ML19269C044
| ML19269C044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/29/1977 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7901190238 | |
| Download: ML19269C044 (38) | |
Text
y,,
3
+
f UNITED STATES o
y *)
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 7
7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
.;g"k,/
Q'Y January 11, 1979 C0ftMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF:
Transcript of Commission Discussion of DOE /NkC Memorandum of Understanding and EBTF December 29, 1977 At the subject meeting and pursuant to 10 CFR 9.108(c), the Commission t
determined that pages 1-25 of this transcript dealing with the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding (Licensing Reform) should be withheld until i
the Licensing Reform Bill became law or until the end of the current
[
Congress, and that pages 25-38 regarding EBTF (FY 79 Budget) should be j
withheld until the Commission's FY 79 eppropriation became law.
j i
Following adjournment of the 95th Congress without action on the Licensing Reform Bill and the enactment into law of the Commission's FY 79 Appropriation, the Secretary of the Commission, upon the advice of the General Counsel and after consulting with the Commission, determined that the subject transcript should be released in its entirety to the public.
muif'o Ch.
r, Secretary of the mmission 790119 6 A3s
~ ~
4 UNITED STATES 3 '~j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,d T j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 a
g "L
~ / /
W8 February 2, 1978 COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF:
Transcript of Commission Discussion of DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding and EbTF December 29, 1977 Pursuant to the Commission's regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act (10 CFR 9.108 (c) ), as revised, it has been determined that the subject transcript should be withheld from public disclosure at this time as follows:
1.
DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding (Licensing Reform Bill), pages 1-25 Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (9), (b) (3), this portion of the transcript should be withheld until the Licensing Reform Bill becomes law or until the end of the current Congress.
At that time, the Office of the General Counsel shall review the transcript pursuant to 10 CFR 9.108 (c) and recommend to the Commission whether the transcript, or any portion thereof, should be withheld from the public under any other subsections of 10 CFR 9.104 (a).
The Commission shall then determine pursuant to 10 CFR 9.108 (c) whether the subject transcript, or any portion thereof, shall be withheld from the public under 10 CFR 9.104; the remainder of the transcript shall be promptly made available to the public.
2.
ESTF (FY 79 Budget), pages 25-38 Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (9), (b) (2), (3), this portion of the transcript should be withheld until the Commission's appropriation becomes law.
At that time, the Office of the General Counsel shall review the transcript pursuant to 10 CFR 9.108 (c) and recommend to the Commission whether the transcript, or any portion thereof, should be withheld from the public under other subsections of 10 CFR 9.104 (a).
The Commission shall then determine pursuant to.10 CFR 9.108 (c) whether the subject transcript, or any portion thereof, shall be withheld from the public
~
, under 10 CFR 9.104; the remainder of the transcript shall be promptly made available t$ the public.
I amuel J.
L..-
K rSecretary of the Commission 6
k~
,q,
) ll U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COICIISSION CR5928
<l (2nd of 2 J
transcripts)2 U;j CLOSED MET; TING OF THE COMMISSIONERS THORPE /blt
?
3' Ali DISCUSSION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN d
(
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
S' AND ETBF 6
Thursday, 29 December 1977 7
3:50 p.m.
8 9
Commissioners' Conference Room 11
" 8 ***D' 10 Washington, D. C.
11 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
OSEPH M. HENDRIE, Cha b an 13 VICTOR GILINSKY RICHARD T. KENNEDY f
OTHER STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
SAMUEL CHILK, Secretary to the Commission SAUL LEVINE 18 LEE GOSSICK 19 KENNETH PEDERSEN 20 J.
KELLEY 21 22
(
23 The initials appearing in the 24 lefthand margin indicating g j M / M g m, 3rw.
McFederci Reporters, Inc^
Corrections are those of the M4 H. Capitol Street (suite 400) 25 reviewing officials from the Washington, D. C 20001
'J Office of the Secretary and v
,p Office of the Comptroller.
N 7 7 P
3
2 CR5928-B 1 I PROCEEDINGS (2nd of 2 j
-)
Transcripts;)'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me move immediately to the THORPE /
bit All 3
next subject, which is this.
Let me fill you in on the 4
legislative picture and pass out these things, which will make 5
no sense until you all have one.
4 (Document distributed.)
7 I'll keep one for myself, and I guess the General f
h)l Counsel's Office ought to have one, and I guess 0/E.
8 There has apparently been a decision by the 9
10 Department of Energy management to attempt to reach the various compromises and agreements with opponents of the draft ij licensing bill, opponents in its present form or December 1st 12 f rm, ir rder to narrow and reduce the number of iusues that
(.
13 have to be presented to the President for decision and also g
to see if it can't be gotten out'of the Administration and g
presented to the Congress in some form or other.
There have been a series of meetings between DOE people and others under OMB's hand, OMB having been directed to carry out this compromising and reduction of issues for decision process.
20 I've had a couple of calls and a visit from Bob 21 Han[flinginthecourseofthat to try to keep me informed on h[t\\
22 how these negotiations were going on and then was called by 23 OMB to go over -- Jet's see, this is Thursday -- to go over 24 co-Federal Reporters. Inc.
on Tuesday afternoon and have a discussion with Mr. Cutler and 25
3 bit 2 j
Ms. Schermar and associated staffs ab'out NRC views and parts.
2 in these things.
The meeting ran out of time.
When it got to-3 be dark people had to go home, and we resumed yesterday after-g t
t 4
noon late and ran late again.
5 To a limited extent at least there has been a little 6
inclination where the opposing parties between DOE and -- well, 7
typically the CEQ view ocu n h reconciled;to either,ho 8
call it a matter which should go for Presidential decision or 9
in effect sort of slide it off and leave it to NRC with agree-10 ment of both of them that we would perform some splendid public jj service that would satisfy some of both their needs.
