ML19259B182
| ML19259B182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1977 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7901170056 | |
| Download: ML19259B182 (42) | |
Text
'
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION l
i l
I i
l IN THE MATTER OF:
BRIEFING CN STATUS OF LICINSING REFORM LEGISI.ATICN Place -
Washington, D.C.
Date -
Decerier 15, 1977 Pages 1 - 42 i
l The initials appearing in the lefthand
- margin, i.e., W.W.,
indicating l
corrections are those of Wm. White, l
Office of the Secretary.
I Reviewed 11/29/78
f
- c
- n..o.!,'j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
Official Reponer, tat North Cecirci Street Wesnington. C.C. 2CC01 NATICNWIDE COVERAGE DAILY g
i 1
l t
1, 2.
I 3l BRIEFING ON STATUS OF LICENSING REFORM LEGISLATION i
l 4i By Howard Shapar Executive Legal Director 5:
6 1
7 1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 15, 1977 Commissioners' Conference Rocm 8
D.
C. Office 9
10 :l 3
11 d
- I Present
Commissioner Victor Gilinsky 12,l Acting Chairman Il 13 'j Commissioner Peter A. Bradford 14 Commissioner Richard T. Kennedy 15 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 16:
17 I 18 l l
19:
20-21 22 23 li 24 ~l 4e-Feoero; twoover s, i..c. j 25 !
l l
1 l
1 P ROCEEDINGS CR 5874 2-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay, let's hear scme
,ngleberg a
eh 42 3
realism.
4 MR. SHAPAR:
Shall I give you a status first and 5
then I'll suggest a couple of options of things I might say
- 6. if you are interestsd.
7 !
Not an awful lot has been accomplished I woulc say, 8
in terms of getting this bill forward in any form.
The 9: various members of the Executive Branch are still fighting. The 10; main actors in the Executive Branch are the Department of 11 Energy, of course, it's their bill, Interior, EPA and CEQ.
3 i
12 COMMISSin
' GILINSKY:
Interior?
13:
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, ~ and Interior's main interest is 1
14 in Title One, which is the new authority deal we would have to 15' coordinate our reviews among the states and the Federal Govern-t 16 ment.
17 Interior is very suspicious and they are being 18 supported somewhat by EPA and CEQ, and their main pitch in 19 this area is that any DOE guidelines sort of advisory that the 20' states should consider, but CEQ and EPA and Interior don't 21 want those DOE guidelines to be binding, and there has been a 22 ] lot of discussion on that with Interior really leading the 23 l charge.
l 1
24 j As you saw from my memorandum of December 3, there Ac ; w uoi e. con us. ine.,
25 jis not an awful lot of tifference betweenthe DOE new version i
l l
l
3 I
of December 1 and the prior version, or for thi.t matter the i
2 NRC version, what we call the NRC verion that reflects all 3 your comments.
4 There were some changes of some significance, as 5 a!I outlined in my memorandum of December 9.
For example, there
- 6. is a mandatory hearing now, it's not just an opportunity for 7' hearing, inconnectionwith-theissuanceofacombinedCP,[0L,
,J 8
and on Track 3, and I'll refresh your recollection, Track 3 9
being the marriage of the pre-approved site with the pre-10 approved design, there are now no specific limitations on the l
11 ] opportunities for heari.7g in that kind of a situation.
12:
However, there would be the general requirement 13:
that would apply here and elsewhere, a requirement for limita-14 tion of issues to those that couldn't have been raised before, 15 and absent a prima facie showing of significant new informa*. ion 16' and that as a result thereof, it is likely the facility design i
+
17 will not ccmply with the Act and the regulations.
i 18 j Let me just mention briefly, to give you a big I
19' picture, the timing.
O' Leary said in his speech out in San 20 Francisco that it wasn't likely the bill would go over for, 21 l quote, "several months," unquote.
22 I called up coE and asked how they were reading 23 l " several months," and they said they were reading it tightly, I
24llikeDecembsrorJanuary, for a bill --
Ace-Feaeroi Ercorvers. Inc.(
25 l C0h;P" '^NER GILINSKY:
Cacember or Januarv?
I i
l
d da 4
j 1I MR. SEAPAR:
That's right.
I guess literally it l
2 does mean tuo or more.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, it means three or more.
4 It's a number greater than two and less than nine.
5-MR. SHAPAR: It wouldn't be two or greater?
They 6
haven't made a deadline yet, as you are all aware.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I did not get that impres-8 sion from O' Leary's speech, which I enjoyed listening to.
9' My impression wa? we were talking about something that would 10! go to the Congress in January and hopefully it could move 11 through the Congress, be considered by the Congress in the 12 early spring.
That's my recollection.
13:
MR. SEAPAR:
Okay, what I was told was it was in 14: terms of the date of it going over to the Congress and the 15 information that I got, rightly or wrongly, was that several 16, months in O' Leary's terms meant going over in December or 17 January.
Obviously, December is out, and if they still mean 18 it, it means January, but no deadline that they have given up 19 to now has been met.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn't it also true that 21 really nobody is in a position to kncw now, unless DOE can l
22 l iron out its differences with the other departments without 23 { irs going back to the President for further decision?
24 l MR. SEAPAR:
The chairman and I met with Speth a Aces.o rol e.ooren. ine. l l
25 l couple of weeks ago, and the main protagonists were Speth and l
l i
I
i l
5 s
I Hanfling, and we listenec mostly, but I could be wrong but 1
2 - the impression I got was that DOE was not backing off any 3
further in response to CEQ's desire for further changes.
- ]I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
What that will mean, I guess, d5' is that further changes will have to --
l 6 -
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, and the next point I was going to 7
make is that it is our understanding that OMB is preparing a 8
policy paper which will address the issues that have been I
90 unresolved for Presidential decision, and that this may go I
10.l
' up in a week or so.
Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought that was where we 12 were a month ago.
13-MR. SHAPAR:
That's right, but they were trying to I4 resolve it, and I haven't noticed any --
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My understanding a month ago 16 ] was that they were drafting even then a paper which would put i
17 a number of issues to the President saying, you know, if we 13 go forward with this, how firmly are you prepared to support i
l9 this, and how much capital should we expend on it.
20:
MR. SHAPAR: They were indeed working on such a 21 paper and I think your time recollection is correct, as well.
a2 i e
,What may have happened --
i 23 l CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
That's pretty neat and I I
24l appreciate it.
ko Fedarsi tecer*ers. Sc..;
25 MR. SHAPAR:
Thank you.
