ML19261C975

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Request for Addl Info to Complete Review of QA Program
ML19261C975
Person / Time
Site: 07100110
Issue date: 04/06/1979
From: Macdonald C
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Kraner J
BUCKEYE STEEL CASTINGS (SUBS. OF BUCKEYE INTERNATIONA
References
NUDOCS 7904200311
Download: ML19261C975 (2)
v • d • e


Text

T

..f b

UNITED STATES EV

    • 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f kh j WASHINGTON, 0. C. :C555

% ? M@ l. / '

%.,[1.*

APR 0 6 979 1

FCTR: RHO 71-0110 Buckeye Steel Castings ATTN: Mr. J. F. Kraner 2211 Parsons Avenue Columbus, OH 43207 Gentlemen:

This refers to your application dated June 28, 1978 requesting approval of your Quality Assurance (QA) program as meeting the QA program requirements of 10 CFR 71.51.

In connection with our review, we need the information identified in the enclosure to this letter. Please submit seven copies of your response to the enclosed request for additional information within 30 days following receipt of this letter. Also, please delete Exhibits I and II from the application. While there must be supporting written procedures to implement your QA program, these procedures and forms should not be submitted as part of your QA program plan.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Mr. Jack Spraul at (301) 492-7741.

Sincerely, Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information 7904200311

b

~..:o,,4<

(

.i

/

DISCL'sIMER

-u, yo,iw-s S,

s an15 ;,5.,. u. ::...1, 1_,1

,, r, ;.,.

....e....-

3 v.

w.-

=

.-w=

w...

.r.

c

..-.a

- - <s u... c. L d. " a.

2 9.v = - '.'. '9'12 in.

  • 8'. a

^

4.2

.i UC,.,._,,

e.s_. 1.,..,.,

~~-

v

-% a n

u.. s e.3 4.. :-.

in-

] m/ a / "n W.esw, n.

a...
w... --

4.

gr...

4..e.,51 w. s c r. :. :., e.e.

s a.

~u. a -1. a s

,..S,... :. 3 ~,

., o o l :. C

n. ~...=. a.s =. 1.A

+ S e e.. r.:.,..

,.u

."1 a.+ 1 n,, i.. : a.

n,,,

a. n

+w.,

-. d 8 'i-l '..~.. '.V C ^ o~ ~ ' I.'1

' ~.' C " '.*.*. C'. c.e..

C "w ".* $ ~ ~ :. ". C ". a '~ '4 w $ d,

.. ~

w

..O. h s c...

p e.u.. c. o. e '-,

3-

.ma s.

~."'.. #.' I i 4". #. v~ ~... S. '.'.' '.'. '. '. 2. 't

". ~. 'v'< 2~>.

+ 3.". S ~ ". i,". ',.

  1. . 5 i.. '. 5. ". # $. #. 'a O c'. Y
  1. . 's' ".
  • a.

In

"w..:. ' l C #.

i '..#. v~' ~..-..'. I

w...

0 :. a.a Aa y..p./ $ g.e.s n,.,

'1 "J "..::-. c. 'l n. n.,, ;. : $

.n m

2-n e

.s

}

w f:a v..S z a.d.

v n e. c. e.e i. n,..a e,,:. ess.ns.n..

1e..

r a. e.O ed C :.

J..a M 5. C.. v :.. k. a.~.. _2 - a w -

a wy a

w -

a v.

.u

+ e n.e...-1 g.

n o

- 3. 3. e.=

4...y r c.. 1 3. r. e.

24.

,3'I c 3. 3.

,.., 2 4,,.. S v

s,,

+' 15 v.

os o

a.

.3

~. 2.,V

b..
  1. . #. l *.d.

5.' #. *w*.i'. ~ ;'. " /.*. ~... #. C " # C.*. #.".

.a i

~

  • M.,.,.D I S
  • d i..". ':* **vw.".". " ' ' *. ".

D $l i a.#. 2.

. '. ' ' '.. =. =.. ' ' ' ~ 's'

?."..s"S~.2.~.*..~...*..'. " ". 2 * * ".~..=.n '.

a.5., t.,:. C#.

u' 3

2. s.

~..u..a y, ny - 7 w,. = e_ ?.... -

w o

y g

~ S "w.". o.C.'. ~.....#.5 s~ i C " ". ',V 2".*.'~.^*#..~."..

C ^.*1'w'#

  • od.". ". $.~.',
c..v. ' ". '.

n 4...

y S

e O

g

't

2 s

cr3644 1

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MELTZER/m 2

NUCLF.AR REGULATORY COM'iISSION 3

PUBLIC MEETING 4

CONTINUATIO" vF DISCUSSION OF SECY-79-154A 5

REPORT TO CONGRESS:

MEANS FOR IMPROVING STATE PAR

  • MIPATION IN THE 6

FEDERAL NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEM:.NT PROGRAMS.

7 8

Room 1046 9

1717 H Street, N.N.

10 Washington, D.C.

11 Thursday, 29 March 1979 12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 4:45 p.m.

13 BEFORE:

14 DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairmsi 15 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 17 PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner 18 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 19 PRESENT:

20 Messrs. Cornell, Ryan, Wolf, Chilk, Kenneke, 21 Trubatch, Bickwit and Sege.

22 23 24 2n a n.mna como.ev 25

3

~

i t

R3644 l

==1 1

P _R _O C _E _E _D _I N G _S l

2 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, let us commence.

l 3

On the subject of state pa.rticipatio" 1

4 MR. CORNELL:

This is not the first time I find l

5 myself in the position of answering cuestions that I was 6

involved in raising in an earlier inca.rnation.

It's j

l 7

like a conflict of interest.

It's enlightehing, to say i

B the least.

9 The Commission met on March 14th the last time on i

10 I this issue, and after that meeting asked the staff in the i

i II Office of Policy and Evaluation to go back to the drawing i

l 12 boards and redraft and come up with new versions of the l

13 state participation report.

i 14 Both the staff and OPE did that.

What you have i

15 before you is a collective judgment, the melding of those two 16 reports into one, which has the concurrence of the staff and 17 the OPE.

i IS And what I propose to do is to go briefly through 19 what the modif. cations are and describe them as to the changes 20 that we tried to put into it to reflect the discussions.

i i

21 The sections 1 through 3, the introduction and j

22 the overview of the federal program and the NRC consultation 23 with states has only had editorial changes.

24 It is fairly similar to the previous draft.

.:..Feeerai seporters, inc.

i 25 Section 4 and 5 --

l

!{

h;

i i

j i

I mm COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Could I ask you a question Ih 2[

cn it, on page 2 --

l' l

3 MR. KENNEKE:

We are up to section 3 already.

la 4'

(Laughter.)

i l

Si COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Down at the bottom, second i

6:

paragraph from the bottom, I wondered what relationship to i

l

~

7 the state program study shntid be made of the comment, 1

I B

"and weapons."

