ML19273B858
| ML19273B858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1979 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7906180391 | |
| Download: ML19273B858 (16) | |
Text
'
/
5 iI a.a m NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
=
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON ORDER IN S-3 RULE Place - Washington, D.
C.
Date. Friday, 11 May 1979 Pagesl-16 2354
- 40 T.i.= he n.:
(202)347 3700 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Ccpitel Street Wcshington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY 790618039/ -
1 e
'l CR4695
~l-
.z s
s
=-
- \\
s-
..-.,a,-
? ;,.,: i nt{
N il.
DISCLAIMER -
- ~
~.
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Ccmmission held on 11 Mav 197o in t e
'!uclear P~*?ulatory 717 H Street. it. W., Wastiington, D. C.
The Commission s o.-:.1co.s a ranscr1 o 15 u en cetih'o public attendance and observation.ned, correcte
-eq fa o
l purposes.
. The transcript is intended solely for general informationa mal or infornal As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, i t is not part of the fa. Expressions of opinion in record of decision of the matters discussed.
this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination beliefs.
any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
~
2354 ~141
~
~
g 0
~
2 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'4ELTZER/mm 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING 5
6 DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON ORDER IN S-3 RULE 7
8 Room 1130 9
1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Friday, 11 May 1979 12 Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened 13 pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m.,
JOSEPII M.
HENDRIE, Chairman, presiding.
PRESENT:
16 JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 17 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 18 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner JOHN AllEARNE, Commissioner 20 Mescrs. Chilk, Sege, Slaggie and Eilperin.
2354 342 22 23 24 ce Federal Reporters, Iric.
25
3 1
EEEEEEElNEE 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, let us go ahead with -- we 3
met this afternoon to discuss and vote on the Order in the S-3 4
Rule.
5 The General Counsel's office has gone ahead and 6
incorporated into a version, which would be dated when, Steve?
I 7
MR. EILPERIN:
May 15.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, your memorandum of May 7th.
9 MR. EILPERIN: Yes, my memorandum is May 7th.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The document attached thereto.
11 There were an assortment of discussions of vote and 12 language adjustments, prior drafta at the sessions last week.
13 My understanding is that Commissioner Bradford will 14 want to attach some remarks of his own, but he is prepared to 15 concur in the redrafted order as attached tothe counsel's May 7 16 memorandum.
17 I would propose to see if there is a majority vote la of the Commission to simply do that.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I concur in the Table.
There 20 are parts of the Order I would have my separate views on.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But, as far as what is drafted,,
22 you are putting in separate views.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am putting in separate 24. views which come to the same end result.
In effect, I have Federal Reporters, inc.
25 separate considerations on a couple of points.
2354 543 I
4 mm 1
You may, in fact, need Dick's vote to get the 2
Statement of Considerations out exactly the way it is.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Essentially what I think I 4
am asking is, where do you come out on the Statement of 5
Considerations?
6 Does this mean that you are -- you will vote to 7
release the Statement of Considerations and attach your 8
additional views?
9 Or, that you will note vote to release the Statement to of Considerations?
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, about 95 percent of the l
12 Statement of Considerations is fine. There are a couple of 1
13 points I would phrase differently.
14 And, what I had anticipated doing was concurring in the 15 revised S-3 Table, and releasing the Statement of Considerations 16 as it is, with my views attached.
17 If you ask me to concur verbatim in the Statement 18 of Considerations, then I would have to say no.
There is a 19 point where you use the word " judgment," and I would say 20
" assumption."
21 I just had assumed all five of us would be here and 22 i this wouldn' t pose any great procedural complexity.
- Because, l
23 ; as to the Table itself, there are four of us prepared l
24 to issue it, and I would just have my concurring statement.
ev Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not sure whether we can 2354 344 I
5 1
release the Table without the Statement of Considerations.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Sorry.
I just hadn't thought 3
my way through~it, because I just hadn't foreseen this arising.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess, just for clarification 5
then, when we went through last time, your suggested changes, v' was the point that if we had accepted every one of them you 7
were then prepared --
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would still have to put 9
in my comments on cross-examination.
