ML22230A187
| ML22230A187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780504 | |
| Download: ML22230A187 (1) | |
Text
RETUR J TO SECW-TARIAT RECORDS
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING SECY-78-212 - RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Pl ace - Washington, D. C.
Date - Thursday, 4 May 1978 Pages I - 21 Teiephone :
(202) 3A7-3700 ACE * ?EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Officia.l Reponers
.ii44 North Cop itol Street Washington , D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAGc
- DAILY
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 4, 1978 in the Com~ission 1 s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Th~
meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
P,s provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infornal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any_ sta*te~~nt or a:*g~rn1ent contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
ERC 7339 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 2 3 PUBLIC MEETING.
4 SECY-78-212 - RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD NOTIFICATION 5 PROCEDURES 6
7 8
9 10 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
11 Washington, D. c.
Thursday, May 4, 1978 12
- 13 14 The meeting convened at 10:40 a.m., Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie presiding.
15 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
16 Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman 17 Peter A. Bradford 18 Richard T. Kennedy i9 20 21
-a 22 23 24 A eral Reporters, Inc.
25
2 P R O C E E D I N G S
- 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we proceed on reconsideration of Board Notification Procedures?
3 4 MR~ BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Let me make a few brief remarks.
6 The Commission last considered this on January 24, 7 and if you recall, requested the views of the Licensing Board 8 and the Appeal Panel on the then proposed staff procedure 9 for Board notification.
10 The basic thrust of these views was that the 11 safety evaluation and the FES should by definition contain 12 all relevant and material new information up to that point,
- 13 14 and that only thereafter should the 'Boards and Panels be supplied routinely with ongoing docket information.
15 The Licensing Board suggested in its memo that 16 this procedure be something that could be adopted on a six-17 month trial. And the Appeal Panel suggested that it would 18 monitor this new system over that period and decide at that 19 time whether there were to be any- further modifications.
20 Begging the question slightly as to whether this 21 should be a trial program or not, I would say that the staff
- 22 23 agrees with and accepts .these Board and Panel views, would propose with the Commission's direction that this new system be implemented. And if in fact, it turns out 6 months, 8 Ace- ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 months, a year from now, that further modifications appear
3 appropriate, it shouldn't be at all difficult to implement
- 2 3
4 them.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is, you can always fix something that doesn't seem to be working well, and there 5 doesn't seem to be any very strong reason to make the pro-6 cedure something which self-destructs in six months unless 7 you do something. Maybe we ought to, if we go this way, 8 make it this is the procedure we are going to use and tell 9 ourselves, please write down the 6-month date or whatever 10 seems appropriate, and we promise we will take a look at it li at that point.
12 You can make an information report from the staff 13 point of view and the Board/Panel view and see how that 14 fits.
15 MR. BOYD: Exactly, there should be no problem 16 with that.
17 Once the staff got over the hurdle of accepting 18 the Board and Panel recommendations, we revised the proposed 19 memo from t.he EDO to the staff, implementing this procedure 20 which is in the revised Commission paper and enclosure 2.
21 We modified the proposed public announcement which 22 fits in enclosure 4.
23 Three comments, I would like to make associated 24 with this, one of which can be seen graphically on the charts Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 are in the paper in enclosure 3 and also I have passed out
4 slightly enlarged copies.of these.
- 2 The most difficult aspect of Board notification 3 turns out when you consider it as an agencywide procedure is 4 to try to visualize its implementation. And in trying to 5 visualize its implementation so there would be no loose ends 6 or no areas subject to being ignored critically, I came up 7 with the following 2 charts. For better or for worse, I 8 think almost every eye is dotted and t is crc-ssed.
9 The first chart shows the overall staff's 10 process. The top part of it shows how internally generated 11 information would flow. And the middle part of the chart 12 shmvs how externally generated information would flow. And
- 13 14 toward the bottom, all o~ this information would funnel throug the office of the Legal Director and hence on to the Boards.
15 It is as you can see from the charts a rather 16 complicated process. Trying to expand the major program 17 office, NRR or NMSS and see just what functions would be 18 required there, I came up with a second chart showing what 19 the NRR system would have to be, taking into account all 20 4 divisions being involved in the question of Board notifi-21 cation and how all of the information would have to pass 22 23 24 back and forth.appropriately between the divisions and as well as coming in from the other offices and thence on to OELD.
Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 I think we have everything outlined in that second
5 chart that one could at that point reduce the detailed pro-
- 2 cedures for all the offices.