"Just as the benefits of energy and 9'

we.apons production serve the people of the nation as a whole."

f 10 '

MR. CORNELL:

You want to know what is the rationale 11 i

for putting "and weapons" in there?

I2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

I l

13 MR. CORNELL:

,I believe what the staff had in mind I

j *,

i was that the waste repository would involve the disposal 15 of waste products from the military program.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Good answer.

I7 I

MR.RYAN:

That's understood.

I3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It's the benefits of size of --

19 i

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Then I guess "c" should be 20 taken away.

1 I

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, where else.

l

'2 MR. RYAN:

I might say that there has been a 23 chang,e in the interpretation which has been put on the l

2 .

section which is contained in, I guess, the first paragraph set recef al Reporters, Inc.

25 i i

after the quotation of the section.

e

I 5

I l

I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes, a very good mm l

intercreration.

2 1

I i

MR. RYAN:

It is different, at any rate.

I 3

I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

No, it is appropriately I

cast.

5 I

Q (Laughter.)

i 6l 1

MR. RYAN:

It is certainly not the interpretation 7

I which --

l 8

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I think he and I disagree.

9 A :

-- w ch we talk,ed about in the i

10,

previous meeting.

l j) l ShaILwenowhaveagameoftryingl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

g to cuess who the author is?

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I don't know.

I was about 14 c

say it was magnificently written.

15 (laughter.)

l 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right.

17 MR. CORNELL:

Moving on to Section 4 -- Sections 4 18 and 5 had considerable modifications, one being the discussion 39 ;

of the issues,the other being the findings and recommendations.,

.s v The sections have been reordered and rev.ised

{

21 l

essentially to track and reflect the findings and recommenda-g ns.

23 There are within Section 4, an a, b, c,

d, e and i

24

.:3.f meral Re:mrters, Inc.

f, which are similarly numbered in the findings and I

25 i

'li

=

I n.

I 6

i I

l 1

recommendations, so they track in rhe discussion of Section 4 l

l 2

and the findings and recommendations of Section 5.

I i

3 Starting with a, which is the national planning I

l 4

process and the recommendation that, looking at both those, i

l 5

the recommendation's basic thrust is on change.

It still i

1 6

supports the formation of a National Planning Council, but l

1 i;

7 the makeup and the function of the council has been clarified 8

to underscore the consistency to the recommendations of the l

9 IRG report, which also calls for the formation of a State j

I 10 !

Planning Council.

l 11 There have been relatively minor changes in the 12 discussion in the body of the report.

But the recommendation 13 has been -- (Inaudible) -- con,siderablf.

I 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Findings and recommendations --

l l

15 MR. CORNELL:

Page 27, findings and recommendations.

16 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: What we have got now is 17 this section on the discussion of issues.

18 I think that is a considerable -- if it is nothing i

19 1 more than rearrangement of the positions of blocks of language l

20 l it.is a healthy step in the right direction in terms of --

l 21 MR. CORNE*sL :

Staff also felt if we didn't like i

t 22 a finding and recommendation, it is easy to strike out bo th m

23 at one " fell swoop."

24 COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:

Is this going to be a

.ce-Fecera: Reporters, Inc.,

1 25 planning council that deals exclusively with waste management?

.i l'

l 5

o 7

I f

MR. CORNELL:

That's what's envisioned, yes.

= 2.

1 lln 2l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Somethine like that has i

i

.,egislative proposals.

1 3

been caAlec, :.or in a variety c:

i i

4' MR. CORNELL:

There are various ones.

I 5

S' cme areas are consistent with the IRG reccamendation.

i 6

MR. RYAN:

And the recctmendation of the National l

7l Governors' Association.

8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Are there any othe-I I

9I organizations like this in other areas that you could point i

10 '

to?

i 11 MR. RYAN:

Well I can think of, from my EPA i

12 experience, a group of representatives from states who met, 6

13 I guess, for a period c. about four years-- it might still be 1

14 going on, for all I know -- to assist the Environmental 15 Protection Agency implementation of PL 92 500, the Federal 1

l 16 Water Pollution Control Act Amendment.

17 It was a group drawn from state organizations la appointed by usually the Water Office, or the office charged 19 !

with the conduct of the water program in the state appointed I

i 20 i, b.v the c.overnor.

And it was sort of a super advisorv I

I I

21 '

committee.

1 22 It was later shaken down to consist of one j

i l

23 !.

reeresentative rom each or_ the ten :. deral recions or men.

l e

2d ly and became known as "The Group of Ten," and it o'ould meet sceJeceral Recorrers, Inc.,

25 '

periodically.

and as I say, advise the administrater en the i

i, k

O i

a i

I 8

i l

mm 1

conduct of this enormousiv comclex piece o: legislation.

i 1

2 "l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I would guess that has to I

3' do with the states taking over responsibility.

t l

l 4

MR. RYAN:

Partly. But more than that, i

5 Chere were areas of PL 92 500 where the states I

i 6

would not enter directly, but where responsibilities remained l

I

~

7 with the federal government.

Certainly the area of 208, j

8 for instance, the areawide treatment.

9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You have me at a disadvantage.

i 10 '

(Laughter.)

I 11 MR. RYAN: Section 208 -.

i i

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You are not familiar with i

I i

13 the Water Pollution Control Act?

l 1

14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think it is best to make a I

I 15 clean breast of these things.

16 (Laughter.)

l 17 MR. RYAN:.

Well, at any rate, the group did 18 advise the administrator for a number of years on the 19 implementation of the section.

20 (Pause) l 21 MR. CORNELL:

Shall I move on?

l 22 CHAIFDRS HENDRIE:

Please.

23 Kevin, if you get three or four seconds of 24 silence, that is a seal of approval and you better get wFeer0 Remnm, W.,

I 25 i moving before they rethink it again.

l i

I t.

lI i!n

i 9

i n

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. CORNELL: Section b, the modifications in the 3

discussion in the body of the report are not substantial.

I I

4 The basic thrust of the findings and recommendation i

i l

5 remains unchanged in the report, but the details for the 6

formation of a technical review capability under the 7

Executive Planning Council have been more tightly focused.

'3 8

Here again the recommendation calls for federal 9

funding of a technical review capability under the planning i

i i

10 !

council, and is also consistent with the recommendation in i

11 the IRG report.

l 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The IRG report recommended 13 DOE fund that, is that correct?

14 MR. CORNELL:

You could be correct.

l I

15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That suggested that we l

16 participate in that as well.

j i

17 MR. CORNELL:

Yes, it did.