10 But, for example, as to stating that I would not, 11 in this document, reference the July 1977 decision on waste 12 management in the way that it is done here, I would have to say 13 that in my separate views if it weren't, in fact, referenced.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I am trying to get clear 15 in my mind is that we had a Statement of Considerations. You 16 had a number of changes that you proposed to have made.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Right.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We made -- I think we took --
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You took some, dropped others 20 that I ea not making an issue of. And in one or two cases, 21 continued on the course I said I cou.1dn't accept.
22 It is those one or two cases that are causing 23 difficulty here.
For example, on technetium and which proceedings 24 it could be litigated in, I would have said it was -- I have
. Federal Renorters. Inc.
25 forgotten exactly what the line was -- open in proceedings in 2354 345
6 I;
the same manner that radon was.
But that isn't, in fact,the mm 1
2jendresultofthis.
But it is not a point that I feel strongly 3! enough to state separately.
4 So, on a point like that I would concur in the 5
Statement of Considerations as drafted.
I l
6 This business of including the July '77 order, I 7
j ust -- I indicated last time I would have to say something 8
about that, and that's why I can't just automatically raise 9
my hand and say aye to the whole Statement of Considerations.
10 It is a ridiculous procedural point, again.
You 11, have three votes to put it out. We have all agreed it should 12 be decided. Zou just need to catch your third vote in that 13 chair.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, we can't.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you want to vote for it, Vic?
16 We can get it out.
17 MR. EILPERIN: As long as there are a majority of 18 us here, someone abstains --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think Joe and I are prepared 20 to vote it out, but I gather that is not enough.
21 MR.EILPERIN:
It depends. If someone abstains, that's 22 another thing.
i 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
Does Dick have i
24 ! another appointment or something?
I would be glad to be
- f ederal R porters, Inc.
25 accommodating-2354 346
7 I
COFDiISSIONER AHEARME:
No. It was additional 2
information that just came in.
He feels, I think, that when you 3
come to a mee';ing to discuss something, all the material should d
be there, at least in advance to thumb through.
5 That was the point.
6 COFD1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see --
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Peter's draf t opinion.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, it did not change in 9
any major extent from what went around last night.
It is 10 somewhat longer, somewhat smoother.
II COMMISSIONER AllEARNE: Except -- I can't speak, 12 obviously, for Dick.
But, your previous one yesterday said, I3 I expect to concur in the result, although I want to see Id Commissioner Gilinsky's views on the reprocessing.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
By result I meant the tabic.
16 COMMISSIONER AllEARNE:
I see.
I7 COMMISSIONEM BRADFORD:
All I know is, comebody came 18 laround on Wednesday and said, can you be ready by Friday noon.
And I said,this is going to be rushed.
20 (Laughter.)
i 21 l But, I will try very,very hard to get something 22 around Thursday, something else around Friday morning.
And i
23 ! that really was the best I could do.
I 2 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But where it stands is, you eg.FMinal Re,mrters, arte. l 25 can concur in the Table, but you can't concur in the Statement 2354
.547
8 1
of Considerations?
f 2
COFDiISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can even concur in most 3
of that.
I just can't raise my hand and say, it is all right 4
with me.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think, Joe, we are at an 6
impasse.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vic?
8 CO>D1ISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I was not going to 9
approve it for reasons that I spelled out at the beginning of 10 this process, and also some others that we discussed at our II last meeting.
12 You know, we have got three Commissioners in the 13 building on this floor who want to approve it. They don't 14 happen to be in this room now.
We just have a problem.
15 MR. CHILK:
Would you like me to go down and see if 16 Commissioner Kennedy would like to return?
17 CHAIRMAN HEN 7RIE: What I will propose to you, in an I
18 attempt to avoid losing what, two years', three years' time, i
19 i the work of many people and so on, and a result which, in terms 20 ; of the Table has been agreed to by four Commissioners, I will I
i 21 ! propose to youthat the Commission issue an order extencing the 22 l Interim Rule until May 30th with the same langu:ge you used l'
23 the last time around.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Steve, are you saying no?
l
.reeerai Reporters. -
l 25 !
MR.EILPERIN:
I was just shaking my head in disgust.