A part 12 of what I've tried to do the last two days is to-try to-make
(
13 clear how limited the Commission capacity really is to act as ja an arbiter in this sort of thing.
It's not properly our role, I
eel.
15 16 By way of some brief summaries down the sorts of things that have gone on, they have agreed to remove Title 1 37 from the bill.
18 This is the one which deals with the DOE role 9
in energy planning and working with the states and regions in the establishment of generic plans and the funding to states 20 that went with it.
The agreement is that there will be an attempt to consolidate that section together with other state-federal related initiatives in the energy area in a subsequent bill to come forward about April.
Whether that will take c Federel Reporters. Inc.
place, I don't know, but at any rate Title 1 is coming out of 25
4 l
l bit 3 jl tnis bill.
l Other issues which we struggled with were an assort-.
2i i
I ment of things like whether the intervenors should have an 3
{
Opportunity for discovery on sort of a continttous basis and 4
on all subjects once an application is in house.
I think that 5
6 was successfully rejected.
7 Oh, by the way, I should tell you also that, with due deference to the General Counsel's Office, where they're 8
1 9l all ladies and gentlemen and scholars, I took with me to this meeting Howard Shapar, feeling that we were more apt to need 10 knee and elbow work than scholarly considerations; so in spite 7j of y ur concern about the legislation flowing more naturally 12
{
from OGC, I thought in this case I had the right staff support.
g I think Howard and I managed to reject that one.
j4 I defended the proposition that construction work should be allowed on a site after filing of a CP when there has been a site permit issued.
There was-a question raised about this.
They wanted to revoke our authority to go ahead g],/
s$ ANr.!
and grant an amendment to an operating license, peet-19 change in advance or without 30 days' notice where there was no significant safety risk, and I think that was successfully turned around.
k There was discussion about the federal-state NEPA 23 affair.
The disagreement there is one as to whether the pro-co Federal Reporters, Inc.
vision in the bill should be that the state proceedings must 25 l
5 blt 4 1
be generally comparable to federal proceedings, i.e.,
to NRC, 2
proceedings.
And I think that's taken, even though it says 3
generally, is taken by everybody to mean
-- the lawyers all
(
think the courts would interpret that to mean intervenor l
4 5
funding under provisions similar to those in the section of 6
this bill and adjudicatory proceedings.
That apparently is 7
a problem with some of the states.
A number of the governors 8
take very strong exception to having the feds tell them how 9
to run their proceedings, so they're sort of poised on the 10 dilemma.
If they attempt to satisfy the needs of the inter-11 venor sorts of folk, who want comparable procedures and fund-12 ing and so on, then they get in trouble with the governors;
~
(
if they.go the other way, they're in trouble with the inter-13 14 venor groups.
15 About all I could do was to shrug and say from ur standpoint I don't know that we have anything to offer 16 en n 275 p
j7 here.
I t-hink thcrc 4s argument both ways, so I don't know how they'll settle down on that.
18 The question arose about NRC doing another j9 Rasmussen Study or whatever.
I pointed out that we had t.he 20 Lewis Committee at work, that its mandates were to look at peer comments, on a final report to look at methodology de-22 velopment since the '74 time frame and so on.
And the third 23 thing the Lewis Committee is going to do is to --
co Federoi Reporters. Inc.
FIR. LEVINE :
Say what the report did and did not 25
I 6
I do.
bit 5 j,
l
')
2l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, make a statement as'to they believe the report accomplished and did not accom-what 3
k plish and so on.
4 Now, I pointed out that I was not about to want to 5
f rward with some sort of review initiative on the safety g
6l study that interfered with a committee that the Commission 7
had ordained, established under the Federal Advisory Committee 8
WJ statute, and-OMB passed on the membarship and agreed it was 9
balanced and all of this great stuff; no way.
So I hope that 10 any needs they have to talk about sort of ongoing work in jj this area can be made in terms of this advisory group's work as presently scoped, and we might be asked to make a statement sometime as to whether we think the report of this committee will be very important and will be given very careful con-15 sideration.
It's the sort of statement that I'd be glad to 16 m ke on principle in any event for a committee established a
17 with as much careful thought and consideration as this one 18 has been established.
19 I hope it comes out that way, and I don't think 20 I can guarantee anything.
The Executive Branch now withdraws, 21 and they will propose what they want.
In particular, I hope 22
(
it doesn't somehow crank into the legislation, but again I 23 can't guarantee it.
If it does, we may find ourselves having 24 co-Federol Reporers, Inc.
to go down to Congress and say that, unless it's very 25
l.
7 i
bit 6 I
carefully done, that the phrasing is poor.
T e main issue that seemed to come up van what to 2I h
3 do about waste management matters, and there has been the 1
initiative of the speech and which has been genera))y voiced 4
l by a number of groups that you ought to make a legislativo 5
0 requirement tnat somebody get together a program on waste 7
management by a certain date and somebody review it and so We're being tagged to be the party to review it in some 8
on.
9 sense.
10 I've attempted to make clear and at some length 11 that what we're not in the business of doing is we're not in te 12 the business of doing sort of a Harvard School of Business g
(
anagerer.te"te" mf 9a napartment at Energy,anel its af fairs,..,
13 m
i t
14 and that struck a chord.
The OMB faces lighted up and agreed 15 that by George, that.sure wasn't what we were in business to i
16 do in no way, shape or form; so that threw out one of the
{
i 17 initiatives from CEQ with a loud clunk.
l I
18 But they continue to feel that some sort of revi ra 19 of this type, which includes the DOE plan, is essential.
I 20 pointed out that we have going forward, starting about one l61 E
P 21 year from now, the safety review of the gaste fsolation filo-7
?