I 1

18 It talks about both the council and --

the i

19 ]

council's budget would be brought by the Department of l

20 Energy.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Is there any particular 22 reason why you didn't pick that up?

,(

23 MR. CORNELL: No, there is no reason.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Or, were you proposing that

.ce Feceral Recorters inc.,

25 :

we do funding.

i l

,I i

4, 10 I

i 1

nm CHAI??.AN HENDRIE: Well, whoever does the 2Pj.

council presumably would be best to provide this technical I

l

i i

3*

j review funding, isn't it I

n' MR. CCRNELL:

Whoever is involved in setting up --

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The review capability is sort i

f 6

of an adjunct of the council, so that really needs to be 7

together.

f MR. CORNELL:

The report is about 9

what agency should fund it.

i 10 1 And I don't think there is any particular reason why -- (Inaudible) l 12 i

CHAIR %N HENDRIE:

I think it might be useful i

13 both under the detail sections and maybe also under the fin _ngs -- maybe just under the recommendations -- just 15.

to nota very briefly that we don't see any great -- if it i

16 is true, that is, we don't see any great benefit one way 17 or another betwee maybe DOE funding this or us, or whatever.

18 You know, in some ways --

19 i MR. RYAN:

I think that is a point we make in the 20 i

recommendatior under d.

CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: But isn't it also true here?

22 I

In fact, in some ways, isn't it a little better if 23 i

ji.

it in Executive Branch funding, than havinc a thing like this A

t

-s ti oo w. m.er., a.:cmts. in__ u which will interact so strcngly with the Executive oranch 25 !!

.]l funding --

i n

i

!i 6

11 f

I x.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Just because of the previous 2

1 lengthy difficulties of working funding arrangements with i

ij il j

the states, I prefer to let the DOE handle it.

But that is

~

1 l

4 I'

only because of -- let them have that hassle.

I 5

CHAIRM:'.N HEMDRIE :

Yes.

i 6

MR. KENNEKE:

What you want to say is, "an agency i

other than NRC. "

t I

I 8

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

But, I think our position is --

i 9l oh, I see. You would say why not just go ahead and slant it i

10 '

l away.

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Say federal funding, preferably 12 n.rovided throuch the DOE or the Executive Branch?

i MR. KENNEKE:

Executive 3 ranch, or at least not I

l

j by --

No, to the Executive Branch.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Is that all right with you?

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Sure.

i l

I'm not sure the whole thing is a good idea.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But, aside from that.

19 (Laughter.)

20 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What are the concerns you i

21 have, Vic?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I don't know.

{

22 i

23 I

I cuess I'm not convinced it's useful to have i

i 24 another recc=mendation created above and beyond existinc

.ce eeceral Re:)orters, in. I t

25 h F

state channels participate here.

.I b

J

12 l

I l1 I mean, it micht be a cood idea.

mm li 2 ll MR. RYAN: But, then again it might not.

l l

3 I I

i (Laughter.)

I l

4-The theory is that the technical capability would l

5 arm the states with the wherewithal to look closely at the 6

federal program otjectively and hold up to public scrutiny 7l 6

some cuestions about that program.

!~

I l

8 That is a way, it seems to me, of demonstrating l

i 9

the sincerity of the federal government and its claims for i

i 10 '

the program, to have it examined independently.

i 11 And we are also not talking about a huge i

i 12 organization.

I think your fear, and I think it is a proper i

13 i

fear, is that you don't want to create a huge bureaucracy l

3 14 off in the distance taking potshots at the federal program.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I guess I accept what you i

say when you are talking a"out individual states.

And some o*

cnem have these capabilities; others I guess would not i

18 normally have them.

But the states have a variety of i

19 interests, different interests, md each of them ought to be l

20 represented as appropriate.

i i

21 But, when you put them all together, then I think l

22 you are talking about the United States, and that is the j

l 23

,l Congr,ess.

i 24 l MR. KENNEKE:

There is another facet of that, it

s receral Reporters, loc. i 25 1:I seems to me, in the discussions at least that I have heard:

o l

t t

i,l

4 l

i l

13 i

1 I

is that this council serves as an interface mechanism so that

'l 2

l l

mm you don't have 50 states coming in at random and attacking i

1 i

3 !

j 50 claces in the federal bureaucraev.

t I

COMMIF5IONER GILINSKY:

Take California.

If they l

5 have got some real concerns -- or New York -- you know, if 6'

this entity is a useful channel, use it. But, if it isn't, 7

they will just go off --

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I guess realistically, I am 9

I looking at it, we are funding a committa' for the National I

i 10 !

Governors' Conference.

And that is -- that is what I foresee as 11 the function or role.

I 12 i

And it is a mechanism -- it is facing a croblem i

13 that we have a -- waste disposal isithe disposal of material I

being generated to serve large regions of the country.

It 15 is a national type problem, but it ends up having to have its i

16 focus upon a narrow region of a particular state.

i And it is that type of thing where you are trying t

18 to get state to look at things on a regional or national I

basis. And in order to do that it is not what normally a state 20 provides funds for, provides people for, and what we are i

trying to do is expand their ability to address this on a 21

'2 more national level.

I

~3 9

Usually the NGA does that.

l 24 We are saying that, well, cerhaps because of the Ace-Feceral Reoorters. inc.

I 25 :

concern we have about having the states being able to address I

l l

l i

a c

i'

o 1

_3 -%

1

. w 4,. '- a s.'._'..=.b _' a_

" = s ". _' o..,...= v " e. ".. a.

' a d. a.. _= _'

c. o ". a....~..a.v.

..._a 2h oucht to come in and orovide some monev to do that.

l,i 3 '!

At least that is the way --

qv -...

-.h a_ _ e

.d s a c a_ -* = _4. a, __4

  • v.4..vo ' ve.

d 4

u. q.

.-n..

5 Also,because the states wouldn't have to be lookinc at i

6; this problen if we didn't have a waste cenerated " rom a h

7; national procram involvine weacons,and a #ederallv-

~

8 i; li:ensed program involvinc corr.ercial reactors.

l*

vil 9l CO'OiISSIONER r.ILINS:-:Y:

Let ne ask vou acain:

l 10 (

DOE does not have to sucolv this kind of --

i 11 M.R.RYAN: No, it does not, to tv knowled.ge.

"his 12 comes out of the Environment Public h'orks Cc=mittee.

13 C O v.u._r S S y O s r p.... -. c2 _r r A. - ~ v_

.T s o_ e.ms o...n u.w.4 s.: s

_.. n 14 the kind of thing that DOE ought to be --

15 Cw.a' T_.u.v.a' '.I u.r".. D o. _7.

  • ey d o r. ' ' b e.e ' d.
  1. ._ o...

