ML19242A408

Transcript of 790615 Meeting in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-56

ML19242A408
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/15/1979
From:	Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7908010611
Download: ML19242A408 (57)

Text

O e.

f.

[

NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION f

pad PUBUC COcuMa4T ROO")

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF DEFERRAL OF LICENSES

^

~

Pfece -

Washington, D. C.

Date.

Friday, 15 June 1979 Pages 1

'56 T... nce.:

'202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

OfficialReponers 444 Ncrth C:;:i+ci Street 7908010[j'(

Wcshingten, D.C. 20001 NATICNWICE COVERAGE. D AILY

.' 'l Y G, \\. l',.

J

i 1

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Friday, 15 June 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,

Washington, D. C.

The

.e Llia altendance and observatior..

This transcrio.t meetinc. was oc.en cv has not been reviewed, cor acted, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational

c. u r t. o s e s.

As u.rovided bv. 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading er other paper.ay be filed

---. e s.s e?.

=^^-

..v.

. v Ca a?.'.~; a s "".e

_ a_ s t.~. ' ~.

=. c.

m v 4. '.h

~..k. a.

C w-...~ ' s s. ~. ~.4 v

w. - -..e A.

'e. m.- o '..,

a..< - e "r *. as ' '" a.

• 2e

-~'-a...

s 'o ' 'w..~..e ". ~...

~

a

^*

• o '.".v, Co==ission may authcrize.

.e 0

.i i {r

t l

I j

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I!

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2;

I 3!

PUBLIC MEETING I

I 4

I DISCUSSION OF DEFERRAL OF LICENSES S'

l 6-Room 1130 l

1717 H Street, N.W.

7 Washington, D.

C.

8 Friday, 15 June 1979 9

The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m.

10 '

BEFORE :

1 II DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman l

12 PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner 13 !

VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i

I4 RICHARD T.

KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 '

pg33337:

16 L.

SECKWI?

C.

STOIBER 17 H.

SEAPAR L.

GOSSICK 13,

g, gz33333 i

19 20 '

l 21 :

22 l

l 23 1 1

.l 24 ACS-Etderal Recor'ert, Inc.

$b,

i A

4 x

)

.i

a CR5416 3

Whitlock t1

]1 -

1l-

_P _R _O_ _C _E.E _D I N G S 2

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

Let's go ahead with the second

- i s.

subject th3.s afternocn.

This is discussion of the policy 4

statement on licensing.

We had some discussion of this at an earlier subject 5,

I 6!

-- at an earlier meet 179 At the close of that meeting, I l

i 7'

we all agreed that it would useful if, in fact, the Commission 8

could say scmething on this subject, although what t o s ay did 9!

not seem to be clear.

10 I directed the Counsel's Office to withdraw to its I

l 11 l ch am.be rs and reflect upcn what had been said, and see if they i

12 :

could draft anything.

13 l They withdrew, reflected, and have come to us with a i

14 i document which -- suppose I don't attempt to characterize it?

I li, f Laugh.te n. )

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

But rather suggest that, as an 17 cpening to this discussien, that we ask Ccunsel to sort of 13 pace us through the draft.

19 I G. SICKWIT:

As the cove r meme indicates --

20l COMMISSICNER KENNEOi:

Only cne of many to ccme.

r

<l 21 j MR. SICKWIT :

-- cur re'/iew o f the transcript did 22 not reveal to us any consensus within the Ccenissicn as to what 23 policy course was intended by the Commissicn.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I didn't mean for you to lock for aca etderal ReCCriers, IrtC.

25,

a consensus.

I thought you would "ust see what I had said.

i s

h i

• 1-1 j

di '

4 jl 2 1

(Laughter.)

2 MR. BICKWIT:

What we attempted to do was try to 3 I find threads th at smacked of consensus and to put together a 4

statement which was at least consistent with most of what was Si said.

l 6l What the statement does s ay -- firs t, let me tell you i

t t

7i th at as we proceeded, we saw three optiens for us.

One was 8

t o -- the re was a lot of discussion in the sessien about the i

9l categorization of issues, whether issues should be categorized 10 '

as those which would have to be resolved before new licenses I

11 would be issued or would be of such seriousness as to requi te i

12 i shutdcwn of existing plants.

1, i

13 j And the optiens we considered were, one, that the i

l 14 i Commission could proceed to categorize those issues new; two, 15 that they could ask the staff to do so and then when the j

16 j Lessons Learned Task Force report was received, perhaps ask 17 the staff to do it again; or, th ree, that the Commission wculd la cctmit to categorizing tssues af ter the Lessens Learr 3d Task 19 Force repcrt w as re ceived.

i 20 '

The first we regarded as extreme ly dif ficult.

21 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

Is not that cne Of the 22 purpcses of the Lessons Learned Task Force, as I unders::cd 23 it?

And therefore, the simple precedure of following the 24 existing plan of going through the Lessens Learned should Ac....e.r. a.cor m. w.

25,

result in the categorization.

., 5.

')

i n-

5 ji 3 1

MR. BICKWIT:

That was our conclusion, as the mos t 2

logical of the three ways to proceed.

3' COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

It is your understanding that I

4l the categorization referred to in some detail on page 3 of I

5l this draft is that the output of the Lessons Learned Task I

6' Force, am I correct?

7 MR. BICKWIT:

Not quite.

The Lessons Learned Talk 8

Force would come up -- might well come up with some categories,j j

t 9 i but what the Ccmmission would be ccmmitting to do would be to I

10 review the I4ssons Learned Task Force and arrive at its own 11 categora:ation.

12 !

And of the three --

i l

13 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

How long did you visualize -' :

14 l MR. SICKWIT:

Review crocess?

l i

15 l CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

-- it might t ake ?

1 1

I I

16 '

MR. BICKWIT:

It is hard to knew, and I think that 17 is cne of the polacy issues that you have to resolve today.

18 !

COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Ncw I aderstand better.

19 MR. SICKWIT:

If you were to attempt to categcri:e 20 !

the issues now, cur f eeling was that that wculd be a very 21 difficult enterprise.

And I would have difficulty attempting 22,

to advise you to do that.

23,

If.vou were to ask the staf f to do sc ncw, and 24 ;

perhaps again after reflecting en the Lessons Learned report,

w.e.,o R.oor.n. inc. -

25 we fel daat that would not be responsive to the thread in the p:

i,l 4 l

6 1,

meeting that the Commission was to provide scme gi_ dance.

I 2

So that the thirc cptien seemed to us the = cst t

3l consistent with discussion by -- to wait for the Lessens 4

Learned report and then for the Ccamission to provide guidance S.

based upon it.

6i Summarizing what this statement says, it lists some i

l 7'

possib.'e categories that you could put issues into af ter you 8'

received the report.

And then it provides really two basic 1

9j possible conclusions, and I will read them.

l 10 l The first would have the Commissicn saying, "Pending i

I 11 '

such categorization and diraction by the Commission, it is I

i 1; I expected that the Commissien's Licensing Boards will take into i

1 account what the e f fert discussed, that the effort in this 13 j i

14 statement is underway, i.e.,

the staf f Lessons Learned report l

l i

15 '

and the review by the Commission, and we'll use their i

i 16 discretion in adapting their proceedings to that effort.

17 '

"The Boards are encouragef to move forward cn and la give pricrity to the resolutic: of issues wnich are anlikely 19 to be impacted by the staff's Lessens Learned repcr: and the

?0 j Ccamissien's ?.e view. "

l 21 j The second result which ycu might reach is to take lI that lan,uage and add to it the folicwing sentence:

22 a

l ri 23 '

" Also pending further Cc= mis sicn direction, it is

,i n

,d. colicy o:. the Commission :,at no new 11 mated work authorization, Ace-eederal Aeoor'srs, Inc.,1 25 J centruction permit, c: rull ecwer cceratine license v121 be t

i I

1

.p l_

1

(.>y

ji 5 I

7 1

issued except by action of the Ccmmission itself."

2 The central policy issues I think you have to 3

address, which are inherent in this statement, are:

one, the 4l statement does ccmmit the Commission to make categorization f

5 of issues follcwing that report.

And the question that ir 6

raised is that a ccmmitment that the Commission should take 7

cn?

l e'

And the second policy issue is the issue that results' 9,

frcc the distinction between these two or resulting statements i

10 at the end of the policy statement, wh i c."

is basically the 11 I issue is until hat commitment is cischarged, if you want to 12 undertake it, should licenses he issued by the staff or by 13 ;

the staf f with the concurrence cf the Commissicn?

l 14 i That concludes my statement.

i i

i 15 ;

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I ended up getting two, instcad j

\\

16 of four.

What did I miss?

17,

MR. SICKWIT:

I don't remember the number fcur.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE -

Didn't you say four policy 19 issues?

l 20 i MR. SICKWIT:

No; two pclicy issues.

t 21 COMMISSICNEP KENNEDY:

Pclic'; issues for censife a-22 tien.

23 1 (Laughter.)

24 l COMMISSICNR KENNEC' A syntactical e.rsblem.

