ML19224C613
| ML19224C613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1979 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224C614 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907030417 | |
| Download: ML19224C613 (27) | |
Text
.,
a i
NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION CIRC'PUBUC DOCUMENT ROCM}
.a
.==
IN THE M_ATTER OF:
PUELIC MEETING DISCJSSION OF S-3
~
.~
(.
Place. Washington, D.
C.
Date. Friday, 15 June 1979 Pages 1
'2 6 408
/ C)*7 T... m n. :
(:02) ac.27oc ACE. FEDER-tL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficistRepor:ers 444 North Cccitol Street Wcshington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWICE COVERAGE - DAILY
!)'k )
IN2 3
Dn%
~
> ' ')
yW7'?yf</J y
1
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of tne United States Nuclear Regulatory Co::aission held on Friday,15 June 1979 in the Commissions 's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.
The.
meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general infote.ational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressic as of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statemen or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authcrize.
e t /
O O "
TUd i 7'n
2
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISf, ION 2
3 PUBLIC MEETING 4
DISCUSSION OF S-3 5
6 Room 1130 7
1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
8 Friday, 15 June 1979 9
The Cc= mission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:23 p.m.
10 LEFORE:
11 DR. u 'EPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 12 PETER A.
t MDFORD, Commissioner 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 JOHN F. AHEAPlJE, Commiscioner 15 RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PRESENT:
17 j S.
EILPERIN 18 H.
SHAPER i
39 l M.
MALSCH i
L.
SLAGGIE G.
SEGE i
21 !
22 l
\\
4go 194 n
,2 24 ac..F.cersi aeoorms inc. l 25 l
,n, L,v c l/J
R 5415 3
'HITLOCK
-1 mte 1 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could come to order.
3 The Commission meets, and the first item this after-4 noon is to discuss once again matters connected with the 5
proposed S-3 rule.
We have a memorandum from the solicitor 6
which deals with the D.C. Circuit's remand in the State of 7
Minnesota versus NRC, et cetera, proceeding, and recommendations 8
for reccgnition of that court decision in the statement of 9
considerations which would accompany the. proposed S-3 rule.
10 Let me sketch out for you what I have seen as the 11 need and utility for this meeting.
Let me say first that I do 12 not expect and have not expected us to come to any sort of 13 final decision on the S-3 rule and statement of considerations 14 this afternoon.
As I noted the last time we met on this 15 subject, it seemed to me that indeed, as couasel's office 16 strongly recommends to us, recognition of the court's decit on l
17 '
in the S-3 statement of considerations is apprcpriate and 18 probably essential.
19 In connection with that decision, we are propelled 20 forward toward a generic proceeding on the cuestion of the 21 matter of the Commission's level of confidence about there 22 being a place. ultimately for spent fuel elements to go from 23 reactor storage pools, before ultimately the operating licenses 24 on those facilities run out and presumably the facilities are ac.4.eeras a.corters, ix.
25 shut down.and deccmmissioned.
10%
Q1LT 17L anQ l I-LUL i,V 4UU l
4 te 2 1
I had felt that it would be useful for us to have 2
some discussion of the general thrust and nature of that 3
generic proceeding in order that we could judge a little 4
better whether the proposed language to go in S-3 that touched 5
upon that subject suited us all or at least a majority of 6
us.
So what I hope to do this afternoon at this meeting is 7
to have the -- Steve and Leo lead us in some discussion of 8
their memo and reconmendations.
9 We might talk a little bit, in a preliminary way, 10 about the shape and thrust of that generic prcceeding.
I 11 would hope that we might then agree that language along the 12 lines proposed in this memorandum would-be suitable for the 13 statement of considerations.
And then I Nould expect, after 14 this meeting, for one or another of us to produce a proposed 15 final draft of tne statement of considerations.
And then at 16 a meeting a week or two down the line, we would meet and 17 hopefully be able to vote it up or down or adjust it and ccme 13 to a final decision.
