ML20008F538
| ML20008F538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | NRC - INTEROFFICE STEERING GROUP ON DEVELOPMENT OF A SAFETY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR71023, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8104210157 | |
| Download: ML20008F538 (23) | |
Text
.
$sfela Gea %\\ur nec= Aa as
_Accar c w ss:ca (q3 4 sic 1 3
/
- a Q*) & *.a<,. ':l % *.l-i POOR ORIGINAL
- =
a.s: s cf:
g6
'/fg
/
^
woRxSEcP cN SAFEn COALS z
APR 17 iggy, C C
%3 %
FIRST PLINARY SESSION g
N d @ rcer I
$mf A In u
- AS: April 1, 1981
?AGIS:
1 thrt 22 AT:
Palo Alto, California o
m 9
9 Doc %
lN ety (5
- ,PR j p.yggy.,-10 s m.f s,
l
'l,
iC
/
'3
\\g
- f. N' REPORTLTG ALDER $1T w
4cc vi vi.12 Are., s.a. 42 -'- p =, :. c. ::c.4 ca ap:==e:.::::: 5s4-:243 8'1042 2 e is1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,m 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING 5
WORKSHOP ON SAFETY GOALS 6
FIRST PLENARY SESSION 7
8 Rickey's Hyatt House 4219 El Camino Real 9
Palo Alto, California Wednesday, 1 April 1991 10 11 The meeting was convened at 8:30 a.m., pursuant to 12 notice, with Dr. George Sege, Workshop Chairman.
~
13 14 P RESENT:
15 Messrs. Kouts, Bernero, Beyea, Burstein, Joksimovic, 16 Levine, Kato, Lewis, Lowrance, Mazur, Salisbury, Wald, Lave,
17 Bradburn, Bridenbaugh, Derby, Eisenbud, Hutt, Cerbone, 18 Libarkin, Maxey, Sheldon, Temme, Zebroski, Slovic, Charnoff, 19 Cochran, Ernst, LaPorte, MacLean, Bari, O'Donnell, Okrent, 20 Page, Perrow, Starr.
21 22 l
U 24
~
25
4 O
e 2
I
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I N G _S 2
MR. SEGE:
Good morning.
Welcome to the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission's Workshop on Frameworks for Developing 4
a Safet Goal.
I am George Sege.
I am with the NRC's Office of 5 Policy Evaluation, assigned as a croiect manager for the Commis-6 sion's project to develop a safety goal.
I will be serving as 7
your workshop chairman.
I have taled with all of the workshop g
participants, at least by phone, and I am very pleased to be 9
meeting with you in person.
I am looking forward to a productive 10 and informative two-and-a-half-days.
11 Mr. Edward Hanrahan, Director of the Office of Policy 12 Evaluation, who was to be the general chairman of the workshop, 13 has, to his regret and mine, bee.? unable to come.
Ed asked me 14 to extend to you his appreciation for the time and effort each 15 of you has committed to this important NRC project.
16 is absence should not be construed as a lack of 17 interest, but results from some personal reasons.
13 As you know, the arrangements for this workshop were 19 made for NRC by Brookhaven National Laboratory, and you have 20 all had correspondence with Mr. Anthony Romano, Brookhaven's 21 coordinator for the workshop.
Late last week we received the 22 sad news of a death in Mr. Rcmano's family.
Tony is not able 23 to be with is this week.
However, for any further Brookhaven 24 contacts that you will need after this meeting, Tony will again 15 ce available.
Meanwhile, this week, Mr. Walter Kato, of
r-
.- 1 1
3rookhaven, who is here with us -- Nalt, will you stand up, 2
please -- will be pinch-hitting for Mr. Romano.
3 This workshop is part of the Commission's croject to 4
define more clearly the level of protection of the public healt?
5 hadishfang that it believes is adequate.
The Commission insti-6 tuted that project in October of last year, with issuance, on 7
October 27, of a Plan for Developing a Safety Goal (NUREG-0735) 8 In accordance with the plan, in late December 1980, 9
the Office of Policy Evaluation submitted for the Commission's 10 considerationa preliminary policy paper along with a proposed 11 preliminary Commission statement, and a companion paper cro-12 viding a more detailed supoorting discussion.
