ML22230A210

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)

Text

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

c,'- -9>

..:, 0

!~~,pl Transcript of Proceedings

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

• • • • 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 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 DISCUSSION OF SECY-78-245 AMENDMENT.S TO 10 CFR PART 73 TO UPGRADE SECURITY PERSONNEL 5 QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT.REQUIREMENTS 6

• (Open to Public Attendance).

• 7 8

Commissioners' Conference Room 9 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.

10 Washington, D. C.

11 Wednesday, May 17, 1978 12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice at 9:55 a.m.,

13 Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

14 15 PRESENT:

16 Chairman Hendrie 17 Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford 18 19 ALSO PRESENT:

20 J. Hoyle L. Gossick 21 R. Jones R. Minogue 22 K. Goller R. Fonner 23 G. Mccorkle E. Case 24 J. Miller J. Kelley 25 B. Snyder

2 1 ~ R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we could come to 0rder.

3 We'are going to start in advance of Commissioner 4 Gilinsky joining us. He is held up a little bit this morning.

5 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 8 approximately one hour. If we can target on a shade less than 9 that, why i t won't hurt my feelings a bit.

10 Lee.

11 MR. GOSSICK: Fine, Mr. Jones will l~ad the discussio 12 of the paper that you.have before you.

13 *Ralph?

14 MR. JONES: We are presenting a paper to you, _SECY-78-245 15 to finish up the amendments for guard training.

16 This started with a proposed criteria published in 17 July of '77 for guard qualification, training and equipment.

18 It was published for public comment.

19 The proposed regulations, I will run through those 20 briefly to describe what we had proposed orig-;i,nally. We 21 :proposed screening requirements; minimum age 21; high school 22 diploma; no felony convictions. We got some objections to these requirements.

23 24 We*had some physical requirements; vision, hearing, 25 disease, adcliction,some specific requirements in those areas.

3

• - \

I

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

2 absence of ~motion:* i instanili ty. We received ~ome comments 3 on that.

,4 We also had some physical fitness requirements.

5 An .8-minute mile, three push-ups --,, three pull-ups. and 10 6 push-ups. We got some comments on that.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: How fast is an 8-mi'nute mile?

8 That's pretty good isn't it?

MR .. JONES: That's pretty good.

10 MR. FONNER: .A four-minute. is record.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.

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

13 . we"" have done something abOut that, so in .any cas ,

7 14 we don't need to worry about the 8-minute mile.

15, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay ..

• I was going t.o say, to*

16 chin yourself three-_times requires no great shape. Ten 17 push-ups, my. God~ if you can't do that, why* you are a .candidate 18 for burial. So thos~ seem. to be ~:.':"::the:*'shouJ:d'er .,muscle

.19 requirements seem to be weak, but you want great legs on 20 these guys. _I had the impression they* were going to do a 21 good deal more running than fighting.

22 (Laughter) 23 But.any way, you have changed them.

24' MR. JONES: We have done something to. that to solve that problem~

25

4 1 In addition to these qualifications and fitness 2 requirements, we had a full range of training specified.

3' Specifying the skills ne'eded and including the number of 4 hours of training required for each of these skills. And 5 we received some comments on that.

6 It was published for public co.mment originally for 7 30 days and we extended'it 45 more days because of. people wanti g 8 to give us well-considered comments. Some 38 organizations 9 and individuals commented. These comments are summarized in 10 ~nclosure B to the staff paper which you have.

11 In the statement of considerations for the propos~d 12 rule, the Commission specifically asked for *comments on 13 certifying programs versus certifying persons. They also asked 14 for comments on training facilities, central, regional or 15 local facilities and what kind of feel.i,ngs d,i,d the licensees 16 have on these things.

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

18 There was not much that we already knew. The pros and cons 19 for the various local trainings were about equal. The revised 20 rule provides flexibility in this area. We do not specify 21 where the training shall be. We are looking into a centraL 22 training facility, we are considering regional training and 23 we also provide flexibility for the licensee to have local training.

24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A central training facility would

5 1 what, industry supported?

2 MR. JONES: There is a government facility in.

.3 Geo*rgia, I believe i t is, tha;t we *are *wqrkfng with the 4 Treasury-Department with the possibility of havi'ng_licensees 5

• train their guards there a,nd p:ay a tuition , to have this done 6, ther~.

7 CHAIRMAN. "HENDRIE: I :see.

8 MR. JONES: Some *of the private companies like

,9 Wackenhut and Burn_s have regional facilities that they 10 could use to train facilities, and some of these people*

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

12 So there are a n~mber of options 'that*the licensee 13 has. This *rule does not require any* .one of those options, nor 14 does i t require certification of *personnel. We did riot got 15 that step. It does include Commission approval of. the 16

• licensee's training program, however.

17 Now, w_e have a study in p:;r-og:i;-ess to investigate cthe 18 pros and cons and costs of certification versus noncertification 19 and the various aspects of the various types of training programs. This is in progress and should be finished within 20 the next few months.

• 21 22 As' we see it, the results of 'this study and the 23 experience we get in implementing this flexible regulation will 24 tell us whether we need to go another step or not. Whether

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

6 1

centralized training. But until we have. this study and until 2

we have some experience to find out how good the guards turn 3

out, we can't really -- we don't have a basis for deci~ion 4

on that. We f~el; the way the regulation is now written, 5

that this will provide the quality of guard we want.

6 One of the major aspects of the public comment was 7

that *the proposed regulation was too detailed. Training 8

requirements were too specific. Training times were too 9

• specific. It didn't allow flexibility in site specific 10 training:,*' site specific equipment nor did i t recognize prior 11 training that a person might have.

12 The recommendation or the* comments from most of the_

13 people in the publi~ were that we should address the skills 14 and knowledge needed rather than how you get those, rather 15 than the training. This is the major change in the rule which 16 I will discuss a little later.

17 There are also a number of questions regarding 18 discrimination, of the minimum age of 21, high school diploma, 19 felonies and the older .persons in relation to the 8-minute 20 mile. We have made changes which we believe will take care 21 of these discrimination questions. We discussed this with 22 EEOC and we believe we have taken care of those in the revised 23 rule.

24 There was also some question about just who did 25 these regulations apply to. Which security personnel should be

7 1

trained in which way. They felt that hadn't been made *clear 2

,in th~'proposed regulation and we have taken*qar~ of that in 3

the revised one.