What may have happened, and i
I I
l t
Ij 6
1 i
1 I what I think happened is that Schlesinger and Warren got i
I ogether and I guess agreed that there were some things they 2
t 3 ' could agree on and told their staff s to try and work it out.
.i 4
That's my perception of what happened without really knowing I
5 that it did.
6l I may be wrong in suspecting that they can't work l
17 i It out, but that was certainly my feeling from the meeting I l
8 attended with Joe.
9:
Some of the issues that are unresolved are some 10; affirmative, what Gus Speth calls affimnative provisions that 11 are not in the bill which the environmental ccmmunity feels 12 are needed and which CEQ has been pressing in such things as
+f 13, solar and conservation alternatives, you have to exclude them 14 j specifically before you move to the nuclear option; the racic-
- l 15 ] active waste finding; reactor safety assurances --
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought the radioactive 17 ' waste question was resolved by a statement by the President, i
18 l af ter Mr. Speth raised that issue two =cnths ago.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What was this?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was this?
When the 21 l White House said Mr. Speth was speaking for himself and not l
22 ' the White Hcuse.
This is not the President's policy.
That's 23 !what he said. I think I have that statement.
24,
MR. SHAPAR:
I don't think Mr. Speth used it as such Ac swuoi %: ores. tac.
l 25 !because he made these requests af ter that statement.
i 6
i l
l l
7 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is a different adminis-
.I 2
tration I understand.
3i 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did the President make 4
this statement?
i 51 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought Schlesinger made 6
the statement.
a 7i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It was not Mr. Schlesinger.
S i MR. SEAPAR:
It was Eisenstadt, I think, wasn't it?
I o
9]
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it was Mr. Eisenstadt.
<l IC Il Unicss this is a remarkably different administration, I can't II, unagine that those closest to the President, who sit as his
- 12. personal advisors --
13 MR. SHAPAR:
I'll continue to try and tread the.cis-141 passionate path I'm trying to tread.
15 )e COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm just trying to find out 1
16L where we are, not the least of which is who is speaking for 17lwhom.
18 l MR. SHAPAR:
Okay, another one of the affirmative I
19 l items that Speth mentioned is scme sort of inspector general 1
20 i for the NRC, to assure the center's freedcm.
l 21 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Other than our inspector?
22 l MR. SEAPAR:
Yes, I think so, executive level four.
I 23 l COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
I'm going to like that.
i l
24 '
MR. SHAPAR:
I think the last major one --
wet a.a: ::,oorm. :nc. l 25 MR. NELSON:
Is that --
1 I
t
i 8
c I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To whom does he report?
2l MR. SHAPAR:
It's a rather lengthy provision.
I l
3 think he's confirmed by the Congress, as I best can recoilect, 4
and I don't think that the Commission can fire him except for 5
cause or something like that, and he makes reports to you and 6 I to the Congress, as I recollect.
7' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We have the suggestion 8
that 9!
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, and that's the one that I was 10' trying to summarise.
11,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Have we seen that suggestion?
12 MR. SHAPAR:
I think so.
It was distributed to 13 all of you by the airman, I believe.
3 14 I guess the last thing is to make sure that the 15 states can impose their own radiological health and safety 16-requirements, stricter than NRC.
17 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Did you mention generic 18 l issues?
_i 4
19 l MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, reactor safety assurances I call 20 '
it.
Yes.
21 1 Another item, issue item that is supposed to up l
221 before the President is the general issue of hearings, 23 ' including the number of hearings which should be required and 24 at what stages in the licensing process.
ac ;w.rm a.oor ers. ine..;
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Why is that still 1
i
4 I
a d,
9 I1lan open question if there are mandatory hearings?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
Well, apparently based on the discus-3 sions which took place among the representatives of the 4
various agencies, there are significantly cifferent views I
5 among the agencies as to how many hearings there should be and 6
at what stage and whether they ought to be mandatory or oppor-7 tunity for hearing, and that kind of thing, so it's just a I
8 general area that I guess they want to alert the White House to.
9 The NEPA delegation is a big issue.
There nave been 10 ! road objections raised by EPA and Interior, b
though Gus jpeth 1
11 saic' at the meeting with Henry that they didn't have any objec-12 tion in principle to the NEPA delegation, but they wanted to be 13 sure of several things, that NEPA itself was not attenuated or 14 watered down.
15 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are talking about 0
16 )
MR. SHAPAR:
To the states under NRC guidelines, to j
17 ]make sure they do as good a job under NEPA as we do.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is the delegation in 19 qtoto?
20 MR. SHAPAR:
Well, our statute is more complicated 21 than that.
As you may remember, there were thre'e ways in which 22 it could be done.
Number one, a total delegation went into l
i 23 ;ef fect pursuant to guidelines issued by NRC.
This would be the 1
24 lwhole bal] of wax, including the NEPA power issue, and on the w s.a.,ait.owen. ec.j 25 !other side, cost benefit analysis of all environmental impacts I
i t
i
t i
10 1
or environmental acceptability.
.i 2
The second one was a delegation of specific issues 3
or specific areas the states wanted to do, and the third one 4
is that we could rely on the state's work prcduct but it 5
wouldn't be binding on us and it would be subject to attack q
6:
in our hearings.
7' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the bill at present, 8
though --
9 MR. SHAPAR:
It has all of that, essentially, in 10:
there, in the --
Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All three?
12!
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, all three are in there added to
- 13. the previous version.
14 There have been scma objections raised by EPA and 15 Interior, but as I was starting to say, in the last meeting 16 with Speth, he said that he didn't have any objection to a 17' broad delegation of NEPA, as long as, I think, three things 18 were met.
19!
I'm summarizing now from a long conversation in 20 which these points were made at various times, from memory.
21 Number one, that there wculdn't be any dilution of 22-NEPA; number two, that to the extent that we have adjudicatory
- 23. hearings, those adjudicatory hearings would tricklo down into 24 the state process; and number three, tc the extent that we 4cs.o.rai e.ocr.n. inc. i 25 funded intervencrs, the state would fund it, too.
I e
l 11 1
In other words, I'm synthesizing now my own impres-2 sions, whatever we would do under NEPA, the states would do 3
under NEPA, and there wouldn't be any weakening or watering 4
down of the NEPA process, both procedural and substantive, is 5
the way I read it.
t l
6I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That follows therefore that l
7 if the Congress elects not to authorize the funding of inter-8 venors, it would be expected that the states would probably l
9 y not wish to do so?
