ML19261B719
| ML19261B719 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/08/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7902280546 | |
| Download: ML19261B719 (39) | |
Text
%
l' CL NU CLEAR REGULATO RY COMMISSIO N-IN THE M ATTE O F.
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON NRC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS INCLUDING SITING & LICENSING AND OMNIBUS LEGISLATION Place - Washington, D. C.
Octa - Thursday, 8 Februarf 1979 pages 1-38
.cm,.-
(202) *.47 *.~CC x_
ACE -:wEH.C RISORT,INC.
WWm 7902286s %
m s m,.,. u -
wc:ning:n I.C.:ccc1 NAUCNWICE COVE"RACc. C A!!.Y
- l..'
- CR2639
-(
.s_
.\\
}
e.
DISCLAIMER-This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8 Februarv 1979 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, it. W., '.iasnington, D.
L,.
The meeting was c;:en to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, correctad, or editad, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tional purposes.
As p'rovided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions or opinion in this transcriot do not necesserDy reflect final determinations,or, beliefs.
- to pleading or oc per may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the resul er or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commissica may authorize.
p O
3 e
d' e
g" 0
2 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,
PUBLIC MEETING I
4!
BRIEFING ON NRC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS INCLUDING 5
SITING & LICENSING AND OMNIBUS LEGISLATION 6
7 Room 1130 1717 H S treet, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
9 Thursday, 8 February 1979 10 1 The Commission-met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m.
I 11 BEFORE:
12 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner l
l 15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner j
i 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner
{
17 PRESENT:
1 18 Messrs. Bickwit, Stoiber, Hoyle, Maloch, Gossick, Mallory, i
19 Conver, Bryan, and Slagge.
l 20 l
l 21 22 23 i
24 Ace. Federal Recorters. Inc.
25 j
3 2639.01 RMG 1 1
2 R g q E E E 1 E E y, 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we cculd come to order on this 3
subj e ct.
4 What I would like to do this morning between new 5
and approximately noon is see if we could deal expeditiously 6
with the cmnibus legislation package that Carlton has -- the 7
General Counsel's office under Carl Stoiber and officials have 8
sent up to us.
9 I would like to get squared away on these things, i
i 10 1 to know which of these we would like to once more send forward. '
11 I am going to recommend that we send all of them 12 forward, but we need to do it, and it is.a piece of overall 13 legislative package that could be dealt with, I think, if 14 gotten on track and on the way for preparation and going up 15 to the Congress.
I 16 These are all proposition. vnich the Commission has 17 discussed previously and has previously agreed to be proposed t
18 to the Ccngress.
19 Now. some of then wect formally last year and at least one of them, but was the subject of Ccmmission discussionj 20 21 and so on.
There is a considerable background on these.
I 22 don't want to suggest that I claim thereby that this morning's 23 l discussion and decision are preempted, as it were.
But there 24 is a substantial background on each of these pieces.
WFederal Rooorters. Inc.,
25 So, I would hope that, you know, the discussion coulc,L
4 close rapidly on the issue and I could see where the concensus
~RMG 2 1
~
2" of the 'Cemmission lies en each of them and off we could go.
(Commissioner Bradford enters room at 11:20 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The first one on our list was the 4
5 Civil Penalty proposal.
It seems.to me -- let's see.
I think we actually did get this up last year, didn' t we?
6 We did forward it to the various 7
MR. STOIBER:
8 committees.
Sort of late in a day and it CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
9 10 didn't --
Generally just too full to move on it.
11 MR. STOIBER:
12 It was not introduced.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The proposition, as you will note, 14 I trust you all have the omnibus package.
Peter, have you got it?
15 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Major issues in it.
17 MR. STOIBER:
January 18th memo, Omnibus, NRC 18 legislation.
Would you just like me to cutline what it is?
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess if you don't, I' ll have i
I 20 to.
I would prefer it if you would.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Can we do it briefly?
21' 22 MR. STOIBER:
Yes.
The Civil Penalties suggests us 23 to do two basic things.
No.1, simply to raise the penalty limits which we 24 AceJederal Reoorters, Inc.
can assess against violators of Ccmmission regulations, and the
~
25
5 RMG 3 1
statute we now have has a low limit as compared to other ccm-2 parable agencies in the federal government.
3 We can assess $5000 per violation with a cumulative 4
total of only $25,000 in any 30-day given period.
The recem-5 mendation last year was to raise those limits to S100,000 per 6
violation, and a $300,000 maximum for all violations within a 7
30-day period.
The second element of the package would be to adopt 8
9 an administrative imposition system for assessing these penal-l l
10 !
ties instead of the precant system which requires a collection l
11 action by the Department of Justice to collect any penalty 12 assessed.
13 The basic purpose of this proposal, which is con-14 sistent with the recommendations made by the Administrative 15 Conference of the United States, is to give the Agency greater,
i 16 control over its civil penalty assessment process and to ensure 17 that the benefits we hope to achieve through assessing a penalty 18 presently are not washed away by comercmise or some kind of i
19 settlement over which the Ccmmission cannot control.
I 20 So those are the two basic elsnents of the Civil 21 Penalties legislation.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I reccmmend it to you, gentlemen.'
23 A discussion?
24 COMMISSION KENNEDY:
I concur.
l l
La FMud Roonen. In 25 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask?
I i
6
6 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Of course.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Two questions.
3 One, $100,000 per day, it's a per day, isn't it?
4 MR. STOIBER:
It's a per violation maximum.
Right.