4 They also said that the implementation time*was too 5

short. ' We gave* them 30 days to prepare the *p*lan and 60 days 6

to sta~t*implementing a1;1d two, years *to get all personnel trained 7

~nd qualified. *we have made some changes in lengthening these 8

times which I will speak to a little later.

9 Now, in the.revised amendment that you .have before

• 10 you now in the SECY-78-245,. as _I mentioned, the major change 11 is from specifying the training requirement to specifying skills 12 and knowled~e areas to be covered by the licensee training 13 plan.

14 What we require, and I will quote: " .. that'.the 15 l'icensee submit a plan outlining the processes by which guards~

16 watchmen, armed response persons and other members of the 17 security organization will be selected, trained, equipped, 18 tested*and qualified to assure that these individuals meet 19 the requirement,,that the licensee not permit an individual 20 to act as a guard,*watchman or armed person or other member 21 of the security organization unless such individual has been 22 trained, equipped and qualified to perform assigned security 23 job duty in accordance with Appendix B."

24 What that says is the licensee shall analyze his 25 security job, determine what skills a person needs to carry out

8 1 the individual jobs and develop a training plan to provide 2 those skills. We leave the flexibility to the license to 3 decide who gets trained for what, and he specifies that in 4 his training*plan,* identifying the jobs.

5 In addition to that job analysis ~pproach, we have 6 added -- we have included the sui tabili.ty requirements, the 7 ph~sical ~nd m~ntal requirements and we hava {dentified 100 8 areas of skill and knowledge that the licensee should consider 9 or shall consider, when he is developing his job analysis.

10 They are areas in the security programs that somebody in the 11 security program needs to know about. These are included in 12 the Appendix B criteria at Enclosure A to the staff paper.

13 We also include some specific weapons training and 14 qualification and equipment requirements.

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

16 (Slide) 17

-- shows the suitability requirements that we are 18 now requiring. Originally the 'first line was the requirement.

19 "Education: high school di~loma or equivalent." We nciw 20 include the performance examination to measure job-related 21 skills so that the education is tied to the job, what he 22 needs to know.

23 The no felonies conviction,we have added involving 24 the use of a weapon and none that would reflect on the*

25

1 individual's reliability. We have tied this totthe people 2

using the weapon and the type of felony that is concerned.

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

4 In addition we have limited the minimu~ age of 21 i :

5 to the armed security personnel.

6 (Slide) 7 It applied to all personnei Before.

8 Slide two addresses the physical-qualifications.

9 These applied to all security personnel before. We have now 10 categorized them so that the armed personnel*have the 11 specific vision and hearing requirements, the oth~r security*

12 personnel have the general physical requirement tha~ they are 13 able to do whatever jobs they are assigned toie 14 (Slide) 15 The next slide continues with the vision, hearing, 16 the addiction and disease, the specifics for the armed 17 personnel that they must meet. These have been made a little 18 more specific than in the previous rule to be in agreement 19 with this type of requirement for other o:r:9anizations' armed

• 20 personnel, lik~ the police, the DOE, DOD and those.

21 And then all sebu:r:ity personnel incapacitations to 22 have to have medical evidence that they are able to do their 23 job before they can return to their duty.

24 (slide) 25 The next slide shows the details of the mental

10 1 qualifications. All security personnel should demonstrate 2 mental alertness and the ability to do. their job. The 3 a1;med personnel and the central alarm station operators, the 4 critical persons in the security system are those to which 5 we,,apply the emotional instability requirement.

6 We specify, and rill quot~: "They,shall have no 7 emotional instability th.at would interfer with the ef fecti v~

8 perf6rmance of assigned security job duties. The detei~ination 9 shall be made by a licensed psychologist, pstchiatrist, 10 phy~ician or other person prof~ssionally trained to identify 11 emotional instability." All security personnel would undergo 12 a .continued observation program for emotioDal instapility.

13 (Slide)

• 14 The next slide sh,ows what we have done with the 8-mirn.:te 15 mile. We have given the licensee flexibility to determine what 16 physical fitness the guard needs to perform the duties he 17 is assigned. If he has to run half way across the site to 18 get to his post, then he s~ould be able to run half way across 19 the site in some specified time to get to his post. This 20 would be specified in the licensee's qualification plan.

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

22 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me try to get a .little feeling as to how this program works out in practice.

24 25 Once you have laid down these standards, presumably

11 1

it is not a:nii : *,,I and E fu:n,ction to walk irito a pl~nt site and 2

teil the. guards to start running while they take out their*

J stop watches.

4 MR~ JONES: Not necessarily.

5 But there is a statement in the regulations that 6

say~ that the licensee shall have his .security personnel 7

demonstrate their capabilities on a seiected*bases at the

.8 request of the Commission .authorized perso~nei. So I and E.

9 ca.n ask* the lie.en.see .to have his securLty personnel demonstrate

• 10.

that they are capable of doing whatever the licensee's plan 11 says they are capal:?le 6,f doing. Th+/-s would be ona spot-check 12 basis, ,p:resumabiy when they were conducting the routine 13 insp~ctions of the site.

14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Has. I and*E ever does 15 I and E do that as a practical matter?

16, MR. JONES: They have,* yes.

17 (Sliq.e) 18 The next slide identifies the weapons training

. 19 areas and the things t~at we call for the licensee to have 20 his. armed personnel know about .. These are essentially the 21, same as *were in the proposed regulation.

22 (Slide) 23 The next slide addresses the weapons qualification 24 and requalification. These are essentially as required in 25, the prior regulation; the difference being that in the

12 prior regulation we specified the hours of training associated 2 ' . .

with these things. Now, we specify that the licensee shall 3.

determi~e a~d set .up his 'own plan for determining-that a guard 4

and:'.:~armedr;.,personnel

. . ' . . knows. areas and q1,1alifies. at these levels.

5, . ' ' .

COMMISSIONER*BRADFORD: What's 'the difference between 6 ' . ' '

qualification and familiarization?*

7 MR. JONES: Qualificat,ion means that you actually 8

do the firing. Familiarization means_that.you should be 9

aw~re of~~~ differences that there are in night firing and 10 day firing ... There was a lot of problem because the comments 11 ind.icated that they were not able to have the. night firing 12 qu,ali_fication as there weren't any night firing, ranges to use.