19 So, with that preamble, perhaps, Steve, I could 20 ask you and Leo to guide us through your thoughts as reflected 21 in the memo here.
22 MR. EILPERIN:
At the last S-3 meeting, the 23 Commission decided to extend the interim rule until July 30th 24 in order to have an opportunity to study the Court of Appeals a.s.en.i n. con.n. inc.,
25 May 23rd decision, State of Minnesota versus NRC, and asked 408 1o6 11 M lR
5 te 3 that our offico give the Commission a memorandum explaining 3
that decision and its relationship to the S-3 proceeding.
We 2
have done that in a memorandum which also discusses the scope 3
of the issues which we think the Ccmmission sl.culd consider 4
in carrying out the court's remands It touches upon some of 5
the procedural aspects in a further Commission proceeding and 6
suggests some changes in the S-3 statement of considerations 7
t to reflect the opinion.
8 I can briefly go through the court's opinion.
As 9
jo you know, it dealt with challenges both on NEPA grounds and Atomic Energy Act grounds to the expansion of spent fuel pools 11 involving Prairie Island and involving Vermont Yankee.
There 12 were two opinions, one by George Levanthal and then,a concurring 13 14 opinion by Judge Tamm.
Leventhal's opinion was, we think, consciously 15 restrained in the sense that he was careful not to make law.
16 I
17 '
He remanded to the Commission for further consideration the l
l 18,
specific prchlem dealing wich those spent fuel pool expansions 19 ! that the petitioners had raised, and that was whether there 1
20 l was reasonable assurance that of f-site storage will be available by the years 207 2 -- when the plants' -- within 2j 22 the plants ' operatir c licenses.
And then, whether the f uel can be stored safely beycnd those dates.
23 l
He is careful not to vacate license amendments or 24 Ace E9dFai Reporters, loc.
25' state license amendments, qg g[]
~
408 197 l
te 4 6
1 The basis of the remand was, simply stated, as I 2
recall, sound administration.
It was not tied to either the 3
provisions of NEPA nor to a particular provision of the 4
Atomic Energy Act, although it used language which is 5
associated with the Atemic Energy Act, " reasonable assurance."
6 Judge Tamm, in his concurring opinion, stated quite 7
clearly that he thought that NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act 8
mandated a determination about whether it is reasonably probable 9
that an off-site fuel repository will be available by the time 10 the plant's operating license is expired, and, if not, whether 11 the fuel could be stored on site for an indefinite period.
12 The first issue we dealt with -in the memorandum 13 deals with the connection between S-3 and the court's opinion, 14 because at the end of the court's opinion the court essentially 15 gave the Ccmmission the option of-folding this remand. into 16,
the current S-3 proceeding, handling it by individual cases, 17 handling it in a further generic proceeding, things of that 18 j sort.
19 l We think, quite clearly, that the S-3 proceeding as 20,
currently penstituted and as it is befcre the Ccmmission for a 21
- decision, it cannot be used to dispose of the issues that 22 the court has asked the Commission to look into.
That is 23 primarily because there has not been any notice fo the Atomic I
24 '
Energy Act issues, there has not been.an evidentiary record Jecer.i aeoenen, inc.
25 compiled with regard to timing of waste disposal, and that men
~h
, ', o u
e
.te 5 7
j the petitioners themselves are not parties to the S-3 proceed-2 ing.
3 So we think, for a variety of reasons, the S-3 4
proceeding as it is now cannot be used to dispose of the 5
issues that the court remanded.
6 The next question, then, is should the Commission 7
decide S-3 or postpone a decision on S-3.
As to that, we 8
again think that the Ccmmission should decide the matter.