10 MR. SHAPAR:
I think one could make that argument.
n 1
11 Also, I heard from time to time an expression that 12, there ought to be some federal overview, and I'm not sure that 13-I attribute this to Speth or other environmental comments that 14' were made.
I'm not quite sure of my memory on that one.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
What does that mean?
Federal 16-overview?
Sig Brother?
17 MR. SEAPAR:
Big Brother would look to see whether
.i 18 !or not, after the state had done their job, that at least it
.I J
19 ' was in the ballpark, I guess is the most direct way of 20: answering your question, without duplicating the whole thing, 21 of course.
i I
The last major issue is whether Title I, this is a 22 I
i 23 l new responsibility that DOE wculd have to coordinate the need 24 l for power thing among the states and regions, whether that ace 8eos s! Recor'ers, f ac.
25 i, should be in the bill at all.
That has been identified as an l
l
I.
12 sl a1! issue.
i 2i mhis has attracted a lot of opposition from Interior I
i 3 and EPA and CEQ is obviously suspicious of some of the provi-4 sions in it.
5 I think those are the main issues.
Now --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What was that last one? I'm 7
sorry.
MR. SHAPAR:
Title I, Vic, is the new authority of 8j 9 DOE to specify guidelines for determining generic need for I
10 l power plants pursuant to guidelines they would publish, and a
-l 11 ' they would give money to the states to develop a process, to 12 develop generic need for power cetermination and that sort 13 of thing.
14 COMMISSIOENR GILINSKY:
Why does Interior object i
151 to that?
1 i
16 l MR. SHAPAR:
I think that they think that it is i
i 17 l making DOE tco powerful, and there's always been a historical i
18 antipathy, shall I say, between Interior and the various j
/
9 metamorphos/s of doe.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Was there any discussion 21 l at all of consideration to eliminating existing duplication i
22 ; among the federal agencies?
23 '
s1R. SHAPAR:
I wouldn't s a v. there was any extended 24 j discussicn on that point, no.
At least not at this meeting us-eer=1 seco ers. :-c. '
25 l with Gus Sperh.
That was not a ma]or issue.
k
f
'l 13 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are prepared to go 2-forward, then.
3 MR. SHAPAR:
I think that we had some comments en d
this point and they were put into the NRC version.
I think 5 "I scme of our comments were accepted and scme were not, and I 6
can rund down those later, if you like.
7 What I did in my Florida talk, I carried down the 1
8 ' message that Joe Henry asked me to convey, and that was that 9' whether the industry liked the bill or not, some bill of this 10 j sort was really the only ballgame in town as far as the l
IIjindustrywasconcerned,and I got that point across.
a 12 The rest of my talk was simply to tell them that 13 they ought to have the advantage of both sides of the contro-14!!versial issues, and I outl].ned what I thought were the contro-1 15 L versial issues and I went down the pros and the cons with them.
16 I told them the decision for them is that they have I7 been making noises, and I'm synthesizing here, about they 18 didn' c like adjudicatory hearings, and they didn't like advance l9 planning, but they had to decide from their own perspective 20 on a cost benefit analysis the things they didn' t like made 21 the bill so terrible in their eyes that they wanted to not go 22lalongwithanyadvantagesthat they might derive frcm a bill 23 jlof this format, of this general format.
I 2#
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are those?
Aca Feceret 3epor*ers, : rte, j 25 MR. SHAPAR:
I wculd say that it was the inter =
1 l
\\
t
,1 14 d
I licensing, the Track 3, the pre-approved site and the pre-2 approved design, which would substantially cut down time, 3, and other advantages like the nor.:ompulsory mandatory ACRS 4
review and that sort of thing that has been traditionally 1
i5 t a part of NRC legislation in the past.
l 6j From the industry standpoint, I think that the
- 7. thing that attracts them most I guess would be interim 8
licensing.
They don't see any immedie.ce 9I COMMISSIONER GILINShi' Do they seriously expect 10; that that is going to get exercised to any degree?
II' MR. SHAPAR:
I think when you ask a question like 12' that, you've got to realize that this year, as in all prior 13: years, the industry talks with many different voices, and 14., that's been part of their problem all along.
a l
15 There has been no consensus on the part of industry.
16-Some are saying now that the bill makes it worse, I'm 17 synthesizing now from comments that we have received, that it 18, would be better not to have a bill at all because it 's so 1
19! terrible.
20 Others are saying that it's not all that good, but 21 it ain't all that bad, and if you put some improvements in 22 "there, they will go along with it.
23 1 You have a realize also that I think some of this 24{isposturing, that by being very gloomy and dismal and pessi-Ac
%,,o a.coners. :nc. a i
25 mistic in their analysis of the bill and their public statements
j 15 1
that they think they can use that as leverage to improve it.
1 2!
So vou have to realize two things, they are no 1
1 3i speaking with a single voice and they may be posturing to 4
some extent, as are other people, as well.
i 5'
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It concerns me that out 6
cf all this, what they -- you say you are synthesizing from 7
all your conversations, but interim licensing comes out as 8
being all that important.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
It always has been.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand but --
11 MR. SHAPAR: They see this kind of situation, where 12 they've got a plant with -- forget about initial operations, 13; but they've got a plant in on line and they have to shut down 14 to repair something, and it involves an amendment to the 15 iicense and it involves a significant hazardous consideration, 16, which means we have to prenotice it.
17; If someone demands a hearing --
i 18 I COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
I guess I was thinking of 19 the operating license.
20' MR. SHAPAR:
They argue for that, too, you should 21' understand, but I think my own feeling is that the mnendment 22 is more important to them.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay, I guess that's what i
24 j I was thinking of.
ace Seaeral Recor*ers. Inc. ;
25 MR. SHAPAR:
I want to reiterate again that I could I
l 16 I
be wrong in any of my impressions, but they are my impressions 2
and I'll convey them to you as such.
3I CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The mmendment falls into I
4' a somewhat different category, too.
5 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
They foresee that as a poten-6' tially very bad situation, where they have a plant on line and 7
they can' t go back up until a hearing on t! e amendment takes 8
place.
9 MR. NELSON:
Does that ever happen?
10 l MR. SHAPAR:
I think it came close once on Menyankee Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Pilgrim.
I2 MR. NELSON:
Did it happen, or did it ccme close?
13 MR. SHAPAR:
Close.
I don't think it actually 14' happened.
Unquestionably, the potential is there.