13 But the guard should.know what the problems are with nighttime 14 firingias::opposed to daylight firing. But there is n0-t:

15 requirement that_he actually qual.ify on a, nighttime tiring 16 range.

17 (Commis$ioner Gilinsky arrived at the meeting~)

18 MR.* GOSSICK: To qualify tneans for score, *that they 19 can hit the target. Familiarization is::.to know what i t is 20 like and that?sort of thing.

21

'COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now,_as a praqtical matter, 22 isn't i t more likely that he would have;::to _.;_ obviously one 23 hopes that he will never have to shoot --~:.that he is more 24 likely to shoot at night than in the day?

25 MR. JONES: That'*s possible,::yes.

13 1 MR.GOSSICK: But with the lighting around the plant, 2 it is not:; the *sames as:*_ fm.ri:hgr;:c the>gun

• iri the dar~-,,;_*,

3 MR. JONES: The* plant lighting should moderate that 4 problem some.

5 Those are some of the detailed requirements, and 6 oj course, in addition to these ther~ are the skills and 7 knowledge that are identified in the appendix thai the license~

8 would have to consider in developing hip plan.

9 As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems they had 10 was the sh0rt time allowed for the preparation. We have changed 11 that implementation from 30 days* to .submit the plan we 12 have changed from 30 days to 120 days after the rule is 13 effective for fuel cycle and transportation, and 300 days f.or 14 power reactors.

• 15 To follow the plan we have changed trom 60 days to 16 180 days after the rule is effective, for tuel cycle and 17 transportation, and 500 days for reactors or 60 days after 18 approval in either case. We still retain that the guards 19 shall be trained two years after the effective rule or two 20 years after the approval of the plan, whichever is later.

21 To assist the'licensees in dev~loping these plans, 22 guidance has been prepared. Some has been published and some is about to be published.

23 24 NUREG 219 was published by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in April for comments by June 1. This is 25

14 I

1 a detailed document on how the licensee would go about his 2

job *analysis and estab~ishing the criteria for testing and 3

determining qualification to meet those jobs. This was 4

designed for* power reactors, but ,it can eas:Lly be adapted 5 ' .

to .fuel cycle facilities, because_ i t is directed toward.

6 security personnel and the difference would be whatever.

7 differences there would be on site.specific situations between -

8 on the tactics used between reactors and fuel cycle facilities.

9 We also have a training manual which is to be publishe 10 within the next month for comments.: This would give q:etailed 11 lesson plans that the licensee could use for training and 12 testing his security personnel. We h,ave a separate training 13 manual for transportation security personnel which will also 14 be published within the next month.

15 With this guidance, although it is being published 16 for comment, we believe that the licensees would be able to 17 implement the proposed regulation in the time scale that we 18*

are proposing.

19 One or two points I would make in closing. The 20 Appendix D, Value Impact Analysis will be revised. We have 21 done some additional detailed studie~ to expand the value 22 impact analysis and provide additional support for the 23 conclusions reached in the present Enclosure D. To summarize 24, this expanded approach, the NRC implementation cost would be 25 essentially the same as shown in the present Enclosure D.

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

15

.\

I 1

The licensee costs. in the present Enclosure D 2

• did*not include* guard.salaries and costs. We have 'now

• gotten inform_ation_ on that and have added. that information.

4 . .

• The license*e costs -:--- to briefly summarize what 5

we have shown.:--* the implementation will be~- will.cost 6

the licensee, *the total industry in the order of three and 7

a half. million dollars. That-~*.s tli.e initial implementation_..

8 About a mill.ion and a half dollars a year maintenance, 9

excluding guard salaries. The guard sala+ies.are rather.

10 difficult to estimate, i t varies from place-to-place, from 11 region-to-region, but the data i~dicates that the present 12 guards cost the licensee -- now, this .is salaries*and overhead

• 13 and' all, fringe benefits $15 , 0 0 0 to $18 , 0 Q0 p'er guar*d .

14 We estimate that i higher trained guard may cost 15 the licensee $22-25, 000.

• We have no*::real way of determining 16 how much the. union is going to be able to*squeeze out of the 17 utility,>how much the guard is going to want, how much the 18 utility is going to be willing to pay. , But these are some 19 estimates that have been made.

20 In. general, we have used an *increment of about 21 $5,000 per guard, additional cost to the licensee for this 22 higher quality guard. This is an over-estimate, because 23 some of the guards ac1:e already at this quality and are already 24 at these higher salaries. But in any case, if we use this 25 over-estimate and apply i t to the total industry, the annual

I .. 16 1 cost, including the other maintenance factors that are 2 identified will be less than three-tenths percent cif the cost 3 9f__ el~_ct_ric.:i.ty bA?ed *on: some AIF' estimates for the cost.*

4 of electricity.

5 *COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is one of several 6 hundred items~

7 MR. JONES: That's right.

8 Three-tenths times several hundred is a fair amount 9 of money.

10 The revised Enclosure D we will have prepared within 11 the next few days, and i t will be inserted in the paper_*in the 12 Public Document Room.

13 Now, there are two other changes that I would bring

• 14 to your attention. In Enclosure A in the regulation we said 15 that the ~icensee would submit a qualification and demonstration 16 plan. We are changing this to remove the word "demonstration" 17 because we do not want i t to be confused with the demonstration

,18 that I and E would request. We don.' t want I and E to be bound 19 by what the licensee has said he will demonstrate. So this 20 word demonstration -- we are not going to call the licensee's 21 plan a demonstration plan, i t is a training and qualification 22 plan. So that is somewhat of an editorial change.

23 Another change that we are going to make, in the weapons specification area we now specify the nominal 24 specification. That was in error. It should have been the 25

17 1 nominal minimum specification. So the word "minimum" will 2 be added in the three places in weapons specifications.

,3 Those are somewhat editorial.changes, but I* thought I should 4 bring them to your attention.

5. With that, I conclude the presentation and indicate 6 *our r.ecommendation that this rule be approved as an effective 7 regulation. I might comment that last week I was:at a meeting.

8 with a number of licensees. I made a presentation on this 9 subject and one ,of the licensees asked me if the rule was 10 going to come out again for comment or if*it was going to' be 11 a final rule. I pointed out that we were recommending it as 12 a final rule, because we had taken their comments into 13 account. One of the licens*ees then commented, "I'm glad., to 14 hear that. I'm tired of proposed regulations. I want an 15 effective rule so I will know what the .. hell I'm suppose to do."