Ac....e.r. Aeooners, Inc. 3 25 CHAIPMAN HENDRIE:

Jchn, ycu had the earliest --

i

)

f 6

,g

,j

)

i

l 8

3 10 1

COMMISSIONER AHEAR'IE :

We ll, no --

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- circulated reply to that.

l 3;

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE :

It was earliest circulated, 4

because it wasn' t a reply, it was set of comments based upon 5

having read the transcript.

I I

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

That's right.

You weren't here 7

for that.

1 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

And having the s ame 8l i

9l dif ficulty that CGC had menticned.

I had tried to see what i

l 10 ;

conclusions I could draw frcm it, and --

l l

11 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

Puzzling.

There must be something i

12 wrong with the typewriter.

13 COMMISSICNER AHEAPSE :

The one point that I would 14 ask to have included -- and I admit that it didn ' t really i

l 15,

come through very clearly in the transcript -- would be some l

t 16 mentien about what steps we are taking regarding emergency i

1 17:

planning, because if this is a pclicy statement -- I was 13 having dif ficulty in reading the transcript, findang what is 1

1 19 l the purpt se cf the eclicy statement.

I i

20 1 (Ccmmissioner Bradford le f t the he aring rocm. )

1

. >i i COMMISSICMER KENNEDY-I am glad you raised the i

1 22 ]

questien.

23 h Did ycu reach any conclusien after reviewing the 1

t 24 transcript?

acs+eceral Repor+ers, tre 25 CCMMISSICNER ARIA 3NE:

"de ll, I had --

i I

"g i

I.

,\\'

i (j i/

jl. 7 9

COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

I had scme difficulty, and I 1l 1

2!

was present at the discussion.

1 3

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :

If part of the purpcse were 1

l 4j to provide scme instruction to Boards, then I thought that we I

5!

ought to at least cover the steps that we have underway with i

6; regard to emergency planning, because we both have this task 7!

force, and we als o -- at least I hope we are -- are going to a;

go en for expedited rulemaking on it.

And I thought that would 9

be germane any set of comments we are providing to any boards i

i 10 if tnat is one of the purposes of policy statements.

11 '

MR. BICKWIT:

It certainly is ac. oropriate.

1 I

2 '

COMMISSIC,NER AHEARNE :

The purpose.

13 l MR. SICKWIT:

Unless you take -- it depends on hcw l

14 ;

you resolve that policy issue.

It is the purpose if you decide i

4 15 to allcw the staff to continue to issue licenses.

It is ene t

16 of two major pur:cses 1: vou decide that the Commissicn shculd '

17 -

issue lice ns e s.

lal CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE :

What I am ncw screwhat cu:: led 19 by is that I thought what the policy issue tha ycu had just I

20 l finished describing, it was a ccmmitment cn the part c; the 1

21 l Ccemissicn to categcri e results of Lessons Learned Task 22l Force ?

t 23 l MR. SICKWIT:

That's right, mr.d thereby to prcvide 24 i guidance to the Scards and the staff.

Aa-rewasamonus. ix. '

25 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE.

Well, the guadance would be L1, Il ft d

! t

-r V

j l' 8 10 1

in the sense of "Here is what you should expect us to provide 2

you with scmetine in the future."

3 MR. BICKNIT:

That 's t rue, but also the kncwledge 4

that that is about to take place would itself provide some 5

guidance for the Boards new.

6 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE :

I would have expected the 7l Boards to have realiced an accident had happened and that we l

8l were probably locking at it.

l 9

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

Is there some question on 10 that score?

11

( Laugh te r. )

12 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I didn ' t hear an answe r.

I 13 MR. SICKWIT:

We tock it as rhetorical.

14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

We wanted to be sure we were i

15 ;

all thinking in the same te rms.

My impression is that the i

16 Boards are well aware --

1 i

i 17 CHAIRMAN HINDRIE:

In that ccnnection, Ecward, under' 18 i che staff's notification of Scards ab out items Of incerest 1

1 19 and significance for the licensing process, has there been --

1 20 i have there been staf f transmissicns through your Of fice?

I 21 l MR. SHAPAR:

Yes.

All 3 cards have been totified.

22 VOICI 1:

We had said to the Scards early on we 23 '

were sending them ccpies of the bulletin regarding Three Mile i

24 !

Island.

l Aa reno neonus. ix. '

i e

1 25 l More recently, in respense to an inquiry by i

r-O P

C, 't. ['.

U4J

jl 9 I

11 l

l

.Il Commissioner Kennedy, we sent a notificaticn with regard to i

l 2l the formation of the Lessens Learned Task Force.

3 Specifically, what there mandate would be under 4

Mr. Denton's memorandum, there are 12 categories they will be 5l looking into.

So all Boards and the parties have been l

6!

notified.

l 7l (Commissioner Bradford returned to the hearing room.)

I 8!

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Then that reduces the need --

l 9;

COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

It suggests there is some 10 redundancy in this paper.

11 MR. SHAPAR:

But at scme point, if the Ccmmission i

12 :

s pe aks, the staff may formulate a pcsition in certain cases I

i 13 1 and communicate to the Board.

And even icoking at that policy 14 l statement, I guess there is nothing in there that tells the 15 ! -- Board-not-to-is sue-ar 4-i tial decisicn if all the parties ccme I

16 be fore the Board.

17' I am not suggesting th at the staff will and say 18 the matter is -- and centroversies have been resolve.d to cur 19 satisfacticn; unless the Ccemissicn speaks in scme way, the 20 3 cards can new issue an initial decisien, and the staff can i

1 21 issue a license.

22 '

CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Or the Scarfs may feel, for 23 example, LWAs are unaf fected by what has happened, th at only i

24 operating licenses would be affected.

They may not even be sa-e...i p.comn. w. '

l 25 l sure about that.

i l'

[-

U v

4 i

i i

12 jl 10 1

It seers to me this Ccmmission ought to tell the 2

pecple working for it and other interested persons what it 3

intends to do and what it thinks about all this.

4 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

Wh at ab out LWAs?

What de 5

we intend to do?

6; We suggest that Three Mile Island has an effect on i

7l the way bulldo:ers operate in holes, digging fo undations ?

I 8

COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

I don't think this is a 9;

subject for humor.

i i

10 '

COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

I'm being perfectly serious.

11 What is it we are suppcsed to tell them?

12 CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY :

The question here, with l

13 respect to LWAs and cps, is a mcre limited question.

And 14 whether in some way the characteristics of the site might i

15 indicate dif ficulty with emergency plans -- it is a more 1

16 t limited question.

There may be scme others --

17 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY :

A s atis f actory emergency plan la for a site which is going to centain a reacter which will come i

19j on-line scme 10 years frem ncw?

20 J I would not consider th at a satis f actory emergency i,

end tl 21 ]

plan at all.

I would want to see one 10 years frca new.

1 22 23 24,

ta-ene amonm. w. :

25

CR 5416 l

13 HOFFMAN I

t-2 mte 1 i

1l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It may be for considerably 2 !

beefed-up standards for what we expect in the way of emergency i

i l

3 response, that some sites are simply unsuitable from that j

i I

4i point of view.

I don't know whether that is the case, but it 5

may well be.

And that is something that I would like to have 6;

a look at before one is committed to a particular site.

I for 7 !

one would not like to see any licenses granted without the i

i 8;

express approval af the Commission at this point, including 9

LWAs.

i i

10 Now, it may just require a brief look at it.

But l

l 11 I think that we need to be sure that one isn' t committing l

12 onself to something which is incompatible with conclusions 13 l that one may reach after having examined the circumstances of i

14 '

Three Mile Island and the implications of that accident.

l 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What precedure would you 16 '

propose to follows?

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think at this point I IS : would suggest that we wait until the results of this Lessens i

19 l Learned study, which is due when, Lee?

i 20 i MR. GCSSICK:

There is a briefing the week of the 21 25th.

That is going to be more in the form of a status reper 22 j than actual results.

23' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Speaking to LWAs, let's say, 24 and I would agree with Mr. Gilinsky on population density Ac.a.cere n con.,$. ir c.

25 questions.

They are the type of a questien which could i

i i ij s

7 V' f 1, t

J' i

14 I

mte 2 l

I, 1!

determine whether or not you would agree with a site.

To what l

4 2!

extent will those questions be addressed by your Lessons i

3, Learned Task Force?

I i

4{

MR. GCSSICK:

As far as population criterion, that 5,

sort of thing?

I 6;

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

i 7j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't think the Lessons Learned-8, group is dealing with that.

9' MR. GOSSICK:

That is a separate operaticn.

I i

1 10 i believe we are due to get a report from them the end of June, 11 '

MR. SHAFAR.

June 27th.

12 '

COMMISSIONER AHEAR'IE:

Wouldn't it come under the I

i 13 !

emergency --

14,

MR. GCSSICK:

That would be involved, but the i

15 actual siting issues -- criterion on population, distances, i

t i

16 that sort of thing -- is the other task force.

I think we are ;

17 getting close to where that is going to be available to the l

13 1 Cc= mission :.n another men:h or sc.

i i

19 l M?. KENNEKE: Siting was One cf the --

l 20 MR. GCSSICK:

But they don't intend to take cver and 21 do the thing that is already under way with the siting task 22 bi force.