5 If there is a continuing violation, it can be a per day 6
assessment.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was rather astonished to a
see the $300,000 limit and couldn' t understand, particularly 9
after the persuasive language that you use in here, in the 10 language, why the limit wasn't scmething like S10 million.
I 11 MR. STOIBER:
Basically, the reason for selecting 12 a cap figure --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
I think a cap figure is fine.
14 It was just so low, I was surprised.
15
?GL. STOIBER:
Perhaps I ought to defer to some of 16 the folks on the staff level who developed the proposal.
17
'Mr. Conver is here from the MPA.
Perhaps he could 18 speak to why that number was or was not selected.
19 MR. CONVER:
When we originally put this together,
~
20 the primary reason for having a capping figure on it was that i
21 the Director at that time, Mr. Volgenau, felt that the legis-l 22 lation would have a greater chance of passing if it were in 23 roughly the same format as our earlier legislation.
That, to 24 my understanding, is~ the predcminant reason why we would put a 2n m.inc.
25 cap on it.
I
y MG 5 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Steve, I agree with the cap.
2 It was why the cap was so low.
3 MR. CONVER:
Yes.
As to the $300,000 figure, the 1
rationale for that was that when. the civil penalty legislation 4
was originally proposed in 1969, the legislative history indi-5 cates that the civil penalty was envisioned as a measure that 6
should be an intermediate sanction between the notice of 7
violation, which is merely a letter and an order, which is the 8
9 potential to shut down a rt.
10 3 Theref ore, v cried to structure a cap which wculd make the power license less than that of a shut-down, which 11 might involve costs anywhere frcm $300 to % 00 per day.
12 13 So, we were looking for a figure.
$300,000 was not magic, but it seems to be something which would provide us 14 15 this intermediate level sanction.
Raising the p analty well above the $300,000 limit.
16 could create a situation in which the civil penalty was actually 17 l
18 a more severe sanction than an order to suspend a license.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are still at a $100,000 l
20 per day at your maximum?
21 MR. CONVER:
No, not necessarily per day.
Per 22 violation.
23 I will say, however, that Dr. Volgenau at that time expressed the view which Mr. Davis currently subscribes to, 24 l
- e ws namnws.rnc 25 that we would prefer not to have a $300,000.linit.
There is no'l l
8 RMG 6 1
particular rationale for the $300,000.
There is no particular rationale for the 30 days.
I.think it is quite arbitrary.
2 3.
Both the-previous and the current Acting Director I
4 would favor eliminating the $300,000.
However, if the Ccmmis-l e
5 sion decidas to do away with the $300,000, the ' possibility does!
6 exist that it would be somewhat more difficult to administer, 7
in that we might get petitions from people to fine people 8
millions and millions of dollars, in which case the Commission 9
itself would probably be brought into enforcement proceedings, 10 which heretofore have been conducted solely within INE and 11 CLD in the staff.
12 So, there are some --
13 COMMISSIONER AH" M :
Given the experience today 14 of replacement power, when a plant is down for one reason or l
15 another, I just think that $300,000 is such a small amount that; 16 it seemed like a very low cap.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aren' t there also situations -
l 18 where a shut-down really isn't part of the picture.
Supposing ~
l 19 you have a picture where a violation has gone on for a period j
i 20 of time and ceased, but nevertheless, and we find out about it [
l 21 later, but nevertheless regard it as very serious.
l I
22 You wouldn't shut the plant dcwn for prevention, 23 but you might feel a higher penalty was appropriate?
24 MR. CONVER:
Yes.
Am-FewW Recmm, loc 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm more concerned about using l
9 RMG 7 1
shut-downs as a punitive measure.
It seems to me if you shut 2
down plants, if they are not safely operated, you can conform 3
it to regulations.
But --
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I wasn't try to imply that 5
that was a punitive measure.
I was responding to the --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The suggestion was the most 7
punitive measure was a shut-down.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think the point was the 9
most expensive measure wasua shut-down.
I 10 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought we were talking l
I 11 about a range of punitive measures, which is what a fine is.
12 MR. CONVER:
The legislative history is -- has 13 several references to NRC enforcement actions.
Indicates that i
14 they are not to be punitive in nature.
That is not in the 15 legislation itself, but in the Congressional report.
I 16 here has been a continuing debate among the Staff
~
l i
17 about whether any enforcement actions, including civil penalties,
18 should be punitive.
l' 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you regard fines?
l 20 MR. CONVER:
I personally regard them as having i
21 punitive overtones and I think --
22 MR. BICKWIT:
They shouldn't be called penalties.
23 MR. CONVER:
If the Commission decides to move from l
24 the request for a higher penaltv authority, I think it is clear t
AwFMwd Rworun, lm.,
25 that if the Congress approves it, that would be a clear I
I I,
4 f
10 38 i
indication that they, too,. regard the penalties as punitive, 2
not simply as corrective, as was suggested by the legislative 3
history.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Seems to me John raises an 5
important point here.
6 MR. MALLORY:
I think there was a point raised.
It 7
was going to sound like a criminal penalty.
There was some 8
concern about that back when 234 was enacted.
9 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is there any rule of thumb i
i 10 1 from experience as to what the normal ratio between what the l
l 11 daily amount and the ceiling is in legislation imposing civil 12 penalties?
13 MR. MALLORY:
I don't know.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Page 8 of this paper, of the 15 data that will be forward with the proposal, says maximum civil, i
16 penalty authority of transportation are $800,000.
Consumer 17 Product Safety Ccemission, $500,000.
Food and Drug Administra-.
18 tion, $300,000.