The Commission 13 has recently completed consideration and revision of these 14 materials.
On March 26, the Commission published in the Federa:
15 Register, for public comment, a statement of preliminary policy 1
l l
16 considerations in developing a safety goal, and authorized 17 publication of NUREG-0764, the revised supporting document.
18 The as-published version of these two documents have been sent 19 to the workshop participants, as the revised versions of Items l
20 5 and 6 of the advanced information package, on March 19.
21 Also distributed to workshop participants was the 1
l l
22 report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, l
23 "An Approach to Quantitative Safet Goals for Nuclear Power 24 Plants" (NUREG-0739).
The Commission has urged that the ACRS l
25 document be used as one example of a comolete application of L
4 1 of the concepts discussed.
However, I e=chasize that the 2 Commission has, at this time not formed any views as to the 3 merits of the approach described by the ACRS or any other single 4
policy.
The ACRS has characterized this proposal as intended 5
to serve as "one focus for discussion" and "one step in an 6
iterative process."
It is the only specific proposal that has 7
so far been formally submitted to the Commission, and is 8
detailed and accompanied by background information.
9 This workshop is designed to illuminate the important 10 issues of safety goal formulation, including both quantitative 11 and qualitative elements, and economic, ethical, social and 12 political issues, as well as technical considerations.
It is a 13 discussion workshop involving invited, knowledgeable persons, 14 representing a broad range of viewpoints, derawn from technical 15 and social disciplines, from industry, public interest groups, 16 universities and elsewhere.
During most of the meeting, the 17 participants will be divided into three separate discussion 18 panels.
Panel A, Quantitative Safety Goal; B,
Qualitative Safety 19 Goal; and C, Economic, Ethical and Sociopolitical Issues.
At 20 the plenary sessions, at midcourse, and during the last half 21 day, interim and final reports of the canels will become the 22 subject of general discussion.
23 Ore of the workshop participants, Dr. Edwin Zabrosky 24 suggested last night that it would be desirable to define, at 15 the outset, what functions a safety goal is expected to fulfill.
5 1
I want to respond briefly to that suggestion.
For NRC, the 2
safety goal should provide a means for testing safety regula-3 tions for necessity and adequacy.
It should provide a systema-4 tic basis for judging whether or not nuclear power plants are 5
safe enough, perhaps indirectly by our regulations.
For industry 6
it could guide design and operational practices.
For the public 7
it whould provide a criterion for judging if NRC is doing its 3
job.
As far as the scope of the safety goal-considerations at 9
this timo are concerned, we are focusing primarily on nuclear 10 power plants, and more particularly, accident considerations 11 with respect to nuclear power plants.
12 We shall, however, seek to extend application of the
- 13 goals to other aspects of nuclear power plants and also to other 14 sorts of facilities regulated by the Commission.
15 The reports on the panel discussions and also on the 16 workshop as a whole are expected to include responses to such 17 questions as:
18 What are the highlights of conclusions and views 19 developed?
l 20 What conclusions and viers command wide censensus?
l 21 What issues are strongly in debate?
22 What means are recc= mended to resolve issues in 23 dispute?
24 What additional issues and questions are paricularly 25 important to address?
6 1
This workshop is one of several measures to elicit 2
broad participation in NRC's safety goal project from interestef 3
groups and individuals, including both soecialists in the 4
various relevant fields and the public at large.
is being issued for public comment.
It will also be the basis 6
of four public meetings to be held in different regions of 7
the country.
8 A second workshop will be held i.t the summer of 1981 9-to discuss merits and problems of a reference safety goal 10 statement and its chief alternatives.
As you know from the 11 public announcement, participation in the workshop discussions 12 is limited to the individually-invited participants.
- However, 13 the workshop is open to members of the public for attendance 14 as observers.
I am pleased to see a number of members of the 15 public present.
I hope that many of you will wish to offer 16 for us your comments and suggestions, either in writing or by 17 ccming to any of the public meetings that will shortly be 18 scheduled for later this spring.
19 A verbatim record is being precared of the entire 20 discussion at this workshop, the panel discussions as well as 21 the plenary sessions.
The transcript will be publicly avail-22 able.