Io 1

23.I COMMISSICNER AHEAFl;E:

Do you nave in mind -- I have i

i 24 !

no idea whether enere is anv coarc at ne stace rient at :ne aa semi a.oomn. w. '

25 ! mcment about to co into reaching the point o#

7NA.

But

="

,b l

)

t c \\ ;!

i

_1

\\

15 mte 3 1

let's say that there is such a one.

What sort of a procedure l

f 2 !

would you envision?

The board reaching that point and then i

i 3j passing that to us, and then us doing what?

l t

I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.

Well, I think I would like 4 i i

l 5l to see what staff thinks on the lessens that come out of t

6l this experience.

And I would want to ask them whether they 7:i think that anything on that list affects the issuance of an i

a!

LWA, for example, or a construction permit.

t 9!

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I at least would want tc I

l 10 l see somewhere in that process whether we have instructed the i

11,

board to make a finding or whether we made it ourselves, thc. t i

12 '

expressed that there was nothing in either the geography or 13 the population patterns around site that precluded ef fective 14 energency response plans.

I think that planning ought to be 15 l expressed before a CP or an LWA issues.

16,

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That would be essentially a i

i 17:

requirement -- I &m not saying I disagree with it, but that is j la a new requirement that ycu would then lay on for a CP; 13 that i

19 l ccrrect?

l 20 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :

Yes.

That dcesn't T.ean that i

21 the respense plan has to be submitted.

22 CCMMISSIONER A'iEARNE:

I understand that.

Scw, is i

i 23 '

there any legal procedure that has to be gone thrcugh in order i

24 l to place a new requirement, or can we just --

1 i

Ace-Fs$eral Recorters. Inc. '

25 l MR. BICKWIT:

You wculd proceed by ruling.

If ycu I

\\

(

l

-2,,-

1

?

\\-

\\} e Y i {,

16 i

mte 4 l

wanted to move quickly, you could either prepose a rule and 1li 2

make it immediately effective or Orovide by policy statement i

3l that this be cone.

l l

4 MR. SHAPAR:

With the policv statement there is a 5:

problem, because they are not supposed to have the force and 6

effect of law, depending upon what the rubstance of the thing i

I 7!

is.

1 8'

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We are giving directions to 9'

our staff.

I I

10 '

MR. SRAPAR:

But a new requirement that is legally

\\

11 binding that says that something else has to be done before a

\\

12 '

construction permit can issue; that's why I think it is impor-13 tant what the substance ic.

But if you made the rule imme-14 diately effective, you could achieve the same result.

15 MR. BICKWIT:

By policy statement, you could --

16 Ma, sgApAR:

f it has the ef fect of impinging on 17 '

the rights of third parties applying for licenses, in effect I

18 that is the kind of a thing icu have to do by rule.

19 CCMMISSICNER AHZA.927Z :

Another question.

If we l

l 20 bring these LWAs up to us and if we want to ask the staff to 21 !

examine what is the impact with respect to Three Mile Island I

i I

22 Lesscns Learned, does that take on the character of a hearing 23 !

where you would then require all parties who are interested 24 I to be able to ccte and go through their normal proceedings to raJews amo,wn. ix. !

l

+

25 address that issue?

i i

l t

-P l

l

l~ '

mte 5 l

l Il COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

It may be easier setting the I

i 2!.

criteria through the board.

I 3i Let me come back to your point again for a secord.

i i

4!

I think you are probably right.

But help me distinguish frcm I.

5 something else.

i t

6l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I am just asking questions.

1 7!

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :

I am pursuing Howard's point l

e' about the --

l 9!

CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Go ahead, but I want to get an 10 l answer to John's question.

But go ahead and pursue this, I

11 '

because it may illuminate it.

12 -

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

On something like the I

13 obviously superior standard, the Commission announced that in l

14 l an adjudicatory context in the Seabrook case.

But then it i

15,

became binding on everyone for -- who was then involved in i

l 16 proceedings before the boards, on all sorts of other cases as 17 well.

And that presumably was neither a rule, it wasn't a i

i 13 policy statement as such.

19 What is it?

What is it abcut that kind of prcncunce-t 20 ; ment by the Cc= mission that can then beccme bindinc in a whcle i

21 bunch of cases that weren't involved in that case, that is l

22 l different :rcm cnanging the standards on resconse clanninc?

l 23 MR. SEAPAR:

It has the practical effect of a rule.

24 Each person would be entitled to litigate it in a new l

AaJewes Recorurs, lx.

{

25 proceeding.

But the results wculd be foreordained unless DD l

j.

18

{

mte 6 1

the Cc= mission had changed its mind.

The new party in the new l

2 proceeding would have the right to litigate it if it wanted 3

to.

But it would know as a practical matter that, the I

4' Cornission having reached a certain result in a certain case, 5

would be most likely to reach the same result in a future i

6!

case.

But they would still have the right to litigate.

I i

7:

CCMMISSICNER BRADFORD:

But wouldn't those conditions I

i 3

also surround a policy statement?

l 9

MR. SHAPAR:

The traditional wisdom about policy I

io statements is that it announces a future course of conduct and 11 is not binding, like in the same manner that a rule is binding 12 if you went to impose a tule or requirement that affects the 13 !

outside world.

I think that is the key point, and to follow 14 l j

the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.

t 15 MR. BICKWIT:

I have to -- if you want tc impose a l

i 16 free e,

there is no problem with doing that by policy statement,,

17 just so long as you assume in the rules they entitle a third

!s party to a license after a given time.

The policy statement 19 j would bind empicyees of the agency, and cur conclusicn is i

l 20 j there would be no problem whatever with binding them through 21 " that mechanism.

i 22 MR. SEAPAR:

I am not sure I would agree with that.

23 l MR. BICKWIT:

I will give you the cite.

i i

r i

24 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The benefit of having two s

un eem neoornn. iec.

25 lawyers.

4 i '

";t

\\)

I

19 mte 7 l

(Laughter.)

i l

1 2'

MR. BICKWIT:

Third Circuit decision in -- it I

t 3!

seems to me the GESMO litigation does stand for that proposi-I i

4' tion.

I I

5l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It sounds to me as though, 6'

before we get tco broad sweeping in forming a set of pronounce-7.

men ts, it might be useful to knew a little more what we are i

8 talking about.

I think the questions about whether, for 9i instance, for proposed -- for LWAs of the sort that are in h

l 10 '

the mill now, there are, the staff can see, aspects from an t

Il !

emergency planning side that would affect the basic accepta-i 12 bility of those sites.-- is a reasonable proposition to i

13 :

discuss with the staff.

14 ll It may be that the kinds of sites that are being I

151 looked at-these-dat"Er-E.a. z.re-at that stage are in fact not 16 the kind where you would say:

Gee, this just is never going 17 to de, you are not going to be able to make any reaso nable 1

i 13 emergency plan; and that, having scme sense of :ha t after 19{

scme discu_ssion with the staff, then ~ think that wculd be 20 helpful to the Ccmmission in seeing what sort cf guidance t

21 we want ;o form, 22 In the absence of specific guidance, I guess wnere 23 proceedings are ccepleted, they would go ahead.

We could I

q

]j i also, in a much less formal sort o:. way, simolv -- hanc cn, sa swneaeoemn.rc 25,

I will get myself into trouble.

I guess where there is a

., 4 l,,..1 5

J i 't vJ

20 mte 8

'I I

I I

li case upon which there has been a hearing -- wait a minute.

I I

2l With LWAs, cps, they have hearings, l

3l MR. Sl: APAR:

In OLs, there is no hearing unless l

i 4l scmeone demands it.

i 5

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On the early stage plants, there l

6!

it a hearing, i

l 7!

MR. SEAPAR:

Mandatory.

l 8

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Mandatory hearing.

If there are l

l 9,

no issues in contention in those proceedings, are there still l

10 '

ex parte bars to --

1 i

i 11 i MR. SEAPAR:

Not as f ar as the staff and Ccmmission 12 is concerned, but as far as third parties are concerned, yes.

l 13 1 MR. BICKWIT:

No issues in contention.

I have 14 problems with that.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If there are issues in i

I I,6 contentien --

i 17-MR. BICKWIT:

If there are no issues in contention, 18 I don't think that there is an ex parte bar.

19 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If there are issues in cententien, 20 there certainly is.

21 MR. BICKWIT:

Yes.

22 MR. SEAPAR:

There is a distinction, I kncw, drawn 23 in the rules between the right of the staff to approach the 24 '

Commission on contested issues and the right of third parties.

Ace E9def ai Pecorters, Inc.

25 MR. BICKWIT:

This was yesterday.

It is the case

.e 514

.U33 l

21 mte 9 I

that the ex parte rule appl.'es only to any substantive matter 2l at issue in a proceeding on the record then pending.

i 3

MR. SHAPAR:

The ex parte rule itself only applies 4

to matters in controversy among the parties.

If there is no 5l matter at all in controversy, then there is no bar.

t 6

MR. BICKWIT:

That's right.

7l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I was going around saying we 8

could ack simply to just -- informally ask the staff to inform i

f 9'

us and check with us on near-term actions.