16 Thank*you.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *I have a couple of ,questions, 18 and then we will .see.where else these questions go.

19 One of the things I note about this rule and some 20 others in the same area and in other areas that I have looked 21 *at in the past few months. We seem to be.writing into the 22 regulations themselves a large amount of detail.

23 MR. JONES: This regulation removes a lot of detail.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As it stands, it is a considerable 25 contraction of the previous proposal.

18

.1 M~. JONES: :tf you* look at Enclosure A, there are 2 some ,*15* .pages of* deJ.ail that we have removed~

,3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, i t is mo:i:-e than that.

0 4 You es*sentially ',de.lete t°;r*om *Page 34. t'o Page 56.

5 MR. JONES: That's right. That 6 CHAIRMAN HEND.RIE: * . I wonder .and . i t

• seems to me you 7 still have in *here a section which** says if the licensee 8 cranks up *a program in.the areas of-knowledge, skill and 9 abilities they .shall be considered -- okay,.* are. as follows 10 and then comes the )..ist of 100 11 MR. JONES: Correct~

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *And I wonder why you go forward 13 with these things.. The inclination is to wri te-~.t.hat, sort of 14 materi'al into* the ~egulations ', rather than writing the regulation 15 with a slightly more general

• cut and then puttin'g _this. kind 16 of material into the reg guide.

17 MR. JONES: Well, one of the problems we have in 18 this specifi:c area is Reg Guide 520 that has some of this 19 information in it, is not being implemented.

20 COMM~SSIONER BRADFORD:

• When you.:say it, is not 21 being implemented, is there also a judgment then that what~ver 22 is .. being done doesn't meet the'.regula t:i.on its elf?

23 MR. JONES: It meets the regulation,.but the regulatio isn~t s~ecific eriough.

24 25 Much of the information in Appendix B here is in or wa

19 1 Reg Guide 520,. The ~ajor difference is the. addition of the 2 weap6ns qualification and the.tactics, but the licensees 3 have not chosen to implement Reg Guide 520 to the extent 4 w~ felt would give you the good quality guard. We are 5

• making i t a requ~rement that they consider .these hundred 6 items.

7 Now, obviously ,if he is writing a p'lan for a fixed 8 site guard, he would not do anything about Item.96, for example, 9 transportation, .coordination. Those items that. address 10 transportation; those items.that were not appropriate for his 11 ~ite he would not address in hi~ plan.

12 MR. GOLLER: If I could, Mr. Chairman, .I think I 13 ,might elaborate .on thai explanati~n in that there has been 14 much emphasis on the flexibility that is provided by this 15 regulation to the licensees. in developing their plan, btit 16 each licensee must submit his training plan tor a.review and 17 approval by the NRC staff. This is, in the end, a normalizing 18 effect and by providing these specifics in the regulation i t

L9 provides a basis for the:staff to require that these items 20 be incorporated in the plans, and be incorporated properly.

21 MR. JONES: What we.would expect is -- and we 22 stat~ this i~ the paper~- that each licensee probably would 23 not develop his own individual plan, but would probably use consultants in the area, that there would probably be a 24 standardized plan that could be adapted to the various sites.

25

20 1

In fact, this is already occurring. One company 2

has developed such a training plan. I saw a copy of it last 3

week at this m~eting and it looked'like a fairly good 4

comprehensive plan, al though I didn't review it in detail.

5 So. the licensees are already proceeding

~o develop their 6

plans and to implement things on the basis of the proposed*

7 regulation.

8 CHAIRMAN HEND~IE: That still doesn't quite come 9

to where I'm p~obing.

10 It says the areas and knowledge skill and *the 11 abilities that shall be considered in the licensee plan are 12 as follows and, then there are a hundred items. The words 13 to the regulation are.pretty straightforward~* at least at 14 the beginning. It says the areas that shall be considered 15 are as follows: I guess if you thought the l0ls~ area 16 '

that you might want to consider, under this regulation it 17 would be illegal to do that.

18 Well, that's the way the reg is written. It says 19 these are the areas that shall be considered. It doesn't 20 mention any others and presumably no others are to be 21 considered or permitted to be considered.

22 Then the 100 areas themselves have a very open-ended 23 s*ort of character to* them. Adversary group operation. I 24 suppose one could spend a PHD thesis studying adversary group 25 operations and I'm sure that is not what is contemplated here.

21 1 It is .a. check-o:f;;f; item *.

• 2 What you write 'is a regulat,i6n in which t;.he staff 3 effectively *has a: semi-- at which the. licensee ha*~ to conform, 4 but in*which the staff interpretation'pf*the 100, items is ,sort*

' , I L 5 .of whatever the staff interpretation wi,11 turn out to* be.

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is your point 'that this 7 o~ght to go *before the Stand~rds Revi~w Board?

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: . Well, you know, I had great 9 troubles with the fir~t ver.sion of the regulations because 10 what i t did.

• was . t9 carry on at enormous length ahd* *in great 11 detail, you know, check the fingernails *on the first finger.

12 Check the fingernails on the second finger, check the finger-13 nails on the: third finger. You know, what in .the world is 14 all of this doing in the -regulations. Now, you have taken 15 most of that out of it, in fact, but there are still pl~ces 16 where i t has this aspect .and the list of 100 items to be 17 considered .is one of those areas.

COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: Is the *list long or do you 18 think i t ought to be ina subsidiary document. What's 19 wrong about it?

20 CHAIRMAN. HE:NDRIE: I wouldi,put i t in a less formal 21 document and I would put.it in the context that these are 22 items that the staff thinks ought to be checked off as you 23

~o down the formation of a plant, and decide for each one whethe 24 i t applies to the plan at your site at not, and if it:applies, 25

22

\

\

1

• to what .degree it applies, but there may be. other.s. This 2 just says -- this is just based on c.heck these off *~n:a *it, 3 gives. ho guidance on this.*

4 I must say, I'm .riot goi'ng to ,oppose the adopt.ion 5 of this rule with 'or without ,fu:t:'.ther contrnent on the ground 6 :t have just *m.en tioned. ,

1**

7* MR~ JONES*:'* Let me add, , if* I may, Reg Guide* 219 8 a,ddr~sses an expansio'n of these i terns. . You can tie these 9 various items.to the v~rious job analyses factors identified

,10, in Reg Guide.219 -- not Reg G11ide, NUREG 219 which'tells the 11 licensee how to.go about his job analysis. And the lists in

. 12 that.guidance tie to this list .