We 9
point out that the differences -- well, we point out first
-10 that the Commission has to deal with the issues that are 11 enccmpassed in the S-3 proceeding one way or the other with 12 reference to licensing power plants; that the extensions of 13 the interim rule have been based upon a judgment that the 14 numbers in the interim rule are virtually interchangeable with 15 the numbers in the S-3 rule; and that at some point in time 16 '
the Commission is obliged to articulate the reasons why it thinks these numbers are virtually interchangeable with 17 l 18 earlier ones.
19 I also think that it is a question of the -- well, 20 ;
the record of the hearing ended close to about a year ago.
I 21' And the longer a decision is put off, the staler the record 22 gets.
So we think that the court's decisien has not called 23 for a postponement of the decision on S-3, and we have sug-24 gested some minor modifications of the S-3 statement of w r.eere neporm i.inc.
25 considerations which we think reflect th0 65hrt'G @ pinion.
- v i_
.vv 408 199
8 te 6 1
The next question is, what should the proceeding 2
look like that the Commission conducts in response to the 3
opinion of the State of Minnesota by the D.C. Circuit.
We 4
point out that there is something like 21 applications now 5
pending to expand spent fuel storage pools, and of those 21 6
there are 8 contested proceedings.
The applications cover or 7
have covered in the past the 67 operating reactors, and no 8
doubt there will be more applications dealing with the same 9
subject later on down the line.
10 The issue that the court has identified for the 11 Commission's considerations is a generic one.
We don't see 12 much purpose to handling it in the contested proceedings or 13 individual licensing proceedings which follow upon that.
And 14 the court quite clearly understood the issue to be properly 15 handled in a generic proceeding which would be akin to a 16 rulemaking proceeding.
I' f In fact, the court mada specific reference to the 7
i 18 fact that the kind of judgment which is called for, the kind l
19 l of predictive judgment that is called for, determining whether 20 the waste can be taken off site frca these reactors and kept 21 off site, is the sort of predictive legislative judgment for 22 which the legislative rulemaking hearing would be apprcpriate.
23 That is not to say that the Cc= mission would not have more 24 adjudicatory hearings.
Q
.,:s-Federal Reporters. Irc 25 It is to say that a legislative hearing would be
"' r10 enn 9uc c-
9 to 7 1
Permissible, and the kinds of -- for the Commission's considera-2 tion, it is the sort of issue for which legislative hearings 3
might be considered proper.
In terns of -- so our conclusion' 4
cn that is essentially that the Commission should not fold a 5
follow-on hearing -- should not fold a hearing into the S-3 6
hearings, the follow-on hearing -- and the follow-on hearing 7
should be of a generic nature.
In terms of the issues, certainly at minimum the 8
9 Commission must, unless it decides to seek rehearing or a 10 certiorari, either of which I would recommend, certainly the 11 Commission must at minimum treat the issue that the court 12 remanded for its consideration.
That, as I mentioned before, 13 is to what extent is there reasonable assurance that an off-site 14 storage solution is available for the spent fuel rods which 15 are now in the Vermont Yankee and' Prairie Island plants at the 16 time that those licenses expire.
17 j We mention in the memorandum that, given a rather 18 ! narrow edict, the Commission could simply decide that the 19 only issue ( ' remand that it has to 1cok at is to whac extent 20 can you remove the spent fuel reds from these on-site reactor 21 poc s a-d get them scmewhere else off site, either to permanent
~
22 disposal or, more narrowly, to some sort of away-from-reactor 23 storage.
24 That, we think, is, as we said in the memorandum, AG E9dtral Reporters, tre.
25 is a very narrow reading of the court's remand.
There is 408 201 qp 3c
10 te 8 1
other language in the court's opinion which suggests that the 2
court would be interested in the Commission's views on whether 3
or not permanent disposal is feasible.
And indeed, I think 4
in terms of the general interests about waste disposal, the 5
public is not particularly interested in whether or not the 6
Federal Government knows how to build yet another larger 7
storaga pool, but rather, it is interested in whethe.- waste l
8 can be disposed of immediately.