15 MR. NELSON:
Like being narrowly hit by a truck.
16 MR. SHAPAR:
No, I think in fairness, the potential 17 is there.
It could happen any time you have a significant 18 ! mmendment and someone demands a hearing.
l9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Such as increased fuel 20 storage?
21 !
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
Now, in preparing for the talk i
22 I gave in Miami, I sw=marized in very cursory fashion what I 23 + thought were the more significant dif fering --
24,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If I can Just stop you, I 4e-Federot teoor+ers. Inc.
25,think that is not a good example in the sense that --
i e
i I
1 1
17 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Our colleagues think it is.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I know.
That's why I 31lwantedtostophun, because things that you can anticipate, 4j you can start moving on at an early point, and if there are i
5 going to be hearings, you can dea] with that.
6' It is when they shut down and they find scmething 7: that needs to be modified, then they have to make a change, 8.
then they are in an awkward position.
I think that is 9:
undeniably true.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If I look at the tables, i
11 my impression is that some of them are going to be an awkward 12 position in connection with -- unless the hearings move with 13 greater speed than hearings seem to be moving these days.
14:
MR. CASE:
I'm not sure that I worry about involving 15 the operation of thereafter.
It is holding up the time that 16' they would ordinarily have started for the modification.
1 17 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thus far.
I 18 MR. CASE :
Thus far.
But we have had, I don't 19 know, perhaps 25 percent or may'e higher than that, requests 20-for hearings on the expansions It's a relatively attractive 21 target.
22, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Naturaliy.
It might have 1
23 even been designed that way.
24 MR. CASE:
It's part of the psychology.
Ace Federal Reoorters, 'nc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Certainly.
i l
l I
i i
a
i j
la n
i 1
MR. SHAPAR:
Several members of industry, you may
- 12' find this interesting, told me that unless they really go all 3
out and suppcrt this bill, there won't be a bill.
4!
My own personal view is that 's not so.
They can 5
kill it, I think, effectively, and I'm reading the political 6
process now. I think effectively they've got a veto.
If they 7l come out strongly against it, I think they can kill it.
I 8'
don't think have to strongly support it to prevent DOE from 9:
pushing it, if DOE wants to push it further and resolves the 10.
issues that are now being summarized for the president in a II way that would be satisfactory with DOE. That's my own view 12' and anybody can differ on it.
13.
I started to say that in preparing for the talk I I4 gave there, I took a look at the various comments, and they 15 are enormous.
Taese were comments that went into DOE and they 16 sent copies over here.
17 I read them over again and in my own mind, at least, 18 certain ideas seemed to represent very well what the antago-19 nistic and differing positions were.
20' If you think that would be useful, I could summartze 21 them for you in about five minutes.
If not --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Whose comments are these?
l 23 1
MR. SHAPAR:
Frcm everybody, environmentalls:s --
1 l
24! if you don't th:.nk it would be useful, then I could move on l
Ace deoeral Recorters. Inc.q l
25 l to scmething else.
i i
t i
19 l,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's hear them.
i 2 !
MR. SHAPAR:
All right.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Even if it takes 10.
4l MR. SHAPAR:
What's that?
I 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I said even if it takes 10 6
minutes.
7 MR. SHAPAR:
Well, let me compromise with five if 8jIcoulddoit.
I 1
9:1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you can, we'll congratu-10 late you, but if you can't, I won't feel bad.
Il MR. SEAPAR:
All right, let me start with the 12:
environmentalists' problems with the bill.
13 They reminded people of the President's campaign I4 - pledge, like increasing involvement of citizens in government 15-decisions, and financial assistance to citizens, and the fact 16 l that any legislation to reform licensing should have been 1
- 17) preceded by a study.
I I8 j They don't like DOE leadership on this bill at all.
19 They want to know where DOE gets off pushing a bill like this.
20 They note that the bill doesn't codify President 21 Carter's --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Do they have any suggestions 23 as to who should?
i 24 I MR. SEAPAR:
Yes, NRC and CEQ.
Ace-Feoeral Reoorters, Inc. q 25 l COMMISSICNER KENNEDY :
CEQ should be concerned about I
I I
i.
i
~
20 Ilpushingalicensingbill?
l 2l MR. SEAPAR:
Well, remember this bill is many 3
things to many people.
To some people it's an expediting bill.
4 To other people, it's a reform bill, and to third people it's 5
a deform bill.
So beauty in the eye of the behoider, Mr.
6.
Commissioner.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well put.
8' MR. SHAPAR:
They note that the bill, again I'm 9'
synthesizing this from the environmental community, the bill 10l doesn't codify President Carter's last resort in minimum II dependence concepts.
The bill doesn't contain stricter 12 safety standards.
The biil doesn't contain funding, this was 13 on an earlier version.
I 4 ',
The bill would transfer NEPA responsibility to the
!i 15 i states without assurance that the states will conduct adjudi-16 catory hearings and fund intervenors.
17 They object to interim licensing.
They object to 18 the combined CPNOL.
They object to the splitting of site and l9l design reviews.
They object to early site work before safety 20:
suitability is estabiished.
2I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there anything left in thia 22' bill?
22 MR. SHAPAR: I think the better answer to that i
24 i question is, I'm trying to give all the spectrum of the Ace-Fecerol Recor+ers. Inc. i 25 l environmentalists '
comments.
.i i
21 i
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
After the title, what's left 2
in the bill?
3 MR. SEAPAR:
CEQ is not pushing all these concepts d i now, as is obvious frcm the comments you got from CEQ.
I just I
.i 5 l thought it might be interesting for you to find out --
1 6'
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm Just asking you, after 7
all these comments, all we've got left is the title.
8 MR. SEAPAR:
I think they look at it differently, 9' that there are a lot of things in the bill to expedite, but 10j there's very little in the bill from their perspective tnat II does the things that they think President Carter promised and i
12.
that they have always been planning, and I think that's a 13 fair analysis.
14 FOE, I think, Friends of the Earth, submitted scme i
15: very well-written comments and they seemed to have comments 16 that weren' t picked up by some of the others.
They said there 17 was nothing in the bill about not siting plants in populous 1
18 l areas or near valuable natural resources,
natural areas, 1
19j nothing in the bill about increased inspections.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Didn' t one of the verions 21 say something about siting plants?
22.
MR. SEAPAR:
It did, in terms of the criteria that 23 l the NRC would specify for the states, which was a little bit i
24 ancmalous to put it there because none of the versions would w,- %. mi w er,n. in q 25 : have turned over radiological safety to the states, and I
i i
22 I
locating reactors near populated areas is a radiological 2i safety regulation, so it was somewhat ancmalous frcm a l
3 technical standpoint.
