ML22230A210

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tran-M780517: Amendments to 10 CFR Part 73 to Upgrade Security Personnel Qualifications, Training and Equipment Requirements (Open to Public Attendance)
ML22230A210
Person / Time
Issue date: 05/17/1978
From:
NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M780517
Download: ML22230A210 (1)
v • d • e


Text

RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS 1;.P.R REG(/{

c,'-

-9>

0

!~~,pl Transcript of Proceedings

%-,,qg:l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1--?

,..o

        • 1' AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 73 TO UPGRADE SECURITY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (Open to Public Attendance)

May 17, 1978 Pages 1 -

44 Prepared by :

C. H. Brown Office of the Secretary

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of th2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on j\\1\\ 4~ /~

/°17'$

in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. l., 7ashington, 0. C.

The meeting \\'las open to pub 1 i c attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been revie~*ied, corrected, or edited, and it may coatain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informat-iona1 purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informa1 record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect fi na 1 determi nati ans or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg~rment contained herein, except as the Comr.iission may authorize.

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 DISCUSSION OF SECY-78-245 AMENDMENT.S TO 10 CFR PART 73 TO UPGRADE SECURITY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT.REQUIREMENTS

  • (Open to Public Attendance).
  • Commissioners' Conference Room Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

Wednesday, May 17, 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice at 9:55 a.m.,

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:

J. Hoyle L. Gossick R. Jones R. Minogue K. Goller R. Fonner G. Mccorkle E. Case J. Miller J. Kelley B. Snyder 1

1 2

3 4

5 8

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

~ R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If we could come to 0rder.

We'are going to start in advance of Commissioner 2

Gilinsky joining us.

He is held up a little bit this morning.

The first-item. on the agenda has*to do with the Amendments to 10 CFR Part 73 to Upgrade Securi'ty Personnel Qualifications., Traning and 'Equipment Requirements.

It says approximately one hour.

If we can target on a shade less than that, why it won't hurt my feelings a bit.

Lee.

MR. GOSSICK:

Fine, Mr. Jones will l~ad the discussio of the paper that you.have before you.

  • Ralph?

MR. JONES:

We are presenting a paper to you, _SECY-78-245 to finish up the amendments for guard training.

This started with a proposed criteria published in July of '77 for guard qualification, training and equipment.

It was published for public comment.

The proposed regulations, I will run through those briefly to describe what we had proposed orig-;i,nally.

We

proposed screening requirements; minimum age 21; high school diploma; no felony convictions.

We got some objections to these requirements.

We*had some physical requirements; vision, hearing,

disease, adcliction,some specific requirements in those areas.
  • l 2

3

,4 5

6 7

8 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18

.19 20 21 22 23 24' 25

  • - \\

I

.Then we had some mental requirements: mentally alert and.

absence of ~motion:* i instanili ty.

We received ~ome comments on that.

We also had some physical fitness requirements.

An.8-minute mile, three push-ups --,, three pull-ups. and 10 push-ups.

We got some comments on that.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:

How fast is an 8-mi'nute mile?

That's pretty good isn't it?

MR.. JONES:

That's pretty good.

MR. FONNER:

.A four-minute. is record.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.

MR. JONES:. That's. a fairly fast mile.

. we"" have done something abOut that, so in.any cas7, we don't need to worry about the 8-minute mile.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay..

  • I was going t.o say, to*

chin yourself three-_times requires no great shape.

Ten 3

push-ups, my. God~ if you can't do that, why* you are a.candidate for burial.

So thos~ seem. to be ~:.':"::the:*'shouJ:d'er.,muscle requirements seem to be weak, but you want great legs on these guys.

_I had the impression they* were going to do a good deal more running than fighting.

(Laughter)

But.any way, you have changed them.

MR. JONES:

We have done something to. that to solve that problem~

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 In addition to these qualifications and fitness requirements, we had a full range of training specified.

Specifying the skills ne'eded and including the number of hours of training required for each of these skills. And we received some comments on that.

It was published for public co.mment originally for 4

30 days and we extended'it 45 more days because of. people wanti g to give us well-considered comments.

Some 38 organizations and individuals commented.

These comments are summarized in

~nclosure B to the staff paper which you have.

In the statement of considerations for the propos~d rule, the Commission specifically asked for *comments on certifying programs versus certifying persons.

They also asked for comments on training facilities, central, regional or local facilities and what kind of feel.i,ngs d,i,d the licensees have on these things.

We did not get much definitive data.. in these a;i;-eas.

There was not much that we already knew.

The pros and cons for the various local trainings were about equal. The revised rule provides flexibility in this area.

We do not specify where the training shall be.

We are looking into a centraL training facility, we are considering regional training and we also provide flexibility for the licensee to have local training.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A central training facility 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 what, industry supported?

MR. JONES:

There is a government facility in.

Geo*rgia, I believe it is, tha;t we *are *wqrkfng with the Treasury-Department with the possibility of havi'ng_licensees

  • train their guards there a,nd p:ay a tuition, to have this done ther~.

CHAIRMAN. "HENDRIE:

I :see.

MR. JONES:

Some *of the private companies like Wackenhut and Burn_s have regional facilities that they 5

could use to train facilities, and some of these people*

.also would go to your site and train your guards.right there.

So there are a n~mber of options 'that*the licensee has.

This

  • rule does not require any*.one of those options, nor does it require certification of *personnel.

We did riot got that step.

It does include Commission approval of. the

  • licensee's training program, however.

Now, w_e have a study in p:;r-og:i;-ess to investigate cthe pros and cons and costs of certification versus noncertification and the various aspects of the various types of training programs.

This is in progress and should be finished within the next few months.

As' we see it, the results of 'this study and the experience we get in implementing this flexible regulation will tell us whether we need to go another step or not.

Whether we need to certify guards or whether we need to specif.y

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 centralized training. But until we have. this study and until we have some experience to find out how good the guards turn out, we can't really -- we don't have a basis for deci~ion on that.

We f~el; the way the regulation is now written, that this will provide the quality of guard we want.