22 plant in Carlsbad, the military waste thing.
That will be~
k' specific licensing action which we'll have to treat both 23 a
24 from an environmental and safety review standpoint.
co-Faderol Reportm, Inc.
l 23 Secondly, and coming a little before that if l
\\
8 blt 7 1
everybody works the way they're suppo' sed to, DOE is now in 2
the final phases of producing a Generic Environmental Impact 3
Statement on waste management, except for low-level, shallow f
4 burial stuff, which they decided they didn't have any program-5 matic responsibility for so they're not going to write impact 6
statements on it; but everything else is in this thing in 7
principle.
I understand we have been getting draft noterial, 8
so we know what's coming.
It was due last month.
It's now hubk 9
due a month or two from now.
John Ocich and company are 10 working hard to pull it together and get it out.
1)
I understand that it is our intention to work very 12 hard on it during the 90-day comment-period.
We will be mak-(
13 ing substantive comment and at length.
They will publish 14 their final, and we sre either already determined or ought to j3 go ahead then and compile our extended comment and findings, 16 analyses, into a separate document, which will be a NUREG document and will be NRC's Generi.c Environmental Impact j7 jg Statement on waste management, incorporating the DOE document j9 by reference as a reference appendix or what-have you.
I think we'd need a document with our number on it that stands 20 f r our generic considerations.
21 COSD1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is our work going to be comparable in a sense to their work, or is it going to be 23 sort of a gloss on their work?
24 ce-FederoI Reporters, Inc.
C11 AIRMAN llENDRIE:
I have a notion we're going to 25
I 9
do a pretty thorough job on it.
I've', talked to Bill Bishop blt 8 1l 3
2 about it, and, as I say, they're getting lead drafts and they're 3
working hard on it.
4 It isn't going to be at all just a gloss off the top of theirs saying we flipped the pages and it looks fine.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say incorporating 6
7 their statement as an appendix, it sounds like what we would have is something fairly substantial.
8 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so.
That's the 9
way I understand it.
And I think it will tend to go somewhat 10 broader than the DOE, is my guess.
jj COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The normal route is that 12 we get an environmental report, which we use to turn out a statement.
Here we're taking a statement.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This isn't quite the same, because DOE is doing a statement.
They have to do one on 16 the r own behalf, but I think we need a statement on our i
behalf.
But these are not unrelated.
MR. DIRCKS:
They could fit in connection with the criteria that we're going to be getting out, the licensing criteria; and that's what the generic statement is going to be supporting, the criteria.
(
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The regulations that we will 23 have.
24 co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Maybe my question is sort 25
10 of one I'm inferring from Victor's question.
What is it that bit 9 1
i i
2l we're going to do?
They're going to do a comprehensive job, i
s I understand it, of an environmental impact statement on 3l a
4 waste management.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For U.S. reactors, 5
commercial --
6 4 Le, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's see.
I guess it 7
q will have to cover both the military waste and the commercial.
8, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They will.
9 MR. DIRCKS:
It's going to be a technology-based 10 environmental impact statement.
jj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Dealing with the Hanford and Savannah River waste and commercial waste.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Disposal of all waste, from whatever source.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
Looking at alternative technologies a d looking at the environmental impact of alternatives.
n 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Right.
Then I'm trying to 19 figure out where do we go from there.
MR. DIRCKS:
The regulatory criteria that we're 21 going to be issuing will require that an environmental impact II statement support --
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I know, but what's going to 24 co Federal Reporters, Inc.
be the nature of that impact statement as contrasted with the 25
11 e
blt 10 1,
one which DOE will have completed?
2l MR. DIRCKS:
We'll build on the technology analysis, i
3l that DOE has done.
We'll look at the particular impact that our regulations may have and alternative ways of imposing
(
4 that technology in.a regulatory base.
S There are different regulatory approaches we could 6
We're going to be looking at the environmental impacts 7
use.
o 8l f different regulatory approaches.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me go on and tell you what 9
is proposed.
10 The proposal would be to include in our analysis jj and so on in effect an independent review of the DOE proposals 12 and the technical aspects of their plan, which is due out in 13
(
DulcA a month or two from John Betch and company over there.
y Since this effort is largely before us whether there is a DOE waste management -- whether there is any sort of requirement in connection with this legislation or not, I urged them very strongly that whatever they felt was needed in the line of this compromise review of waste management be done in the context of and utilizing these things which had to go forward anyway.
I said we couldn't stand a third, 21 s parate proceeding to review the question of whether DOE had e
22
(
a good plan or a bad plan or the technology was good enough or bad enough, and that has been pretty well agreed to.
OMB 24li A<.-7.derot Reporters, Inc.1 accepted that proposition.
25
12 l
I i
blt 11 1;
Now, the proposal then is for us, as I say, to 2 !
include in our Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which I
3l bases on DOE's and has as its particular thrust the criteria, I
(
4 t e regulations that we will have to put.in place for waste h
1 I
5l management facilities, to include there an independent review 6
of the DOE plan in the technological sense:
do they have 7
enough men in the right place at the right time in the tech-8 nological sense?
And then for the Commission to make in 91 effect a policy statement, policy statement and finding, on 10 the basis of that work and after some informal public meetings 11 sorts of things.
12 Now, this apparently would, in OMB's vied, be 13 a proper and viable review process.
They insist that we be
(
14 involved as an independent analyzer of these things, and 15 think this would be fine.
They would like to see these steps 16 set out in Jagislation as a separate title of the licensing 17 bill.
This, of course, was the initiative of CEQ that a 18 rather more rigorouc set of requirements as to timing the 19 reviews of the plan and all kinds of aspect.s be legislated and 20 be in the statute.