In addition, Brookhaven will prepare a written summary 23 report of the principal results of the workshop.
That report, 24 too, will be available to the public.
Rapporteurs have been 25 assigned to each panel, with the needs of such a summary
o 7
1 report in mind.
At this point, I would like to introduce the s
three panel chairmen:
Dr. Herbert Kouts, chairman of the 3
Department of Nuclear Energy, Brockhaven, chairman of Panel A, 4
Quantitative Safety Goals; Dr. Lester Lave, The Brookings 5
Institution, chairman of Panel 3, Qualitative Safety Goals; 6
Dr. Paul Slovic, Decision Research, chairman of Panel C, 7
Economic, Ethical and Sociopolitical Considerations.
8 I would also like to introduce the other NRC repre-9 sentatives who are with us for the workshop.
These gentlemen 10 are members of the NRC Inter-Office Steering Group on 11 Develophent of A Safety Goal, which is providing us counsel 12 in the conduct of the project:
Mr. Rober Bernero, Director, 13 Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 14 Research (Bob has accepted assignment as NRC technical resource 15 person for Panel A); Mr. Morton Libarkin, Assistant Executive 16 Director, ACRS Staf f, technical resource person for Panel B:
17 Mr. Malcolm Ernst, Assistant Director, Division of Safety 18 Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, technical 19 resource person for Panel C; Mr. Martin Malsch, Deputy General 20 counsel, legal rescuce persen for all panels.
These gentlemen l
21 now have names in front of them, so I assume that you identified 22 faces with names as I spoke.
23 Now would the Brookhave rapporteurs introduce 24 themselves, and would each of you identify ycur panel assign-25 ments?
I
8 1
DR. TODOSCN:
Michael Tcdoscw, Panel A.
2 DR. CERSONE :
Ralph Cerbone, Panel B.
3 DR. BARI:
Robert Bari, Panel C.
4 MR. SEGE: Now I would like to ask, if I may, other 5
workshop participants to introduce themselves.
6 (Introductions.)
7 MR. SEGE:
Now I would like to call or Dr. Walter 8
Kato, whom I believe has some announcements, and then perhaps 9
if there are cuestions we will have a few minutes to try to 10 address any questions that you may have about either the 11 arrangements of the discussion guidelines.
12 DR. KATO:
First, of all, on behalf of Brookhaven 13 National Laboratory and also Mr. acmano, I would like to thank 14 you very much for the cooperation that you have given us to 15 date.
I am going to make a few announcements regarding the 16 ar_angements aspect of the meeting.
Panel A will be meeting 17 in this rocm, the Palo Alto Rocm C.
Panel 3 will be meeting l
18 in the Edwards rocm, which is about seventy-five yards east 19 of this room.
Go straight dcwn the road here.
20 Panel C will be meeting in the Marsten Roem, which 21 is next to the Edwards Rocm, again straight east of here.
22 We have two secretaries who will be stationed cut-23 side of this recm between the hours of roughly eight and five 24 o' clock.
If you have any need for typing or cuick copy, 25
9 1
xeroxing, or if you need travel arrangements, they would be 2
very happy to make them for you.
Just identify yourself and 3
ask whatever you would like to have done.
4 There is one other important point.
I believe all 5
of the participants have received a little package which has 6
the travel expense vouchers in them.
We would like to request 7
that you return them as soon after you arrive at home as 8
possible.
The Laboratory will be paying for three nights 9
single room rate here at the hotel.
Some of you who are from 10 the east may be leaving on Saturday morning, in which case we 11 will also be paying for the fourth night.
Would you please 12 inform the hotel early Friday morning whather you plan to 13 stay overnight or not.
All other charges, such as meals, tele-14 phone, et cetera, are personal charges, and we would like to 15 request that you pay for them before ycu leave.
16 The last item that I would like to mention is that 17 for those of you observers who would like to receive the 18 material that the participants have received, that is, the 19 packages containing the objectives of the meeting and so forth, 20 we do have a few copies out at the desk, if you will ask the 21 secretary for them.
We had shipped approximately sixty copies 22 from Nashington, and they are lost somewhere in the hotel, and 23 we are trying to locate them.