One of the major aspects of the public comment was that *the proposed regulation was too detailed.

Training requirements were too specific.

Training times were too

  • specific.

It didn't allow flexibility in site specific training:,*' site specific equipment nor did it recognize prior training that a person might have.

6 The recommendation or the* comments from most of the_

people in the publi~ were that we should address the skills and knowledge needed rather than how you get those, rather than the training.

This is the major change in the rule which I will discuss a little later.

There are also a number of questions regarding discrimination, of the minimum age of 21, high school diploma, felonies and the older.persons in relation to the 8-minute mile.

We have made changes which we believe will take care of these discrimination questions.

We discussed this with EEOC and we believe we have taken care of those in the revised rule.

There was also some question about just who did these regulations apply to.

Which security personnel 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 trained in which way.

They felt that hadn't been made *clear

,in th~'proposed regulation and we have taken*qar~ of that in the revised one.

7 They also said that the implementation time*was too short. ' We gave* them 30 days to prepare the *p*lan and 60 days to sta~t*implementing a1;1d two, years *to get all personnel trained

~nd qualified. *we have made some changes in lengthening these times which I will speak to a little later.

Now, in the.revised amendment that you.have before you now in the SECY-78-245,. as _I mentioned, the major change is from specifying the training requirement to specifying skills and knowled~e areas to be covered by the licensee training plan.

What we require, and I will quote:

".. that'.the l'icensee submit a plan outlining the processes by which guards~

watchmen, armed response persons and other members of the security organization will be selected, trained, equipped, tested*and qualified to assure that these individuals meet the requirement,,that the licensee not permit an individual to act as a guard,*watchman or armed person or other member of the security organization unless such individual has been trained, equipped and qualified to perform assigned security job duty in accordance with Appendix B."

What that says is the licensee shall analyze his security job, determine what skills a person needs to carry out

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 the individual jobs and develop a training plan to provide those skills.

We leave the flexibility to the license to decide who gets trained for what, and he specifies that in his training*plan,* identifying the jobs.

8 In addition to that job analysis ~pproach, we have added -- we have included the sui tabili.ty requirements, the ph~sical ~nd m~ntal requirements and we hava {dentified 100 areas of skill and knowledge that the licensee should consider or shall consider, when he is developing his job analysis.

They are areas in the security programs that somebody in the security program needs to know about.

These are included in the Appendix B criteria at Enclosure A to the staff paper.

We also include some specific weapons training and qualification and equipment requirements.

The specific requirements are shown on the slide the first slide ---

(Slide)

-- shows the suitability requirements that we are now requiring.

Originally the 'first line was the requirement.

"Education:

high school di~loma or equivalent."

We nciw include the performance examination to measure job-related skills so that the education is tied to the job, what he needs to know.

The no felonies conviction,we have added involving the use of a weapon and none that would reflect on the*

1 2

3 4

i :

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

  • 20 21 22 23 24 25 individual's reliability.

We have tied this totthe people using the weapon and the type of felony that is concerned.

This would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

In addition we have limited the minimu~ age of 21 to the armed security personnel.

(Slide)

It applied to all personnei Before.

Slide two addresses the physical-qualifications.

These applied to all security personnel before.

We have now categorized them so that the armed personnel*have the specific vision and hearing requirements, the oth~r security*

personnel have the general physical requirement tha~ they are able to do whatever jobs they are assigned toie (Slide)

The next slide continues with the vision, hearing, the addiction and disease, the specifics for the armed personnel that they must meet.

These have been made a little more specific than in the previous rule to be in agreement with this type of requirement for other o:r:9anizations' armed personnel, lik~ the police, the DOE, DOD and those.

And then all sebu:r:ity personnel incapacitations to have to have medical evidence that they are able to do their job before they can return to their duty.

(slide)

The next slide shows the details of the mental

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 qualifications.

All security personnel should demonstrate mental alertness and the ability to do. their job.

The a1;med personnel and the central alarm station operators, the critical persons in the security system are those to which we,,apply the emotional instability requirement.

We specify, and rill quot~:

"They,shall have no emotional instability th.at would interfer with the ef fecti v~

10 perf6rmance of assigned security job duties.

The detei~ination shall be made by a licensed psychologist, pstchiatrist, phy~ician or other person prof~ssionally trained to identify emotional instability." All security personnel would undergo a.continued observation program for emotioDal instapility.

(Slide)

  • The next slide sh,ows what we have done with the 8-mirn.:te mile.

We have given the licensee flexibility to determine what physical fitness the guard needs to perform the duties he is assigned.

If he has to run half way across the site to get to his post, then he s~ould be able to run half way across the site in some specified time to get to his post.

This would be specified in the licensee's qualification plan.

Whatever physical fitness requirements the licensee determines the guards need and what.would be included.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Let me try to get a.little feeling as to how this program works out in practice.

Once you have laid down these standards, presumably

1 2

J 4

5 6

7

.8 9

  • 10.

11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18

. 19 20 21, 22 23 24 25, it is not a:nii : *,,I and E fu:n,ction to walk irito a pl~nt site and teil the. guards to start running while they take out their*

stop watches.

MR~ JONES:

Not necessarily.

But there is a statement in the regulations that 11 say~ that the licensee shall have his.security personnel demonstrate their capabilities on a seiected*bases at the request of the Commission.authorized perso~nei.

So I and E.

ca.n ask* the lie.en.see.to have his securLty personnel demonstrate that they are capable of doing whatever the licensee's plan says they are capal:?le 6,f doing.

Th+/-s would be ona spot-check basis,,p:resumabiy when they were conducting the routine insp~ctions of the site.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Has. I and*E ever I and E do that as a practical matter?

MR. JONES:

They have,* yes.

(Sliq.e) does The next slide identifies the weapons training areas and the things t~at we call for the licensee to have his. armed personnel know about.. These are essentially the same as *were in the proposed regulation.

(Slide)

The next slide addresses the weapons qualification and requalification.

These are essentially as required in the prior regulation; the difference being that in the

2

3.