So we suggest that more enccmpassing issue be the 9
10 principal subject of the follow-on proceeding.
11 We mention that the Commission, if it chose, could 12 expand the proceedings still further by using it to review the 13 Department of Energy's GEIS on the management of cc=mercially-14 generated wastes, and could use it still further in considering
/
15 the number of the S-3 rule dealing with the curies to be 1:
released, if any, from the waste disposals or repositories.
6 l
17 ;
Cur memorandum reccmmands either of those courses.
{
18 We think that the DOE GEIS will prchably -- well, l
19 it is just cut in draft now.
Probably it would not be out l
20 I in final for at least a year.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it out new in draft?
22 MR. EILPERIN:
It is cut in draft.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess I haven't -- I just don't 24 recall seeing it.
In fact, I was getting ready to ask when we er seeers Reporters, inc.
25,
would see the draft.
zj n q
.mn
_909
'Ub c'3,l L. v 4.
i j
te 9 11 1
MR. EILPERIN :
It was published in 1979.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sure that each Commission 3
Of fice would be -- its decoration would be notably improved.
4 MR. SHAPAR:
I thought we sent it to you.
We can 5
check.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I suppose we will have access to
-l 7
it as we need it.
But I haven't seen it.
8 MR. EILPERIN:
That is another decision the 9
Commission could consider.
We don't suggest that it be 10 considerad in any follow-on generic proceeding, principally Il because we think the delay would be immense.
The DOE GEIS 12 would not be out for a good year in final, and the Commission 13 should be responding to the Court of Appeals ' opinion much 14 more quickly than that.
15 The last question that we suggest, the one dealing 16 with a reconsideration of the curie release number for S-3, 17 we again take the position that it is best not to include that 18 in a follow-on proceeding,,but simply to give notice that in 19 fact, if in fact information is developed which would suggest 20,
some sort of reconsideration, then that information would be 21 used as part of the general updating.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to note that there 23 are, apparently, a* least two general proceedings that we 24 look forward to here:
the one we have been talking about, e..F.e. ret Recomn. inc.
25 which the Circuit Court urges upon us, to deal with the 40P 203 6 ~<--iC4 a
to 10' I!
12 1
question of whether there is a reasonable basis for believing 2
the wastes can ultimately be dealt with safely.
But there is 3
then the general update of the fuel cycle environmental ef fects, 4
which is going forward in the staff.
And I would have expected 5
that questione like the zero release in the present proposed 6
S-3 would be dealt with at some length there, rather than the 7
reasonable confidence hearing.
8 Let me ask one other thing to help my understanding 9
of the nature of the reasonable confidence animal.
We had 10 proceedings before boards which deal with licenses, and it is Il pretty clear what those are about.
And we have proceedings 12 either before, directly before the Commission or occasionally 13 before boards on proposed rules, md it is pretty clear what Id those are about.
15 For the reas.anable confidence 9eneric proceeding, 16 l it appears to me that the result is not a rile or a license, 17 !
but rather, I suppose, a collegial letter from the Cc= mission i
12 addressed to whcm it may concern:
he have made the fellcwing l9 findings, after cc= piling a suitable record on the subject of 20 l reasonable confidence about was te.
I 21 l Were the subject perhaps less complex and pretenti;us, 22 we might deal with it on the basis of perhaps scme draf t 23 recommendations and an invitation to pecple to talk to us 24 directly.
We may have a couple of meetings where people come were aeoorms, inc.
25 and speak on it, and then the Commission agonizes over it 400
') { k nne
<^^
coc 10J
.te 11' 13 1
itself.
2 I take it that in this case the recommendation for 3
establishing a board is because the forming of a record which 4
will allow suitable opportunity for everyone who might want 5
to express an opinion to express it formally and for some 6
questioning back and forth is like -- it sort of gets beyond 7
the capability of the Commission to sit directly through many 8
days.
5 is that?