Now once they arrive, there 24 will be plenty of copies for everybody, but I think there are 25 about half a dozen copies of the material that was given to the
10 1
participants and they are available out at the secretary's
~
2 desk.
3 If you have any questions regarding arrangements, 4
please see me either after this session or at break time.
As 5
you have noticed on your agenda, there will be breaks.
There 6
will be a break at ten-thirty, at which time there will be 7
ccffee and Danish every morning, and then between three-thirty 8
and three-fifty in the afterncen, there will be coffee and Coke 9
available.
10 Are there any questions regardine arrangements?
If 11 not, George?
12 DR. SEGE:
Are there any other questions concerning 13 discussion guidelines or any other aspect of the workshop 14 that should be taken up at the outset?
15 QUESTION FROM THE FLCOR:
George, perhaps before we 16 break up, we should ask ourselves what is it that is the 17 real objective or purpose of this activity?
What do you, the 18 staf f expect as a result of these three days, specifically?
19 DR. SEGE:
That~is a very legitimate question.
We 20 have, to some, extent, attempted to provide an answer to that 21 in the materials that were distributed.
Let me try to restate, 22 going beyond what I said in the introductory remarks.
13 We hope that by explicit articulation of a safety 24 goal it will be possible to make decisions with repsect to 25 nuclear plant safety in a more systematic manner than is
11 1
possible by making those decisions i.a a more disaggregated
~
2 manner, continuing frem past practices, and that there would 3
be scme coherent philosophy underlying the decisions with 4
respect to safety relating to different ascects so that both 5
the dagree of safety that can be obtained in nuclear facilities 6
and the other considerations that are affected by safety 7
decisions are taken into account in a manner that is both 8
consistent with law, and well subservient to the oublic interes t.
9 The more specific articulation of what the objectives 10 of a safety goal are will need to take into account both what 11 the possibilities are and what the obstacles are, what the 12 practical constraints are as to what can be achieved, as well 13 as what the practical possibilities are for achievement.
14 I hope that in the course of the next two-and-a-half days, in the panel discussions and in the plenary discussions, 16 that will follow.
There will be a further illumination of the 17 issues that perhaps could provide a somewhat more precise feel 18 as to what can and needs to be acccmplished and what the 19 limits on what can pratica11y be accomplished really are.
20 This may not be a very good answer to the question, 21 but I am not sure that I can do any better at this time.
I 12 would appreciate it if you would identify yourself when you 23 ask questions, for the purpose of the recording.
24 MS MAXEY:
I would like to ask a couple of questions.
25 Isn't the underlying assumption behind this particular confere.nce 4
12 1
that the NRC is assuming that this particular technology 2
requires a unique safety goal that is not shared by other 3
technologies for energy production?
And secondly, what is 4
going to be the legal status of these safety goals?
Are they 5
going to be utilized in an intervenor process?
6 MR. SEGE:
As far as the answer to your first 7
question is concerned, Dr. Maxey, I would much prefer that 8
question to be addressed in the discussion panels and to have 9
illumination of that question ecme out of those discussions.
10 DR. MAXEY:
So that is in the preserve of our 11 discussions?
12 MR. SEGE:
Right.
As far as the legal status of a t
13 safety goal is concerned, perhaps I should ask Marty Malsch, 14 our Deputy General Counsel, if hc rould care to comment.
15 Marty, if you would, do it in a microphone.
Then 16 your words would not get lost.
17 MR.. iALSCH :
All I can say is that we will decide 18 that when we sse it.
19 DR. MAXEY:
Then why do the exercise?
20 MR. MALSCH:
Well, because a lot is to be gained by 21 attempting something, even though you may not be entirely 22 successful.
We may end up with a regulation, or a coliev 23 statement, or something that is not binding or bindin
-- it 24 would depend on what we came up with.
~
25 DR. MAXEY:
What would be the criteria for making m
-Tt F
m*
2 13 1
it bindinJ?
2 MR. MALSCH:
Probably how confident we were that 3
the goal wa were after.
4 DR. MAXEY:
And how do we know' what goal we are 5
after?
What is the objective?
6 MR. MALSCH:
That would be determined in the worksho?
7 MR. SEGE:
Okay, I think Dr. Cochran has a question.
8 DR. COCHRAN:
I am a little bit -- I have some 9
similar problems.