21 I told them that it was my personal view that it 22 should be an agency memorandum of agreement, with the stakes k
in effe t held and monitored by OMB to assure compliance; that 23 24 I personally could not agree that it ought to be in legislation e-Federol Reporters Inc.
25 and would they please make that known wherever the subject was
l' 13 l
I blt 12 1
discussed.
I don' t Know how that will come out.
3 2!
In order to retain some control of the language, i
i 3!
I then did a thing which I promised once before I wouldn't I
e:
do, which was to put Howara Shapar to work drafting the
(
5 language once more.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I didn't know that you had 7
promised not to do that, and I don't even understand why.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, maybe I didn't.
At any 9
rate, I've done it again.
Since he had listened to this 10
- harangue, I thought he could take a crack at it.
I asked, 11 and they were delighted to have Howard draft it.
He seems 12 to have quite a reputation around town for this kind of 13 thing.
ja So we put this in the form of a Memorandum of 15 Understanding, because that's the way I think it ought to 16 come out rather than embedded in legislation; but, as I say, t e base language would also be useable as legislation.
h j7 This says pretty much what I hope I've told you.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is going to happen to j9 this plan, both sound theoretically and practically, that's 20 going to be submitted by DOE to the Congress?
What's going g
to happen to that?
What does it mean to submit it to Congress?
{
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, if you didn't have this provision, they've got to bring out a -- they're in the c.4nferal Report n. lac' process of trying to bring out an integrated plan, and they 25
i l
%I!d blt1 1
will do it in the next month or so.
John Dorch and company g
l re hard at work on it.
They have a reasonable outline.
They3 2.
a 3'
will bring it out.
If they're going to do any of ut, they have to go to the Congress and get funding authorized for it.
(
4 5
They have to lay it out in detail, so whether you have this or not they're going to go to Congress with a plan.
6 7
Nevertheless, one of the features of an agreement ike this, which has always been requested with great vigor 8
l i
9!
by People who felt this sort of thing ought to go into effect, was this business of agreeing that plans submitted to the 10 Congress, having been independently reviewed by the NRC, who 11 would then report back to the Congress their findings, and 'so 12 n and so on.
That's why the language reflects this.
13
(
Now, I've asked that a copy of ihis be fired j4 immediately to DOE so they could see what the draft looks 15 like.
At this point this is an information item.
I invite g
people to come to my door and complain, amend, suggest changes or whatever, and I'll forward them on; and presumably in the near future we'll learn what the disposition of the Administration is.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
For clarification purposes, i
though, you can help me.
Article 1 calls for the environ-m ntal impact statement.
(
e 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
24 AceFederal Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Article 2 calls for the plan.
25
i i
15
}
Article 3 calls for us to conduct an independent review of bit 14 1
2, the environmental impact statement, including opportunities y
f 3;
for public participation or public meetings, et cetera, et I
And then a summary of our review be submitted to the
(
4 cetera.
5 Congress, but the review is of the GEIS.
6-Now, is it to imply -- am I to imply that we are 7l also to be conducting this review simultaneously of the i
8!
plan?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sort of shades of in effect --
9 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What I'm worrying about is 11 you've got two different things.
The way this is structured 12 there are two different things.
One is the environmental impact statement.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
ja COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Article 2 is the plan.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- Yes, 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then we are called upon in j7 Article 3 to make an independent review, including public 18 participation, et cetera, et cetera, and a summary of our 39 findings on this review of the GEIS to the Congress.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now the question is, what
(
e w
do about the plan?
Anything?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I've been sloppy in the use ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
of the word " plan," and they may have to devise some other i
25
I 16 bltl5 l i noun to go with it.
,2!
The Generic Impact Statement will have to c'ontain
)
3 the technical elements of the plan:
what kind of stuff do you 4
put and what kind of media, under what kind of condition, for j
5 how long and so on.
And that's what we would review.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We would have public proceed-7 ings on their plan?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would have public proceedings 8,
9 to allow public comment on our GEIS.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that's not what it 10 11 says.
What it says is we shall conduct an independent 12 review of the GEIS prepared by DOE.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
j4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In performing t. hat review, 15 such review, we provide an opportunity for public participation 16 and public meetings and other informal means.
j7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Howard has just leaped 18 across without defining in order to leave us maximum flexi-39 bility without any specification that we would indeed produce 20 a document which we will call a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on our actions in the waste management process.
{
It doesn't prevent us from doing it; it's just avoiding lock-ing us into it.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.I MR. PEDERSEN:
I'm not sure that's the question.
25!
I t
J!
17
.I blt 16 I
You just answered a question I was going to ask.
q 2
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was getting to that one,
- 1 3d That's a different question.
too.
(
4{
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me go back and deal with b
5 l' the difference between the plans, i
6; The plan in Article 2 is the plan in the sense 1
7; of how many dollars and how many people do you need this year 8,
to do this and how many steam shovels and so on do you need.
i 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We're not going to have 10l any review of that.
l II' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's why you don't find 12 language that says that NRC will review that plan.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what I wanted to be 14 sure of.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why have that in this 16-memorandum at all?
i l
17' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because people have insisted 18 that there ought to be a legislative -- and I say it could be 19 an agency agreement with DMB running it -- mandate for somebody 20 to produce a national plan on waste management and get it to gj the Congress.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm wondering, though, if 22,
(
23 that ought to be in here.
That could be a separate agreement 24 by DOE.
Me.Federol Reporters. Inc.
25l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why can't that be a letter
18 i
bitl7 jl with OME --
2 ~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To the President, sayincf "I 3,
plan
" or to Tip O'Neill and Mr. Byrd, saying "Just to In my view it would be more appropriate
(
4l let you know.
S and practical that way.