4 5,

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 prior regulation we specified the hours of training associated with these things.

Now, we specify that the licensee shall determi~e a~d set.up his 'own plan for determining-that a guard and:'.:~armedr;.,personnel knows areas and q1,1alifies. at these levels.

COMMISSIONER*BRADFORD:

What's 'the difference between qualification and familiarization?*

MR. JONES:

Qualificat,ion means that you actually do the firing.

Familiarization means_that.you should be aw~re of~~~ differences that there are in night firing and day firing... There was a lot of problem because the comments ind.icated that they were not able to have the. night firing qu,ali_fication as there weren't any night firing, ranges to use.

But the guard should.know what the problems are with nighttime firingias::opposed to daylight firing.

But there is n0-t:

requirement that_he actually qual.ify on a, nighttime tiring range.

(Commis$ioner Gilinsky arrived at the meeting~)

MR.* GOSSICK:

To qualify tneans for score, *that they can hit the target.

Familiarization is::.to know what it is like and that?sort of thing.

'COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Now,_as a praqtical matter, isn't it more likely that he would have;::to _.;_ obviously one hopes that he will never have to shoot --~:.that he is more likely to shoot at night than in the day?

MR. JONES:

That'*s possible,::yes.

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 MR.GOSSICK: But with the lighting around the plant, it is not:; the

  • sames as:*_ fm.ri:hgr;:c the>gun
  • iri the dar~-,,;_*,

MR. JONES:

The* plant lighting should moderate that problem some.

Those are some of the detailed requirements, and oj course, in addition to these ther~ are the skills and knowledge that are identified in the appendix thai the license~

would have to consider in developing hip plan.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems they had was the sh0rt time allowed for the preparation.

We have changed that implementation from 30 days*

to.submit the plan we have changed from 30 days to 120 days after the rule is effective for fuel cycle and transportation, and 300 days f.or power reactors.

  • To follow the plan we have changed trom 60 days to 180 days after the rule is effective, for tuel cycle and transportation, and 500 days for reactors or 60 days after approval in either case.

We still retain that the guards shall be trained two years after the effective rule or two years after the approval of the plan, whichever is later.

To assist the'licensees in dev~loping these plans, guidance has been prepared.

Some has been published and some is about to be published.

NUREG 219 was published by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in April for comments by June 1.

This is

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 a detailed document on how the licensee would go about his job *analysis and estab~ishing the criteria for testing and determining qualification to meet those jobs.

This was designed for* power reactors, but,it can eas:Lly be adapted to.fuel cycle facilities, because_ it is directed toward.

14 security personnel and the difference would be whatever.

differences there would be on site.specific situations between -

on the tactics used between reactors and fuel cycle facilities.

We also have a training manual which is to be publishe within the next month for comments.:

This would give q:etailed lesson plans that the licensee could use for training and testing his security personnel.

We h,ave a separate training manual for transportation security personnel which will also be published within the next month.

With this guidance, although it is being published for comment, we believe that the licensees would be able to implement the proposed regulation in the time scale that we are proposing.

One or two points I would make in closing.

The Appendix D, Value Impact Analysis will be revised.

We have done some additional detailed studie~ to expand the value impact analysis and provide additional support for the conclusions reached in the present Enclosure D.

To summarize this expanded approach, the NRC implementation cost would be essentially the same as shown in the present Enclosure D.

1 2

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12

  • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

,------------------:--~--

. \\

I The licensee costs. in the present Enclosure D

  • did*not include* guard.salaries and costs.

We have 'now

  • gotten inform_ation_ on that and have added. that information.
  • The license*e costs -:--- to briefly summarize what we have shown.:--* the implementation will be~- will.cost the licensee, *the total industry in the order of three and a half. million dollars.

That-~*.s tli.e initial implementation_..

About a mill.ion and a half dollars a year maintenance, excluding guard salaries.

The guard sala+ies.are rather.

difficult to estimate, it varies from place-to-place, from region-to-region, but the data i~dicates that the present 15 guards cost the licensee -- now, this.is salaries*and overhead and' all, fringe benefits

$15, 0 0 0 to $18, 0 Q 0 p'er guar*d.

We estimate that i higher trained guard may cost the licensee $22-25, 000.

  • We have no*::real way of determining how much the. union is going to be able to*squeeze out of the utility,>how much the guard is going to want, how much the utility is going to be willing to pay., But these are some estimates that have been made.

In. general, we have used an *increment of about

$5,000 per guard, additional cost to the licensee for this higher quality guard.

This is an over-estimate, because some of the guards ac1:e already at this quality and are already at these higher salaries.

But in any case, if we use this over-estimate and apply it to the total industry, the annual

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 16 cost, including the other maintenance factors that are identified will be less than three-tenths percent cif the cost 9f __ el~_ct_ric.:i.ty bA?ed *on: some AIF' estimates for the cost.*

of electricity.

  • COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

There is one of several hundred items~

MR. JONES:

That's right.

Three-tenths times several hundred is a fair amount of money.

The revised Enclosure D we will have prepared within the next few days, and it will be inserted in the paper_*in the Public Document Room.

Now, there are two other changes that I would bring to your attention.

In Enclosure A in the regulation we said that the ~icensee would submit a qualification and demonstration plan.

We are changing this to remove the word "demonstration" because we do not want it to be confused with the demonstration that I and E would request.

We don.' t want I and E to be bound by what the licensee has said he will demonstrate.

So this word demonstration -- we are not going to call the licensee's plan a demonstration plan, it is a training and qualification plan.

So that is somewhat of an editorial change.

Another change that we are going to make, in the weapons specification area we now specify the nominal specification.

That was in error. It should have been 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 nominal minimum specification.

So the word "minimum" will be added in the three places in weapons specifications.

Those are somewhat editorial.changes, but I* thought I should bring them to your attention.

17 With that, I conclude the presentation and indicate

  • our r.ecommendation that this rule be approved as an effective regulation.

I might comment that last week I was:at a meeting.

with a number of licensees.