But that is not l

I#

a very handy way to handle it, since most of your LWA and CP II near-term actions will be, in fact, contested proceedings, and 12 there are ex parte bars.

13 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What I was trying to get at I

1s l j

in asking my question was, it wasn't clear wnether was -- it i

15 l wasn't clear to me what you were proposing, Vic, was an order i

16 1 to all beards and to the staff that no LWAs, no operating l

17' licenses, no cons tructice permits will be allowed until such U

time as the Commi.=Llon turns them back on again, or whether 1C

'l you are saying that if a board reaches a cenclusion tnat such i

20 l shculd be allowed, that that does not -- that the staff does 2 ',

not allcw that to take effect antil __ has ccme up to the t

,, 1 "1

board -- to the Ccmmission for review.

ad if it was the 1

23 h latter, I was trying to understand what kinc cf a precess feu i

24 had in mind for that review.

ACS 39def al R ecor ves, iv..

25 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Let's let the general counsel 7-).

.; a -

I

22 nte 10 1

work out the process.

2 (Laughter.)

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The latter or the former?

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

In most of these cases, it would 5,

have to be a formal one.

l 6-MR. BICKWIT:

After the board reached a, decision, 7

the board would authorize the staff to issue a license.

And 8;

you could adopt a procedure that said the staff would not go i

9l ahead and issue it until it conferred with the Commission and 1

i l

10 '

the Commission would make i ts decision.

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

And what are the rights of 12 ;

parties at that time?

I 13 MR. BICKWIT:

At that time the staff is not func-14 tioning as a party; the staff has simply been authorized to 15 issue a license.

i 16 -

CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What I am saying is, if a 17 proceeding has occurred and all rights have been conferred to 18 the parties, they have exercised those rights, presented their 19l case, the board has concluded that on the basis of the record 20 and the evidence presented a license should ssue; new the 21 Ccmmission, in its wisdcm, elects not to do sc.

Doesn't --

i 22 don't those parties who presented the case which merited the 23 issuance of the license hat-right to participate in that i

24 decision?

Or is that an arbitrary decision?

sc..;. w a oor.,.inc.

25 MR. BICKWIT:

All the board h2s done is authorize

~?

n [J '

U C, \\. '\\

23 mte 11 I

the issuance.

The staff at that time, under the immediate 2

effectiveness rule, would have to issue it in the case of I

3l a cons truction permit.

In the case of an operating license, 4

it would have time to deal with these varicus issues.

At 5;

that point, it could decide, in the case of the operating 6:

license, it could decide not to issue the license.

1 I

7!

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But not in the case of the l

8, construction permit?

9l MR. BICKWIT:

No, unless you suspended that rule.

10 '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You disagree, then, with 11 Harold's position the other day?

I2 '

MR. BICKWIT:

With Harold's position?

I3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

About a week ago, we -- two 14 weeks ago, we had that discussion here in which there was a i

i 15 l floating opinion as to whether or not Denton could refuse to 16 '

issue a construction permit if the board reached a conclusion. j i

i I l His position seemed to be he would not issue it during the j

i 18 intervening pericd.

i 19 MR. 3ICKWIT:

Unless you suspend the rule, he T.ust j

f 20 issue the construction permit within ten days of the board's l

t 21 decision.

But suspending the rule is not a difficult under-22 taking.

l 23 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Ycu mean suspending the i

N immediate effectiveness rule?

l Aar4ecerat Reporters. Inc..

f m3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Further, doesn't he have the --

l i

l d

51?

000 i

24 ste 12 I

some recourse in terms of going back to the board to say: Wait, t2j the staff, don't issue your decision.

The staff would like i

3l to think a while longer about this.

l i

l 4'

MR. SHAPAR:

I think that was the point, although 5'

the immediate effectiveness rule seems to say in terms of 6

construction permits that he must issue the permit on direction 7

of the hearing board after initial decision.

He can, of course, 8i go back to the board and move to introduce new testimony, or l

9; go to the appeal board, depending upon the circumstances of j

10 lI the case.

l I

II l Beyond that, of course, the Atomic Energy act says 12 l that the Ccmmission can revoke a license on any crounds on i

l 13 '

which the original license was issued. If new information came Id I to mind, he would have authority to revoke a license that had 15 l just been issued.

So in a sense, it is an academic discussion.

e-2 i

i 16 If the immediate effectiveness rule were suspended, l

17; what would he be obligated to do?

18 MR. SEAPAR:

Treat it like every other agency in i

19] Washing:On.

20 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

I would rise to that.

Just 21 l answer the questien.

l 22 {

MR. 3:CKWIT:

He would not be obligatec to issue 1

23 the license.

But if you don't suspend it and he goes back 24 to the boards and he can't convince the boards, then he has i

Aa s e cu a mom n.ix.!

i 25 l l'

got to issue that.

But at that point, the ccurse is to revoke :

4 l

I 5

1 L-1 o

J.ct

25 mte 13 l

i, I

the license immediately upon its issuance.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Does Harold or the Director i

3 !

or NRR have any role in the LWA?

l 4!

MR. SEAPAR:

It issues the LWA.

I, I

5*

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Is that also immediately I

6!

effective?

i 7

MR. STOIBER:

Yes.

8, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

If you suspend the immediately 9;

effectiveness rule, it suspends both aspects of that, the LWA l

10 i and the CP?

i Il '

MR. SEAPAR:

If you want to suspend it, it would I

12 !

be a situation that would indeed do that.

i l

13 !

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Getting back to my other I4 question, had you in mind the complete turnoff or had you 15 in mind the turnoff --

16,

CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Nothing will happen until 17 we hear from Roger Mattson and ccmpany and get a reper: cn 13 their examination of the various issues they are 1ccking at.

19 As I understand it, that is not going to take a very icng i

,0 t;me, 21 MR. SEAPAR:

Week after next week.

1 i

22 Seyond that, I think for scme pericd -- and I don't 23 know hcw long all licenses should be passed on by the i

6 24 Commission, all major f acility licenses.

Obvicusly, the Icok sc. ra:.r.i n. con.ri. w.

25,

that one would take in connection with LWAs and cps would be L

J b

UbU l

i

.i

26 i

l

.te 14 I

a much more limited one than in connection with operating j

2 licenses.

In fact, there may be nothing to look at, depending 3

on what the staff tells us.

It may not be an issue at all.

I wculd like to be satisfied that there aren't any issued in 4

5 the preliminary time.

6j MR. SHAPAR:

There is one factual matter that has 7

some relevance.

I requested Denton by memorandum to have his g!

staff review all staff evidence in pending cases to see if it i

l I

9i needs to be supplemented or changed based upon the occurrence 10 of the Three Mile Island incident.

This is something that we 11 have an affirmative obligation to do, but I specifically drew 12 l it to Harold's attention.

And he is in the process of doing 13 that.

14 This reflects the affirmative obligation that the 15 ;

staff has as a party to the proceedings not to let testimony i

16 that doesn't hold up after a point in time remain in the l

17 '

record without being changed or supplemented.

This wculd have 18 to be d7ne under any circumstances, and is taking scme time.

19 I think this is relevant to the discussicn that is taking 20 ] place hera right c.cw in terms of the imminence of anything 21 cccurring on the part of these proceedings.

22 :

MR. GCSSICK:

Ecw would this procedure affect or i

23,

involve the appeal process?

i i

i 24 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

it seems that the Commission is aa.J.o.r.i n eooners. inc. '

t dipping down and saying that we will take this case, and 2S i I

1 1

27 mte 15 i

I somehow I find it difficult to believe that, for a case in 2

which there -- it may be adjudicated, in which there are 3

parties in contention, that we are going to sit here and have 4

a 20-minute report from the staff to find out that everything Si is okay with regard to the ability to do future emergency l

6{

planning, and we check that off and out it goes, i

i I can see us here with parties lined up an demanding i

a; to be heard, being besieged to allow 45 days for the parties i

l 9l to file their briefs, and 20 more to comment on each other's I

10 briefs, and so on, on every blasted LWA.

Il i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And to whom would they appeal i

12 !

a decision?

The federal courts, I guess, under the Ccmmission's 13 rules.

I 14 '

MR. SHAPAR:

Beyond that, I would have to point 15 j out-that-whatever-decieWhe Ccemission maxes under the APA 16 l has to be made on the record.

You wouldn't have one proceeding 17 ;

going here and then have a matter ccme before the Commission 18 and the Ccmmissien considering it aside from a record which 19 a court could review.

You would have to develop a record 20 that would support whatever decision you reached, the same as 21 the hearing board, appeal board anc che Cc= mission itself does 22 right now.

22 1 Of course, all of these things could be taken care 24,

of in terms of the objective by rulemaking, fixing the imme-Ac.J.cer. a.oon.rs, inc.

I 25 diate effectiveness rule.

f UOb

) ; y

28 mte 16 1

MR. BICKWIT:

After -- let me ask a question of staff.

I 2l After the licensing board makes its initial decision and the l

i 3l matter is presented to the staff for its action, how does the 4

staff function?