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
10 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let me suggest it to you 11 as a small specimen of why I 1m inclined to think that, that 12 after several years of procaedings before a board and pages 13 of recommendations and further verbal presentations to the 14 Commission in the S-3 matte; at hand, we continue, after 15 many meetings, to have great difficulties in closing on a 16 statement of censiderations and a proposed rule.
17 If we are going to deal with a matter like wastes, l
18 I dare say you could do it.
But I doubt you would get much 19 i other collegial business of the Commission conducted for quite I
20 a period of time.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
First of all, there are a 22 few things more important.
Beyond that, this dif fers f rom 23 S-3.
S-3, we are trying to get a table of numbers and going '
24 into some detai-1 through a variety of,possible effluents.
a4.eer.i necomn. inc.
25 Here the question is more general:
Do you have sufficient 408
'05 c y+ 4 7
oc o
~
te 12 14 1
confidence that waste programs will develop satisfactory means 2
for removing the fuel assemblies or waste in other forms to 3
some suitable repository?
4 It seems to mm it is a much more general question, 5
and it is one that we oughtn' t to delegate.
What happens when 6
we delegate these things is that we have a long proceeding, 7
which develops an enormous record, which then Leo reads for 8
us, and then he tells it to us over a series of meetings.
9
'Now, it seems to me the choice is between the Ccemission 10 conducting a proceeding or Leo conducting a proceeding.
II (Laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER AHEAR"E:
Would you want to vote for 13 efficiency?
14 MR. SEAPAR:
I could last weeks and months.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think so.
It isn't 16 that sort of question, and it is not going to turn on little I
li details.
18 '
MR. SkAPAR:
But you need an adequate factual 19 i
record.
l 20 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is no point in 21 pretending that your confidence turns on various engineering 22 details of the construction of the facility and various other 23 delicate matters.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNED'. :
Then.what dces it turn on Federal Aeporters, Inc.
25 that will be suitable to the courts?
- d. h.,aQ 70 c.6
to 13 15 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Those details won' t be 2
transmitted to you anyway, and you are not going to lud' at 3
them, or at lea st I don' t expect I will.
We are going to 4
have this enormous record, which is going to -- which one can 5
point to, but which in fact will have played very little role 6
in the actual decision.
7 COYMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you don' t place any 8
confidence in the staff.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And if you --
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Ordinarily, when you develop 11 a very extensive record, I would think that one of the purposes 12 is there are people who do read it all and who do integrate 13 it and reach a conclusion on it, and then make recommendations 14 or a summary.
And if you don't give any weight to that, then 15 clearly --
16 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
Another thing you don't give I
i 17' any weight to either is the ability of the attorneys in the I
l 18 j city to find opportunities to bring matters before the courts.
I 19 '
And if you don't have a record on which you can rely when you l
20 l bring it to the courts, you are back to the drawing board i
21 again.
That is where we are at the mcment, isn't that right?
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
It seems to me it would 23 impress the courts a lot more -- at least it would me if I 24 were sitting on a court -- that the Cctmissioners took a
-Neral Reporters, Inc. Ij 25 1 personal interest in this matter and themselves conducted a i
enn
^7 "l
/i U O
/
^"
'na
" 'i /
[UL IUV
16 ate 14 I
proceeding.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think you're right, if they 3
conducted a proceeding over six months, I think the court would 4
do just that.
But if it takes five or six days, it won't, 5
because it will know what it has got, which is not much of a 6
record, and the court will look at the record.
7 COMMISSIONER BR;OFORD:
How many days of hearings 8
went into the S-3?
9 MR. EILPERIN:
Ten actual hearing days.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN:
21.
That is, in a sense, the tip of 11 the iceberg.
12 MR. EILPERIN:
There is a lot of homework that 13 people do before the actual hearing, studying documents and 14 preparing answers.
15 MR. SEAPAR:
I think this would take more time to 16 conduct a hearing on than the S-3.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask a precedure 18 l ques tion?