All I can say is that there are people who want to see this kind of language, or much sterner 6}t 7
and more detailed language, in legislation and see it as quid 8
Pro quo for any movement on nuclear plant licensing legislation, 9
and this may be as mild as any you're likely to find.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I suppose this someway 10 jj relates to Article 4 in the sense that it is some kind of commitment.
It increases your confidence in going forward 12 licensing reactors.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One of the sorts of things you j4 get from the California scene is, "If the feds would get together so that you have a clearly enunciated and agreed to j3 p an that the Congress had looked at and said, 'Okay, that's l
what we're going to do,'
everybody would just have more confi-d ncr that you were going to handle the waste problem."
I think it's that kind of background.
Now, sort of getting back to your question, I think what Howard is trying to do is to put as little of the 22
[
detail down as is necessary, and if this should by any chance creep to legislation I would just as soon and prefer that it A&Merol Reporters, Inc.
De in summary.
25
li il 19 1
l
!i MR. GOSSICK:
Was there any discussion of time blt 18 1
2 ll frame?
Is this within a year, 18 months, 2 years, sooner 3
I i
3l than that, or what?
(
4l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well --
MR. GOSSICK:
The reason I ask is that the finding 5
6 that tnis says the Commission must make looks very much like t e finding that apparently we're going to have to make in h
7 81 upgrading the S-3 table.
And that's like -- when is it?
Is it '79?
9 MR. DIRCKS:
The whole S-3 table, right now mid-10
'79.
jj COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where does S-3 stand?
12 MR. GOSSICK: Well, we've got a short-term fix and g
a longer term fix where we go to the hearing process and so 34 forth that we've got to go through.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The hearings haven't started, have they?
37 MR. GOSSICK:
No.
The board has been picked., but they have not started.
39 MR. DIRCKS:
January 9th is when the hearings start.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
DOE, if they can get their 22 r Port to us, say, March 1st or something like that, March, e
(
24 l; April, May, June 1st, call it July 1st, we'll be due to have ce Federal Reporters, Inc.!
our comment back to them.
And then another 90 days or so 25i
n 20 1
af ter that they produce the final one, but it will slip a blt19 3
i 2b, little.
And we will be rolling toward our text before they 3 !
publish the final, that is, moving forward on it.
It's i
(
4l possible we could have our statements from the staff about 5f this whole affair out by the end of 1978.
6l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't mean to be facetious -
l 7!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And then move in the first half 8l of the next year into whatever these public meetings sorts I
9' of things are going to be.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My question is a serious 11 one:
Will these environmental impact statements be affected 12 by the new concept of environmental impact statements, those 13 being proposed also by CEO, that is, the brief statements?
14 That's another question which I think is material.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know what progress 16 they're making on those.
17 Bill, do you know?
18 MR. DIRCKS:
There are a lot of agency objections 19 to those new CEQ guidelines -- not the 300-page deal.
Every-20 one is in favor of that.
It's when CEQ gets into the sub-21 stantive business of environmental findings that belong to the 22 agencies that the problems occur.
k 23 The last time CEQ tried to revise their guidelines 24 was back in '73 or so, and it took months and they were Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.l t
25 fairly simple.
1 il 21 g
blt 20 j]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So that's likely to run long 2!
enough so it would not affect either of these.
i P
3.l I would say one more thing.
I made it clear in
].
4[j ve y strong terms that I thought this agency simply was in r
(
!i 5f no position to run formal proceedings in reviewing a general I
6!.
plan of technology of this kind.
We had some discussion on I
7l it, and it's clear that at least at the present time OMB both I!
t 8
understands that very clearly and had no such concept in mind.
l 9 l' In fact, we talked about the public participation meetings i
in the sense of town meeting sort of things, a series of them 10 jj perhaps all around the country, four or five or ten or what-ever town meeting sort of thing to explain that here is what 12 the DOE fellow s3.id and we look at that and here's what our 13 k~
findings are.and what do you think of that for 20 minutes,
)4 and then let the people stand up and say what they want to 15 s y about the whole thing.
a 16 :.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why do you say that we're 17, i
not in a position to do it?
18:
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Simply because on these more general policy matters it gets to be a very long-winded --
it becomes so difficult to define the specific issues and 21 i
get people narrowed to specific points of argument where you produce witnesses for the point, against the point or sideways.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why is it different from, 24 ).
Ace Federal Reoorters, lec. 'i say, GESMO?
25 I
I
j; 22 t'
bit 21 ll MR. DIRCKS:
There was a precedent established i
2, for this on the offshore oil drilling thing back in 1974.
?
3 CEQ was told to go out and hold public meetings and public t,
4]
hearings on the Department of Interior offshore oil thing, il 5l and they did this town meeting approach.
I 6 !
They went out and had staff and once or twice b
7 their a counsel member went out and held it around the I
8' country.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That doesn't answer l
10 Commissioner Gilinsky's question.
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't know whether I2 this might not be a better way of doing it.
13 MR. DIRCKS:
It became too cumbersome to do it I4 any other way.
15 MR. KELLEY:
But it involved GESMO and S-3.
We 16 didn't go all the way to a full adjudicatory hearing.
We 17 created kind of a hybrid.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It sounded like you were 19 saying we weren't competent to do that.
20 CHAIRMA ' HENDRIE:
No, not competent.
It's just 21 that I told OMB that I thought it was impractical for us to 22 attempt to run a full adjudicatory formal proceeding on 23 general matters like this.
My view is that it would simply 24l go on for years, that it would make GESMO look like a short-Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc. ;
25 run, folded in Bridgeport sort of enterprise, and that if they
e 23 blt 22 1
wanted some sort of finding and the finding that they looked 1
2 23 for from the Commission, the judgment they looked for, is not "
3 ',
some ironclad, "we guarantee" sort of thing but rather "we've ll
{
40 taken a good, hard, independent look at it, and it's our best I
5' judgment that it's a reasonable proposition to go ahead" -.,if" l
s 6'
it's that sort of finding that they're looking for, if they 7
want that in some reasonable time, you can't stand to go i
8!