_h. a_

16 oversite corr.ittees.

,,h _.._. s _. _: g w...,... o_ r n. 4 _.o...m... u.

n. _.w, 4 c t

w 17

.v u... e.v. n.s..

~__

i 18 i'orks does not have jurisdiction over the DOE.

19 I

CHAIR'iAN HENDRIE:

I would like to move the 20 Nuclear 2.eculation Subcor.tittee have some kind o#

21 cou,c you arrange to cet some.r.:.nc c:-

ne_,o : rom covernment g.o

  • o D, 0r..>

23 siavbe we could get help doing these recorts.

24

'4R. COR' ELL:

Cooperate?

w e. a.:c,w a come. v 25 COSiISSIONrR.Jir.AR'?I:

He is with us now.

u

15 mm (Lauchter.)

2 MR. RYAN:

The Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee.

3 CO'NISSIONER GILINSKY:

Mavbe we Duc".t to contrac t 4

these studies out.

5 i

(Lauchter.)

6 MR. RYAN: At this coint I think I would concur in 7

~

nat.

8 CE;IRMAN HENDRIE: Esoecially the one about 9

licensing waste facilities.

10 Ne might have gotten a good crice on that niece..

11 COMMISSIONER AHEAR'!:::

Let's move on.

12 CH;IRv2; HENDRIE:

Okay.

13 Yes,I think even if it -- I think it is useful.

14 How much is it coing to cost, Planning Council 15 and the Technical --

16 MR. RYAN:

Planning Council wouldn't cost a 17 whole heck of a 1ct. You need some staff and some stationarv 18

.It seems to me.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

How about the technical 20 capabilities?

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And telechone?

22 MR.RYAN: And telechone.

23 A few tens, or a few hundreds of thousands of 24 dollars.

I don't think vou are even talking in this --

2n.c. a. con,ns w w v 25 CO'ei!SSIONER AEAR'!E: You are naving for the staff.

i e

i t

I 1

mm J

MR.RYAN: You are c.av.inc. for the talents of r.avbe h

ten or fifteen pecole.

f i

3\\

C.... R,, N.. -..D R-sitner t.nat, or orovicine l

n.s 2 nsa

.s 4

some technical oecole to be the cognizant officers, and a 5

few dollars for contracts.

6 MR. RYRN: Yes, but that doesn't come under the 7I

~

direct cost.

8 CHAIR'GN HENDRIE: Okay.

9 I So we see the magnitude of this, both clanning 1

10!

Council and Technical --

i 11 MR.RYAN: You would have great osvchological 12 advantage.

13 CEAIREM' HENDRIE:

-- would be like a few hundred thous and dollars.

I 15 MR. CORNELL:

I don't think we soecifically sat 16 down to look at what the funding level would be.

But I I7 I

would suspect half a million dollars.

18 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is a verv natural cuestion, I9 because the recommendations it is going to turn out -- sav 20 three out of four of the reconnendations say federal 21 runds to do this, federal funds to do that.

22 I dare sav we are going to cet asked.

23 (5:05 Commissioner Bradford arrived.)

24

,~c a.wm co-nev COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

I share Vic's skeoticism, i

25 but I think that it is difficult -- there has been difficultv

l 17 i

mm I

in getting the state.s to address this. This is a nechanism 1

that has been procosed both out o.' Bob's clanning meetings 2

I i

l that he had wirh the states, the IR'i has succorted this.

3 I can't see anv real reason not to succort it.

4 MR. CORNELL:

There are some notential benefits, and one isn't cointed to any stronn liabilities.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The worst that can hacoen, 7

8 by all to be ineffective, and then it can be droceed. And vou 9

~~

10 MR.RYAM: It might, on the other hand, do sone

)j very useful things.

CHAIRMW HENDRIE:

-- but there is the oossibility, you Nnow,. it could be very useful, in which case vou would n

a a

s n ha n g made rea m a ceat inves ment 15 in a verv difficult field.

16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

If nothing else, it l.

e

^

18 beginning.

39 so M elv.

20 That's why I say the osvchological advantages are great.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okav.

Whv don't you clunge ahead to the next one.

MR. CooliELL: State carticioation in the federal 25

18 mm 1

process, Item c.

2 The body of the report has been revised fairly 3

extensivelv. Soecific discussion of the activities that DOE might undertake has been droceed.

And discussion has 4

5 focused on the tyoe of activities NRC is undertaking and 6

might undertake in the future fosses on those activities, 7

as opposed to DOE.

8 And that was in response to some Commission 9

discussion.

10 The findings and recommendations has also beeen

'll contracted.

A laundry list of specific activities that 12 NRC will do and which DOE might be done, has been droceed.

13 Instead, there is general reference to taking 14 measures to improve state involvement such as workshoos and 15 personnel exchange in state advisorv panels.

1/

I would also note that reference to state members 17 on the Licensing Board has been droceed both in the body 18 of the report and in the findings and recommendations.

19 I'm on cage 20 of the body.

There is a discussion 20 of the ootions that NRC is either considering or has 21 already begun.

22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Grant orograms.

Whv don't von 23 olunge ahead.

24 MR. CORNELL:

The discussion of the grant crogram, wcm Aeoorm Comoamy 25 the finding and recommendations are not chanced considerablv.

I 19

==

1 There is added to discussion an analvsis of what 2

funding levels would be approcriate.

Thelevel of a half 3

million dollars is considered to be reasonable first effort.

4 The body of the report talks about some of the 5

considerations you need to go into to'. determine what 6

funding level would be aporocriate for a soecific state.

7 And uhat decends on cacabilities an individual state might 8

have to begin with.

This orogram would be state-soecific 9

or a specific state that has a recositorv located in it, 10 rather than it being on a number of states.

11 COMMIS S IONE R 7.HE AR'7E :

I found vour discussions 12 of the variables good, but then vou ended uo, notwith-13 standing these variables we exnect that most states could 14 put something in the neighborhood of a half million per 15 year to constructive use. -

16 MR. CORNELL: Nell, what we are looking at is in 17 some sense a back-of-enveloce calculation of five orofessional 18 staff people, S50,000 each,with a similar amount of 19 contractual support.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are vou ending un saving 21 that in spite of all those reasoned' variables, that never 22 theless we think that 500,000 cer state is roughlv the 23-right number?

24 MR. CORNELL:

MV understanding of the discussions on.c. a.oc nna como.nv 25 is that if vou take a state -- the averace state with some

i 20

'.~

mm 1

capability -- we think in this area 500,000 is accrocriate.

2 There are states with considerably more expertise,there 3

are some with less.

4 500K would be on the order ~of the unoer edge.

5 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:- Another cuestion on the 6

grants.

