ML22230A160

Tran-M780531: Discussion of Union of Concerned Scientists Petition for Reconsideration

ML22230A160
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1978
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M780531
Download: ML22230A160 (1)

Text

....

DISCUSSION OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Open to Public Attenda~ce)

May 31, 1978 Pages 1 -

51 Prepared by:

C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

• uNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSiqN OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS,, '

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Open to Public Attendance)

Commissioners' Conference Ro0m Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

Wedn~sday, May 31,, 1978 1

The Commission met pursuant to notice at 3:15 p.m.,

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner.Bradford ALSO PRESENT:

L. Gossick

s. Chilk H. Shapar J. Kelley K. Pederson B. Snyder E. Case R. Mattson J. Scinto J. Fitzgerald

w. Shields

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

P R O C E E D I N G S.

• cHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Could we come to order.

The subject this afternoon is Discussion of Union of Concerned Scientists' Petition for Reconsideration.

The Commission. published:. a Memorandum and Order c°n,.the original Petition in* this* case, the 13th of April.

We now have* OCS Petition dated May 2nd.

Mr. Pederson and Mr. Kelley have a joint memorandum to the Commission.outlining various matters.

Jim, I take it you will represent OGC.

Somewhere between the two o-f you, would you bare to take up the discussion and outline the proposition for us, please.*

.MR. PEDERSON:

I'll start off~

You have in your hands a memo'jointly prepared by OGC and OPE, as you note.

This memo attempts to provide* you with a series of procedural decisions that we.think need to be taken as soon as possible.

Before I start, I would like to make. one slight correction, because I don't want to do a disservice to UCS or to the Commission in terms of the reading of this memo.

On page 2 at the top there is a sentence*that says:

"No emergency or immediate.actions seem necessary, nor are any requested ~y UCS."

I think in the sense that UCS's Petitio is not titled as the earlier one was in a request**'*t°or*-¢me.fgency action, nor does it end in any specific request for emergency action.

I think that is a fair statement.

1 2

3.

4

5.

6' 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

On the other hand I would note that on page,12 of their Petition for Reconsideration, at the bottom, they do reiterate their desire that the plants, in this *case th~ operating plants in t~e discussipn should be.orde~ed ihut down until compliance with these regulations has peen demonstrated.

Now, although this statement appears only once* and it is in the middle of the text as.opposed to being a specific request at the end. of. the Petition.

It does have the;appearance in the context of a request for some immediate action.

So I want to clarify that that statement at the top bf page 2, to be completely accurate, should probably be modified somewhat.

No specific emergency action or at least as titled as such is requested.

But I think it is fair to say that UCS at one point in their Petition does reiterate their request for the plants to be shut down.

Having said that, then I would like to briefly discuss with you the three decisions that we think need to be made now and outline them for you.

The f;i.rst is whether or not you should seek further input or formally request a review of the Petition.by* the variou line offices that are involved.

In the Petition for Reconsider-ation the actions of certain line offices and staff is criticized and i's brought into question.

Particularly NRR., Research and IE.

The original Memorandum and Order which was drafted for and

. \\

I 2

3.

4 5

6 7

8 9

10.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4

issued by the Commission was ba.sed to a:iarge extent on papers provided to you by the line offices, put in the,'Pµblic Document Room arid $0. fort:q~,

~~-~.-,

It s~ems to us, o~c and OPE, only fair and proper.

. tha,t the line staff be asked to provide. you comm~nts, analysis and their* conclusions and recm:nmendations as app:to:priate *on

,.1',,

this lates't Petition for Reconsideratiqn.

We have recommended that you so formally ~equest and that you* ask them to provide you with a detailed analysis within, one month:~s time.

Nqw, let me say* that in my mind one 'month seems reasonable based on the complexity of the issue and ba.sed on our experience.in the first Memorandum and.Order.

However, I cannot and will not say to you that the.one. month \\:s based

• on any.magic formula.

It. seemed to us what appeared reasonable.

I think. it requires a judgment by, you a.s to the urgericy ~f the situation here and what is reasonable to ask of the staff.

Secondly, the question is raised whether public comment should be invited.

We asked for public comment on the first Petition.

Seeking public comment is a more or less standard procedure with regard to petitions.

We had fairly active comments the last time, I be'iieve* 46 comments were received fr6m various individualsir~rgAni~Ations and so on.

We think that since this can be done c.oncurrently with the staff review, if Y.ou choose to ask for such, a staff review, that it would not represent a critical path item nor would it

1 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5

represent necessarily a delaying factor and that it is in keeping with good practice and with normal practice on the part of the Commission.

So we recommend that the public comments be. solicited.

Here, we recommend again a one-month turnaround that is' to be concurrent with the staff review.

Again, th.at figure* is not. som~thing tha.t I would. want to fall on my sword over.

It seems reasonable.

All of these; by the way, are predicated on the assumpti n that you choose to take up.. :this Petition for Reconsideration.

You, of dourse, have the option of not taking up the Petition.

The third issue.was how should the Petition for Reconsideration be reviewed at the Commission level?

As you kno, the Commission chose to take the original Petition up unto itself and to deal with it on a first order basis.

This appears to argue.for having the re-review done at the Commission level in some way or other.

We ha.ve recommended to you. that OPE and OGC jointly review, analyze and draft for Commission consideration an opinion, based of course, in part upon the information we would be getting or input we would be getting from the staff and their analysis as w~ll as public comments, as well as, of course, the comments and concerns of the CommissiOn.

This does have some downsides and we reccignize that in taking this into ~onsideration.

OPE and OGC had the lead role in this similar situation on the original Memorandum and

1 2

3 4

5 6

7

8.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6

Order, to the extent that tha.t Memorandum and Order is being questioned he~e* and. its completeness and so forth is*being

• brought under scrutiny.

An argument could be made that *it would b~ impioper to have OPE and OGC play that role agai~,

even though we would obviously be doing so under.the scrutiny of the Commissio*n.

We thirik that thi~ is not unlike, however, that it is not a conflict of interest here, and:.it"' is. not unlike having

_a judge' s,:law clerk or even the judge himself consider a Petition for Reh~aring or a new t~ial even wh~n h~ in fact was the judge that sat in that trial.

But, nonetheless, we did consider some other alter-natives. which we li~t there including an independ~nt review by your own assistants-or a task*force of your own assistants of some sort, or convening an ACRS panel or a st~ff panel of some s6rt.

For various reasons we felt these were not the best choices and we list some of the concerns there and I would be more than happy to go into them in more detail if you wish to discuss that.

Final*ly,

• I would note that in their Letter of Transmittal to you, UCS suggested that the Commission might profit from an informal roundtable discussion of the issues raised here.

We have briefly reviewed the Petition and in our judgment the issues are clearly stated by ucs.

And their

1 2

.. 3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

• 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

• 25 7

concerns are adequately documented.

We seeimo benefit right' now, ne*cessari~y at having a round table at.:this::. time and would suggest that yob defer a decision on having*such,a discussion.

In your considerations of this, if you choose*to consider such a discussion.with them now yo'll: mi*g1:J.t want to

. take* into your thinking some of the things that you thought about in your first go arourtd o~ this Petition.

First, if UCS is entitled to participation in some sort of round.table with you, ::_it would seem that both the stalf and. previous comme;*ters

• on

• the original Petition would have to be given the sam'e opportunity.

Secondly, in your Memorandum and Order you.:made an expressed statement to indicate.that earlier participation by UCS in the form* o:f Mr. Pollard meeting with you.