I am not cle3r as to whether you are lookinc 10 for a goal or a rule.
Tell me whether you draw a distinction 11 between goals, rules --
12 MR. SEGE Yes.
13 LR. COCHRAN:
-- what you are seeking in this case?
14 MR. SEGE:
We are scsking a goal, rather than a 15 rule.
16 MR. MALSCH:
Well, goal was chosen because the word 17 is sort of neutral, and I don't think we have decided exactly 18 what the format will be.
I think ideally the result of tha 19 process would be contained in rule making.
~ don't know i
20 whether we would actually accomplish that or not.
21 DR. COCHRAN:
It is my view that there is a vecy 1
l 22 large distinction between something you are working toward and 23 something you ha"9 to achieve.
24 MR. SEGE:
Yes, well, that aspect will I hope bc l
25 discussed in the pansle, to what extent a goal should establish
~~
l
14 1
miaimum =andatory establish and to what extent it should 2
provide guidelines that one strives to achieve to the extent 3
possible.
In this brief orientation, I would like us to stay 4
away from issues tha9 involve discussion of various aspects, 5
thereby detracting frem the subsequent debate in the panels.
6 Suffice it to 6ay at this point that there is no given on that 7
item, as a basis for discussion at the outset.
8 DR. CHARNOFF:
In one of those interesting documents 9
that you sent us, NUREG-0735, the plans for develooing a safet; 10 goal, it listed as task number two a number of background 11 studies that were being conducted last summer or fall.
One 12 of the -- well, there were a numcer of background studies 13 listed, but the one that relates somewhat to Margaret Maxey's 14 question, which she limited to other energy sources, did raise 15 the question of goals, safety goals, that are used by other 16 safety-oriented agencies, such as EPA, FAA and so on, I 17 wondered whether -- secondly, there was another about approaches 18 in other idustrialized countries -- and I wondered whether if 19 those studies are correct, wh ther it would be helpful to this 20 group if you could give us a tentative report, if you will, 21 on what you are finding as far as the safety goals of other 22 agencies involving other types of hazards, not necessarily 23 energy-related, and what you found out with resoect to other 24 industriulized countries.
25 Ma. SEGE.
Yes, those studies have progressed but
~
r 15 1
not to a poir where a report, a systematic report on them 2
would be timely at this point.
However, in the various panels 3
there will be people who are knowledgeable about the approaches 4
of other agencies as well as approaches of other countries, 5
and I hope that those contributions will be broucht to bear 6
in the panel discussions.
7 DR. DERBY:
The three panels -- the agenda of this 8
panel didn't work out -- how do we, say in panel 3 which I im 9
a member of, if we want to speak to issues which we think are 10 being brought up in Panel A, how do we coordinate taat?
Do 11 we coordinate that in this group?
Just by informal arrangements?
12 Or do we not coordinate it?
13 MR. SEGE:
Let me respond to that.
That aspect of it 14 was addressed in terms of a joint comprcmise.
The three panels 15 have somewhat different tocics of discussion assigned to them.
16 But there is a certain amount of overlap arc'ind the edger, 17 and you will find questions that explore the same or similar 18 issues from different angles in the different panels.
So it 19 will be quite possible for two or three panel reports at mid-20 course and at the end to contribute to cross-cutting issues i
21 that are germane to the entire subject.
As far as coordina-22 tion between the panels is concerned on the goal, it is not 23 really being attempted.
It would te quite acceptable for 24 different panels to reach different viewpoints and different 15 judgments with respect to issues which are the same or u
16 1
similar.
And if that should turn out to be the case, then in 2
the plenary sessions following the panel reports, it will be 3
possible for members of other canels to contribute to discussio n 4
of other topics covered elsewhere, and for that matter, if 5
there is a topic that is covered in only one panel, members of 6
other panels will, at that time, be able to contribute their 7
thoughts to that topic.
8 DR. EISENBUD:
I, too, need a little better orienta-9 tion on the logistics of the conference.
Am I correct that 10 the basic working document is the draft of NUREG-0764?
And 11 what you are looking for are comments from the various panels 12 on NUREG-0764, and perhaps concurrence with the document?
13 MR. SEGE:
No, we are not looking for concurrence.