7 You recommend that either NRC or the DOE or

~

8 both, could be authorized to make the grants?

9 MR. CORNELL:

That's correct.

10 MR. RYAN: Nell we recommend that the Congress 11 authorize NRC to establish a grant crocram, and then we 12 sav later on in that thing both NRC and DOE could be 13 authorized to make grants.

14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would vou be well, it 4-15 says both NRC or DOE could be authorized to conduct such 16 programs.

17 MR. CORNELL:

I think we are trying to draw a 18 clear reference that we see a strong preference to wliat 19 agency 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I could understand if vou 21 said "either," but when vou are saying "both" --

22 MR.CO RNELL :

I think there could be some rationale 23 for both agencies.

24 MR. RYAN: Decending on the time.

we. a.-g como.nv 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But are you saving,for

21 I

examole, vou would see it accroariate for both to be mm 2 l putting uo the 500 at the same time, same orograns?

3 MR.RYAN:

No.

4 MR. CORNELL:

Obviously if you are giving a grant 5

program from one agency to the other agency, you should 6

take that into account.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Either.

8 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: That s what I had thought.

9 MR. CORNELL: Either one could be authorized now 10 when you get into a specific state --

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

If you said "either," I 12 would have no --

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Uo in the first line I would 14 think you would want to read on the recommendations,we 15 recommend that the Congress authorize a grant program to 16 allow the states rather than -- Otherwise vou are going to 17 have to put all the possible agencies un there.

18 MR. SEGE:

The point I want to make is that we 19 ended up recommending that NRC should be authorized a grant 20 program, but that we recognize that that could be buried 21 in the DOE also having a program.

22 So in the recommendation we don't leave it ocen-23 ended. Ne do sav NRC should.

But then in the middle we 24 say both NRC and the DOE.

on.a a.mna como.av 25 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't understand whv NRC is

li l

22 m

i

"~

20 1 l a preferred choice.

I 2

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

In fact, I would almost 3'

think DOE would be.

4 Let me give vou a line of reason.

I thought the 5

money was to hele the states carticipate in this crocess.

6 Now if the apolication comes in to the NRC, our 7

pecole are already quite competent, familiar with the area, 8

very well understand our procedures --

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And inviting the state people 10l in as participants in the croceedina.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Are readv to start going.

12 You would want the state to already have these people who 13 are ready to participate.

If at that stage we then transfer 14 over and start a grant orogram, vou may be automatically 15 building in a time lag for the state to become sufficientiv 16 familiar to really carticipate effectivelv.

I '/

So it would seem to me you would be better off 18 having the state funded earlier.

19 MR.RYAN:

Nc, I am not comfortable with sone of 20 these recommendations, some of this language, which is cne of 21 the reasons I didn't feel it was crocer for me to be an 22 advocate of them at this table today.

23 I think though, the idea was -- and I will let 24 othe$s who are able, to speak toit.

I think the idea was

,.:. a.- cm.ev 25 that NRC could properly have a role in administering a grant I

23 mm21 I

program which would assist the states in carticicating in 2

the federal orogran.

3 COtiMISSIONER AHEARNE :

Thr-croblem I have is that we 4

don't really get heavily involved until the DOE files the 5

application.

6 But in order for the state to really be uo to speed at that time, they have got to be involved, thev have 8

to net the monev sooner.

9 So it would seem to me the DOE ought to be 10 giving the grant.

11 MR.SEGE:

Comissioner Ahearne, there is a stage 12 at which sites are being looked for, and then there is a

/

stage where a crocosed site has been identified.

At the 14 stage where sites are being looked for, there is no real 15 pinpointing vet of who the host state will be.

16 When the site has been procosed definitelv 17 enough for NRC to be notified that an application is being 18 made for a particular site, at that ooint there is a host 19 state -- or that mav be a neighboring affected state.

20 CO31MISSIONER AHE ARNE : Absolutelv.

21 MR. SEGE:

And at that coint the ootential 22 involvement of those states becomes more focused on one 23 particular project and one particular site.

And the sort 24 of cacabilities that thev would be bringing to bear are the in.n a.mna como.ev 25 more special capabilities that co with that carticular

24 mm22 project.

l l

COMMISSIONER AHEAU.NE:

You and I are not 2 j disagreeing.

All I am sayinc is that in order to have the 3

state up to the same aporoximate level that we are when 4

that acplication comes in, then thev have got to be funded sooner.

MR. SEGE:

That is correct.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: ifhich really means that DOE has to fund them.

9 a

s w h we recogn he, carendedcall 7, 10 DOE also have funding authority, ard that is whv we also

)j suggest federal funding at the earlier stages on the previous pag,e of -our recommendations, g

(5:15, Cormnissioner Kennedv lef t the room. )

g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I agre e with federal funding.

I think the accrocriate thing is for DOE to fund.

g MR.TRUBATCH:

How does a state know it has been Chosen as the host state until DOE has chosen it?

You are trying to get a state ready before it

)9 s --

20 CO.*1MISSIONER AHEARNE:

I am trying to get the state ready when DOE begins to know.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The Secretarv savs, "This is the place."

g 3 nice RG W Q C @ Dany (Laughter.)

25

l

~

25 mm 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The may be a hint.

2 The Governor ocens his mail, and there is a

,/

3 half million dollars --

4 (Laughter.)

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

"The President has 6

selected vou."

7 MR. RYAN:

"The Commander-in-Chief has selected 8

you."

9 (Laughter.)

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Listen, I must say I find Il except for a minor misspelling, I find the section on cane 12 22'about whether grants should be administered bv the 13 Commission, to have just about the right language in it.

14 And all I would suggest is that we reflect that 15 over in the recommendations.

16 You know,it points out some of the asoects both 17 ways, but on balance there is no compelling reason to specifv 18 they should come from either olace.

Eithar nv hven could 19 be authorized.

I think that is okay.

20 (5:18, Commissioner Gilinskv left the room.)

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I lean more towards that.

22 MR. KENNEKE:

A comoelling reason not to have it 23 here.

24 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

I think that the puroose an.c= Aeoordng Company 25 of funding them is to have them be effectivelv utilized.

6 26 I

mm And in order to do that, it is as though -- for us to be 2

funding it, it is as though when the apolication came in 3

we went out and put out a notice to start hiring cecole on 4

our side to start reviewing -it.

5 MR. WOLF:

Commissioner Ahearne, may I coint out 6

as appears on page 21,the concept, the requirement of the law already is that DOE give us notice as early as possible 8

af ter commencement o f the planning.

So that the initial 9

notice to us will long erecede the submission of an 10 application and we would have that notice presumablv as earlv 11 as DOE might otherwise be in a position to consult oroduc-12 tively t he states in any case.