- 3 Another complexity we didn't mention last time --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Have you reviewed these charts 5 for faults of the first kind, i.e., you look for boxes which 6 only have incoming arrows, indicating there will be, you 7 know, that they will suffocate, or similarly boxes with only 8 outgoing arrows which indicate that they:are some sort of 9 source.
10 MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I noticed at one point 11 in the chart, they didn't indicate the idameter of the pipes 12 incoming and outgoing, and I was a little worried about the
- 13 14 pressure levels that were going to be generated.
MR. BOYD: They are all 24 inch pipes.
15 MR. KENNEDY: Then,, the suffocation will occur 16 at the Board level.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sorry to interrupt you.
18 MR. CASE: I think, Mr. Chairman, although we 19 didn't do it that way specifically, both Roger and I went 20 over this several times.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I haven't found one like* that, 22 23 24 by the way.
MR. BOYD: Eventually, it gets to the Board.
The se.cond complexity that I should like to take Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 the opportunity to bring up involves what I foresee in many
6 cases and have foreseen as the length of time that it takes
- 2 in some cases for an initial*decision of the Hearing Board to become the final decision of the Commission. In some 3
4 cases owing to various appeals and extended times for con-5 sideration, some of these cases as I perceive them appear 6 to drag on for years.
7 If you look at the guidance in the rules for a 8 simple case, it talks, at least unless the rules have been 9 changed, of something like 45 days for an appeal decision 10 and 10 days for Commission review.
11 And if vou envision Board notification to the 12 Appeal Board and the Commission over a period of 55 days, 13 it sounds rather simple. However, in practice, it appears 14 to me that a number of them go on as I say for perhaps years.
15 As we would apply this system, we would take a 16 case still pending in the svstem and say, "Yes, indeed, if 17 some~hing new comes up that applies to that case, it must be 18 forwarded on through either the Appeal Board or the Com-19 mission, or whatever is appropriate."
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Would the material channel 21 alwavs to the original Board or would it deflect up the line 22 to the Appeals Board and then to the Commission as those stage 23 were reached?
24 MR. CASE: It would generally deflect, although
.A~eral Reporters, Inc.
25 I understand the Appeals Board has a procedure now that
7 everything is sent to the Board it automatically gets, but
- 2 that is its choice.
3 MR. BOYD: The way the procedure is laid out and 4 how we would Probably implement it, if in fact the Commission 5 is the appropriate source to receive this information, we 6 would funnel it to the Commission, at the same time probably 7 providing a copy to the Appeal Board for information and 8 perhaps even a copy to the Licensing Board for information.
9 In the case of the Appeal Board being the focus, 10 we would sent it to the Appeal Board directly, and at that 11 point also probably sending an information copy to the 12 Licensing Board.
- 13 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Board had, for instance, issued So that after the Licensing an initial decision, the 15 primary flow then, of material from that docket would go to 16 the Appeals Panel.
17 MR. BOYD: Yes, sir.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If the Appeals Panel passed 19 upon it, we would qet it up here.
20 MR. BOYD: Yes. sir.
21 One of the increments of the procedure is to have
- 22 23 OELD provide all the offices with monthly status reports on all the sitinq Boards, Appeal Board cases and Commission cases so that we will know who is on first and know where to Ace- 24 ral Reporters, Inc.
25 send this stuff. It is easy for us to determine technically
8 where a piece of information ouqht to go with respect to the
- 2 cases involved, but in manv instances, we don't know where 3 these cases are in the Process. Is it still before the Appeal 4 Board? Is it still before the Commission?
5 MR. KENNEDY: Could somebodv describe the nature 6 of this assessment of significance which OELD is goinq to 7 Provide to the Boards?
8 MR. CASE: It will be a staff submittal of what 9 we think the technical evaluation of 10 MR. KENNEDY: Oh, okay.
11 MR. BOYD: And it relates 12 MR. KENNEDY: It is not talking about its siqni-
- 13 14 ficance in the case, but rather its significance in a technical sense.
15 MR. CASE: As related to the case.
16 MR. KENNEDY: Oh, I know, but I mean not savina 17 this is somethincr you reallv ouaht to look at.
18 MR. BOYD: No.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It may include.
20 MR. KENNEDY: It may lead them to that conclusion.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But it may include some input
- 22 23 24 from OELD of a legal nature. I think it is best to regard it as an overall evaluation bv the staff in terms of the technical meaninq in the health and safety sense as well as the Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BOYD: Let me take a crack at it. The concept
9 stems from the Appeal Board decision in Vogel where the
- 2 Appeal Board said it is up to the staff to provide relevant material, new information, to the Board. It is up to the 3
4 Board to determine its significance.
5 So we said logically, rather than dump all this 6 information on the Board and say, "Hey, we think by definition 7 this is relevant and material," we ought to go on and assess 8 for them our view as to the significance, even recoqnizinq 9 it is the Board that has to make the determination of signi-10 ficance.