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why couldn't yo~ just 14 reference NUREG 219? .*

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

16 it in here, but it is guidanc~ in developin~ a plan to ~se 17 these hundred items. So those two lists are compatable, the 18 list in 219 is compatabl_e with the list in the regulations.

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, why can't you just 20 reference 2i9 in;this r~gulation?

21 MR. JONES: We probably could; but we come back to 22 the problem then, do you make NUREG 219 a re.quirement then?

23 It is much too detailed to be. a requirement.,It is guidance 24 *and if you reference in a regulation, then does it become 25 a part of the regulations? It depends on how you reference it.

23 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is possible to incorporate 2

i t as. a reference o:t i t is possible simply to ha_ve the 3

regulation read that the licensee will go read that thing 4

and take i t into account in making his plan in which case 5

i t doesn't become a full detailed part.

6 MR. MINOGUE: Mr. Chairman, there is considerable 7

precedent for a statement in the regulations that the items 8

in the implementation of this general requi.:i::-ement is to be 9

found in and then reference the NUREG or Reg Guide. That 10' has been done before.

11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or you could then update 12 that guide~

13 MR. MINOGUE: That hasn't created any problems and 14 people have understood in ~uiie good £aith.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me -- let me go on 16 with some general comments tha t_:arise here, because this 17 proposed rule and its rewriting and so on, calls to mind a 18 scheme~- a regulatory scheme that is.evolved here over the 19 years and seems to me a very good one is to have the 20 Commissions regulations which do our part of the Code of 21 the Federal Regulations as part of the la_w, to have an 22 implementing body of regulatory guide which are really .fairly 23 formal expressions of the staff views on how to go about 24 implementing regulations, and then a variety of yet lower~level 25 guidance in NUREGs and reports of the staff, standard review

24 1 plans for the review side bran~h~arid technical positions.

2 These are things that have evolved to the regulatory guide

• 3 status and so on.

4 It seems to me a reasonable system. The practice 5 has worked, *,tolerably well,.' I. think. Everything below the

.6 level of regulations has a reasonable flexibility. The staff 7 can adopt and publish new versioni withbut the need to come 8 hack and rehash for the Commission all of the arguments that might mean a change in emphasis, and furthermore, in Reg 10 Guides they *can deal at a level of detail with the subject 11 matter and all of these things to which the Commission is 12 capable of delving only on a very few cases a year, just.

13 from a time, standpoint.

14 Now, to suggest that in thi.s case and perhaps others 15 in the-,.secpri ty area that bodies of detailed material have to 16 come up out of the Reg Guide structure into the Regulations, 17 because the licensees are ignoring poses a problem. That says 18 that the whole structure of Commission regulations, formal staff guidance, less formal staff guidance and so on, doesn't work 19 or is at least at risk. I think that I find that hard to 20 accept.

21 .*

COMMISSIONER GJILINSKY: Well, regulations ought to 22 be as *simple as possible.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: .Because the Commission has to 24 pass regulations, they had better be simple.

25 (Laughter)

25 1

As I say, *the Commission can have few complicated 2 . -, -_,..-,_,1\

• regulations to *deal with a year, but i. t' can't .

• 1,t\, __ , stand. to have i'

3.

all its. regulations in anything like the depth that*:;the 4

staff eventrially needs to ,discuss those items in order to 5

provide adequate guidance, both for itself;*and fbr licensees*

6

.and for applicants. So necessary regulations.have to have 7

a simpler aspect.

8 MR. CASE: The prob.lem is compounded by the usual 9

short time implementation of .changes fn these kinds.of 10 regulations. With that short time you don't have t~e 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let .me suggest that part of the 12

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

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

13 in the security area is that over the past couple of years 14

.the Commission has moved very precipitously. Every time 15 a new round of Congressional hearings is held, why the 16 standards get jacked up and these ~u6cessive waves propagate 17 down to the staff and result in new versions of up-graded 18 security regulations across-the-board for licensees, which 19 the licensees, frankly, firtd unreasonable and in*.some cases 20 impossible to* implement, and in other cases really very 21 d:j_fficul t. *so they are dragging foot.

22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Not in Congres.sional hearings.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, okay. I take back 24 Congressional hearings, but they certainly have an effect.

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

26 1 cong*i:essrnan this .a.nd senator that who says, "why can't you 2 give absolute assurari~e that things* can't be stolen or things 3 can't be* .sabotaged," inevitably pressure develops back down 4 the line to go make some new regulations. And you are right, 5 direc~ions. come f~om other places and they are also a result 6 6f the tenor of the times too, and appropriately~

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And we start out at a pretty.

8 low level ..

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On the reactor safety side, why 10 there is .a very considerable amount of belly

• aching about 11 regulatory guide provisions from time to time~ Sometimes it 12 is loud screams.

13 Neveitheless, I don't find on that side of the house 14 just flat refusal to deal with the things laid out as guidance 15 and regulatory guides. So there must be something about the

• .16 security, especially about the security area and I suspect 17 i t is the escalation without time for digestion and reasonable 18 implementation. The escalation and requirements ont he 19 security side that is doing it.

20 Now, . I think you have now begun to build* *reasonable 21 times. Guard training is probably not the most urgent item 22 in the whole security area, although ft is clearly part of 23 the overall upgrading picture. So perhaps the times built 24 in to this one -- the staff feels that i t can allow more reasonable time for this one than i t is felt on other*proposed 25

27 1 regulations in the past, but the time you now propose sound 2 *to me as though they ought to .allow reasonable time for

3. people to get.these.things done. Perhaps this one is not 4 likely to be a problem.in that regard.

5 ,COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I was going to make it a 6 problem by.asking how in the world you arrived at such ~~ngthy 7 time that you have allowed for guard training. You allow 8 what, 500 days?

9 MR. JONES*: Only in reactors.

10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Reactors, :oh.

11 MR. JONES: 'Part of the problem in reactors is the 12 resources available to review the plans and th~ fact that 13 the licensees -- the reactor licensees are now.in the middle 14 of implementation of 7355., They just wouldn't be able 15 to do 7355 and the guard training too at the same. time, *and 16 , the NRR staff wouldn't be able to do them both together. So 17 you have got to give some time to finish up that 7355 ---

18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They can't do what together?