I made a presentation on this subject and one,of the licensees asked me if the rule was going to come out again for comment or if*it was going to' be a final rule.

I pointed out that we were recommending it as a final rule, because we had taken their comments into account.

One of the licens*ees then commented, "I'm glad., to hear that.

I'm tired of proposed regulations.

I want an effective rule so I will know what the.. hell I'm suppose to do."

Thank*you.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *I have a couple of,questions, and then we will.see.where else these questions go.

One of the things I note about this rule and some others in the same area and in other areas that I have looked

  • at in the past few months.

We seem to be.writing into the regulations themselves a large amount of detail.

MR. JONES:

This regulation removes a lot of detail.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

As it stands, it is a considerable contraction of the previous proposal.

.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 M~. JONES:

tf you* look at Enclosure A, there are some,*15*.pages of* deJ.ail that we have removed~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, it is mo:i:-e than that.

You es*sentially ',de.lete t°;r*om *Page 34. t'o 0Page 56.

MR. JONES:

That's right.

That CHAIRMAN HEND.RIE: *. I wonder.and. it

  • seems to me you still have in *here a section which** says if the licensee cranks up *a program in.the areas of-knowledge, skill and abilities they.shall be considered -- okay,.* are. as follows and then comes the )..ist of 100 MR. JONES:

Correct~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

  • And I wonder why you go forward with these things..

The inclination is to wri te-~.t.hat, sort of 18 materi'al into* the ~egulations ', rather than writing the regulation with a slightly more general

  • cut and then puttin'g _this. kind of material into the reg guide.

MR. JONES:

Well, one of the problems we have in this specifi:c area is Reg Guide 520 that has some of this information in it, is not being implemented.

COMM~SSIONER BRADFORD:

  • When you.:say it, is not being implemented, is there also a judgment then that what~ver is.. being done doesn't meet the'.regula t:i.on its elf?

MR. JONES:

It meets the regulation,.but the regulatio isn~t s~ecific eriough.

Much of the information in Appendix B here is in or wa

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

L9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reg Guide 520,.

The ~ajor difference is the. addition of the weap6ns qualification and the.tactics, but the licensees have not chosen to implement Reg Guide 520 to the extent w~ felt would give you the good quality guard.

We are

  • making it a requ~rement that they consider.these hundred items.

19 Now, obviously,if he is writing a p'lan for a fixed site guard, he would not do anything about Item.96, for example, transportation,.coordination.

Those items that. address transportation; those items.that were not appropriate for his

~ite he would not address in hi~ plan.

MR. GOLLER:

If I could, Mr. Chairman,.I think I

,might elaborate.on thai explanati~n in that there has been much emphasis on the flexibility that is provided by this regulation to the licensees. in developing their plan, btit each licensee must submit his training plan tor a.review and approval by the NRC staff.

This is, in the end, a normalizing effect and by providing these specifics in the regulation it provides a basis for the:staff to require that these items be incorporated in the plans, and be incorporated properly.

MR. JONES:

What we.would expect is -- and we stat~ this i~ the paper~- that each licensee probably would not develop his own individual plan, but would probably use consultants in the area, that there would probably be a standardized plan that could be adapted to the various sites.

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 In fact, this is already occurring.

One company has developed such a training plan.

I saw a copy of it last week at this m~eting and it looked'like a fairly good comprehensive plan, al though I didn't review it in detail.

So the licensees are already proceeding ~o develop their plans and to implement things on the basis of the proposed*

regulation.

CHAIRMAN HEND~IE:

That still doesn't quite come to where I'm p~obing.

It says the areas and knowledge skill and *the abilities that shall be considered in the licensee plan are as follows and, then there are a hundred items.

The words to the regulation are.pretty straightforward~* at least at the beginning.

It says the areas that shall be considered are as follows:

I guess if you thought the l0ls~ area that you might want to consider, under this regulation it would be illegal to do that.

Well, that's the way the reg is written.

It says these are the areas that shall be considered.

It doesn't mention any others and presumably no others are to be considered or permitted to be considered.

20 Then the 100 areas themselves have a very open-ended s*ort of character to* them.

Adversary group operation.

I suppose one could spend a PHD thesis studying adversary group operations and I'm sure that is not what is contemplated here.

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 21 It is.a. check-o:f;;f; item *.

  • What you write 'is a regulat,i6n in which t;.he staff effectively *has a: semi-- at which the. licensee ha*~ to conform, but in*which the staff interpretation'pf*the 100, items is,sort*

I L

.of whatever the staff interpretation wi,11 turn out to* be.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is your point 'that this o~ght to go *before the Stand~rds Revi~w Board?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. Well, you know, I had great troubles with the fir~t ver.sion of the regulations because what it did.

  • was. t9 carry on at enormous length ahd*
  • in great detail, you know, check the fingernails *on the first finger.

Check the fingernails on the second finger, check the finger-nails on the: third finger.

You know, what in.the world is all of this doing in the -regulations.

Now, you have taken most of that out of it, in fact, but there are still pl~ces where it has this aspect.and the list of 100 items to be considered.is one of those areas.

COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: Is the *list long or do you think it ought to be ina subsidiary document.

What's wrong about it?

CHAIRMAN. HE:NDRIE:

I wouldi,put it in a less formal document and I would put.it in the context that these are items that the staff thinks ought to be checked off as you

~o down the formation of a plant, and decide for each one whethe it applies to the plan at your site at not, and if it:applies,

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

\\

\\

  • to what.degree it applies, but there may be. other.s.

This just says -- this is just based on c.heck these off *~n:a *it, gives. ho guidance on this.*

I must say, I'm.riot goi'ng to,oppose the adopt.ion of this rule with 'or without,fu:t:'.ther contrnent on the ground

t have just
  • m.en tioned.,

1**

MR~ JONES*:'* Let me add,, if* I may, Reg Guide* 219 a,ddr~sses an expansio'n of these i terns.. You can tie these various items.to the v~rious job analyses factors identified in Reg Guide.219 -- not Reg G11ide, NUREG 219 which'tells the licensee how to.go about his job analysis.