14 We are looking for discussion of the issues involved in the 15 Commission's statement, and the accompanying document, NUREG-16 0764.
We are asking for those documents to be used as a 17 principal basis fct discussion, but the discussion is not 18 necessarily tied that closely to those documents.
If there are 19 issues not covered there that should be covered, or if: there 20 are ways of looking at issues that are not related to the ways 21 indicated in those documents that are nevertheless important 12 to take into account, those should be brought up.
In addition 23 to that, the Commission has urged that the ACRS proposal that 24 you have, be used as a point of reference, concrete reference, 25
17 1
in those instances when a concrete example is helpful in the 2
furthering of the discussion.
3 DR. EISENBUD:
Is it the intent of the Commission 4
to issue 0764 --
5
.MR. SEGE:
It has been issued.
6 DR. EISEN3UD:
It has been issued?
7 M.R. SEGE:
Issued for public comment.
It is not I
intended to revise a document as such, but rather to use it as 9
a stepping stone in the process of working towards a paper that 10 the Commission will consider, that will have a specific pro-11 posed goal in it, and its chief alternative options, structured 12 sufficiently for Commission policy decision purposes.
The 13 second report is scheduled for late summer and the results of 14 this workshop will be a major contributor in that further 15 formulation.
16 DR. MAZUR:
What criteria did you use in assigning 17 individuals to particular panels?
18 MR. HEGE:
This is a question that I have been asked 19 in several different phrasings, in several instances before.
20 We have tried to achieve a reasonable balance of backgrounds 21 and viewpoints that are gernane to the subjects being dis-22 cussed in each of the panels.
That balance is not the same for 23 the different topic areas.
But, for example, in the quantita-24 tive goal panel, we wanted to assure that not only the techn!ca 1 25 viewpoint of probablistic analysis and their reach and possible
la 1
applications is considered, but also other aspects that have 2
to do with quantitative safety goals.
So the social aspects 3
of implementation, the issues of disagraements among experts, 4
the factors that don't lend themselves to quantification, 5
including social factors in sa'ety, psychological factors in 6
safety -- various viewpoints other than those closest to the 7
analycical treatment of the issue are represented.
8 New in the other areas, also, for example, in the 9
Panel C, where the subject matter is e:cnomic, ethical and 10 socicpolitical issues, we wanted to make sure that the technica l 11 analysis aspect is represented along with the social, political 12 and philosophical and so forth viewpoints that are needed to 13 illuminate the subject matter.
14 So the balance of backgrounds and viewpoints to the 15 extent that carticipants' viewpoints were known to us, has been 16 selected with a view to trying to identify areas in which there 17 is consensus among different viewpoints and backgrounds, areas 18 in which there could be dessute depending on the angle of view 19 of knowledgable persons, and so that different aspects of the 20 issue can be engaged in meaningful and lively illuminating 21 debate.
22 DR. JOKSIMOVIC:
George, maybe I was asleep, but I 13 didn' t hear you mention that congressional interest is signi-24 ficant in this area and that it is attached to one of your 15 appropriation bills.
19 1
MR. SEGE:
The Senate has passed, as part of the 2
authorization act for the current fiscal year, a section that 3
would require NRC to promulgate a safety goal.
A similar 4
prevision does not exist in the House version of the bill and 5
we don't knew what is going to happen to it.
The Commission's 6
desire to establish a safety goal is present even in the 7
absence of any legislative mandate to produce a goal.
If there 8
should be a legislative mandate, then the Commission's plans
' ould be adapted to whatever the law requires.
9 w
10 DR. MAXE?:
Are we to assume that heretofore NRC has 11 not been functioning with safety goals?
12 MR. HEGE:
No, I would say not.
If I may, I would 13 rephrase that assumption.
NRC has not been functioning with 14 an explicitly and clearly articulated safety goal, but has 15 proceeded only with the somewhat general articulation in the 16 Atomic Energy Act.
However, a. safety' goal is implicit in the 17 regulations and case decisions that the agency and its pre-18 decessor have been making, and the present attempt to formulate 19 a safety goal 10 an attempt at rationalization and systematiza-20 tion, and of course a goal is embodied in the actions --
l 21 DR. MAXEY:
Then why this conference?