19 MR. JONES: There are too many plans to review all 20 at once, am I ~ot correct Ed?

21 MR. CASE: That's right.

22 MR. JONES: There are just too many things coming 23 on all at once. They are right in the middle of implementing 24 7355 now, the upgarded securit~.

25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You get to the point where you have

28 1

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 .

. _4 .

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What's. really involved, though,.

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

6 MR. JO~ES: W~~r, "first you h~ve*to prep~~~ the plan, 7 and-this takes time.

s* COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: Well, y_ou all* sound like. you 9 are all going* to Quantico or some :-.wli.ere.

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It may be.

11 MR. JONES: It could be.

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: ltmay be,* there is discussion 13 and use of t~e Treasuiy agent training school in Geo~gii 14

• as the central standard ... place where you. send your- guards 15 for. training*.

16 MR. JONES: That's one possibility.

17 'cOMMISSIO~ER GILINSKY: I was just trying to make 18 a comment.

19 MR~ JONES: Or there are regional places that it 20* could be done. .

21 In. the *first place, you**.have to do a fairly 22 comprehensive analysis of just what persons are going to get .

23 trained for what tasks, and this takes time of the licensee '*s 24 staff to do i t and the NRC staff to review i t and app~ove it.

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

29

,[

1 7355 security plans and the, NRR staff is reviewing and

2. inipiemE!nting ,that.

3 MR. CASE: We have already approved the contingency 4 plan ru,le, which is before this one.

5 MR. JONES: Yes, th,e contingency ,.J?lans are ,coming 6 ' down>.the road too.

7 , MR. CASE: This is another one that is coming *down 8 th~ ,pike for both licensees and the staff.

9* MR. SNYDER: Don't these all fit together though*

10 in their.organization actions.

11 MR. JONES: Yes, . they all fit together,* but they 12 all take time.

13 MR. SNYDER: I know they take t;ime, but 14 MR. CASE: The same people are working on them.

15 MR. GOLLER: On the licensee side and the staff 16 side.

17 MR. JONES: Okay, now the ~uel cycle fa'cili ties 18 are a slight;l;y.::l.different situation. There are not that many

• 19 of them as opposed to the number of reactors. That's why 20 we are allowing a.different time for the fuel cycle and transportation.

21 22 MR. GOLLER: Also, there is a different preceived need. There is a difference in the preceived need for fuel 23 cycles and t,he reactors.

24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And as an absolute mat'ter, 25

r 30 1 leaving aside the other considerations pressing on the 2 licensees and the. staff, how long shou;t.d 'it take to draw up 3 a plan to train a security guard force up to the,se standards?

4, MR. JONES: We are estimating to draw up the plan 5 it would probably take_ two or three man-months of effort.

6 Of course, th.at doesn't mean you can do it in .tw9 7 months.. Then you have an iteration with the NRC to get that 8 approved and to revise it, so you are talking well we 9 have given them 120 days, which we thi.nk is a reasonable time 10 while you are trying to get through this iteration.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How long is the guard training 12 itself likely to be?

13 MR. JONES: Considering the availability of 14 personnel, we have discussed this with licensees and with 15 guard companies; two years is not too long to get everybody 16 in place.

17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But they have to sub;rnit the 18 plan that takes two or three man-months of effort within 300 days.

19 20 MR. JONES: For reactors.

21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That's* right, but there 22 is no NRC review time involved in that 300 days, that's just the middle' of the plan.

23 24 MR. JONES: That's right, but remember that the 25 reason that is 300 days is because they are already doing

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

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

'0  : * '*

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Comment?

4. MR. MI_LLER: Dr*. Hendrie, did I understand your 5 question as, how ,long would a guard take to be trained?

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

7 CHAIRMAN* HENDRIE: But. to get a guard force 8 at a reactor plant.*

9 MR. MILLER: That's about how long.

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE*: ,-A couple .of years.

11 MR. JONES: Bec~use, like you say, you canft send

• , 12 themi.al+ off at *once. You have to kind of rotate th.e thing.

13 MR. CASE: rt*.,:.is.::fair ,* to say that if you are 14 implementing 7355 we have required an upgrade of guard 15 qualificationsi because there is a phrase in t~ere th~t *says 16 you have to considerably qualify guards or words to that 17 effect, and we have been, in our discussions with the licensees, 18 emphasizing these kinds of things or discussions of what they 19 ought to have in their training. So i t 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 22 involved in this, . I was wondering just what it w:as., which of 23 these standards was it that really would take that long, and 24 presumably the three chin-ups aren't going to take 500 days 25

32 1

to master.

2 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 /> 3

to be considered.

4 MR. JONES: Well, I think what you should look at 5 is the fuel cycle hours,*because that doesn't h~ve .bftilt into 6 i t the other factors sq w~ can get a,plan prep~red and 7 submitted in 120 days and *180 day~* after the rule is effective 8 which takes another 60 days -- so in 180 days they have got 9 their plan prepared, ~ubmitted and approved and ready to _be 10 followed.

11 And if the reactors were starting from time zero 12 and didn't have all of these things to do, that would be 13 appropriate for those too,* although it might b~ a- little longer 14 since there are more reactors, it would take a little longer 15 for the NRR staff to get them approved. Then we have two 16 years to get everybody on board . after that.

17 MR. MINOGUE: There is an element of this that is 18' not very standard at all, of course, arid:that is the element

19. that arises from the requirement to be able to* deal with 20 determined violent assault. That involves a level of technical 21 training which is fairly unusual for private guards, and I 22 think probably if you put your finger on one element where 23 you are talking about additional training, it would be in that 24 area, the small unit tactics zone.

25 MR. JONES: As far as which items take the longest,

33 1 i t is really a combination of all of the items.

2 First*it depends on what training the gu~rds have 3 already.gotten as' to how long tt takes them to train. If 4 they are already -- like Ed said -- if they are already up 5 to speed and they have already .upgraded th~ quality* of their 6 guards, maybe i t doesn't take that long because th.ey have

• 7 already gotten some of the skills and knowledge that they 8 would need. So the various items themselves is sort of 9 the sum total of things. In areas, of course, the weapons 10 qualification and the weapons training does take a fair 11 amount of time, but if the man happens to be ex-military and 12 already knows which end of the gun to take a hold of, why 13 he's further down the road.