• and making a presentation*was not to be construed as a precedent.

This.

was written in* the Memorandum and Order because of the concern that you had.

I. leave it.to your judgment as to whether a second meeting along these lines would serve to weaken that concern about limiting or walling off prec,edents. here, bu't..

• it certainly is a.factor that I would want to ~all t~ your attention.-

Finally, I would make one more statement that is not in the p~per.

This Petition for Reconsideration arrived, or at least was dated, I *see the Secretary stamp is May 3rd.

Our memorandum to you is dated May 25th.

That's approximately

1 2

~*

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8

three weeks.

t think that it is a fair question to ask:

is ihat too lorig to take action on this Petition even though it wa*s not titled a Pet.1.tion for Emergency Action?

r_think one of the problems_here is that we had no guidelines on how*to deal with this kind of Petition~

It came into the Secretariat, to the best cf my knowledge it was*not suspensed, it was not sent to anyone for action.

L.have hot be able to find that it was in any case.

OPE had it, OGC had it, the Commissioners had it.

I had a concern that since we had been involved in the original Memorandum and Order and since this was a Petition for

• Reconsideration of that, I wasn't sure that it was appropriate

.for us to take it up on our own initiative.

Nonetheless, I think that it is something that you might want to consider even though this is somewhat unique in two senses.

That the Commission took up.the original Petition itself to begin with, and secondly, a Petition for a Reconsideration both of which are somewhat rare events; nonetheless you may want to think about some kind of guidelines in this regard in terms of more expeditiou~ handling if iou feel that this was not handled rapidly enough.

I'm not sure that three weeks is necessarily unreasonable, but on the other hand, I think that had there been clear guidelines as to who should have done this and what time frame it mi~ht have been done more rapidly and I take some of the blame for that.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

On *what basis did you. take this up?.

MR. PEDERSON:

Did we finally write a memo?

I had talked to several Cornmissoners informally, met 'them in the hall. and said, *you know*, we have this P~tition* in-house arid somethirig really ought to be done with it.

Then I believe,.and_ Bernie may want to fill this in further, I believe that Cow.missioner Bradford's office called us within approximately a week or a week and a half after the Petition was received ~nd asked us, "Whit's going to happen?

What are we going to do on this?"

We then had a staff meeting and I said, well, we really ought to prepare a paper and tel.l the Commissioners it is in-house and here are some options as to what to do 'with it.

So I guess I would have to give the credit to Commissioner Bradford's of.fice in a way, although even at that point it wasn't clear to me that I was the appropriate office as.I was not given that formal assignment or that OGC and OPE were the appropriate offices, but that's how thi~~.actually happened.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And you invited OGC to participate?

MR. PEDERSON:

No OGC ---

MR. FITZGERALD:

We were getting paralleled.

MR. PEDERSON:

They were getting paralleled.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 a*

9 10*

11.

12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

,10

, Commissioner Bradford is an equal opportunity telephoner and they were getting the same. message.

Also,*

.*. we had jointly.done the original memo.

Our', concern was that if I took the* lead in a memo

• or:Lif we took the lead in a Peti tio~

• for Reconsideration about a Memoral'l;dum and Order.*that *

.we had been actively 1:ngaged in originally dr~ft_ing, r myself was'n It sure how appropriate that looked. ' So I am anticipating' that one of you may have a question.about _why did it take -so

• long and Ililiope I have anticipated the question.

I maybe have not answered it to your satisfaction,.but I_assuril.ed that it migh be. a question on your collective minqs.

I have nothing more to add, Mr.. Cha.irman.

• CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Thank you Ken.

Jim, from the counsel's side do you have anything: that*-~ou _would like to add or subtract?

MR. FITZGERALD:

I second*.. :Keil I i:f.,presentation:;.:~:

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Peter, do you-~-.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well,.how do you want to proceed on it, Joe?

I do have a couple of questions and a*

couple of points.

CHAIRMA.N HENDRIE:

Why don,1 t you go ahead and exercise them and then we will see, other Commissioners may chime in or have their own line of inquiry_ to follow.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I pave. gathered* from the sentence at the top of page 3 that as to the Petition it~elf

1 3

4 5,

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11.

.you are*recommending that we the phrase is*~consider it".

I' gu:es~,I'm not clear myself on what t~e term of ar.t is for a Petition for R~consid~ration.

If j6ii reconsider it, ~re yo~ in effect granting the Petiticin to *jeconsider w~thout

• piejudice, to, your end result or are* yoµ_' taking some 1',.*

. preliminary,step'a~4 is' granting the: Petition to Reconsider something th.at, happens at the end?

MR. 'PEDERSQN:

I think, Commissioner, that that more appropriately ::::,-.,nwell, what you are saying is that we think that the 'peti:tionuhas sufficient merit that it deserves for you to assign staff to it, to have it analyzed.and then on. the basis of that analysis make a decisiort *.

It is not clear ~n6ugh on the* fact that.we can recommend *to you that you simply deny it out of hand.

So it was meant to i~ply that we find sufficient merit there or ke believe that ther~ is suffici~nt merit that you may want to in fact look into it.

I don't think it presupposes the result of your cbnsideration to go either way.

That was what the intent was.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But just as a procedural matter, this. is probably more for* the lawyers than you.

When one considers recon'sidering is that the same as re:consideting?

In other words, if the *Court grants a Petition to Reconsider. something and then goes ahead and reaches the same,results is it deemed to have reconsidered it or r

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 is it deemed to have denied the Petition for Reconsideration?

MR. FITZGERALD:

I think whe:h a court gets a Petition for Reconsideration, and they do g~t these things with some frequency either for a panel or en bane, that they make an initial decision as to whether they are going to.

e~en entertain it -- a discretionary act of whether they want to take it up again.

Once they determine that they will take it up again, they, -- regardless of what the ultimate results will be, either because some novel or intriging argu-ment is made on this Petition for Reconsideration, they then invite briefs and actually take up the merits.

As to what goes on in the first instance in the judge's chambers, I don't know, but COMMISSIONER BFAD.FORD:.. But when it issues that first order does.it say Petition for Reconsideration grarited?

MR. FITZGERALD:

I don't know tha.t.

MR. KELLEY:

I don't think you need a vote at this juncture.

They.just say look at it and they look at it and do whatever you are going to do" COMMrSSIONER BRADFORD:

I asked it because we have had one cornrnuni.cation recently, not from UCS, but a curve suggesting that we have a habit of doing a de *facto granting petitions, but then at the end of the proceeding saying that now that everything the ;petition has asked for is done, we will deny the Petition.

And I wanted:to avoid that type of

1 2

3.

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 suggestion here~

MR~ PEDERSON:

'I'his is a little unique,.,. Usually your Petition is to ask you to take certain specific actions.

.This Petition is a Petition to R~consider.and in a way, by agreeing t6 look into this you are reconsidering.

I see the thrust of your' question.

It is not clear -- they.are also asking you to iecon~ider your decisiort iri the earlier Memorandum and Order, ahd I.think you are not at the stage you want to grant that.

COMM.ISSIONER' 0 BRADFORD:

No, I understand, Obviously,,

the Commission hasn't r*eached that stage.

what this first step technically is.

I am just wondering It seemed to.me* that I r,emembered some time when the question of whom we should and shouldn't meet with on pending petitions and a rulemaking proceeding*came up, that Jerry Nelson, at least, was very strongly of the opinion that

.the Commission could meet with whomever it wanted to meet with in a rulemaking proceeding, and that while obviously it should as it would in any matter endeavor to be fair, there were no due process retjuirements or.legal requirements that it had to meet with anybody.or everybody or any combination thereof.