(

13 MR. KENNEKE:

What about carticioation once the 14 application is docketed?

15 Then you are back to some area of some questioning 16 of what the. right role of the stde is vis-a-vis the NRC 17 licensing process.

18 I think that is where the problem arises.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Since they are a carty in our 20 proceeding, why it is again --

21 MR. KENNEKE: 3e a part of intervenor fundinc.

29 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:

-- a special form of intervenor 23 funding if we do it.

24 But there is no particular reason whv they wc= a.:>ma como.nv 25 couldn't be receiving funds from DOE at the same time, I

l 27 I

don't see.

2 MR. CORNELL:

The only rationale I can see --

3 COMMISSIONER AHEAR'7E:

I am not going to hold it 4

up. Since the locic of my position is not clear, move on.

5 MR. OR'iELL :

We can reflect some of this 6

discussion inthe body of the report and the recommendation, 7

if you like.

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRI ::

On pace 22, clease, on whether 9

grants should be administered by the Commission, I trust 10 you will make the last word " grants" instead of "crant. "

II And I trust you will proceed to the first word 12 in the next section and make it " grants" instead of "trants."

/

13 MR. RYAN:

Yes, we cicked that up.

I4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And on 28, un in the recommenda-15 tion we have been talking about, six lines from the bottom, 16 "there isn't anyone federal agencv," which I recommend be I7 "any one federal agency."

I8 Okay, onward.

l9 MR. KEN'IEKE :

Not "both" "or" on the same line?

20 It now says "both NRC or DOE."

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I would tend to nake it 22 "either."

s 23 MR. CORNELL:

All right.

24 Section %" dealing with transportation.

on.ca Reporteg Company 25 The body of the recort has been exoanded to

I 28 mm include a discussion of ongoing NRC activities on the 2

transportarion issues.

3 The finding and recommendation, it is fairiv 4

similar tathe finding and recommendation of the crevious --

S COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I was surorised in vour 6

meetings that you list.

I gather that Houston, Texas is 7

about the farthest west you went.

8 MR.RYAN:

I'm sorry, what meetings are they?

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

On transoortation.

10 Various transportation meetings.

11 MR.RYAN:

What page was this on?

I'm sorry.

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

23 and 24.

It seems to 13 have met in Virginia, Maryland, Houston, New York City, 14 New York City, Georgia, Pennsylvania --

15 MR. RYAN:

I can't speak to it. Those were meetings 16 which I think, by and large, were conducted by our Office 17 of Standards Develooment.

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

-- Nashington, D.C.

19 MR. RYAN:

I will sav there will be a meeting on 20 the 22,

-3 and -4 of April in Jackson Hole, Nvoming involving 21 the states on transoortation specifically.

22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Good.

23 MR. RYAN: Conducted by the University of Denver.

24 MR. KENNEKE:

Page 24 savs the oth er two regions 2n.c. s.oen no como.nv 25 will have meetings this year.

29 mm CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The last line of the 2

transportation section, could I talk you all into savinc that 3

the transportation of high-level wastes should be viewed as 4

"an important part"?

5 Somehow the phrasing, " integral part" seems to, 6

now that I think of it, carry a connotation that we are 7

going to deal with th i ngs like the DOT rulemaking and 8

subsequent Commission implementation and maybe actions, all 9

as part of the waste program.

10 I'm on 24, last line, just before it starts "f"

11 and I just -- " integral part" just seemed a bit too strona 12 for me.

13

(

Over under recommendations you usa the word 14

" integrally related" which I didn't find -- vou know that 15 is -- I don't know that I admire the language, but that is 16 okay.

I7 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Fine.

18 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE: "Imnortant part." Okav.

19 I will leave it to your judgment.

20

,' F. "

21 MR. CORNELL:

Consultation and concurrence 22 section.

23 The recommendation is taken almost verbatim from 24 the June 14, 1978 testimony, very closely.

OrhCu ReDormg Como.sny 25 The body report has been extensivelv redrafted.

i

i 30 I

mm CEAIT1AN HENDRIE:

Ue onlv cuote that testinonv 2

when it agrees with something I want to do, or not.

3 MR. CORNELL:

There has been a considerable a'

shortening of the body ctthe report.

In response to Commissic t 5

discussion, the review and concurrence discussion is tied 6

prettv much to the site-specific repositories rather than a

7 review and concurrence of the overall process.

8 The basic thrust of the finding and recommendation 9

is that if a concurrence or a veto mechanism is legislated, 10 consideration should be given to exactly how it works. And the 11 findings and recommendations, go into those considerations --

12 the body of the report goes into those considerations.

13

's

  • CON 1MISSIONER BRADFORD:

You regard the recort 14 now as being neutral as to whether or not there should be 15 a concurrence mechanism?

16 MR. CORNELL: h the body of the report there is, 17 the finding and recommendation --

18 MR. BICKWIT:

It doesn't look neutral to me on 19 the recommendation.

20 MR. CORNELL:

It was an attemot to reflect whatever the 21 Commissioners were trying to say on. Tune 14.

22 MR. BICKNIT:

It looks mildly against.

23 The first sentence iuxtacosas the second.

It 2

looks like you are saying the first sentence is enough;

,n.u n.wwe n,un, 25 however, if vou want to go a little further,this is how to

i 31 I

do it.

mm 2

MR. CORNELL:

Needless to sav, lookinc at the i

3 transcript of the previous meeting, it is difficult to tell whl:

4 the Commission's desires were here, other than the mention of 5

the June 14 testimony being a cossible solution.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know.

7 Suggestions?

8 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Let me ask a question, on 9

page 25, number two,when you start talking about requiring 10 a state base its action using the record, what kind of II legal aspect did vou have in mind?

12 For example, was that something to be challenged

(

13 in court?

I4 MR. RYAN:

Yes.

I think this section was 15 authored by our Office of Executive Legal Director, so he 16 should address it.

I7 MR. WOLF:

Yes.

18 The question here is, if there is to be a review I9 the concept is it might proceed in a more orderly

process, 20 fashion if everybody was looking at the same set of data.

21 And, of course, one of the functions of the NRC licensing 22 process is to accumulate exactly such data and to cresent 23 it in a logical manner, including making of certain findings 24 and conclusions.

on.c= a.mna como.nv 25 So one possibility would be that if there were to

32 mm be a nonconcurrence crocedure, it would start from this set 2

of documentation; both a factual record and a Commission 3

.cecision.

4 And then the state would sav, but we disacree 5

particularly with these findings of the Commission, or what 6

have you.

7 The would bring the issues into a narrow focus, 8'

and that is one alternative that we have alluded to here as 9

the alternative.