14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, I had.one more general 15 remark to make about regulations and then I want to probe 16 a little bit the question of as to whether the Commission 17 ought to consider taking this thing out as i t is, is an 18 effective rule or going again for comment.

19 The general comment was to keep the regs simple 20 and the detail~d things *in the guides. There is a place 21 where it is worthwhile writing detailed regulations, and 22 that is where you can sufficiently well specify precisely 23 what i t is that the applicant is to do to meet the regulations, 24 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 25

34 1 what to do.and everything is cleancut; regulations which say, 2 now the way we have this requirement and the way the applicant 3 and licensees can meet this requirement is to post a 12-inch 4 red square in the* window. If he does that, he.me~ts the*

5 regulation* and it doesn't require any great agonies of staff 6 analysis to:fin~ .out~ you jusi go and. look. If he h~s. got.

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

8 If the regulations says the *licensee shall prepare 9 a plan for the posting of ~*suitable indicating notice on 10 ,the front window, then there can be Reg Guide 142B that says:

11 now, for these indications on front windows there are the 12 following 17 options that have to be considered by the 13 licensee and then, you know, 12 pages later the guy can.get 14 down to nuts and bolts and says, however, if it is 12 inches 15 squared and red the staff will buy it. So th~re are sor~ of 16 two ways to do things, but -- and where you can write the 17 regs so it is quite specific and everybody then knows exactly 18 what to do and the staff knows a very clear go, no go judgment 19 by the staff without any agonies 6f analysi~; then sometimes 20 it is worthwhile to write the detail into the regulations.

21 ~hat's actually seldom the case in our aff~irs. So I think 22 we much more often write -- need to write the regulations in 23 fairly summary fashion and carry out *the details bf :.those.

24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, the only qualifications 25 that I would put on that from my point of view is that

35 1

regulations, after all, are themselves designed to make the 2

status more sp~~ific and they do need to be enf6rceable.

3 The need to rise t? ~ degree of specificity that you can 4

say under them sdmecth,ing *. does . or.doesn't .qualify.. They 5

can simply be ignored.

6

. CHA*IRMAN HENDRIE: You are right, Peter,. and would 7

that that was the case, .take the one before us.

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

9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I can see the point before 10 you even start reading it.

11 (Laughter).

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So would that it were true, 13 it is indeed a general principle which would be helpful to 14 keep in mind.

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

16 this thing, because of the substantial changes -- whether 17 this thing should be republished for comment or whether we 18 ought to consider it as going up as an effective rule.

19 Let's see, I guess the Standards: _st~f;I; propo-se~~{ e;ffe9't;i,ye 20 rule.

21 MR. JONES: We are proposing effective rule because 22 we have -- everybody concurred. The other offices all concurred 23 in that approach.

24 The General Counsel said that a case 25 MR. MINOGUE: Except Saul Levine.

36 1

MR. JONES: Yes, we do have a memo from Research*

• 2 that indicated that i t shoftldn't go out ..

3. .COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: From Research?

4 MR. .JONES: Yes ..

5 MR. GOSSICK~. He wasn't quite that strongly againit 6

• it, :but he raised .:., __

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On guard qualifications?

8 MR. GOSSICK:

• fie voluntarily submitted a comment 9 on i t after he saw the paper.

10 CHAIRMAN,.'HENDRIK::

• We encourage* free. expression 11 of opinions now.

12 MR. JONES: *The. general staff appro~eb~-" was. t.hat

• 13 we had taken into account what the licensees and the publfc.

14

• asked for* to provide flexibility in., developin\J their own 15 plant. This is the way we: ,went.

0 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* Jim, could you speak for OGC 17 on the me:i:-its of going around for publishing again for comment?

18 MR. KELLEY: Well, I think i t is good as ,a legal 19 requirement that you do so. I think also~ i t is s,ignificant 20 that -- I am not that familiar with the details, but I 21 ~nders~and that the changes were generally in the directions 22 of the comments. Is that right?

23 MR,. JONES: Yes.

24 MR. KELLEY: That would argue,I think, against 25 recirculation comments. It seems to me if the judgment calls.

37 1

MR. GOSSICK: Mr. Chairman, it is really ELD's 2

views tha_t. they thought that a reasonable case might be

'I:,

3 made that* it should be republished for. cotnment*and we 4 e~pressed no legal objection.

• Is that right; Bob?

5 MR. FONNER: That's right.

6* Our. view.is like OGC's that there is no legal 7 obstacle to .pubJ_ishing:::new_*ru,les effective, and generally 8 the changes . can be seen as responsive to the comments.

9 Howeverf we .did feel that the primary change frqm a highly-

, 10 structured training program orientation to the new.and 11 possibly better job-related and more flexible training

,12 program was ,significant in its overall concept.

13 Secondly, we felt that there are a few new idea's 14 incorporated in this ru.le which could _per1:,aps benefit from 15 public comment.

16 I want to just point out -- I had two examples 17 jot1:ed down,,. but you, Mr. Chairman, already said* er:iough :..

18 about the. ld0_ items on the laundry list.

19 Just one other areas. In the rule itself there is 20* an. addition. th~t says upon the request of an authorized 21 representative of the Commission, the *licensee shall demonstrat 22 the ability of the physical security personnel to carry out 23 their assigned duties and responsibilities.

24 That is new in this rule, essentially, and why we would not say that that in itself would be sufficient to 25

38 1 go out legally for comment,again, we think that these types 2, of considerations should be thought of or considered by the 3 *commission in making its decision which would agree with OGC*

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

'5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *OGC also commented that the 6 gtatement of Consideration should state the basis for the 7 entire rule rather tha:h the changes made since the co11W1entary.

8 I think that's a rea~onable proposition in terms 9 of making things a shade clearer to those who are going to 10 have to deal with the rule arid.haven't lived with it ail the 11 way along the lines.

12 What's involved in that?

13 MR. JONES: That would be reasonably simple. It.

14 would be a matter of repeating the original Statement of 15 Considerations to a great extent.

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Adapted as appropriate.

17 I would think that ought to be done, certainly.

18 OPE had a comment about the guidance being published 19 concurrently with the rule.

20 MR. SNYDER: Or close.

21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or close?

22 MR. SNYDER: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the situation? Is there a reg guide or whatever back-up to this thing?

24 MR. JONES: Yes, they are the three documents I 25

39 1

mention*ed. The NUREG 219 which has been published for public comment. The Training Manual for transportation will 3

. shortly be published for comment. Now, the question, I guess 4

bo,ils* down to what do you mean by final and for comment?