Is *that a fair statement of the OGC position?

MR. FITZGERALD:

My recollection when this came up in the first instance in the previous,incarnation of the UCS Petition that we were, and Jerry included, pursuaded by

1

,2

• 3 4

s*

6 7

8 9

10*

11 12 13 14

15.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Mr. Connqr!s'..argument,_that, as a matter of 'elemental* fairness the other.. side, to \\yi,t, tp.e people-,1;who coro.ment~d and who

'

• repre 0se~ted 'licens~s that might* 'be i:i;i j_eopardy, that they should.be given some* t'ime.too.*

I think he was p~rsuaded,by

• that* fundamental fair.I1,.ess argument. that Mr.* Cohno*r* aqvanced.

I I

/

I

• COMMISSI~N:isR ~RADFORD~*.:. ~here do.es this' stop j

any :way_, *if you. have* 40* comrtte:ntators db you hear* from all 40* o:fi them if you hear from one?

MR. FITZGERALD:

They *way that it was~*agreed. to and-set 'it up in.- the past was th.at *the. commenters were to be accord.ed the same amount of time as -had been accorded to the UCS, and we encour:aged, I,believe under* your di_rec:tion. *_o:r:

Chairman Hendrie~s. dir,ection that the 4p folks strive to consolidate their* presentations, if any there wer,e, to _maximize the 4 5 minutes or whatever. that would be accorded them.

• And that message ~id go forth to those.parties ~rid they ultimately did get together _and decide not to take up the Commission's

~

kind offer.

But.that ty,pe of inform9,tion was ~iv.en out to them.

Otherwise, if they. exerci~ed -their _ip.dependen_t and individua;L righf they would ha.:ve each gotten about 45 seconds C.

or the equivalent.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That is of some relief to me.

I did in fact mee.t wi*th the UCS people between our Memorandum and Order and their filing the Petition for Reconsideration before, in fact, we knew any such petition would be forthcoming, I'i I

1 2

3 4

5 6.'

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

• 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 but it is a relief to know that that meeting which lasted an hour or an hour and a half will not requ:i.re.me*to *spend an hour and a half with* 45 additional peti~ioners one at a time.

Ken, what do you see as likely to be forthcoming*

from pub~ic commenters.on the_ typ~s.. *of:'-+/-ssues. {ha~ you. s~e:

that is.raised here.: ii~ ~e just iort of ~oirig through the motions on.that?

MR.. PEDERSON:

Obviously,*commissioner, I can't say with *certainty!

I certainly.wouldn't want to sa~ we are*

merely going _through the motions.

My guess. is',~ based on the fact that my preliminary:

review of the Petition for Reconsider~tion is it raises and advances many of_the same issues, that the comments that you g~t from the public may be* very similar in that regard t.o the kinds of comments you got earlier.

On the other hand we have advanced somewhat since the Memorandum and Order was issued.

Some things ha.ve transp~red and taken place and these are alluded to in some

• cases by UCS and I would suspect that there is the pos-sibility that you may get some public comment oh 'these events on progress or lack thereof, that is a.lleged by UCS eve.n s.ince the Memorandum and Order ~ame out that*might shed additional light.

I simply can't say for sure~

I would expect that it would parallel with the comments we got earlier, however.

1 2

3 4

5, 6

7 8

9 1,0 11 12 1~

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 But since UCS does address some things and specifically since UCS talks about things that were*not*in the Memorandum and Or_der or thing~ that were left out.of the Memorandum and Order there may be some public comment on that may be' 'of some value, you.know, just that, the quality o.f the_ Memorandum a,nd Orde.r. in terms*. of, subs tan ti ve* quality. or its compl:ete11;~ss or whatever.

Moreover, I gl:less :i; feel tha.t if you_ choose to foliow this path, in other*wo:rds; if you choose to also ask the Bethesda staff to.make a formal submission to you, I'don't see that going out for public comment would result in a delay and I guess I have always.felt that where you are not talking about a critical path item, public com~ent is proba.bly

• a good way to proce,ed.

In some* cases even when you are talking about del~y it is a good way to proceed.

I can't find a good strong reason aga'inst it, I guess is what I'm saying, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Are there particular items among the seven that you picked out, I had somehow only counted six in the UCS Petition itself, but obviously ~ou~are just, breaking them down beca:use they are all*t!Jere; that seem more compelling tha.n others?

MR. PEDERSON:

I would like to ask Bernie Snyder to respond to that, he has done the detailed review.

MR. SNYDER:

This is as far as the public comment goes, your question is in that context?

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 COMMISSIONER BFADFORD:

No,_ I'm sorry, I meant just in terms of your analysis~

In terms of y_our recommendation that we should consider.this Petition, tha.t goes to all of the point in it, that recommendation?

MR. SNYDER: Yes~., yes.

I. think the whole think s,hould be ~onsidered.

• to'commen:t.

I think the staff should have the opportunity MR. PEDERSON_;

Were you ask{ng, Commissioner;, were some of the points raised b~ use, in our judgment, were they stronger, more compelling, more convincing?

COMMISSIONER BFADFORD:

Yes, well COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

More deserving of consider-ations than others?

MR. PEDERSON:

Yes, was that your question?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

On the one end of the scale, I suppose one could ask are there those that you could simply drop further consideration, and are there: _any that are deserving of special consider~tion?

MR. SNYDER: _

Well, we have only made a preliminary review of this Petition from ucs and in my judgment, I couldn't rank them in an order that one*rnight suggest.

t would say that the points that they have raised ought to be addre_ssed a.nd I don't know any that ought to he ignored or dismissed out of hand, you know that they aren't pertinent.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

The problem is -- and granted

l

.2 3,

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 there was a lot of material involved -- I guess the reason this i's here is that they feel we have already ignored them once and one of the things I take it that is part of the recommendation is the jud.gment that we were somehow -- that our original order was somehow deficient in not picking*these*

points**up and. dea.ling with them.*

MR. PEDERSON:

On the contrary, Commissioner, I think our feeling is quite strong that all of these points, including

~he ones UCS specifically feels were not given adequate treatment were in fact covered.

Now the judgment of adequacyyis a judgmental matter and I think that's one of the things this review would want to look at.

I wouldn't want to imply that by suggesting this*

be rereviewed that we are Suggestirtg that the+/-r allegatiops or concerns are valid in terms of these things being overlooked or not treated.

I think in this case where you are talking about the kinds of charges they are making, you are talking about serious staff deficiencies, you are talking about the Commission letting things happen that are a direct contravention of its own regulations and so on,that there may be some value, if you judge it,*to go back over this and convince ourselves, convince you, convince the public that in fact these points were adequately looked at.

It is our judgment that in fact none of these points were given cavalier treatment or were left unaddressed.

So I wouldn;t want to leave that impression

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 19.

with you.

In fact, we have mentioned in our memo very specifically that we do not s.~e any riew. substantive issues that have been raised by ucs~

So I think in.your judgment as to whether to-take

'I I

this Petition up,.I want to make 'it clear that in. doing _so

. we. are.no.t. recommending that the UCS Pet,ition has* merit--ih terms of ~aving fou;nd.the Memorandum.and Order*that you issued to be grossly defective.

The question is:

do you feel that public confidence, *that your sup.port for y~ur earlier _Memorandum and Order warrants this kind of investigat'ion, that you have nothing, one would hope, to hide,and are willing to undergo this; arid the resources* that it would :,entail.