It might require that the state base its 10 action uoan its own determinations, its findings, using the 11 record in be Commission proceedings that environmental or 12 safety interests have not been adequatelv protected.

13

/

That is what we show as an alternative.

14 But before we get to that point the discussion 1 *4 says well, perhaps you should allow the state to iust non-16 concur without saving why, and just leave it to political 17 processes or what have you.

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would it be challenaeable 19

.In a court?

20 MR. WOLF:

That has to be examined in the light 91 of all of the other discussion here, because the discussion 22 goes on to contemplate that if there were to be such a 23 nonconcurrence, it would have to be subnitted to somebody 24 who would have the oower of decision.

2n.cn Recortmg Company 25 And so it is cresumably that decision made, sav bv

I 33 l

mm30 I

the Congress or by a committee of the Congress or what have 2

you.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So the answer is no.

That 4

is, as you understand what this section means, it does not 5

mean that it is a decision that then can go cut and be 6

challenged in court.

7 MR. WOLF:

That's the way it is written.

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE : Thank you.

9 CHAIIBLM7 HENDRIE: Somehow I have lost the thread.

10 It is probably because, as Vic once remarked, at Il a time like this his brain was liquefied.

12 As I read both Section 4 and then the findings and 13 recommendations, it is neutral on a veto.

I4 MR. CORNELL:

I think --

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It savs "some statutorv 16 recognition of the legitimate concerns of the states in 17 these matters is appropriate."

18 And then it says, well,you know, if you want to 19 go ahead and give them a veto, there are these things to 20 think about and problems that arise.

21 MR.3ICKWIT:

I wouldn't read it that wav.

22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Which wav would you read it?

23 MR. BICKWIT:

It would read it as tilted negatively 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Against the veto?

in.c. a.ocnno corno.nv 25 v.R. BICKNIT:

Yes.

l 34 f

mm31 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I read it tilted towards a 2

congressional involvennnt in -- certainly I read it as tilted 3

against a complete state veto with no reclama.

4 I read it for -- particularly coupled with the 5

next recommendation, as tilted in favor of a crocess by which, 6

if the state is adamantly against,there should be some 7

mechanism of either a -- what, it is up to the President

~

8 or the Secretary of the Cabinet department having to make 9

a positive decision to override, or the Congress -- Congress 10 as a whole or appropriate committees havinc to override.

11 That's the way I read it.

12 MR. BICKNITH:

I am not quite with vou.

I just 13 think before you get there -- I read the first sentence as 14 saying that this really, the proper recognition is provided 15 without regard to a veto.

And then the 'however," as 16 suggesting if youtant to go that far, this is how vou do it.

17 MR. CORNELL:

I suspect dropping the second 18 sentence in the finding would make it more neutral.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Please don't do that.

I 20 would just as soon have it lean a little bit the way -- if 21 Len thinks it leans that way, in mv view that is leaning about 22 the right way. But I didn't want to lean very far, because 23 then I run into Peter --

24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's right.

oe.c. a.c.oreno como.av 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- who seems to want to oush it

I t

i 35 mm32 1

back.

2 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

I really don't read it 3.

your way.

4 It is tilted against -- if vou mean a complete 5

absolute state veto with no reclama, I think that is correct.

6!

And I would come down that that is anpropriate.

7 MR. BICKWIT:

Just to make my coint, the 8

Commission believes that legislation for approving state 9

participation in the management of the program should 10 provide proper recognition of the legitimate concerns of 11 the states.

12 I read that as saying everything looks orettv good, t

13 before we even get to this issue.

That's where I am.

14 Then, esoecially with the word "however" starting 15 the next sentence, I'm inclined to think that the eerson 16 who wrote this wasn't particularly eager to go that 17 direction.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The first time I read it I 19 thought we were flat out recommending statutorv -- giving 20 the states a flat veto, and I had to go back and read it 21 again.

But, maybe you are right.

22 MR. BICKWIT:

Go whichever way you like.

23 MR.KENNEKE:

You want to make it more definite 24 that they should not?

>n.c.a. - o u c ~

25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I thought this was strikinn.

i 36 I

mm33 MR. BICKNIT:

If you are trving to be totally 2

neutral, I don't think --

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I guess I decided after two 4

readings that the words were okay.

5 Now I am looking around to see where other 6

people want to go.

7 MR. CORNELL:

The first sentence, the way I read 8

it, leaves it up to the reader to decide what are the 9

legitimate concerns of the state and whether or not -- vou 10 could take that either way.

11 The second sentence does point out a liabilitv 12 if you decide to go to a veto.

13 COMMISSIONER AHEAD.NE:

I was reading the first 14 sentence as going farther than current, because we are 15 saying to give statutory recognition.

And that implied to 16 me that is opposed to the current structure where the 17 states, through various mechanisms, may come in with some 18 tvpe of authority.

But it is not yet obvious whether it is 19 a comolete blanket authority.

20 What we were saying is, we want to extend -- give 21 federal statutory recognition.

That seemed to me to be a 22 farther step.

23 MR. BICKNIT:

I think you could get a little more 24 toward neutrality, in my view, bv striking "crocer" and 3%CE Re W COmCa"V 25 putting " additional" and striking the "however" in the

I t

37 mm34 1

next sentence.

2 Then, to me, it looks right down the middle.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Proper?

You mean 4

legitimate?

5 MR. BICKWIT: " Provide procer recognition."

6 Procer, to me, means that that is it. That is how 7

you provide recognition of legitimate concerns, the way it 8

has been done in the recort.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have lost me.

10 Are vou saying to strike " statutory" and out 11

" proper"?

12 MR. BICKNIT: Strike " proper" and put " additional."

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What page are vou on?

14 MR. BICKWIT:

I'm sorry, I'm on the recommendations.

15 MR.KENNEKE:

You mean in this report, meaning 16 the discussion in this asoect?

17 MR. BICKWIT:

Page 28.

The recommendation at the 18 bottom, second line of it.

19 MR. KENNEKE:

But when its reference is suggested 20 in this report, do you mean just this section that provides 21 the background to this #inding and recommendation, or all of 22 the other facets?

23 MR. BICKWIT:

All of the facets.

24 MR. KENNEKE:

Not just the retail aspects.

2n.c. n. xnna como.nv 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :

I would have no problem

F 38 1

mm35 l

with striking " proper" there.

2 CHAIRMAN FENDRIE:

Let's start again.

3 Whe is the proposal before the house?

4 MR. BICKWIT:

Strike "crocer" and put in 5

" additional."

6 CHAI?2".AN HENDRIE :

Replace "procer" with 7

".additonal."

8 MR. BICKWIT:

Right.