GESMO, even as formal as GESMO, let alone a full blown 9
adjudicatory proceeding.
10!
And indeed that was not what they had in mind.
It 11 was something following from those sorts of public meetings, 12 so the language in here reflects that.
13 MR. PEDERSEN:
Let me get this clear, though.
14 This public participation, town meetings or whatever, would 15 come during our preparation of our review or our GEIS or 16 whatever it is?
17 CI1 AIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's not clear.
18 MR. PEDERSEN:
Because if it comes afterwards --
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's not clear.
It could come 20 very -- we might very well want to have some public participa-21 tion at the draft stage, where we produce our draft GEIS.
We 1
22 might very well want to have some general information meetings 23 at that stage before we go final.
24 h COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That would be logical to Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.!
25 do.
24
.h D.
1[
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And indeed it's logical.
But blt 23 t en again, when you take that final statement, which is the 2j h
d 3
staff statement, and now the Commission is going to decide 1
1 4y what is reasonable for it to say in judgment as a policy i
0 S.
statement and report of the Commission, as this thing says, 6j then I think it's not unreasonable that the Commission in il 7lI beginning to draft things might very well want to ask for 8j comment.
In fact, I would think we would.
9 MR. PEDERSEN:
I would, too.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We might even want to allow IIl some opportunity for people to present views to us, so I can 12 see the possibility of several procedures; but that's not 13 mapped out at all.
(-
14 MR. PEDERSEN:
I understand.
My only. point was 15 that we were beginning to talk timing, and having participation 16 at several phases you'd just have to recognize that.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If the timing went all right, 18 I would see the EIS final before the end of '78 and some 19 start on this process of the Commission gathering its thoughts, 20 which might then culminate by the first half of
'79, which WIffW Y*
()
21, would be sort of the front-end stages, then, of the safety 22 review going forward with another year-and-a-half to run on k
23 it.
24 Well, I've informed you to the best of my limited Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.I 25 ability, and comments will be beneficial.
Did you get one of
25 h.
I bit 24 these?
s 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, I didn't.
i 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's my only remaining copy.
d'
(
i If you could just make a copy -- in fact, maybe we could make Sj a handful and give Sam a couple.
11 6 ;i Next subject -- I'm sorry that my estimate of the r
7h time was off.
Back in what we considered the Research budget --
8l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do we have to note anything-9 ll about that meeting in the tape?
l 10 l1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We ought to agree with regard i
I 11!
to the meeting just closed at what point the thing could be i
12' released.
13' Our practice on those meetings was that the tape 14 would be reviewed by OGC for any uncouth violations of 15 privacy and other things and otherwise released when either 16 the 95th Congress quit or the bill became law.
Is that right?
17 MR. KELLEY:
Right.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do I have your agreement?
If 19 so, aye.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, the next subject has to 22 do with the Research udget.
By either a split vote or a
{
23 vote with abstentions -- I can't remember whether it was 2-1 XXXXXXXX 24 and an abstention or 2-0 and two abstentions.
I think the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 latter.
We decided to go forward with the EBTF project in
1 n
26
'q blt25 the '79 budget.
We had a meeting with the ACRS in December.
j, It was clear that there was some divergence of view wi. thin
)
2 3l the ACRS, or at least a few memb7rs who were not too sure I
4l that it was a project we ought to be moving forward with at s
t
- l this time.
Sb We've looked at some other documentation in hand.
0 1 would like to say for the benefit of the tape that we're 7
i making in the case of these things, the transcripts of these 8.
things, that it is my personal view that this experiment, 9i t
this iine of experiments, is essential for the Commission's I
safety research work.
Whether or not the precise experiment jj
{
defined by the EBTF program as presented needs to be exactly 12 the thing that's done and nothing else or nothing different, 13 I certainly would not say; but this line of experiments, I 14 do personally think they should be done.
i Nevertheless, if I turn and find several Commission senior consultants and peer groups with less than a strong consensus of agreement about going forward, it seems to me prudent to stop and say, " Wait.
Wouldn't we do better to pause to take another look at the scale or features in this f
21 !l e periment and discuss further with these people who are not x
l so sure about it and get clearer on their views and make 22.'
h t em clearar on what the project is about, its merits and so f
1 23l
} on."
And then perhaps everybody could be in a better agreement (4 ;
sce Neral Reporters, Inc.!
at a later time.
25!
I i
27 l
blt 26 1 1 I've talked about this with Saul, and he has 1
2 copies in hand, w'tich he ought to pass out now, of the draft i
3:
Commission paper, which by virtue of the shortness of the I
4i time --
{
5 MR. LEVINE:
It's a short paper, also.
l 6'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- because the OMB is sort of 7
printing the budget at the moment, says that, on page 2, i
8l recommends that we ask OMB to remove funding for the l
9 facility from the '79 budget, with the understanding that we 10 will be looking very closely at it, and there is a possibility 11 of a fiscal '79 supplement, supplemental request, if the 12 reanalysis matures in time and probably if it does not.
13 Concurrent with this, it would be desirable to 14 ask OMB for some funds to keep the design and analysis staffs 15 alive and working, because they will be needed to do an 16 assortment of design and sensitivity analysis sorts of things 17 on the project.
b 18, I have talked to the OMB staff who deal with the 19 Commission's budget.
They understand the situation and are 20 in agreement that indeed if the Commission can -- tilat this 21 is a proper course of action in the circumstances.
They're 1
I 22 willing to support us.
(
23i This has just happened yesterday morning, sort of 24 rounded up yesterday morning.
I was able to fill Commissioner ceFederal Reporters. Inc.
25!