I 5l MR. SHAPAR:

A ministerial action after the board t

6!

issues the initial decision.

l 7'

MR. BICKWIT:

It is not done through adjudicatory i

ai precedures, on the record?

i I

9 MR. SEAPAR:

A hearing pursuant to the APA.

There 10 has been one in which a decision has been reached and which l

l l

11 determines a future course of action.

So the direct response i

12 !

to your questien, the staff action is a ministerial action, i

i 13 l essentially determined in substance by the hearing board after I

14 l all the parties have been accorded their procedural rights.

I 15 !

MR. BICKNIT:

But staff resolves issues not dealt 16 with by the hearing board?

i t

l']

7 MR. SEAPAR:

That is in the limited case of the 1

la l cperating license.

i i

19 i MR. BICKWIT:

Ices it resclve them in a ministerial i

i 20,l position rather than an adjudicatory pcsition?

Oces i t -- is I

i 21 it holding on the record --

22 MR. SEAPAR:

That is a different situation.

There 23 is no right to a hearing at all at the operating license stage, 1

24 except when one is demanded.

The construction permit situation A c. J.o.r. n eoort.rs, inc.

25 is different.

E1/

fpsJ 5

i v v i

b d

29 mte 17 1

1 MR. BICKWIT:

The point I am leading to is after the 1

2' board makes its decision on the record, with the parties '

3 rights, cross-examination, the staff then performs a ministerial 4

action and is functioning not as an adjudicator.

I see no 5

problem with the Commission functioning in the same way that i

6 the s taff functions.

i 7l MR. SHAPAR:

I guess I do, for the reasons I have S I pointed out.

9; The answer to your question is that no one has i

10 i demanded a hearing on certain issues at the OL stage, and l

Il '

therefore it is handled as an administrative review procedure.

12 But once a matter has been in issue and has been adjudicated 13 before a hearing board. the situation is obviously quite 14 different.

I IS I MR. BICKWIT:

Following the hearing, in a situation i

16 where someone has asked for a hearing, the staff, as I under-i 17 stand the procedure, resolves those issues which have : ct been 18 placed in controversy and resolves whether or nct it cheeses 19 l to issue a license it has been authcrized by the bcard to l

20 issue.

21 Under those circumstances, why cannot the 22 Commission function in the same procedural mcde as the staff?

23-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

With regard to those issues.

i

,d l MR. BICKWIT:

Yes, and with regard to the final d

Aces.ceret nemnert inc. '

25 issue of whether or not to issue a license.

i h

i i

30 I

i mte 18 l

1 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

But in the great bulk of cases, 2

that will not be the case.

3 MR. SEAPAR:

No, not at all.

4 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That would be the rarest of I

5' circumstances.

It seems to me if you have a case which is l

6!

being contested, you have some difficulty in waiting through 7

the process, watching out past the appeals board, to make a 8

Commission review and decide whether the license should issue, I

9 without the paraphenelia and so forth.that goes with the parties' l

10 rights in these adjudicatory proceedings.

11 After all, the parties at that point, if the i

12 ;

Commission hadn't reached down, would have recourse to the 1

13 appeal board available to them, and so on.

That is, I don't 14 know how we would come at that point to have a fairly 15 s traightf orward, all right, what about this, that and the 16 other, in a discussion here in half an hour, and understand 17' what the essential safecy issues were in the case and say:

la !

Ckay --

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It seems to me che first 20 question to ask oneself is whether we would like to take 21 control of the process, at least tempcrarily.

Now, if we 22 i don't there is nothing more to talk about.

If we do, then we 23 '

ask the lawyers to work out a sensible and reasonable course.

24 '

If there isn't any, I guess we won't do it.

If there is, we s c..;,e.,.i n con.cs. i nc.

25 ;

go forward.

1 I

C, 1 O [g \\

4 r

J j

mte 19 I

I 1l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Except that to some extent --

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We can't believe that --

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

In theory, the agency process 4!

is one in which we are in complete control of the process.

i i5i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Exactly, in theory.

6 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I think it is somewhat more 7l than just pure theory.

At least I certainly don't have that i

8!

awful feeling of being Olympia detached from the rest of the i

9 world.

I think the staff understands where we are and the 10 '

staff knows perfectly well what we want and expect.

And I 11 i think the staff is responsive.

I 12 '

And let me just suggest that I think a little bit 13 more recognition of that on our part would be helpful both to 14,

the staff and the public.

1 t

15 !

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

As far as understanding what i

16 ;

we want, that is not the way I hear the staff talking.

j i

17 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You must talk to different 18 people in the staff.

I guess there are a lot of them.

19 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Could I ask general counsel i

20 g a question?

21 CFAIMIAN HENDRIE :

Please do.

22 <

CChMISSIONER ASEARNE:

If we suspended the immediate 23 U errectiveness rule, whicn would place LWAs, cps and CLs, I i

1 24,

guess, in the same type of context, the Director of NRR then AceJoceral Rooorters, Inc. i 1

25,

revievs it before it goes out.

And if we request the i

l j j i; U. O il slu

32 mte 20 l

Director of NRR to ccme and discuss that with us before he does, 2 I i

it, does that set up a hearing process arrangement?

i 3

MR. BICKWIT:

No, it does not.

You have had the

{

t 4

hearing.

The hearing is over.

5 MR. SEAPAR:

What about the ex parte bar and the j

l 1

l 6,

rules in effect?

l 7

MR. BICKWIT:

My feeling is that there would be no 8

prchlem at that point.

i9';

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

So long as the parties still 10 have a right to appeal under our rules.

Are we also going Il i' to repeal -- suspend those --

i I2 '

MR. BICKWIT:

There are no issues in controversy I

I3 at that point.

The ex parte rule relates only to those issues '

I4 which are in controversy before a board.

t 15 MR. SEAPAR:

How do you knew that if somebody appealsi 16 immediately?

II MR. BICKWIT:

Scmebcdy could appeal.

But if you 18 I

have the staff function being brought to the Cctmissien, the 19 !

Commission can operate withcut the ex parte rule going c:t.

20 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

I am asking the situation i

21 where it is more that we would be saying no rather than yes.

22 In other words, Harold would come to a situation and if he

,,1

• • I wasn' t going to release it he would never ccme; if he were 24 going to release it he would com and go through.

And if we ACS rfde,si Recor+ers, inc.

2~5 -

would disagree, we would say no; if we didn't say no, he

, i (j l O

,CI U

33 I

mte 21 I

1 would go ahead and release it.

2l And I guess one of the things I am asking is that --

i 3

would that enable the appeal board to still be in the process?

4 MR. BICKWIT:

Yes.

You are simply substituting l

5; yourself for the staff in the procedure.

1 6

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I don't like --

l 7l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Excuse me.

You can't do that I

a if there is an app'2als process that is still in effect.

There-fore, the appeals process itself has been waived.

9 10 MR. BICKWIT:

I see, yes.

The appeals process would 11 f go forward as it would on any --

1 i

12 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Not if the Commission had 13 stepped in.

It couldn't.

14,

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I am asking, in that kind of 15 l a construction, Harold ccmes up and says:

Let's take an l

l i

16 '

operating license case.

And he goes through this process.

j 17l And for whatever reason, we have heard encugh information frcm I.l la l Roger Mat?. son and other pecple, and we think we have anderstecd I

19 everything well encugh that we don't say, Harcld, ycu are

'se just thank him fcr ccming.

20 wrong.

21 He goas ahead and issues.

And can somecne then take 22 that to the appeal board?

23 MR. BICKWIT:

Yes.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And the issuance of the Ac s. eerie Reporters, inc.

25 i operating license --

.q.

i b j /;

VOu i

i a

34 mte 22 1

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

On the same issue, John?

2l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

On the issuance of the f

3l operating license.

In other words, the licensing board would i

4j have said:

We have resolved in favor, and the operating i

5 !

license can issue as far as this is concerned.

Harold has 6l gone through this process I have just described.

Can someone l

7l who disagreed with the licensing board actions still take that i

i gl to the appeal board?

l I

9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think it depends upon i

10 l what the Commission has actually done.

If what we have done 11 l is to say that if the response planning component of this is 12 all right --

l 13 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

I don't see what the 14 l Commission would be saying.

It would not be disagreeing with 15.

Harold, with the proposal to issue the license or Harold's i

10 decision to issue a license.

17-MR. BICKWIT:

Yes, you could still go to the appeal i

18 l board.

t l

19 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

After which you could still 20 ccme to the Commission?

21 MR. SICKWIT:

Yes, that 's right.

22 COMMISSIONER AREARNE.

It sounds like -- if that 23 !

could be constructed, I wculdn't find any real proble.m with 24 '

that.

Ac=.f : rsi s.oorters. inc. i 25 "R.

SHAPAR:

I have legal reservations about that E ;

,t i O ')

l

.)

35 mte 23 1

process.

2 COMMISSIONER KZNNEDY:

Would you discuss those?

I 3i MR. SRAPAR:

The Commission has a set of rules now l

4 in effect.

Let me say initially tb :t I think the basic idea 5

can be done, but it is going to involve rules changes.

I 6

think one has to differentiate between those points.

But the 7j idea is to stop a license from being issued while the lessons I

8; from Three Mile Island are considered.