Useful for comparision, it says.
19 Some other agencies have per violation limits between l
20
$1000 and $10,000 with no maximum limits.
But obviously, if you 21 are talking about a per violation --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Per violation in that case 23 is EPA, and each individual car is a per violation.
For example, 1
24 they fine Ford Motors $7 million on a per violation basis.
i al Recorten, Iric. '
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Even without the per car l
11 basis, you have the paper mentions the Allied Chemical fine of RMG 9 1
2
$13 million.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Suppo :e you had a case where 3
i records were f alsified, something was not reported to us, which' 4
wa:sn't at the present time relevant to the safety of the plant, 5
but yet was a violation that you were very much concerned about 6
7 it?
It would seem to me just totally inappropriate to 8
9 shut down the plant.
I 10 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My real point had been that l
I 11 the $100,000 seems fine.
That is a realistic increase to put "But the maximum ceiling 12 in.
But to then ecme around and say:
13 is $300,000," seemed to undercut.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Well, the logic of the 14 a new category of position was that starting at that point, 15 I
16 penalties comes into play.
But, I really wonder whether we have 17 such penalties.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not saying, obviously, 18 i
that therefore, it always ought to be =p at that upper limit.
l 19 l
It is just too -- seems to be unwise to artificially constrain i 20 21 it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it is useful to have a 22 is reasonable.
cap on the thing, and it seems to me that S300,000 23 It certainly indicates the range that things can go up to.
24 Are-Federal Recorters, Inc. ;
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree with that.
25 I
i
9 12 RMG 10 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The other agencies that are 2
mentioned, 5300,000, S500,000, $800,000 --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the logic of the That is obviously -- I suppose it makes it politically 4
cap?
5 sort of acceptable.
But --
6 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's not a bad commitment
~
7 to make.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think it is a realistic 8
appreciation that government sometimes acts in a heavy-handed 9
i 10 1 way.
11 MR. BICKWIT:
Also, you don't have the judicial
'i You have proceeding that you have in a criminal proceeding.
i 12 scme review.of the Agency's acceptance, but the Agency is 13 14 functioning as a court in the first instance.
I think that is probably a stronger reason for a 15 i'
cap where you are talking about administrative 1y imposed 16 17 penalties.
I 18 MR. STOIBER:
I think, on balance, it is true that
}
the majority of the agencies that have civil penalty authority 19 i
1' do have a cap written in the statute, particularly in the 20 consumer product area which you mentioned have a per item j
21 22 penalty, which can run up pretty high.
23 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
EPA's cap must have been 24 high enough to get --
{
2 COMMISSIONER AHEAmTE:
I think EPA has a cap.
They
13 RMG 11 1
have a per violation.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And each day can be a new 3
one?
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And each vehicle.
5 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
I would be in favor of 6
a ca' in the middle.
7 COMMISSIONER BRA 9FOon:
I would, too.
It is not 8
inconceivable that you could run into a situation that has 9
serious -- which was ultimately in the $5 million range.
I 10 1 MR. STOIBER:
I think the only problem with a penalty 1
11 in the millions of dollars is somehow, justifying the figures l
12 which you choose.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Carl, I think --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A number of the other penal-15 ties that are justified, that run into the millions of dollars,;
i 16 are those deemed to have -- I think for the most part, well, no'.
17 I guesh Kepone is a different matter.
MR. STOIBER:
It is a matter of justifying the 18 i
19 statutue, if you want a very, very high peralty.
It is better l
20 to have an unlimited, as in the EPA situation, than trying to 21 put an extremely-high number, which would have difficulty 22 relating to any fact.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think if you can justify 24 the $100,00 a day violation, doesn't seem at all unreasonable Am Fews meeran. !s j l
25 l to argue that there may be cases where that will last 30, 60 l
14 RMG 12 1
days.
2 MR. CONVER:
Sir, if I c'ould interject one more 3
Point?
Another factor is:
If the Commission chooses to have 4
an upper limit, I guess another factor that would argue in 5
favor of the $300,000 is if the Staff reserves the maximum 6
$100,000 penalty for the most serious of violations in the 7
Category I violations, past history would suggest that it would be quite unusual to find a series of these very serious 8
violations, each of which would merit the maximum $100,000, t
9 i
10 1 thus adding up to a total much greater than S300,000.
l 11 I guess those instances in which we would expect to 12 have a large number of very serious violations would be most 13 rare.
So --
14 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Certainly.
Of course, that I
15 would be very rare.
But what you need the higher limit for is !
I' 16 to adequately address those rare but very serious cases.
I i
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It seems to me there is a I
very great difference between the kind of thing we are talking '
18 19 about the EPA kepone question, for example.
i Let's think about what the factual. situation is.
20 l
We are talking about a situation in the case of a reactor that 21 l
would approach the kind of situation arising in the kepone f
22 I
23 situation.
We would have closed down because of the enormous 24 impact on the public health and safety.
AmfewW Reornn, lm.
So, the question of fines wouldn't necess.ily arise; 25 l t
15 RMG 13 1
at all.
We would have already ascertained that releases or 2
whatever were so serious as to require that the plant be shut 3
down and fixed.
4 Now, on the other hand, if we are talking about the 5
day-to-day sort of proposition, we are now talking about things 6
that are going to run on for great long periods, as has been 7
sugc ested, t' hat justify a $100,000 per day penalty for any 8
Period of time.
We are talking more about the sorts of things that 9
10 1 it seems to me we do see, where something has been determined, 11 the utility, the operator has been advised, the situation is 12 corrected and we ascertain that, in fact, a penalty for the 13 violation is appropriate.