That is a j udcp:nen:t tha.t you have to make.

I would not want it to' be read as me saying,

• I Commissioner, that we have read this and

• ucs nas::rea.Ll:y raised some serious defects.in your earlier Memorandum and Order.

That is simply not our judgment at this time.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:*

Well,_ for example, at the beginning of the Petition they say that, "The Staff has eventually admitted tb~you in these p~oceedings that UCS was 66rrect that, as to at least som~ presently operating ~lants, a fire could hoday.have the same effect."

And that refers back to the Browhs Ferry *fire.

Is that i*n fact, a fair statement?

MR. SNYDER:

Yes, as far as it being fair, they

1*

2 3

4 5

6

• 7 8

9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 20 have made the statement before and in their submission in i

Januari of. ~he bioposed ~emorandum and,Order as you recall,*

1 I'*

the~ade t.hat contention bef~r~.

It was discussed in one of the subsequent Comm~ssion:~meetings.

We.have not gone into that question.in detaii;*but we ii.av*~ reviewed it a bit.

My understanding' is that,of all the plants that have now sent in.their fire protection plans and review by the staff in every c~se there are modifications that are needed..

• So it 'i,sn' t one or two or a few plants,* and

• steps are underway to modify them., There are alternative approaches to make the fixes as needed.

And in ~he meantime there a::i::-e many compensatory measures that are be,tng taken*

to ins~re that ~ntil these modifications are made that we are Under safe conditioris.

I think the staff can give better detail on it than I can, but basi_cally I understand fromL:the revi*ew of this that there are -- there is no one or two-or a few plants

.involved.

S0.they asked the question, "Why didn't you ask which ones are they?" and we answered that question., :( b.elieve, as all.

There ~re modifications required for all.

COMM.ISSIONER BRADFORD:

And this a fundamentally different type of situation from the one ~e discussed yesterday with regard to.. :theUMark::.L~containments?

MR. CASE:

I don't. think so.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

• It is that same zone between

l 2

3 4

5 6,'

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 what is required for licensing and what is required for contiriued ope~a~idn and the need for sta~dards and defiriitions for this type.thi~gs?

(Mr. Case nods in the affirmative.)

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

.* Let me ask you, you are suggesting tha~ the staff have a chance to resporid to this Petition you would simply turn the F*eti tion over to the staff?

MR. PEDERSON: No, no.

Not at all.

Your earlier Memorandum and Order, in the process of developing it, on several occasions, I couldn't even count actually, yori:formally wrote to the staff and asked them to supply information about the Peiition, to provide their response to that earlier Petition and allegations made in it.

All we are doing here is recommending that with regard to this Petition for Reconsideration that you keep it to yourself,

'just*as you did the first Petition, but that you formally request from the staff, a response or their analysis of this Petition, their response.

They themselves in here are criticized in many cases fairly strongly and I would think you would want to have that.

Now, the alternative is for us in OGC to go for them and ask them for it. I think it is better, I think it is more proper and I think in terms of documentation, it is better that you ask them formally for this analysis.

But they would not be doing your Memorandum and Order for you.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

14.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

No, no.

I understand that.

So you would be *just ---

MR. PEDERSON:

Consistent with what you did on the first Petition.

COJ),W'lISSIONER GI.LINSKY:

-- turning the. Petition over for their response.

MR. PEDE~SON:

That's dorrect.

COMMISSIONER GI*LINSKY:

Is it clear to you what is being asked of this hearing?

MR. PEDERSON:

W~ll~ they are suggesting -- first they are asking us to reconsider your earlier decision.

Now COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And to shut down the plant.

MR. PEDERSON:

Yes.

On p~ge 12, as I mentioned at the outset, On page 12 in the middle of th~ text' most Petitions this doesn't end with a specific set of requ~sts of you.

There is only one place ---

unlike COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, there are six points.

MR. PEDERSON: Yes, and we have detailed those.

But these are -- what you are being asked to do is to say you made. a series of statements in_ ::'fOUr Memorandum artd Order that you issued, and they want-you, as I read~it, in addition to reconsidering your deci~ion not to shut them down, to reconsider your reasoning and whether in fact*your reasoning was sound; whether the information yo had at ha.nd was complete, adequate and proper.

There is a series of things

1 2

3.

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22*

23 24 25 they are asking you to do over and above these specific issues.

23

\\ \\

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:, Yes, I mean,,it goes b,eyond

.the operc;ltion of these *plants. It-:hs1s to dm,wi th -~-

. MR. *'PEDERSON:

Yes, Bernie.reminds me* of one Qther thing.

And whether we adequate*ly considered* their. input qr USC Is' ~a:r;-ious' documents they pro~Tided.

That Is' another question they have raised.

Particularly their draft Memorandum and Order that they supplied us.

Whether. that was given. adequate attention.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that's point number one that* UCS' s draft Memorandum and Order was virtually.

ignored.

MR. PEDERSON:

Yes, bu't I'm saying that that.doesn't appear in the bullets as--'- on the first page of their contentions.

Those go to the --- in our memo those.gO to the specific technical contentions that they say were not correctly

.peal t with, but over and beyond that there are these broader questions, one of which is did we give adequate attentio a_nd, I suspect one would say credit in some cases, to ucs.' s.

submissions.

. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well; obviously there are two kinds of. i terns here, and in a* way we. are being asked< to

• rethink, as I recall, our regulatory doctiine.

MR. PEDERSON:

You were asked to do that in the first

,i

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

. 10 11 12

.13 14 15 16

• 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Petition too, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I guess we are being asked to rethink it again.

MR. PEDERSON:

Yes.*

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And also, there are a number of specific matters.

I don*~.kndw th~t they are really specified in your mem~ here.

.MR. SNYDER:

We didn't attempt to track their specific six points.

There was no attempt on our part to do that.

MR. PEDERSON:

Commissioner, the prima.ry purpose of our memo was to ~riggest basically ways of proceeding.

We didn't attempt.to give you ih.the memo an analysis of the Petition.

Those bullets on the first page were an attempt to give you a sense of the kinds of things they were r~ising.

But you are correct, our memo is not exhaustive in terms of detailing the issues that are raised.

If your decision might be or if you want to consider dividing the Petition up with the possibility of considering portions of it and. not considering others or something, then I think it would be appropriate to be more specific. But that was not our intent in this memo.

I might also say, Commissioner, that my reading of the Petition of these various issues, both the broader ones in terms of how we proceed in our philosophy and the specific

1

2.

3 4

,5 6

7

'8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 technical oneS", are in some cases so inextricably* intertwined,.

it is difficult to look at treatment of sin~le failure criterion without getting into the whole* qu~stion or our philosophy of regulations.

It is very difficult to separate those things.. out..

COMMISSIONER BRAD.FQRD:

There is also a refe.rence.

_on page 4 which*states the Commission shouid adopt the relief requested by UCS as detailed in their draft Memorandum and Order of July 9,which does contain the kind of relief paragraphs at*the end that you said aren't pre~ent here.

MR. PEDERSON: rhat's correct.

If you.wish to go back and make the judgment that what they asked for in their draft Memorandum and Order was what they are now asking for in a way here, then, yes, that is correct.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, that seems to be what it says.

MR. PEDERSON:

But that requested.relief, of cour~e; very closely parallels with what they ask for in there, in the initial Petition.