9 So that you can get rid of the flavor that this 10 is it.

11 MR. CORNELL: That suggests that this accomolishes 12 something.

13 MR. BICKWIT: Then strike "however" in the next 14 sentence.

15 MR. KENNEKE:

So the veto is in addition to he 16 additional.

17 MR. BICKWIT: Right, without suggesting that the 18 first addition is really what is appropriate.

19 MR. CORNELL:

If you go back to the body of the 20 report it talks about review and concurrence.

21 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

That's the way I was 22 reading it, so it is no problem with me.

23 MR. CORNELL: One option would be in the body of 24 this would be the concurrence where the state savs, no, we an.c k Aeoomns Company 25 don' t like this, a nd all the federal government is forced to

39 mm36 do is to write back to t he state saving, we don' t agree with 2

your recommendation and spell out the reasons why they 3

..cisagree.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I would though, in that 5

particular recommendation, crefer to also pick up the coint 6

that you had made somewhere in your report. You had out in --

I guess really what I am more talking about is back in the 8

findings and recommendations, or whatever you call your sectic i 9

on page 26.

10 You had talked about the body of the report, 11 various mechanisms by which the state veto wouldbe reviewed.

12 That is, how would a state -- if a state vetoed, how would 13 it be overriden.

14 And vou had put in both an Executive overrride, 15 and the involvement of Congress.

16 I notice when you got to you section -- whatever 17 it is called on page 25 -- the ability to resolve the 18 differences,you didn't give an example of a congressional 19 process.

I mean, you give an example of a federal Executive 20 process, but you don't give a congressional.

21 Myself, I would much prefer the congressional 92 process be the way the issue be resolved.

And so I would

~

23 at least like to have it there.

24 MR. CORNELL:

As an ootion?

2n.c. a.: ens como.nv 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

I

i i

40

. s mm37 1

3ecause vou see, you givE the authority to resolve 2

the difference that you talk about, the nonconcurrence 3

process, how could'it be overriden.

4 Federal action could croceed if the federal 5

decisionmaker were to override.

6 But, back in the body of the recort vou talked about how it could either be that or congressional override.

8 And it would appear to me that that's the appropriate wav 9

to have any kind of an override accomplished.

10 I don't think if the state governor process 11 vetoes the approach, I don't think vou want to ask, sav the 12 Secretarv of Energy to override it.

I think it is more 13 the Congress that ought to be overriding it.

14 MR. WOLF: Commissioner Ahearne, doesn't the 15 preceding discussion there identify the responsibility that 16 might be assigned to the President or to the Congress or to 17 designated persons?

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Then you go on, the 19 examples of federal override.

20 Back in the body of the report -- in other words, 21 what I am trying to do is to get it to lean in a civen 22 direction.

The way I prefer to lean is focusine on the 23 congressional.

24 MR. CORNELL:

Pace 25, third sentence from the mc= a.:xnna cw c.nv 25 bottom after decisionmaking, vou could cut in "or the

I 41 mm28 I

Congress."

l 2

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I guess what I'm really 3,

saying is I would orefer to have it be a little more forceful i

4 that it is the Conaress.

But rhat is my own oreference.

5 MR. CORNELL:

We could underline Congress.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. KENNEKE:

Put a little arrow over it, or 8+

circle it.

9 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

I think vou have worn me 10 out.

Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right to at least stick 12 the Congress in there?

13 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

And probably a firm mention 14 of the Congress at the end.

15 In other words, the recommendation after the 16 last finding doesn' t talk about -- you talk about if 17 provision for a state veto,the provision should be carefully 18 drafted to include requiring a state when it miqht come.

19 The point that you find in vour previous section, 20 namely that even if there is such a veto you might consider 21 involving a mechanism to override that veto.

And elat, I 22 think should be the Congress.

23 MR. WOLF:

There is a certain sensitivity to 24 references to legislative vetoes that was in our consciousness 2no a. - con,u nv 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I doubt that the President would

42 mm 1

object to legislative vetoes over state.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE : This isn't a legislative 3

veto, this is a legislative override.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It depends on whose ox is 5

under the horn.

6 CO?iMISSIONER AHEARNE:

They have got procedure 7

in there.

8 MR. CORNELL: This being a legislative veto of 9

a state action.

10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: See, the federal government 11 would have proposed to take an action.

12 The state has said no.

13 And what the crocedure is in order for the 14 federal government to continue its action, vou might, for 15 example, have to file a resolution in the Congress.

And 16 unless -- I guess the most difficult thing, unless there 17 is a concurrent resolution supcorting a state,the federal 18 government goes ahead with its action.

That is one 19 mechanism.

20 Another, more positive mechanism, would be the 21 federal government files its action with the Congress and 22 unless the Congress says yes, it can't go ahead.

23 You are more familiar than I am, both of you guys, 24 with the various alternatives.

But it is more the federal sm.c= Rewg Company 25 government has proposed to take an action.

And what you

f

  • 3 1

mm are really saying is if the state savs no, vou want the 2

Congress involved in some way to reoresent that national 3

interest.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I guess the recommendation at 5

the moment doesn't contain a sentence that corresconds to 6

the resolve-the-differences caragraoh.

MR. CORNELL:

Right.

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I would like to say I 10 thought it was a fantastic, really excellent -- carticularly 11 in the short time you had.

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think it certainly struck

/

13 me as having come now around.

Very good.

14 Peter?

15 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

Well,I would droo one more 16 "however" out of the findings and get the consultation and 17 concurrence part,and that's fine.

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Which one?

19 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

The one in the finding, 20 parallel recommendations.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Fine.

22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I will look at it now.

23 MR. CORNELL:

Looking at the sentence, "providinc 24 a state veto, however would mean.

." -- that "however"?

nics Aeonng Comoany 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

(Nodding affirmativelv.)

I 6

l 44 mm 41 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'll ask for it back in some 2

future document.

3 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

You have a "however."

4 (Laughter.)

S I owe you a "however."

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'11 bank a "however."

7 Okay.

8 Commissioner Kennedv has voted okav on the cacer 9

and before he left he told me that he could see the sort of 10 discussion and modifications that might flow and he said 11 whatever comes here would be all right with him.

12 I guess Vic was a little doubtful about the 13 federal council but on balance,you know, he wasn't adamant 14 against it.

He just wondered whether it was really going to 15 be as effective as he mignt hoce.

16 I would suggest that if the three of us are 17 pretty well settled out here,why dont we go ahead and 18 just vote "aye" on the thing, clean it up as it is structured 19 and go final. And then we will have at least one of these 20 things out of our hair.

21 okay?

22 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Ave.

23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Ave.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So ordered.

on.c. n.-g como.nv 25 (Whereupon, at 5:45 c.m.,

the hearing was adjourned.)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19261C975&oldid=4862028"