14 And it is not running over long periods of time.
15 Again, if we are talking about trying to compcre this with the 16
$7 million Ford Motor Company problem, it is Act that kind of 17 a problem.
It just isn't.
18 There is a situation in which the direct impact on 19 the public health and safety was so great that it warranted 20 a S7 million fine or something.
But we wouldn't run into that !
21 kind of a problem.
You would have shut the plant down.
22 Otherwise we are not doing our job in supervising operating 23 reactors.
24
- We are using penalties in lieu of our supervisory I
A>FiewW Reorwn.im,
25 i responsibilities to protect the public health and safety.
I
16.
RMG 14 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If we had seen it prospec-2 tively, it appears to me --
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm sorry?
I 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In other words, if we saw 5
it and it was right at that time when the event was occurring, 6
but if it was retrospectively we found out that this had
~
7 happened and you were laying a fine on it, I guess I'm --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wait.
If we are affecting<~
the public health and safety, how retrospectively are we going.
9 10 to find it out?
That's a serious question.
11 If it is going to be so long that this $300,000 12 question would arise, we have got another problem altogether, 13 that arranging for limits of fines isn't going to correct.
14 That is a different issue.
We have got to talk to Harold and 15 John Davis about how we are conducting our business.
16 MR. STOIBER:
The situation which arose in kepone 17 penalty, for example, I assume that since the Federal Water 18 Pollution Control Act, penalties of $10,000 per day, and you 19 take a look into the $13.2 million figure, you are talking about I
20 four years of pollution here, which was, you know, discovered 21 and dealt with after the fact.
I hope --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not familiar with the 23 kepone issues, especially to know whether it was $10,000 a day 24 and whether it was several events or an individual day.
I don't I
A>FewW Roomn. im 25 l know that.
t
17 RMG 15 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Take an awful lot of events 2
at $10,000 per day to make $13 million.
In any event, no matter 3
how it was done.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My concern is if we recognize; 5
that there are sufficiently serious events which may lead to 6
the requirement to use.the $100,000 per day --
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We keep saying per day, but it I
8 is per event.
It may be that it is per day, but not necessarily.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
It may be. I don't 10 1 understand.
Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I just want to be sure I 12 understand it.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't understand if we do 14 see the necessity for having that kind of a capability, why we 15 don't similarly see a necessity for recognizing that it may be ;
i 16 a per day event, and it may then require a continuation over 17 several days, many days, or maybe a month.
18 In this case, I don't see why we put the artificial i
i 19 constraint on us if it isn't going to happen.
That is, if the event doesn't arise and doesn't extend over that period of time!
20 21 then that limit would never be reached.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And a couple of other points.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't understand where that i
24 leads you.
wrmesnwomn.w-25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It leads me to ask for the l
t
18 RMG 16 I
higher limit so that if that serious event did occur and it was 2
a per day and there were many days, that we wouldn't turn out 3
to have been precluded by putting it on a cap.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Seems to me if it wasn't an i
5 event that justified a
$1000 fine per day and it went on, 6
we have got differenu problems altogether.
And that is, how 7
we are cutting our business.
That is what I am trying to say.
8 This is not a kind of a business in which we could allow that 9
to happen.
l 10 And my understand is indeed, and I hope that I am l
going to have that confirmed, that in fact the Staff is working {
11 12 on that presumption as well.
The Staff is not covering the 13 fact that it is unable to do its public health and safety job 14 by having a higher penalty authority.
I hope not.
And I am 15 confident it is not true.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the point of the 17 penalties?
18 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, it is not --
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It provides an intermediate jog l
20 between a letter saying you are in violation of the provision 21 which requires you to have two portal detectors.
You only j
l 22 have ene.
You are not meeting the agreements we have under 23 the license.
Please do something about it.
24 It provides an intermediate grade between sending Am4WwW Rgomm, Inc 25 two or three progressively more savagely worded letters of that,e
19 a
e RMG 17 1
kind and saying, you know, that's it, you've torn our patience 2
ultimately up, shut the damn plant down.. But it is useful 3
to have n intermediate sort of smacking.
4 And I: think the calling of attention to a situation,
5 like that, on up the management chain of utility, improves 6
as you be cme involved with dollars.
7 tiow, there is a considerable body of opinion that holdsthathhepresentcivilpenaltylimits,becausetheydo 8
9 involve dollars, are adequate for the purpose.
i 10 (Commissioner Gilinsky leaves room at 11:45 a.m.)
I i
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Staff has felt that on occasion l
12 they would like to have a little more leeway.
My own impression 13
.is that there is a substantial stepping upward to reach the 14
$100,000.-
15 If you want a better ratio between $100 and $300, i
16 insteadofincreasingtheS300,000to$3or$10million,whichl t
'17 strikes me as getting peculiar and out of the range of reasonable i
18 propositions, cut the $100,000 for each violation.
I 19 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Even if you assumed the i
I 20 average fine was $50, the $300 was still too low.
But, it was 21 equivalent to $50,000 vie:ation per week.
22 The other point, though, which I think John made 23 earlier, is that $300,000 against the entities in question here, l
24 it certainly is not-hard to hypothesize a situation in which A>FewW Rummws. Inc it would be a lot cheaper to incur a $300,000 fine than to shut 25 '
l i
20 RN, 18 1
down and fix something.
2 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They are not either-or 3
propositions.
Again, surely the Staff will stand up and say that that is an inconceivable proposition.
If the thing is 4
supposed to be shut down, it is going to be shut down with an 5
6 order.