2354 348 l
9 mm 1
I think reasons have to be somewhat different because i
2* prior to this time the reason was always that the Commission 3
is considering'the Statement of Consideration.
4 At this point in time, as I understand it, the l
5 Commission has fully considered it, there are three -- at l
e 6-least three Commissioners concur in it completely, i
7 I guess the reason that would be put in any ext.ension 8
of the Interim Rule is that the Commission has not been able to 9l get enough Commissioners together to take a vote.
But it I
10 I certainly would not be the same reasons that we have been 11 giving previously.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Joe, would it be of any use 13 to call sort of a 30-minute recess?
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It saems a little peculiar 15 t o me that my views at this point --
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, let me just --
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I just got the rewrite of your 18 stuff, Peter, just now, and --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me just say for myself, 20 ;I don't think your putting in your separate views should in any l
21 ' way af fect the going out of the Order. And I think any of us l
22 ! should be -- and I wouldn't feel obligated to have your separate 23, views in advance.
I wouldn' t have any problem saying we will i
24 put it out, and your saying, well, you are going to attach your ce Federal Peporters, Inc.
25 i separate views.
I would say, fine.
I 2354 j49
10 mm 1
The problem I would have, though, is at least the j
2 understanding -- and it is a misconception on my part, it has 3
nothing to do with anything that you said --
I thought we 4
were going through the negotiation the other day -- it was 5
a negotiation to try to reach a compromise on the Statement of 6
Considerations.
I think that might be what Dick felt.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But, I think if you check the 8
record I was --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, I am not saying you 10 implied it.
11 I am saying I think it was an inference.
I certainly 12 : didn't come away with the sense that we had -- I certianly 13 recognized that there were a number of pointa that you felt 14 if we -- that you could not go beyond.
I hadn't appreciated --
15 and I am not saying in any way that it was something you failed 16 to say, or said; it was certainly a conclusion I had reached, 17 though.
I hadn't realized that we had passed the 13 point where you could no longer accept it.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it really isn't the whole 20 l statement.
There are a couple of paragraphs in it that I am 21, jast stating my own perspective on.
I really did at the time 22 flag them out,and said, if you say that this way, I will have dissenting footnote or statement.
23
- o put in t
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you see -- and maybe if Jederal Reporters, Iric. l 25 I had been a lawyer I would have understood that that meant 2354 350
11 mm 1
that you couldn't agree to put the Statement of Considerations 2
out.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The point was, if your comments 4l had gone in those footnotes, Peter, I would then assume that 5
you could have concurred in the document that we would have then 6; had as a Revised Statement of Considerations.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Maybe that's another way to 8
put that.
9 If you want to have the Statement of Considerations 10 be a document which includes my separate views -- that is, instead li of being pages 1 to 50 it would become pages 1 to 55 or whatever, 12 I'll vote yes on that.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought that was what was 14 happening.
1; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Maybe that's the way to do 16 it.
I would do that right now,--
17 COMMISSIONER AHEAINE: Steve?
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- with the understanding 19 ; that you don't agree with my separate views;as to those 20 particular separate views, I don' t agree with the rest.
21 That's no different than having it be a footnote on 22 the individual pages.
23 MR. EILPERIN: Where, physically, would this go?
24,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: At the end.
TFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 I mean at that point you probably would get a 4 to 2354 351
12 I
nothing vote, because we could include Victor's views as well.
mm 2
CHAIR 2GN HENDRIE:
I suspect that doesn't wash.
3 Someplace there is a thing which represents the opinion of the 4
majority of the Commissioners.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The only legally significant 6'
thing in here is the Table itself, right?
7 And the Statement of Considerations itself is 8
explanatory, but it doesn' t become part -- it wasn' t a litigated 9
issue in the Rulemaking.
i 10 MR.SLAGGIE:
I think the Statement of Consideration 11, does include a commitmen~c that certain items are going to be 12 considered.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: In the future.
14 MR. SLAGGIE:
No, in an individual reactor licensing 15 right now.
And that is in effect part of the Rule 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'.ll vote yes on those two i
17 if that's any help.
18 MR. SLAGGIE:
I liked your suggestion of just taking 19 the whole thing as a package with your stuff at the end.