11 MR. KENNEDY: Okay.
12 MR. BOYD: It seemed like the gentlemenly thing
- 13 14 to do.
MR. KENNEDY: In other words, having made the 15 final determination of relevancy and materiality, you are 16 explaining to them why you made that judgment in fact.
17 MR. BOYD: Yes.
18 MR. KENNEDY: Okay.
19 MR. BOYD: The last point I would like to bring 20 up is implicit in this proposal is a need for a training 21 program to acquaint the staff with all the Board no.tification 22 23 24 and responsibilities which I see is in accordance with one of the recommendations in *the GAO Report that had been prepared for Senator Hart on.Board notification.
Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 And so we have that essentially, not only as an
10 adjunct followup to that recommendation, but I think as an
- 2 inteqral part of this Board notification process, especially
- 3 4
5 recognizing how complicated it is.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, since the staff has accepted or very nearly wholly accepted the Board and Panel 6 recommendations on how to handle these things, are there 7 objectors or commentors near and far?
8 MR. CASE: I don't know of any objectors. There 9 may be commentors on something; I don't know.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, the system has inevitably 11 a shade more complexity this way than originally proposed, 12 but not a great deal, it seems to me, from the Commission's
- 13 14 viewpoint.
From where I sit, not from where you sit, but from 15 where I sit, if you iust put another stamp and stamp a 16 new address on every piece of paper that comes in and just 17 send i t out, that may be an easy handling procedure for you.
18 From my standpoint, it the Licensinq Boards,:-,now 19 have to put toqether a great administrative staff with some 20 technical people and.some leqal people and clerical people to 21 handle it and make some sort of early determination for them
- 22 23 24 of what i t means and so on, that is not a help to us.
So I think this procedure which puts back in the hands of the more experienced and I really think expert Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 staff on these matters the iob of doinq this and of sorting
11 out the papers and getting them channeled in,the right
- 2 place, I think that increases your problems over the ori.qinal 3 proposal.
4 But from the Commission's standpoint, at least 5 where I sit, it is a substantial improvement in an overall 6 sense.
7 MR. CASE: I would also consider it to be a vote 8 of confidence on your part that the staff at least in that 9 part of the process can handle all that material itself. That 10 is, before we submit our SER's.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, one of these days, we 12 will go throuqh the charts with you and see how it is all
- 13 14 working out. And I think. indeed, it is a very helpful thing to not have to deal with all of the individual papers and 15 assess them, get them on the Boards and so on, up through*
16 the point where the staff has submitted essentially its 17 complete testimony before the hearing on both health and 18 safety and environmental side, and to include in that every-19 thing that we think they ought to know.
20 I think that is fair enough.
21 MR. CHILK: Mr. Chairman?
Ace-22 23 24 ral Reporters, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
MR. CHILK:
Sam, you have a comment?
Can I just ask one question? How much more material would you estimate is going to wind up in the 25 Public Docket Room?
12 MR. KENNEDY: That's a good question.
- 2 MR. CASE: None.
are talking about is already Because all of the material we 3
4 MR. CHILK: Is already released.
5 MR. CASE: There may be copies of transmittal 6 letters and things like that. So there might be some volume, 7 but --
8 MR. BOYD: May I modify it only slightly. For 9 externally generated information, absolutely none. Everybody 10 '
is getting it now except the Boards. For internally qenerated 11 information and a system that churns up internally generated 12 information, I think it is totally unpredictable. It will 13 depend on how much internally qenerated information thouaht 14 to be relevant and material that later turns out in fact to 15 be relevant and material there really is.
16 MR. CASE: Well,' but the trigqer of internally 17 generated information is the staff decides that the paper 18 says that it is important enouqh or siqnificant enough to 19 get some information from some outsider. That correspondence 20 is put in the Docket Room anyway.
21 MR. KENNEDY: Okay.
- 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
MR. KENNEDY:
You were going to say?
I was going to say I'd recommend we approve of the recommendation. But I would add that I 25 think it would be useful to anticipate a review, let the
13 Boards know that --
- 2 3
4 be --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
MR. KENNEDY:
Oh, yes, I think it ought to We ouqht to say that perhaps in a 5 notice.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it ought to be explicit 7 in the Commission decision or be reflected in the EEO 8 memorandum.