I mean,.if it is not co'mpletely clear what UCS wants, one could always solicit further information from them, I suppose, but it is not:clear in this Petition for Reconsideration, precisely what they are asking for other than their request to shut down the plants, on page 12.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, there are some points

2 3

4, 5

7 8

9 10 lI 12_

13 14 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 raised about the confirmatory as*sessment

• program, after

_bein,g checked. -

MR. PEDERSON:

. Yes*"' But th'ey,areri It. nicely itemized, one has to*go through there 'to pick them out and you can get..7 dr 8 o~ 9, depending,,,on how count and how you divide~.

• MR-SNYDER:

If I ~ay on that point, th~y have raised a few questions that I _think probably if you.

decided to take this little thing, are wbrthy;of clarific~tion~

. The~e is some confusio,:n-;*On *.that part_icu'lar item, that is the rerun of the Sandia tests.

Tha.t could be clarif i,ed.

I must say, what the staff is planning to do on that and it told you this in a recent memo the first part_

of the month, covers,-both ends of.the spectrum, both the_ '71 qualified components and the '74 qualified components.

We didri't ask for the '71.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You did not?

MR~ $NYDER:

We did not in the decision you made._

That's what 'I mean, that's the point at which some clarification ought -"::.cinlght be made profitably.

It has to be made in another formal decision, but COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, isn't the problem there in part that it is not all clear, that there are components qualified to the '74 standard instailed in p1ants?.

MR. SNYDER:

Except for some of those that replaced

1 2

3 4

• 5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 components that were found not to be qualified during this whole process.

COMM.ISSI.ONER BRADFORD:

But there is not much point in testing those?

MIL SNYDER:

No, the:i have already* been tested.

The reason for the '74 requE:st*was that the Sandia tests were a total failure.

And they were intendep to test for the '74 components, the latest version on the standard.

That's the way the tests were.set up.

Essentially your request.was to do it over again.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

It is not clear whether the tests were a failure or the components were a failure.

MR. SNYDER:

Well, th'e tests were inconclusive.

because the components failed, right.

But it is true that there are no operating plants today except for these few isolated replacement piecE=s where there are anJthing other than '71 components to-the '71 standard at most.

the older plants, of course, predate even that.

Some of MR. FITZGERALD:

Bernie, just as a point of clarification, 'didn't the Corrimis:sion' s paper or Order direct that these tests.on the co~ponents were to also* use a representative sampJ.e of those in use in nuc.lear power reactor safety systems?

MR. SNYDER:

That's the poi~t of confusion.

That probably could have been worded more clearly.

That i~ exactly

1 2

3 4

5.

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 f.hei*:p6int at which I would suggest that a clarification be made.

I must say the staff. seems to be proceeding to cover both sides of the question.

CHAIRMAN:'iH:ENDRIE:

Peter., do you have. other things you would like to exercise at this time on the matter?

CO.MMISSIONER*BRADFORD:

No.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, in. the discussion of the.

UCS Petition there is a certain amount of procedural matter of discussion with the limited amount of discussion of the one points or another, I think there are certain procedural matters to decide.

• These appear to array themselves to me as follows*:

I think the memorandum that OPE and OGC got up is helpful in this context.

I suggest to you as *,first:_*a basic question before the Commission of whether to consider the Petition or simply to deny it out of hand.

It seems to. me that we might well come to a decision on that this afternoon if you felt ready ~nd able to come.up to it.. On the other hand we could also postpone ~t.

It seems to me that following that, unless the Petition is denied out of hand, then the three questions raised in the OPE memorandum are useful things to consider.

Whether further input from the NRC line offices on the merits that the UCS Petition should be sought, whether public comment should be

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9'*

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 invited, and finally, the question of who should review the material thus gathered.

In the first instance their recommeridation is that OPE and OGC undertake this.

I'm glad they have volunte~red.

I must say we tend to run out of bodies to'review things, it becomes impractical to fir;id at each round a*new and previously uninvo.lved group of capable people to gather up and summarize the material for the Commission.

So there are sort 6f fou~ questionSj a principal one a.nd then those three to follow, it seems to me.

How d_o you feel on the question of considering the Petition matters further or denying outright?

If I call for a vote, will I be hustled out of the room in outrage, or do people feel ready to vote?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I think, you know, I regard this as UGS engaging us in a dialogue and I think is a useful exercise.

I willing to go forward.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I detect a willingness to vote, at least.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I vote to consider, to have the staff comment, to hav_e. public comment, have OGC and OPE review the matter and defer any decision as to whether we should have a roundtable discussion with UCS and other parties.

CHAIRMAN HENDRI'Efr° Okay.

As a matter of fact, I neglected that last point.

I'm glad you:b~ought it up.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Okai, I've got registered "yes~ vote down the li~e.

H6w about the rest of you on consideration of the matier; a reques*t that you are simply denying the Petition.

(Co:qunissioner Gilinsky nods affirmativel.)

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I got a nod here.,.. Peter?

.COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I will vote,the same way.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay;* '.so 'we will consider the matter.

Now, on the question of sho.uld we ask the staff for comments. on the. matters raised in the Petition for Reconsider-ation.

.I have a "yes" from Commissioner Kennedy. I. will vote "yes" on it.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I.would certainly also vote yes.

What do you have in mind for a vehicle, that is, some sort of separate-~ there is the Order here which sort of is a general request for comment.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It directs the staff to evaluate issues and provide a detailed report to the Commission, at the bottom of the page.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, r guess I am ju'st trying to avoid that and then further questions from us on the basis that issues* that we thought were important weren_' t addressed, and I wonder if there is anything that could be said for being more specific as to the questions on we would like to staff to

1

• 2

.3 4

'5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 to take.

I suppose in any case there is no difficulty with havi~g thi~ Order go out and.there are certai~.specific qrie~tions that we need addressed it can be sent along afterwards CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We can request the staff to evaluate the ~pecific issues raised i~ the Petition foi Reconsideration.

If there are.other ~aids or additional words.that COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Your concern is points are going to get missed or they won't be focusing on.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Ah COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I guess I would be more concerned about the latter.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, I was just trying to avoid a point where in 30 days from now we get the documents ha.ck and it_would seem to us to miss important points that we wanted the staffs to point out and then ask for further comment on those.

I think the answer to that is going to be that, I know I have a couple in mind and I will just see whether it would be worth putting them together and forming a memo saying please particularly address the following.

MR. PEDERSON:

Commissioner, I could add something slightly to that.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's the __ way it ought to be.

If we have any such thoughts, provide them and the Chairman can send a letter on behalf of the Commission

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32.*

requesting staff's MR. PEDERSON:

Also in dealing with the. first Petiti0n~ ~s w~ were going along ~ew ~uestiqns inevitably e:merged.

O:PE and OGC, if you d~cide.* the q.ti.estion that you have to.be decided, to have.us do this,,we*would.be doing our initial work concurrent with. comme~ts being gott.en. from the public and the staff.

And d'll.ring the last go. around several questions from ourselves :.:.and including fo.llo~-up questions from the Commissioners were sent to the staff, I. believe via communication from the Secretary.

So there are ample ways 0£: do'ing this.

You have by *the Chairman, by the Secretary, whatever.

I think there is a certain evcilutionary'process to this and I think it is *inevitable.

Questions are going to be raise*¢]. 'by the very act cif analysisi ~to~a.certain extent.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, we will ~ertainly ask the staff for comments~* P.il:bld:c:~comments, Coro.missioner Kennedy, I think people commented before, I think :i..t is a reasonable

• proposition and I will vote for that too.

On the next item, which is to accept'the recommen-dation of the Counsel's office a.rid Policy Evaluation that they jointly take up the staffing burdens.on the matter, the law clerk's burdens.