5 In the t'erms that these .are NUREG documents:, not 6 regulatory guide*s we c:io 'not expect major re-yisions to these.

7 Licensee comments on these already.have indicated that they 8 do prov~de guidance, and in fa~t, some licensees or one 9 company that trains guards has already started their guard 10 training program based on the guidance published for Comment.

11 So we don't expect 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This guidance is going to stand, 13 then in a set of several ---

14 MR. JONES: NUREGS.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: NUREGS.

16 MR. JONES: They could be made regulatory guides.

17 MR. SNYDER: Is there any difference between those*

18 '

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

19 MR. JONES: Between ---

20 MR. SNYDER: Whether i t is a NUREG or a reg guide, 21 I mean does it ---

22 MR. JONES: Well, the reg guide usually, as the 23 Chairman indicated, has the position tliat*says if you put 24 the red square up,_that's acceptable. The NUREGs do not 25 establis.h a position. They lay out all you ever wanted to know

40 1

about training guards.

• And then you pick that part of it 2 which is applicable to your 'facility to' put in--to your pla.nt.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. The reg guides have.much 4 more ~fa st~ucture of 'a .r~gulation. rf discusses -- the 5 reg,guide comes ou~ and it says, now, here's a problem and 6 here'- s :the b.ackground of the problem and here's what we 7 have lQoked at, there is some other discussion and then it 8 say9 , now, here's the staff position. One, do the following:

9 turn to the left. Two., salute. Three, step back. Then 10 it discusses implementation scales. It has a format which 11 is much more akin to the regulations.

12 MR. SNYDER: When will they be finalized, Ralph?

13 I think that 1 s the key thing.

14 MR. JONES: Well, the 219 was published and they*

15 are asking for comments from licensees by June 1. I don't 16 know, Jim, what do you think? within a month after that?

17 MR. MILLER: Yes.

18 MR. JONES: For turning that one around.

19 That would provide guidance for the job analysis 20 approach to the thing.

21 MR. MILLER: For the reactor ~ites.

22 MR. JONES: For the reactors, that's right.

23 Now this could be adapted to fuel cycle facilities, 24 but NMSS is working on their guidance on that separately.

25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: NUREG 219 is out for comment?

41 1

MR. JONES: It is.out for comment. Yes, it was 2

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

3, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is there a formal .* ~omment 4-**

period?

5 MR. JONES: June 1. They.asked.for comments by 6

June l.in the cover~heet of the report~

7 Standards has the training manual which is a fairly 8

voluminous d.ocument 9

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, would you 10 then.turn out another version of NUREG 219 incorporating 11

. the comments?

12 MR. JONES: Depending on the comments.

13 Standards has the two training manuals which the

• 14 licensees would then use to train their guards or which a 15 guard company would use to develop a plan to train guards 16 for the licensees, or which might be:used at a c~ntral 17 facility to develop a guard training program.

18 Those documents will be availabl~ within the next 19 month.

20 MR. GOSSICK: How about the NMSS document?

21 MR. McCORKLE: We would anticipate,we could publish 22 within two weeks of approval of this regulations for publi-23 cation,, the. evaluation and acceptance criteria. for the 24 plan to be submitted. That could be issued probably as a 25 direct guide. It is essentially about 80 percent complete and

42 1 now we are waiting for the final plan.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter, do you have .more?

3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Are you*in a frame of mind to 5 vote on this at the moment?

6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, I would_ yote to go 7 ahead and publish and essentially to adopt the OPE and OGC 8 comments.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, :which would mean (a) that 10 the Statement of Consider~tions ought.to ~onsider the basic 11 r~tionale for the rule as well ~s for the discussion of 12 changes since the comment version. And (b) try to get these 13 guidance documents in hand.

l.4 Now, would they have to be published, at least tor 15 comment before the rule would go or how would you .read that?

16 MR."JONES: Well, if we.published the rule now in 17 effective form, we would say the rule would be effective in 18 30 days, and in that time we could get these out for comment.

19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, I guess I wouldn't 20 contemplate a comment on 'the Statement of Consideration.

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

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

23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Where were you talking about further comments?

24 25 MR. GOSSICK: On the guides in th~ material going out

43 1

to the licensees, Commissioner Bradford.

2 How long would it be, if they approved it today, 3

before it would actually be publisJ;ied, Ralph?

'4 MR. JONES: The .rule would probably be published in 5

the Federal Register within two weeks with a:n effective date 6

of probably .30 d,ays after that. So we are talkin~ a month 7

and a half before the rule is actually effective, which' gives 8

us six weeks to get these guides published.*

9 MR. GOSSICK: No problem.

10

MR. KELLEY: Isn't there something built in by 11 this Federal Register Act of some reporting requirement?

12

• • ~R. JONES: See; what we would do, we would put a 13 statement in the Statement of Considerations that the r~porting 14 requirement has to be approved and that takes 45 days, but 15 the report that we are talking about here is the plan to be 16 submitted and we have given that 120 days. So all of those 17 things will fall into place within the time scales we have 18 identified.

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When you say the rule 20 becomes effective, all that means is the clock be~ins to run.

21 Nothing actually happens?

22 MR. JONES: Right, nothing actually happens.

23 So 120 days after the clock starts running they 24 have to have the plan in.

25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Would it be useful at all to run

r . .,

44 1 30 day effective time out a little longe~ to make sure these 2 other thLngs are on the street?

3 MR. JONES: I think we can probably do i t in that 4 time, but if we made i t effective in 45 days, I don't think

5. that would be 6 MR. FONNER: _ You can simply delay sending it to the 7 Federal Register and *achieve _the same effect.

8 MR. GOSSICK:. We might lose i t and forget to send it.

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

11 MR. JONES~ I don't think i t is a seri6u~ problem.

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.

13 But our µnd~rstanding of four vbting, yes, iet's go 14 with this is fix up the Statement of Considerations and get 15 these other things on the street 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: these other two reports on

_the street in a compatable time frame.

18 COMMISSIONER BRADfORD: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:, Vic?

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let_'s do it.

21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, that makes i t 3-0, let's 22 go ahead and do it.

23 JWhereupon, the Commission moved on to other 24 business.* - 'The meeting on the above matter was concluded at 25 10:55 a.m.)

J