What are we discussing at the moment?
Are we i
19 {
discussing the D.C. Court's remand and what we do with it?
l I
20 Are we discussing where we go on S-3?
Are we discussing the i
21 '
question of how we address waste management policy?
All 22 three?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not quite waste management 24 policy.
We are discussing what I felt we should have some ac.4.eere a,pormi, inc.
25 preliminary discussion about, namely, before we went forward 408 208 M2 10Y
17 nte 15 1
and completed, hopefully completed, S-3, and that was to have 2
some initial discussion about and develop some of the 3
Commissioners' perceptions about the shape and thrust of the 4
generic proceeding which the court urges upon us.
This is not 5
by way of saying we now here are goin i to decide what the 6
shape and thrus t is, but rather, to have some sense of where 7
we individually stand, to provide a certain amount of guidance a
as we look at the proposed words for S-3, te see if those words 9
put us in the right direction and don't run rankly contrary
~10 to at least a majority's ieeling.
11 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It seems to neutral as to 12 how we would do the proceeding.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
My feeling is that I think 14 the words for the S-3 thing are probably fine with me, and I 15 would hope with some others, too.
But it did seem to me that 16 we begin to develop some of our thoughts on the generic r
17 proceeding, since the S-3 language, if we move on it, in 18 fact says the Commission will hold a generic proceeding, and I l
I 19 thought some initial sense of where this was likely to be l
20,
headed was useful.
I 21' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't think there is anyone 22 who disagrees, is there, that the Commission -- the issue there any disagreement that seda 23 seems to be in what form.
Is 24 type of hearing is to be held?
Aa Federal Repo,ters. f nc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
agree L
/
l
Ite 16 18 1
with it.
It sounds to me it is incumbent epon us to make a 2
decision, in view of the court's decision and in view of other 3
things.
I think there are some questions.
These shape and 4
thrust questions come up, among them such questions as:
Do 5
you form a bo:rd?
Do you really want the Commission to hear 6
it in full glory as the original forum?
7 And also some questions down the line.
We will have 8
to think some about timing, because we do have the draf t DOE, 9
as I understand -- I just saw the volumes appear over here --
10 draft GEIS in hand.
There is a final forthcoming.
- Clearly, 11 one of the major sources of input by way of information, 12 both technology and policy, is going to be the Administration, 13 presumably represented by the Department of Energy.
And how 14 all that fits together is not all that clear.
15 But that we should go forward with the generic 16 proceeding on this subject I have no question about it.
I 17 don't see any indication that anybody else --
i 18 MR. EILPERIN:
The precise scope and procedures 19 for the generic proceedings may somewhat be subject to further 20 notice, precisely because we thought the Commission could 21 decide on S-3 without awaiting a decision on all of the other 22 Lssues tha are involved as to the kind of hearing.
23; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Once you make the basic decision i
24 '
that indeed we shall go forward, then that --
. 5.cere n exn,. inc.
CCMMISSIONER M RNE-2j1]thinkthat'sfine.
25
$_Q
ate 17-19 1
MR. SHAPAR:
The paper on its way to you now 2
discusses that very issue.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is a substantial question.
4 MR. SHAPAR:
The generic form of the generic l'
5 proceeding, should you decide on a generic proceeding.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think there is a substantial 7
question as to how we go about doing it.
I think there are 8
a lot of strong arguments on both sides.
I think we have to 9
u.cerstand those before reaching a decision.
Either way, it 10 is a very important decision.
II On the spur of the moment, I don't think --
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Am I right, Steve, that the 13 eventual product -- what would the product be?
Would it, in 14 effect, be a short note from the Commission saying, to whom e-2 15 it may concern?
16 MR. EILPE RIN:
I think we need a note from the I
17 Commission explaining on what basis it either has or dces not i
18 '
have confidence.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In effect a policy statement?
20 MR. EILPERIN :
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Rather than a rule or scme such 22 thing.