There is no question I

9l that can be done.

l 10 One easy way of doing it -- and I am not suggesting 11 1 it is the right way of doing it as a matter of policy -- is 1

to suscend the i.: mediate effectiveness rule and no liccnse 12 i

13 gets issued, if there is an appeal, until the Commission has 14 reviewed the case.

That accomplishes shat you want.

15 l Now-the-problems-we have been discussing here,

16 don't think there is any really basic difference between Vic

{

17 and me except on some, let's say some mincr technical matters, la is where the ex parte rule applies and what the appeals rights 19 '

of the parties are.

I 20{

New you have got an appeals process en your books.

o 21 !

You have get an ex parte rule on your books.

And it says j

22,

that staff, which is a party to the case, doesn't discuss a 23t contested issue with the Commission.

We can't tell whether 24 scme of these matters going to be discussed have been contested; e,J.cere 9eoon.n.inc.

25 or not, i

g Ii',

Ili U

36 mte 24 1j I have got a basic problem with the fairness of the i

2 !

process of letting the staff come in and talk to the Commission.

3 There is a formal appellate rule set forth in the regulations.

4 It can be done, but it requires rules changes.

}

5i COMMISFlONER KENNEDY:

You would have to suspend i

e-3 6l that rule, too.

7l 8

9 i

i 10 l 11 l 12 '

i 13 14,

15 '

16 17 ;

13 19 a

20 '

21 22 22 24 1

Aco Feceral Reporters. Irc. '

25

)

i

[

.A g

0

CR5 416 '

37 Whitlock t4 jl 1 1

MR. SHAPAR:

You can do it in terms of the objective; 2

but doing it with the rules in place, leaves me a lot of 3

troub le.

I COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:

If cne suspended the 4j i

5; immediate effectiveness rule, wouldn't you then have a situa-6 tion in which not only the particular issues that might be 7

related to Three Mile Island could result in the hciding up a 8

license, but an appeal on any issue that was alive and well in 9

the case, so that that would be whether a broad-brushed --

10 MR. SH AP AR:

We could get a finer brush, depending 11 on your cbjective.

12 There is no question about our ability to fashion 13 a rule.

I I

14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

The immediate effectiveness 15 rule could be written in such a way that only certain classes t

16 l of issues --

l 17 MR. SHAPAR:

Yes.

13,

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE r If you are prepared to define l

19 j what the lessens frcm Three Mile Is land are going to be 20 restricted to.

21 CCMMISSICNER BRADFCRD:

Then ene ccmes back to Vic's 22,

preference to waiting to hear frcm Roger.

23,

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I do ub t th at Mattson's task t

24 force is addressing all of the lessons that are going to have Aa - w w.i n am n.n.inc.,

25 ;

been learned.

Their focus -- we had pointed out, not emergency:

f, i

r, T

38 jL 2 1

planning, for example.

2 MR. GOSSICK:

Just limited parts of it, not the total 3'

picture.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

I I

5' MR. SHAPAR:

You have touched three points th at are 6

all -- or we ' ve all been around -- that the business is usual, 7

which I don't think anybody wants.

8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Aha.

Ncw you define " business I

t 9!

as usual," you define it in some way that is perjorative l

10 l in charncter.

I do not.

I consider the business of this i

I i

11 l outfit to be the health and safety of the public.

That is I

i 12 ;

what the law say.s; that is what we do; and that is " business 13 l as usual."

l 14 ;

MR. SHAPAR:

I will pick my words more carefully.

I 15 '

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Thank you.

16 '

MR. SHAPAR:

A moratorium at the other end of the t

17 spectrum -- you have discussed this in various ways -- and I 18 think in the middle is some kind of intermediate point thac 19 gets around the immediate effectiveness rule, which is the 20 maj or s tumb ling block.

o 21 These are the three main points th at the discussion 22 has revolved around.

They are all acccmmodatable in terms of i

23; rules ch ange s.

It is basically a policy cption a t this pcint.

24,

CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

As a practical matter, aren't Aes-pederal Reoorters, Inc. {

l 25 -

they essentially the same?

It is a moratorimn.

It is only a l

1 l

u S i lt ui 3

'j l 39 3

1 question of how long it runs.

2 MR. SHAPAR:

No, because if the Ccmmission can work 3

quickly, even with the immediate ef fectiveness rule suspended, 4

you are pretty close to business as usual.

5 MR. BICKWIT:

I think one of your cptions is that 6

you suspend the immediate ef fectiveness rule and staff is 7,

left to its cwn devices.

Staff is not left to it's own l

8 devices if you keep that rule in place.

9 MR. SHAPAR:

Ecw is that?

Y ou h ave the -- all i t 10 means is if you suspend it, the Appellate's process goes the 11 present route, without the license been issue.

When the i

12 !

process is ccmpleted, the license issues.

13 MR. BICKWIT:

Staf f will have to issue the license 14 under the immediate effectiveness rule if they can't persuade 15 l the Scard to reopen the matter; cnce the Board has arrived at i

i 16 an initial decision to suspend the immediate ef fectiveness 17:

rule, staff is not compelled to issue the licence.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

As Pecer points out, you then 19.

cccmit every case to go the full length of the appeals process,.

20 provided semebcdy wants to make an appeal, and en any subject 21 '

whatscever, whether it has any relation to the Three Mile 22 Island-related matters, safety matters, or net.

23 -

And I must say, since the appeals process has a time '

i 24 that may run frca a minimum of three or four mcnths to a maxi-Ace-reder et Reco,ters, Inc. ;

25 '

mum of that many years, it is not clear to me that I care to 1

l

[

II

) I Jh k) i 'i j

40 jl 4 1

j oin in gratuitously, adding to LWAs and construction permits 2

that kind of time increment without being pretty thoroughly 3

convinced that, by God, that was necessary for the public 4

safety.

5 (Commissioner Gilinsky left the hearing room.)

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It seems to me that it is a 7

trifle strong medicine to deal with what I consider the rather 8,

unlikely possibility that some license will issue precipitously 9

without adequate consideration of at least the short term, the 10 things the staff feels ought to be done in the short term 11 related to Three Mile Island.

I 12 j The nature of the process is a little bit -- you i

13 remember that rule that people first proposed in part in 14 jest in high energy physics, but it appears, in fact, to be i

15 l a law of nature that everything that is not prchibited is i

16 !

compuls ory.

You know, there isn't reasonable middle ground; l

i 17 !

you either have the immediate effectiveness rule, but you i

18 <

remove that and, Chris t, you have graf ted cnto the whole 19 precedure literally a compulscry, many-month to many-year 20 increment.

21 CCMMIS SICNER B RAEFORD.

When I started tc advance 22 that proposition, Ecward pointed out, rightly I suspect, that 23 one could limit the subject on which the immediate e f fective-24 ness rule was being modified.

2#,.e.,ai seoart.rs inc.

25 CHAIRMAN HESDRIE :

Just removing immediate i

i I

/.,

I

!t,'

s e

41 ji 5 1

effectiveness, you could, in effect, rewrite it.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And you suspend it for a 3!

certain class of matters.

I 4

MR. SHAPAR:

There is mnother option that relates 5

to that that you might want to think about, and that is --

6 I guess I would put it in terms of A and B :

A, you could have 7'

your General Counsel's Office monitor these cases, and any 8

case where it looked like an initial decision was about to i

9i issue, about which you had Three Mile Island worries, you could 10 order the Board to refer that matter up to the Commission for 11 decision.

You have that option under APA.

Or you could is 12 Or you could issue an order to each Board in each 13 case, asking that certain Three Mile Island issues -- which 14 you would have to identify, I would think -- be referred to 15 you or certified up to you for decision.

l l

16 CHAIPMdi HENDRIE:

Don't do that, because they we 17 '

will have to deal with them in precisely the format that we l

13 don't want to have to deal with them, namely as part of the 19 ] formal process,

as I unde rs t and.

20 Ncw that he has gone, I can interpret what he means, 21 I gues s, p re tty f re e ly.

22 ;

( Laugh te r. )

l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRII' But as I understocd Vic, he was 24 '

saying, "Lcok, LWAs, you would at least like to have the sense A#ren.i amo,w,. im:. ;

l 25 '

that for that particular site staf f felt that there were not l

l

-l i

42 jl 6 1

overriding geographical or demographic considerations which 2

made it extremely unlikely that a satisfactory emergency 3

planning array could be put in place in due time. "

4 Now that is not something -- I suppose we could 5

consider that in -- in each case, in the full adjudicatory 6

framework, with parties making arguments, filing briefs, having 7

cross-examination and all kinds of great things, but it wasn' t 8

my sense that that was the sort of examination that he had in 9

mind.

10 I think it is reasonable for the staff to look at that 11 kind of a thing and to make that kind of judgment.

If we want 12 to --

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

It is equally reasonable for 14 Boards to do the s ame thing.

I 15 !

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If the Boards want to consider it, I.

f 16 why okay, we can look at it.

I think, gene rally, frcm the

}

i 17 !

Commissicn's standpcint, and the times involved in the overall 13 process, it is helpful if the Cc=missicn's leck at things can 19 be a fairly efficient and focused way on a point _1ke that i

20 withcut having to become embroiled in all kinds of precedural 21 requirements and so cn.