And the lists in that.guidance tie to this list.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Why couldn't yo~ just reference NUREG 219?.*

.MR. JONES*:.: Well we do -- well~. we* don't reference.

it in here, but it is guidanc~ in developin~ a plan to ~se these hundred items.

So those two lists are compatable, the list in 219 is compatabl_e with the list in the regulations.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, why can't you just reference 2i9 in;this r~gulation?

MR. JONES:

We probably could; but we come back to the problem then, do you make NUREG 219 a re.quirement then?

It is much too detailed to be. a requirement.,It is guidance

  • and if you reference in a regulation, then does it become 22 a part of the regulations? It depends on how you reference it.

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 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is possible to incorporate it as. a reference o:t it is possible simply to ha_ve the regulation read that the licensee will go read that thing and take it into account in making his plan in which case it doesn't become a full detailed part.

MR. MINOGUE:

Mr. Chairman, there is considerable precedent for a statement in the regulations that the items in the implementation of this general requi.:i::-ement is to be found in and then reference the NUREG or Reg Guide.

That has been done before.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Or you could then update that guide~

MR. MINOGUE:

That hasn't created any problems and people have understood in ~uiie good £aith.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It seems to me -- let me go on with some general comments tha t_:arise here, because this proposed rule and its rewriting and so on, calls to mind a scheme~- a regulatory scheme that is.evolved here over the years and seems to me a very good one is to have the Commissions regulations which do our part of the Code of 23 the Federal Regulations as part of the la_w, to have an implementing body of regulatory guide which are really.fairly formal expressions of the staff views on how to go about implementing regulations, and then a variety of yet lower~level guidance in NUREGs and reports of the staff, standard review

1 2

  • 3 4

5

.6 7

8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21.*

22 23 24 25 plans for the review side bran~h~arid technical positions.

These are things that have evolved to the regulatory guide status and so on.

24 It seems to me a reasonable system.

The practice has worked, *,tolerably well,.' I. think. Everything below the level of regulations has a reasonable flexibility.

The staff can adopt and publish new versioni withbut the need to come hack and rehash for the Commission all of the arguments that might mean a change in emphasis, and furthermore, in Reg Guides they *can deal at a level of detail with the subject matter and all of these things to which the Commission is capable of delving only on a very few cases a year, just.

from a time, standpoint.

Now, to suggest that in thi.s case and perhaps others in the-,.secpri ty area that bodies of detailed material have to come up out of the Reg Guide structure into the Regulations, because the licensees are ignoring poses a problem.

That says that the whole structure of Commission regulations, formal staff guidance, less formal staff guidance and so on, doesn't work or is at least at risk.

I think that accept.

I find that hard to COMMISSIONER GJILINSKY:

Well, regulations ought to be as *simple as possible.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

.Because the Commission has to pass regulations, they had better be simple.

(Laughter)

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 As I say, *the Commission can have few complicated

-_,..-,_,1\\

  • regulations to *deal with a year, but it can't
  • 1

, stand. to have t\\, __ i' all its. regulations in anything like the depth that*:;the staff eventrially needs to,discuss those items in order to provide adequate guidance, both for itself;*and fbr licensees*

.and for applicants.

So necessary regulations.have to have a simpler aspect.

MR. CASE:

The prob.lem is compounded by the usual short time implementation of.changes fn these kinds.of regulations.

With that short time you don't have t~e CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let.me suggest that part of the

, problem that you: :'.aJ?e having with licensees IJ;i**iio1emefif'at;i;;,:*~~-.*

.~-

- *~-:--'-"'.::~,---,:- _,*-----.-,-*--,.,._~ --~---

. -~-

in the security area is that over the past couple of years

.the Commission has moved very precipitously.

Every time a new round of Congressional hearings is held, why the standards get jacked up and these ~u6cessive waves propagate down to the staff and result in new versions of up-graded security regulations across-the-board for licensees, which the licensees, frankly, firtd unreasonable and in*.some cases impossible to* implement, and in other cases really very d:j_fficul t. *so they are dragging foot.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Not in Congres.sional hearings.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, okay.

I take back Congressional hearings, but they certainly have an effect.

Every time we* go down there and get beat about the head by(:;

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 26 cong*i:essrnan this.a.nd senator that who says, "why can't you give absolute assurari~e that things* can't be stolen or things can't be*.sabotaged," inevitably pressure develops back down the line to go make some new regulations.

And you are right, direc~ions. come f~om other places and they are also a result 6f the tenor of the times too, and appropriately~

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And we start out at a pretty.

low level..

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On the reactor safety side, why there is.a very considerable amount of belly

  • aching about regulatory guide provisions from time to time~

Sometimes it is loud screams.

Neveitheless, I don't find on that side of the house just flat refusal to deal with the things laid out as guidance and regulatory guides.

So there must be something about the security, especially about the security area and I suspect it is the escalation without time for digestion and reasonable implementation.

The escalation and requirements ont he security side that is doing it.

Now,. I think you have now begun to build* *reasonable times.

Guard training is probably not the most urgent item in the whole security area, although ft is clearly part of the overall upgrading picture.

So perhaps the times built in to this one -- the staff feels that it can allow more reasonable time for this one than it is felt on other*proposed

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 regulations in the past, but the time you now propose sound

  • to me as though they ought to.allow reasonable time for people to get.these.things done.

Perhaps this one is not likely to be a problem.in that regard.

27

,COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I was going to make it a problem by.asking how in the world you arrived at such ~~ngthy time that you have allowed for guard training.

You allow what, 500 days?

MR. JONES*:

Only in reactors.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Reactors, :oh.

MR. JONES:

'Part of the problem in reactors is the resources available to review the plans and th~ fact that the licensees -- the reactor licensees are now.in the middle of implementation of 7355.,

They just wouldn't be able to do 7355 and the guard training too at the same. time, *and

, the NRR staff wouldn't be able to do them both together.

So you have got to give some time to finish up that 7355 ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

They can't do what together?

MR. JONES:

There are too many plans to review all at once, am I ~ot correct Ed?