That's a decision we are going to make.
~
7
'Isn't that true?
8 MR. BRYAN:
That's correct.
I'm Sam --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Please make that on the l
i 10 1 record.
l 11 MR. BRYAN:
I'm Sam Bryan from INE.
I would like I
12 to read you the criteria for civil penalties.
13
" Civil penalties are imposed to those cases of 14 noncompliance with the same basic manner as those cases of 15 noncompliance in which the licensee fails to carry out in a l
16 timely manner corrective actions and those cases involved 17 deliberate failure of a person to ccmply with regulatory I
18 requirements, and those cases involving items of nonccmpliance '
I in which the licencee's history is one of chronic noncompliance {
19 l
20 due to the nature and number of the items."
21 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
The mere fact that you 22 mentioned that means you are not going to couch them in three 23 days.
24 MR. BRYAN:
If it is a matter of health and safety, Am FewW Rgenes. Inc,
25 '
an order immediately effective is issued to cease and desist l
l i
21 RMG 19 1
or to modify the license to change.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you catch it.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you mear, if you catch I
4 it?
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Supposing it goes on for 6
a couple'of months?
Is it inconceivable that anything affecting the health and safety would be undetected by NRC inspections 7
8 by more than two or three days?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you do if it goes un-10 1 detected by the licensee?
He's got a crack in a pipe and he I
11 doesn't catch it until the next time he does and what are we 12 going to do?
13 COMMISSIONEF. BRAaf0AD:
The problem occurred isn't 14 in a situation unless something else was the problem, one in t goes undetect ed and unacted upon, those would be the
!5 which 4 16 more serious violations.
17 If we really think those things are inconceivable, 18 we don't need civil renalties at all.
I 19 (Commissioner Gilinsk! reenters room at 11:50 a.m.)
I 20 CHAIRMAN !!ENDRIE:
What do you think civil penalties; l
21 are for?
The guy didn't do the pat-down search.
He only got i
I 22 to la percent on his pat-down search if he doesn't like pat-23 down searches and he thinks it is a downright bad idea and l
I 24 this is the 14th time he 's gotten it.
It hasn't quite reached A =.F e n s n um m m.inc,
25 '
20 percent, and so on.
1 i
22 You say, " Confound it."
You have got some regula-KMG 20 1
2 tions and you hit him with S5000 or so.
3!
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There seems to be a sense --
I believe that they will use judgnent in i
I trust the Staff.
4 5
applying the penalties.
CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I mean, rather than applying 6
the penalties I am a good deal more concerned and trust the 7
8 Staff that', in fact, they are watching out for the public Because that is what they get paid for and,.
9 health and safety.
I, 10.
indeed, so do we.
I I
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSHY:
Following on that point, we always say that the primary responsibility for health and 12 13 safety was with the utilities.
14 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Supervised carefully and 15 closely by the Ccmmission.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
But we stress the i.
Our reviews 17 fact that what we do is audit their performance.
I are in effect the audit of the design and inspections are really 18 l
i 19 an audit of their own quality assurance system.
I I don't think we pretend to look down in every 20 i
detail or either design or the constru= tion or the operatica I
2 '.
I 22 of the facility.
It is not inconceivahle that things get by us.
l MR. GCSSICK:
That happens.
I think the point is 23 i
once having discovered that scmething pot by you and perhaps 24 AeFewd Rummm, lm';
try to have a 25! got by the licensee, you go back and, zou know, i
I i
I
23
~
RMG 21 1
fine structure where you zap him or us for not having seen it.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In one case, we fined a 3
licensee that was regarded as a material false statement.
4 In other words, failing to supply material that was considered i 5
relevant to the proceedings.
6 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And everybody considered 7
that wholly appropriate, indeed.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But can you see the situa-9 tion?
10 !
COMM.ISSIONER KENNEDY:
No question c. bout that.
l i
i 11 MR. GOSSICK:
Here's some stuff that has been in 12 the plant.
Somebody shows it to us and the licensees.
There 13 were problems with it.
I don't know.
Do you go back and levy 14 a fine for having connectors that ' hey thought were qualified?
15 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
I's n'ot saying that we levy i
I I
16 this fine at this level.
I am just trying to say that I think 17 we ought to have the possibility out to be there.
I 18 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Let's consider the case of a
I 19 the material false statement.
I think as it turned out, the l
20 documents in question did not play a major role in the sub-l l
21 sequent proceedings.
Well, they weren't submitted but more 22 hazy on the fact here, let's suppose you think of another 23 circumstance where, in fact, the document pointed to a fault 24 in a fact.
i Am.FewW Rnmnus, Inc 25 '
It was decided that that was just a critical element
24 RMG 22 1
in the construction of the facility.
It would not have been 2
constructed had you.known about it, et estera, et cetera, et 3
cetera.
It just may be a really major item.
4 CRAIM!AN HENDRIE:
I don't think you would attempt l
5 to deal with that on a civil penalty basis.
Certainly not 6
wholly on a civil penalty basis.
dOMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Go back and have it fixed.
7 3
MR. GCSSICK:
The reason that John and Ernie came 9
forward to raise these limits were inflation there.
Under by 10 about a factor or four.
l 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The only question is the 12 limits, the upper limits.
13 MR. GOSSICK:
I understand.
And the fact is, you I
14 know, it just seemed incongruous to have all these small fines 15 on something.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In a sense it seems to me - !
