ML19273B998
| ML19273B998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7906180708 | |
| Download: ML19273B998 (10) | |
Text
3aiN al p*d!!'!sRML of d
i
,r NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF NEPA REGULATIONS (SEE SECY-79-305) m 0
s t
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date. Friday, 11 May 1979 Pages 1-9 2353 078 T.i. phon.:
(202)347-3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponen 444 North Capitol Street Washington. D.C. 20001 790618070 [
HATIONWlDE COVERAGE DAILY
+-_m_
e
r?
^
..QR4692
'(
.. - s s.
... :. ~. ;.
...a..
1,.
..s.
.}
s.
t -..o
.c.
s t
~;.
l
~...
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States
~
in the Nuclear Reculatory Ccmaission held on n May lo7o Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, H. W., wasnington, D. C.
The i
~
meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
' As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or.inforr.al record of decision or the matters discussed.
expressions or opinien in this transcript do not necessarily rer. lect rinal c. termina ions or e
s beliefs.
No pleading or other pacer may be filed with the Comission in any proceeding as.the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
2353.019 g
9 e
e 3
go,
. '..i,
e g
O g
J e
g g
2 CR4692 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC MEETING 4
DISCUSSION OF NEPA REGULATIONS (SEE SECY-79-305) 5 6
s Room 1130 7
1717 H S treet, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
8 Friday, 11 May 1979 9
10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
11 BEFORE:
12 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner ja RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner PRtSENT:
j7 18 Messrs. Mapes, Malsch, Crane, Bickwit, and Sege.
19 2353 080 20 21 22 23 24 m PMetal Resmrters. Inc.
25
CR '469'2 l
3 MIMI t-1 mte 1 I
EEEEEEEEEEE 2
(9:50 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN HEUDRIE:
Let's see.
It seems to me we 4
asked one or another of us -- maybe it was a storm of demand 5
for a meeting on the subject.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not me.
It was a surprise to 7
me.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me we could use 9
our time more usefully.
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I have no idea.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, since we're here and since
~12 the meeting is scheduled, why don't we go ahead and see what 13 the points of view
.1 the letter are.
Then we can just dispose 14 of it and move on.
Okay?
15 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Fine with me.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We seem to have 17 started the meeting.
I never got a chance to announce it.
18 The sabject, for the record, is discussion of CEQ 19 proposed -- I guess it's more than proposed, the CEQ NEPA 20 regulations.
21 We have before us a paper which I guess I read for 22 the first time last night, and about which I would comment I 23 found it an extraordinarily clear and excellent analysis of 24 the proposition.
And two of the authors -- I guess you, Jane,
=4w.r.i a corte,. im:.
25 and Peter are the principal authors.
I give you my thanks for 2353 08i
e2 4
I really an excellent paper, which seems to me to lay things 2
out.
3 I get the impression up and down the table that my 4
colleagues may by and large agree, and perhaps enough so that 5
we will vote the letter and go forward.
6 But let me ask the Commissioners, since there seems 7
to be that sense, do we need to go through, in effect, a 8
briefing on the paper by the staff?
Or should we just turn 9
immediately to the proposed letter, back to Charlie Warren?
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would be happy to go to the 11 letter.
I have read lots of material on the subject.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Shall we do that?
And then if 13 issues arise, then we may want some explanation and discussion 14 from the staff people present, and that might be a faster way 15 of getting to a conclusion.
16 Let me just say it seemed to me that the recommenda-17 tion here was a good one.
I would support it.
That finishes 18 my comments.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have a number of minor 20 word changes which I think will make the letter consistent 21 with the paper, which I assumed it was intending to be.
22 (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, you didn't think so?
24 Aha.
Perhaps we need an explanation of that.
vene nnwnus. Inc.
25 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
I have two suggestions along 2353 082
5
~
e3 I
those lines also.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you wish, I will make 3
them.
They're not lengthy.
Obviously, neither is the letter.
4 CHAIRMAN HIENDRIE :
Go ahead.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
At the first page, at the 6
end of the first paragraph, it says "in accordance with s
7 procedures" and I say it should be "in a manner consistent 8
with procedures," which is, I think, consistent with the 9
viewpoints expressed in the paper.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Rather than "in accordance."
II COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just say "in a manner consis-I2 tent with."