22 And it may be that we are not all that far from being 1

23 '

able to have scme discussions with the Staf f, and not on 24 specific cases, but on a generic basis,

l Aasww.i anomn. inc..

25 l What is your judgment, locking at the scres of sites i

i 5, \\ k l

\\

t

il 7 43 I

that are new -- might be eligible for LWAs in the near term?

2 What is your judgment, as a class?

Do they seem to fall 3

clearly into a class where there seems little doubt that a 4

satisf actory set of emergency plans can be worked out, or at S

least in principal can be worked out; or are there some that i

6i are one way, and scce another?

7 So I think we at least might get to that -- some 8

of those issues on a discussion with the staff on a sort of 9

generic basis.

That I think would be useful, and we ought to 10 l do.

l 11 l The business of rules and beginning new to deal i

12 with each specific case before the Commission continues --

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

Isn't this --

14 CHAIP24AN HENDRIE :

It's the one that worries me.

1 COMMIS S IONEP--KENNEDY :

Isn't this the sort of thinc I

I i

16 ;

contemplated by the categorization discussion that is in this 17 draft paper?

That was my understanding of the draf t paper, r

18 of what it was trying tc say.

i l9 CHAIP24AN HENDRII:

That is the way I read it, that 20 j Rcger would ccme up, and other pecple who have been working 21 in other sections wculd come up as secr as they are ready, and 22 we would have scme discussions that might go en for scme time, 23 that we have scme discussions and see what kind of issues fall 24 '

where.

Aaseco amemn. w. i j

25 '

And it has always been my intent, furthermore, to --

h i

l b

• r l'

e

\\

i

44

$1 8 1

to give scme kind of recognition that plants that are 10 years 2

-- in perspective of operating date, are in a different status, 3

than plants that are, as far as construction is concerned at I

4 least, are a couple of weeks from being allowed to put some 5

fuel in, et cetera, and be ready to operate; and that you might 6

cut your list, depending on what stage the plants we re, and you 7

might indeed have a different short-term, long-term list a

for the plants that are close to operating licenses than you 91 would for others.

I l

10 -

It seems to me that would perfectly reasonable.

11 MR. BICKWIT:

Mr. Chairman, one comment that was 12 received in our office on this, other elements of the staf f 13 feel that the Lessons Learned Task Force may not -- their 14 l report may not represent the report of the entire staf f --

l.

15 maybe the report simply o' the NRR portion of the staf f.

16 Under these circums tances, to resolve that, you can l

17 :

have them ccme in also, other elements of the staff.

18 CHAIR >tMI HENDRIE.

I would presume so.

19 I think we will need to do that, in any event, to 20,

develop the full range o f s ub j e cts, because I don't think l

21 ] Reger and his immediate are necessarily dealing with all 22 !

aspects of -- particularly in the emergency planning area.

23 1 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE :

I am not sure hcw we are i

24 going to end up today, but I would like two items, if I cculd i

aa rwn.i n won n. w.,

j 25 l request, first -- and it is probably more frcm Lee's side -- I i

i 1

I l

_i ir

_//

I

ji 9 45 1

would like a list of the -- and it is similar to what Roger 2

is going to put together for the LWA, CP, and DL, the earliest 3

possible date that the Boards might reach a conclusion over 4

the next six months.

5 So, just to have it narrowly focused, what are the 6;

specific ones we are looking at?

I 7

And for the -- those that are in that six months, a

could I have the population zones around them?

9 And then, second, I would like, I guess, CGC to give 10 me a procedure how one could extend the immediate e ffectiveness 11 in such a way that they Director of NRR would have an opportun-i, 12 j ity to come to the Ccmmission and review the issuance of 13 whatever it is, e ach o f th ree, in such a way that the Ccmmission s

14 would have the ability to say no with regard to TMI-related i

I 15 items.

i 16 l MR. BICKWIT:

With regard to extending immediate --

17, suspending -- you have received that, as to how to extend --

i 18 how to suspend the immediate e f fectiveness rule.

19 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

In other words, it is nct sc and t4 20 much as suspension of it as it is an extension of the time.

21 22 23 24 )

aa-reeer : n coren. inc.

25 l j

a

, 7, s s

.I

46 CR 5416 f

WHITLOCK l

t-5 mte 1 lj MR. BICKWIT:

All right.

i I

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The distinction is that i

3 af ter you extend the time and you go through this revie. with us, the effectiveness rule still goes into place.

4' 5

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

When you do that, I would 6

like you to append to it, however, an analysis then of the i

7i effect of that procedure on the appeals process and the rights l

8!

of the applicant and other parties who have participated in i

9I the process up to that time.

10 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

i ll !

MR. BICKWIT:

That you have not received.

i 12 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

How does the immediate 13 effectiveness rule operate as to response planning now.

I4 Response planning of the type Vic is talking about is not an 15 i issue in these cases now.

16 '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

No, because the Commission 17 took the position that -- I mean, the only case where it is 13 ]

an issue is the operating license.

1 j' a CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is just whether they have l

1 20 J an emergency plan that meets Appendix E.

21 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That is an operating license a

22 issue, isn't it?

l 23 J CCMMISSIONER BRAEFORD:

You see where this is 1

taking you.

If you suspend the i==ediate effectiveness rule 24 2c.-7.e.r.i s.oorters, ire. ;

25 '

as to response planning, it isn't going to make any dirrerence, il 1

J

?)

8- -i.

Jl 1,

i

47 ste 2 l

1!

Lecause response planning --

I 2l CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What I am trying to do is to i3' construct a situation where -- that Harold has an opportunity 1

4l to -- that before any of these things issue, that Harold has i

i 5l; an opportunity to come before us and discuss that particular i

6l case, and we have an opportunity for Three Mile Island-related 7

matters, such as the areas located,

'o say no.

3 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

As to response planning alone, i

l 9:

now -- and so far I don't think I have heard any other issues l

10 !

discussed that would apply to LWAs and cps.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That is not response planning.

I 12 That is the ability to construct --

l 13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I understand what you are i

i 14,

saying.

I am wrestling with a slightly different problem, 15 j which is, if the only issue we cared about was, with LWAs and 16 cps, was response planning l

17 CHAIRMAN HINDRIE:

Which is upon the present 13l Appendix E.

19 !

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It would be site location.

i.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's right.

2' CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE :

Fcr a plant that is going I

22 j to come into operation ten years later.

23 i CCMMISSIONER BRADFCRD:

I am not saying the plan has 24 to be there.

It is a queduion of whether th're can ever be ac=>.: erst semmrs, inc.

25 l an effective --

- I

)b

48 mte 3 1

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That's right.

2; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Then there is another way l

3i to go about it, which is to say that, as to LWAs and cps, we l

4 would simply require from now on a finding by the licensing 5

board that in fact there be --

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The ability to do that.

I 7'

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes.

And then suspend the 8;

immediate effectiveness rule as to that finding.

i 9

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The only possible problem i

10 l with that is that until such time as we have clarified what i

II it is that we want --

t 12 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is hard for them to --

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

We can't, I think, make a 14 subjective judgment.

It is very difficult to tell tha board, i

15 i you must make this finding, without having fleshed out what f

1 16 it is that they have to find.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Or what sort of things that 13,

response plan may have to have in it.

19 COMMISSIONE? AHEARNE:

Yes.

20 COMMISSIONER SRJCFORE:

There may be a few sim__ar 21 areas r.t which they face that, a few areas in which they faca 22 '

a sir.ilar problem.

23 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

it seems to T.e, Peter, that i!

24 '

tha t is the reasonable way to look at the problem.

It depends Aa4wcal Recorters, lec.

i 25,

entirely upon how one visuali:cs the problem.

And if one i4

(

I.)

~

~

ste 4 j

49 l

1 defir.es it in terms of a specific need that must be met in i

i 1

2.

order -- prior to the issuance of a particular category of I

i I

3 license, then that's fine.

One can define that, decide what l

I i

4; it is and instruct the board accordingly, and all boards will i

5' then proceed in that way and will reach a conclusion, make a i

6!

finding in this regard, and then things proceed as they would I

i 7;

under the rules.

1 8

Now, if thac isn't the purpose, if the purpose is 9

for the Commission itself to directly involve itself in the i

I 10 ;

issuance of licenses, then that is a different question, and 11 there is no sense in mixing the two things up.

I think if 12 the latter is the whole point, then we need to suspend certain i

I 13 rules and call for certain things to be done.

And trying to 14 '

mix the two things up and pretend that you are doing one thing i

I l

15 while you are doing the other doesn' t do anything but confuse i

1 16 the issue, and I think create a legal morass whi:h is going 17 to create serious problems, A,

for the boards, for the

.]

Ccmmissicn, and, C,

then in the courts.

'9, CEAIRMAN EZNDRIZ-I tell you what.

The longer-term i

20 l direction of this line of discussion is not so clear to me at 1

1 2! '

the moment.

7

-M k it would be useful Oc nave the thinga 22 '

that John has reques*.ed f rcm the counsel's o f fice.

And then 23 I think we can schedule some further discussion.