408
'cli 23 MR. SHAPAR:
Or the Commission orderffollcwing the generic 24 proceeding.
It could be a policy statem?nt or the Commission's
.c.-F.e r.1 Reporters, Inc.
25 final words at the conclusion of the generic pro eeding.
/
20 ite 18' l
l Whether it conducts the proceeding or reviews the record 2
developed by a hearing bocrd, it will review the record and 3
speak to it.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was trying to understand what 5
the final product of the effort would be.
6 MR. EILPE RIN:
It would not be 10 CFR, et cetera, 7
et cetera, shorld be amended, et cetera.
8 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
I do reasonably 9
understand.
.10 I interrupted you in mid-flight.
There are some II further comments in your memorandum about the nature of the 12 generic proceeding.
But let me see if, since we managed to 13 start a little bit late this afternoen, if there are comments I4 Commissioners have about the proposed statement of considera-15 tion language.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That the general counsel has
~
l I7 suggested?
It is fine with me.
i 18 l COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
The piece of language he l9 suggested on how to handle the court, I have no problems with.
20 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is the language recommended 21 for insertion into the statement of considerations on S-3.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's right.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We understand that these questicas 24 of exactly how to go about this generic proceeding remain to ace. Federal Atc <ters, trw.
25 be --
408 212 M
i3 i
te 19.
21 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are still some remnant 2
questions about the whole statement of considerations.
3 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, there are.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As far as the general counsel's 5
most recent product, I have no problem with it.
6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, did you have some thoughts?
7 I see you studying the language.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I need to go back now 9
with this language and run it together with the statement of 10 considerations in my own previous iterations and see what I II am left with.
12 I certainly would agree with the proposition that a 13 further proceeding is in order.
I have some thoughts about Id the nature and scope of that proceeding, but I don't need to 15 air them now.
16 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
As you think about i
17 those, by the way, you might think about Commissioner 18 Gilinsky's suggestion.
i 19 CCMMISSICNER BRACFCRD:
Yes.
i 20 (Laughter.)
I 2I '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What I want you to think abcut 22 :
in that connection is whether we are in fact capable of adding --
23' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It has a lot to do with the --
24 if we had 21 days of hearings plus procedural rulings, then I sc.+.cer.i neocreeri, inc..
25 think it is a question of --
i!0B 20
ate 20 22 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then it may become -- and I also 2
have in mir d that I dare say ;rou will suggest to us that a 3
certain amc Int of questioning of people might be useful.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The tho :ght had occurred to me.
6 (Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In any context.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Although, between that and 9
the other measures to assure that their ventilation of the 10 issues -- there may be resultant fewer days of hearings.
11 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Again, those aspects of the 12 Procedures, again, affect the question of whether this is 13 Precisely the best board to --
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
No, 'there is no ques tion 15 abcut that.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wonder who --
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No question?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
There is no ques'i-"
- "at 18 l I
19 '
there is an interpJay between the nature of the hearing and 20 what board is best able to do it.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn ' t f eel really abused i f 22 you concluded you wanted a rather more formal proceeding, but 23 you didn't want --
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That you didn ' t --
cefederal Recomrs, Inc.
25 CRAIRMAN'HENDRIE:
-- that you didn ' t want me 408 214 f
te 21-23 1
chairing it, which is an obvious problem.
I think I could 2
probably join you in an opinion along those lines.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did you want to talk more 4
about the nature of --
5 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seemed tc me that since I 6
wasn't proposing this afterncon to do more than sort of look 7
up and down the table and give people a chance to give some 8
initial reactions to it, and we have had some of these, I was 9
'just going to ask you:
Do you feel this is sufficient for our
-10 immediate purpose as a discussion?
Obviously the question of 11 the scope, the form and so on of the generic proceeding is a 12 line of discussion which we will carry forward.