I l
20 l don't see a problem offhand with that, but I hadn't thought 21 ' about it before.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can only remember a few 23 similar situations on the Maine Public Utilities Commission 24 where there was only three of us, so the combinatiens were x&ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 more limiting when two Commissioners concurred in a result and 2354 352 I
13 mm i
reached it by different routes.
What they would do would be to 2
vote on the Order -- or in this case the Table, and the Opinion 3
or Statement of Considerations, what-have-you, became a package 4
that travelled with it.
5 MR. EILPERIN:
I still haursomething of a problem 6,
if the statement, if the principal Statement of Considerations 7
is a Statement of Considerations of two Commissioners plus 8
some undefined amount of it is the Statement of Considerations 9
of another two Commissioners -- and on the other hand, separate 10 views are statements of two Commissioners.
In oth er words, it 11 is very conceivable to me that on the basis of your separate 12 views, it is conceivable that the Table could not be upheld.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I see.
14 So you wouldn' t want my vote to be one of the 15 ones that actually underpins the Table.
16 MR. EILPERIN: That's right. Because it seems to me 17 that the principal Statement of Considerations, I think, is 18 more than adequate to uphold the judgment reached by the 19 Commission on the 3-3 Rule.
If it is sort of two votes --
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD : Supposing I add a sentence 21 to the beginning of mine saying, "I am concurring in the Table 22, and in the Statement of Considerations, except insofar as I l
23 ! hereinaf ter disagree with them."
24 Your concern is still a valid one?
m-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. EILPERIN:
Yes.
2354 353 I
14 mm 1
I would be more content if there were actually 2
three votes for the full statement.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
4 MR. EILPERIN: Because then I think it is very difficult 5
to -- if it is done this other way, I think it is very difficult i
6i to parse what is the articulation and reasoning on which one 7
supports particular values as set forth in the Table.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But, Peter, you would be willing 9
to say then that you agree with the Statement of Considerations 10 with the exception cf '_ne points?
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
12 In fact, that really should -- I'm going to write 13 that into th first sentence anyway, because that is really what 14 I am concurr:ng in.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And that would be entirely 16 consistent with what I thought you we.re saying.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But there is still the problem of 18 a Commissi.on Order in the matter which is in its entirety 19 supported by less than a majority of the Commission.
20 I would like -- my judgment is, it is probably not 21 practical to meet again later this afternoon.
I would like 22 to see if we can please pass a --
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Unfortunately I can't be 24 here Monday or Tuesday.
Ct8ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDR:'E:
-- pass an order which allows us j
2354
- >54 I
15 mm 1 to extend the time for suf ficient time for subsequent meetings, which we will have to deal with it.
2 I propose that that order simply note, the Commission 3
for whatever reasons you care to note in a general way, has 5! been unable to gather and complete a final vote on the order, I' and is extending it --
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Why don' t you make it until 7
the end of next week, Joe, because rather than --
8 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, because Jchn is gone for 9
10 part of next week.
jj COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was thinking of Wednesday, 12 j Thursday or Friday.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the schedule looms heavy 13 14 and I am not sure how fact things will go.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Steve is right. The reason 16 you will have to give is the inability of the Commission to I
17 meet.
And rather than look any more foolish than absolutely jg necessary, it seems to me thatwe ought to make it clear that I
19 we can at least meet once a week.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know that there is a great 20 l i deal of value in one week versus twc, Steve, or is there?
21 4
MR. EILPERIN:
I have no problem with doing it 22 I think it is a matter of scheduling convenience 23, either way.
i 24 l of the Commissioners.
ce Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Legally it doesn't make a 2354 355
16 mm 1
difference.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is a matter of when we can 3
get the three votes.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Frankly, I would like to have the 5;
two weeks.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is probably possible.
7 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
I move such an order then.
8 COMMISSIONER AIIEARNE:
Agreed.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Abstained.
11 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE: Agreed.
12 MR. EILPERIN':
I think since it is clear what the 13 Order is, I don't think there has to be separate af firmations 14 fo r i t.
15 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
All right.
Thank you.
16 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m.,.the hearing in the i
17 l above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
2354 T56 19 20 21 22 23 24 case,.i nevorteri. Inc.
25
.