Kennedy in, I guess yesterday.
28 bit 27 1 il COBOiISSIONER KENNEDY:
Right.
I 9
2f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I didn't have a chance to get i
i 3;
to you.
You weren't here.
l 4'!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
4 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seemed to me that the 6
Commission had specifically voted the project into the '79 7
budget and then that it was precocious if not worse for me 8
to unilaterally ask OMB to pull it out.
I felt we ought to 9
stave a Commission meeting, and fortunately we're here today 10 and that's why I've asked on short notice, jj MR. LEVINE:
I should say that the Controller and 12 NRR concur with this paper.
NRR would like to point out that 13 it would be difficult to get a complete consensus and may ja take a significant amount of time to get the kind of con-sensus that we're looking for.
15 16 The staff feels strongly we could go ahead with this project now, but in view of the lack of broader consensus 17 18 in the scientific community and the Commission we should delay.
COMMISIONER KENNEDY:
Is there some way we could 9
bring together:those from the American Physical Society
__I 20 seem to recail their pressing for this kind of experiment in some of the statements they've made -- with some of the de-tractors of the notion?
k 23 MR. LEVINE:
We plan to do that in the next several co Federal Reporters, Inc.!
25 l months.
We plan t o have a series of meetings and discussions
h' 29 h
bit 28
)l with the consultants, with our research review group and with the ACRS.
2i 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I think it's proper 3
I to hold off.
It does have the cast of delaying rather than a.
i 5l s rt of reconsidering.
I woulu prefer a reconsideration, I
6j because at least some of the objections related to whether i
I this is the right way to go at all given that we're talking 7!
about this kind of a scale experiment.
It's a different kind 8l i
9l of a program.
1 MR. LEVINE:
There were sort of two major comments, 0
some of which were in fact dichotomies within the same person, I
that (1) you needed a large-scale experiment, but (2) the cost-benefit wasn't right.
\\
I don't know how tn balance that within one person.
14 If you look at the six or seven, seven or eight people that commented from our research review group, you find them cast about half-and-half in these two areas.
17 A couple said, "Well, let's delay and do more 18 sanalysis of the data."
So there is not a unanimity of view about this in any way, shape or form.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that's right, yes.
21 MR. LEVINE:
A lot of them think that we need an 22 experiment, a large-scale experiment, and I can't in my own mind jibe that with one that says it's not cost-beneficial.
24l Ace Federol Reportes, lec.
And I think that derives, that it's not cost-beneficial, 25
t
'ql 30 blt 29 jl, derives principally from the sensitivity study we did, which y u have seen and in which people began to equate millions of..
2.,
3(
dollars of experiment against degrees in temperature.
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it's more than that.
{
4!
i I haven't had a chance to really read through the comments --
5 I
MR. LEVINE:
We've made an analysis.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I've looked at some of 7j them, and they seem to be questioning the overall approach 8
that we have in this area.
Some of them seem to feel that 9
a m re s rt f an analytical approach combined with a variety 10 of exDeriments is the richt way to go.
j; Now, I haven't the faintest idea which is the more appropriate.
(
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We heard that the other day in 14 the meeting with the ACRS.
That was sort of Professor Plesset's thrust.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it also comes out 17 of the ACRS consultants.
18 MR. LEVINE:
That's correct.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And from your own committee l
in fact.
21 MR. LEVINE:
Well, less from the committee than 22 from the ACRS.
f t
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At any rate, I remember 24i Ace-Federal Reportert Inc.
reading a number of these.
It think it may be appropriate 25
.i n
31 H
that we consider the way you get answers to the questions blt30 1!
2 that this experiment is designed to answer.
)
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that's fair, and I J
4l think it's a natural and perfectly reasonable part of the i
5:
examination that's supposed to be made.
6i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I assumed that that was I
i 7
what was involved here.
I can see how the language might i
8; suggest something else.
l 9
MR. LEVINE:
The language is not exactly precise.
10 MR. PEDERSEN :
We could set this on a facility 11 basis.
I think you're really talking about one consensus on the proper approach.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there's a "when and 13
(
if."
ja MR. PEDERSEN:
Yes, when and if.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
16 MR. PEDERSEN:
But it's the approach you're 37 seeking Consensus on.
)g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As a matter of fact, Saul brought this draft paper down in his briefcase and had to make copies, 20 I guess, himself on the Xerox at the time.
21 At the time I talked to you at the close of the last meeting you didn't have -- hadn't had a chance to talk to NRR.
24 Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc.l MR. LEVINE:
That's right, but I did since then.
25
32 n
ll blt 31 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But in view of the Commission's 2 !!
wanting to meet today and probably not tomorrow, unless we d
3]
can have a 5-minute affirmation session on those safeguards
(
4 lllcontracts, I thought it appropriate to ask to produce the il 51 draf t and ask you if you would join me in voting for this.
l 6
What we would be voting to do is to --
7!!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Withdraw the funds, retain i
8!
$2 million in the budget for further study and reexamine il 9
the project.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIO:
Yes, just so.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Further study of -- there 12 ought to be more in --
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In reexamining the project.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Concerning how you get 15 answers to these questions.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so.
And an assortment of 17 related matters.
18
[
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And we need $3.5 million 19i for that.
20
'l MR. LEVINE:
I think we need about a million dollars 21 I
this year for that, and next year we'll have to start looking 22 in, in '79, more detail at things that look promising.
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And they've got about 2.5 on 24i ace.sedere Reporters, Inc.
tM-25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess really what I l
33 l
bit 32 1!
wouldn't want to happen is this money would ciet used for the 2l anner of research to be judged -- in other words, for'this
~. '
m i3' to get devoted to a specific facility.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
NO, no.
This is not hardware t
t 5
purchase money.