17 I'm sorry.
18 MR. GOSSICK:
The only point I was trying to make, t
19 I think generally, it was the intent of INE to get these at 20 least modernized to the point of inflation and also to establish l
21 a scmewhat higher limit that would recognize an event for an end 41 22 incident that it seemed to require.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Their logic does seem to l
i 24 put the upper limits at $300,000 or thereabouts.
I am asking ha-FMwM Rwomn tn,
2$ '
here, what is the logic?
1 I
25 4
RMG 23 i
- Fining, for instance, licensees, and 2
therefore some notion of a limit would flow from that -- I 3
think sounds like we are not agreed on what the fines are.
And I
i I
4 therefore, different views on how high they ought to go.
5 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought I knew what they 6
were for.
Why don't you tell me what you think they are for?
7 MR. BRYAN:
If I might interject.
We use a civil 8
penalty to achieve maximum compliance with a regulation.
- There, 9
is a body of requirements on licensees that number perhaps in
~
l 10 i the thousands.
Our inspection program turns up items of l
11 noncompliance.
We are using civil penalties to achieve the j
12 maximum compliance and in the fashion I described to you 13
. earlier when I gave you our criterion.
14 So, that is a basic purpose of the civil penalty.
l 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In other words, they are l
16 essentially not punitive neasurements?
17 MR. BRYAN:
That's correct.
I I
18 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Their absence is an incen-i 19 tive.
I 20,
MR. BRYAN:
The flavor change somewhat suggect:
21 higher in the amount of the penalty.
We also felt that we 22 could administer from the program, if we could, on a limit of 23 this sort, without interposing to the Commission in several l'
24 of these decisions,-makes it a better administrative tool for A=-sers nummm. inc,
25 '
us to use.
1
26 RMG 24 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If that's true, that it is 2
an incentive system, the last thing you want would be a situa-3 tion in which it were cheaper to pay the penalty than to go 4
on ccmmitting the violation for a while.
5 MR. BRYAN:
That is correct.
We would not allow 6
that.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We hope that is not the 8
alternative'.
9 MR. BRYAN:
If that continued, we would order him i
10 I to issue an order.
l I
11 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We have always argued, 12 at least I have heard it said many times here, that the real 13 penalty is the publicity and not the mnount of money, and so 14 on.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Takes a little more money to get i
16 the same publicity these ' days because of inflation, and I don't!,
i 17 know if you want it to go up from $5 and $2S to S20 and $100.
i l
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We should perhaps have i
I.
19 authorized the taking out of a box advertisement in the local l
20 newspaper announcing cur action.
f 21 CCMMISSTONFR F-IEINSEY :
And tha 1_icensee has to pay 22 for the ad.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure.
24 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That pretty well fixes it.
e.Fewd Rgomes. Inc 25 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we approach noon.
I must k
I I,
27 say, I have some reluctance to go up and talk about a modest MG 25 1
and reasonable increase in civil penalty levels for the 2
Commission and then talk about multimillion dollar cap figures.
3.
I CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree if we are i
4 5
going --
.n earlier, I guess if you MR. STOIBER:
fiy suggest 6
find ycurself in that position, just go with no cap and 7
explain thi's all to the Congress and then decide what level 8
9 they think is appropriate.
You knew, how could we arrive:
10 1 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
1 at a cap that would have any locic? At least this one has some 11 logi'c in terms of its relationship to the maximum figure.
12 But, you know, I have no idea how you'd arriva at 13 14 another cap.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You would recommend the 15 16
$100,000?'
17 MR. STOIBER:
Per violation.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With no cap.
I 18 i
I think that would be easier to 19 MR. STOIBER:
)
20 respond to the Congress with.
You ought to include in your statement,1 21 MR. BICKWIT:
I that there; tich I think you have all agreed on, li the philosophy 22 is I think if I detect any consensus here, l
23 should be a cap.
4l that there should be a cap.
l 2
A=-rews numrrm. ircl 25l CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm not sure.
I l
t i
28 RMG 26 1
MR. BICKWIT:
With no consensus on what it would be.
2 CCMMISSIONER KE.iNEDY:
Under this particular set of circumstances as contrasted with the kepone matter and 3
I don't as contrasted with the individual automobile cases, 4
see any logic for a cap that runs to millions of dollars.
5 6
MR. BICKWIT:
Do you see a logic for a cap?
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but --
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I understand.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
uut to say that the cap is i
l 10 I that millions of dollars is to sq there is no cap in these l
11 circumstances.
12 MR. STOIBER:
You can always say in your accompanying analysis that the other similarly situated agencies have the
~
13 kinds of caps that we have explained in the paper.
The Congress 14 may wish to consider whether some kind of similar limit is 15 i
16 appropriate here.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We can also say other agencies i
18 don't have a cap, and the Congress might wish to consider that..
I I
19 MR. STOIBER:
Yes.
I 20 MR. BICKWIT:
But is that your position, that there 21 be no cap?
22 CCMMISSIONER AHEAFNE:
I would prefer a cap.
23 MR. BICKWIT:
I think all five Commissioners would i
24 prefer a cap.
l Am.FewW Reorwn. ts,
But if a cap would be a few 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
l,
29 hundred thousand dolla:s versus no cap, I would prefer no cap.
IG 27 I
In saying I would prefer a CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
2 cap, I am accepting a rationale that Congress would accept that'.
3 I have considerable f aith in my own willingness and the fact l
i 4
I don't feel that I will behave rationally and reasonably.
5 somebody has to put a cap on it to prevent me frcm operating _ _
6 7
rationally.
The recent GAO reports on the INE MR. CONVER:
8 enforcement program is reccmnending that we go forward with I
9 00 cap.