MR. CASE:

That's right.

MR. JONES:

There are just too many things coming on all at once.

They are right in the middle of implementing 7355 now, the upgarded securit~.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You get to the point where you have

1

. _4.

5 6

7 s*

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20*

21 22 23 24 25 28 to hire a complete second guard £orce to guard the place while you \\:~~~-~g guaro. force one

  • away to be trained *.

JYIR. JONES:*

That'.s right.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

What's. really involved, though,.

in getting.**a power plant guard force up to these. standards?

MR. JO~ES:

W~~r, "first you h~ve*to prep~~~ the plan, and-this takes time.

COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:

Well, y_ou all* sound like. you are all going* to Quantico or some :-.wli.ere.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It may be.

MR. JONES:

It could be.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

ltmay be,* there is discussion and use of t~e Treasuiy agent training school in Geo~gii

  • as the central standard.. place where you. send your-guards for. training*.

MR. JONES:

That's one possibility.

'cOMMISSIO~ER GILINSKY:

I was just trying to make a comment.

MR~ JONES:

Or there are regional places that it could be done..

In. the *first place, you**.have to do a fairly comprehensive analysis of just what persons are going to get.

trained for what tasks, and this takes time of the licensee '*s staff to do it and the NRC staff to review it and app~ove it.

In* the reactor business the:f~:-are.... now :*dev.e16p;hng their

1

2.

3 4

5 29

,[

7355 security plans and the, NRR staff is reviewing and inipiemE!nting,that.

MR. CASE:

We have already approved the contingency plan ru,le, which is before this one.

MR. JONES:

Yes, th,e contingency,.J?lans are,coming 6

down>.the road too.

7 8

9*

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

, MR. CASE: This is another one that is coming *down th~,pike for both licensees and the staff.

MR. SNYDER:

Don't these all fit together though*

in their.organization actions.

MR. JONES:

Yes,. they all fit together,* but they all take time.

side.

MR. SNYDER:

I know they take t;ime, but MR. CASE:

The same people are working on them.

MR. GOLLER:

On the licensee side and the staff MR. JONES:

Okay, now the ~uel cycle fa'cili ties are a slight;l;y.::l.different situation.

There are not that many

  • of them as opposed to the number of reactors.

That's why we are allowing a.different time for the fuel cycle and transportation.

MR. GOLLER: Also, there is a different preceived need.

There is a difference in the preceived need for fuel cycles and t,he reactors.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

And as an absolute mat'ter,

r 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 leaving aside the other considerations pressing on the licensees and the. staff, how long shou;t.d 'it take to draw up 30 a plan to train a security guard force up to the,se standards?

MR. JONES:

We are estimating to draw up the plan it would probably take_ two or three man-months of effort.

Of course, th.at doesn't mean you can do it in.tw9 months..

Then you have an iteration with the NRC to get that approved and to revise it, so you are talking well we have given them 120 days, which we thi.nk is a reasonable time while you are trying to get through this iteration.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

How long is the guard training itself likely to be?

MR. JONES:

Considering the availability of personnel, we have discussed this with licensees and with guard companies; two years is not too long to get everybody in place.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But they have to sub;rnit the plan that takes two or three man-months of effort within 300 days.

MR. JONES:

For reactors.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's* right, but there is no NRC review time involved in that 300 days, that's just the middle' of the plan.

MR. JONES:

That's right, but remember that the reason that is 300 days is because they are already doing

l 2

3

4.

5 6

7 8

9 10 11

  • , 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25

. something else on 73.'55 and on contingency'plans.

For fuel cycle facilities that nu~ber is 120 days.

'0 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Comment?

MR. MI_LLER:

Dr*. Hendrie, did I understand your question as, how,long would a guard take to be trained?

We. estimate that at _about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />.

CHAIRMAN* HENDRIE:

But. to get a guard force at a reactor plant.*

MR. MILLER:

That's about how long.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE*:

,-A couple.of years.

MR. JONES:

Bec~use, like you say, you canft send themi.al+ off at *once.

You have to kind of rotate th.e thing.

31 MR. CASE:

rt*.,:.is.::fair,* to say that if you are implementing 7355 we have required an upgrade of guard qualificationsi because there is a phrase in t~ere th~t *says you have to considerably qualify guards or words to that effect, and we have been, in our discussions with the licensees, emphasizing these kinds of things or discussions of what they ought to have in their training.

So it is *not that they are a bunch of hacks out there today.. They have moved up.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That was going to be in terms of taking 500 days to get up to the standards involved in this,. I was wondering just what it w:as., which of these standards was it that really would take that long, and presumably the three chin-ups aren't going to take 500 days

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 to master.

What appects of.*it *are driving 'that 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> to be considered.

MR. JONES:

Well, I think what you should look at 32 is the fuel cycle hours,*because that doesn't h~ve.bftilt into it the other factors sq w~ can get a,plan prep~red and submitted in 120 days and *180 day~* after the rule is effective which takes another 60 days

-- so in 180 days they have got their plan prepared, ~ubmitted and approved and ready to _be followed.

And if the reactors were starting from time zero and didn't have all of these things to do, that would be appropriate for those too,* although it might b~ a-little longer since there are more reactors, it would take a little longer for the NRR staff to get them approved.

Then we have two years to get everybody on board.. after that.

MR. MINOGUE:

There is an element of this that is not very standard at all, of course, arid:that is the element that arises from the requirement to be able to* deal with determined violent assault.

That involves a level of technical training which is fairly unusual for private guards, and I think probably if you put your finger on one element where you are talking about additional training, it would be in that area, the small unit tactics zone.

MR. JONES:

As far as which items take the longest,

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 it is really a combination of all of the items.

First*it depends on what training the gu~rds have already.gotten as' to how long tt takes them to train.

If they are already -- like Ed said -- if they are already up to speed and they have already.upgraded th~ quality* of their guards, maybe it doesn't take that long because th.ey have already gotten some of the skills and knowledge that they would need.

So the various items themselves is sort of the sum total of things.