13 Howard, you say the staff would ke to --
14 MR. SEAPAR:
I think the paper has been dispatched 15 to you, with a fifth option, that would embody Commissioner 16 ;
Gilinsky's suggestion.
17 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are four options?
18 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, four options.
I91 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Cne for each ccmmittee.
20 MR. SEAPAR:
These are extrapolated from --
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Was that because you felt there 22 had to be an odd number of options, so there would always be 23 a center one, Howard?
24 MR. SEAPAR:
It just came out that way.
2 Federsj Recor* erg, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You had four is t)3t correct? '
/D r
400 913
'l
24 te 22 1
MR. SHAPAR:
We had four and Bill added one.
That 2
fifth option was that the Commission itself conduct the 3
hearing, much along the lines that Commissioner Gilinsky 4
suggested.
There is some sentiment among the staff for that 5
suggestion.
6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
. don't want you to think, Vic, 7
that that necessarily -- I don't want you to think that that 8
is the staff shesing their love and admiration.
It may in 9
f act be a form of vengeance,
10 (Laughter.)
II Keep that possibility in mind.
I2 COMMISSIONER KF'iNEDY:
It may also be that the 13 staff has been wise enough to conclude that if it could just 14 tie the Commission up for another 60 or 90 days, it might get 15 some of its work done.
16 (Laughter.)
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Commission has pushed I7
'88 this question on the staff.
They are pushing back now.
j I9 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Jchn, let us look forward to l
20 scheduling a meeting, I would think.
When do you expect this I
21 paper, you say?
This afterncon.
I 23 CHAIR.'CJI HENDRIE:
I think the calendar is full for at least a week.
So it will be down the line a bit.
But i
24 aJewal Reporters. lm.
25 we will split off that line of discussion, I
- "4-k.,_frcm S-3, i
N#
403 216 i,
nte 23 25 I
then, the question of the form and scope of the generic 2
proceeding.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We have to put 5-3 to bed.
4 CHAIPyJJi HENDRIE:
I think putting S-3 to bed is a 5
matter of putting this language in the statement of 6
considera tions, together with any other changes that people 7
want.
And what I will try to do is to see if I can get a draft 8
generated which I think has some hope of achieving the majority 9
and circulate it, so we know the piece of paper w" are looking 10 at specifically and we come and deal with it.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before we finish with S-3, i
12 '
can I ask Leo or Steve a question?
I am having some difficulty 13 at this stage keeping track of the latest piece of paper I 14 ought to be locking at.
In your track, what are the latest 15 papers, ycurs and Commission opinions?
16 j MR. EILPERIN :
We sent up on May 7th a statement of I
17 considerations for the S-3 rule.
The only changes we are 18 l suggesting from that May 7th statement of considerations are i
I I9 the two pages at the end of the June lith memcrandum.
l 20 '
CHAIR *WI HENDRIE:
So May 7th and June lith.
21 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Ecw about from other 22 Commission offices; what is your latest track?
23 MR. EILPE RIN:
On that, I think Cormissioner Bradford 24 had a draft opinion dated May lith and Cornissioner Gilinsky c F.e.: Report rs, ice.
25 had a draft opinion dated May 21st.
- "2408 217 l
l I
ste 24 26 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So those are the --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I indicated I had two changes 3
that I would insist upon in the May 7th draft, to return it 4
to the earlier version cf April.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What I meant when I said I tried 6
to get a japer which I thought might go would be to try to 7
make a selected ccmbination of those matters, so that it 8
could be a single thing that you could -- that we could wave 9
at one another and know what particular paper we are talking 10 about.
II Is that good enough for the moment?
12 (No response.)
13 Then I think we can lay aside the S-3 papers for the 14 moment.
15 e-3 (Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m.,
the hearing was adjourned.)
16 i I
I 17 18 l i
i 19 I.
I t
i 20 !
l l
i 21 22 408 219 23 1
24 ac,. secure Recomes. '
\\
.no
\\ j r-i