Our agency, for whatever reason-that is not my area of policy— made a determination that our rule would be different, our civil rule. Under our rules, initially as provided, they were going to knock the oral out. Mr. GEJDENSON. Until the Justice Department complained. Mr. FORTUNA. Yes. I think our office wrote some papers on it and had some impact. The Department of Justice came in and made some comments. So oral came back in, but the one-bite rule still applies. Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me thank all the witnesses. Gentlemen, do you have any final statements you want to make? It seems to me that when you look at the drugs issue, this issue, maybe we have gone through our little experiment at the NRC and deregulation, let the industry regulate itself, and that it may be now time to send a very strong message to the NRC that the reason they are there is to regulate an industry that possesses as much potential harm and danger to the citizens of this country as anything that we have out there. And if they don't want to do that, maybe we ought to get new Commissioners. But you folks and others who are working out there, trying to ensure the safety of the people of this country, ought to be getting the full support of the NRC and the Congress, and we hope to put some focus on that so you will. Again, we appreciate the presence of all of you here today and we thank you and we will be watching your careers to make sure that your movement heads in the right direction. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:35 o'clock p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 16 17 18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF APPENDIX R (FIRE PROTECTION) Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. W. Rooom 1130 Washington D. C. Wednesday, May 30, 1984 The Commission met, prusuant to notice at COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: NUNZIO PALLADINO VICTOR GILINSKY THOMAS ROBERTS, Chairman of the Commission Commissioner Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: R. Eberly 2 MR. VOLLMER: Maybe if we had done this a mont! ter Appendix R was issued and hauled everybody in and go CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, you probably didn't MR. VOLLMER: That's right. We didn't, that's COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But even at this point why aren't we better off by just saying, you have 8333, that's it? MR. CASE: That's certainly an approach. MR. : That's a good possibility. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But, do you think that thes 17 18 right? The new interpretation. MR. EBERLY: Oh, at what point did we get involved MR. EBERLY: We, as the staff fire protection en gineers, got involved in' it at the point when they started COMMISSIONER GALINSKY: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So you weren't really in volved at all in the preparation or MR. EBERLY: Not of these interpretations, no. 16 17 which you are differing? MR. EBERLY: That's right. MR. CASE: But that isn't to say that the arguments that they are now making weren't made by their Branch Chief at the time as potential problems. So they were given that Their Branch Chief's knew their problems. consideration. MR. EBERLY: That's right. Our Branch Chief was |