In areas, of course, the weapons qualification and the weapons training does take a fair amount of time, but if the man happens to be ex-military and already knows which end of the gun to take a hold of, why he's further down the road.

33 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's see, I had.one more general remark to make about regulations and then I want to probe a little bit the question of as to whether the Commission ought to consider taking this thing out as it is, is an effective rule or going again for comment.

The general comment was to keep the regs simple and the detail~d things *in the guides.

There is a place where it is worthwhile writing detailed regulations, and that is where you can sufficiently well specify precisely what it is that the applicant is to do to meet the regulations, so that you really don't need any more guidance after that and the staff doesn't need to write any papers to tell itself

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 34 what to do.and everything is cleancut; regulations which say, now the way we have this requirement and the way the applicant and licensees can meet this requirement is to post a 12-inch red square in the* window.

If he does that, he.me~ts the*

regulation* and it doesn't require any great agonies of staff analysis to:fin~.out~ you jusi go and. look. If he h~s. got.

the red square up, good, that's it.

If the regulations says the *licensee shall prepare a plan for the posting of ~*suitable indicating notice on

,the front window, then there can be Reg Guide 142B that says:

now, for these indications on front windows there are the following 17 options that have to be considered by the licensee and then, you know, 12 pages later the guy can.get down to nuts and bolts and says, however, if it is 12 inches squared and red the staff will buy it.

So th~re are sor~ of two ways to do things, but -- and where you can write the regs so it is quite specific and everybody then knows exactly what to do and the staff knows a very clear go, no go judgment by the staff without any agonies 6f analysi~; then sometimes it is worthwhile to write the detail into the regulations.

~hat's actually seldom the case in our aff~irs.

So I think we much more often write -- need to write the regulations in fairly summary fashion and carry out

  • the details bf :.those.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, the only qualifications that I would put on that from my point of view is 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 regulations, after all, are themselves designed to make the status more sp~~ific and they do need to be enf6rceable.

The need to rise t? ~ degree of specificity that you can say under them sdmecth,ing *.. does. or.doesn't.qualify..

They can simply be ignored.

. CHA*IRMAN HENDRIE:

You are right, Peter,. and would that that was the case,.take the one before us.

35 I could see it now, here is a list of 100 items ---

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I can see the point before you even start reading it.

(Laughter).

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So would that it were true, it is indeed a general principle which would be helpful to keep in mind.

Now, on the question of whether this should be --

this thing, because of the substantial changes -- whether this thing should be republished for comment or whether we ought to consider it as going up as an effective rule.

Let's see, I guess the Standards: _st~f;I; propo-se~~{ e;ffe9't;i,ye rule.

MR. JONES:

We are proposing effective rule because we have -- everybody concurred.

The other offices all concurred in that approach.

The General Counsel said that a case MR. MINOGUE:

Except Saul Levine.

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 MR. JONES:

Yes, we do have a memo from Research*

that indicated that it shoftldn't go out..

.COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

From Research?

MR..JONES:

Yes..

MR. GOSSICK~. He wasn't quite that strongly againit

  • it, :but he raised.:., __

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

On guard qualifications?

MR. GOSSICK:

  • fie voluntarily submitted a comment on it after he saw the paper.

CHAIRMAN,.'HENDRIK::

  • We encourage* free. expression of opinions now.

MR. JONES:

  • The. general staff appro~eb~-" was. t.hat
  • we had taken into account what the licensees and the publfc.
  • asked for* to provide flexibility in., developin\\J their own plant.

This is the way we:0,went.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* Jim, could you speak for OGC 36 on the me:i:-its of going around for publishing again for comment?

MR. KELLEY:

Well, I think it is good as,a legal requirement that you do so.

I think also~ it is s,ignificant that --

I am not that familiar with the details, but I

~nders~and that the changes were generally in the directions of the comments.

Is that right?

MR,. JONES:

Yes.

MR. KELLEY:

That would argue,I think, against recirculation comments.

It seems to me if the judgment calls.

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 MR. GOSSICK:

Mr. Chairman, it is really ELD's views tha_t. they thought that a reasonable case might be

'I:,

made that* it should be republished for. cotnment*and we e~pressed no legal objection.

  • Is that right; Bob?

MR. FONNER:

That's right.

Our. view.is like OGC's that there is no legal obstacle to.pubJ_ishing:::new_*ru,les effective, and generally the changes.. can be seen as responsive to the comments.

Howeverf we.did feel that the primary change frqm a highly-structured training program orientation to the new.and possibly better job-related and more flexible training program was,significant in its overall concept.

Secondly, we felt that there are a few new idea's incorporated in this ru.le which could _per1:,aps benefit from public comment.

I want to just point out -- I had two examples jot 1:ed down,,. but you, Mr. Chairman, already said* er:iough :..

about the. ld0_ items on the laundry list.

Just one other areas.

In the rule itself there is 37 an. addition. th~t says upon the request of an authorized representative of the Commission, the *licensee shall demonstrat the ability of the physical security personnel to carry out their assigned duties and responsibilities.

That is new in this rule, essentially, and why we would not say that that in itself would be sufficient 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 38 go out legally for comment,again, we think that these types of considerations should be thought of or considered by the

  • commission in making its decision which would agree with OGC*

i.s* essentially a policy dectsion of the question.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *OGC also commented that the gtatement of Consideration should state the basis for the entire rule rather tha:h the changes made since the co11W1entary.

I think that's a rea~onable proposition in terms of making things a shade clearer to those who are going to have to deal with the rule arid.haven't lived with it ail the way along the lines.

What's involved in that?

MR. JONES:

That would be reasonably simple.

It.

would be a matter of repeating the original Statement of Considerations to a great extent.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Adapted as appropriate.

I would think that ought to be done, certainly.

OPE had a comment about the guidance being published concurrently with the rule.

MR. SNYDER:

Or close.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or close?

MR. SNYDER:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What is the situation?

Is there a reg guide or whatever back-up to this thing?

MR. JONES:

Yes, they are the three documents I

1 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 mention*ed.