13 And on the second page, instead of saying "to Id achieve this goal" at the to",
"to achieve this goal the 15 Commission would undertake to comply with," it should say 16 "to develop regulations taking account of CEQ's NEPA regula-37 tions."
Again, consistent with the viewpoints expressed in 18 the paper and from ths. Justice Department.
I9 MR. BICKWIT:
Exactly.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That was your point, too, 2I wasn't it?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To develop regulations --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
"Taking account of."
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 And then in number one, just below that, instead of 2353 083
e4 ~
~
6 I
" voluntary compliance with," it should say " voluntary recogni-2 tion of," which also makes that consisten't with the rest of the 3
items that are numbered.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In view of the change you 5
made above, why don't we just take number one out?
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, I think because it 7
rather clearly specifies what the earlier statement intends.
8 I hadn't thought of that, but I would see no objection to 9
leaving it.
10 COMMIb3IONER BRADFORD:
The second sentence I would 11 leave.
I think the first one at that point --
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's okay.
That would be 13 all right'with me, leave the second sentence of number one.
14 Either that way or the small change in the first sentence; 15 either way is all right with me.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Anything else?
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On the last page, number four, 18 this implies that we accept predecision referral to CEQ.
But 19 if I read the paper and the Justice Department correctly, the 20 question of predecision referral is not a procedural matter 21 alone, but is substantive in character.
22 MR. MALSCH: But if another agency referred the matter 23 to the CEO, we couldn't stop them.
So the question is, what 24 do we do in the event of a referral.
nvenee nworws. tx.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
By someone else?
2353 084
te 5-7 1
MR. MALSCH:
Yes, that's how it works.
The referral 2
would be initiated by another agency, like EPA or Interior.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
So long as it's 4
understood that that's what this means, and I don't think that's 5
clear --
6 MR. MALSCH:
What we meant to say, that in the event 7
of a referral.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
By another agency.
9 MR. MALSCH:
By another agency.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
That's fine.
Why don't 11 you say that?
Then I have no difficulty with this sentence at.
12 all.
13 Right now it implies, it seems to me, referral by 14 this agency under the terms of the regulations, atid that's a 15 substantive, not a procedural matter.
And we have already 16 indicated we disagree with their right to prescribe substantive 17 matters.
Okay.
18 MR. CRANE:
Would adding the words "by other agencies" 19
'to the end of the sentence secure that?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure, I think so.
21 With that, I would concur in the letter.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would just like to go back 23 to the top of page 2 and take out the first three lines.
Let 24 it start with "We have."
Make it sound a little less sonorous.
+ww.s amorters, im.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's hard to fight a proposal to 2353 085
e6 8
I make us sound less sonorous.
2 I will vote for that.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that's fine.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
I have one other.
I would like to' 5
contribute it to the paper.
On page 3, in the first full 6
paragraph after four, I think the second sentence to me sounds 7
disingenous.
It suggests that in every case where we are not 8
complying, it's because we are statutorily required not to.
9 And that is not true.
O COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right.
11 MR. BICKWIT:
So I would strike that sentence.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And then just make the remaining 13 sentence of that paragraph the first sentence of the last 14 paragraph.
15 Any objection?
16 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was the sentence supposed 18 to say?
19 MR. MALSCH:
You can make a case that under the 20 guidelines themselves we would have the leeway that we claim 21 we have under our view of CEQ's authority, because of the 22 provision that says that compliance is only mandated to the 23 extent consistent with statutory requirements.
So you can 24 argue the area we had reserved or had second thoughts that
+dcat Reporters, lm:.
25 falls within that except.:on.
It's an argument you can make.
2353 086
9 e7*'
1 MR. BICKWIT:
I think it's a weak argument.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is it necessary to make it?
3 MR. MALSCH:
It's not necessary.
4 COMeilSSIONER KENNEDY:
We have the statutory 5
authority to assert what we've already asserted.
We don't 6
need to make that argument.
7 MR MALSCH:
That's correct.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, I'm sorry, I didn't --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, no problem.
I'm waiting 10 to hear all of the -- so far I haven't had any concerns.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Any others?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Done.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I propose we go forward with the 14 letter as amended.
It will be written up in the customary 15 fashion, circulated to the Commissioners for concurrence and 16 go off.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well done.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
-1 21 (Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m.,
the hearing was adjourned.
1 22 2353 087 2
24 FMust Remners, Inc.
25 s