But simply-the regulation without recommending a $300,0 i
10 l 11 the $100,000 per violation limit alone.
Well, let's entertain a propo-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
12 sition, if somebody wants to make one.
13 What would you like?
That r
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
l 14 15 the motion go forward?
I can't stand what's already on
.i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
16
- But, paper here, a couple of hundred thousand dollars more.
17 i
l'm going to take exception to higher numbers if they are 18 l
19 proposed.
l if you would like to go with a legislation at 20
- But, I guess the thing to do is 21 a higher number, I don't know.
propose it this way but with a cap at so much and see whether i
22, a majority of the Commissioners would go in that direction.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why don't we go with the i
4l 2
AwJewW Rnomns. Inci 25 I legislation without a cap?
l
30 RMG 28 1
CHAIRMAN HENT
.'E:
Well, that's also a proposition 2
which could be laid before the house.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADROD:
I would propose that just I
4 I because I
't think we are going to agree on a cap figure, i
5 and maybe we can agree on no cap.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will take that as a vote for 7
that proposition.
8
' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will vote for that 9
proposition, providing that the whole matter is going to have 10 i to be written and scme language is going to have to be out in l
I 11 to justify why no cap and assist the Congress in whatever f
12 decision it believes appropriate.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will vecte against it, and I 14 will propose when the matter comes before the Congress, to 15 nake my views known.
i 16 So ordered.
117
-Now, the one thing in terms of getting up, what I
18 about this language to go with it?
I i
19 MR. STOIBER:
Do I assume you all find the adminis-l 20 trative imposition feature acceptableS l
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Without a cap, I have serious f
l 22 concern abcut that, without a cap.
I do not think this Agency 23 ought to be empowered to administrative 1y lay millions of i
i i
24 dollars on anybody.
This or any other agency.
I Am-FewW Recrwrs, lm.
i g
25 I just think that is wrong.
j l,
8
31 RMG 29 1
MR. STOIBER:
There is provision since such a levy 2
is a final order of the Commission, for court review.
It would 3
be merely that the review would be on the record we make, l
rather than a record made de novo in a district court.
4 5
MR. BICKWIT:
But the review would be substantial 6
evidence review, rather than de novo.
In other words, whatever 7
the commission determines would be given substantial weight.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to say, it is one 9
of those abuse-of-discretion determinations, isn't it?
l 10 l MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If it is a review of a Commis-12 sion, final administrative order, in which case the standard 13 is pretty extreme for reversal, isn't it?
14 MR. BICKNIT:
The substantial evidence reviews' 15 past does not accord you as much weight in court as an arbi-16 trary and' capricious standard.
However, it is considerably 17 greater weight than de novo.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
1 I,
19 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess I am going to have I
20 to think about that.
So, on that point, I will at the moment l
21 put a held.
I 22 COMMISSIvNER JHEARNE:
There was also another issue i
23 which General Counsel had sent me scme papers on.
I had raised l
24 the question of the pass-thxough.
The issue I was addressing Aa-FMud Rwornn. In 25 was:
it didn't appear appropriate to me that if a civil
32
. u that civil penalty then in turn be penalty was laid on that,
!G 30 1
passed on to the rate payers.
If I understand your question, 2
I asked that question.
3 I it was two.
4 First, you didn't believe that the legal authority 5
dled.
would exist for us to say how that could be han 6
Well, what I am saying is they are
'MR. STOIBER:
7 constitutional.
substantially 8
for That would solely be COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
i 9'
C is setting those rates not set by FERC to the extent that FER 10 i l
11 rates.
W'e tried to find out some information MR. STOIBER:
12 fram FERC on what those rates would be, and Leo, did you --
13 h
gh j
were you able tc find out anyth1nc about the pass-t rou 14 15 question' Only the paper that was already received MR. SLAGGE:
16 i
d it.
which listed the number -- 18 states that prohib te l'
17 for those I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My question was:
\\
f ratings f 18 ratings that are set by FERC and FERC sets a number o I
i 19 but this l
that are not then adjusted in any way by the states, l
20 i
l; question of the constitutional issue didn' t seem to ar se,
}
l I
21 i
federal government is already setting the rates, i
1 because the
'I Could I ask a question 22 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
23 It was my understanding that we already 4 l along with that?
2 rect?'
public service ecmmissions when we levy fines; is that cor Am#mwW Reorno,lmL; 25 I I
\\,
33 MR. STOIBER:
That's correct.
RMG 31 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So they would be informed 2
and it'would be up to them to deal with the matter?
3 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
My original' question 3
4 could we require it not to be passed through?
3 was:
MR. BRYAN:
May I speak to that?
We presently 6
do not notify the state utility commissions when we do a civil 7
8 penalty.
We do notify state counterparts.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean a state --
9 i
10 i MR. BRYAN:
These are our state contacts in INE.
l 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought we agreed that 12 public utility commissions would be notified.
13 MR. BRYAN:
We have a Ccmmission paper in draf t 14 coming on that, advising you on that.
i 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It has taken a long time.
i 16 I can barely remember.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do the state -- well, i
18 never mind.
That is a discussion we will have when we get there.
I 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That would seem to be one I.
20 way of dealing with.
21 CHAIRWVT HENDRIE:
Well, in any case, this Agency i
and this predecessor's Staf f operating af ter the Atemic Energy i
22 Act dealt with how then safety and national defense and security 23 24 and anti-trust matters.
NEPA has added environmental consid-ha FwwM Rnomn, lm 25 erations.
l
34 RMG 32 1
We never have dealt with economic regulation, and 2
I would be opposed to moving into that area.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This isn't a question of 4
economic regulation, though.