4 -
COMMISSIONER KE:mEDY:
Wasn't there scmething in 5
the earlier versions concerning natural areas?
6' MR. SHAPAR: I don't recall anything about natural 7l areas.
Perhaps so.
8 COMMISIONER BRADFORD:
Howard, wasn't there at one 9
point a statement in the overall findings, the purposes of 10-the bill, to the effect that reactors should be locatec --
11 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, but there was no operating provi-I2 sion that followed it.
It was just in the finding.
Nothing 13' in the bill about underground siting, and nothing about better I4!
security of nuclear power plants.
15 Also, this is the only letter I saw that had this, 16 - althcugh I didn't make a detailed reading of c11 the voluminous 17, statement, there is nothing about abolition of the limited d
18 liability of Price Anderson.
l9' To give you a typical utility, I picked several in 20 - northeast utilities.
The system that the bill would create is ii 21 less effective than the presert system, would drive utilities l
22 from a nuclear technology, too man; hearings and no time 23 limits, funding of intervenors will increase the time for 24 l decisions.
ace-Federoi iece.*ers, inc.
25 If there has to be funding, limit it to generic
I,!
23 1
rule-making proceedings.
Not enough in the bill with respect 2
to coordination of f ederal responsibilities.
3l It should be primarily the Federal Government's 1
4' responsibility to give site approvals and make the need for 5:
power determinations.
I 6!
Now, one of the things that's pretty clear is that I
7 in the area of who the hell should do the need for power and 8j the environmental review, the industry is split.
We're getting l
91 cross-cutting comments on that.
Perceptively split.
l 10 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, are the environmen-11 talists on this?
I wouldn't think that they would be.
12' MR. SHAPAR:
Well, I think that the current environ-13 i mental consensus, based on my own conception,1s they won't 14 resist it as lon 7 as NEPA is not weakened and as long as the 15 ladjudicatory hearings go with it, and as long as the funding 16 of intervenors go with it, and if also maybe there is some sort 17 of truncated federal overview.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But they must have mixed 19 I feelings about it.
- l 20 MR. SHAPAR:
I think they do, but I think tnat are i
21 coalescing around the fact that it's all right in theory.
I
'l 22 ' think Gus Speth would not be that far estranged frcm the main-23. stream of environmental thinking and I iould trust his ability 24 to represent what the mainstream is, and I think tha mainstream ace s-e.mi 9ecerm. we..
25 " is not to fight it as icng as these protections from -heir i
24 i
l standpoint are provided.
2 I think I'll ykip the AIF unless you want to hear 3
it, 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did anybcdy agree with 5
Harold Green, that this would be total catastrophe?
6 MR. SHAPAR:
Not audibly.
7' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Were you there when he spokel 8
MR. SHAPAR: Yes, I was.
I was on the same panel 9
with him.
10' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What kind of questions did II he get?
12 MR. SHAPAR:
There weren't many questions at the 13 end of our session.
I don't recall any that really stuck in 14 my mind.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You use a few words like 16:
that, and you know nobody is going to ask a question.
17' MR. SHAPAR:
I think it wc; viewed as a stimulating 18 discussion.
I think most people realized that Harold had no 19, -- that it was very interestingly presented and well-written.
20' I think many people there, remember they were mainly industry 21 if not exclusively, felt it was far divorced frcm the mainstream 22 of anybody's thinking and he had no support but his own.
23 I He did say, he did make the point at the beginning 24 that he is in favor of nuclear power and that he has representec EC9-E9Cef05 59Cor*ert InC. (
25 i d but that's not his personal view and ne would kncck l eponents, 1
'l i
I d
25 1
1jl out hearings here and knock out hearings there.
i 2a Some people were unkind enough to think that maybe l
I 3 ' he felt that his firm was not in a position to try and attack 4
some nuclear business.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's not pursue that furtheI I
6 MR. SHAPAR:
No.
They said in wide 7:
agreement that the licensing reform is an important and 8
immediate need.
9 Let me make another point that that reminds me of, 10-and that is remember at one of the meetings I reportec to you 11 that one of the government agencies, that OMB asked the people 12 ! at the table if there was anybody there representing any 13 agency that felt some form of reform legislation was not needed 14 and nobody answered negatively.
The question obviously is what 15 :, form it takes.
a l
16 Back to Westinghouse.
Reform should provide 17 discipline, predictability, expedition for efficient licensing 18 ' process.
The bill is a great disappointment.
Justice was 19:
not put in there.
I don't believe that f airness was mentioned, 20 either.
21 They are greatly disappointed in the bill.
It 22 creates new problems with respect to predictability and fails 23 to provide needed improvements.
They believe that fundamentalr!
24 l any reform is reduction to the minimum ttae required to bring ase-Feceroi teoonert inc.
25l facilities into operation.
I i
i 26
,l l
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Howard, what was the last 2
draft which these people had access to?
i 3
MR. SHAPAR:
I assume it was the one before d'
December 1, aithough I would not exclude the possibility that 5
there weren't some leaked copies of the December 1 version.
6 I didn't see any floating around.
7!
You see, there wasn't that much difference between 8
the two versions anyway, so that wouldn't be significant in 9
terms of the discussion.
10' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the comments that you Il drew this frem, were these the --
i 12 MR. SHAPAR:
These were on an earlier version and 13' they are all scattered in time periods, but mainly they are I4! earlier comments.
15 In my own mind the comments would still be valid 16! in terms of changes that were not made in the bill.
17; We should have the responsibility to establish and 18 monitor planning and priorities for nuclear power plants, as 19 well as authority over federal and state agencies to assure 20 the decisional process is compatible with the energy, the 21 Federal Energy Plan.
22 If the states are delegated authority, it must be 23 a disciplined, non-adjudicatory process, and all federal and 24 state reviews must be ccmbined in a one-step process.
There ACS-Eederci StOCrTer1, inC.,
25 should be legislative-type hearings, period.
i
'l l
27 0
1 Interim licensing and avoiding relitigation of 2.
issues that have been litigated before, and in order -- and 3
also achieve the full benefits of standardization.
4 Let me juxtapose GE's comments right next to it, 5
which I think will give you a fair cross-section of the vendor 6lfeeling.
7, The allocation of federal-state responsibilities 1
8 in the. bill is sound.