I recommend approval since I don't seem to have anyone else at hand.

I don't propose that our assistant be told to do it.

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2-3 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

May 1 ask one question of the s-taff that I*sho.uld have-asked sooner.

CHAIID'IAN HENDRIE:

• All right, ask it an¢]. then* I will come back and pick up *the rest of it.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Joe, picking up on Ed's agreeme11-t that this wasn '.t fundamentally different from the Ma.r)c 1 problems of yesterday, what is the* legal status of the plants that there is general agreement to me~t the changes in the fire.protectionj that is, is a waiver in order in that situation for the same reasons it would ha:ve,been in order yesterday?

MR. SC.INTO:

I think in our lJecember 15 memorandum, we went into some,discussion on that and felt that with the more general terms of General Design Criterion* 3. applicable to fire protection, that one could consider, and this is what we did consider that the present status with the administrative control the higher degree of manual fire protection.to minimumally satisfy that G~neral Design Criterion 3 requir~ment.

On the other hand, the long term adequacy of protection we did_ not want to rely on, personnel and these type of administrative procedures, but we would want them wired in to hard systems to saiisfy more than mini~al General Design Criterion~J, 'just satisfy the General D~sign Criterion 3 without question.

That is discussed at.some length in our December 15th memorandum.

• I,'

1*

2 3*

4

,7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 34

-COMMISSION:E:R BRADFORD:.'. J\\.nd how is it that the

.Maik 1 situation +/-s different?

MR. SCINTO:

.The* Mark 1, the there was some discussion about whether* it was debatabl'e, '2s I recall.

But wi,th respect to. the,.Mark 1, *.the requirement of.* that regulation by i:~p~ica ti9n, by incoi-pora tion.

• of the codes called for a_ margin.

No~,.. this c~~. be considered a~* a

~...

deviation with respect to* the cause':'portion or the-effect portion.*

'!;hat is, _the code talking about *what the stresses.

on the 'loads can be.

It c~n be an:*exemption from 'that.

We thought' it m~re properly that-it was an error in the loa.d calculation, the lo~d calculation is covered by General*

Des~gn-Crite.rion 50, which again, _uses* the same ~ind of general words*, sufficient margin,.but by**Ii.istory, b.y high tradition, by practice, sufficient margin has me:t:.:the.*:code requirement.

We haveD:'t doll;e thi~ distinction between short terms and *long*

terms over history.

That's why I said, in this case irttlboked: like what we were. sq.yin~ is this did -not meet what we thought to be the requirments of what we had always meant by suffi_cient margins.

And that is an exemption*.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

So it is *that difference between 3 and *4 times that existed in the code and was-a hard

~umerical standard and the absense of any*comparable standard

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 backing up.the General Design Criterion 3?,

MR. SCINTO:

Ye~, General Design Criterion 3 does not have an external place to go to to give you.more substance for what is quote "adequate fire protection."

That has been historical development.'. We ;_have been d~veloping tha.t over*

'a course of time.

The exterrt~l place th~t puts in substance on General Design Criterion :3, unfortunately.was* Browns Ferry.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

There isn't an IEEE standard that keys into General Design Crit~rion 3?

MR. SCINTO:

There are IEEE sta~dards w~ich are related to it, but I don't think there is any set of industrial standards that you can establish which we would characterize as* of themselves, providing the.kinds of protection that we think are required in light of the experience at Browns Ferry.

We might have before Browns Ferry, but* the Browns Ferry experience was a rapid step-wise increase in knowledge.

MR. SNYDER:

I believe there are ANSI standards under development though.

Correct me if I'm wrong Roger, as the result of that.

Is that correct?

MR. MATTSON:

Yes.

MR. SHAPAR:

You are perhaps-asking_for further rulemaking.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Not yet.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me hustle us back to the

1 2

3 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

,36 Petition for Reconsideration-matters.

It seems to me that we have*agreed then, with th_e recommendations of. 'OPE and I wonder then, as a general proposi tio~ the d:i::af t Or~er la_ng'uage isn't a fair represen-

.

• ta'tion o~ where we want* _to go.

I would ask* if you would* not also concur*in the decision.to defer the*question of roundtable discussion.

It doe$ seem to b~ premature at *this I

I time, L*believe.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Ther~ may be some slight addition of lang_uage needed in tha.t Footnote to refl~ct the OGC position we are talking about as. sort of an equal time to the parties rather than allowing the same privilege to anyone who might ask -for the same.

But other *'than thatr_---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right, would you undertake to fix that Jim?

MR. FITZGERALD:

Yes.

CHAIRMA.N HENDRIE:

Would you like to see the Order and think.about it further, or is the language here -- has everybody looked at it and not found much difficulty with it.

COMM~SSIQNER KENNEDY: I agree with it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

For myself,* I will just simply ask OGC to fix the Footnote, as you indicated, Pet~r; and ask that it not come back to me, at least.

If you would like to see it, why py all means.

COMM'.ISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's all right, if you would

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

-18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 show it,to Tom for review.

see.'.it?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Vic,. I don't know if you want to Check with Peter.

Okay.

MR. CASE:

.Could* I comment on this 30. days in there.

CHA.IRMAN HENDRIE: Al~ right~

MR. CASE:

It* is doab.le, but only at the expense.

of other high prior.i ty matters.

I think 60 days would be more appropriate.

MR. MATTSON:*

We can throw away the analysis of the public comments, which you will probably ask us for any how like you did last time.

COMMISSIONER K~NNEDY:

What other high priorify projects?

MR. MATTSON:

Generic Tqsk A-24, Qualification of Class 1-E Electrical Equipment.

I.. have to essentially take the resources *off that generic task and put them on this task.

It means the industry has no definitive guidance on what our current thinking is for the implementation of 32371 or 74.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

How is that going to change if you stretch it out to 60 days?

MR. MATTSON:

.I have got an interim taks force approach to Generic Task A-24 which begins on Monday and ends six weeks from Monday, whidh is tailored to pro~ide some

1 2

3 4

7 8'

9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 interim statement of our current requirements on qualification pr:osedures.

COMMISSIONER KEN.NEDY:

Therefore, if you need 60 days instead of 30, you could do the job in two weeks?

So M~. MATTSON:*

No,*: that's no_t quite *_right.

Th~re is some* fro~t~end lo_ad.ing on tha'l:=- six~week effort where, I could get the technical people in ahd out in the first three or four weeks. and then get them *on to the Petition.

Sixty days is a much more reasdnable tim~.. It would, also allow us to consider the public comm*ents which will be received in 30 days and factor those into our.thinking.as we prepare our analysis.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Roger, which of.these points is it that is going to require~a lot of technical man hours?

MR. MATTSON:

There is a lot of -- as Joe ha.s. just characterized in my ear -- who shot John arguments in the Petition*for Reconsideration.

I think we wotild ltke to go through those.

The full documentation of environmental qualification for plants now _going into operation, I think' D.* c. Cook was

_a case at point raised in the Petition f-or Reconsideration and I would like to go through that in some detail and explain what were the facts of the D.C. Cook instance.

The treatment of the single failure criterion and whether it was correct or incorrect, we have made a considerable

1 4

5 6

7 8

11 12, 13 14, 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

• 39 filing on that subject.:j_n the course of the first Petition.

Evidently::w:t *+/-s:1.hotc,a:dequate *and>we will have to.go back* and go through that again.

. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, 'I'm not *sure that that's the case.. To the ext~~t.'that you all fee'l*tha.t you have given*comprehensi:ve a:nsw~rs on these points, it' is not my feeling in any case that you* have* got 'to go ba.ck and redo, reword and switch the paragraphs around.

MR. MATTSON:

But I think you agree w.ith OGC and OPE though, Commissioner, there are rio ne~ ;technical points r:aised in the Petition for Reconsideration, and despite 'that fact and the volumes of material which we supplied on the original Petition, the Commission has decided to grant the request fo£ ~econsideration, sb I would 'think we would want to go back through the thing in some. details and make the arguments specifically tuned to the wording of the Petition.for Reconsideration *. That takes time~

To ask you to corolla:te tl)e Petition for Reconsideration, which is struct.ured differently than all the material :we filed, will not solve your question at this point at all.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I wonder if we ought not b~ more specific on what ~e are asking.the staff.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:,I urge that we allow the staff to review this Petition in whatever *detail the staff believe~ is appropriate and necessary to r~soluti6nt6t~the

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 issues raised in it.

Otherwise, we are going to have another Petition indicating, just as this one d~*es, the questions raised in the Petition ~ere n6t adequately discussed.

So it seems to.me in fairness to the staff, in fairpess to _the Commission and in fail'.'.n.ess to

• Pe:ti tioner the staff shotild review the matte~ in*a~ exhausted.*detail as is required 'to put.:the ~uestions to rest.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What about the 60-day question, Feter?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, I don't disagree_-with what Dick has just said, but I also don't feel that the staff should feel that it is under any compulsion to.rearrange

• a:gguments that are already made, that is, it would be fine with me if you really felt it were the case on any One of these points to say this point is fully covered in our submissions of December 15 and whatever the other relevant dates are*,*

pages 39 and 43 in one and 46 to 48 in another.

We do have all of those things up here, arid, in any case where you feel that the point has*. been completely answered already, I wouldn't feel you ought to take the time to have somebody just rea~range the arguments.

MR. MATTSON:

We can try that.

The difficulty is lacking the description of what causes us to reconsider the information we have already supplied and force us to go back and reconsider the information we have already supplied to

1 2

3*

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15..

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 force us to go back and reconsider theiinformation we h~ve altea.¢iy supplied. to decide whether or not it addresses the poiht.

That's a fair amount of work.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY; It is to be reca.lled that as

. someone read earlier on page 4., I don' *i:_ wan:J:. to beat* this dead horse too much, but L'.don't want to have to go over. the subject again,hopefully.

The decision laigely ~gnores.the series of filings made by the UCS subsequent to*, the filing of the Petition.

The UCS draft Memorandum and Order has been v+/-r.tmal;Ly ignored, thus, I can't imagine a statem~nt coming back from the staff saying, nd, that's hot true.

Se~ pages

23. to 27.

I would only expect them to receive another comment from the UCS on it and if I were the lJCS I certainly would make one, saying, we know what we said oh pages 23 _to 27, we read.it.

That's why we wrote you this on page 4 of our latest Petition.

MR. MATTSON:

Well, that's a good c~se in point of the uncertainty that I feel at the moment as to what the Commission is aski.nq me for.

The draft Memorandum and Order filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists' was revjewed by the staff'under some.

fairly explicit guidance from the Commission, which said if there are new technical points rai~ed in that draft Memorandum and Order,please address them.

We did and it was a rather cryptic addressing of the draft Memorandum and Order.

l 2

3 4

'.' -5

'6.

7 8

9 l'O

.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

• .19 20

.21 22 23 24 25 42-Npw, are you asking me to go back and reconsider

,iri a;I.l of its detail, ~he draft Memorandum arid,o:t'.der, _which you didn't_ ask ~e to do the first time_? or did you review the draf*t Mew.orandum and *order in some detail and OGC and

• GPE -a_rid.make_ -a.~cisions o~ it?

If you did, I'm not, _awa_re _of them because you didn't ~s-k. me to supply you "input* ~-0.that

• corisid~ration: *That may be* the problem that UCS does not see pape_r* of the sortL:thatl:we filed on the other points on that issue.

CO~I.ssioNER KENNEDY:

It seems to me that;~.+/-hat is precisely the problem.

And it is that problem that I would rather hot see cbme back to us again.

And I'm sure you wouldn't

.either.

COl~~SSIONER Gt LINSKY:

. Well.,. I wond~r-if we really are being. fa.ir to the staff in turning this Petition over to the COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, what it seems may have been the case, we have ha.ve been somewhat less than fair with the staff the 1,ast time.

Had we not given them the explicit

_instructions we might not now be faced with the point raised*

with ucs tp.at s.ays, "but you._didn' t. answer our P.eti tion."

So -what I 'in saying i's:

I think we ought to. say *to_

the staffs, answer the Petition.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but. some of it is addressed to us, I mean, it urges us to take certain matters I

out of the staff's hands.

1 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 MR. MATTSON:

As it did i'n the first instance.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Ok'c).y, but I don't know--,-,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We will take care, of those.

• That' s.. n~t_ this point.

COMMISSIONER GIL!NSKY:.All right.

CO:MMISSIONER*.- KENNEDY:* All I want to be sure of. is that we don't truncate this procedure in the:~:interest of hurrying i't alon*g, only to make it possible. for us to ;reyive it again in an~ther 60 9r 90 days.

Because we would be faced with*

precisely.the same problem that Roger is* faced with now.

.Constantly 'devoting resources to this issue at the cost of something else.,

I think this issue heeds to be dealt with and should.be dealt.with arid has certainiy right to be dealt with,,. but it ought *to be dealt with right once and. for all.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Sure, but I don 1-t t_hink it. is a matter of just hurrying.. it' along. I think it is a matter of indicating clearly what it is we expect of them *.

MR. MATTSON:

Y-es, sir.

That would help.

COMMISSIONER, KENNEDY:.That's all I expect.

MR. MATTSON:

One other thought and*:.then -I will retire the discussio"n*.

Between Victor Stello and I we probably have six to eight experts in the environmental qualification of electricai equipment on the staff.

Those are the people who are making the decisions-~ operating plants, the systematic evaluation

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 pro gr am, opera ting. licenses,. construction permits,* standards

• .plants, technical act:i.vit:j:es A-24.

Those are: the same. 'pe~ple who. will be* wo:r::king on. this Petition.

• So that's the resource implication that I feel)

. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I wo,~ld rathet'.have them

.,work on this Petition o~c~ in the depth necessa*ry to dispose

• of it in one:w~y or the other~ once and for all, than to hear you say that to me. again, rightly, by. the way, 90 o.ays from now.

MR. MATTSON:

That's my point.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think it might be worth taking another day or two to try and see if we can formulate a more deta,iled guidance to the staff on the questions we really would feel. 'are important in disposing of the Petition,, for

• Reconsidera.tion than just giving them a list of specific*

questions rather than just leaving it to them to guess what matters to us and ~h~t doesn't.

I don't mind COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In.the first instance, I'm not nearly so concerned as to what matters to me as I am as to what matters to ucs a.nd that is fairly clear.

I would like the staff's views on thoie matters.

Then I can sort out what is of relative-higher or lower importance to me.

I.just.do not*think that we are being fair either to the Petitioner or the staff if. we sort out those things from the UCS Petition which

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45, we propose the staff shall comment on and form the basis, then, for whatever judgments we*may wish to make, becau,se we are going to get back another one.

I would certainly urge them to do so, indeed, saying the decision largely ignores*~ series

• of filings.'