9 MR. BARDFORD: Perhaps in the press.
10 MR. KENNEDY: I was thinkinq in the press, the 11 typical short note that the Commission will review the 12 exoerience with this new procedure in X months, whatever. And 13 I would think 8 or 9 months. Six months seems a bit too 14 short.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Six months seems a little on 16 the shy side. I wouldn't even object to a year as a matter 17 of fact.
18 Why don't vou decide what is reasonable?
19 Peter, what do you think?
20 MR. BRADFORD: Let me just pursue with you for a 21 minute the sentence on page 4. The staff has already con-22 cluded (not intelligible) comments received in the course 23 of development of r~gulations, code standards and quides shoul, A 24 not be provided to the Boards.
Ace.ral Reporters, Inc.
25 Does that specifically have reference to the
14 situation like the connector problem?
- 2 3
MR. CASE:
MR. BRADFORD:
No. I wouldn't think so.
Why not?
- 4 5
MR. CASE:
connector problem.
Well, there are so many things in the I guess it depends on which part of it 6 you are thinking of. Research results, no. If they are 7 relevant and material, they would have gone.
8 so* it is meant to deal with when Mr. Minogue 9 develops a standard or a guide, he first -- somebody prepares 10 a draft, and he generates a lot of comments internally, both.
11 within the staff and outside his staff.
12 Those could be considered material and relevant 13 to some issues that the Board is considering. But they are 14 really not directed that way. And comments that he gets from 15 external organizations on the code or standard, quite 16 similarly. And we are trying to exclude those as a class 17 as long as they are commenting on something under development, 18 regulation, both guide or standard.
19 Now, within that mass of information, it is con-20 ceivable that a corn:tnentor miqht say. "I don't aqree with 21 this particular part of your proposed guide because there has
- 22 been some experiments conducted over here that show thus and 23 SO* II 24 We would say that that kind of information, the A . r a l Reporters, Inc.
25 experimental information, we would hope by Mr. Minoque's
15 staff would be extracted and sent over to us as oerhaps
- 2 3
relevant material.
So you would get the information, but not the
- 4 5
comments and the quides is what I am trying to say.
as a matter of fact, thc;lt is what we have done.
And There is a 6 letter from Congressman Dingell relevant to this subject.
7 And, first, it was thouqht to mean all of the comments on 8 quides and standards. And we went back to him and he~_said, 9 no, he didn't mean that.
10 But we did take all of those comments to see if 11 there was such material in them and did include them in the 12 Dingell pile. So it's that kind of procedure that we meant
- 13 14 15 to address. It is not too well expressed.* It is hard to express it in a few sentence~.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, where are th~ words, 16 Peter?
17 MR. KENNEDY: Bottom of page 4, second paragraph 18 from the bottom, last sentence.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, yes.
20 I think what we mean is, for example, staff 21 has already co_n::luded the comments received in the course of
- 22 development of the regulation and code should not ordinarily 23 be provided to the Board. They may very well be matters 24 that arise in such a proceeding where the staff would consider Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 it appropriate.when notified.
16 MR. KENNEDY: May be continually.
- 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But the great mass of that material routinely ebbs and flows between loads of people 3
4 and their commenters outside is a general proposition, not
~
5 the sort of thing that the Boards ought to have to look at.
6 MR. CASE: It is those very things that the standar 7 setter, either you or Mr. Minogue himself, considers in the 8 development of the standard. That is its purpose. And they 9 are considered in that form.
10 MR. BRADFORD: Does anything that you have here 11 change the responsibility of licensees to report information 12 to you after the development of the staff documents?
13 MR. BOYD: Absolutely not.
14 MR. BRADFORD: How is that duty defined now?
15 MR. CASE: It is only defined in McGuire?
16 MR. BOYD: I believe.
- - -- -- -------- ---~-- --- -- --- ------ -----
17 With respect to relevant and material* new infer-18 mation and Board notification, it is expressed in McGuire, 19 Appeal Board decision in McGuire and reaffirmed in Vogel.
20 As far as information relating to safety, for 21 example, at any time is covered in Part 21 or 5055(e), and
- 22 other parts of the regulations. But that is notifying the 23 Commission.
i I
24 In this case, it is Mr. Case. But where Board
, Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 notification is concerned, i t is strictly the Commission law
17 that comes down from McGuire.
- 2 MR. BRADFORD:
is that just safety?
Does that also relate to NEPA or 3
4 MR. BOYD: McGuire also relates to NEPA.
5 MR. CASE: Well, it was written in the safety 6 area. I suppose you could get some argument as to whether 7 it applies.
8 .MR. BRADFORD: The staff reads it as relating to 9 NEPA?