9 By the way, the Westinghouse comments were extremely 10 well-written and it was very obvious, whether you agree with i
11 their position or not that they had spent a lot of time on it.
- i 12 I did not have that feeling from the Westinghouse position.
13l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean GE?
14 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, I'm saying GE was well-written.
15 ]a GE's main points were as follows --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who wrote -- who signed 17 those, do you know?
l 18 i
MR. SHAPAR:
I don't.
Scmebody fairly high up in 19 the -- I just don't renember, but I can get it for you if you-
- 20. would like.
t 21 My time is up, unless you want me to --
l 22.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not with me.
23 i MR. SHAPAR:
All right.
I 24 I COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
You can come to my office u.a.ders teneners. !.,c. j 25' and carry on, if you wish.
1 I
i i
d 1
d, 28 1
1:
MR. SHAPAR:
GE.
Allocation of federal-state 2
responsibilities in the bill in sound, but two additionai 3, things are needed, provide for more effective coordination 4~ among federal agencies than what the bill provides for, amend 5
the substantive standards of NEPA rather than simply delegating 6'
NEPA to the states, and the point that the licensing --
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What coes that mean?
l 8
MR. SHAPAR: I don't know.
I had the same question 9
and it was not filled in.
This was a general comment at the 10:
beginning to sort of give a flavor to their overal l comments.
Il They made the point that the licensing process has 12' been over-judicialized.
Their limits of reform I think are 13 four. Strip NRC of all responsibilities in areas unrelated 14; to nuclear safety. I'm sure they don't mean common defense and 15 security.
I think they do mean antitrust, and I think they 16 do mean the environment.
They may mean export, but I don't 17,think they consider that in the context of dcmestic licensing.
i 18 I Place the NEPA power and an alternative source of 19 power to deal with the states with coordination with NRC and 1
20 DOE -- I'm sorry, with regions and DOE.
I 21 All nuclear safety should be with NRC, including 22 activities currently conducted by EPA.
23 CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
What about DOE?
They didn':
1 24 ! include that?
Ace-Feaero! Reoortert Mc. l 25 l MR. SHAPAR:
No.
Greater use of generic reviews.
i 1
I g
h 29 iIl Increased standardization of incentives; interim licensing 2
authority -- these are all things they really want.
i i
3j NRC should use informal rule-making proceedings --
4 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can I ask you about the 5l. Interim licensing again?
6 MR. SEAPAR:
Yes.
1 7'
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mentioned the snendment.
1 8
Does anyone make a point of the interim operating license?
I 9
MR. SHAPAR:
I'm sure they did.
In fact, I know 10 they did.
Remember when I mentioned it before I said my own 11 perception was that it was more impor ant to them in tarms 12 of the amendment, and that I couldn't guarantee that perception 13 was correct.
14:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It was the interim operating 15 license that I was referring to when I said I would be con-16 ' cerned if they really thought that that was going to be 17 exercised to any degree, because if it is, it means really a i
18 breakdown in the system.
I thought we wrote language that
.i 19 limited it to really extremely rare and unusual circumstances, l
20 basi' ally emergencies.
21 MR. SHAPAR:
Even in the NRC bill last year, pre-22 viously, when this provision was addressed in the transmittal --
23 l Okay, NRC shculd use informal rule-making process 24 in licensing proceedings, except -- here 's where they depart 4c 5,anoi 9.semn. me.]
25 from Westinghouse -- except that NRC should use adjudicatcry i
1
30 1
type process, where the intervenor has established a signifi-2-l cant fact for conflict.
3 They would amend NEPA to clarify anc make more 4:
realistic the balancing of economic and environmental trade-5 offs. They would want to put reliance on other agencies' i
6: decisions.
7!
They would eliminate the NEPA review at the OL stage, 8i and this did not get support elsewhere that I see.
I think 9
GE may have been the only one to make that comment.
10; Finally, they would like DOE to coordinate all 11, federal and state reviews, including the authority to estab-i 12 i lish deadlines.
13!
I wasn' t particularly impressed with the architect-14:
engineer comments.
I took that one, which I think synthes 1:es 15 their main points.
16:
The bill is of some help but more is needed.
The 17' bill should impose time constraints on the review process.
18 Legislative type hearings and not adjudicatory type hearings are dwhat is needed.
19 20 No intervenor funding.
Delegation to the states i
gj all right, but they are worried about California and New York,
- 22. and mentioned Maine.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why California and New York?
24 l MR. SHAPAR:
Because of the peor performances in ace-Feo.cai aeooners. ;nc. :!
25 ~ California and New York, there is a need for strict guidelines l
I
3i
'l I
for the states if there is to be a delegation.
I 2l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's sort of a vague i
3l comment.
Are California and New York the only two states 4
that have not gone ver far in the direction a delegation 5
would need?
6 MR. SHAPAR:
I would say that from the perspective 7' of the commentor was that having done all this work in 8
California and New York, that the commentor was somewhat l
9 less than enchanted with it, so therefore you need guidelines, 10 ] says he, to controi other states if you go the delegation route.
1 11 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see, but what he's really i.
1 12 j saying is that he's not enchanted with delegation at all.
l 13 1 MR. SHAPAR:
I think so.
Id One of the things I pointed out that no one had been 15 imentioning what the states felt, and I summarized about ten of i
16 j the major points made by the governors ' conference when they 1
I7! reviewed our study, and nobody in any of the talks said any-18 )I thing about what the states have said they want.
I9 If you are interested, I can summarize those ten 20 coints.
c 2I COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
The governor should note that, 22 ;too.
23 ]\\
MR. SHAPAR:
The responsibility to forecast need 24 jfor power through an open process with public hearings, ice secerai aeoor ers. inc. !
25 lincluding broad conservation goals.
'l
o 32 I
Two, these determinations should be binding on 2-federal agencies.
3lI Three, present duplication in environmental reviews al should be eliminated and the responsibility should go to the 5
states, but minimum federal standards developed in close a
61 consultation with'the states.
7-COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Howard, do those ccmments 8 ~1J indicate any unanimity among the govarnors on how they would a
9' like -- should the governor sign a piece of paper saying --
10' MR. SEAPAR:
They don't get into that kind of detail.
11' Maybe Bob Ryan, who has been very close to them and met with 12 them, would have a better feel fsr their fine thinking than I 13' have.
This was about a two-page telegram that came from them, 14 and I'm synthesizing from that summary.
15:
Congress should take action to expedite and encourage 16 regions and state arrangements to enable joint planning efforts 17 without maintaining any particular methcd.