It seems to i

24 me impractical that, at 4:29 on a Friday afterncon, in view sc. Femal Repor+vrs, Inc 25 of th: assorted directions this discussion has gone, for me 81

}

0

'I s

50 mte 5 I,

I to attempt to discover a consensus and ask for actions here.

j 2l Furthermore, I must admit that, although the body hasl I

l 3l not made it, I am in spirit with Vic, wherever he may have goned i

4i (Laughter.)

i least to the extent of his getting out of the rocm.l "1

At I

6j (Laughter.)

i i

7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I missed a couple of minutes.

j I

I i

I 3,

It seems as though we were discussing mainly the last sentence 9l in brackets at the end of the policy statement.

I 10 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That's right, you weren't here ll,

when we agreed to issue the seven year term operating licenses.

12 (Laughter.)

13 I knew it.

14 COMMISSIONER 3RAEFORD:

I'm sure you didn't do i

r 15 !

anything like that.

l 6

16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Mostly because they weren't 17;

here, 13 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

Much of the rest of that 19 statement was all right with me, but I assume we have reached 20 no pcsition on any of it?

I 21 >

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

22 :l I think for mest of us, much of that statement I

231 was not obj ectionable.

But to a considerable extent that may l

i 24 -

be true because it also didn' t go very f ar in any direction.

A a.s w u i a.co m n. w.

I og 2-(Laughter.)

J

51 mte'6' i

l 1l As a Commission policy statement, perhaps it is l

I 2

only -- the information content was that the Commission did --

3l it didn' t offer very clear guidance in the future, and --

I 4'

MR. BICKWIT:

In defense of it -- and I don't feel 5:

obliged --

l 6'

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't see why you need to defend i

7 it.

l (Laughter.)

8 9

MR. BICKWIT:

It seems to me that the two options 10 >

mentioned in the statement are the two options that the 11 Commission has been discussing, and that the relevance of 12,

what we are being asked to do, as I read it, is relevant at I

13 least for some, as to which of those two options would be I

l 14 1 taken.

I i

157 COMMISSICNER-KEttNEDY-:

You mean the last sentence?

4 I

16 I have already stated my view.

I would delete it and add 17' earlier --

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I never gave you a chance to --

19 i COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

It doesn't matter.

When and 20 ] if we ever ccme tc the subj ect, we will.

1 21 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We will do that the next --

22 MR. BICKNIT:

I assume that Commissioner Ahearne's 23 assignment had something to do with the position he might be i

24 ] inclined to take on those two options.

Ac..;.o.rai secorwrs.inc.

25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It is probably a dangercus i

i t

f_

U )J s 8

• 1 i

52 f

mte 7 i

l li conclusion to reach when I ask a question it means that that Y

2 indicates a position I will take.

It does indicate that I am I

i 3,

interested in the answer to the question.

l 4l I guess it becomes very difficult.

I was thinking l

5; about Peter's suggestion that what you are asking, are trying 6,

to make, one way or the other, either on a judgment basis by 7!

the Commission with advice from the staff or whatever, it's l

8' the question whether -- and this is for LWAs and cps and the i

9I early stage things -- whether there is anything about a given i

I 10 site, the geography, the demography, that are such as to make II)l it rather unlikely.that effective response plans can be even-12 tually worked out.

i 13 And I guess, just trying to think whether that is l

14 i a practical charge to lay -- the answer to that is a practical I

i 15 ;

thing to lay upon the boards, and I guess if I were a board l

16 member, why, I would have to ask:

Give me scme idea what you 17 '

think is an effective respense plan.

And I guess the difference I3 between our belief that we might be able to make that on a la'Il judgment basis and the difficulty boards wculd have is tha 20 I think, from the discussions we have had, we, I think, are 21 beginning to form, each of us, to form scme sort of gut 22 '

feeling as to what is likely Oc be wanted in these things; 23 whereas the boards I doubt are in that position and would need i

y' ac.a.c.,.i n. cort.rs. inc. j some kind of construction.

^5l I am wondering whether you felt it useful to think i

i h

6 j

j!

53

=te8

{

l l

l 1j about that kind of an approach.

Maybe not.

i 2i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That opens the question for i

I 3!

discussion before the boards, and presumably the staff would put i

i l

4 on the case --

5i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

6' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

And other people would put i

7:

on cases, so that before the board had arrived at an opinion I

i 8j there would have been at least a thorough airing --

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

They would have factored in the 10 l question which Vic's feeling, at least --

1 11 !

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And at that stage, it would i

12 i not be judging a plan, but only the feasibility of constructing 1

13 l such plan and scme foundation at scme time long into the j

q i

i 14 future.

For one thing, it would probably involve highway ll l

I 15 l networks and roads that don't even exist at the time the ques-l 16 tion is being raised.

l/

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It still seems to me that one la ] would have to prcvide with that at least certain minimum ele-19 l ments that we all thought would be in the effective response 1

20 j plan and that may be very difficult to frame at this particular 21 time with -- we are trying to move forward with a proceeding on 22 that matter.

23 Would we be prejudicing that proceeding in improper 24 and unfortunate ways if we attempted to set out some of the Ace Focerat Repor+,rs, Inc.

25 elements of the response plan?

i l

\\ h I

~~

l.

b i

• l 54 mte 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

We could certainly call it 1l 2l

" interim."

3!

MR. BICKWIT:

There would be no legal propriety.

4j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

There is already in existence i

Si a whole series of considerations and conditions for such l

6 plans.

1 7

COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:

But those are required --

3 they are not really the elements of determining whether or i

9 no t --

l 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Agreed.

i I

II '

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, one might centemplate such 12 a thing, but I think the dif ficult part -- I can write the 13 l question to ask the boards to ask themselves, but providing 14 that what I think is essential guidance on what an effective i

l 15 response plan ought to contain, so they ca.i make the jr.dgments 16,

about whether the site is a hopeless one to ever get there er 17.

not.

I think that is the hard part.

18

. don't knew whether to ask you to think abcut that q

1 19 cr not.

I 20 !

MR. KENNEKE :

It is pretty hcpeless.

We have the l

1 21 j checklist.

And the question is, you also have a rule to put 1

22 in place to allow thinking beyond the LPZ.

All the boards are 23 supposed to take that into account?

24 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We are talking -- we are, in sce Fedsf al Reporters. Inc.

25 effect, asking the boards to make a horseback judgment on the E

bO/

t J.,1 j

,1

55 mte 10 l

1 practicalities of the requirements not yet formally laid down.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That is what the rulemaking i

3I will end up laying down.

4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

They probably can make the 3

l 5

gross judgment and the no-go or go sorts of terms.

They can 6l say it is perfectly clear that if you put the plant in Camp Hill, i

7i Pennsylvania, which happens to be exactly on the outskirts of i

l 8'

Harrisburc, and immediately across the river from the city i

i 9

itself, indeed, right across from the capitol, you are probably 10 going to have a much more serious problem on your hands than II if it is dcwn river 20 miles.

I 12 And at some point they can say:

No, if you must 1

13 ! consider evacuation in a low population zone, the answer is no; 1

Id l it is not feasible because you couldn't do it.

j I

15 I am not suggesting that particular example means I

i 16 anything.

I7' MR. KENNEKE:

The crucial element is demcgraphy.

18 l The siting task force has been looking at this.

Before the i

l9 siting task force, the staff has been locking at the question 20 ! of the need for a population density limit.

I 21 '

COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:

Gecgraphy is a factor, tcc.

22 You could put a plant at the head of a peninsula with pcpulatica 23 at the end of it, and it would have to ccme toward it to get 24 away frem it.

amrwerm aeoemn. ine.

23 ;

MR. KENNEKE:

That was the issue in connection with i

I'

] ( ';

[ i s.

'l't b

U

56 c..

mte 11 i

i I

l l

1l the ALAB 390, Seabrook, that led to the need for the rule to j

l 2l look beyond the LPZ.

But the point that has always come back i

i i

i l

3i is that, since the staff adopted internally the guideline of i

l 4 li looking seriously at plants over the 500 per square miles, f

I 5,

there has not been a submittal of a case of that sort.

So new, i

6!

if you are talking realistically, by looking at these things 7!

for some f actor that might look up, you would be looking first l

8 at that and then, second, at the geographic situation.

But you '

l l

9' have had the population to begin with, because they are already l I

i 10 looking at the geographic as a separate issue.

i i

i 11 !

I don't see anything new coming up.

And as I under-l i

i 12 stand where the siting policy task force is, they would be 13 talking about whether or not to have fixed guidelines or not, 14 but they are not pp_sjared at this point to say what that i

i l

15 ;

nc=ber would be.

If you went in that direction, you would l

i 16 he embarking on a very vague process here.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's get the answer to John's 18 questions, and you might think between you a little bit further 19 about this question of whether in fact it might be possible i

i 20 i to map out a few elements and do the job that way.

I don't i

21 f kncw.

Maybe not.

i 22 l All richt.

Thank you very much.

. i.

e-5 23 (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m.,

the meeting was adjourned.)

24 3 I

ac=Jeeerei neoon ri, inc. j 25.l 1

l l

J' uil