repre-sents --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, please do.
I would like to indicate for the record that I agree with John.
My inclination would be to take the transportation piece, just because it appears to have some things that I want to understand better, out of the proposed fuel cycle clearance rule, and have people be aware th.at that's what I would be proposing to vote to go with, so their comments could be particularly directed at ihat.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:.Now that I understand, by "go with the clearance rule," you mean essentially go with wlil.at the General Counsel has recommended for comment, and not simply put it in place, which is what was troubling me.
So I certainly have no difficulty with that step.
I would include the transportation piece, but I'm assuming that your position prevails to, by all means, get on with it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I'm sure among the things the parties, if they want, would be invited to comment about would be that transportation piece because it may have a problem in some areas.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My concern is I think we
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
,7
. ~.
!D i?
20 21 22 23 Ace*F-al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 28 have got a well-enough defined piece for the fuel cycle facilities, and another piece, the transportation, is a lot fuzzier, and going out for comments and getting into action on that, I would not want the fuzzy part, because of its difficulty to significantly delay working on the piece that I think is fairly well defined.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
MR. SNYDER:
Could I make one comment on that?
Within the U.S. industry that we are involved with here, there is a fair amount of plant-to-pJ:.ant transportation. It makes it a little bit inconsistent.
We're worrying about airline pilots and overseas shipments, that's another question; but it seems to me that truck transport, which is to a large measure most of it, there is a fairly sizeable flow -- I believe, I could be corrected on that by the fellows that are closer to it but there is a number of plants that are closely coupled together and trucks moving it.
MR. EVANS:
That's true.
In fact, in clarifying this a little bit, the only area that I think we have against information problems in terms of transportation is the air transport area.
In terms of the ground transportation, we have actually talked with the licensees and have had no objection at all in that area, and I don't believe the record shows any objection in the ground transportation area.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would it be feasible to
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 I':'
20 21 22 23 Ace--al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 29 publish if we ended up finally having this rule, would it be feasible to publish the rule and exclude a particular type of -
MR. EVANS:
As a matter of fact, the way the rule is written, it is very easy to do that.
It is just a matter of excluding a very small part of the line, because it actually talks about airline pilots.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would the logic be there to back that up?
MR. EVANS:
At this point there are no domestic air transports of greater than formula quantities.
The only place where we have had a potential problem would be from international import shipments and in that area we have through the International Programs Office contacted them through State, contacted foreign governments to see if we could get foreign assurances, and in almost all cases we could get foreign security clearances.
We only have one or two countries remaining to get the answers from in that area.
So in light of that, I don't think we really even have a problem there.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Leave the transportation in.
Bernie, could you make arrangements for us to receive those briefings?
MR. SNYDER:
Y.es, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
If I can summarize where we are, the Commission will need some briefings which OPE is
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 1?
20 21 22 23 Ace-F.al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 30 to arrange;since they are recommending them,.why, it seems fair the burden return to them.
At least the three of us who are at the table seem willing to consider going. forward with a clearance rule for fuel cycle facilities, and with at least most of the elements in the transportation, in the transportation area, after a period which will allow parties to comment, having seen the transcript of this meeting and the papers associated with it.
We will, I take it, then, need, in order to implement, should we believe, after we have had comment~
that it's appropriate to do so, we would then need another meeting, at which the Commission can work the thing out.
~his set of comments, does that constitute putting the proposed rule out for comment?
MR. BICKWIT:
Yeah, I think that would be one of the papers that's been submitted on which you would ask for comment.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now going back to an earlier guestion I asked, who is the proponent?
In other words, who receives all these comments and pulls that package together?
MR. BICKWIT:
The Commission staff will receive them and pull it together.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In other words, you three?
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 iO F
20 21 22 23 ce-F-al Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 31 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other additions to this matter?
MR. BICKWIT:
I just have one question.
Flow long will*it take to implement this pat down, if it does, how much lead time is needed, if it does go into effect?
MR. SNYDER:* I.'m not sure o.f the answer to that.
Can anybody else comment on that?
MR. MICHAELS:. Ted Michaels, Standards..
The pat down rule, you could implement that within short notice.
I don't know whether it will go in that direction or not.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I would think between now
- and November 1st, if the Cornrnis~ion has to face the reactor side question and decide whether it's going to --
MR. MICHAELS:
We are preparing a paper right now.
It's a cognizant level of review which is proposing a further delay for the pat down search, additional compartmentalization and two-man rule, and we've looked at several alternatives.
One is the clearance rule as one alternative for reactors.
The other is the secondary proposal by the Staff, I
which is an AC.
The Hearing Board proposal is a third, and possibly industry-run programs, ANSI type programs.
And what we are doing in the paper is just looking at the length, the span required for each one of these to be implemented, should the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 20 21 22 23 24 ce-F I Reporters, Inc.
25 32 Commission select any one of these alternatives.
We are really recommending -- well, we are recommending a two-year extension in the pat down compartmentalization.
At this time this is what is being looked at right now, because we feel that the hearing board proposal and the NAC would take additional rulemaking to implement for reactors.
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Thank you.
Other comments?
Well, thank you very much, I think.
[Laughter.]
[Whereupon, at 4: 3 O o'clock p.m., the he*aring was adjourned.]