18 i An adequate opportunity for public participation 19 in facility site planning at an_aarly stage must be further 0
developed and utilitises should disclose utility plans at 21 earliest possible time.
I 22 l Which reminds me, this is the first energy meeting l
23 or forum meeting that I've attended where everybody didn't 24 ace ? auo: weeen. 'ee.} unicad on open and advance planning, so maybe it's an idea 25 '
lwhosetimehassemi-ccme.
I 33 I
Now the governors want to establish a system of I
21 early site reviews with separate -- with the site analysis
]
3! separated from the review.
i l
4]
They want the development of an inventory of suitable 1
5 ' sites which they f eel would speed licensing significantly.
6 They want a coordination of federal efforts under 7: a lead agency, and they want a one-stop licensing process for 8lthestates.
They say that we need a national policy for i
9J dealing with rad wastes and the states should have strong 1
10 influence in the development of that policy, but with the 1
II h:l Federal Government retaining authority for final decision.
12.
COMMISSIONER-GILINSKY :
Let's see.
Why can't they 13: organize themselves tor licensing in the state if they want IA' to?
15' MR. SEAPAR:
Well, they're trying to suggest a
'i 101 policy that should apply to all states, and urging this as a
.i 17 ! desired goal for the states and for concepts that ought to be i
I 18 j included in any licensing reform legislation, and many of, if i
19"not all, not all but most of the state concepts are reflected 20 in this bill in one way or another.
Whether or not it's 21 satisfactory, the way it's been implemented, I don't think we 22 l know.
I i
23,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One reason --
24 I MR, SEAPAR:
Finally, they say that in the interim, Ac
.a.,oi a. core.,s. :nc. l 25 l pending the incorporation of such comments and a licensing i
i
i 34 I l reform bill, there cught to be more federal-state joint 2
activities, including common use of a data base for environ-3 mental reviews and concurrent hearings, joint hearings.
4 I might tell you that I had about two conclusiens 5
I gave at the end of my talk.
I said that -- I made the point LAN S,6' that Chairman JWer7 asked me to make, that it was the only ball 7-game in town from their perspective, and I said that how much 8
prominence -- the real question for them to decide was how 9' much prominence they should give to it.
10' I didn't seem to get much argument in either dis-111 cussions I had afterwards, or questioning after.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You say it's the only ball 13' game in town and you know right now there are no plans being 14, ordered, so what's the hurry?
We're going to have loads of 15 time to sit down and think abcut what we want to do.
16i MR. SHAPAR:
I think you have asked two questions.
I 17JWhy move now?
I think the answer that DOE might give wculd be
- 18. that this is a new administration, everybody says the present 19 system is bad, that there's a certain --
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSXY:
That's for different reasons.
21 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, exactly, different reasons, but l
22 jnobcdy likes the present system.
The intervenors certainly 1
23l don't like it, and the industry certainly doesn't like it, and i
24 fdispassionate observers like Harold Green don't like it.
4Meosect Recor*ers, !rac.
25-MR. CASE:
But a much better reason is that --
i i
1 1
35
'l 1
MR. SHAPAR:
Ed Case is really the only one who 3
2 likes it, because he's comfortable.
3 MR. CASE:
You'll get the advantages out of this 4
bill for years to come and you had better start working on
- l l
5' them now.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But a year doesn't make 7
much -- we're talking about -- a year doesn' t make much dif f erence.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The argument has been raised 1
i9q by a number of industries and indeed a number of the financing l
10 l communities, is that if it isn't straightened out and if there 11' isn't scme major improvements, there aren't going to be any 12 decisions about nuclear plants, and the ionger that situation 13: obtains the less likely it is that the major vendors are going 14; to continue their investments in the plant facilities necessary 15, to obtain business, and there's only a very limited time left 1
't 161 to remedy that situation.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but it's kind of a 18 l self-serving argument to rush pecple into a different kind of I
I 19 ~ a bill.
20:
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't think it proposes 21 to rush them into anything.
22' MR. SEAPAR:
It's sort of a difficult question be-23 ' cause with the number of applications we have now, the small
'l 24 l number of applications, almost any system, no matter how Ace *ederal taccreers. Ix..!
25 l intolerable, could handle it, is my own perception.
No matter l
i
g 36
}
1I how bad, talking about the small number of license applications
.i 2
we are processing now, you know, we could live with almost 3
anything.
d 4'
The objective has always been to foresee the day 5
when the financial crurch would be over, the problems that 6
are inhibiting applications were resolved from --
7:
COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Isn't the principal problem 8
that they don't see the demand?
I mean, there are something 9: like 70 plants out there that have construction permits and 10! construction is proceeding at a very rapid pace.
In some cases 11, that would be because they didn't have cash, but my impres-i 12i sion is that the money situation has improved a great deal from 13! what it was a couple of years ago.
1 14j MR. SHAPAR:
Well, the demand has gone down, too.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think they are just not 16 ; sure what the demand is going to be and they are holding off.
17 MR. SHAPAR:
I think there are three main reasons.
18 Number one is money; number two, predictions of growth haven't 19 eventuated; and, number three, the instabilities of the licensing i
20 ] process, at least from their perception, rightly or wrongly.
h 21 I think in a close call any one of those three could 22 tip the scale and make them go fossil.
23; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, they are not really 24, going fossil, either.
They are not buying the --
Ace Feoeroi Reoorters, Inc.jl 25 MR. SHAPAR:
I think some urilities have announced i
i
1 37 I
they are going coal because they are exasperated with the --
2 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Indeed they have said so.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Very few, and some of them i
I 4 l instead of holding otf are buying turbines, but they are 5
really not doing much of anything right now, is my impression.
6:
MR. SHAPAR:
Okay, but they say there is a need to 7
change the system because they at ieast foresee the time when 8 ) the applications will increase and they need a system that can 9
accommodate that kind of an eventuality.
)
10 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, I wouldn't argue that II' we ought to be thinking about improvements in the system, but 12' I guess I don't see the need for moving ahead with something 13: which isn't very satisfactory.
t 14~
MR. SEAPAR:
Well, that's another question.
15 MR. CASE:
Is it ever going to get much more i
I 16 ' satisfactory?
I don't know.
Given the forces of play --
l
.I 17 /
CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One can only look at short-a i
18 j term history over the past three months, ani. answer the ques-19 ; tion on the basis of that.
20' MR. SHAPAR:
That's part of the reason for the 21 present process not being liked.