Why not simply i
22 make explicit what is already implicit in the existing regulations?
23 MR. MALSCH:
I would say that the entire body of 24 Commission regulations and decisions are essentially worthless.
15 They are either case-specific or rather vague and generalized.
i l
l l
20 1
DR. MAXEY:
Then why convene this conference?
2 MR. MALSCH:
That is one possible way of developing i t.
3 DR. MAXEY:
Why not have an in-house conference at 4
NRC on the explicit aspects.
5 MR. MiLSCH:
Oh, I'm sure we could.
6 DR. MAXEY:
Then why this conference.
7 MR. MALSCH:
This will be a helpiul aid in doing that.
8 DR. MAXEY:
only an aid?
9 MR. MALSCH:
An aid, right.
10 MR. HEGE:
We are very much interested in receiving 11 the viewpoints of persons outside the agency who from various 12 aspects of knowledge can improve our ability to do a good job 13 in this regard, and I am very hopeful that this conference 14 will be helpful in that respect.
15 DR. o'DoNNELL:
I think these questions relate to 16 the basic purpose of this meeting.
I think we can all agree 17 that the Commission has some sort of safety goal in mind this 18 past twenty-five years or os.
I think the real issue is 19 whether or not the safety goal should be expressed in quantita-20
^ive form, and I think really that is what the conference 21 hopefully should be addressing.
I was somewhat distressed at 22 the fccus of the three panels, only one of which deals with 23 quantitative safety goals. ~ The other seems the least open to 24 questic'. as to whether or not we should have quantitative safety 25 goals.
In my view, if the wh31e exercise comes up with a
21 1
restatement in qualitative form of undue risk and health and 2
safety of the public, then we are, in effect, have made no 3
progress in this area.
4 MR. HIGE:
Your ccmment has been noted.
I don't 5
propose at this time to bring it up for discussion, but please 6
bring it up in your panel.
7 I would like to bring this orientation session to a 8
close as quickly as possible, because we are increasingly 9
anticipating the discussion that properly belongs to the smalle r 10 groups where lines of debate can be pursued more efftively thar 11 here.
I think Dr. Zebroski has a burning question.
If nobody 12 else has any after that, we may recess.
13 DR. ZEBROSKI:
I don't have a question --
14 MR. HEGE:
I think the reporter is straining to hear 15 you.
Could you speak louder or go to the microphone?
16 DR. ZEBROSKI:
-- the reason that'I wrote a letter 17 on this subject is that if you solve the problem backwards, 18 let's say we are several years dcwn the road and we have a 19 safety goal of some kind articulated, quantitative or semi-l 20 quantitative, then it is reasonable to speculate by looking t
21 at past practice in the Commission, as scattershot points on 22 this kind of quantitative safety goal, there will be a great 23 deal of overlap.
In fact, within the usual uncertainties 24 of defining these things, either verbally or mathmatically, I
25 I wouldn't be surorised to find essential confluence between l
l l
y 4
~.
22 1
any safety goal that we formulate and past practice.
2 What you are led to, then, is that the difference, the 3
purpose of quantifying the safety goal, is the historical 4
uneveness in application that we try to drive some trivial risk 5
to zero while sometimes ignoring or treating more lackadaisically 6
more serious risks.
That uneveness of aoplication leads to my 7
question of at least a referenced set of givens of how you 8
see, or scmeone sees, a potential way for the Commission to 9
utilize a safety goal.
Absent that given, I think we will 10 have a very diffuse discussion.
11 MR. HEGE:
Thank you for your comment.
I tried to l'
respond to the comments that you made in your letter and in 13 our discussion last night to the best that I thought possible 14 at this time, and I hope that, to the extent that you feel 15 that my response now is inadequate, that you will try to make 16 it whole partly in your panel and perhaps in the plenaries 17 that follow.
Perhaps others will be able to contribute, also.
18 I would at this time like to call for a five-19 minute recess at the end of which people should go to their 20 panel rooms, unless there is semething very burning at this 21 point that would make it necessary to delay.
22 If not, let's reconvene in the panel rooms in five 23 minutes.
24 (Whereupon, at 9:22, the plenary session recessed, 25 to reconvene in panel discussion.)