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