We put little bandaids on it i
22 through the years and we have a system that no longer has the 23 coherency that it once had.
That's part of the problem.
24 But what I thought your question was, Commissioner, ses,a.,rai hace m. inc. j 25 ' was whey is it the only ball game in town.
I wasn't using that l
l l
s
ll 38
.a I
phrase trom a time sequence, that this licensing reform 2'
legislation has been discussed and debated for four years and 1
3j no one has come up with an alternative.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Except Harold Green.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Actually, most of his 6-suggestions, from what I saw, are already being put in effect.
7 MR. NELSON:
Just one comment on a point he made 8
earlier, Howard, and that's this notion I think GE suggested 9h knocking NEPA review at the OL stage.
1 10 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
Il MR. NELSON:
I went to the seminar there that 12 L Arthur Murphy put together in October.
E.e would like to do 1
13 that and that was largely an industry group and they all 14! thought it was a great idea, and Bob Lof ten was complaining
- 15. about litigating NEPA power at the OL stage, which I must say 16 ! did strike me as a little odd.
17 I think you can make scme kind of reasonable case, 18 qbecause once you've built the damned thing let's not do l9 another NEPA review, but the way it's written now, we have to.
20' Murp hy, incidentally, is going to be ccming cut 21 around the first of the year with yet another study.
22 ]
MR. SHAPAR:
He talked about that in Miami and he 1
23 ;said it wculd be coming out about the middle of anuarv.
I 24 I think those are the --
w.e,mi ww.n. t,c. ]
25 l CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Howard, one other thing.
l ll
39 1
As I understand your December 9th paper, I think 2
the current draft would overrule the Seabrook decision.
3!
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, it would, and that's one of the 4
comments that we made on your behalf and they have not picked i
5 it up.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They picked it up for a while, 7-didn't they?
8l MR. SHAPAR:
And then they backed off.
I 9i By the way, one important point that I really l
10 q should make.
This policy paper is being pulled together at 11 OMB.
This is a point I made at an earlier meeting.
y-12J Someone asked at the meeting is there going to be l
13 an opportunity for people to see it, and OMB was very evasive 14 about it, and I made the point at the meeting that if there 15 ; was any such meeting, obviously NRC was -the most directly 3
i 16 j affected agency.
i 17 I'm merely making the point that 1
18 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why can't we en the basis of 19 I the draf t that we now have, ence again make comments and send l
20 l them directly to OMB, indicating to the staff that these are 21 for the paper preparation and we are accordingly forwarding i
22 j these ccmments to the director because we think they are 23 { material to whatever draf t they may be preparing, and we woulc 2IlappreciatetheirbeingcarriedforwardtothePresident to ce feseral Repor*vrs..nc. ;
a 25 !be used in the Nuclear Regulatory C = mission.
l l
40
- .=
If MR. SEAPAR:
Okay, I make only one comment and 2 -
that is when you all developed your positions, that was scme 3
time ago, maybe two months ago, something like that, and there 4-'
has been some water that has gone over the dam.
5 I really raise the question wouldn't you want to 6;
give the discussion that's going on, I would think you would 7'; want to reconsider to see whether or not
-- I always say at 0
all these meetings that I cannot give them a Commission posi-9l tion, that this is a suggestion that the Commission made at a 10 given point in time and that each commissioner had the option i
11
to review the prior comments cased on today's circumstances, 12l and I've made that point repeatedly.
13!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Certainly.
Why can't we Id do that?
We ought to be able to do that in relatively short 15 order.
16 MR. SEAPAR:
Let me just dig out the old ccaments I7 - that have not been accommodated, compile them in the form of a 18 letter of comment if you like and let you all look at them again I9 and see if you still feel the same way.
'O COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe, given the shortness 21 l of memory --
22' MR. SEAPAR:
We can do it relatively quickly as a 23 ' first step, and then maybe we can have another meeting and 24 lwe could go down each of them and see how you all feel.
4eJeoe,al teoorters, :nc..;
25 I You'll also have a crack at it obviously in the
j 41 I'
legislative process, but I think if you still want to make 2'
your point, you ought to try to do i'. --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If we're going to put a 4
paper before the Presid ent, on which he is going to be called 5
upon to make some decisions on policy questions, it seems to 6
me reasonable to suppose that the agency which. would then m
7' administer whatever it is, in large part whatever it is that 1
8 he decides, ought to have an opportunity to present views in 9:
these matters, and I suspect that he would appreciate having it.
10 Thus, on those grounds alone, we are at least II obligated.
If they choose not to send them to him, that's i
I2 their choice, but they should be asked to make that choice.
13' MR. MALSCH :
There's one other thing.
The Commission 14 has never formally taken a position on the CEQ suggestions, 15' which is one of the main issues before the President, or will 16: be, presumably.
They were not addressed in the conte::t of the 17' OMB draft when the Commission last prepared comments.
I 18 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If you are talking about 19" preparing such a paper --
20 [l MR. SEAPAR:
What I will do is simply provide you 21lwithadocument that will identify, number one, the points that I
22 ' the NRC made before, at least what we cali the NRC version, 23 ' that have not been adequately taken care of in the December 1 1
24l version, and, number two, those points that have been raisec ns.ce,ci mc~n. 'ec. j 25 lby CEQ on which NRC has taken no position up to ncw.
I l
l l
42 1
CO:1MISSIONER GILINSKY :
I guess I'd like to have 2
the eneral ounsel's office coaments, too.
gd) 3 MR. SHAPAR:
I wouldn't comment.
I would Just.
'l
(
4j] provide you with a list.
5 MR. NELSON:
Is Howard going to write something?
ll MR. SHAPAR:
We'll prepare a list and let you look 6]
il 7;I at it.
'l 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Brief comment?
9 MR. JASKE:
Howard commented on the state governors' 10!
resolution.
I'm familiar with the genesis of it.
11' That particular resolution was generated by a sub-Il 12 ' committee of the governors' association staff.
It was pre-I in full meeting.
It was 13 h sented to the governors in Detroit 1
14 j debated on the floor, amendments were made to it, and all 50 154 governors voted in favor of that resolution.
0 16 h It was not, as you say, just a staff product.
It 1
17 ', was in fact, they had, every governor present had an opportunity 18 to accept or modify the resolution.
19-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you.
20, Does that pretty well cover it?
21,
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, unless there is somebody else I i
22 '; can be helpful with.
23.
(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., Briefing was concluded.)
th 42 24
.~m m
25