MR. GOSSICK; Mr. Chairman,.'.is there. sort of a middle ground here where it would be very helpf~l to the staff if the Commission, OGC, OPE could line out or rule out the things which they will *comment on and the staff is not*being asked to comment on?

I think that was part of the problem.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Are there any such?

MR. GOSSICK:

Well ---

MR. PEDERSON:

t would be*reluctant to follow that course.

I think the staff ought to have the opportunity to

'comment on all.

Now, what I think could be done is a memo to them that says, you should address all those issues that you feel need to be addiessed and then it could go on to say, but these should include, and then if there are certain things the Commission really is concerned about not be overlooked, we could do that.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think that is really putting a burden on them and really giving them an open-ended assignment to the staff.

I think we ought to be specific about what it is we want.

MR. GOSSICK:

Well, if there is a question of

1 2

.,3

'4 5

6 7

8 9

10*

1,1 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

. 22 23 24 25 46 subsequent filings that the *staff has not seen which OGC and OPE,: I gather or the Commission. did, I. mean ---

MR. PEDERSON:

No, no.

MR. GOSSICK:

That's not the case?

MR. PEDERSON:

No, no. They saw everything.

I'm not aware of any filing MR~ SNYDER:

They not only saw everything, they respond~d to everything.

fylR. GOSSICK:' Okay.

MR. PEDERSON:

So there is a complete documented record and it is in the Public Document Room.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If they responded to everything

• and yet the UCS is not satisfied with the res~onse, further failure to respond is not going to be helpful to the process.

COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY: *well, take point 3 which deals with the use or probabilistic analysis.

It seems to me th~t that's something that raises questions that go ieally, to the policy the Commission wants to promulgate.

COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY:

Of course.

.COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And it is not clear to me that the staff is in a position to answer these questions.

MR. SNYDER:

Well on that one, though, I don't think the Commission was promulgating the ucs position that we will use probabilistic analysis.

All we were doing. there, Commission r,,

was to cite the histories and how we got to where we were.

1 2

3

,5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

13.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47

In.fact; the Browns Ferry.group did consider and had performed for them by a WASH-1400.group main probabilistic analysis.

Our citing of that in the Memorandum and Order is more iii.the way of background than.anything else.

We rested our case, on it..

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, they* are asking the Commission to articulate the pertinance of the quoted 'analysis and so on.

Well?

MR. SNYDER:

I'm not sure.

• That might be one that

.only the Commission can answer.

MR. SHA.PAR:

May I 'point out that page 2 of the OGC/OPE Memor~ndum states: "We have conducted only a cursory review of the petition so fai and our preliminary vie~ ds that no new.substantive issues have been raised by UCS.~

Following up qn you.r thought and a point made by Commissioner Bradford before, it might be useful, if you are I

thinking of giving the staff advice to transmute that cu~sory

. opinion by OGC a~d OPE to tell you whether or not after further look at it, they believe that is their final view.

Then the Commissioner would know, at least from the standpoint of OPE and OGC whether or not, indeed, no new sub~tanti~e issues are raised.

With that *.kn@wledge, I think you would be in a. better position to formulate any guidance you want to give to the staff.

It is an option any way.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 I.l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

• 48 MR. PEDERSON:

The difficulty is that many of the UCS question posed, don't go so much to substantive issues-as to how the.staff and the Commission dealt with those substantive issues. *. How adequately, how completely, how

.candidly, and these *~end':to:be the questions.

COJYiMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think that is certainly true with the characterization of the Petition for Re~onsider-ation,:but what underlies that, I think, is the premise that if these issues were*dealt with~full then the.result would have to be different so that the allegations are not dealt with fully which is a gentle way of satisfying the results.

MR. PEDERSON: I!m not sure it is even gentl~. It is clear, but my point, Coriuriissioner, was that our statement that there were no new substantive issues went to the fact that there" no big technicai issues raised.

It is really a question of how we dealt with it from the adequacy of our handling the matter.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And that is precisely the impression L-g_ained from reading ~-- the Petition.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I find a spread in view along this side of the table as to the instruction that.. the staff should have on the matter.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Is it more than a day.'*.s

• work to try and draft a.more specific1guidance memo?

MR. PEDERSON:

(Nods in the negative.)

1 2

3*

4

.5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* You could.probably ---

MR. PEDERSON:

We co~ld certainly take a crack at it.

There is no question about that.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

They can:.:cert'ainly take a crack at it. Are you willing to look at,the proposition like that?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I. have. never refused to look at anything.

(Laughter)

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Far ahead of anyone else..

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Always editoralizing.

Now, Dick's view seems to me to be to say that the staff ought to look at this Petition for Reconsideration and file such remarks to the Commission on it as it, the staff, deems necessary to cover the full sweep of th~ Petition.

And that by issuing either specific questions for the staff to answer or ttfitig~t6... ~rovide guidance in limited areas, why that may deter the s~aff, in fact, from speaking to:some area which should be spoken to I don't know.

COMM!SSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I think they are fee to add almost a!'.}ything they want to add.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, wj,th that sort of an understanding, eventually, why the probably will in any event.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would note, however, in answer to that or in addition to that, Roge;r's comment which was: certain of these matters were not dealt with -- they were

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 dealt with, but dealt with in response to sp~cific instructions from the Commission, precisely the issues that are now being raised in the Petition.

So that doesn't help very much.

That is'pr~cisely what I want to avoid.

I ~nderstand Roger's problem about the uie of his resources.

It.doesn't help him in the use of resources to be constantly., every thr~e months

'called upon to devote those same *resources again.

Nor, indeed, is that fair to the Petitioner who has to be coming back to us asking the same questions over again; nor indeed, is it fair to the 'Commission to be consistently reviewing them.

It ought to be done right; done once.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There may be a combination of these things, recognizing indeed that the staff can always add comments as the see fit.

Let me ask the following:

Unless, he1.:is going to pull his people off the generic item, he is going to need 60 days for staf*f comments compared to 30 for the public comments.

Is that all right?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, what I was hoping to do by narrowing focusing the issues and to avoit the 60 day run, what I gathered from our discussion* is that was caused fromcsli;:!:rge:,.part by the fact that he felt he would have to go through it sentence-by-sentence and respond to anything that you felt needed responding to.

It seemed *to me that if we could narrow that a little bit, perhaps*you can save the 30 days

l 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Why don't we defer that decision lin:til we see the memorandum.

COMMISSIONER KENNEo,Y:

But* let's be Su're* that tha*t premise is correct, that was not the way I understood what Roger was saying,*which was that he was.beginn~ng, yet. this very' week, I :!:)elieve, ;:a task for,ce effqrt involving t_he very people who.would be involved in dealing with this petition, and _ii;: wot1ld be 3 to. 4 weeks before the engineers would *b_e rel~eved sequentially 'from tha:t process t.o get started at the*

petition.

Soi~ wofil~rt*t make ariy diff~rence in the first three or four,~eeks.

CHA.IRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, if we _can knock it something he can do overnilight himself, why that would solve all ou~

I?roblems *.

(Laughter)

MR. MATTSON; We could always do this one first.

CHAIRMAN* HENDRIE:

And we could always do this_one first.

But let's talk about the staff time.

We will either incorporate this expanded material in the Order or, refer to it in the.:.~Order and have it appended to th'e memorandum.

And we can see at that point whether-in fact we* have made enough of a de*nt so that the time should s'tay the.same.

Fair enough?

(No response) __

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Thank,1y9u very 1 much.

(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 4:25 p.m.)

I