The NUREG 219 which has been published for public comment.

The Training Manual for transportation will

. shortly be published for comment.

Now, the question, I guess bo,ils* down to what do you mean by final and for comment?

In the t'erms that these.are NUREG documents:, not regulatory guide*s we c:io 'not expect major re-yisions to these.

Licensee comments on these already.have indicated that they do prov~de guidance, and in fa~t, some licensees or one company that trains guards has already started their guard training program based on the guidance published for Comment.

So we don't expect CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

This guidance is going to stand, then in a set of several ---

MR. JONES:

NUREGS.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

NUREGS.

MR. JONES:

They could be made regulatory guides.

MR. SNYDER: Is there any difference between those*

two as far as a*practical matter in getting plans approved?

MR. JONES:

Between ---

MR. SNYDER:

Whether it is a NUREG or a reg guide, I mean does it ---

MR. JONES:

Well, the reg guide usually, as the Chairman indicated, has the position tliat*says if you put the red square up,_that's acceptable.

The NUREGs do not establis.h a position.

They lay out all you ever wanted to know

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 about training guards.

  • And then you pick that part of it which is applicable to your 'facility to' put in--to your pla.nt.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

The reg guides have.much more ~fa st~ucture of 'a.r~gulation. rf discusses -- the reg,guide comes ou~ and it says, now, here's a problem and here'- s :the b.ackground of the problem and here's what we have lQoked at, there is some other discussion and then it say9, now, here's the staff position.

One, do the following:

turn to the left.

Two., salute.

Three, step back.

Then it discusses implementation scales.

It has a format which is much more akin to the regulations.

MR. SNYDER:

When will they be finalized, Ralph?

I think that 1 s the key thing.

MR. JONES:

Well, the 219 was published and they*

are asking for comments from licensees by June 1.

I don't know, Jim, what do you think?

within a month after that?

MR. MILLER:

Yes.

MR. JONES:

For turning that one around.

That would provide guidance for the job analysis approach to the thing.

MR. MILLER:

For the reactor ~ites.

MR. JONES:

For the reactors, that's right.

Now this could be adapted to fuel cycle facilities, but NMSS is working on their guidance on that separately.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

NUREG 219 is out for comment?

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 MR. JONES:

It is.out for comment. Yes, it was

. published in April. NRR published it in Ap~il.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is there a formal.* ~omment period?

MR. JONES:

June 1.

They.asked.for comments by June l.in the cover~heet of the report~

41 Standards has the training manual which is a fairly voluminous d.ocument COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me ask you, would you then.turn out another version of NUREG 219 incorporating

. the comments?

MR. JONES:

Depending on the comments.

Standards has the two training manuals which the licensees would then use to train their guards or which a guard company would use to develop a plan to train guards for the licensees, or which might be:used at a c~ntral facility to develop a guard training program.

Those documents will be availabl~ within the next month.

MR. GOSSICK:

How about the NMSS document?

MR. McCORKLE:

We would anticipate,we could publish within two weeks of approval of this regulations for publi-cation,,

the. evaluation and acceptance criteria. for the plan to be submitted.

That could be issued probably as a direct guide.

It is essentially about 80 percent complete and

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 l.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now we are waiting for the final plan.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Peter, do you have.more?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

No.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Are you*in a frame of mind to vote on this at the moment?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, I would_ yote to go ahead and publish and essentially to adopt the OPE and OGC comments.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, :which would mean (a) that the Statement of Consider~tions ought.to ~onsider the basic r~tionale for the rule as well ~s for the discussion of changes since the comment version.

And (b) try to get these guidance documents in hand.

Now, would they have to be published, at least tor comment before the rule would go or how would you.read that?

MR."JONES:

Well, if we.published the rule now in effective form, we would say the rule would be effective in 30 days, and in that time we could get these out for comment.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, I guess I wouldn't contemplate a comment on 'the Statement of Consideration.

I guess I really don't see a great need for that.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think I*.. lost you.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Where were you talking about further comments?

42 MR. GOSSICK: On the guides in th~ material going out

r 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 to the licensees, Commissioner Bradford.

How long would it be, if they approved it today, before it would actually be publisJ;ied, Ralph?

43 MR. JONES:

The.rule would probably be published in the Federal Register within two weeks with a:n effective date of probably.30 d,ays after that.

So we are talkin~ a month and a half before the rule is actually effective, which' gives us six weeks to get these guides published.*

MR. GOSSICK:

No problem.

MR. KELLEY:

Isn't there something built in by this Federal Register Act of some reporting requirement?

    • ~R. JONES:

See; what we would do, we would put a statement in the Statement of Considerations that the r~porting requirement has to be approved and that takes 45 days, but the report that we are talking about here is the plan to be submitted and we have given that 120 days.

So all of those things will fall into place within the time scales we have identified.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

When you say the rule becomes effective, all that means is the clock be~ins to run.

Nothing actually happens?

MR. JONES:

Right, nothing actually happens.

So 120 days after the clock starts running they have to have the plan in.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Would it be useful at all to run

r 1

2 3

4

5.

6 7

8 9

LO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 day effective time out a little longe~ to make sure these other thLngs are on the street?

MR. JONES:

I think we can probably do it in that time, but if we made it effective in 45 days, I don't think that would be 44 MR. FONNER: _ You can simply delay sending it to the Federal Register and *achieve _the same effect.

MR. GOSSICK:.

We might lose it and forget to send it.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, if staff doesn't feel 30 days is no problem, I guess I would go ahead on that basis.

MR. JONES~

I don't think it is a seri6u~ problem.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

But our µnd~rstanding of four vbting, yes, iet's go with this is fix up the Statement of Considerations and get these other things on the street COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

these other two reports on

_the street in a compatable time frame.

COMMISSIONER BRADfORD:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:,

Vic?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let_'s do it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, that makes it 3-0, let's go ahead and do it.

JWhereupon, the Commission moved on to other business.* - 'The meeting on the above matter was concluded at 10:55 a.m.)

J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML22230A210&oldid=3791893"