6 MR. LEVINE:
It's all analysis.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is just to keep'the 8;
analysis.
I 9
MR. LEVINE:
We're not going to purchase anything 10 without coming back.
I 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder why you need 12
$3.5 million.
It seems like an awful lot of money.
13 MR. LEVINE:
I think that the kind of questions 14 that are being asked are very penetrating, and you may have 15 to look at details of facilities, this facility versus that 16 facility, to answer some of these questions.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, previously you had 18' what -- $200 thousand or $300 thousand.
19 MR. LEVINE:
Something like that.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I can't see why you would 21 need $3.5 million to devise a program until we make a decision.
I would think you'd need a small fraction of that.
22 I
(
23 MR. LEVINE:
We may have to do some small-scale 24 experiments that answer questions these people have raised.
Ae-Federal Reporters, Inc.:
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wnich you would do 25
t 1
34 contractually.
1, o_t 33 2]
MR. LEVINE:
Would do contractually, yes, o'f J
3!
course.
l 4!
We might say, "What about doing a little experi-i 5
ment like this and see what you'd get out of it?"
l 6 l-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You've got $2.5 million.
l t
7i I guess I don't see why you need another $2 million for that.
l 8
I don't want to deny you a certain amount of 9'
flexibility in running your affairs, but it does seem like 10 an awful lot of money.
In effect you're talking about $4.5 11 million.
12j MR. LEVINE:
No, no.
The total is --
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
(
ja MR. LEVINE:
The total is 4.5, that's right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, that's 20 -- no, 15 16 not 20 percent -- 10 percent, I guess, of building a large facility.
j7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For two years.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But just to think about j9 how to plan the program on paper, that seems like an awful 20 lot.
g MR. LEVINE:
Well, some of this is -- if we're 22 able to come back with a consensus agreement and go for the
(
236 l
'79 supplemental, some of this money will be used to start 24 (
" 'd " ' "'""*"' '"9 design.
25
h 35 a
n l
1 ]l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So,you're really putting blt 34 u
2 d away money on the chance that things will work out.
That's i
I 3
really what you're doing.
j I
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That there will be something 5l designed, that there will be something approved for design 6
purposes.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This may be okay.
I just w nt to be clear what we're doing.
a 8
9 MR. LEVINE:
If the facility changes significantly, 10 we may have to do a conceptual design study.
If it doesn't 11 change significantly but there are some add-ons in various 12 places or some other small experiments in various places, 13 we're going to have to do some design work.
(
ja COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess what strikes me as 15 being a reasonable approach is for us to basically review the matter.
If you want to put in some contingency money on 16 the possibility that the thing will turn and go one way or 17 an er, that's the approach.
18l" MR. LEVINE:
I think that's the way this is going.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But I think the understand-20 21 ing ought to be that the matter is not prejudged, that we're going through a review.
[
MR. LEVINE:
I think that's correct.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And this is simply con-24j ke-Federal Reporters. Inc.
tingency money.
If yOu want to crank up the budget in that 25:
I
i 36 ii.
3g <, 1 ;l direction, you put some money away for that purpose without7 blt this point prejudging how it's going to get spent.
{
2i at j
V 3,
MR. LEVINE:
That's what it amounts to.
4 ;1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's the way I understand' i
a a
S i-it.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If, for eaample, out of this 6
I i
comes a decision to go forward with this experiment, we use 7,
g!
it for that;,pt'it comes out that you want to structure the 9q program a different way, we'll use it for that, f
MR. LEVINE:
We'll have to use it to restructure 10l 11l the Program.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
So this is simply 12 13l m ney that deals, you might say, with the problem that EBTF
('
34 li was designed to investigate, but it doesn't -- the money is 4
n t spoken for --
15 I.
16l MR. LEVINE:
It's not a commitment to EBTF as such, no.
I 8,l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or any other commitment.
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
With that understanding, if I 19l i
l
~~ "*
Y" P ease.
20
/
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
21 l.l
}
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
22 g
(
23,j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Everybody voted aye, 3 to if 24 lI nothing, for that proposition.
^'" N " IR*Po m a COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I hope OMB will be given i
i l
J 37
[!
blt 36 1
that sort of explanation of the matter, too.
n 20 MR. LEVINE:
Well, I don't think I made it quite
')
)
3' as precise as you've made it, but it was along the same 4
general iines.
But I will make it more precise.
(
a 5l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us make it precise.
Doug i
6l Puitt is -- he knows your budget better than I do and will I
understand these precise meanings.
7l I
8l I think what we ought to ask Saul to do, by the is to go ahead and finish cleaning up the draft paper, 9;
- way, 10 don't you think, so.it can be on file in the Commission's 11' files, because e'ren though it's still in draft it is the 12_
paper.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think,the wording 13 ought to be a little more neutral in this category.
MR. LEVINE:
Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or perhaps altogether neutral.
18 scratches.
But I think it ought to be cleaned up and come back and then put in the tiles.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As an information, sort of confirmatory paper.
MR. LEVINE:
Send it down as an information paper
(
23!
t to be discussed or something.
24 sc Fed,(ot Reporters. Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
25
'I
,... - " !l 38 blt37 j !!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Since we've already taken an 2j action, the paper will be coming after the action.
-)
d Sam, if y u w nt us to have a copy of the paper 3]
o about which we had specifically in our handa when we took 4
the action, this is it.
5
[
6.'t,j (Document handed to Mr. Chilk.)
Il I'm sorry it took so long.
I thank you very much./
7p I
8 l-liI think these were good and appropriate things to go into.
'I (Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m.,
the meeting was 9
i i
adjourned.)
10 Il 12 I3
(
14' 15 16 I
17l il 18' 19 20 21 22 g f
(
23 24 AceFednol Reporters, Inc.;
25 lI i'
tl