The issue is if we impose a l
5 civil penalty, it is a penalty for an objection in principle, 6
have same intent to be a motivation.
7 My belief is it is a stronger v ;ivation if it is 8
unable to be passed through.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would like to have that l
10 i thought through in terms of the millions of dollars of penalties i
11 we've been talking about earlier in this discussion.
I mn 12 not at all sure what the effect of that would be.
A legislated, 13 not passed through with an unlimited millions of dollars of 14 penalties, it seems to me could have st least the effect of 15 shutting the plant down by way of putting the company in l
16 bankruptcy.
17 I do not think that is the right of this Agency l
18 or any other, nor indeed do I believe such a right ought to I
1 19 be legislated.
20 But, if it were, it ought not to be legislated, l
21 in my judgment, on the recommendation of this Commission.
It 22 ought to be legislated because that's what the Congress of 23 the Uniced States, representing the people of the United States t I
24 who in that case are going to be affected, believe is the A=4ensneomn.w-!
l appropriate case for the people.
That's not our job, in my 25 l
35 RMG 33 1
view.
I just don't have any idea what the effect of some of 2
these propositions are in their cumulative effect.
3 And before I withdraw my vote in this matter, l
4; simply because we are talking about a different set of 5
questions, a different set of premises, until I understand 6
them, I am not voting.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Two remarks.
8 One was that the public utility commissions do deal 9
with these matt ars.
And. informing them would seem to be i
10 !
appropriate.
l I
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As long as it is a utility 12 being fined.
~
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As ' Jng as it is a utility 14 being fined, yes.
The question -- my other remark concerns:
l 15 is it Part 21 that deals with the individual fines or reporting,
I 16 on defects, and so on?
The same question came up there and 17 the Commission originally put in a provision that would have l
18 prevented companies from actually reinbursing employees for I
f 19 fines.
l It was removed over m!y objection.
It is not clear I
20 21 what our authority is in that area, however.
22 MR. MALOCH:
If you wanted to go far, you could 23 prevent the utility from taking it as a tax deduction.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Ne might usefully look at AmfewW Reorun,1%
l 25 that one, too.
l
36 RMG 34 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will suggest to you that it not 2
be considered for this proposed legislation.
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would agree with that.
It 3l l
4 turned out to be a much broader, sticky question.
l 5
MR. STOIBER:
This is a Latter that is typically i
6 dealt with under stata law.
And our research indicates that 7
by far, the vast majority of states that have rules on pass-8 through would prohibit pass-through and in fact, we have found 9
no state that would permit it.
~
l 10 COMMISSIONER FRADFORD:
Steve, did you do that l
l 11 table?
tThere did you get your information?
12 MR. CONVER:
The Office of State and Programs 13 conducted that survey for INE about a year and a half ago.
They 14 got their information from the state liaison officers with.
15 whom they deal with on a weekly or daily basis.
16 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was delighted to see 17 Maine listed on the states we thought would not pass it 18 through.
i 19 MR. CONVER:
It was a telephone surveir.
A lecter 20 was sent, fol'eu up.by phone call, although I am not exactly 21 familiar with the procedures.
1 I
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Now, with regard to the i
1 I
23 thing that remains, that you don' t have a handle on then, is I'
24 what kind of language you write into the discussion with A=-rews neomn. imq l
25 regard to not having a cap.
And the merits of not having a cap 7
7 RMG 35 1
So, I will be blessed if I know any guidance that can 2
be offered by those of you who have voted for this proposition.
3 I think it would be helpful.
Otherwise, General Counsel is 4
not going to be in very good shape to get this package ready 5
to go.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Since I have no idea but I 7
am the one who insists that that language needs to be there, 8
since the Ccngress wouldn't have any idea either, they ought 9
to have some notion of what we are thinking.
I 10 '
I, of course, will look forward to the opportunity I
11 of reviewing carefully whatever is written.
12 MR. STOIBER:
I will tell you what my present inten-13 tion would be, and that is to indicate that other statutes 14 which are equivalent of other agencies to have caps, that 15 the Commission consider carefully whether or not to provide I
I 16 a cap figure before they decide not to, and perhaps decide 17
.that GAO recommendation that no cap be placed.
I 18 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would at least suggest in i
i 19 addition to citing those that do have caps, to cite those that 1
20 l don't.
21 MR. STOIBER:
Oh, yes 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it would be well to 23 see if the legislative history suggests why they don't have 24 caps, see what relevance that may have to the activities this nwvmes nnomn. Ine 25 Agency conducts.
38 RMG 36 1
If we are going to cite those as evidence, the 2
support for the reason why we are notireccmmending one, it 3
seems to me we have -- we ought to have scme idea of what we 4
are recc= mending and why.
5 And right now, I don't.
I am voting for it in this i
6 configuration only because I have no idea what a cap ought to 7
be, if it isn't $300,000.
8 I couldn't find another number, certainly not 9
millions of dollars, because that seems to me for.an agency of.
I 10 t this kind, to be essentially no cap.
11 And secondly, I voted for it because I believe that !
12 there is a need to increase our citil penalty authority.
But 13 not in a way that I believe to be outrageous.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Give it a try.
We will continue 15 this discussion on Friday afternoon at 1:30.
end #2 16 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 12:15 p.m.)
17 18 i
19 t
l 20 21 22 23 24,
McF<WwW Rummm. Inc I
25 l
,