10 MR. BOYD: A, we read it as relating to the 11 environmental and the words "and environmental"'is included 12 in that decision. It is, indeed. It is somewhat of a 13 parenthetical expression, but it's there.
14 In any event, our procedure clearly lays out a 15 whole track for the environmental part of this. In most cases 16 you know, they are separate hearings.
17 Now, one adjunct made clear by the Boards is that 18 we don't start funneling extra environmental information until 19 after the FES. We don't start funneling in relevant material
\
20 new safety information until after the SER. So in some 21 cases, the Boards will be on one service list, but not on the
- 22 23 24 A . r a l Reporters, Inc.
other yet because of the differences in time of the 2 parts of the process.
MR. BRADFORD: But you are satisfied that if the 25 licensee develops new environmental information after those
18 documents have been filed, they are under some dutv to bring
- 2 it to vour attention?
3 MR. BOYD: And also to the attention of the Board.
4 Thev are under an obligation under McGuire to inform the 5 Board.
6 McGuire says *both staff and applicants have a duty.
7 MR. BRADFORD: How does that work in practice if 8 the only place where that duty is clearly spelled out is in 9 an Appeals Board decision, and if that isn't done, what 10 are the sanctions?
11 MR. BOYD: Jim?
12 MR. MURRAY: Well, the Board can criticize the
- 13 14 staff, draw it to the Commission's attention and have the MR. BRADFORD: What about the licensee, though?
15 It's the licensee instead of the staff.
16 MR. MURRAY: I would presume that this would 17 bear on anything the licensee was authorized to do or was 18 seeking authorization for. In other words, we could withdraw 19 the authorization to do whatever he has been doing or we 20 could recommend against him getting the authorization he 21 might be seeking.
22 If he is before a Board, he.will be seeking some-23 thing.
MR. BRADFORD: But the sanctions would be in the Ace
- rat Reporters, 24.
the.
25 context of what he is seeking. It is not the same thing as
19 a violation of a regulation.
- 2 MR. MURRAY: That is correct .
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It doesn't fall under civil 4 penalties and so on.
5 MR. MURRAY: I can't be sure that we couldn't make 6 a case under some provision of the regulations under all 7 circumstances. It would depend on the specifics of the case.
8 But normally, if it is a violation of nothing more than the 9 injunction laid down by the Appeal Board and doesn't, as it 10 might, relate to some other regulation, then it would not be 11 subject to civil penalties.
12 MR. BRADFORD: What was the Appeal Board drawing 13 on in laying down that in1unction? Were they interpreting 14 a regulation or statute?
15 MR. MURRAY: No. My recollection is that they 16 were just setting forth the normal what they conceived of 17 to be the normal duties of litigants before the Board in 18 assisting them in arriving at their decision.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Are we --
20 MR. BRADFORD: What is needed of us today?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we think well of the propo-22 sition, I think it would be desirable to go ahead and vote it 23 into place with anv modifications necessary.
24 Let me ask about the 6-rnonth trial period. Is A . r a l Reporters, Inc.
25 that part of the memo?
20 1' MR. BOYD: No. It is not part of the memo, nor
- 2 is it part of the oress release. We would just plan -- and 3 I really think you are probably right, a year is much better.
4 It was Jim Yoers' suqgestion of 6 months. But I think a 5 year would probably be more appropriate.
6 At the end of that time, we would be getting input 7 from the Appeal Panel. We, of course, would expect some 8 input from the Licensinq Boards, and we ourselves would have 9 to go back and review this thing. And we could very easily 10 put an information paper back to the Commission telling you ll how it has been going.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To understand what is before 13 the house, I would like us to understand that if we adopt 14 it, it is not a thing which self-destructs after 6 months or 15 a year, but rather a thing in which we would ask all the 16 parties to provide us with an evaluation in about a year 17 to see whether we ought to modify or do something else.
18 Okay. So that plus the memorandum outlining the 19 policy here in the paper, I would define that as the issue 20 before the house.
21 And are you ready to take a position?
- 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
I'll ask for the "ayes."
(Chorus of "Ayes.")
So ordered.
25 MR. GOSSICK: Also with the understanding if
21 there is a glitch that develops here, you know --
- 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If there is a glitch, we expect 3 to hear from you immediately.
4 MR. BOYD: It is our view to notify Boards, Panels, 5 and the Commission.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:10, the meeting was adjourned.)
7 8
9 10 11 12
- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A
- 22 23 24 eral Reporters, Inc.
25